Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Anger Issues of a Strict Upbrining

So I have blogged some about my upbringing and the physical punishment I grew up in. What I have been avoiding is talking about my issues as an adult. I am still not sure if I want to blog about them or not. Its not like I am hiding it, all of my friends know I have aggression, and a few also know I have anger issues.

I know that keeping a journal would be good, and I also know that sharing my experiences with others helps, a lot. I have always been a sharing type person. When my father killed himself, it caused a problem in the family as I posted it and shared it with friends of mine that I was dealing with it. My sister-in-law got so mad at me she defriended me on Facebook.

I worry that if I share though, being as I am an outspoken atheist, some will try to turn my anger into my stance of anti-theism, when really that is mostly based in reason and logic. Though at the same time I feel that if I share my process and why I am the way I am and what I am doing to fix it, then it may full well show that I am firmly grounded in reality and doing this to FIX the issues. to make sure my kids don't get messed up from my influences too.

Well friends this is my latest quandary. Do I share with you, the things I am doing (counseling and such) to work through my issues on the same blog that I use to bitch about Theism, or do I create a new journal/blog for that and keep it to myself? A really trusted friend of mine Jt Eberhard, said "do what makes you feel comfortable". I know I need to share sometimes to help me deal with and understand my emotions, that's who I am. I also know that this can muddy up my position with some people, as I know they will look for any excuse to discredit that position.

On the other hand does that even matter in the end?

Throw me your 2 cents worth, here, on Facebook, or e-mail, I would be interested in some Input...

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Latest NATURAL disaster another call by god.... REALLY?

Over years there has been a rash of statements by the religious right that various natural disasters are "god's wake up" call to the US to stop sinning against god. You know the Classic "Katrina happened because god is mad that we are placating to the homosexuals", I belief that was Fred Phelps Go figure every bad thing according to him is because of homosexuals. I would look this up to link it but I am at work and don't really have the time to rummage for a link atm.

So what is wrong with these (bullshit) claims?

First and foremost, there is absolutely no shred of evidence these things aren't anything that naturally occurs already. its Hurricane season and we normally get hit, or they drift close by, with a number of them throughout the season. nothing unusual there. When I did some research a long time back there was no indication that the number was more or less what was typically expected, and with global warming, to some degree, factored in there is an expectation of more hurricanes as time goes on, go figure.

Now show me a hurricane in the middle of the time frame when we DON'T expect hurricanes, then I might bye the whole hand of god drivel being spouted... I said MIGHT, because you would still need to show me how it Miraculously appeared and supernatural not natural forces put it there.

Second this is a little over kill for an all powerful and LOVING god isn't it? I mean this is like catching your child in a lie and throwing his entire class at school in front of a firing squad of cross-eyed soldiers and then saying "THAT WHAT YOU GET"!!! After all, isn't a natural disaster, according to the fundamentalists, god's equivalent of "STOP SINNING YOU FUCKERS". No that's not over reacting at all.

When are people going to realize that just because they believe doesnt make it so> I mean really what does it take to have realization set in.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

The 14 Characteristics of Fascism

Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt wrote an article about fascism (“Fascism Anyone?,” Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20). Studying the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile), Dr. Britt found they all had 14 elements in common. He calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The excerpt is in accordance with the magazine’s policy. 

I have added to it some recent examples and how it looks for us...

These 14 characteristics are (with my fill in of connectors):
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism – Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottoes, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

This is constantly seen on the conservative front, granted liberals do wave the flag but they dont present it as a must follow or get the hell out scenario. This connects to the discriminatory nature of Conservatives as well as the nationalist ideology of 'anything against must be destroyed or put out' (see below).

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights – Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

Overwhelmingly seen in the conservative movement. Denying racism (or sexism) is occurring, saying there are no race issues or they are over with, so get over it. As well as denying things are happening or pointing the other way to divert attention away (calling the white spot anything BUT chicken shit). Anti-gay rhetoric can just as easily be connected here as a denial of basic human rights (Don't Ask Don't Tell, Anti-Gay Marriage) and open discrimination.
Remember torture was justified and used by the Bush administration and people defending the use argued the U.S. is no longer bound by the Geneva Convention,  the human rights agreement the U.S. was fervently behind in its creation, and a standard we have consistently held others to. People argued that suddenly "waterboarding" is not torture although it has been considered torture by the U.S. and the world since the technique was used during the Spanish Inquisition.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause – The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

In the religious right they point toward Atheist (religious Minorities) and science (generally) as a common enemy undermining the "values of the country" and making connecting claims of socialist and communist agendas (nationalism). Constantly attacking any liberalism as Socialism/Communism without a full or
even rudimentary understanding of what either of them really are. Openly pointing at various representatives as Socialist/Communist and in some rare cases outright calling individuals terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.

4. Supremacy of the Military – Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

Historically the most spending for military budget has mostly been conservative movement/elements, excluding times of war. Conservatives overwhelmingly support strong defense spending. You will hear from them constantly how mighty we are, how vastly superior our military is, and at the same time prop military personnel or actions on a pedestal glorifying the person or deed. Don't get me wrong some individuals deserve the prop up, but not all, not in the sense of glamorizing them. There is no doubt of the sacrifice these men and women give in order to maintain our freedoms, but isn't that what they signed up for? Take care of them, provide them the much needed care they need during and after the conflict, but to glamorize and centralize war through the warrior, is despicable.

5. Rampant Sexism – The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

Notice he says tend to be dominated, not exclusive. But women in conservative circles tend to be downplayed. Current the hot button topics are, abortion (pro-life and redefining life), Anti-Gay Marriage (rights) which is inextricably linked to homophobia, I have heard many a conservative state "gays should be tagged" with something to "identify them" (akin to the Jews in Germany during WWII) make it easier to "find the degenerates" or even in extreme cases deported or shot.

6. Controlled Mass Media – Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

This is tricky on the conservative part, I think to draw attention away from the fascism roots inherent in the nature of the movement, but they label the media as liberal. This is laughable as MOST media sources tend to be RIGHT of center in this country, NPR is the Most centrist and the Conservatives have attacked it on three separate occasions now as too Liberal. CNN is a bit left of center and constantly under fire from the conservatives. But truth be told most sources are right of center and the biggest mouth box for the conservatives is conservative owned and calling itself news, which tends mostly to be opinion.

7. Obsession with National Security – Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

No brainier here. Conservatives like their war and warfare, anything that can be taken as a threat to national security will be met with open hostility and attacks. Even if the likely hood of such a thing is remote. The conservative movement pushes for things like HR-1528 (2005), which is STILL tied up in subcommittee. This bill would REQUIRE you to spy on your neighbor and if you witness suspicious behavior and fail to report it, and you will go to jail. This is fascism at it finest, do this or else face consequences (jail, deportation, torture, death).

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined – Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.

There is no doubt religion is intertwined within our government, and the is no way an openly atheist person can get elected to any post in this country, NONE, you openly admit as such and you are
essentially blackballed. In at least 4 state your legally blocked by their constitutions from being able to hold office. you will hear from especially the conservatives how important religion is to them and openly.
Not only is religion parroted by elected officials as buzz words for the church going community, but it goes much deeper than that. There is a dichotomy in America between our constitution, which provides equal rights for all, and the religious perspective of a totalitarian god. The two will not work together and we see this confusion in America today. How can the average Christian resolve the contradiction between the bible and the constitution. Love your neighbor, homosexuality is an abomination to god, everyone is created equal. These all seem to say contradictory things. It's apparent that the bible is unconstitutional, so what does the Christian do? They seek to change or reinterpret the constitution which usually takes the form of a denial of reason to those unfettered by religious dogma. Is it any wonder that we look at religious conservatives as mental? They are the most confused people in the land.

9. Corporate Power is Protected – The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

The Conservative party in this country receives most of its money, support, and friendship from, Corporates ties. the largest financial supporter by far is big money like oil, manufacturing, banks, financial corporations, and brokers. So much so that the average voter feels there is no power in the government of the people, that it all centers on special interests.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed – Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .

It is well know and well documented that Conservative don't support labor. Oh, they claim to be for the working man but constantly denounce unions and labor organizations. If they could revert to just the recent past where unions could be strong armed they would in a heartbeat. Constantly belittling unions and attacking them in ads, but secondary mentioning or connecting them to liberal affiliations, during election races. In everyday conversations with Conservative Unions are counted as the number one reason for economic problems in the country, never the corporations themselves. Suppressing labor is an ultimate goal of the conservatives.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts – Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

This is a without saying issue, "the LIBERAL colleges are brainwashing our children from true values in the country", "liberal institutions are forcing god our of the class room (recall religion and government)", "The communist liberal control the higher education institutions".Constantly see this from the Conservatives.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment – Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

Conservatives are staunch death penalty supporters, and strongly advocate punishment over rehabilitation. In their eyes you do a crime you are less than worthless, until you serve your time. Oh wait, even after you time is served, as Conservative owned and operated businesses are habitually the lowest to hire offenders in the system. Civil liberties are definitely secondary to rule of law in the conservative wing. Examples of such have been recorded throughout history in the US, look at the civil rights marches in the 60's. Many of today's conservative deny this period and point out it was Democrat ruled governments doing the deeds, but in fact the Southern Democrats were notorious conservatives (and the later Dixiecrats) in the day.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption – Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

Ah The Good ole Boy system, outlawed after the Teapot Dome scandal, but still very much in effect today. Both parties are notorious for this however, simply because you want supportive members working with you and behind you in government. I don't know if there has been research as to either side having more or less of this occurring, but I would be willing to bet its strong on the religious based conservative network, it is definitely prevalent in their churches, organizations, and groups.

14. Fraudulent Elections – Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Gerrymandering , district redrawing accepted practice by both parties though commonly downplayed by conservatives and definitely berated by liberals, smear campaigns of both parties (commonplace these days). Media manipulation is clear and seen in the prior mas media control issue. Assassination? possibly but hard to prove, many conspiracy theories are abound and definitely circulate about such occurrences.

So in conclusion, all in all, both sides are in this to some degree but overwhelmingly the conservative moment has the most presence in the whole of the 14 points. they by far exhibit the strongest characteristics for fascism in the whole of the country, its no wonder the likes of the KKK, Aryan Brotherhood, Aryan Nation, Nationalist Socialist Party, and various other right wing militant fringe groups, have aligned themselves with the conservative elements in our country. By far, no one embodies more the ideas of fascism then the conservatives here in the US. How long until this rises up and bites up in the ass? Who knows for sure? But one thing is for sure unless we get this under control soon we are facing a civil war in the future as these elements get more and more out of control and more radical.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Rigth Wing Equals Violence.

I have been saying this for years now. The right should be synonymous with violence. Growing up in hard-core right wing circles I have seen the typical reaction of the believer and it is a want to do violence against anything that disagrees with their stance. One of the most recent cases? Death threats against atheists.

At the end of July they had to shut down the comments after, American Atheist Communications Direct, Blair Scott, did an interview. The Faceboomk Page came alive with some 8,000 recorded hits of DEATH THREATS Against atheists. Fox again shut down commenting and then edited many of the threats OFF their site, but no before another bloggers, One Man's Blog, was able to screen shot and save some of them. here are a few to look at.:


What amazes me is how people are shocked by this. We have known for a long time that people on the right are violent. Not only are they violent they are quick to it angry diatribe, almost immediately threatening violence and bragging about how tough they are. Lots of Fuck you"s, "eat shit's", etc. The MOST watched groups for violence against the people and the state in the country is, BY FAR, the right wing groups. Yet we tolerate this under freedom of speech and tolerance. The most tolerant groups by in large are the left wing groups. these are statistic facts.

yet we acted shocked when seeing these people openly spout the hate filled garbage. Why is that?

Monday, August 8, 2011

People and Their Bad Logic (OR) WHAT CRITICAL THINKING???

So a Facebook friend of mine posted and article from that talks about the National Health system in the UK, and how it is the most cost effective in the developed world. Which many of us have know the UK system is pretty good.

So Then someone posts:
"No its not, I am speaking from 20years ago when I used it and worked for it"

This type of arguement is used quite often. The whole "I am speaking from a position of authoity as I have worked with, in, on this object before... 20 years ago." Its like time has stopped since they interacted with the system because it couldn't possibly be any different now. In spite of the fact that e4vidence to the contrary is dealt with on a daily basis by EVERYONE in the world. But no I am comming from knowing first hand how this works.

This would be exactly like if my father, who, 25years ago supplied insurance for a family of four, on a single income, looking at me and saying,
"Why can't you pay for insurance for your family today?
When I am making comparable income to his with a four person family to support.

Of course I then have to respond asking for clarification if this was actually the position present was this person actually idiotic enough to really present this as an argument? Then the reply comes back
"your coming off as a dick, My argument still stands, sorry if you are confused by it"

What gets me is how these people actually believe their position is still valid in the light of their information being outdated (20years in this case). Not to long ago I got directed to a website maintain by a Daivd or dave, something like "atheism: is it real?" One of the arguments that I immediately caught was about some archaeology where Angiosperms where fround in a layer of sediment WAY predating know evolution of angiosperm development. Upon further inspection this bad archaeology work was detected and PUBLISHED  in 1960!!!

But they continue to cite the article as if it is some mysterious error that has caught science with its perverbial pants down... 

BULLSHIT... After some SIMPLE research one can find a rebuttal of the work showing it most likely transient deposits REFORMED into the layer by TIME!!!

Yet we are expected to respect their opinions and arguments without sarcasm and cynicism? Really? Seriously? Why the hell should I? Especially, AMAZINGLY, when you know the evidence which is vetted and thus supported, when presented to these individuals is FLAT OUT DENIED as legitimate evidence, OR just completely ignored. How the hell can any of these people be taken seriously by anyone. Yet they are, and some of these people are our congress people making decisions for us every day.

Saturday, August 6, 2011

God did his Best

The really odd thing to me is how this is a piece of building that was the center of so much death, washed in the blood of innocence and yet they want to make something out of it like it was some miracle that cross shaped beams survived the destruction... Wait... Um...

How many cross shaped beams survived?

Better question, How many cross sections were in the WHOLE TOWER(S) to begin with?

Friday, August 5, 2011

Confrontation Versus Accomodation (Re-posted)

I wrote this about 8 months ago but Felt it needed to be re-posted as this is STILL an argument being presented...

The following begins with a comparison between the Civil Rights movement and the current Atheist-Secularist movement, and the resulting social effects mustered in by confrontation. Using the Civil Rights movement as a model for comparison, I hope to illustrate the resounding effects of social change, heralded by the brave individuals who risk everything in order to bring about positive and intellectual changes in society. Next I focus on the issues surrounding Accommodation vs. Confrontation by using current day examples of the same bigoted hatred experienced by pre-Civil Rights minorities. I speak on behalf of atheists who are at those very same uncertain cross-roads today. Using science as a tool of measurement, I stand firm in my arguments that the only way to win our own civil rights and liberties, which are granted to every citizen of this country, is to confront those who attempt to oppress our way of life.

On December 1st 2010, we celebrated the 55th anniversary of Rosa Parks’ defiant action of refusing to relinquish her seat to a white man on a Montgomery city bus in 1955. This, along with racial tensions that had been building all throughout the south. Sparked by events such as the murder of Emmett Till (Aug 1955) and the government’s inaction in taking steps to desegregate schools after the landmark Supreme Court ruling on the Brown vs. Board helped shape the future of our country.
In January and February of 1957, Martin Luther King and others set up the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. In September of that year, nine black students, who were issued death threats, marched into Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, effectively ending the segregation of that school system. On February 1st 1960, four black students from North Carolina Agriculture and Technical College in Greensboro, North Carolina, began a sit-in at a segregated Woolworth’s lunch counter. Although allowed to sit, they were refused service. This event was then repeated throughout the South at parks, swimming pools, theaters, libraries, and other public facilities. Six months later, those first four students (The Greensboro Four) were served lunch at the same Woolworth’s counter.

This string of confrontations, and the many others to come after, bucked the norm of southern white society and pushed the government into realizing the harmful effects of marginalization. Finally legislation to guarantee the rights of minorities in this country was enacted. After decades of bowing to (accommodation) to laws like Jim Crow, African American communities fought for social change – the move toward equality had finally begun. Accommodation does nothing but allow the norm to persist without change because it goes unchallenged. Without upheaval, societies continue their status quo, the ruling class sees no need for change, and continues living with blinders on.

For many generations, atheists have accommodated society’s pious by remaining silently hidden away, afraid to openly admit their disbelief for fear of reprisal, attack, of being belittled, defamed, and punished for their points of view. Then, on September 11th, 2001 religious extremism attacked our country, and fear of remaining quiet outweighed the fear of being openly atheist. The drive to challenge irrational faith-based ideas came to the forefront due to people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and many others. Today atheists in this country are making a stand and saying “enough” no more accommodation for these irrationalities!

The concept of Confrontation vs. Accommodation is one of many issues at the very heart of this current social debate. Given what we know from historical precedence, one must ask “Why is this even an issue”? Well, where would the Civil Rights movement be if Rosa Parks had continued the practice of accommodating white privilege? Where would we be today if The Greensboro Four had not sat down at the Woolworth’s lunch counter? Where would this country be today if the founding fathers (and most of the country) had instead caved in and accommodated King George’s new taxes on the colonies?

Major changes do not happen with accommodation. Let’s face it, what is being asked for by the atheist community is a MAJOR change of the norms in this country. This is not a country built on Christian values, but some religious values ARE present in institutional structures, such as some court houses and town halls. Why? Because it was the dominant worldview of the early colonial Americans, and thus was socially accepted. Our forefathers recognized this, and that is why they granted us the ability to challenge and amend the Constitution in order to allow the document to evolve with our society while still maintaining the secular state they demanded and ultimately created.

The First Amendment was a stroke of genius for its time. No other country in the world HAD this type of doctrinal and political protection. However, our forefathers, enlightened men that they were, saw into the future. They knew full well that the prosecution of individuals for publically questioning the meaning of the Bible would land someone in jail for blasphemy. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Abner Kneeland in 1838, cited the last American case of blasphemy prosecuted in court. He was found guilty and sentenced to sixty days in jail, which he served in spite of calls for pardon on the merits of free speech rights. Our forefathers, being prominent freethinkers, knew this was a future concern, and they granted us the means to have legal grounds for confrontation.

Citizens have the right to have religious views separate from those of everyone else, even if that view is non-belief. This means that religion is protected from government sanction or dissolution. It also means that the government is protected from religious laws interfering on a secular society, or forcing us to follow ideas that aren’t ours demanded by someone else’s religious belief. That is the beauty of the First Amendment; its dual purpose statement works both ways. You have the right to your religious views and you have the right not to be coerced by someone else’s religious views. However, every day our rights are trampled on, and atheists have had enough!

For two hundred years, in the united states, it has been about accommodation, and in all that time atheists have feared persecution of their non-belief. There was some hope and inspiration when Darwin published his Origin of Species, but when rational secular schools tried to teach evolution, what happened instead was the famed Scopes Monkey Trial (poorly named as our nearest ancestors were apes, not monkeys!). The hope and inspiration that had blossomed faded after the court ruling. The teacher was found guilty, for Violating the Butler Act (1925-1967) for teaching evolution in the classroom, and fined for his crime. Not all was lost however, and in spite of accommodating the dominant religion, evolution has made its way into classrooms and centers for intellectual inquiry. Yet today, religion continues its attempts at devaluing evolution and secular society in order to push creationism in the classroom.

Why not confrontation? The fact that atheist exists is a simple enough cause for confrontation, so say the pious. The fact that we do not believe in what the religious whole-heartedly do believe in, is a major setting for conflict, and who draws the line in the sand? Our manner of thinking dare, to challenge the pious, who immediately begin a childish mantra of name calling and pointing of fingers. They claiming absolute truth, and declare their authoritative righteousness over others, asserting that any other manner of thinking is completely wrong, not to mention heretical.

Religious attacks upon atheists occur every day on internet sites and blogs. The religious presume atheists to be immoral and even evil, since atheists have no god to teach them morals, or perpetuate fears of everlasting punishment for misbehavior here on earth. Wait, did the religious moral ground stop the likes of Hitler or the crusaders of Middle Age Europe from slaughtering millions of people? Absolutely not! As a matter of fact, their precious holy texts justify slaughter, not to mention dozens of other activities that – by US judicial standards – would land someone in prison.

I have witnessed confrontation from the religious in other public arenas, not just the web. The 2005 Kansas State School Board voted to redefine “science” against the recommendations of a panel of scientists, with their ultimate goal of inserting Intelligent Design (ID) into the curriculum. The Dover, Pennsylvania trial in 2005, was ruled as an attempt by creationist to sneak creationism (a.k.a. Intelligent Design) into the science classroom disguised as legitimate science.

How about something more recent? The American Atheist Inc. billboard in New Jersey, which immediately got a response billboard attempting to counter the message…now that’s definitely confrontational on behalf of religion. Or how about the atheist ads on city buses in Dallas, Texas? They state, “Millions of Americans Are Good Without God”, and are countered by *confrontational* local churches, who scream, ‘It’s an attack!’ and threatening a bus boycott if the ads go up. In both cases, the billboards that the atheist groups promote are backed by statements saying that they are educating and getting the word out to people who self-identity as atheist, to reassure them that, they aren’t alone, and to get a hold of the local skeptic group or organization.

From Dallas, Texas

From Sacramento, California

How do you interpret these two billboards?

So who are the ones attacking here? How is a billboard advertising an opposite point of view for religion any different than a general religious billboard? Well, in the above example, it’s pretty obvious. To be fair, some Christian billboards are less offensive, passing along a friendly message – somewhat like the atheist billboard from Dallas.

Yet religion claims the oppressed position, saying that they are the ones being attacked, yet they are the ones calling atheists aggressive and or militant. How is being called militant an attack? You see, by tagging “militant” on, this is a psychological ploy to compare atheism with for example militant Muslim fundamentalists. Consider the centuries of oppression the atheists had to live under (and still do in some countries where you can be put to death for being openly atheistic).

The conformity of religious doctrines can be seen in numerous presentations by believers where they parrot (repeat) the supportive arguments that have been dis-proven, by recognized experts and scientists depending on the claim, or have no merit whatsoever, conjecture, or even outright lies. However atheists/skeptics tend to stick with what has merit in the form of evidence or supportive theories verified by science, and recognized experts. The religious, however, prefer to redefine things to fit their arguments. Take the word ‘theory’ for example: the religious are more than happy to apply this to hypothesis such as Intelligent Design, even though there isn’t a shred of evidence supporting it. “But it’s a Theory!!!” Nope, there is not one single peer reviewed paper presented to the scientific community showing evidence. Thus, Intelligent Design is only a HYPOTHESIS, not a theory. Believers are, however, happy to spin this as a valid ‘theory’ while at the same time spitting out the word “theory” as if it were a four letter word in reference to evolution as if it means nothing at this point.

We need confrontation if there is ever going to be another change in this society. We have to stop the encroachment of religion on science, and the law, to truly be free from religion, as granted to us by the First Amendment. We need to stop this delusion from affecting everyone outside the church, where promulgation of religious ideas subverts society with the message of ultimate rule. Great scientists have proven, decade after decade, they have the best answers to the natural world – religion does not have these answers – and rightfully so, because we are all the better for it. The confrontationists know that religious systems have not worked and thus are fighting against the perpetuation of such systems. Not to mention defending that which does work – namely science and free thinking logic – and it is exactly this which has propelled us into the 21st century. Science and logic has moved us further within the last four hundred years, than faith has within the past thousand years.

We are tired of being marginalized. We are tired of being labeled as immoral, and evil for not having faith. We are tired of the self-hate tactics used by the pious which leads to opinions of unworthiness. We are tired of public defamation, like when George Bush Sr. said, “I don’t think atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”  We are tired of having to deal with religion being shoved at us from every angle and afraid of religious extremism taking control of the world.  Today, the numbers of publicly open atheists are growing daily. Today is the time for change and confrontation is our only avenue to affect that change.