Tuesday, 28 July 2009

Proselytising Atheism

The news today that an Atheist Group are arranging and holding camps for youngsters as young as seven, in which to "counter Christian religious propaganda" should worry the churches. Although it is claimed that they are against all religion, they seem to be targetting only children from a Christian background and one of the statements they keep repeating is that "religion may inhibit morality". The trouble with that is that their brand of morality seems to have more to do with the "free love" ideals of the Hippy generation than anything the "man on the Clapham bus" would recognise as moral.

The thinly veiled "lessons" in anti-religion include an invented story which requires the children to "prove" that Unicorns do not exist even though a "Centuries old" book says they do. A reward is offered to the child who can "prove" by means of a logical argument and 'hard' evidence that the book is false. The claim is that they are teaching the children to exercise skepticism, logic and 'natural' laws to 'inform' their religious ideas - yet none of those teaching this course lnow enough about Christianity or any other religion to, frankly, know what they are talking about. Nor are the children given anything to show what does support the Bible or for that matter any other religious text. This is a blatant attempt - fully supported by that arch anti-Christian Dawkins - to brainwash children and poison their minds with this New Age founded Atheist claptrap.

The idea that morality is inhibited by the holding of religious views has to be challenged. Pol Pot was an Atheist, so was Joe Stalin and Hitler. Or perhaps their mass extermination of opponents and certain ethnic groups was simply a rational attempt to impose a new religion free order? Are we now to believe that these men were somehow more morally informed than someone who happens to believe that his or her religion forbids same-sex marriage? That is what this is really all about. Religious doctine (In all the religions based on the Judeo/Christian/Muslim philosophy there is a bias against samne-sex relationships) is now seen as standing in the way of the "anything goes" ideology of this atheist socialist government. Socialism in all its guises is the complete antithesis of religious morality and principles and that is why the government and the political classes are now trying their utmost to promote Ateism as superior to religious belief.

The amusing side to this, if there is one, is that in this pursuit of a Godless Society, they have created a new God for themselves. Its called science, yet their understanding of science is questionable at best since they 'believe' that science can explain everything which real scientists will tell you it can't. I think I'd be more accepting of this if the promoters actually knew enough about my religious beliefs to comprehend it. And perhaps that is the tragedy in all this. The 'religion' they are attacking is a Sunday School simple explanations/fundamentalist travesty, it does not represent true belief at all, but they do not want to engage in any debate. Any attempt to do so, simply ends up with the Atheist speaker becoming angry as he/her ignorance is exposed and then abusive. If that is their idea of "moral" or even "logical" - God help them.


  1. That's alright Monk, when the followers of Islam out breed the rest of us, and institute sharia for all. I'm sure the radical faithful will drive the Atheist lickspittles straight into the mosques on Fridays, by their preferred method too, canes and cudgels. Wont that be a heart warming sight to see.

  2. A sad one for us all I think. Religion should be a matter of informed choice, not compulsion - my point here is that these Atheist Camps are not providing a complete picture and I am equally sure that many Christian ones don't do the full job either. Any and all forms of dogmatic fundamentalism are bad at best and extremely dangerous at worst!

  3. Monk. My comment wasn't meant as a sleight to you. And I agree with your point that all forms of dogmatic fundamentalism are both bad and dangerous, and dogmatic fundamentalism doesn't find a more fertile ground than that of Marxism, which I suspect is the deeply held conviction of many of those promoting this insidious nonsense, though many may deny, even to themselves, that that is the narrative which forms their lives and drives their motivations. There is no animal more deceitful than the confirmed Marxist. Even the most rabid of Islamic fundamentalists are not so dangerous, for their inherent wackiness gives them away, but the slithering Marxist beguiles with smiles and cunning wiles ... beware the slippery serpent.

    As to Islam's ascendency, I think we are in for a very nasty time, but I doubt even the star struck celebrity worshipers truly want that monstrosity loosed upon them ... well, not all of them anyway. We will fight.

    Not words that a man of God would wish to hear, I am sure, but an unpalatible truth I'm sure you recognise.

  4. I would also agree with you ... religious belief should be a matter of informed choice, for the fundamental truth that true love (of any kind), can only be entered in to with an open and willing heart.

    Then again, I believe Islam claims - 'C L A I M S', that there is no compulsion in religion. They sure do have a funny interpretation of that admonition.

  5. None taken, its a pity this debate is apparently suppressed in the media and the political circus for fear of exposing the Marxist ideology both now subscribe to.

  6. Aye Monk, there's the rub. But people are wising up to it. Plus, the Marxist alliance with Islam's more radical elements, will be their undoing.

  7. What worries me is that non-muslims are using Sharia courts to resolve business disputes, according to a small story I saw hidden away in one of the London free papers a few weeks ago. They're opting for Sharia out of convenience and because they think they're more likely to get the outcome they want in a Sharia court. What they don't realise is that they're legitimising Sharia courts and opening the door to a system where a man can ditch his wife by saying "I divorce you" three times and to hell with alimony.

    One of the main principles of law, all over the world, is that the courts of any given country have sovereignty over all persons, of any religious belief or nationality, who happen to be within the geographic borders of that court's jurisdiction. Operating alternative courts in the UK is undermining the sovereignty of British courts and will probably raise some ugly cross-border issues within the next the next decade or two.