Taking On Chuck Norris – ‘Mano a Mano’

Chuck Norris posted a three part discourse titled, literally, How To Outlaw Christianity. In the more banal sense of this sensationalist headline, presumably it would only need to take a signature on a law proposal.

Being hosted on WorldNetDaily, one cannot expect it to be anything other than an obscenely arrogant rant on the dangers of atheism and the necessity for a strange Church/State hybrid. Bring back the Middle Ages, we say!

I’m going to try and do the unthinkable. Chuck Norris, I’m taking you down to Chinatown, one paragraph at a time.

Chuck Norris: This past week an ABC News debate aired on “Nightline,” which pitted popular theists against Internet atheists. While I’ll have more to say about that battle of wits in my next article, it testifies to the growing number (30 million Americans) of those who profess there is no God. Add to that what I believe is possibly three times the number of functional atheists, those who believe in a God but practically don’t show it, and America is facing a new religious horizon in which atheism is becoming a formidable foe.

Gospel of Reason: George H. Bush: “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”. Chuck Norris is not alone in seeing atheists as foes. Bush the Elder’s got his back.

CN: Though the majority of Americans continue to claim to be Christians, a Gallup poll discovered 45 percent of us would support an atheist for president. Such a survey is a clear indication that the secularization of society is alive and well.

The opponents of God

Once upon a time, years ago, it seemed that the only major fire for atheism burned from the anti-Christian work of Madelyn Murray O’Hair and the American Atheist organization, whose claim to fame was the banning of prayer and Bible reading in public schools in 1963.

GoR: Because Chuck doesn’t care for the world’s most prominent scientists since the times of Ancient Greece, leading politicians and not even the founders of the nation he lives in. Ah, and the ‘opponents’ of God is quite a leap of faith, fittingly enough. I don’t oppose God. If he turned up on my doorstep, I wouldn’t stand in his way. Still, it’s kind of hard to do either for someone/thing which has not given any signs of mere existence in 10,000 years of religious belief. Also, banning prayer and Bible reading in public schools! It’s quite interesting to note that Chuck finds this outrageous – presumably he is in favour of systematic indoctrination of children as long as it’s in something he agrees with.

CN: Today many more antagonist groups and individuals to theism abound, and they are using every means possible for global proliferation – from local government to the World Wide Web. Such secular progressives include the Institute for Humanist Studies, Secular Coalition of America, American Atheists, American Humanist Association, Internet Infidels, the Atheist Alliance International, Secular Student Alliance, Society for Humanistic Judaism, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, etc. Of course no list of atheistic advocates would be complete without mentioning the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, as well as the anti-God militancy of men like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

GoR: So many of them! Indicates a certain level of conspiracy, does it not? Again, the ‘anti-God’ bit is a gem. I had always thought that Sam Harris addressed his letter to a Christian nation, not to God. Unless, of course, Uncle Chuck is going as far as to equate Christians with God – not that outrageous/comical considering the amount of people historically who have claimed to speak for God.

CN: Though the U.S. Constitution outlaws religious discrimination, these organizations and individuals would love nothing more than to help society look with distain upon Christianity and, ultimately, make its components illegal. In fact, right now, they are coalescing and rallying at least 5 million of their troops to mount counter offensives to Christianity.

For that reason I believe theistic patriots need to be wise to atheists’ overt and covert schemes, exposing their agenda and fighting to lay waste to their plans.

GoR: It’s marvellous how he invokes a complaint against the separation of kids from religion in schools and later on, in the same text, invokes the constitutional principle of freedom of religion. I imagine he interprets said freedom as ‘Freedom For One Religion’.

Again, the ‘theistic patriots’, a flashback of George H. dangerously slamming atheists for… well, for being atheists.

CN: Step 1: Initiate restrictions and legislation against theism and Christianity

In God we bust

For these liberal groups to win the war of ideological dominance, they know they must minimize the effects of Christianity, which many are doing (unbeknownst to others) behind the scenes through lobbying and legislation. In fact, two significant actions occurred on the National Day of Prayer just two weeks ago!

GoR: Throwing in liberal in there is meant to rally his conservative readers to disgust. I mean, personally, the Gospel of Reason neither likes liberals (for being surprisingly moralistic and dangerously interventionist) nor conservatives (for being simple minded, moralistic and dangerously religious) but it’s not how I define myself! National Day of Prayer, incidentally, does not equate to National Day of Respect to Fundamentalist Christians. Life goes on, even while you clasp your hands together and talk to yourself.

CN: The London Telegraph noted that, while American Christians were praying across the land on the National Day of Prayer, atheists were petitioning the Texas Legislature against the civic display of the words, “In God We Trust.” Eroding and erasing theistic language in culture is a growing trend. Earlier this year George Washington dollar coins were not only inscribed with the words “In God We Trust” on their edges, but many excluded them entirely! Such minting modifications are a flagrant defiance against theism and a public reflection of the place God is now relegated – to the fringes of society.

GoR: Again, “We want Church/State but we’re not entirely sure why!”. The coin incident he mentions is, as the article he links to correctly points out, an example of a minting error, and those coins gathered collector’s status the minute they left the ovens. Some coins from the same batch (which originated only in Philadelphia) bore no inscriptions at all! But this must certainly be an atheist guerilla propagandist, from one of the multiple organisations Chuck listed at the beginning.

CN: Secularists of course have made repeated attempts to rid “under God” from “The Pledge of Allegiance.” Thank God the Legislature of Texas is moving along a bill to include the words in our state pledge: “Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God and indivisible.” I was also grateful to read in the Dallas Morning News May 1 that the House also embraced legislation “that seeks to clarify the rights of Texas public school students to offer public prayers at football games or graduation, hand out religious messages or hold religious meetings during the school day if they want.”

Another example of atheistic advocacy can be found in the 10,000-member Freedom from Religion Foundation initiation of a Supreme Court case, which asserts that President Bush’s faith-based initiatives pose a violation of the wall of separation between church and state.

GoR: I risk sounding redundant, but again there is a launch on the rant about Church/State hybridism, about the right of religious organisations to pursue brainwashing kids within the confines of public, state subsidised schools and once again complains that atheists are getting in the way of Christianity and faith.

The next bit is fun.

CN: Atheists also received a proverbial shot in the arm by locating a representative and advocate of sorts in Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who “is the first member of Congress – and the highest-ranking elected official in the country – to make known that he is a nontheist.”

His election stands in stark contrast to the wishes of our Founding Fathers, who encouraged American citizens to vote Christians into public office. As John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, wrote to Jedidiah Morse on Feb. 28, 1797, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

GoR: Let me put it this way. The Founding Fathers, although many nominally Christian, founded a State designed to be the anti-thesis of their former imperial overlords in England. The American State was born with ideals of a secular nature, in no way Christian. The Treaty of Tripoli is a testament to this. An official public record, not a quote, signed and stamped by the Founding Fathers themselves, not by a justice. I know where my sympathies lay. Perhaps Chuck is not so inclined to believe in American ideals after all. There is doubtless such a thing as a Christian American ideal. This is not, however, a set of values that the Founding Fathers took from to build the Union. It is quite a modern set of rather twisted values, in fact.

CN: The tyranny of the state over the church The other legal disgrace that occurred on the National Day of Prayer was that Congress passed what might become one of the most religiously restrictive pieces of legislation in history: H.R. 1592, “The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.” With Senate approval, this bill will expand the law against such hate crimes, allowing federal funds and other resources to assist local law enforcement to deter and punish acts of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.

While the bill purports to target crimes of brutality, not speech, it could very easily end up (even inadvertently) restricting First Amendment rights of Christians to speak freely against such anti-biblical practices as homosexuality and transvestitism. As Janet Folger, the author of “Criminalizing Christianity,” has pointed out, “H.R. 1592 isn’t about hate. It isn’t about crime. It’s about silencing our speech.”

GoR: With a thrillingly uninspired quote by Janet Folger, Chuck closes a paragraph which basically complains about his God given right to harass homosexuals and atheists. It’s quite interesting to note, therefore, that Chuck is all about hounding homosexuals, but when it comes to criticising Christianity, ah no-no-no. *tsk tsk tsk*. Christianity is a religion. It deserves respect and it deserves the time and space and right to harass people it deems unsightly.

CN: As with other laws of this type, once enacted, local justices could easily expand its interpretive enforcement to encompass a wider meaning than originally conceived. Once enforced, what would stop a clergy from being accused as an accessory to a hate crime, after he preached to his church on Sunday about the woes of same-sex marriage and discovered on Monday one of his congregants got in a fight with a homosexual co-worker as a result of a moral altercation? The fact is, if the hate-crime bill passes, pastors could easily become pulpit partners in crime.

I agree with Rev. Henry Jackson, who said the law would “mandate unequal protection under the law and will pave the way for criminalization of thoughts and religious beliefs contrary to politically correct ideas.”

Hate-crime laws are not only a violation of our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion, but a violation of the 10th Amendment’s limitations on the power of federal government.

GoR: Hang on, did he just call picking a fight with a gay just because he’s gay a moral altercation? Would he have, in 1938 Germany, called Kristallnacht a moral altercation?

The funny thing is, I don’t like the hate-crime law! I think it’s a moralistic effort that does, in fact, restrict the space to criticise (not gays, but religion as well). But the reasons Chuck places to show his dislike of the bill are absolutely and stunningly scary. Chuck wants to verbally abuse them homosexuals, dammit, because in the Bible it says so!

CN: Thank God our president’s senior advisers have gone on record that they will advise him to veto the bill if it reaches the doors of the White House. We, too, must follow his lead by speaking up and taking a stand against this unnecessary and unconstitutional bill – and any others like it. Just as atheists are gathering to combat God, we patriots must come together to sustain the godly heritage we’ve been handed. As Benjamin Franklin said, “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately.”

I urge you to write the president and your representatives today to encourage the overturning of this ungodly, religiously restricting and unconstitutional piece of legislation, erroneously titled by the misnomer, “Hate Crimes Prevention Act.”

GoR: One last time, atheists are not here to ‘combat God’, we don’t even believe in him! And please don’t call the USA your ‘godly heritage’. God didn’t come down and give it to the Europeans. The Europeans sailed to it and took it away from the people living there in the first place.

All in all, I find Chuck’s lack of faith rather amusing. Allow me to explain. He advocates rather clearly for a total lack of religious freedom imposing instead a theocracy founded in purely Christian values, an effrontery to the values of the Founding Fathers.

Basically, he absolutely cannot worship God or pray in peace if everyone doesn’t do it like him. If this is not a lack of ‘faith’, nothing is.

I, for one, will welcome Chuck to the frontline of atheism and rational belief, once he realises what little faith he really has. I promise the initiation rites are rather trivial, merely necessitating the sacrifice of your first born child in proof of your loyalty. Ha! Got you there, didn’t I? Yeah, it’s actually what Chuck’s God required in the beginning, but you know, we’re not too picky nowadays.

Chuck can certainly throw a mean roundhouse kick but he sure cannot for the life of him make his brain function properly.

chuck

A Christian soldier, marching as to war.

Advertisements

7 Responses

  1. Actually, I was thinking about turning atheistic, but I’m going to stay agnostic. Despite your pot shots, he quotes some notable scientists at the end of the article (Davies, Horgan, Jastrow, etc.) and makes a valid point that science can’t explain everything (and we have our own biases too). I’m not saying he whole article was perfect, but I was surprised at his reasonable logic to be honest.
    As an agnostic, I think Chucky made a great case for us. Atheism is a weak alternative, does presume too much upon “what’s behind the curtain,” and cannot be defended scientifically–as any other metaphysical belief cannot. Dawkins has something to learn from profs like Davies and science writers like Horgan. Dawkins is definitely over-rated right now. As an astronomy major, I believe Chuck made some great points. I’m surprised he knows as much as he does. Not enough know about the work of Horgan and Davies–who have been working metaphysics far before Dawkins came on the scene.

  2. Atheism does not presume to say ‘there is no God’ with 100% certainty.
    I’m an atheist as opposed to an agnostic because I simply do not support the amount of destruction and cruelty waged in the name of organised religion and because quite frankly, the existence of God is statistically negligible – I lead my life as if he wasn’t there. Atheism is not a mystical metaphysical belief. If you are looking for one in atheism you will not find it. Atheism is quite simply the absence of superstitious belief, and this wide net includes religion. It is a naturalist, humanist world view that does not need the supernatural to explain events apparently beyond understanding.
    Science can at the very least try and explain everything. If it can’t it’s because of the current absence of evidence. Agnosticism is, superficially, true scepticism, but it yields a clear bias to acknowledgment of the inexplicable, when this is not the case for an atheist.
    Dawkins (and me with him) do not, I reiterate, do not say “we are 100% sure that God does not exist”. But as far as a scientific hypothesis, God is statistically negligible.

  3. Adrian (eltower), I am an agnostic and lead my life as if he (note he with a lower-case ‘h’) didn’t exist. ‘God’ is satistically negligible, but so is ‘No God’, in the various levels of infinity within the world of probability.
    In mathematical notation:
    P(YHWH)=1/infinity=0
    P(Brahman)=1/infinity=0
    P(Allah)=1/infinity=0
    P(Nothing at all)=1/infinity=0
    And so on.
    God is statistically negligible because he is one in infinity. Nothing at all is not the only other option. If it was, god would have a fifty-fifty chance of existing. That is assuredly not statistically negligible.
    Agnosticism is certainly superficial, but that is only because we are too busy dealing with our own, tangible lives to delve deep into the question of the existence or not of the supernatural.

  4. Organised religion is, sadly, one of the worst things to have happened to the world. That a practice that was devised for good, and for the explanation of the inexplicable, has been udsed to increasse personal power and as a tool for hurt and revenge is deplorable. Atheism, however has no call insulting those who profess faith, and a belief that they can do good with their belief. All you atheists, please be careful.

  5. Evolution is a mechanism which replaces a former monopoly of the theists and inserts a wonderfully elegant, scientific explanation backed by ample evidence. The Big Bang is an elegant and awe-inspiring natural mechanism which can be used to explain events formerly under the monopoly of theists. I use them as examples to say that the probability for God/s existing is statistically negligible in a way that the probability of his non-existence isn’t.

    Atheism is not and never has been about insulting and berating faith or those who profess it.

    But it is a testament to the widespread ignorance about atheism when one considers the negative connotations it has attached to it. There are in fact far more atheists than would acknowledge – an ‘in the closet’ situation, if you will. Read Chuck’s article again and tell me he is not standing on a platform of bigotry against homosexuals, atheists and generally against reason, and you might begin to understand the phrase ‘cornered like an animal’.

    And consider that those who profess faith and berate atheists are honestly doing it in the belief they are doing good. In their charity they want us all to go to heaven. When a Christian, Muslim, Jew or atheist scientist give alms, it is not because of their faith (or lack thereof), it is because of an evolved natural function which does good. It is a challenge to find what good one can do with the faith that a Jewish zombie walked 2000 years ago, or that a new Prophet told the Arabs to spread his word by the sword.

  6. You lost credibility when you said you were going to take on CN man to man. No man can accomplish that. His very eyes alone are able to dagger a man to death.

  7. When I heard he cried after sex I got cocky, metaljaybird.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: