The War on Christmas

Demonizing Christmas….Has Anything Changed?

I wrote this post at this time last year, and I am curious my gentle readers…has anything changed? My friend Francis Porretto, whose blood pressure rises at the mention of the subject, doesn’t seem to think so. The inimitable Ann Althouse points to war on Christmas Chinese style. Meanwhile, see for yourselves…

This is an outrage.

Let me say this out loud and clear: “I am a devout Christian”, and whilst I am at it let me proclaim that “I am fiercely pro-Israel”. So there you have it. Put that in your pipe and smoke it you rabid anti-Semites, you fanatical Islamofascists, and you militant Jew hating Holocaust deniers.

Now we have that out of the way, we can continue… 

“…Attacks on Christmas dominate today’s headlines – judges banning nativity scenes, retailers renaming Christmas trees “Holiday trees,” schools forbidding children from singing Christmas carols and even banning the colors red and green!

It almost sounds funny, but only if you’re not aware of the powerful, malevolent currents beneath the “grinch-who-stole-Christmas” stories. As WND’s monthly Whistleblower reveals in its spine-straightening December issue, a lot more than Christmas is at stake – Christianity itself is being undermined and attacked with increasing frequency and venom.

In the book “Criminalizing Christianity”, Whistleblower reveals the length, width and breadth of attacks on Christianity – those happening now, and those just around the corner – and not just in Communist and Islamic nations where religious persecution is rampant, but right here in the U.S.

“This has become more than a seasonal witch hunt by the ACLU,” said WND Editor and founder Joseph Farah. “The attacks on Christianity in America are alarming. We are witnessing more than religious bigotry now. We are entering the early stages of what could become persecution and outright criminalization of Christianity if it is not exposed and fought vigorously by all freedom-loving people.”
Perhaps the most stunning revelation in this issue of Whistleblower is the extent of the attacks on Christianity in the U.S.

“It’s chillling,” said WND Managing Editor David Kupelian. “Our nation’s founding religion is being attacked as never before. The Constitution is being twisted out of all recognition, history is being rewritten, and Christian teachings and observances are being shut out and shut up. And while we sit around watching this helplessly, we’re bequeathing a different America to our children. It’s time for people to wake up.”

Now, the December edition of Whistleblower gives Americans the information they need, not only to understand the problem, but to effectively fight back.

RightMarch asks: “…So what exactly is going on? As Bill O’Reilly noted on FoxNews, “There is an anti-Christian bias in this country, and it is more on display at Christmas season than any other time.” It’s the same attitude toward Christianity as that held by Michael Newdow, who wants to ban “In God We Trust” from our currency and “under God” from our Pledge of Allegiance.

There IS a War On Christmas. Take a look at a few of the most blatant examples:

• In a press release this week, “Beyond Belief Media has formally declared war on Christmas, the December 25 holiday in which Christians celebrate the birth of the mythical figure Jesus Christ, the company announced… As its opening salvo, Beyond Belief Media has purchased advertisements this week in the New York Times, USA Today and the New Yorker magazine…” BBM president Brian Flemming stated, “Wherever the mythical figure Jesus is celebrated as if he were real, we… will undercut the idea that there is any point at all to celebrating the ‘birth’ of a character in a fairy tale.”

• The CEO of Target stores has decided to continue to ban Salvation Army bell ringers from their 1,272 stores nationwide, costing that charity an estimated $9 million (10% of their funds raised during Christmas). Two years ago, the homosexual journal the “Washington (DC) Blade” wrote that “Gay rights groups continue to target the Salvation Army’s red kettles, hoping to persuade the Christian charity organization to end its anti-gay policies”; Target has apparently submitted to their demands, also banning the mention of Christmas by employees and in its broadcast and print ads, and banning the use of “Merry Christmas” from their in-store promotions. Meanwhile, Target CEO Robert Ulrich took a bonus of $31.8 million dollars from his personal stock options last year, right before the announcement banning the Salvation Army’s red kettles.

• The Rutherford Institute, a Christian law firm defending First Amendment rights, received a phone call from a Michigan parent whose daughter, a second grader, was told that she couldn’t mention Jesus Christ or God during the upcoming Christmas season because it might offend someone.

• The American Civil Liberties Union is again filing dozens of lawsuits nationwide to have all Christmas displays removed from government property (for violating the so-called “separation of church and state”), even if the public displays are strictly from private citizens or groups.

• Sears/Kmart has apparently banned the use of “Christmas” — Bill O’Reilly noted that they “would not answer our questions. Spokesman Chris Braithwaite simply ducked the issue. Their website banners: ‘Wish Book Holiday 2005.’ They were the worst we had to deal with.”

• The South Orange/Maplewood School District in New Jersey declared last year that school bands will be limited to songs such as “Winter Wonderland” and “Frosty the Snowman,” because the district’s policy banning Christmas songs with religious references actually prohibit the performance of INSTRUMENTAL songs that don’t even HAVE lyrics!

• In yet another New Jersey elementary school, a class trip to see the Broadway play “A Christmas Carol” was cancelled under threat of a lawsuit.

• In Palm Beach County Schools in Florida teachers were warned not to allow any Christmas decorations to be displayed.

• Across the country children have been barred from giving out Christmas cards and some banned from using the greeting, “Merry Christmas”.

• An Oklahoma Superintendent ordered the students and faculty at Lakehoma Elementary School to remove the nativity scene and not sing “Silent Night” at last year’s “holiday” play.

• In a Plano, TX school parents were prohibited from using red and green plates and napkins and could only bring white decorations for “winter” parties.

What’s going on here? The flagrant attempt to remove Christ from Christmas would never be permitted if applied to the holy days of any other religion. So much for religious “tolerance.” No wonder a new poll from the Anti-Defamation League found that 64% of the American people believe that religion is “under attack” — IT IS.

What about Santa Claus? The old fellow may have become the very symbol of consumerist culture and Hollywood sentimentality in recent decades, but it’s hard to ignore the religious element, as in St. Nicholas, in his origins.

To Christians, Christmas lights themselves radiate the religious symbolism of Christ as “light of the world.” Why should they be allowed on government property? And what about the “Peace on Earth” sign affixed to city halls across America? That’s plucked from the New Testament.

Come to think of it, Dec. 25 is a paid holiday for hundreds of thousands of government workers — yet this practice offends some people, too. They think the courts should outlaw any designation of Christmas as a government holiday. Their arguments have not yet won the day — the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected one such lawsuit in 2000, for example — but the agitation doubtlessly will continue.

As noted in an editorial last year by the Rocky Mountain news, “The First Amendment’s ban on the establishment of religion is a critical safeguard of liberty, but there is a point at which attempts to sweep anything associated with religious faith from the public sphere become offensive, punitive and indeed absurd. At their extreme, they are the equivalent of writing America’s history without describing the religious motives of some of its protagonists.”

But even our President is trying to be politically correct. The White House Christmas cards greetings this year, as every year since The President took office read: “Happy Holiday Season”. Many are offended but if the truth be known I would like to receive a card from The White House no matter what it said.

This fascination with The White House goes back to the time when I became a staunch Democrat for a day at the tender age of six, falling in love with the handsome President Jack Kennedy, watching him give a speech in a TV documentary: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country” Heh.

Never say pressure does not work, and never delude yourself the problem did not and does not exist. But as usual  “money talks bullshit walks”, as our leftie bloggers remind us constantly, and the retailers are the first to cave in. 

Daily Kos last Christmas, giving the uber Bolshevik’s perspective including quoting prolific pearls of wisdom on the subject of Judaism, calling Jews “scum”, which by definition excludes him from conversation with grown ups. See what happens when you link to limited minds, your view starts leaning like the Tower of Pizza. Democratic, my proverbial behind. Lovely Kos, there is a little bit of the token English language you understand, give him another vote why don’t you….

So I ask again…a year later, has anything changed? Apparently not.

Merry Christmas and Happy Hannukah everybody! And remember generosity of spirit goes a long way at this time of the year, so reach out and touch somebody’s heart. That’s what Christmas is all about. God Bless you and keep you.

From my friend David Needham @ TWC:

When you gather Christmas Eve beneath the Natal Star,
Make sure the greatest blessing is held within your heart.
For the birth we celebrate with tinsel, lights and joy
Was more than just the birth of one small Jewish boy.

A collection of great quotes on evolution by the brainy blonde bombshell

Just to clean the palate of a century of evolutionists’ browbeating everyone into saying evolution is a FACT and we’ll see you in court if you criticize the official state religion, we begin with a story from the late Colin Patterson, respected paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in London. Like Diogenes searching for one honest man, Patterson was on a quest to find someone who could tell him-as he put it-“anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that you think is true”. Patterson said,”I tried that question on the geology staff at the field museum of natural history, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time”.

Liberals’ Creation Myth is Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, Which is about one notch above Scientology in Scientific rigor. It’s a make believe story based on a theory that is tautology, with no proof in the Scientists laboratory or in the fossil record-and thats after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldnt still be talking about it butfor the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God.

Even if evolution were true, it wouldnt disprove God. God has performed more spectacular feats then evolution. Its not even a daunting challenge to a belief in God. If you want something that complicates your belief in God, try coming to terms with Micheal Moore being one of God’s special creatures.

Although believers in God don’t need evolution to be false, athiests need evolution to be true. William provine, an evolutionary biologist at cornell university, calls Darwinisim the greatest engine of atheisim devised by man. His fellow Darwin disiple, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, famously said,”Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” This is why there is mass panic on the left whenever someone mentions the vast and accumulating evidence against evolution.

The ACLU sued a school district in Cobb County, Georgia , mearly for putting stickers in niology textbooks that urged students to study evolution “with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” According to the ACLU, an open mind violates the “seperation of church and state,” which appears in the constitution just after the abortion and sodomy clauses. In Lebec, California, parents represented by Americans United for Seperation of Church and State sued to prevent the school from even offering an elective philosophy class on intelligent design, creationism, and evolution. In Dover, Pennsylvania, a small group of parents backed by the ACLU and AUSCSsued to prevent any discussion of intelligent design in a 9th grade biology class. The judge ruled in their favor and ordered the school to pay the plantiffs legal fees, which will probably exceed $1 million dollars.

So that’s that. After Dover, no school district will dare breath a word about “intelligent design”, unless they want to risk being bankrupted by ACLU lawsuits. The Darwinists have saved the secular sanctity of there temples: the public schools. They didnt win on science,persuasion, or the evidence. They won the way liberals always win: by finding a court to hand them everything they want on a silver platter.

This isn’t science , its treating doubts about evolution as religious heresy. Darwinisim, as philosopher and mathematician David Berlinski says, is “the last of the great 19th century mystery religions.” The only reason a lot of Christians reject evolution is that we are taught to abjure big fat lies. You can look it up-we have an entire commandment about the importance of not lying.

Not suprisingly, the Darwiniacs, as author and collumnist Joe Sobran calls them, would aparently prefer to discuss anything but evolution, since they are always pretending evolution means something utterly uncontroversial, like “change over time” is like discribing abortion as “choice.” Aren’t we all for “choice”? Don’t animals change over time? The boring point that organisims “change over time” is not what the Darwiniacs are teaching school children, and thats not what the fuss is about.

Darwins theory of evolution says life on earth began with single celled life forms, which evolved into multi celled life forms, which over countless eons evolved into higher lifeforms, including man, all as the result of the chance process of random mutation followed by natural selection, without guidence or assistence from any intelligent entity like God or the department of agriculture. Which is to say, evolution is the eminently plausable theory that the human eye, the complete works of Shakespere, and Ronald Reagan (among other things) all came into existence by pure accident.

Evolution is not selective breeding, which produces thoroughbred horses, pedigreed dogs, colored cotton, and so on. Evolution is not the capacity of bactiria to develop antibiotic resistance, but which never evolves into anything but more bacteria. Evolution is not the phenomenon of an existing species changeing over the course of many years-for example, of a frenchmen becoming shorter during the Napoleonic era or Asians becoming taller after immagrating to North America. In fact evolution is not adaptive characteristics developing within a species at all. Darwins theory says we get a new species, not a taller version of the same species. Evolutionists call such adaptations “microevolution” only to confuse people. This would be like the flat earth society referring to the Sahara Desert as a “micro-flat earth”, as if they are halfway to proving there theory. Well, its flat isn’t it?

What the theory of evolution posits is an accidental, law-of-the-jungle, survival-of-the-fittest mechanisim for creating new species-as indicated in the title of Darwins book,”The Origin of Species”. Leave aside the thornier issues, like how the accidental process that gave us opposeable thumbs could produce a moral sense and consciousness of mortality. Lets consider just the basic steps of evolution.

1.Random mutation of desirable attributes(highly implausable)

2.Natural selection weeding out the “less fot” animals (pointless tautology)

3.leading to the creation of new species (No evidence after 150 years of searching)

Atheists and Liberals – Nuts in the crosshairs

  

Nuts in the crosshairs

---

Posted: April 25, 2007
5:42 p.m. Eastern

For cranky right-wingers who think politicians don’t listen to them, this week I give you elected Democrats running like scared schoolgirls from the media’s demand that they enact new gun control laws in response to the Virginia Tech shooting.

Instead, Democrats are promoting a mental health exception to the right to bear arms. We’ve banned mass murder and that hasn’t seemed to work. So now we’re going to ban mass murderers. Yes, that will do the trick!

This is a feel-good measure that is both wildly under-inclusive (the vast majority of nutcases receive no formal court adjudication of their nuttiness) and wildly over-inclusive (the vast majority of nuts don’t kill people). The worst thing most nuts do is irritate everybody else by driving their electric cars on the highway.  

As lovely as it would be, we cannot identify mass murderers before they have broken any law, and mass murder is often the first serious crime they commit. No one can be locked up permanently for being potentially dangerous.

Even stalking laws can put away a person known to be dangerous for only a few years – at best – which is generally not worth spending a day sitting in court, facing your stalker and then waiting a month for the court order.

So on one hand, the mental health exception is a feel-good measure that would be largely pointless. But on the other hand, it’s no skin off my back. Liberals go to therapy. Conservatives go to church. And I think we’d all sleep better knowing that David Brock could not buy a gun.

In fact, I think we should expand the mental illness exception to cover First Amendment rights as well as Second Amendment rights.

I note that before mass murder, the only harassment the Virginia Tech killer was guilty of involved speech: creepy e-mails, creepy short stories, creepy phone calls. Stalkers, too, engage in frightening speech – but that is protected. Revealing a stalking victim’s address is “speech” but is little different from being the one to pull the trigger.

This small measure would have taken Dan “What’s the Frequency, Kenneth” Rather off the airwaves years ago, preventing him from presenting doctored National Guard documents to the American people to try to throw a presidential election. A mental illness bar would deal a quick blow to Air America and both its remaining listeners. It would also free up about 90 percent of the Internet.

And it would end the public lunacy of Jim Wallis, the Democrats’ Christian. Wallis’ first remark on the massacre at Virginia Tech last week was to hail the remarkable “diversity” of the victims. True, Cho murdered 32 people in cold blood. But at least he achieved diversity!

Anyone who thinks a single-minded fixation on diversity must be the ultimate goal of every human endeavor, including mass murder, is not the sort of person who should be able to buy a gun or to publish his daft ruminations in public forums.

But just to get this straight: Democrats are saying we should be able to jail “strange” or “angry” people, but we can’t deplane imams who demand extra-length seatbelts after boarding?

Speaking of which, has anyone else noticed the public expressions of shame and contrition from the Korean-American community after the Virginia Tech shooting? Of course, no one blames this exemplary community for the actions of one nut. The Koreans are manifestly law-abiding and decent – nipping at the heels of Italians as the greatest Americans and tied for second with the Cubans.

Indeed, I believe this marks the first time a Korean has killed anyone in the United States, not involving an automobile. Nonetheless, Korean congregations, community groups and the family members themselves are issuing statements of sorrow. Not “pleas for tolerance.” But sorrow. Remorse. Remember those? They were big back in the day.

If the Koreans can do it, why can’t the Muslims? What explains the lack of a Muslim guilt impulse – so normal, as seen in the case of the saddened Koreans – after dozens of terrorist attacks on Americans?

How about a Muslim exception to the Second Amendment? That would have prevented the Virginia snipers from killing 10 people within three weeks in 2002. But most important: It would help us achieve “diversity” in our gun law prohibitions.

Status of the Atheist Chinese Government and it’s suffering people

Some rather disturbing news on the state of freedom (or lack of) in Godless China.This is the news that the liberal media doesn’t want you to see.These peaceful, freedom loving Atheists never cease to amaze me.

61 Christian Women Forced to Have Abortions in China

Posted by chinaview on April 21st, 2007

According to China Aid Association (CAA), a massive forced abortion campaign is ongoing in China’s Guangxi Province targeting Christian pregnant women. It’s reported that 61 Christian women were forced to have abortions in 2 days on April 17 and 18. Here’s China Aid Association’s reports.

41 forced abortion on April 17:

Midland, Texas (April 17, 2007)- CAA has learned that a massive forced abortion campaign is ongoing in China’s Guangxi Province(Autonomous Region).

One Christian lady, Ms. Linrong Wei, 7 months preganent, was dragged into the hospital from her home on April 17 at 8:45 AM (Beijing time) by 10 officials from the Population and Family Planning Commsssion in Baise City, Guangxi. Her husband Yage “James” Liang was formerly a pastor in the government-sanctioned TSPM church before he became a House church pastor a year ago.

According to eyewitnesses’ reports to CAA, 40 other preganant women was forcefully moved to the Youjiang District People’s Hospital of Baise City on the same day to perform forced abortion.

Eyewitnesses told CAA that pastor Liang’s wife was pregenant accidentally and they wanted to keep this baby because of Christian principles. Ms. Wei was injected with medicine to induce birth at 11 AM on April 17. Ms. Wei’s hospital bed number is No. 39.

Eyewitnesses report that another woman, 9 months preganent, on bed number 38 was also injected at 12 PM.

One Church leader in that area who has visited Ms. Wei told CAA that these so-called ‘illegal pregnant women” were treated so bad that they were just forced to lay down on the very simple beds in the hospital corridor before the injections were done.

The family planning officials told relatives of the women that their babies will be born and most likely die within 24 hours.

————————————————————————————————————————-

20 more forced abortion on April 18:

Midland, Texas (April 18, 2007)- The Massive forced abortion campaign continues in Guangxi province. After 41 women were forced to have abortions on April 17, CAA has learned that the Youjiang District People’s Hospital of Baise City performed forced abortions for at least 20 more pregnant women on April 18.

Eyewitnesses report to CAA that at around 5:00pm on April 18, more than 20 more pregnant women were transported into the same hospital by the Family Planning officials. Within 30 minutes, about 10 of them were injected forcefully for an abortion.

This means within last 24 hours, at least 61 babies were killed with forced abortions.

At Bed number 37, Ms. He Caigan was 9 months pregnant. Officials injected her baby’s head and 20 minutes later, her baby stopped moving and died.

About 6am on April 18(BJ time), pastor James Liang’s wife Ms Wei Linrong gave birth to a boy, but he was dead because of the injection. She received three doses of injection-one is to induce the birth and the other two to kill the baby in the womb.

After China Aid reported the forced abortion, many PSB were seen surrounding the section of the hospital where these women are held.

————————————————————————————————————————

Canada Condemns China for Jailing Canadian-Uyghur For Life

Posted by chinaview on April 21st, 2007

Reuters, April 19, 2007-

OTTAWA, April 19 (Reuters) – Canada condemned China for jailing a Canadian citizen for life on Thursday and said it was concerned about allegations the man might have been tortured while in prison.

Huseyin (also referred to as Huseyincan) Celil, an ethnic Uighur activist, was imprisoned on charges of separatism and terrorism. China warned Canada not to get involved in what it described as a purely domestic matter.

“It is with deep disappointment that we learn that Mr. Celil has been sentenced to life imprisonment by a Chinese court,” said Foreign Minister Peter MacKay, complaining Beijing repeatedly refused to let Canadian officials visit the man.

“The government of Canada remains gravely concerned about allegations that Mr. Celil has been mistreated while in Chinese custody and possibly subjected to torture. This could constitute a serious breach of the United Nations Convention against Torture, to which both Canada and China are parties.”

MacKay is due to visit China later this month, where he plans to raise the case of Celil, 37.

A foreign ministry statement said MacKay had expressed his concerns with the Chinese embassy and had also spoken with Celil’s wife — who lives in Canada — “to assure her that Canada will continue to pursue justice for Mr. Celil.”

Canada’s Conservative government has frequently complained about the Chinese human rights record. Last November. Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Ottawa would not tone down its criticism to cash in on trade with the Asian superpower.

Beijing accuses Uighur militants of using violence in their struggle to set up an independent East Turkestan state in predominantly Muslim Xinjiang, which borders Pakistan, Afghanistan and restive Central Asian states.

Celil fled China in the mid-1990s and was later accepted as a refugee in Canada, where he obtained citizenship. He was detained in Uzbekistan in March 2006 when visiting relatives and sent to China last June.

– original from Reuters: Canada condemns China for jailing man for life

Posted in Social, Human Rights, Activist, Xinjiang, NW China, Canada, Law, Politics, People, China, World, News | No Comments »

————————————————————————————————————————

Torture in China Prison: A Tibetan Monk Tells The Story

Posted by chinaview on April 20th, 2007

Radio Free Asia, 2007.04.20-

KATHMANDU—A Tibetan monk who served 13 years in Lhasa’s notorious Drapchi prison has described how he was tortured by Chinese prison guards in an interview with RFA’s Tibetan service.

“I was detained in Drapchi for 12 years,” Sonam Dorje said. “In April 2005, we were moved from there to Chushul. At that time there were about 100 Tibetan political prisoners. Three soldiers for each prisoner escorted us to the new prison in the middle of the night.”

Dorje, 38, who managed to escape to Nepal en route to the exiled home of the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala, said the use of torture and solitary confinement was commonplace in the prison.

“We were handcuffed, then they would beat us with a rubber tube filled with sand,” he recalled. “On average we are continuously detained in solitude for about 28 days to a month at a time.”
Prisoners’ health problems

He said the health of most of the prisoners deteriorated quickly as a direct result of the torture sessions and poor diet.

“There was no Tibetan prisoner who did not suffer from kidney disease,” Dorje said. “On a regular basis we were forced to sit on cold concrete floors. So the prisoners were weak and sickly.”

Dorje served a 13-year jail term from June 30, 1992 to June 30, 2005 after taking part in an April 1992 demonstration against Chinese rule in the Himalayan region.

“We were five monks when we protested in 1992. It was during a big meeting when we took Tibetan flags and shouted that Tibet is an independent country and that the Chinese should leave.”

“At that time we were immediately detained by local county police. During detention we were severely beaten and tortured,” he added.

He said the main reasons for the protests were the imposition of China’s one-child policy on Tibetans, severe harships faced by local Tibetan farmers due to Chinese policies, severe shortage of jobs under the pressure influx of Han Chinese into the region, and implementation of patriotic reeducation campaigns in the region’s monasteries.
Electric batons used

He said one of the five, Sonam Rinchen, died in Drapchi under torture.

“When they conducted interrogations, the prisoners would be summoned to the interrogation center. When they didn’t get the answer that they wanted to hear, they tortured us again with a severe beating.”

“Even after the interrogations we would be taken back to our cells where we were tortured once more. They would regularly tie our hands and legs apart and then they would hit us with an electric baton. Most of time they hit us with iron tongs,” he recalled.

“After all this physical torture and mental pain, we could not walk.”

“The conditions in Chinese prisons in Tibet are deplorable,” he said, adding that the torture sessions worsened following his transfer to Chushul prison. “All the food served in jail lacked nutrition. All the vegetables were just boiled in water and served.

Sonam Dorje was originally from Gyama township in Meldrogunkar (Mozhu gongka in Chinese) county, Lhasa prefecture.

He plans to settle in Dharamsala, home of the Tibetan government-in-exile and the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, since they fled the region following a failed uprising against Chinese rule in 1959.

– original from Radio Free Asia: Former Tibetan Protest Monk Details Torture in Jail

Related:
– List of China Modern Torture Methods (slideshow)

Posted in Religious, Social, Torture, Tibet, SW China, Tibetan, Human Rights, Law, Politics, Religion, People, China, World, Asia, News | No Comments »

————————————————————————————————————————-

Yahoo Sued For Providing Private User Data To China Authority

Posted by chinaview on April 20th, 2007

By Adam Tanner, Reuters, Apr 18, 2007-

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – A Chinese couple sued Yahoo and its Chinese affiliates on Wednesday, alleging the Internet firms provided information that helped the Chinese government prosecute the man for his Internet writings.

Wang Xiaoning was sentenced to ten years in prison last year for “incitement to subvert state power” after he e-mailed electronic journals advocating democratic reform and a multi-party system.

His house and computer were searched in 2002.

In the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for Northern California, Wang and his wife Yu Ling charged the Internet firms turned over details to prosecutors that helped identify him to authorities.

“While in custody, Plaintiffs were subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, including arbitrary, prolonged and indefinite detention, for expressing their free speech rights and for using the Internet to communicate about democracy and human rights matters,” the filing said.

The suit, advanced by the World Organization for Human Rights USA, based in Washington D.C., said Yahoo benefited financially by working with authorities. China is the world’s second largest Internet market.

“Defendants had every reason to know and understand that the electronic communication user information they provided to authorities could well be used to assist in the infliction of such abuses as arbitrary arrest, torture, cruel, inhuman or other degrading threat and prolonged detention and/or forced labor,” it said.

In a statement, Yahoo said it was distressed that Chinese citizens had been sent to prison for expressing their views on the Internet.

“However, the concerns raised about the Chinese government compelling companies to follow Chinese law and disclose user information are not new,” it said. “Companies doing business in China must comply with Chinese law or its local employees could be faced with civil and criminal penalties.”

The lawsuit came on a day Yahoo shares fell more than 11 percent after the Internet firm’s earnings announced on Tuesday fell below expectations.

The suit names Yahoo, its Hong Kong subsidiary and Alibaba.com, China’s largest e-commerce firm, as defendants. California-based Yahoo bought a 40 percent stake in Alibaba for $1 billion in a 2005 deal.

Yahoo said the U.S. government should seek to lobby for political prisoners in China.

“We call on the U.S. Department of State to continue making this issue of free expression a priority in bilateral and multilateral forums with the Chinese, as well as through other tools of trade and diplomacy, in order to help secure the freedom of these dissidents,” the firm said.

– original from Reuters: Chinese couple sues Yahoo for man’s imprisonment

Related:

– Chinese Dissident’s Wife Arrive in US to Sue Yahoo, 07 March 2007

Posted in Social, Human Rights, Law, Economy, Speech, City resident, Dissident, World, Company, Politics, email, News, Yahoo, People, China, USA, Internet | 2 Comments »

————————————————————————————————————————-

UK media: Help Resident’s Family Member in China Labor Camp

Posted by chinaview on April 19th, 2007

UK City Nottingham’s newspaper The Evening Post published an report titled “Help free my sister from Chinese labor Camp” on yesterday, telling the story of local resident Jane Liang’s family members in China has been put into labor camp because of their belief, and now asking for international help to rescue them.

Wenjian Liang, 39, Jane Liang’s younger sister, lives in Guangzhou, China, with her husband Zhiyong Lin (photo left).

The couple was taken away from home in Guangzhou on Saturday 10 February by over ten policemen in plain clothes, while her family were spending time together with two other families (including 3 children), ahead of the Chinese New Year.

They all have been sentenced to 2 years in a labour camp, without trial.

They are Falun Gong practitioners.

It’s believed that this arrest resembles numerous recent incidents where the communist regime targets educated Falun Gong adherents who could access the Internet, particularly the blocked Falun Gong and Quitting CCP websites.

And also these arrests are thought to be part of the preparation for the Beijing Olympics in 2008. The 2 year sentences effectively putting them away till after the Olympics.

Jane’s family has setup an online petition to secure her sister’s release. Please visit this petition site to show your support.

Please visit Jane’s family petition site to show your support.

Posted in Social, Human Rights, Europe, Falun Gong, SE China, Guangdong, Law, World, Politics, Religion, Family, Women,

————————————————————————————————————————-

Famous Chinese Artist Sentenced to 3 Years in Prison For His Speech

Posted by chinaview on April 18th, 2007

On April 13, the Famous Chinese painter Yan Zhengxue was sentenced to three years in prison for “inciting subversion of state power.” Said by NTDTV, the global Chinese language TV network. Here’s it’s video report:

Mr. Yan’s defense attorney Li Jianqiang told The Epoch Times that initially Yan had been accused by the court of “subverting state power,” but this charge had been reduced to “inciting subversion of state power.” The court had removed charges of him participating in safeguarding land rights of Zhejiang Province and organizing the farmer’s union, collecting donations for Chinese exile writer Liu Binyan, and his secret membership in China’s Democratic Party.

Yan’s conviction was focused on the charges that he had published articles on overseas websites.

Mr. Yan Zhengxue was born in 1944 in Zhejiang Province, China. In 1962, he was admitted to the middle school affiliated with the Zhejiang Academy of Fine Arts.

In 1990, he was elected mayor of Yuanmingyuan artist village which is known as China’s “SOHO.” Many of his artistic works have been displayed in China and internationally, especially those paintings which were created during the time when he was in jail.

On October 18, 2006, Yan’s home was ransacked and he was abducted by the Zhejiang Taizhou State Security Bureau. He was charged on October 25 with the crime of “subversion of state power.”

On the afternoon of April 5, 2007, Taizhou Intermediate People’s Court held a hearing on this case. – According to The Epoch Times’ report.

Posted in Speech, Social, Activist, SE China, Yan Zhengxue, Human Rights, Law, Video, Politics, People, China, Artists, News | No Comments »

————————————————————————————————————————-

New Heights for Human Rights

Posted by chinaview on April 17th, 2007

Donna Jacobs, The Ottawa Citizen, Canada, Monday, April 16, 2007-

From the Matas-Kilgour report: “The Organ Transplant Center of the Armed Police General Hospital in Beijing boldly states: ‘Our Organ Transplant Center is our main department for making money. This year (2004) there is a chance to break through 30,000,000 yuan (about $3.8 million U.S.).’ “

Mr. Kilgour explains that far from being donors or criminals whose organs are taken after execution, these lucrative organs come from peaceful people who rarely see a court.

He says a Falun Gong practitioner, when asked, will admit to being part of the movement because truth is one of Falun Gong’s principles. Once identified, practioners are sent to work camps, where for 16 hours a day they make items for export, including Christmas decorations and promotional materials for multinationals.

“Their blood is tested and they’re carefully tested medically. We’re convinced that they’re tested so that when a westerner goes to Shanghai No. 1 People’s Hospital for a new kidney, for example, the hospital has a computer bank of all the kidneys available from the practitioners. The turnaround time, thus, from arriving in China, undergoing tissue type tests and getting the organ is two weeks.”

One military doctor tested compatibility of seven kidneys before a successful match for one patient from another Asian country. “Eight human beings died,” says Mr. Kilgour, “so he could get a kidney.”

The two lawyers are by no means alone in their campaign. Manfred Nowak, the UN rapporteur on torture, said two-thirds of people tortured in China are Falun Gong practitioners. In March, an article in the respected Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine found the Matas-Kilgour report “credible” given China’s “remarkable” organ transplant rate.

Doctors in three Canadian hospitals — in Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary — have reported about 100 Canadians have gone to China for transplants.

Of China’s recently announced ban on the export of transplanted human organs, Mr. Kilgour says, “Laws in China are often observed mostly in the breach, especially when there are hundreds of millions of dollars involved — as in the case of selling organs from Falun Gong practitioners and executed ‘criminals.’

“We hope it’s not just pre-Olympics spin.”

Mr. Kilgour has campaigned for this cause in Australia with Edward McMillan-Scott, Conservative MP and vice-president of the European Parliament. He believes the campaign has collapsed the Chinese organ transplant market there.

“We’re trying to get citizens, parliamentarians and doctors in all 70 countries where there are Olympic committees to raise these issues,” says Mr. Kilgour. “We’re not calling for an Olympic boycott. If we can just create enough pressure, we think the government of China will stop this terrible practice.”

Yesterday, Mr. Matas and Mr. Kilgour left for Pittsburgh and Cleveland (two major transplant centres in the U.S.), then for Asia and Europe.

Retired indeed.

Donna Jacobs is an Ottawa writer. Her e-mail address donnabjacobs@hotmail.com

– original report from The Ottawa Citizen, titled: New Heights for Human Rights

Posted in Economy, Religious, Social, Human Rights, Genocide, Falun Gong, Beijing Olympics, Labor camp, Organ harvesting, all Hot Topic, Canada, Law, Politics, Health, Religion, News, People, USA, World, Trade, China, medical | No Comments »

————————————————————————————————————————-

China Sentences Son of Prominent Muslim Activist

Posted by chinaview on April 17th, 2007

By Luis Ramirez, VOA News, 17 April 2007-

A Chinese court has sentenced the son of a prominent Muslim activist to nine years in prison on charges that he engaged in secessionist activities. VOA’s Luis Ramirez reports from Beijing.

The court in the far western Chinese city of Urumqi sentenced Ablikim Abdiriyim to prison Tuesday. Officials said he had instigated and engaged in secessionist activities.

The court accused him of spreading articles on the Internet promoting the secession of Xinjiang, a region that has been under Chinese control for centuries and is home to the Turkish-speaking ethnic Uighur people – most of whom are Muslims.

Ablikim is an ethnic Uighur and son of the exiled dissident Rebiya Kadeer. Kadeer had been jailed for five years on subversion charges before Chinese authorities – under U.S. pressure – sent her to the United States in 2005.

Speaking from her home in the United States, Kadeer told VOA she protests the sentencing of her son.

Kadeer says her son is innocent. She says he never engaged in political activities as the court charged.

International human rights activists have long criticized China for using the war on terror as an excuse to crack down on Uighurs in Xinjiang.

Advocates have condemned what they say is the Chinese government’s harassment of Kadeer’s relatives since her release.

Last month, the group Amnesty International said Ablikim had been beaten in prison and had been denied medical treatment.

Chinese officials have slapped tax evasion charges on two other sons.

U.S. Embassy officials in Beijing had no comment Tuesday on Ablikim’s sentencing.

– original report from VOA News

Posted in Social, City resident, Xinjiang, NW China, Human Rights, Law, Politics, People, China, News | 1 Comment »

———————————————————————————————————————-

Lecture Today: “China’s Genocide”

Posted by chinaview on April 16th, 2007

The Tartan, April 16, 2007-

Title: “China’s Genocide: Organ Harvesting on Live Falun Gong Practitioners”

The Basics: Four keynote speakers will address China’s unethical means of extracting organs from prisoners, termed “China’s New Genocide.”

In China, practitioners of the spiritual group Falun Gong endure live organ harvesting in which their organs are extracted and put on the market while the victims are still alive. The speakers will recommend ways for the transplant community, the government, and the general public to take action to stop the current practice.

The event is sponsored by the Office of Student Affairs, Student Senate, and a variety of student organizations from Carnegie Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh.

When: Today at 5:30 p.m.

Where: McConomy Auditorium

– original from  The Tartan: Lecture Preview

Posted in Religious, Event, Social, forum, Speech, Falun Gong, Genocide, Human Rights, Law, Health, Religion, News, People, USA, World, China, medical | No Comments »

————————————————————————————————————————

China’s Longest River Extensively Polluted Beyond Repair

Posted by chinaview on April 16th, 2007

Reuters, Apr 15, 2007-

BEIJING (Reuters) – China’s Three Gorges Dam reservoir has been fouled by pesticides, fertilizers and sewage, and more than 600 kilometers of the Yangtze river are critically polluted, Xinhua news agency said on Sunday, citing a report.

The joint report by an institute at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the international WWF organization and the Yangtze River Water Resources Commission also said nearly 30 percent of the river’s major tributaries, including the Minjiang, Tuojiang, Xiangjiang and Huangpu rivers, were seriously polluted.

“The impact of human activities on the Yangtze water ecology is largely irreversible,” Yang Guishan, a researcher of the Nanjing Institute of Geography and Limnology under the Chinese Academy of Sciences and one of the chief editors of the report, told Xinhua.

“It’s a pressing job to regulate such activities in all the Yangtze drainage areas and promote harmonious development of man and nature.”

China’s environment has suffered for years as the country has chased rapid economic growth, with little official attention given until recently to the threats of unfettered growth to the nation’s air, water and soil.

Last month at the opening session of the National People’s Congress, Premier Wen Jiabao called for economic growth goals to be balanced with protection of the environment.

Cities along the Yangtze annually dump at least 14.2 billion tons of waste into China’s longest waterway — which Xinhua said accounts for 35 percent of the country’s fresh water resources.

The river’s annual harvest of aquatic products dropped from 427,000 tons in the 1950s to about 100,000 tons in the 1990s, according to the joint study.

It also said the Three Gorges Dam reservoir, the world’s largest water storage facility, was seriously polluted by pesticides, fertilizers and sewage from passenger boats.

– Original report from Reuters: China’s Yangtze river extensively polluted: study

Posted in pollution, River, waste, Three Gorges, water, Economy, Environment, China, Social, News | No Comments »

————————————————————————————————————————-

Banana Cancer Spreads Throughout South-east China Province

Posted by chinaview on April 16th, 2007

The China Scope, 4/13/2007-

In a couple of years, Guangzhou residents may no longer be able to taste locally grown bananas. According to the Guangzhou Science and Technological Association, of the 8,667 hectares that are planted with bananas, over 3,333 hectares are infected with the banana-cancer “Panama Disease,” and it is spreading rapidly.

According to the Director of the Biological Research Office at the Guangzhou Institute of Agricultural Sciences, the epidemic began in 1995. In the early stages, only 5% of the banana trees were infected. The number reached 20% by the second year, and over 40% by the third year. All the banana plantations in Dagang, Dongyong, Zhongshan and Hualong have already been wiped out.

Currently, there is no known cure for the disease. The name is derived from an infection that affected a large area of banana plantations in Panama and Columbia in the early twentieth century. At that time, the disease wiped out over a hundred thousand hectares of banana plantation.

– original report from The China Scope report: Bananas May Become Extinct As “Panama Disease” Spreads Throughout Guangzhou

Posted in disaster, Guangdong, SE China, Social, China, Life, Health, Food, News | No Comments »

————————————————————————————————————————

China Mining Accidents Cause 13 Deaths Per Day in 2006

Posted by chinaview on April 15th, 2007

The China Scope, 4/13/2007-

According to the Chinese State Administration of Work Safety, recent accidents in the Wangjiasai Coal Mine and the Baijiao Coal mine (two major national coal mines in Guizhou and Sichuan respectively) have resulted in fourteen deaths.

On March 27, 2007, inadequate safety measures resulted in an explosion at the Wangjiasai Coal Mine, and a similar accident took place on April 1, 2007, at the Baijiao Coal Mine.

According to the State Administration of Work Safety, these two incidents reveal troubling issues related to the safety, work and mining conditions of the nation’s state-owned mines.

Moreover, a total of 2,845 mining accidents were reported in 2006, resulting in 4,746 deaths, or an average of 13 deaths per day.

– original report from The China Scope report: Government Reveals 2,845 Mining Accidents Reported In 2006

Posted in Economy, Rural, Worker, mine accident, Social, Law, Life, People, China, News | No Comments »

————————————————————————————————————————-

China Activist Hu Jia House Arrestted for Trying To Rescue Detained Lawyer

Posted by chinaview on April 15th, 2007

Chinese Activist Hu Jia was put under house arrest on April. 10 by China police, after he released a phone recording – his conversation with detained lawyer Gao Zhisheng – onto the Internet on Apr. 6, reported by the Epochtimes.

In their conversation, lawyer Gao said during his 129-day period of detainment, he suffered different forms of torture carried out by inmates for extended periods of time:

He was handcuffed for totally 600 hours, tied to a specially made iron chair for 590 hours, surrounded by strong light for 590 hours, and was forced to sit on the floor with legs crossed for 800 hours; the longest time he was bound to a chair was 109 hours.

After the phone call with Gao, Mr. Hu Jia immediately called the German Embassy and said he would discuss with them the situation of Gao and his family. His call was monitored, resulting in his arrest.

As an AIDS activist and outspoken human rights advocate, Mr. Hu Jia was detained for 41 days early last year. Then he was under police surveillance for more than 200 days until Feb. 16, 2007 when he was allowed to make a trip to Hong Kong.

Mr. Hu Jia is said to be suffering from Hepatitis B and in the early stage of liver cirrhosis.

For further information, please check this Epochtimes report: Activist Hu Jia now under house arrest

Related:
– China Lawyer Tortured, Forced to Confess To Protect Family, April 10, 2007

Posted in Beijing, Speech, Activist, Hu Jia, Social, Human Rights, Politics, People, China, Law, News | No Comments »

————————————————————————————————————————-

200 Shanghai Petitioners Detained For Protesting Misleading Report

Posted by chinaview on April 14th, 2007

Human Rights in China (HRIC), April 12, 2007-

Human Rights in China (HRIC) has learned that over 200 petitioners in Shanghai were detained for one day after protesting the content of an official article reporting the success of the petitioning system. Several petitioners remain in detention following further protests of their treatment.

At around noon on April 11, more than 200 Shanghai petitioners, including Ma Yalian, Chen Enjuan, Sun Xicheng and Xi Guozhen, went to the offices of the official Party paper, Shanghai’s Liberation Daily, to protest an article published on April 9.

The petitioners claimed that the article presented a distorted picture of the actual plight of Shanghai’s petitioners. The article stated that more than 80 Letters and Petitions Offices throughout the city had accepted more than 1.1 million petitions in the year 2006, and that “each and every petition had received due attention and reply.”

The petitioners argued that the Liberation Daily as a mouthpiece of the Shanghai municipal government, ignored the voices of the people, was trying to gloss over problems, and presented a misleading picture to the new Party Secretary of the Shanghai Municipal Committee, Xi Jinping.

Over 100 police officers reportedly confronted the petitioners and forcibly loaded them into police vehicles. They were taken to a secondary school in Shanghai’s Huangpu District, where they were held until the evening and then released.

The following day, on April 12, around 30 petitioners went to see district head Chen Anjie during his regular public session for petitions, and express their dissatisfaction to him, but no one was willing to meet with them. They proceeded to the district government office, where they were confronted by a dozen police officers.

One petitioner, Chen Suqin, was reportedly knocked unconscious during the confrontation. She was taken to a hospital for treatment, but was then taken away by police.

Two other petitioners, Zhang Hui and Liu Shan, were also detained and at last report have not yet been released.

For the past several years, local Shanghai authorities have been cracking down on petitioners through forcible repatriation, illegal detentions and imprisonment based on trumped-up charges.

According to information collected by HRIC, since 2000, at least 100 petitioners in Shanghai have been detained, sent to Reform Through Labor, or sentenced on criminal charges.

HRIC urges the new Party Secretary of the Shanghai Municipal Committee, Xi Jinping, who has expressed public concern over the situation of petitioners in Shanghai, to address their complaints and critically reexamine the current policy towards petitioners.

– original report from Human Rights in China: Shanghai Petitioners Detained following Protests

Posted in shanghai, corruption, City resident, East China, Speech, Social, Politics, People, China, Human Rights, News | No Comments »

————————————————————————————————————————-

Video: Why Does China Consulate Interfere With Chinese Culture Show

Posted by chinaview on April 13th, 2007

You may heard that traditional Chinese culture was deadly destroied by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) during a 10-year period of Culture Revolution started from 1966.

Even till today, CCP’s efforts to against traditional Chinese culture still not stopped.

Here’s the news: Chinese officials in New Zealand are exerting pressure on sponsors and VIPs in attempts to block support for an international Chinese cultural show – Divine Performing Arts, which is hosted by independent TV network NTDTV, held at The Civic Theatre in downtown Auckland on Thursday, April 5, 2007.

Here’s an video report about the incident on Youtube:

Some facts about the Culture Revolution:

During the Culture Revolution, “Starting in August 1966, the raging fire of the “Casting Away the Four Olds” burned the entire land of China. Regarded as objects of “feudalism, capitalism, and revisionism,” the Buddhist temples, Taoist temples, Buddha statues, historical and scenic sites, calligraphy, paintings, and antiques became the main targets for destruction by the Red Guards.

Take the Buddha statues for example. There are 1000 colored, glazed Buddha statues in relief on the top of Longevity Hill in the Summer Palace in Beijing. After the “Casting Away the Four Olds,” they were all damaged. None of them has a complete set of the five sensory organs any more.” – On How the Chinese Communist Party Destroyed Traditional Culture, Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party – Part 6

* Note: “Four Olds” – old ideas, old culture, old customs and old habits

Question: Why is Communist China so aggressively against Traditional Chinese culture?

Brief answer: the Communist theory opposes traditional Chinese culture. The traditional Chinese culture is an obstacle to the CCP’s dictatorship and challenges the legitimacy of the CCP rule.

Then: What is the traditional Chinese culture? What is the Communist Party’s Philosophy? Why and how did the CCP destroied traditional Chinese culture?

First, The “philosophy” of the Communist Party completely contradicts the authentic traditional Chinese culture.

“The traditional beliefs of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism offered the Chinese people a very stable moral system, unchangeable “so long as heaven remains.” This ethical system offered the basis for sustainability, peace, and harmony in society.”

“Traditional culture respects the mandate of heaven, as Confucius once said, “Life and death are predestined, and wealth and rank are determined by heaven.” [20] Both Buddhism and Taoism are forms of theism, and believe in the reincarnation cycle of life and death, and the karmic causality of good and evil.

The Communist Party, on the contrary, not only believes in atheism, but also runs wild in defying the Tao and assaulting heavenly principles.

– Confucianism values family, but the Communist Manifesto clearly promulgates abolition of the family.
– Traditional culture differentiates the Chinese from the foreign, but the Communist Manifesto advocates the end of nationality.
– Confucian culture promotes kindness to others, but the Communist Party encourages class struggle.
– Confucians encourage loyalty to the monarch and love for the nation. The Communist Manifesto promotes the elimination of nations. ” – extract from On How the Chinese Communist Party Destroyed Traditional Culture

Second, Traditional Culture Is an Obstacle to the CCP’s Dictatorship

“Loyalty in traditional Chinese culture does not mean blind devotion. In the eyes of the people, the emperor is a “son of heaven”—with heaven above him. The emperor cannot be correct at all times.

Therefore there was a need for observers to point out the emperor’s mistakes all the time.

The Chinese chronicle system had historians record all the words and deeds of the emperor. Scholastic officials could become teachers for their sage kings, and the behavior of the emperor was judged by the Confucian classics.

If the emperor was immoral—unenlightened to the Tao, people might rise up to overthrow him, as was the case when Chengtang attacked Jie, or in King Wu’s removal of Zhou. [23] These uprisings, judged from traditional culture, were not considered violations of loyalty or the Tao. Instead, they were seen as enforcing the Tao on behalf of heaven.

The dictatorial CCP could by no means accept traditional beliefs such as these. The CCP wanted to canonize its own leaders and promote a cult of personality, and so would not allow such long-held concepts such as heaven, Tao, and God to govern from above.

The CCP was aware that what it did was considered the most heinous and enormous crime against heaven and the Tao if measured by the standards of traditional culture. They were aware that as long as the traditional culture existed, people would not praise the CCP as “great, glorious, and correct.” Scholars would continue the tradition of “risking their lives to admonish the monarch,” “maintaining justice at the expense of their lives,” and place the people above the rulers. Thus, the people would not become CCP puppets, and the CCP could not force conformity on the thoughts of the masses. ” – extract from On How the Chinese Communist Party Destroyed Traditional Culture

Third, Traditional Culture Challenges the Legitimacy of the CCP Rule

“Traditional Chinese culture believes in God and the heavenly mandate. Accepting the mandate of heaven means that rulers have to be wise, follow the Tao and be attuned to destiny. Accepting belief in God means accepting that authority over humanity rests in heaven.

The CCP ruling principle is summarized as, “Never more tradition’s chains shall bind us, arise ye toilers no more in thrall. The earth shall rise on new foundations; we are but naught; we shall be all.” [27]

The CCP promotes historical materialism, claiming that Communism is an earthly paradise, the path to which is led by the pioneer proletarians, or the Communist Party. The belief in God thus directly challenged the legitimacy of the CCP’s rule. ” – extract from On How the Chinese Communist Party Destroyed Traditional Culture

For the details about traditional Chinese culture, the Communist Party’s Philosophy, why and how did the CCP destroied traditional Chinese culture, please watch the following youtube video:

First half                 Second half

Related:
– Leaked Document: Chinese Embassy Tried to Silence TV Network in Canada, April 4th, 2007

Posted in Australia, Social, Human Rights, Speech, Report, Communist Party, the Party Culture, Incident, Chinese Culture, Law, Video, Politics, Religion, People, history, World, China, Culture, News | No Comments »

————————————————————————————————————————-

China Lawyer Tortured, Forced to Confess To Protect Family

Posted by chinaview on April 12th, 2007

By JOSEPH KAHN, New York times, April 10, 2007-

BEIJING, April 9 — Gao Zhisheng, one of China’s most outspoken dissidents until his conviction on sedition charges late last year, said in a recorded statement made available over the weekend that while his confession had resulted in a light sentence, it had been made under mental and physical duress.

Mr. Gao’s remarks, recorded by a close friend and offered to journalists in Beijing, were his first public statement since he was convicted in December. He was given a suspended sentence.

His confession brought criticism from some other human rights advocates.

Mr. Gao lives in Beijing with his wife and children. But he said he remained in nearly total isolation, surrounded by plainclothes security forces and forbidden to leave his home, use his telephone or computer or otherwise communicate with the outside world.

He also said that a lengthy confession letter released to the public by the authorities after his conviction, while genuine, had come only after he had been subjected to torture. He said his interrogators repeatedly threatened to punish his wife and children unless he admitted the crimes they said he had committed.

“Although in the past I had some idea of how this group ignores justice, how they nakedly and impudently use evil means to realize their objectives, I really did not understand well enough,” Mr. Gao said, referring to Chinese public security forces.

He said his captors had forced him to sit motionless in an iron chair for extended sessions that totaled hundreds of hours, surrounded him with bright lights and used other torture techniques aimed at breaking his will. He said he had agreed to their terms because they repeatedly intimated that the well-being of his wife and children could not be guaranteed unless he cooperated.

“In the end I decided I could not haggle about my children’s future,” he said.

Mr. Gao, a lawyer, gained prominence among human rights advocates and grass-roots organizers in China and their supporters overseas for his uncompromising denunciations of police and judicial abuses and his scathing open letters to senior Communist Party leaders.

He called attention to what he described as systematic abuses against members of the Falun Gong spiritual sect, which is banned in China. He also helped organize a hunger strike against intimidation tactics used by the country’s State Security forces.

Mr. Gao lost his license to practice law in late 2005, and in August of last year he was arrested while traveling in Shandong Province.

The authorities repeatedly described Mr. Gao’s cooperative attitude in custody. A few months after he was arrested, they released a letter in which Mr. Gao declared that he had severed all ties with his former colleagues working for human rights and that he did not desire to have a defense lawyer represent him in court.

Judicial officials said in announcing the verdict in his case that Mr. Gao not only admitted his own crimes but had also provided information about other outstanding cases.

Those claims prompted a mixed reaction among Mr. Gao’s friends and supporters. Some said they worried that he had betrayed former colleagues and expressed disappointment that he had compromised with the authorities after a short stint in captivity.

Others said they suspected that officials had elicited a confession from him by using extreme pressure and that the public release of documents in his case was intended to ruin his reputation and divide his allies.

Mr. Gao issued his remarks, the first explanation of his confession, through Hu Jia, a longtime friend and fellow human rights organizer who managed to reach him by telephone. Mr. Hu recorded the conversation with Mr. Gao’s consent, according to the tape.

Attempts to reach Mr. Gao directly were unsuccessful.

In the recording, he denied that he had betrayed any secrets that could harm other dissidents. But he acknowledged that he had let down his colleagues by confessing.

“I don’t have the ability to get news from outside, but I bet much of it is about my so-called surrender and open declaration,” he said, referring to documents released by the authorities. “When these matters are raised, my heart is flooded with unbelievable shame.”

He said he had decided to earn a decent living for his family instead of seeking to change China’s political system. “In the future I don’t aspire to be much use to society, but rather to be of more use to my family,” he said.

But he said intensive security had turned his house into a new jail for him and his family, making it impossible for him to earn a living and forcing him to speak out once again.

– original report: China Dissident Says Confession Was Forced

Related:
– Gao Zhisheng: ‘I Will Fight for My Family’s Living Rights’, The Epoch Times, Apr 09, 2007
– Letter Expose Tortures of Chinese Lawyer Gao Zhisheng, April 12th, 2007

Posted in Torture, Speech, Activist, Lawyer, Hu Jia, Gao Zhisheng, Beijing, Social, Family, Politics, People, China, Human Rights, Law, News | 1 Comment »

————————————————————————————————————————-

Letter Expose Tortures of Chinese Lawyer Gao Zhisheng

Posted by chinaview on April 12th, 2007

Taken away by tens of police to an unknown place in Beijing on August 15, 2006 and was detained till December 22, in a total of 129 days imprison without reason, the well-known Chinese rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng:

(photo left: Lawyer Gao Zhisheng; Right: Activist Hu Jia) :

– was called as number “815″, no one was supposed to ask his name; was sent to cell No. 124 on the west side, and slept in the No. 4 bunk.

– was handcuffed for 600 hours

– fixed to a specially made iron chair for 590 hours

– illuminated by strong lights on both sides for about 590 hours

– was forced to sit on the floor cross legged to examine his sins for 800 hours and was forced to wipe down the bunk bed boards 385 times

– Since November 29, Mr. Gao was forced to cooperate with the regime to produce a video for admitting guilt “without pressure,” announcing my declaration “voluntarily,” and re-shooting the interrogation records.

Above maltreatment was first time exposed by Chinese lawyer Gao Zhisheng in his 3rd letter to rights activist Hu Jia, which was read on the phone by Mr. Gao to Hu, on April 4, 2007 in Beijing, while Mr. Gao is house-arrested and the house being surrounded by over one hundred plainclothes police every day.

Mr. Gao’s first two letters failed to reach Hu Jia due to the Chinese communist regime’s severe suppression and surveillance.

The whole letter, according to the voice record of the comunication between Mr. Gao and China rights activist Hu Jia, can be found from the Epochtimes’ website, titled “Gao Zhisheng’s Letter to Fellow Rights Activist“.

Know more of Gao Zhisheng’s  illegal imprison from following youtube video report:

Related:
– China arrests dissident lawyer for subversion, Reuters, Oct 12, 2006
– Chinese Police Detain Prominent Human Rights Lawyer, VOA News, 18 August 2006

Posted in Torture, Speech, Activist, Lawyer, Hu Jia, Gao Zhisheng, Beijing, Social, Video, Politics, People, China, Human Rights, Law, News | No Comments »

Atheists reponsible for youth crimes

ATHEISTS RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUTH CRIME

I’m sure you are aware of how violent America’s and the world’s community of youths have gotten, even at very young ages. Consider the following cases: “A 15 years old girl was strung up in a tree and a friend clubbed her to death with a rock for threatening to reveal plans by a group of teens to run away to Florida, police said. “Snitches get hurt,” the friend told the victim, according to witnesses. Kimberly Jo Dotts’ body was found by hikers Tuesday in a clearing called Gallows Harbor, named after a hanging in the 19th century. Her friend, Jessica Holtmeyer, 16, and Aaron Straw, 18, were arrested Wednesday, 10 days after the slaying. They were charged with homicide and are being held in the county jail. Police said more arrests were possible. An investigator said other teens were present during the attack but walked away. Police did get an anonymous call a few days before the body was found, but did not elaborate on what was said. 11 people – the two suspects, Kimberly Jo, her 24-year-old cousin, Tracy Lewis, and seven teenagers – were planning to run away to Florida, but got angry at Kimberly Jo when she backed out a! nd threatened to reveal their plans. The group toyed with Kimberly Jo by putting the noose around her neck, then removing it. At one point, she was dragged around the wooded clearing by her neck.” InFoBeat News 5/22/98

“Three sixth-grade boys had a “hit list” and were plotting to kill fellow classmates on the last day of school in a sniper attack during a false fire alarm, police said. The plan was modeled after a recent ambush at a Jonesboro, Ark., school that left five dead, Lt. Dave Todd said. Police learned of the plan after they responded to a fight at Becky Davis Elementary School in rural St. Charles County Thursday. Todd said what officers found was far more serious than a schoolyard brawl. The boys planned to pull a fire alarm and shoot students as they fled the school, Todd said. He said they got the idea from the March 24 incident in Jonesboro where an 11-year-old boy and his 13-year-old friend allegedly opened fire on classmates after pulling an alarm. Four pupils and a teacher were killed and 10 people were wounded. The sniper attack was to be carried out June 6, the last day of school.” InFoBeat News 5/22/98

Now do you realize who the people are who are responsible for children having gotten so violent? The answer is ATHEISTS and other non-beleivers in the true God. So you may ask how can this be? The reason why they are responsible is because they hate God and teach their children against God (which is the highest form of child abuse). For example: Atheists hate the TEN COMMANDMENTS because God is their Author. In the TEN COMMANDMENTS, God commands all mankind not to kill, not to steal, to honor our parents and so forth. Since atheists hate God and His Commandments, they teach their children and the children they have authority over against God and against His commandments. There is no other morality other than God’s Moral Law. God is the Author of all morality. Since atheists teach children against God’s morality, they have to in turn be teaching them to do the very things God says not to do.

Some of the many ways atheists are doing this are through anti-God and anti-moral parental attitude, violence in the movie and music industries, anti-moral attitude on the web and etc. All the anti-God and anti-moral attitudes found in these fields come from atheists and other non believers.

Are Homosexuals born that way?

ARE HOMOSEXUALS BORN THAT WAY?

Many infants are born throughout the world community with physical and mental defects. All of the defects are rightly considered to be abnormalities which justify efforts to remove them, to discover their causes, and to prevent further occurrences. You will never hear of a case wherein a government or anyone in the fields of science, medicine, psychiatry, etc. uses any kind of rationalization in effort to justify the abnormalities or to label them as normal conditions on the basis that the people who have them were born that way. Even nonphysical mental retardation, cerebral palsy, seizure disorders, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are all considered abnormalities for which cures are rightly being sought.

However, when it comes to the nonphysical immoral abnormality of homosexuality, a strange, inverted spirit exerts a deceptive influence upon the thinking of people who are ignorant, naive, deceived, and moral criminals. “Born that way” is used to deceptively justify the existence, remove all stigmas, and create tolerance for the horrific crime of homosexuality.

If it is true that homosexuals are born as homosexuals, why is their heteromorphic condition not regarded as a defect in light of the facts that their inverted thoughts, demeanor, unclean desires, and lifestyle are departures from what is right for humans in the senses that they are against nature or contrary to the way God has intended humans to function — the institution of marriage is corrupted; conjugal relationships are corrupted; the act is unnatural and highly unhygienic; the act has not been designed by God to propagate humanity; the condition is a detriment in every way to the mental, physical, and moral well-being of children and the rest of humankind, etc.?

If it is true that homosexuals are born as homosexuals, and if it is true that homosexuality should not be regarded as a defect, why are people who are born as hermaphrodites rightly regarded as having a birth defect? Homosexuality does far more harm to humanity than what the uncorrected hermaphroditic condition can ever do. The homosexual has a spiritual and moral defect which has no right of existence just as much as the hermaphrodite has a physical defect which needs correcting. If it is true that homosexuals are born as homosexuals, it is the responsibility of government and society to correctly label, legally stigmatize and criminalize it as a terrible moral defect on which government and society should use drastic effort to correct, discover its social causes, and correctly assess its damnable effects on society and humanity. Furthermore, they should make aggressive efforts to punish it to prevent further occurrences.

The truth about homosexuality should be discerned from the fact that the all-wise and all-knowing God — the One who created humans and therefore knows what’s best for them — has condemned effeminate males (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) and masculine females (Romans 1:26-27). He also has condemned homosexuality as an abomination (Leviticus 18:22) and has prescribed for such a crime the penalty of death by the hands of corporeal government (Leviticus 20:13). The penalty is to be extended to people who merely commit the act, people who sympathize with homosexuals, and people who seek to promote tolerance in society for not only such people but also their criminal condition and life-style. But it should be duly noted that God has not condemned in any way people who are born as hermaphrodites or anyone else who has been or will be born with any other physical or mental birth defect. Those facts suggest that the hermaphroditic condition and the rest are noncriminal defects.

However, homosexuality is a spiritual, moral, and partly mental defect, created in some cases after birth. It takes hold of people through the total depravity of their own being. From within their intrinsic depravity, the learning or creation processes in many cases are induced in them at an early age (which helps create the illusion that these were born that way) by heathen or homosexual parents, heathen or homosexual relatives and friends, and a heathen environment. As it is being created in children, it is tolerated or nurtured by their environment and society, protected by heathen governments, and thereafter maintained by each homosexual through their total depravity, deliberate choice, and blatant defiance of what is right for their gender. Thus, in the end, heathens see the need to seek cures for or prevent the occurrences of physical and mental abnormalities which are noncriminal, but seek to justify and establish moral sicknesses and depravity which are criminal. The former defects do not create an evil society, but the latter creates hell on earth.

If it is true that homosexuals are born as homosexuals, why isn’t the inverted condition apparent at birth as indisputable proof that they are born that way? Why can’t medical technology of some type be used to reveal that some males and females are gay at birth? No such technology exists because homosexuality is not a physical condition but a spiritual and moral one. Homosexuality is created in people in at least three ways: 1. People are taught or induced in their early years to be gay; 2. people make a conscious choice from the depravity of their own hearts to live such a lifestyle; 3. some homosexuals are possessed by one or more gay demons. Those who become homosexuals through the first two ways are not born as homosexuals and can possibly refuse to practice their inverted desires. But the males and females who become gay as a result of demon possession may get possessed in the womb before their birth. Others people may get possessed at some point after birth. Those who are possessed are compelled to live as homosexuals and can’t turn from it. Thus the claim that homosexuals are born that way is indeed true for some of them. But having been born that way or having been possessed by a gay demon in no way legitimizes their condition and their indecent acts. The fact that they were born that way turns out to be indisputable proof of the Biblical truth that humans are conceived in iniquity and born as thoroughly depraved sinners and as slaves of satan.

Every human is born with the seed or intrinsic principle of depravity called the “law of sin”. However, not all manifest their depravity through homosexuality. The principle of sin begins the process of producing evil fruit in various ways in the lives of humans at some point after their birth and throughout their later lives. It produces fruit in some people through more heinous ways than in others, and in yet others with more or less restraint than some. Having been born with the intrinsic principle of depravity in no way legitimizes any of the depraved acts and compulsions which spring from it. Homosexuality is one of the more heinous fruits of the law of sin. Its extreme heinousness is indicated through the death sentence God requires for it and through its most sinister and deceptive ability to justify and establish itself as if it is legitimate. Government should be in the business of curbing and punishing all acts of depravity, not legitimizing and protecting them. Homosexuality has no true right of existence, and it is the God-given responsibility of corporeal governments to do the proper things to remove it from society.

As stated several times before, homosexuality has no right to existence. In order for it to exist, it has to silence or crush its opposition. The only real opposition it has comes from proper moral laws and the people who hold to them. Thus, homosexuality thrives by suppressing righteousness and the people who rightly oppose homosexuality. It does the former by aggressive and successful efforts to deceive the public against the high criminality of homosexuality in order to create tolerance for it, and by placing themselves in respectable and key positions in order to create laws in favor of it and to get government to protect it. It does the later by incongruently stigmatizing those who rightly oppose it with labels designed to deceptively portray them as having some type of mental defect and as those who express an unjust hatred for homosexuality. The undeserved stigma that is placed upon those who rightly oppose homosexuality turns out to be a great injustice done to them just for heathens to enjoy their nasty compulsion and acts of depravity which in the end has dire effects upon society. Such injustice is allowed and backed by the american government.

“I’m against willfully induced abortions for any reason. But if there could ever be truly justifiable reasons for pregnant females to have abortions, none would be more justified than the cases wherein the females could receive true knowledge that they are carrying homosexuals in their wombs. On the basis of Leviticus 20:13, I wholeheartedly support abortions in such cases.” (Robert T. Lee)

The Filth of Homosexuality

THE FILTH OF HOMOSEXUALITY

Following is a simple, but disturbing email I received and my response.

THE EMAIL:

Message:
>
>Subject:
>From: “gurpareet bains” gbains@hn.ozemail.com.au
>Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 12:56:25 +1000
>To: Robert T. Lee
>
>
>That section about homosexuality is absolute filth.
>

MY RESPONSE:

Surely you are blind. You view the truth against homosexuality as filth and the filth and evil of homosexuality as cleanliness. What a terrible tragedy!

Have you not understood how vile and filthy the act of homosexuality is? Do you not perceive the need for personal hygiene? Wouldn’t a hygienically conscious male consider a female to be very filthy if her vagina was filled with excrement and he got it and its stench on himself during the sexual act? That is how filthy the act of homosexuality is, even when it is performed by senators, congressmen, doctors, attorneys, newspaper editors, teachers, celebrities and etc. Homosexuality is an extremely filthy act regardless of who performs it.

Homosexuals also perform oral anal sex. That is even more unclean! By doing so, they ingest human feces. Don’t you understand how filthy human feces is? It can carry all kinds of terrible diseases, including typhoid, cholera, amoebic dysentery, the Aids virus, hepatitis A, worms, bacteria and bowel inflictions. Who but nasty totally depraved maggots enjoy having colon or anal sex even when they know they will get feces, its stench and bring its diseases upon themselves!

Not only is the act of homosexuality physically filthy, but it is also morally filthy. So why do you say that anyone who opposes homosexuality speaks filth and you do not regard the act of homosexuality filth? Your sympathy for homosexuality proves you to be a very filthy person.

The terrible immoral and physical uncleanliness of homosexuality makes it the next moral crime to bestiality. If one does not have moral scruples against committing the verminous unnatural act of homosexuality, he or she will not scruple against the filthy and unnatural act of bestiality. This is one of the things that make the act of homosexuality so vile and heinous. When depraved humans get adjusted to practicing and receiving pleasure from a particular level of depravity, they will not remain satisfied with the degree of degraded pleasure they receive in that realm, but will begin to lust for the pleasure that can be derived from the next level. For those who derive sinful pleasure from the act of homosexuality, the next level is bestiality (Leviticus 18:22-23). Homosexuals are not called “dogs” by God in the Bible for nothing (Deuteronomy 23:18). Now you know the true origin of Aids among mankind. It had its origin from homosexuals who had and continue to have anal, genital and oral sex with animals. Now you understand one reason God forbids fornication. The next time you get ready to have illicit sex of whatever type, you might want to ask: “With whom or with what kind of animal did this person last copulate with?”

Hatred for Homosexuality is right, and scientifically sound

By scientific, the meaning can be construed as immutably correct.If every single individual were to become homosexual, and lesbian, then the Earth would be a lifeless planet in less than a generation.Homosexuals, and God-Haters hear this argument and counter with the science of “in-vitro fertilization,” which is nothing more than a strawman.In-Vitro fertilization is a relativley new science that has come along relatively recently.If it never existed, and homosexuality were the norm the human race would have died long ago.Sound science strikes yet again.

It is a sin for men to act effeminate, and it is also a death worthy crime in the sight of God for humans to be gay or to commit the abominable act of homosexuality. It is also a sin for women to be masculine, and a death worthy crime for them to commit the act of lesbianism and embrace such a life style. If you are repulsed or nauseated by gay males and females and their unnatural and nasty sexual acts, your repulsion is normal and right in the sight of God Most High – the One who created humankind and who condemns homosexuality.

Do not allow any person, any special interest group or any law to erode your repulsion against homosexuality. And do not allow yourself to be deceived into thinking your feelings are abnormal if you have been tagged as being “homophobic”. The people who do not have such repulsion – who tolerate homosexuality and sympathize with it are the ones who are morally and psychologically sick and insane. Same sex attraction is a moral crime and the act of homosexuality is a death worthy crime against God and humankind. If you are repulsed against homosexuality, you are not so because of ignorance and deception or insanity. But you are so because the act is truly evil. The reason you ARE NOT repulsed against opposite sex attraction is because it is right and proper. “Heterosexuality” is not a so-called “sexual orientation”. It is the way God create humans to function. God never meant for humans to be attracted to the same sex any more than He meant for them to be attracted to animals. Homosexuality is an abandonment or perversion of the way God originally created mankind. There is not a sane law in the entire universe that will condemn a proper relationship between a man and a woman. Not even sick homosexuals condemn opposite sex attraction. But in every society on earth, there is a natural and right repulsion against homosexuality because it is not right for humankind. If you are not repulsed against homosexuality, something morally is terribly wrong with you – you are a sick individual.

In their effort to justify homosexuality, gay people and their sympathizers make the false claim that a negative attitude against gay people is due to ignorance or religious dogma. In no case where there is a sane intolerance to homosexuality is that so. However, it is a fact that people tolerate and justify homosexuality or sympathize with gay people because of ignorance, deception, denial and depravity. All the nations on earth are really heathen nations that do not embrace Christian principles as their dogma. Nevertheless, a negative attitude against homosexuality is to be found in every nation. This is not due to ignorance or religious dogma, but to common sense. Where ignorance and deception prevails and where love for evil abounds, homosexuality also thrives. Any so-called “education” in favor of homosexuality is none other than deception.

Homosexuals use many methods to deceive the gullible into tolerating homosexuality. One way they do so is to point to same sex attraction among animals. Do not be deceived into thinking that since same sex attraction has been observed among animals that this somehow legitimizes same sex attraction for humans. Some animals are also known to eat carrion, excrement and attack and kill humans. If same sex attraction among them can be rightly used to legitimize same sex attraction among humans, so can all their other unclean and murderous tendencies. Animals are irrational creatures that are not accountable to God. Only totally depraved fools point to the nasty actions of dogs as examples to follow rather than live according to the righteousness of God. Homosexuals prove they have fallen lower than animals by making animals as their mentors and examples to follow. One thing for sure is creatures of instinct demonstrate that they are more righteous than homosexuals, because they do not seek to justify their acts by the nasty acts of homosexuals.

Homosexuality is one of the many manifestations of the total depravity of mankind. It is part of the evidence that demonstrates the sad totally depraved state into which all mankind has fallen. It evidences that the wrath of the Almighty God hangs over the heads of every graceless human.

The gender of every person are immutable

God has created only two genders among mankind. He has also given each person a unique identity. The fundamental identity of a person goes beyond physical properties and is also spiritual – primarily related to the soul of a person. A mild to drastic physical change will change the physical appearance of a person, but can do nothing to alter his or her true identity as it is rooted to his or her soul. Not even the greatest physical change, which is physical dissolution, can do the same.

Therefore the true identity and gender of a person are immutable. There is nothing whatsoever that can be done to change the two. Once conceived in the womb, a person’s identity and gender remains the same forever because his soul lives forever.

Since a person’s gender is part of his or her immutable identity, no person’s true gender can be changed. And since a person’s gender is united to his immutable identity and his identity goes beyond physical properties, then any physical changes he undergoes, be they mild or the most drastic, cannot alter the true gender of the person.

The principle of “physical change” is well known in the field of science. It states that physical change “does not affect the composition (identity) of a substance.” When you sharpen a pencil, the pencil undergoes change, but it has the same composition or chemical properties. Even when a substance changes state, such as becoming a gas or liquid, the composition of the substance does not change.

So-called “educated” people are thoroughly familiar with these facts, but it is only when they begin to talk about homosexuality that all common sense is lost and they begin to deceive themselves and the rest of gullible society. Even after a person dies, he is still regarded as “he” and she is still regarded as “she.” It is when people start talking about homosexuality do they start foolishly thinking a person’s real gender or identity can be changed.

There is an ultimate reason why the genders of humans are immutable. It is because every person must ultimately stand before the judgment seat of God to give account of his deeds in this world (2 Corinthians 5:10; Matthew 16:27). If a person’s gender and identification can be changed, he or she would not be the same person on the Day of Judgment and would not receive the proper recompense for his life in this world. A complete change of identity and gender would defeat ultimate justice. The fact that God is going to raise from the dead every person who will have died when he returns (Revelation 20:11-13; 1 Corinthians 15), and the fact that each person’s true gender and identity will be known by Christ in order that they may receive just eternal damnation or reward, shows that the gender and identity of every person of mankind are eternally immutable.

Homosexuals will always remain under the wrath of God

Yes indeed, it is true: a heathen society’s standards change, and that’s why america is now so thoroughly corrupt. But heathen america deliberately overlooks another fact: God never changes. He is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8).

Therefore, homosexuals in every generation should ever remain aware that they will always be under the hot wrath of the Almighty God and every sane and godly human mind as long as they are homosexuals. Foolish constitutional tolerance of homosexuality by an already heathen and atheistic america should not be mistaken to be a true acceptance by the Holy God. By deceptively posing as “Christians” “ministers” and trying to thrust themselves into a fake atmosphere of “church” does not change the true God and His truths that homosexuality is an abomination and a very heinous crime (Leviticus 18:22).

Therefore homosexuals will always be regarded by God as “dogs” (Deuteronomy 23:18) who cannot enter His holy Kingdom while they are yet homosexuals (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). They therefore rightly remain immutably under God’s corporeal sentence of death (Leviticus 20:13) and His eternal sentence of hell.

In order for homosexuals and any society to think God accepts homosexuals, they must close their eyes and ears to the clear teachings of the Holy Scriptures. Such a deception can successfully be imposed upon a moonstruck society; but it cannot be imposed upon the Almighty God.

Any homosexual who thinks he or she is accepted by God and His true holy Church has to be cursed with the deepest depths of

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.  

Evolution Is Not Happening Now

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many “transitional” forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct “kinds” of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and — apparently — unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no “dats” or “cogs.” Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true “vertical” evolution.

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new “basic kind.”

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky’s claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.¹

The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a “simple fact,” nevertheless agrees that it is an “historical science” for which “laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques”² by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

Evolution Never Happened in the Past

Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3

Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct “kind” to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils — after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.

Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4

The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.

With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:

And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5

Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:

The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6

Translation: “There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically.” Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller’s famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!

Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7

Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:

The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8

Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its “hard parts” on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate — that is, the first fish— with its hard parts all on the inside.

Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9

Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10

So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn’t change during their durations?

Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees — fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner — new features are often “cut and pasted” on different groups at different times.11

As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.

All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.12

Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn’t help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:

The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13

Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:

Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14

Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.

Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.

Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any “vertical changes” in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.  

The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics

Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their “proof” that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.

Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.

The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee “similarity,” noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn’t they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

Similarities — whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else — are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.

Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian “proofs.”

The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.15

There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.

The abundance of so-called “junk DNA” in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called “pseudogenes.”16 However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.

Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.17

It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled “pseudogenes,” have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled “vestigial organs” in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.

At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.

The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist.

A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.  

Evolution Could Never Happen at All

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy — also known as the second law of thermodynamics — stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go “downhill,” as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems — in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found — not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the “first law”), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18

The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is “independent of details of models.” Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists — that is, they insist that there are no “vitalist” forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an “open system,” with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski’s impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is “natural processes’ ability to increase complexity” by noting what he calls a “flaw” in “the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics.” And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19

This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not “organizing” mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only “sieve out” the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

Evolution is Religion — Not Science

In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20

The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and “new age” evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism — the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.

Of course we can’t prove that there isn’t a God.22

Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.

The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24

It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25

Another way of saying “religion” is “worldview,” the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.

Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.26

They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.27

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a labo ratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn’t make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

We cannot identify ancestors or “missing links,” and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.28

A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal — without demonstration — to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.29

Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.30

Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists’ tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more.

(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.31

Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not “minimal.” It is nonexistent!

The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,32 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the “liberal” movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a “religion without revelation” and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.33

Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change “our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern.”34 Then he went on to say that: “The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought.” Therefore, he concluded that “we must construct something to take its place.”35

That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.

In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

The Religion Of Atheism

By Rev. Bill McGinnis, Editor

A person’s religion is the sum total of his beliefs about God and the supernatural. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the three largest “monotheistic” religions, with belief one God, Creator Of The Universe.

Some religions are “polytheistic,” with belief in many gods, each with different functions.

Atheism is the religion whose belief about God is that there is no God.

Some Atheists, for their own political reasons, assert that Atheism is not a religion but instead is the total absence of religion. This allows them to spread their Atheistic beliefs freely in societies which insist on “separation of church and state.”

But this is like saying that “black,” (which physicists define as the total absence of color) is not a color. The car I drive is a big, old Chevrolet, whose color is black. In common practice throughout the world, “black” is understood to be a color, despite the technical definition of the physicists. Likewise, “Atheism” is a religion, despite any technical definitions to the contrary.

If black is a color, then Atheism is a religion.

If Atheism is a religion, then it must be subject to the same legal restrictions imposed by governments on all other religions. In particular, in the United States, the teaching of Atheism must be prohibited wherever the teaching of Christianity is prohibited.

But where is Atheism being taught? Atheism is being taught, by default, in all places where other religions cannot be taught, particularly in the public schools.

When the State mandates that the Theory of Evolution be taught as fact, that is establishing the religion of Atheism, because the Theory of Evolution asserts that all life forms are created not by God, but by pre-existing natural processes. This is pure Atheism! If we are not created by God, then there might as well be no God, for all the difference He makes.

The mere fact that many scientists are Atheists does not entitle them to establish Atheism as our State Religion!

When the State prohibits free discussion of God in the classroom, that is establishing the religion of Atheism. Wherever the State permits Atheistic ideas to be spread but prohibits Theistic ideas, that is establishing the religion of Atheism.

Therefore I urge you to understand clearly in your mind that Atheism is a religion, just as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are religions. And any restrictions placed on Christianity, Judaism, or Islam must also be placed on Atheism. Atheism must not be allowed to slip through its little loophole any longer, by pretending it is not a religion.

Blessings to you in the name of the One God, Creator of the Universe.

Rev. Bill McGinnis, Editor www.InternetDailyChapel.org

8 defects in the evolutionary theory

The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
transitional fossils.
If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one form
to the other,as evolutionists insist,then we should certainly expect to find
as many fossils of the intermediate stages between different forms as of the
distinct kinds themselves.Yet no fossils have been found that can be
considered transitional between the major groups of Phyla.
From the very beginning these organisms were just as clearly and distinctly
set apart from each other as they are today.Instead of finding a record of
fine gradations preserved in the fossil record,we invariably find large
gaps.
This fact is absolutely fatal to the general theory of evolution.
Consider well these immense Gaps:
1. The imagined jump from dead matter to living protozoans is a transition
of truly fanciful dimension,one of pure conjecture which overlooks the works
of Redi,Spallanzi, and Pasteur,who disproved spontaneous generation.
2.There is a gigantic gap between one-celled microorganisms and the high
complexity and variety of the metazoan invertebrates.
3.The evolutionary transition between invertebrates and vertebrates is
completely missing.This is absolutely incredible since evolutionists propose
100 million years of developmental time between the two,which would have
involved billions of transitional forms,Yet,not one has ever been found.
4.The evolutionary advance from fishes to Amphibians is totally
nonexistent.The timeline allegedly took millions of years….(30
million)…and yet no one has been able to produce even one fishibian.
5.There are no connecting links between and the altogether different
reptiles.Seymouria has been offered as such a link,but it allegedly occurs
in the geologic column some 20 million years after other reptiles had
already appeared.
6.There are no transitional forms between mammals and reptiles.
7.There is no connecting evolutionary link between reptiles and
birds.Archaeopteryx was once highly acclaimed as such a link but has since
been acknowledged by Paleontologists to have been a true bird.
8.There are no intermediate fossils leading up to man from an apelike
ancestor.Fossil hominids and hominoids cited by evolutionists are actually
either fossils of ape or a man or neither.There is no valid Scientific
evidence to suggest that they are fossils of animals intermediate between
men and apes.

Evolution Cruncher

Either we were made or we were not.

There is no point in-between.The DNA code refers to mathematics and probability regarding evolution.The theory of evolution proposes that all of the highly complex structures and systems of the universe are due to the operation of purely natural and haphazard processes of nature.Diametrically opposed to this philosophy,biblical creationism maintains that the innumerable,highly complex systems and intricate structures of the universe offer exceptionally strong evidence of a creator.The probability of getting hit by lightning is about 1 in 600,000.The probability of winning the lottery is about 1 in 5.2 million.The likelihood of just spelling the word evolution by randomly selecting nine letters from the alphabet is only 1 in 26 to the 9 power or 1 in 5,429,503,679,000.Twenty cards numbered 1 through 20 thoroughly shuffled and laid out in numerical order from 1 to 20 is 1 in 2,432,902,008,176,640,000.The probability of accidentally generating Genesis 1:1 is 1 chance in 26 to the 44 power trials.This is equivalent to 1 chance in 1.81479392 x 10 to the 62 power trials.In other words,the chance of randomly producing Genesis 1:1 is 1 in 181,479,392,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.A simple system composed of only 200 integrated parts (simple compared with living systems) is a 1 in 200 factorial, or 1 chance in 788,657,867’364,790,503,552,363,213,932,185,062,295,135,977,687,173,363,294,742,533,244,254,865,

525,693,548,253,221,223,563,458,754,215,467,377,195,357,468,174,235,875,421,256,424,222,563,

85445,447,777,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000.This colossal number can be written more simply as 10 to the 375 power.Thus there is only one chance in 10 to the 375 power of selecting the proper arrangement for a simple 200-part system on the first trial.This renders a mathematically impossible even for the most elementary form of life to have arisen by mere chance.Life is no accident.It is not even something that brilliant scientists can synthesize.The bewildering complexity of even the most basic organic molecules completely rules out the chance of life originating apart from a super intelligent designer.The most logical and reasonable conclusion that can be reached based on mathematical analysis is that complex,ordered systems,which so characterize the world,never happened by mere chance.
Great is our Lord, and of great power:his understanding is infinite.(Ps. 147:5)

It is impossible to  show how life has arisen from non-life

Evolutionists cannot show how life could have arisen from non-livingmatter naturally.They cannot show one single progression of fossils, from onekind to another.The dating methods evolutionists believe in are built on afalse assumption that nothing has ever, nor could everaffect the rate of decay, which would require a closedsystem and there is no such thing in the universe.Thus, the three most important aspects of their belief system, are speculation and a desire to reject God and nothing more. That makes it superstition and a religion.If you wish to contest these facts, then just prove logic wrong. You will be the first in the world and will without any doubt whatsoever, win a Nobel Prize and be the most honored person ever in science.

You may be a fundy atheist if…

Existence of God
You may be a fundy atheist if….
You became an atheist when you were 10 years old, based on ideas of God that you learned in Sunday School. Your ideas about God haven’t changed since.

You think that the primary aim of an omnibenevolent God is for people to have FUN.
You believe that extra drippy ice-cream is a logical proof against the existence of God, because an omniscient God would know how to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, an omnipotent God would have the ability to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, and by golly, an omnibenevolent God wouldn’t want your ice-cream to be extra drippy.

Although you’ve memorized a half a dozen proofs that He doesn’t exist, you still think you’re God’s gift to the ignorant masses.

You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist.

You think questions like, “Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?” and, “Can God will Himself out of existence?” are perfect examples of how to disprove God’s omnipotence and ultimately how to disprove God. When someone proves to you the false logic behind the questions (i.e. pitting God’s omnipotence against itself), you desperately try to defend the questions, but then give up and go to a different Christian site to ask them.

Related to the above, you spend a great deal of your spare time writing to Christian websites asking them these very questions.

You declare on a public forum that you are “furious at God for not existing.”

You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means “without a belief in God ” and not just ” belief that there is no god” as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life.

You consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen him but you reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives.

You can make the existence of pink unicorns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.

You insist that “the burden of proof is on he that alleges/accuses”, and “it’s impossible to prove a negative”, then state “That’s what Christians do. They lie. Their most common lie is that they were once atheists.” When reminded about the burden of proof bit, you reply with, “Well, prove Christians don’t lie!”

You adamantly believe that the “God of the gaps” idea is an essential tenet of orthodox Christian faith espoused by all the great Christian thinkers throughout history.

When you were a child, someone came down with a deadly disease and prayed and prayed for God to take it away. God did not remove the disease and your friend died. You ask other Christians why they had to die when they were such a nice person and never harmed anyone. Dissatisfied with their answers, you suddenly decide that there is no God and that all Christians are nothing but lying, conniving con artists and hypocrites….all that is except for your friend who died.

You call a view held by less than ten percent of the American public “common sense”.

You’re a spoiled fifteen year old boy who lives in the suburbs and you go into a chat room to declare that, “I know there is no God because no loving God would allow anyone to suffer as much as I…hold on. My cell phone’s ringing.”

You attack your fellow atheists, who hold the “belief that there is no god”, calling them “liars,” and state that, “I do not deny the existence of any god. I just don’t believe in any.” Then you tell someone that their God is “made up.” When someone calls you on this, you state, “I never made such a claim.”

Going with the definition of “without a belief in God”, you insist that all people are born atheists, and that dogs, cats, rocks, and trees are as well. You make statements like, “My dog is an atheist. Ask him about his lack of belief.”

You believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist, yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians “narrow-minded”.

You say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, yet your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith.
While you don’t believe in God, you feel justified on bashing God or attacking those who believe in something that you KNOW doesn’t exist, fighting against or even discussing about a non-existent being are the symptoms of mental illness!

You complain when Christians appeal to their emotions when justifying their belief in God yet you feel justified on appealing to your emotions for lack of belief in God. Origins

You may be a fundy atheist if….
You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were “all obviously designed,” yet the human body, being intricately more complex was “obviously a product of biological evolution.” It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the “fact” that it was not designed.

You claim that evolution and the big bang are two entirely separate theories that explain different aspects of the universe, yet, in what school of learning can you find any real separation or distinction between the two?

As a member of the Skeptic’s Society you pride yourself on being skeptical of extraordinary claims. You also pride yourself on silencing everyone who is skeptical of the extraordinary claims of evolution.

Isaac Newton does not count as an example of a great scientist who believed in the Bible since he died before the Origin of Species was published.

When you watch a punt returner run a 93 yard touchdown, you marvel at what evolution has done for the human race. But when someone gets cancer, you blame God for it.
When you’re discussing the origin of the world, the phrase “uncaused cause(God)” is a stupid, meaningless thing to say. You will, however, settle for “uncaused effect(the world without God)”.

You descended from apes.(Think about it.)

You think that humans are products of chance but when it comes to human reason we can believe in logic! (Think about it !)

You think you arrived at your position because you are a free-thinker who rationally weighed the evidence, and then freely chose atheism over theism. YET, you also believe that your thinking and actions are nothing more than the FIXED reactions of the atoms in your brain that are governed by the Laws of Chemistry and Physics.

You love to castigate Christians for being “anti-science” if they deny evolution from goo to you via the zoo, and to preach that they should adapt their thinking to the “science” of our day. But you also castigate the Church of 400 years ago for being anti-science, when it DID adapt its thinking to the science of ITS day, i.e. Ptolemaic cosmology, then joined with the Aristotelian scientists of the universities in rejecting Galileo!

You think that some guy named “Dr Dino” with no scientific credentials represents mainstream Evangelical thinking and scholarship about evolution and creation, and thus by spending inordinate amounts of time attacking him you are somehow dismantling the arguments of scholarly dissenters from evolution, creationists with earned Ph. D.s in science, and of advocates of intelligent design.

You claim poker-faced that “social Darwinism” and its spawn of eugenics have absolutely no connection to the biological theories propounded by Charles Darwin in “On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”

You have recently stuck a Darwin fish on your car in the hopes the people with the Jesus fish on theirs will be offended.

You also claim that not only is there no connection between Darwin’s theories and the doctrines of social Darwinism and eugenics (despite the fact that the term eugenics was coined and advocated by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, who acknowledged his debt to Origin), but that none of these philosophical positions have any connection to the modern fields of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.

You can claim with as straight face on sites like Talk Origins that “Evolution does not have moral consequences” despite the fact that prominent evolutionary advocates like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett vehemently assert that evolution does transcend biology in a way that has a profound effects upon ethics.

When the Pope says that God may have used evolution, he is an enlightened religious leader whom Christians should listen to. When the Pope preaches on the sanctity of human life from conception, and thus denounces abortion, he’s just a senile religious bigot who should keep his opinions to himself.

Concerning the origins of life, you feel that though the chances of life forming without an intelligent creator are small it DID indeed happen that way. And yet you don’t believe me when a rock, coming from my direction, hits you in the back of the head and I tell you, “I didn’t throw it. There was a sudden shift in the earth’s gravitational pull and the rock levitated into your head…Sure the chances are small but it DID happen that way.”
When you’re shown that your view of origins is silly, you can only respond, “Well…at least it’s better than believing in some invisible SKY DADDY!”

When a Christian points out the impossibility of a biological system (or feature) forming by pure chance you accuse them of invoking a “God of the gaps”. YET, when you are asked how a particular feature could come about solely by chance you invoke “Evolution of the gaps” (i.e., we don’t know HOW but we do know that Evolution MUST have done it!)

You claim antibiotic-resistant bacteria is proof protozoa evolved into a person.
You insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities — except creationism and/or intelligent design.

You claim Creationists don’t research on evolution websites before debating against it. Luckily you caught this useful weapon against Christians at the evolution site you learned all about creation doctrine from.

You think that every scientist who believes in Creationism and doesn’t mindlessly accept evolution as a fact is a “kook,” but you believe that Francis Crick (Nobel Prize winning co-discoverer of DNA), who reached into his nether regions and pulled out the “theory” of Directed Panspermia (which states with absolutely no support that aliens seeded the earth with life – see the movie “Mission to Mars”), is a great evolutionist scientist.

When a creationist points out problems with the evolutionist model you claim that the whole point of science is to answer problems like these. But if you can point out even one problem in the creationist model it should instantly be abandoned as absurd.
You are a person who absolutely believes that life came from nonlife, yet absolutely deny the possibility of anyone rising from the dead.

You won’t bet $10 on the football game because a 50/50 chance isn’t good enough, but you have no problem gambling with your life on the nearly impossible odds of a cell randomly generating from nothing.

Engaging the “slippery slope” fallacy, you think you can invalidate the whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since ‘the whole bible either stands together or falls apart’. However, when a Creationist tries to invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing the sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note this point as ‘irrelevant’.

You think the movie “Inherit the Wind” best describes the eternal struggle of how an evolutionist is being treated by creationists in this religious society. And you can personally relate your life to the Scopes Monkey Trial.

You ignore “Time Magazine’s” poll, which states that only 28% of Americans believe in evolution. But of course, “Time Magazine” must been run by creationists.
You teach a belief only held by 28% of a nation, as truth beyond any shadow of a doubt because only educated people believe in evolution. Yet of course, you ignore that fully educated scientists in most other nations have proven against Darwinian theory. Like the Chinese paleontologist who reportedly says: “In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.”

You think man evolved from monkeys but get mad when somebody calls you one.

You think that if schools teach the Intelligent Design theory of creation,they should also teach the “stork theory” of where babies come from.

You demand that Christians study advanced evolutionary biology before making claims about natural selection. You then claim that their theological ideas, which you have never examined before, are pure nonsense.

On the other hand, you demand that Christians who have NOT studied evolutionary biology ought to go ahead and publicly commit to arguments about it, because you want to trap or embarrass them with your own knowledge of the subject, which is limited to quoting Gould and Futuyama. HistoryYou may be a fundy atheist if….

Any scholar who believes in a historical Jesus must be a theist. If they are an atheist, then they must secretly want to be a theist.

You insist that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, then claim that Jesus never existed.

You contend that no war in history has ever been created by non-belief. Yet, when you are told that 176 million people lost their lives in wars during the last century, created by non-believers like Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Hitler, to name only a few, you reply that those wars fought were fought in the name of ideology and not ‘atheism’ as atheists “…don’t fly planes into buildings or start wars.”

You accept (and quote back to Christians) any number of works that say Jesus wasn’t the Son of God and call them “honest”, “thought-provoking” and ‘scholarly” proof, even when they completely contradict each other and come to completely different conclusions.
You think it’s entirely possible for documents dated to the 10th century to have been forged in the 14th. (Used of Tacitus once.)

You believe that when our forefathers are framing the Constitution, they’re staunch deists, but when they’re beating their slaves, they’re Bible-believing Christians.
You think that the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional because it mentions “the creator”.

On, that basis, You think that the Declaration is therefore void and the United States should return to British rule.

When it is returned to British rule, you plan to go straight to London and tell those Brits that having the Anglican church as a state church violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

When you use a historical point to prove Christianity is false (i.e., pagan parallel to Christianity), history is objective truth. When a Christian uses real historical scholarship to prove you false, history was written by subjective men and therefore cannot be trusted.

You reject what Cornelius Tacitus wrote about Jesus, dismissing it as “too late”, but you readily accept what he wrote about Tiberius and Augustus.
100+ year old scholarship is good enough for you.
You think Bolshevik Revolution leader Leon Trotsky was a far better person than Mother Theresa.

You apparently think the first century AD was in the Stone Age, since you refer to Christianity as “Stone Age beliefs”.

When Christians tell you that The Bible is inerrant you go on and list a bunch of “contradictions”; when the Christian shows to you that those are not contradictions but the result of taking things out of context you list more “contradictions” when the Christian does the same with those you complain that he/she is just making stuff up and/or that the answer the Christian gives you are not “satisfactory” and proceed of course to list more “contradictions”.

You like to complain about the wars and killings found in the Bible and like to claim that this is some sort of proof to conclude that it is not The Word of God. When the Christian points out that the Bible is about reality and that it exposes humanity and all what comes with it, you complain that it is nonsense and that no good God would allow for that to happen. You would then just claim that it is too perfect and not true.

You like to list contradictions to Christians like if you some how pretend that Christians are not aware of them or that they are igorant about their own religion.
You evidently think that slaughtering 6,000,000 Jews is no different from using sugar in your porridge,since whenever someone points out that Hitler’s actions show him to VERY UN-Christian,you exclaim “No true Scotsman uses sugar in his porridge!”

You think historians Michael Grant and Robin Lane Fox are “religious nutcases” for believing Jesus existed.

You refuse to use the word “excruciating” because of its origins in describing the agonies of crucifixion. (ex crucis – “from the cross”)

When a Christian tells you that in order to fully understand The Word of God you need to open up your heart and allow The Bible to speak to you and to read The Bible by placing confidence in God, you say that the Bible is just a book and that why you don’t have to do the same with Harry Potter.

You always refer to C.S. Lewis as “that traitor.”

You desperately wish that Stalin and Mao hadn’t been atheists.

You absolutely insist a Christian recognize your nonscholar as an expert (G. A. Wells) but refuse to recognize his legitimate scholar as expert (Colin Hemer).

You not only spell “God” with a lower case “g,” but you also add an “E” to “B.C.,” and replace the word “Christ” with an “x.” Yet, when asked to name the planets you have no problem with spouting out the appropriate list of Roman Gods. Heck, you’ll even spell them with capital letters! Not only that, you can even spell and pronounce the name of the 800-mile-diameter Trans-Neptunian Object ‘Quaoar’, and are delighted that it comes from the creation mythology of the Tongva people (aka the San Gabrielino Native Americans).

In addition, you say that terms like “AD”, “BC” and “christmas” (as opposed to “winter holiday season” 😀 ) are medieval, outdated, bigoted poison and must be eliminated at all costs from the world, yet the fact that our months and days are largely named after Roman, viking etc. figures (eg. Janus – January, Thor – Thursday) is a glowing testimony to the diverse and wonderful nature of human history

You think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes.

You think that the Spanish Inquisition killed millions (or at least hundreds of thousands), even though the population of all of Spain at the time of the Inquisition was only about five million, and the actual total killed numbers about 2000. When informed of this, you accuse the informer of belittling or being insensitive to the deaths of 2000 individuals.
You bring up the alleged ‘horrors’ of the Spanish Inquisition to show how evil the church is. When shown that the SI was not the horror that it was painted to be, you switch gears and ask if the believer notes this because they think people are justified to feel moral revulsion with the Spanish Inquisition as it is commonly understood.

In a coffee table conversation you hear religion represented in a positive light. You immediately start preaching about the Inquisition and the Crusades to put things back on track. After all, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”.

You believe that Christians burned down the Great Library of Alexandria. When you learn that this was impossible, you assert that it is obvious that Christians did burn a lot of ancient books. When you are shown that this too is false, you wait a while, then make the same claim again, hoping that the person who corrected you with the facts won’t notice.

You desperately confer with other skeptics to try and refute the evidence that Hitler’s Holocaust was evolution-inspired, because, darn it, you just GOTTA prove that Hitler was a Christian.

You’re convinced, despite evidence to the contrary, that Christianity was responsible for the Jewish holocaust because, dang it, that just SEEMS like something Christians would do.

You believe that Hitler claiming to be a Christian is undeniable proof that he was a Christian, while George Washington only claimed to be a Christian in order to win the people’s favor.

You adamantly refuse to recognise the historical fact that “scientific atheism” was both a foundational philosophical position and an actual policy of the Soviet Union from the time of Lenin on, responsible for untold persecution, torture, suffering, humiliation and death far in excess of the numbers of the “victims” of Christianity.

On the other hand you further show your ignorance of history by constantly repeating “whoppers” about the numbers of victims of Christian Inquisitions, crusades and witchhunts dredged up from various unscholarly hate sites and passed off as historical fact.
For example…you can claim with a poker face that 9 MILLION women were put to death as witches by Christian fanatics in pre-Enlightenment Europe.

You assert that the 300 Protestants put to death under the reign of “Bloody Mary” in 16th century England stand as absolute proof of the inherent evil of Christianity but the tens upon tens of millions killed by Marxist regimes under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot in the 20th century have absolutely NOTHING to do with the profound atheism inherent in these regimes.

You really believe that the Enlightenment made people more enlightened.

You think that Robert Green Ingersoll and Joseph McCabe are two of the greatest philosophers of religion ever to have lived – certainly far superior to nobodies like Thomas Aquinas or Blaise Pascal.

Indeed you believe that McCabe is “One of the giants of not only English Atheism, but world Atheism”. [which could be construed as a slight on the intellectual quality of atheism].

You adhere to a false and fictionalised version of history gained from watching Hollywood movies such as Inherit the Wind so that you can (for example) conclude: “the controversy over creation and evolution was settled way back in 1925, when Clarence Darrow eviscerated William Jennings Bryan in a country courtroom in Dayton, Tennessee.”

You think that Pope Leo X may have really called Christ a fable, because it’s “the type of thing he would say,” but you deny that God could have said what the Bible attributes to Him because it is recorded by “anonymous” witnesses.

You’ve never understood why merely uttering the phrase “Christian America” is not considered to be a declaration of treason against the “TRUE” United States of America.

You think there’s more evidence for the existence of Wonder Woman than for Jesus.

You complain about desecrating the Koran while holding a burning Bible.

You think religion is “the original war crime”.

You think the Ku Klux Klan and the Christian Identity movement are representative of “mainstream” Christianity.

You think serial killer Dennis “BTK” Rader is a “model Christian” and Olympic Park/abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolph is a “good Christian boy”. Anyone who argues otherwise is committing the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

You believe that “if it weren’t for the U.S. Constitution, Christian leaders would be burning women at the stake.”

You continually argue that Hitler was a “real Christian” even when he and his fellow Nazis were slaughtering millions of people (and you “conveniently” ignore the very obvious distinction between someone claiming to be a Christian and someone actually living as a Christian, and the fact that the Nuremberg prosecutors denounced Nazism as fanatically ANTI-Christian!), but you deny that the scientists who rejected Galileo’s work were real scientists. ChristiansYou may be a fundy atheist if….

You think if a Christian won’t address your arguments, they are too frightened to do so, or know they can’t answer them; but if they do address your arguments, you think it is because they are “threatened” by them.

Missionaries who give up their personal comfort to aid starving, impoverished and persecuted third-world people are actually “corrupting ancient tribal cultures with western religious dogma”, while you sit at home and complain about the price of KFC.
You believe that any Christian who claims to have once been an atheist is either lying or was never a “true atheist.”

You think that John Shelby Spong is a reputable theologian but that Ben Witherington is merely an ignorant biblicist.

You assert that the crimes and failings of some Christians (acting inconsistently with the teachings of Christ at that!) disproves the whole edifice of Christianity but that the crimes and failings of some atheists (acting consistently with the fact that atheism can provide no basis for objective morality!) should on no account be held against the philosophy of atheism.
You assert that there is no absolute categories of good and evil, that all morals are merely personal, social and evolutionary constructs but then you can still describe Christians and Christianity as absolutely immoral, repugnant and evil and a danger to humanity and not feel even a twinge of hypocrisy at the monumental illogic of your position.

You think that Josh McDowell represents the apex of Christian scholarly apologetical thinking.

You lump all Christians in with whatever religious fruitcake is the flavour of the month, while living with the delusion that there are no atheistic weirdos out there.

You KNOW that religion causes violence and repeatedly tell this to everyone, hoping to save the world, but you don’t believe that TV violence causes any real life violence. In fact, you are offended by this objection, and you have already started to figure out how to refute it.

To increase your fundy factor, you have decided not to study social sciences. (Once you heard about Rodney Stark’s For the Glory of God – you certainly would not bother reading it – you thought that sociologists were Christian fundamentalists in stealth mode, trying to push religious worldviews.

You think that taking the Bible seriously is the obsession of a fanatical fringe group of right-wing, extremist Christians who do not represent the views of the historic Church or of contemporary enlightened, liberal, skeptical “Christians” who according to you supposedly “fill” the mainstream churches and who on close inspection pretty much reflect your own politically correct views and values – and skepticism – about God. [Sort of like former Bishop Spong].

You claim that the theories and opinions of certain liberal scholars are absolute facts although you shy away from debating such issues with someone equally or better informed than you are.

You get angry when Christians tell you you’re going to a place that you don’t think exists.

You’re convinced that people only believe in God because they’re afraid of going to hell…despite the fact that if there is no God, then there’s probably no hell either.

You consistently decry Christians for soliciting financial support yet find no problem in atheistic ‘missionaries’ doing the same thing.”

You think that ‘mission statements’ on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly yet you see no problem with ‘mission statements’ glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites.

When a group of Sydney University (Australia) academics, including a historian, sign a public statement saying the Jesus Christ is “one of the great figures of history” and that his claims to be Son of God “bear up under closest scrutiny”, this is a gross abuse of their position. But when
Richard Dawkins uses his position as an Oxford professor to pontificate on his atheistic religion and related philosophical matters outside HIS field (animal behavior), that is a responsible use of academic freedom.

Further to the above, you’re paranoid that these Christian academics will discriminate against you, even though their statement hasn’t the remotest hint of that. But you applaud Michael Dini, a professor at Texas Tech, who refuses to recommend students for Medical School, even if they got “A”s in their courses, unless they not only understand but BELIEVE in goo-to-you evolution. And you’re disgusted that creationist medical doctors have the gall to think they know more about medicine than Dini (who never practised medicine or even went to medical school), because by definition an evolutionist is more knowledgeable than a creationist on ANY subject!

You think Christians are narrow-minded for believing in only one religion, but atheists are open-minded for believing in absolutely none.

You believe that Christianity discriminates, because you have to join their religion in order to be a member of their religion.

You feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are “shoving their beliefs down people’s throats”, and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate.

You think it is a “slam dunk” proof against God when you ask why He doesn’t stop horrible things like, i.e., child rape, but evade the reply that you obviously don’t want God stopping your own sins by pointing out that it isn’t your problem because you don’t believe in God in the first place.

You are disgusted with Doctor Paul Vitz’s book “Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism” because an educated person with a degree has linked atheism as a psychological condition. Yet, you have no remorse when you tell believers that they are a product of brainwashing, psycho conditioning and wishful thinking.

You believe Freud’s theory that all religious experiences are delusions, as the most revolutionary and truthful thought of all times. Yet, you overlook his heavy use of cocaine because “it can’t be proven.”

You recommend Michael Shermer’s book “How We Believe” to all of your friends who are believers and believe that somehow his opinion will give insight into how we actually think. Yet of course, you ignore that Shermer doesn’t have any education in Anthropology. Must be a coincidence.

You’re stupid enough to think atheists are treated like second-class citizens. Yet of course, you spend most of your day belittling Christians and other religious people.

You’re convinced that all Christians are idiots. But when you meet the “rare” Christian who’s clearly intelligent, you can only conclude that he was fooled into believing…by the idiots.

You think that the words “Christian” and “sane” are mutually exclusive.

You think that no Christian can ever be a patriotic American, because he will always side with the enemies of truth.

You’re proud of being completely free of predjudice, unlike the “typical sociopathic Christian”.

You address Christians as “liar”,”sheepherder”, or “looney toon”.

You refer to Christian leaders as “fuehrer”.

You think Focus On The Family is a “white supremacist hate cult”. Contemporary eventsYou may be a fundy atheist if….

You demand that theists explain news items where bad things have happened to theists, even though no theists on the board have claimed that belief in God is some kind of a lucky charm that wards off bad luck.

You demand that theists explain news items where theists do bad things, even though no theists on the board have claimed that it is impossible for theists to do bad things.

The only Commandments you know are the ones that are unconstitutional.

You can’t remember if she was Mother or Sister Teresa, but you can name every pedophile priest listed in the media over the last seven years.

You feel that Marilyn Manson is really, really profound.

You think the song “Dear God” by XTC is really, really, really…………….really meaningful.

You are funding or filming a movie called “Heart of the Beholder” a Secular Humanist movie telling a true story of a video store renting out the movie “The Last Temptation of Christ.” The fundamentalist Christian community is in protest of this store renting this movie out. Of course, you also create the image that all Christians were not only opposed to this movie but the fact that with less then 10% of your nation who actually believes in secular philosophy, this movie is actually going to make money. The filmmakers might be suffering from the same kind of false hope they think believers are.

You believe that emotional response interferes with rational thinking. Yet, you think George Carlin is the greatest comedian of all times, because he makes you laugh.

You’re saving up to move to some more enlightened place, like Sweden.
You feel that the separation of church and state is a much more important issue than abortion, euthanasia, or infanticide.

You label any change whatsoever in Christian theology or behavior as ‘secularization.’

You were too sophisticated to be afraid of (very real) “Reds under the bed” but you nevertheless see Christians behind every act of “evil” in the western world.

You deface money by scribbling God off of dollar bills.

You think God was cruel for killing all of those innocent babies in the flood, and that Christians are cruel for opposing a woman’s right to abort her baby.

You think that Reverend Fred Phelps does what he does because of his Christianity, but Reverend Fred Rogers did what he did in spite of his Christianity.

You think the USA is a theocracy.
Public acknowledgments of God remind you of 9/11.

You can’t see any difference between publicly acknowledging God(where atheists can hear),and making African-Americans use separate restrooms,or sit at the back of buses.

You spell America “AermiKKKa” and Christian “KKKristian”.

You quite rightly denounce the methods of those who deny the historicity of the Holocaust, then use the same methods(inventing excuses to ignore evidence)to deny the historicity of Jesus.

You think it violates the separation of church and state for a city to have a name like Corpus Christi(“Body of Christ”), Los Angeles(“The Angels”),Las Cruces(“The Cross”),Sacrament-o, or anything with San(saint),Santa(holy),or Saint in it.

You believe that nativity scenes should be banned from public view, but that anyone objecting to pornography only has to look the other way.

You object to any mention of “God” and “Jesus” in the media and education systems — except as swear words.

You go to a church wedding or funeral, but only to pray ostentatiously to “the woman upstairs”.
You have not seen “The Passion of the Christ,” and you don’t know anyone who has seen it.

You think marriage is an obsolete fundy institution — except for homosexuals.

You believe that gender roles are the product of Christian patriarchy, but homosexuals are born that way.

You oppose studying telling schoolkids that the Pilgrim Fathers came to America to practice Christianity free of persecution, that the Declaration of Independence mentions a Creator, and that the first public schools used a Bible as a textbook. But you support using “Heather Has
Two Mommies” as wholesome literature.

You support gay rights when they first pushed for ‘rights’, because ‘what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is no one else’s business’. But then you want public approval and want to ban disapproval even in private situations.

You think that protestors outside nuclear power plants are dedicated activists, but protestors outside abortion clinics are dangerous zealots interfering with a legal activity.

You think that it’s wrong to execute a convicted serial killer, but abortion on demand is a constitutional right.

You uphold a woman’s right to choose, unless a woman chooses adoption, chooses to be a stay-at-home mom, chooses to homeschool, or chooses to start a business.

You start a lawsuit to expunge Christian books from the school libraries in your state because it violates “separation of church and state” that you insist is in the Constitution. Simultaneously you start a lawsuit to defend the right to have books in the same school libraries advocating the religion of Wicca.

You object to using mice for scientific experimentation but don’t mind when babies are killed for stem cell research. Bible criticismYou may be a fundy atheist if….

You become upset when a Christian says that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally.

You dislike how liberal theists try to interpret the Bible for themselves, while you create your own interpretations of the Bible for yourself: (a) Exodus 34 contains a new set of 10 Commandments; (b) Jesus asked His disciples to slay all His enemies.

You have actually calculated, for purposes of “argument by outrage,” an estimate of the number of people drowned in The Flood.

You can quote from the bible better than most missionaries…at least the parts where someone dies.

You label all scholars that actually believe the Bible as “biased fundies” while those who don’t believe it are known as “honest” and “accepted scholarship.”

You insist that the Bible cannot possibly say anything about homosexuality being a sin, because they did not even have a concept of homosexuality at the time the Bible was written…then insist that the Bible says that David and Jonathan were married.
……AND you produce a long list of verses containing the words “children”, “touching”, and “bowels”.

You think you have refuted the whole Trilemma because you’ve added another alternative to it.

You dismiss any attempt to harmonize the resurrection accounts by saying “one says A, the other says B, but none say A+B”, then go on to offer your own elaborate conspiracy theory of what happened to the Jesus’ body, describing A+B+C+D, none of which are said ANYWHERE let alone together.

You think that Isaac Asimov was a world-class authority in Biblical Studies.

You make a point of referring to Jesus as “Yeshua” and to God as “Yahveh” in order to hint that they are no different from Molech or Baal.

You use one,or more,of the following alternate spellings: GOD-“gawd” JESUS-“jeeezus” “jayzus” “jebus” “jeebers” BIBLE-“bibble” “babble” “wholly babble” “buy-bull”

You refer to the crucifixion of Jesus as the “cruci-fiction”.

When a Christian’s interpretation of a passage (based on the social/literary context) solves one of your favorite contradictions, it is only their personal interpretation, and can be dismissed as such. But your interpretation (based on a “plain” reading of the text) to arrive at the contradiction in the first place is entirely objective, and is obviously THE correct interpretation.

Your only knowledge of The Bible comes from searching ‘bible contradictions’ in Google.
Everytime you don’t understand a passage in The Bible, instead of trying to figure it out you blame God for not writing it better.

You think that God would have made things a lot clearer for everyone, ranging from the medieval knight to the Chinese peasant, had He inspired His Word in modern English in words and concepts you could understand. You also ask, when told of the scarceness of paper in the ancient world, why God didn’t provide enough paper to write a longer story.

You adamantly believe that “the Bible says pi equals 3” in 1 Kings 7:23 even though: (1) the verse does not make the slightest reference to the calculation of pi, (2) there are more measurements of the bowl from that verse in subsequent verses, (3) the bowl in question could very likely not have been a “perfect” circle with “perfect” measurements, (4) it’s not unusual for ancient peoples using ancient tools (or even modern peoples using modern tools) to use round, easy to remember numbers, (5) asking an online math forum results in a refutation of your belief but you ignore what professional mathematicians plainly say (including that the Bible is not in error in this place) and twist their words to make it appear as if they are backing your assertion in order to continue to justify your belief (not that you ever had any intention of doing otherwise in the first place).

You consistently appear on discussion lists demanding that Christians accept your literal interpretation of various scriptural passages just so you can then launch into the usual “argument by outrage” – despite being told over and over that no Bible scholar or school of Christianity shares your particular bizarre literal interpretation.

You pontificate about the Bible as if you are an expert in theology, textual criticism, ancient languages & cultures and much more besides, when your knowledge of the Bible is just cut and paste from atheist discussion lists which cut and paste it from atheist websites which cut and paste it from embarrassingly unscholarly rantings by the likes of Messer’s Freke & Gandy and Acharya S, etc.

You can quote Acharya S, Kersey Graves, John Remsburg, and Earl Doherty more fluently than Laurence Olivier could quote Shakespeare.

You create a web site: http://www.EvilBible.com,and post an Evil Bible Quote of the Day on usenet. The quotes always end with: “What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?”

You decry Christian missionaries for denying cultural relativism; denouncing their efforts to reform cannibalism, slavery and fear of animist spirits as judgmental intolerance. But your attacks on the Bible merely comprise anguished cries of “how barbaric” rather than reasoned arguments; and ignore all considerations of ritual cleanness, the evils of the Canaanites and the fact that ancient society was always one step from anarchy.

You think Secular Humanism actually promotes religious tolerance. Secular Humanism only tolerates religion; it doesn’t accept it.

You claim to hold no Dogma. Yet, you’re just as rigid and stubborn with your beliefs as any Dogmatists.

Archaeology continually frustrates your attempts to find errors and contradictions in the Bible, but you continually use the same outdated accusations anyway since you’re running out of material.

The only reason you go to hear a concert pianist play Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata is to complain to him afterwards about the name. Obviously it was chosen as part of a conspiracy to hide the fact that the Bible’s mentions of the moon giving light were errors rather than phenomenological language.

You visit a planetarium, but afterwards complain bitterly to the director that it uses the Earth as a convenient reference frame, and portrays the Earth as the center of a celestial sphere with the heavenly bodies revolving around it. This, and his use of the words “sunset” and “sunrise”, is another part of the conspiracy to legitimize the Bible’s use of such language.

When you go to bookstores, you move all the Bibles to the “fiction” section.

You then proceed to move copies of The DaVinci Code to the “non-fiction” shelves.

You insist on capitalizing “atheist”.

You take the lack of evidence for the Jesus story being a hoax as evidence that Christians got rid of all the evidence.

You claim that there is no way a book thousands of years old can be relevant today, but refuse to do the necessary homework to see how it could apply in modern situations, preferring instead to argue that God should have provided an updated version.

You respond to arguments about the different points of view in the society of the ancient world by calling ancient people and their way of thinking “stupid”.

You once heard something about some document in the Catholic Church which says the resurrection never happened. And despite your never having seen it or even met anyone who claims to have seen it (and despite having no idea who wrote it, when they wrote it, or what exactly it says), you’re convinced that this document is far more reliable than the Gospels and thus disproves Christianity, and that the church is hiding it so that they can keep the money rolling in.

You believe that priests are only in it for the money, despite the fact that they make less than almost anyone else with their level of education.

You can’t understand why people can’t see the logic in your question,”The Lord of the Rings is a book. The Bible is a book. What makes one fiction,and the other true?”
And if they say they don’t see the logic in that question, they MUST be lying!

You think that “Lord of the Rings” and “Harry Potter” are more believable than the Bible. General atheism vs. theismYou may be a fundy atheist if….

You find you have a grudging respect for fundy theists for ‘sticking to their guns’ even while complaining they don’t think for themselves.
‘
Thinking for yourself’ means adopting an atheist viewpoint.

When you say “I don’t know” you are being brave and honest. When a theist says “I don’t know” they are being dishonest and are trying to dodge the question.

When your thoughts on any complex matter are sensible and clear, and a theist’s thoughts on any complex matter are mental gymnastics.

You leave ‘freethought’ tracts lying around, like the littering missionaries.

If someone says ‘God Bless’ when you sneeze, you make them ‘take it back!’

Although you are a ‘free-thinker’ and ‘rational’ person, you lose all reason when reading The Bible.

It is OK for atheists to express their godless opinions but the moment Christians do the same you email the ACLU.

You think religious tolerance does not applies to Christians.

You debate (argue, vilify, etc.) as if every theist was a Jack Chick fan, and as if every Biblical inerrantist was a Ruckmanite who believes that the KJV was specially inspired.

You think that Christianity is a ‘virulent memeplex’ and that atheism is the ‘cure.’

You’re infuriated by the term “village atheist.” You prefer “right-thinking urban humanist.”

You can gladly believe any number of conflicting philosophical positions, as long as they’re atheistic!

You start a local Atheists and Agnostics Society, the goal of which is to prove through good deeds that atheists and agnostics can be just as generous and caring as some Christians are. When nobody joins, and the club eventually unfolds, you are flustered. You have no idea why a group of people who by definition do not base their morality on anything greater than their own ideas wouldn’t jump at the chance to be self-sacrificing for no logical reason.

You get a big kick out of either spamming online Christian forums with offensive material or posing as a grossly over-the-top parody of a Christian on such websites.

You criticize a Christian apologist for using a pseudonym, and register the domain name you use to do it under the name, “Gorgon Pruntky”.

You refuse to give your children any name that appears in The Bible.

You don’t realize that Landover Baptist Church’s website is a parody.
Even when you do realize it is a parody, you think that it’s implied arguments are suitable for use as a reply rather than Biblical scholarship.

You call God “she” in the presence of Christians simply out of sheer spite.

You create an Atheist Missionary organization and then call it a thinktank, in a small town in Virginia. Then you heap scorn on Christians for “proselytizing” (Just think about if for a minute, hypocrites!).

You are part of a non-belief organization such as American Atheists, Church of Freethought, Humanist Association of Canada, Student Freethought Alliance and/or the Council of Secular Humanism. You claim these organizations have absolutely no creeds and that the people involved independently think of different things from one another. Yet of course, on your organization’s website they define the commonalities that all non-believers follow. Is that not the definition of creed?
You think that spamming Christian chatgroups and discussion lists with expletives and insults demonstrates superior free-thinking, rational, atheistic logic.
You think that it is possible to talk meaningfully about “good and evil” “right and wrong” when decrying the sins of the Church while simultaneously subscribing to the notion that neither sin nor good and evil exist as ultimate categories but only as personal and social constructs.
You have never pondered the question: why does a smart guy like Richard Dawkins regularly give atheists a bad name by putting his foot in his mouth with his inane and ridiculous pronouncements about God and religion?

You have never pondered the question: why did a really smart guy like Bertrand Russell write such a pathetically limp, uninformed and adolescent critique of Christianity in “Why I Am Not A Christian”?

You assert that “faith is believing things which you know aren’t true”.

You really “believe” that many human beings actually believe things they know aren’t true.

You believe the movie Dogma gives the most accurate portrayal of Christian theology.

You feel that prefacing your responses to Christians with the word bull$#@! somehow makes your argument a little more valid.

You take a self-righteous pedantic “stand on principle” against Christian apologists writing under pseudonyms, but always refer to the “Endarkenment” French infidel writer François Marie Arouet by HIS pseudonym “Voltaire”.

You find the term ‘fundy atheist’ meaningless, baffling, illogical and just plain oxymoronic/self-contradictory even though the two terms are not exclusive of each other (except in the minds of fundy atheists, of course).

You’ve ever called a Christian a “Paulian”.

You deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth (‘It’s just belief, not knowledge,”) while at the same time claiming to know the truth.

You write books like Warren Allen Smith’s “Who’s Who In Hell: A Handbook and International Directory for Humanists, Freethinkers, Naturalists, Rationalists and Non-Theists.” You label 10,000 of these famous non-believers, as good, peaceful people who will be rotting in hell because they are or were infidels. While of course you also fail to realize that for every 10,000 of the world’s peaceful non-believers, anyone can come up with a book that lists 10,000 peaceful, loving and famous historical believers. Of course, you also fail to realize that you’ve wasted your time researching 10,000 historical and modern names just because you want people to think ‘peaceful’ people will be rotting in an afterlife that you don’t believe exists.

You think that logical fallacies are only fallacies when theists use them.

You think when atheist,left-wing journalist Christopher Hitchens slammed Mother Theresa,calling her a “ghoul”,he’s a genius, but when he slams Michael Moore’s propagandizing pile of poo, “Fahrenheit 9/11”,he’s just a drunk.

You hate Christianity because “…it destroys everything that makes us human”,and think Christians “have lost whatever vestiges of humanity they had left”.

Your favorite words are “ad hominem”,even if you can’t spell them.

You just can’t see any difference between Pat Robertson Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, etc, and Osama bin Laden.

You don’t eat at Church’s Chicken, and it’s NOT because the chicken’s too greasy.

You go to work on Christmas and instead take Halloween off.

You go to an Atheism versus Christianity debate in which you must vote for whoever you think wins. The Christian side is represented by a highly prestigious historian and theologian, and the atheist side is represented by a dog that’s able to bark the theme song to “I Dream of Jeannie” off key. You vote for the dog.

Every December 25th you celebrate the day stupidity was born.

You think eating bread and drinking wine is cannibalism.

You try to prove that the bible contradicts itself by producing out of context quotes like “God…is…a…liar….” (Genesis 1:3 – 1 John 3:4)

You say you don’t believe in objective morals, but….come on, admit it, you think God did some screwed up things, don’t you?

You consider “Ha, ha, ha” a substantive rebuttal to an argument.

You say things like, “I can’t tolerate religion because religion is intolerant. And no type of intolerance should be tolerated.”

When you realize you just contradicted yourself you bring up the Inquisition or pedophilian priests, hoping that someone won’t point out that you just changed the subject. In the midst of the ruckus you cause you sneak away. Two weeks later you come back and make the same argument.

You think the fact that God can’t make purple burps or squared circles keeps Christians up at night.

You can’t believe in a book that was created over two thousand years ago because “we’re not sure WHAT happened”, but you know for a fact that religion was created tens of thousands of years ago specifically to control the brainwashed public.

You think the fact that Pauly Shore was allowed to make movies in the early nineties is undeniable proof that there is no God….well actually I’m almost inclined to agree with you on that one.

You feel guilty whenever you use the word faith and have decided to remove it from your vocabulary.

You have fallen for the post-9/11 religious paranoia and think that all Christians are “potential” kamikazes.

You have turned into a Jew and say “G-d” for the sole reason of not saying “God”.

You complain to Christians that “all your music sucks.” When asked what kind of music you listen to you give a list of bands including POD. When someone poins out that POD is a Christian band you say “They can’t be, I hear them on the radio.”

Once someone finds quotes and/or lyrics proving they are, in fact, a Christian band, you immediately respond, “Well, I don’t really care what they believe, I just like their music.”

You believe any person who writes a book critical of Christianity is doing it for “education” purposes. Conversely, you believe that any person who writes a book defending Christianity is “just in it to make money.” You may be a fundy atheist if….
You have your own list of how to tell who is a Christian that itself runs on Fundy Atheist principles.

You get apoplectic about being called a Fundy Atheist for believing all those self-evidently true propositions above. And you label all theists as “fundies”.

Last of all — you write this website a letter which includes a rebuttal to the above listing!

Those atheists say the darndest things

Kenny (From stupid-boy.com)
BOAST OF A 13 YEAR OLD GOD HATER
Hi,I am a 13 year old atheist. The reason I am an atheist is because I’m being taught to be one by my atheistic parents, public school and the atheistic american constitution.
I am also being encouraged to be an atheist by my atheistic friends, atheistic sites on the internet, the stuff on TV, the movie industry, the music industry, the books I read, college groups and political special interest groups. All these teach me against all religions, particularly against the Christian religion.
Adult atheists will not admit it, but this is why I am such a diabolical kid. Atheism, which is really true satanism, prompts me to cause trouble. I cause a lot of trouble for my parents, and they are afraid of me. I deliberately make school hell. I like taunting and beating up on weak kids and Christian kids. I like giving the teachers and principal a hard time. They also are afraid of me. I like to make a name for myself among my friends so I do things deliberately to get in trouble with the law. I dare even law enforcement to apprehend me. Hey, atheists have fixed the laws of american in such a way that I am not afraid to do anything wrong. I can do anything and nothing will happen to me.
I can commit a crime right now, and I will be protected by the law. My name will not be released to the media. It doesn’t matter how heinous the crime I commit, nothing will happen to me. Atheists will come to my aide. I can murder and get away with it. Or I can choose a particular state in which to murder as many people as I want and get away with it. When I go to court I laugh at the court proceedings, the judge, the jurors and the victims’ relatives and friends because nothing is going to happen to me. Don’t you know who coined the words “No Fear”? It was an atheist! I’m not afraid because atheists have fixed it where I am safe from proper punishment.
Haven’t you heard the words “cruel and unusual punishment” in the American constitution? He, he, he. I can be as cruel to others as I want, but the criminal justice system is afraid to match the degree of my cruelty in punishing me lest it be called cruel itself. He, he, he! So I’m not afraid.
And haven’t you heard about the deep-pocketed atheistic anti death penalty special interest groups or the pope and etc… who will come to my aide. Even if I am given a measly life sentence, he, he, that means nothing. A gullible pardon and parole board will let me out of prison in 5 years to commit even more heinous crimes. And even while I’m in prison, I can murder, rape and move drugs while sleeping the whole time on a bed of roses with prison guards as my servants. The constitution and the laws atheists have made in pursuance to it will be with me protecting me.
Let me tell you man, this is why I am an atheist. Atheism is insurance when you do wrong. I admit that atheism is criminal, but it is also cool man!
He, he, he, he, he!

(Theist)
The APA also wants to take pedophilia off of the blacklist of psychological
disorders. You need to pick better role models to present your case.
And that should matter to me because pedophilia is still a crime whether
it’s a psychological disorder or not.
(Atheist) John M. Price, PhD.)
No, it is not a crime.,child molestation, rape, etc., however, are crimes.

“ogrillon” wrote in message
news:77c51ee8.0407301510.7d7bdaeb@posting.google.com…
Your prophet Marx was an avowed satanist – and for Satan, there is no better sacrifice than an innocent babe torn from mother’s womb.
And you were indeed serving your master well !
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp333sd.html

The total numbers of abortions worldwide:

U.S.S.R. 1957-1990 278,079,000
PR China 1971-1995 264,080,000
Romania 1958-1996 21,072,000
Vietnam 1995-1996 12,320,000
Yugoslavia 1959-1995 9,763,000
Poland 1955-1996 6,384,000
Hungary 1949-1996 5,310,000
Bulgaria 1953-1996 4,727,000
Cuba 1968-1996 4,327,000
Czechoslovakia 1953-1990 3,356,000
East Germany 1948-1989 1,714,000
Communist nations total:606,405,000
World total: 836,235,000

(Atheist) And what’s wrong with abortion? Isn’t it the safest and quickest way to heaven?If these Russians and Chinese were born, they would be raised as godless communists and after death they would go straight to hell.

You’re such a sorry little coward!
You’re not being honest with yourself. With all the recent hoopla about
“The Passion” I’m sure that you could tell me all about Jesus Christ and
why he was crucified. The bottom line that you arbitrarily choose not
to believe in Jesus. Your “referential value” is no more than
institutional sounding whitewash disguising the fact that you have
indeed chosen to reject Jesus as Lord.
Reject Jesus as lord??? I do more than that, I reject his Daddy.
But I thought you were an atheist, and that atheists cannot reject something that they don’t believe in?
See, you puny little insects have no one fooled, you all hate God and that is something every religious person knows.
Don’t even bother responding to this with your useless blather because you are the epitome of the typical atheist fool.

Here is a petition to stamp (chortle) out God ,and religion ,and best of all at last count there were only 944 signatures!
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?antigod1

Okay, here’s your proof how moronic this fool is. He determines that I
(we) hate god because of such a posting? Um, sweetie, how EVER did you
infer that? No such words were uttered or implied. I hate ignorant
hateful morons like yourself, regardless of their religious affiliation.
But I see you keep sending me email even though I told you I wouldn’t
read it. And I haven’t. Delete, delete, delete. Nice waste of time — just
like the life you’re spending honoring a god that doesn’t exist. But
enough of that, darling. The FOIA request has been submitted and I’ve
already reported you to the ALPA with all the supporting documentation
which PROVES your FACTUAL violation of their Code of Ethics. You are a
shame to your profession. And how stupid must you be to boast about it on
your site. HUGE mistake. The site WILL eventually come down, as will
you.
Author : Kelly (IP: 76.172.152.209 ,
cpe-76-172-152-209.socal.res.rr.com)
E-mail : kbstiles222@yahoo.com
URL    :
Whois  : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=76.172.152.209

Kelly | kbstiles222@yahoo.com | IP: 76.172.152.209

I love the fact that I scared you senseless enough to change your settings to require your approval before a comment is posted. Why won’t you post my previous one? Um, you’re coward who can dish it out but not take it perhaps? Yeah, that’s it. Your job is mine. A hateful menace like you should not be allow to represent an airline and hold precious lives in his hands as he stews in his angst and hatred of atheists. Just remember that 1 in 10 of your passengers are non-believers, and some other percentage believe in a god other than yours. I’ve started an internet campaign to ensure that this problem is rectfied.

(Editors Note:This person is filled with such hate and spite that I’d hate to be the unfortunate person that marries here if she is indeed even a heterosexual.Some people are so unhappy, and consumed with hate, and vengence that they toss and turn all night devising ways to destroy others in their paths.These people truly need professional and spiritual help as kbstiles222@yahoo.com Emails dictate.)

——————————————————————————-

I recently sent CARM an email about your site. Since you link to them you must respect their opinion. I certainly do.
 
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 23:40:28 -0700
From: carmstuff@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Recently saved, now confused. Please help.
To: katrina_nelson@msn.com
 
I can’t control what other sites do.

No, we don’t approve of that site. It is wrong and CARM is NOT affiliated with it.

Matt Slick
 
—– Original Message —-
From: Katrina Nelson <katrina_nelson@msn.com>
To: carmstuff@yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2007 12:02:53 AM
Subject: Recently saved, now confused. Please help.
 
Long story short. I’m recently saved and new to the Lord’s work. I’ve been using your website (among others) to prepare and equip myself and it’s proved to be an invaluable resource. While surfing for other apologetics sites I stumbled upon atheist-stooges.com which oddly enough links to you. The man who runs the site is a despicable human being who spews nothing but hate under the guise of apologetics. Did you folks know/approve his linking to you? If you had any idea of how he disgraces our cause and destroys our credibility you’d be shocked and embarrassed. If this is what apologetics is about (slinging hate, telling lies, making asinine claims) then I want no part of it. Is CARM really affiliated with this person.  If so, shame on us all.
 
Respectfully,
 
Katrina Nelson

Katrina,

Nice try posing as a Christian.The above post demonstrates the hoops you Anti-theists will go through to get your message of hatred out. You’re about as Christian as Hitler was. Can’t say that you havent tried though…weak but nevertheless a try…<chuckles>

Once outed then the pathetic God-Hating Moron replies

From:	“Katrina Nelson” <katrina_nelson@msn.com>
To:	“Michael Lawrence” <atheist.stooges@yahoo.com>
Subject:	Good morning, you gay little coward…
Date:	Fri, 8 Jun 2007 10:00:42 -0400

YAHOO.Shortcuts.hasSensitiveText = true; YAHOO.Shortcuts.doUlt = false; YAHOO.Shortcuts.location = “us”; YAHOO.Shortcuts.lang = “us”; YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_id = 0; YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_type = “”; YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_title = “”; YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_publish_date = “”; YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_author = “”; YAHOO.Shortcuts.annotationSet = { lw_1181318308_0: { text: ‘carmstuffy@yahoo.com’, startchar: 360, endchar: 379, start: 360, end: 379, weight: 1, type: [‘shortcuts:/us/instance/identifier/hyperlink/http’] , metaData: { linkHref: “/ym/Compose?To=carmstuffy@yahoo.com”, linkProtocol: “http”, linkRel: “nofollow”, linkTarget: “_blank” } } }; YAHOO.Shortcuts.overlaySpaceId = “97546169”; YAHOO.Shortcuts.hostSpaceId = “97546168”;

#yiv1588390408 P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} #yiv1588390408 { FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;}…who’s too much of a pussy to take on a real Christian authority like CARM. Put up or shut up COWARD: Matt Slick at carmstuffy@yahoo.com
 
YOU’VE BEEN SCHOOLED!  CLASS DISMISSED.  CONFESS MY DOMINATION OVER YOU.

——————————————————————————

Nunya Bidnit | nunya@bidnit.com | IP: 64.60.80.254

I read about you on some MySpace page posted by some guy who’s out to get you. The poor fellow is apparently wasting his time. This is quite obviously a satire website. Not very funny, I’d say. But it’s definitely a ruse.

Thank you for the compliment nunya coward.

Anytime I can get a God-Hater razzled enough to post here I know that I’ve sturck a chord.

Thanks for the input says the pimp to the hooker.

The high unintelligence of atheism

GOOD MORNING CLASS: At this moment, I would like to have you to visit alt.atheism. As you know, each time I have had you visit this news group, it was for the purpose of conducting an experiment to prove a point about atheism. In every case, the truth and point I wanted to make were proved overwhelmingly by the responses everyone of the atheists gave.One experiment was designed to prove that atheism is not about proof but is about rejecting certain fundamental truths. I asked the atheists who believe in abortion to *prove* that human embryos and fetuses aren’t human. Over the course of a weeks time, you observed some of the most ridiculous and insane responses. Not even the most so-called “educated” respondents provided the least proof. Another experiment was designed to prove that the most educated atheists aren’t really intelligent. In order to prove that truth, I asked only the most educated atheists to respond to my post. All I simply asked the atheists to do was to prove that there is nothing that is eternal. However, the responses you observed were the most unintellectual you have ever read. They ranged from cursing, name calling, cynicism, mockery, the posting of pictures to ridicule and etc. There was not one intelligent response from any of the respondents.

Now if you will, look at alt. atheism at this moment. Note the many unintelligent subjects in the headers of each post. Try also reading the content of the various posts. All of them manifest the deepest of unintelligence. Most are pure senselessness and vanity. All basically manifest a hatred for God and true Christianity and etc. If God’s existence is no more than the tooth fairy’s or santa clause’s, why do atheists put so much time, effort and money into trying to disprove God’s existence? None of them are doing the same for the tooth fairy.

The web sites that atheists have placed on the internet also manifest the unintelligence of atheism. Note all the unintelligent names of the sites. Note also the unintelligent content of those sites.

When anyone note the content of atheistic news groups, atheistic web sites and all other atheistic material on the web and in the world, no person in his/her right mind can conclude that atheists are truly intelligent people. The only way anyone can conclude that atheists are intelligent people is to use the twisted and unintelligent logic of atheism.

So tonight, I decided to do a quick search for “Unapologetic Atheist” to see what I could find. I kept coming up with these stories about a guy who is HIV+ and having sex with women – 4 of them – and knowingly exposing them to the virus.

The fruits of militant atheism

Preamble to: THE FRUITS OF MILITANT ATHEISM in the new USSR
By Brian Moynahan/The Faith: A History of Christianity/Doubleday, NY/2002/pp. 670-674.
The unenlightened ego, with its drive to power and social control, has been problematic both inside and outside of religion. The preceding examples show the militant atheist ego at its murderous worst. They also reveal that religionists are not the only people who cower in the herd, as is shown by the Stalinists’ pathetic recourse to ‘atheist churches’ such as the LEAGUE OF THE MILITANT GODLESS and the Groups of THE GODLESS YOUTH, complete with ‘hymns.’ = = = = = = = = = = = == = = == = = = = = = = == === = == =
A decree in January 1918… banned religious teaching in all schools, colleges, and universities. All church buildings were taken by the state… Church and monastic land was nationalized. No compensation was offered for confiscated assets… Under the new constitution, the clergy – together with capitalists, criminals, and imbeciles – were deprived of the right to vote or hold state offices. In practice this denied the clergy the right to food rations and their children to education… the Orthodox Church was stripped of its legal privileges, its land, and its source of income… Calculated persecution returned after the Bolshevik victory in 1921. Lenin sanctioned terror as a form of pesticide to be used on people whom he dehumanized as “harmful insects…scoundrel fleas…bedbugs”… Émigrés estimated that 1200 priests and 28 bishops had been killed by 1923, and thousands of others, with monks and nuns, were deported. On Easter Day, 1925, the foundation congress of THE LEAGUE OF THE MILITANT GODLESS was held. Its duty was to eradicate religion through propaganda, pressure, and ridicule… The method that Stalin used to force the peasantry onto collective farms was terror-famine, and the result was a holocaust. Boris Pasternak, who made a trip to gather material on collectivization, found himself dumb with horror. “What I saw could not be expressed in words… There was such inhuman, unimaginable misery, such a terrible disaster, that it began to seem almost abstract, it would not fit within the bounds of consciousness.” Grain was confiscated from starving families to gain hard currency for Stalin’s industrialization program… It is probable that fourteen million peasants died… Communist activists led the grain searches, shot hoarders, and herded families onto deportation transports as a matter of dogma; they were pitiless, for dogma demanded “no concessions to rightist-deviationist attitudes” and “no pacifism.”… Terror, and scientific atheism, was also applied to the Church. Stalin introduced a Law of religious Associations in 1929 that banned churches from all work with children and young people. Churches were not allowed to organize reading rooms, libraries, excursions, children’s playgrounds, sewing groups, or bible readings; they could not sponsor sanatoria or medical care; their priests were forbidden to take part in any activity outside the immediate neighborhood of the “prayer building,” the new name for “church.” An attempt was made to extinguish religion as a whole. The fury fell most harshly on the Orthodox clergy, but thousands of other Christian priests, Baptists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics, and mullahs and rabbis…were also persecuted… some were shot, though most of those arrested suffered a lingering death in the work camps of Siberia and the Arctic. Others lived on the run… Membership in THE LEAGUE OF THE MILITANT GODLESS reached five million by 1935. Children between eight and fourteen were enrolled in GROUPS OF GODLESS YOUTH before graduating to Komsomol, the League of Communist Youth. Prizes were offered for the best “godless hymns” and to children who denounced their parents for voicing anti-Party sentiments… Only one in forty churches survived; the others were smashed to rubble or turned into warehouses, offices, and museums. The Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow was destroyed with dynamite, although care was taken to do so in the dead of night. A Palace of Soviets topped by a huge statue of Lenin was to be built in its place, but the site had weak foundations and it was used for a giant open-air swimming pool instead. No churches or meeting places were permitted in the new industrial cities… In statistical terms the Godless looked to have won. There were 163 Orthodox bishops in 1914, and by 1939 only four survived in freedom; of the old body of clergy 51,105 clergy, the number still in their parishes was in the hundreds… “Religion is like a nail,” Yaroslavsky wearily admitted. “The harder you strike it, the deeper it goes.” = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == =
LEST WE FORGET: Atheists mass murdered over 100 million people in the last 83 years of the 20th century alone? You can find a most illuminating and interesting summary of historical mass murder at http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/. The combined killings done by by Jews, Christians, and Moslems throughout history don’t compare with the slaughter perpetrated by atheists in a single century.

The Carrion lovers of society

One basic principle about carrion lovers is that the unclean is clean to them.
While traveling on a certain highway the other day, I saw two DOGS consuming the remains of a well-rotted deer carcass.
Now dogs have a very keen sense of smell. But the stench of well rotted carrion doesn’t bother them.
Dogs and all carrion consumers aptly typify atheists and all non believers in God. They are the carrion lovers of the world. The unclean is clean to them. They are not repelled by any of the moral carrion in the world. They are the dogs, buzzards, possums and maggots of the world. They cannot smell the foul stench of pornography, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, abortion or sin of any type, but feel it is their right to practice such.

Atheists – The biggest fools on Earth

By Robert T. Lee

In the above articles I’ve presented some evidence that shows that even when one foolishly assumes that the TEN COMMANDMENTS were authored by a human, atheism, by virtue of its rejection and enmity against the TEN COMMANDMENTS cannot elevate itself to such a noble height to author such decorous laws as “Honor your father and your mother,” “You shall not murder.” “You shall not steal,” and etc. Since atheism is hotly opposed to the TEN COMMANDMENTS and in order for the TEN COMMANDMENTS to have been authored by a human, it would would have require a more sensible, noble and wise human than even the most highly “learned” atheist.

The COMMANDMENTS I presented in the above paragraph are just three of the latter six of the COMMANDMENTS which atheism could not have authored. But there are TEN commandments. Since atheism could not have risen to such a level to author or appreciate any of the latter six of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, it is no wonder that atheists can’t understand that God exists — which pertains to the first four of the commandments. That is, atheism, by virtue of its inability to author laws on a lower noble level that pertains to the welfare of mankind, could not have risen to a higher level to understand the existence of God so as to devise laws in honor of mankind’s Creator.

These facts explain why atheists interpret the Bible as they do — as a volume of “babble” and full of nonexistent contradictions. Atheism is not elevated enough to allow even its most educated subjects to understand the Bible. Therefore the Bible puzzles them as calculus puzzles the dimwitted.

Atheism make dimwits of all its subjects and makes the most “learned” or “educated” more dimwitted than the ignorant. Not only does atheism prevent atheists from properly understanding the TEN COMMANDMENTS and the Bible, but it prevents their minds from being elevated enough to understand the simplest common sense facts.

For example: It is the educated atheist who get the roles of males and females mixed up, and who think homosexuality and lesbianism are normal. It is the atheist who can’t tell whether a human is human while he or she is yet in the womb. It is the atheist who gets justice mixed up and who thinks the innocent human embryo and fetus should get the penalty of death and the criminal murderer ought to get life for his death worthy crime. It is the atheist who thinks the terminally ill ought to receive the sentence of death for their noncriminal sicknesses. It is the atheists who condemns the righteous and exonerates the wicked. The list of examples can go on and on.

When you talk with atheists, agnostics or any unbelievers in the true God, you are talking with some of the biggest fools on the face of the earth. The atheist is like one who plucks out his eyes and then tries to see. He is like one who closes his ears and then tries to hear. Alas, how true it is that the so called “educated” atheists are the biggest fools on earth!

The awful disease of atheism

>>>>>GREETINGS CLASS>>>>Today we shall spend time in ward “man is manmade.” You will correctly guess by the name of this ward that there is something seriously spiritually awry with the patients in it. You will note that all of the patients appear to be educated, but they have the fatal disease of atheism. They were raised with that awful disease.
Now before we enter this ward, make sure you wear you rubber gloves, aprons, masks and glasses. Now notice the pitiful condition of the eyes of every one of the patients. Notice the awful stench of the green and yellow pus running from their eyes. The awful disease of atheism has done that to them. Do you see the awful condition of that patient over there? His name is PapaSam. Look at that patient besides him, his name is Peter. Oh Look there! Her name is Joette.
Now what I want each of you to do for the rest of the period is adopt a patient, and I want you to work one-on-one with them to observe their awful conditions. Student #10, why are you crying? “I don’t understand TEACHER. What terrible effects atheism has had on the patient I adopted! Should a blind man ask for evidence of the existence of that which he cannot see. What if that which he cannot see cannot be monitored by any faculty except sight and proof cannot be given to him otherwise? Should he conclude that those things do not exist simply because he cannot himself see them? When those things are described to him by people who can see, should he regard their descriptions as fairy tales? Atheism has totally deceived him. Doesn’t he understand that a blind man must accept a lot of things by faith simply because he cannot see them and he may not be able to monitor them otherwise?”
Student #10, he will never understand that unless he is cured of atheism. What you have described is one of the awful effects of the disease of atheism. You will not be able to effect a cure yourself. Not even education can effect a cure. Education only compounds the problem as you can see. Only God, the One atheism causes them to reject can effect a cure if He is pleased to do so.
CLASS DISMISSED.

The atheist brain and how to reason with it

As one can see from the diagram of the brain on the left of that of the anti-theist that it is rather shallow and myopic.The care and feeding of them is rather easy if one knows the basics principles of care.

1.Don’t answer their canine sized questions because well……they have nothing important to ask, and will only follow up your answer by posing another unrelated question in a futile attempt to play mind games with someone.

2. DON’T GET GANG-RAPED Never attempt to debate several atheists at once. Pick the strongest buck in the herd, and take him down !

3.It’s critical for the argument to stay focused. This is impossible when you’re replying to more than one anti-theist at the same time on the same topic. Ignore other would-be participants, and concentrate on one god Hater.

4.SET RULES BEFOREHAND Don’t just drift into random debates with atheists. They’ll switch topics on you constantly as soon as they start to lose an issue !

5.Establish from the start what the debate is about, then keep discussions focused on that one thing with a view to clearly winning the point.

6. DON’T ALLOW “PROOFS” NOT IN EVIDENCE Require a source, and citation for every one of their contentions. Don’t let ’em get away with making bare assertions !

7.HAVE THEM MAKE THE CLAIM Atheists are good at shooting their mouths off. Let them make the positive assertion. That way, they have the burden of proof. Declare victory when they fail.

8. DON’T BE MANEUVERED Do not permit atheists to maneuver you into defending “Christian” positions you don’t believe in.

9.You do NOT have to defend everything everyone calling themselves “Christian” has done in the past 2,000 years !

10.You’re no more responsible to defend the bad behavior of ostensible Christians than the person you’re debating is for justifying the murders committed by atheist Ted Bundy.

11.And -if you don’t watch out- you’ll find yourself defending doctrines of The American Religion and other suspect sources. A militant atheist’s attacks will almost always presuppose you are a “Fundie”

12. DON’T ACCEDE TO REDUCTIONISM The anti-theist will attempt to make a premise of the idea that anything which can’t be viewed by a microscope or a telescope could not exist.Never tolerate this ! We’re talking metaphysics rather than physics.50 years ago microscopes couldn’t see sub-atomic particles. Doesn’t mean that sub-atomic particles didn’t exist …just that they couldn’t be seen before electron microscopes were invented.

13.Regeneration is the ‘electron microscope’ of things spiritual !

No proof beyond the evidence

There’s no greater argument for the existence of God than the truth of His existence. Atheists completely discount this truth, while challenging every true Christian to present proof.

Since it is impossible to prove the existence of God beyond the fact itself and beyond the overwhelming evidence in all of God’s creation, the type challenge atheists make to Christians is both a foolish challenge and an impossible task for the Christian.

Since atheists recognize that it is impossible to prove the existence of God beyond the truth itself and beyond the overwhelming evidence that they deliberately discount, they blindly and deceptively regard such impossibility as real proof that God doe not exist.

This deceptive principle has been exemplified time-after-time in courts of law. For example: A person commits a very heinous crime. All the evidence that prove the person’s guilt is presented in court by the prosecutor. The evidence overwhelmingly prove the person’s guilt.

However, the criminal denies he committed the crime, and his lawyers, while seeking to deceptively prove his innocence, do all they can to discount the evidence presented by the prosecutor. And while discounting the evidence, the defense attorneys constantly challenges the prosecutor to prove their client is guilty.

What the defense attorneys do is cleverly discount the evidence in the minds of the jurors and shift focus from the overwhelming evidence to challenging the prosecutor to prove their client’s guilt to the jurors beyond the evidence. This becomes an impossible task and the jurors are deceived into regarding this impossibility as an inability of the prosecutor to prove that the criminal is guilty. Therefore the jury regards the criminal as not guilty. Juries are deceived by this diabolical tactic all the time.

Militant Anti-Theists all work from the same script

Militant ant-theists pretty much all work from the same script.Although viewing themselves as “free thinkers”, they all have a Party Line that they follow rather closely.It isn’t difficult to anticipate their arguments on any given point. Most intelligent religious individuals almost always can correctly predict what they’ll say next.Interestingly, militant atheists get much of their beliefs about “Christianity” from liberal Christians.They’ll pejoratively label all Christians as “Fundies”,then presumptively attack liberal theological conceptsthey suppose us “Fundies” subscribe to !Nearly all militant atheists are followers of the religion of Scientism. Their priests wear white lab coats. Their sacramental objects are the microscope,the telescope, and the test tube. Blasphemy is to deny the ultimate authority of science.But the militant atheists -the ones who have devoted their lives to refuting Christianity- are almost like the demons …who believe more firmly in God’s existence than do Christians !It can unequivocally be stated that militant atheists are some of the people who most solidly believe in God !Ain’t talking ‘practical atheists’ here …those who don’t even think much about atheism. They’re the true atheists.Professional atheists who’ve dedicated themselves to eradicating the Lord do so because they hate Him.They’re the God-haters.To which they’ll invariably reply: ‘How can we hate something we don’t believe in ?’.Exactly ! It’s their belief in God which drives them to relentlessly attack Him.Run of the mill, everyday ‘practical atheists’ don’t give God a second thought. They’re the ones I worry about.Whereas militant atheists are fighting against the innate knowledge of God suppressed in their hearts.As a militant atheist I can unequivocally state that there is no time in your life that you totally disbelieved in God. And -in fact- were driven to work against the Lord by belief in Him !It isn’t that militant atheists don’t believe God exists. Instead: That they don’t want God to exist.

Exposing The Atheist

Isn’t it rather odd to claim to not hate something one doesn’t believe in?
My my word, the hypocrisy of the God Hater.

The following articles are samplings of principles that demonstrate that atheism is pure heathenism and error. They present some of the reasons why you should turned away from atheism and nonbelief – to a staunch belief in the Almighty GOD. I ask you to examine these articles very carefully.
The best way to understand the nature of atheism is to understand its author. satan is its author.
It’s important to remain conscious of the fact that satan had his origin in heaven, and is thoroughly familiar with the fact of the existence of God, heaven, the angels, hell and etc. Thus despite what you have been previously deceptively taught and despite the deceptive dictionary’s meaning of atheism, atheism is properly defined as a denial of the existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that the true God does indeed exist. Atheism knows God exists; it is quite familiar with that fact, but it says “under no circumstance or situation will I admit to God’s existence.”

Atheism clearly perceives the fingerprints of God on all of creation, but refuses to admit He is the Creator. Atheism perceives the divine authorship of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit that God is their Author. Atheism perceives the decorousness and perfection of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit they are superior to all other laws. Atheism clearly perceives the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, but refuses to admit His divinity. If an atheist could see the wounds in the body of Christ and actually feel them with his hands, he would deny that the wounds are there. Atheism is deliberate effort to never admit the existence of God.

Atheism is the ultimate of satanism. Ask satan does God exist and he will deny it. Ask him does satan exist and he will deny his own existence even while in your presence. Atheism holds the Bible in one hand, but deny its existence by denying its truth with the other.

In order to properly understand the nature of atheism, one must understand the natures of righteousness and sin. The two principles are antithetical to one another. Since sin is antithetical to righteousness, its very antithetical nature seeks to nullify righteousness. Since it is an antithetical principle to righteousness, it must remain true to its nature even in the most insane instances. Therefore it must hate God even though God is righteous and has given it no just cause for its hatred. It is this antithetical principle, called “the law of sin” which is at work in the hearts of atheists causing them to reject God. The law of sin is none other than the law that governs satan’s kingdom.

Below are articles I’ve presented in effort to expose the true satanic nature of atheism, the great harm it is doing to the american society and the world community and to prove and demonstrate that atheists and all other nonbelievers in the true God are the actual criminals of the world community. I hope these articles will enable people to see that atheists are extremely dangerous people. Therefore laws should be made against them by all the governments of the world community.