Atheists and Politics
by Paul Landkamer
Free to Share
Author requests article critique
Free to Share
Author requests article critique
Let's assume the Relativists (What's right for you might not be right for me.) and the Atheists and Christians (or almost any Theist) are all correct in their thinking. Of course, any thinker can see there can't be both no-God and a divine creator.
If nobody's wrong, that means there must be divisions between us –maybe what Jesus meant in Matthew 7:6. Here are some necessary divisions. I am created and the Atheist is just an accident of evolution. I was created, so I must have a purpose or some worth or value. The Atheist is still just an accident and has no more worth than that assigned by another accident. That means I have worth and the Atheist is worthless.
O hush up you Atheist readers. Your opinions don't have any meaning at all. You're just accidents. And don't give me any of that "We're here to better things for mankind." No we're not. We're just here by accident, therefore, our only purpose is to live life to our own perception of "fullest," then we die. It doesn't matter who we step on or hurt to get there because we're all accidents. We're here for a little while, then we die. Tough it up and accept it. There's no reason to make it better for the next generation of accidents. In fact, it'll be "greener" if we don't make it better, since greenies think all environmental trouble is Man's fault. That's another topic altogether.
Nothing in this world gets better or improves with time without thoughtful intervention. (Evolution defies that "law" of science, but it has to for it to hold any water at all.) Without someone to keep things in order, things fall to chaos. Look at a bedroom or a desktop or a lawn, garage, closet, even people, mountains and so on. It all gets worn or in disarray without help. But, you Atheists insist there's no God keeping things in order. Consider laws. They're here to help keep order. Without laws, man would naturally do what's best for his or her survival or pleasure, regardless of its effect on others. Babies aren't born loving. They're born dependent and selfish, fussing for their needs to be met. They don't care about your needs. They have to be taught kindness and respect. They have to learn love. For order, we parents have to make laws or rules for them. Laws all imply a higher moral standard. What's a higher standard than mankind? If there is no God, there's no higher moral standard than that created by worthless nothings. So man-made laws aren't binding on me. After all, what's right for you, might not be right for me. We're nothings, anyway, and who's some other nothing to tell me what I can and can't do? Who cares if that nothing holds some office that nothings created and nothings voted for or appointed?
Next time you're in court, try a defense that laws imply the existence of a God. The existence of God is really the only thing that makes a law truly binding.
And where's this "separation of church and state" (which is NOT in the constitution), I hear so much about. Charity and love are Biblical things, so the government needs to get out of the business of handing out money to "help" people. After all, helping people is the Godly thing to do. Maybe charity would move back into the realm of the Church, like it should be. Maybe the "pearls" in Matthew 7:6 are charitable contributions?
I don't believe all of what I said above. Some of, it I believe, but lots of it is sarcasm to make some points. A week or so before I wrote this, I posted a couple comments at Facebook, of a political nature –or so I thought. They quickly became topics of religion. People on both ends of the belief-spectrum left their opinions. It was fun, but I found myself wanting to say so much that I decided to write here instead.
Two schools of thought, puzzled me. One commenter said tax-payer-funded abortion is helping people. Helping!? It's killing! That just hit me as being so distorted as to hardly warrant comment. The commenter went on to say all the Christian rightists wanted was to control women's bodies. No, control over bodies would come before an abortion would be considered at all. The other school of thought said, and I agree, to a point, that government home-loan reductions are a form of charity, or helping people, so they're really a good-thing. I see that some people might be helped, but I also see more government hand-outs spawning more government dependence. We've got to quit rewarding bad decisions and laziness. If I take on more debt than I can handle, it's not your responsibility to bail me out.
Kevin Jackson, in his The Big Black Lie, says the liberals created the huge welfare programs to create dependence on those programs thereby, dependence on those who support the programs politically. Some may actually have had charitable motives, but lots of it was to create dependence on the liberals who support the programs. They built their own voter-base by removing the motivation to get ahead. The way he put it made quite a bit of sense. Larry Elder, in his Ten Things You Can't Say In America, says in order for the people who support welfare programs, feminist and civil rights agendas to stay in the money and power, they need to perpetuate the victim status of those on the receiving end of the programs. Larry points out many huge figures in that arena and says they preach minorities or women as being downtrodden by the people with the power and money (mostly white males). They don't flaunt the fact that they made it and have power and money, but they'd lose their lucrative positions if people realized they CAN make it, and they're NOT being downtrodden. I love his term, "victicrats". And an aside: the two above authors are both black men who haven't adopted the victicrat mentality. They're making it because they know they can. I truly believe there's a huge difference between government hand-outs and charity.
It was pointed out by a commenter that Jesus was all about giving and showing love. That's absolutely true. Jesus healed people. That healing taught dependence on Him, not government. Jesus raised people from the dead. That taught faith. Jesus even paid his taxes, despite knowing the Roman government didn't always use the money for Godly purposes. Jesus fed many people. He gave and he gave, showing love to many. BUT! Jesus didn't heal everyone. He didn't feed everyone. He didn't raise everyone from the dead. The fact is, He only did those things for people who believed in or were following Him (maybe the "my brethren" part in Matt 25:40?). He taught faith or dependence on Him, not that government should be in the business of handouts. So what did Jesus teach about government, aside from the fact that we should obey those in power (Romans 13 and Titus 2)? He attacked the church government of the day as being corrupt, and His only dealing with secular government ultimately crucified Him. This might not be exactly what He taught, but Jesus did show us that He is more powerful than any government, when He rose from the dead. And for all you Atheists out there, there IS evidence if you'll look for it.
So happy Atheists' Day, (Ps 14:1, 53:1, --1 April, 2010) to the Atheists, and happy Easter (4 April, 2010) to the Christians!
PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR, LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE
Read more articles by Paul Landkamer or search for other articles by topic below.
Search for articles on: (e.g. creation; holiness etc.)Read more by clicking on a link:
Main Site Articles
Most Read Articles
Highly Acclaimed Challenge Articles.
New Release Christian Books for Free for a Simple Review.
NEW - Surprise Me With an Article - Click here for a random URL
God is Not Against You - He Came on an All Out Rescue Mission to Save You
...in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them... 2 Cor 5:19
Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Acts 13:38
LEARN & TRUST JESUS HERE
The opinions expressed by authors do not necessarily reflect the opinion of FaithWriters.com.