The Freedom From Religion Foundation is gluing a label inside of Gideon Bibles
in motels across the country
Bible Warning labels. Skull & Crossbones:
"Warning: Literal Belief in this book may endanger your health and life."
(3" x 2") $2.00 per dozen
On their site they are selling a CD by Dan Barker called "Friendly
Neighborhood Atheist" with songs such as:
- You Can’t Win With Original Sin
- Stay Away Pope Polka
- Vatican Rag
- Solstice Tribute
They also have a sections of nontracts and I can understand why
they call them nontracts is because they make nonsense. It is almost funny the
way bible versus are misrepresented.
- Make people want to persecute you. (Matthew 5:11)
- Take money from those who have no savings and give it to rich investors.
(Luke 19:23-26) - If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment. (Matthew 5:40)
- Don’t work to obtain food. (John 6:27)
- Let everyone know you are better than the rest. (Matthew 5:13-16)
And the ironic thing is that they understand some Bible verses
better than some Christian groups
- Marrying a divorced woman is adultery. (Matthew 5:32)
As is usually the case with groups like this they solely target
Christians. There are no diatribes against earth worshiping new-agers, Hindus,
Buddhists, or Moslems. If you spend most of your time attacking religious beliefs,
selling products against religious beliefs, and labeling bibles are you really
free from religion? It would seem to me that somebody who never thought about
religion or didn’t spend any time acting against religion would be the one that
was really free of religion.
As G.K. Chesterton said “If there were
no God, there would be no atheists.” – Where All Roads Lead, 1922
8 comments
Still laughing! I wonder how blithering atheists like The Raving Atheist (fits, doesn’t it?) would respond.
Oops! Here’s The Raving Atheist.
http://www.blogs4god.com/blog/001053.html
Iraq in the spotlight National leaders of the Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptist churches have proposed an alternative to war with Iraq. I dissect the issue here. Is the recent discovery of a drone plane in Iraq a “smoking gun”? Donald
Jeff – there’s a reason these groups target Christianity. Check the news and I’m sure you’ll note that it isn’t Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or space-alien worshipping cults that are most adamantly trying to impose their views on the rest of us through the machinations of government (although I bet Muslims would too if they were the majority religion).
Atheists will be free of religion when the religious extremists appreciate that a neutral government stance is best – let people worship as they see fit, such that it harms none, and let government get to the business of – you know – governing. Not pandering to some vocal religious constituency.
I’m personally opposed to putting stickers in the Gideon Bibles because it’s destruction of private property (the same reason I wouldn’t put stickers all over the furniture). Now, tracts of paper or whatever – that’s fine with me, although I don’t think it’s going to change anyone’s mind.
Michelle: I criticized the American Atheists when they defended non-authorized sex acts on the Catholic Church’s private property at St. Patrick’s Cathedral (“I suspect that if the Catholic League sent representatives over to American Atheists’ headquarters to engage in sex acts, and broadcast the festivities over the radio, AA would not be framing the question as one of free speech”) and I condemn the FFRF to the extent they are defacing private property with their stickers. I have also attacked the FFRF for its stance on abortion (it publishes a booklet called “Abortion is a Blessing and defends the practice on biblical grounds). My moral views are based upon an utilitarian evaluation of the consequences of an act, rather than blind adoption of the views of some organization or other authority.
Andy,
I am not sure how exactly the government can take a neutral stand. Once a law is passed it is usually based on some philosophy as to why an action should not be allowed. The neutrality can only be perceived if it matches what an individual will see as conforming to reason or as a natural consequent to their beliefs. What one group would consider a neutral act might not be seen that way by others.
The Raving Atheist,
When I looked at the FFRF site I didn’t associate their site with yours or Andy’s. I might not agree with your worldview but I don’t see it as being equal to the ideas expressed at the FFRF.
Jeff – as I head more and more towards libertarianism, it strikes me that a government that protects the rights to life, liberty, and property is quite easy to comprehend and execute.
As an aside, speaking of FFRF, while I agree with Dan Barker’s beliefs, I find his approach counterproductive along the same lines that Falwell and Robertson are counterproductive to Christian causes. He consistently comes across as having a chip on his shoulder and resenting being a believer for so long – that isn’t going to win any de-converts.
Jeff: My comment was specifically addressed to Michelle, who wondered how a “blithering atheist like [me] . . . would respond.”