Why do the Heathen Rage? Why do the Aetheists and Secular Humanists Even Care?

Why Do Atheists Who Passionately Believe That There Is Nothing At All To Believe In Seem To Find Their Faith In Having Nothing To Have Faith In So All-Consuming

Ned Barnett

The passionate and public Atheists go to court to try to chance society to conform to their belief that there's nothing to believe in.  They hold rallies to make their non-belief.  They buy ads to trumpet their non-belief in the face of believers.  They stage protests to denounce anyone of faith who speaks out in favor of faith in something - not faith in nothing. 

But at the end of the day, it's all nothing but mock outrage.  If they were honest in their non-belief, they'd have nothing to rage at, nothing to lobby against, nothing spiritual to care about.

Atheists.  Be honest.  If you really do believe that there is nothing beyond what you can see, feel, touch, taste or smell - and certainly no God or Satan, no Heaven or Hell - then you really don't care what Christians believe and think.  And why should you? 

As a passionate and activist Atheist, you very publicly believe, and believe passionately, that there is no God, and certainly not the Christian Godhead of the Lord, Christ and the Spirit.  You go further and believe with all the soul (the one you don't have) that there is nothing to believe in, nothing at all - except, of course, for your passionate belief in nothing.  And a belief in nothing is nothing to get excited about, is it?

Let's suppose that you're right, that there is no God, that the Universe is a cosmic accident with no meaning.  OK, then why on earth would you even consider worrying about - not to mention actually caring about - what Christians believe and think?  If the whole idea of sin is this made-up, crazy, wacko Christian thing, why worry about it at all?   After all, you already believe that it doesn't exist?

If you're a homosexual Atheist, and a Christian with a fantasy obsession says you're a sinner doomed to hell, why should you care?  You know there's no God, no sin and no Hell. 

If you're a pedophile or a rapist, a prostitute or a  kidnapper - and you're an Atheist - you may have to worry about cops and juries and judges, but you don't have to worry about divine retribution. As an Atheist, you know there's no penalty for whatever you do, as long as you don't get caught - then, if you are caught, the only penalty is imposed by other men in the here-and-now.

If a Christian who believes in a God who you KNOW doesn't exist says that this non-existent God will condemn you, after death, for your lifestyle choices, why should you care?  You already know there's no afterlife. You already KNOW that the Christian's God doesn't exist, and you know that that without a god to condemn it, sin doesn't exist.  You already know that this Christian who's judging you must be bat-guano crazy. 

Given all of that, what does the opinion of a guy with bat droppings rattling around inside his skull, a guy who believes in the questionable translation of a ragged collection of 66 seemingly-contradictory books written two millenniums ago by some dusty nomads even matter to you?

Why do you care about that Christian or  his non-existent God?

Why do you care about Phil Robinson, the Duck Dynasty "Patriarch" who has become the latest cause for Atheist angst?

The guy believes in God.  He believes in that ancient text (with translations even believing Christians can't agree on) that condemns you.  He believes in virgin birth, resurrection of the dead, eternal life in a spirit world, and a loving, all-knowing God who nonetheless allowed some local yokels to whip him to the point of death before crucifying him - a particularly horrible way to die.

Is this someone you should care about?

If you're walking down the street and encounter a zombie'd out homeless wreck of a man who's busy talking to himself and shouting at everyone else, and he told you to sell GM short, would you do it?  No.  He's obviously crazy, and what does he know about the Stock Market?  Nothing.

If you're walking down the street and you encounter someone with a shaggy main of hair, a beard that ZZ Top would envy, and a camo suit straight out of The Nam, a shaggy redneck with a bible clutched in one hand as he's  saying, "you, homosexual, you're a sinner - give it up, find Jesus, repent and be saved," would you do it?  Or would you write him off as someone who ought to be in the same lock-down unit with that homeless guy.  He's obviously a passionate nutcase.  So why does his opinion matter?

Yet it seems to matter a great deal to Activist Atheists - and to Activist Gays, who tend to also disbelieve anyone's God because all the major God-figures in human religion condemn homosexuals and homosexuality.  Its a fact that it matters, but the real question is "why?"  Why do the Activist Atheists and Gays care so much about the opinions and beliefs of people they consider irrational, and the faux-condemnations those whack-jobs heap on them, based on some 2,000 to 3,000 year old collection of poorly-copied and poorly-translated papyrus scrolls.

Why would any card-carrying Atheist - a man or woman who knows for a "fact" that there's no God, and no sin - get the least bit worried about what some redneck cracker from way down deep in the bayou thinks about sin and homosexuality, let alone about your preference for anuses over vaginas?  Why would you care what condemnations of your lifestyle are written in his fairy-tale bible? After all, you believe his bible is complete fiction, a fairy-tale made up about the antics of some ancient desert tribal god-figure who - if he'd really existed, but of course he didn't - had obviously been a moral prude and a real buzz-kill.

Why does any of that bother you, a card-carrying Atheist, especially since you already know - KNOW, mind you, with a belief born of intellectual superiority and a rigidly rational mind-set - that what Robertson believes isn't even real?  Why in the world would a bright, intelligent, rational mind like yours get so upset about this Christian Myth?   I mean, c'mon, you know that there isn't any God - and, without God, there isn't any sin.

Morality and judgment, sin and punishment and redemption, all of those are figments of the easily-led, flyover-country Christ-believer's false set of beliefs, beliefs centered around that dusty desert tribal god YHWH.  That singular God, YHWH (known to his friends as Yahweh or Jehovah) is actually a "god" who is no more real than Ishtar or Ra, Zeus or Jupiter - so why worry about what HE says, anyway?

Why indeed.  The answer is simple.  Because - as you Activist Atheists know - there is no god. Because there's no god, then it stands to reason that there's no morality, no sin, no judgment, and best of all, no cosmic rules that arbitrarily apply to you.  Knowing this, knowing that Christians who denounce you or challenge you are both deluded and intellectually weak sheep intent on following an ancient myth, then why all the fuss? 

Why do you care if you're called a sinner by some backwoods hick on a duck show?

Why do you care if you're condemned to a non-existent Hell by some puffed up buffoon with a duck's tail and a microphone?

Hey, you know it's all BS - so why do you care? 

Because Atheism is a great gig, and you don't want to lose it.  With no god, there's no accountability for the way you live.  If  there's no god, then everything in your life is cool. 

But since the nearest "god" you can find is the statue of Prometheus in the sunken garden at the Rockefeller Center on Manhattan, then what's the problem?  The real  problem?

I'm no psychologist, but from decades of observation, I maintain that if someone spends an inordinate amount of time and energy - and even wealth - in denial of the existence of something, that person is generally trying to mask over a belief that he doesn't want.  There are exceptions, of course, but psychologists agree that there is always "something" behind any obsession.

For example ...

"Latent" homosexuals are usually those guys who spend a great deal of time denying their gender confusion - they do this by attacking those who are openly gay. 

Atheists - not those who just don't care, but those who spend all their time passionately fighting against a God they say they know doesn't exist - must actually believe something.  Deep down, they believe in something that either frightens the pure-cane (ahem) out of them, or they're afraid of something that challenges the very core of their precious self-image. 

I think that most of the passionate and outspokenly-public Atheists are really just whistling past the graveyard - they desperately hope there is no God or Hell, no sin or judgment.  Scared out of their wits at the consequences if they're wrong, but afraid or unable to embrace God and the Grace of forgiveness, these Atheists battle the image of an afterlife judged by God by creating a fantasy world in which there is no God, and where there are no consequences, no sins and no retribution.

That is why the Heathen Rage ...

BTW: I think any real Atheist would - because he believes that there's nothing there in the universe in which to believe or disbelieve -  have no reason to argue, deny, attack or defend.  He'd just move on to something he does believe in. Or have another double espresso at Starbucks.

***

With a tip of my hat to Rush Limbaugh - I saw his brief comment on a website and realized he'd framed an issue that's been troubling me for a long time.  He's the inspiration for what's here, but the mistakes are my own.

Duck Dynasty Dropped Over Freedom of Religious Expression Issue

  A&E Shoots Self in Foot - Having First Put Foot in Mouth ...

Ned Barnett

First, a disclaimer.  From 1973 until his death earlier this year, my oldest and closest friend was Gay, and while he didn't advertise this, he made no secret of it.  He was also a member of a Christian Church, and prayed that God's infinite grace would save him.  I share that prayer, for he was a good man - and though his sin lists high among many conservative Christians, we are all sinful, and all need God's Grace.  It's impossible for an honest man to have a Gay man who was, for 40 years,  my very closest friend, my frequent business partner and my co-worker and also harbor ill-will toward Gays.  I hold no such animosity.

But, like hundreds of millions of other Americans, I also believe in the bible - and I have a good idea of what the bible says about sin in general, and that one particular sin (among all the particular sins).  Finally, I know that all people (including me) sin.  So anything you read here that you "think" is anti-Gay is either your mistaken impression or, more likely, my own poor choice of words.

Now, another (the last) disclaimer.  I have never watched Duck Dynasty - from what I've seen, I don't much care for reality TV, but beyond that, I'm not a hunter.  By choice, I don't tend to watch shows about hunting. I prefer target shooting.   I'm not anti-hunter, either - my son's a bow-hunter, and I'm proud of his skill - but hunting is just not my "thing." 

However, I am passionate about the First Amendment (I make my living as a writer and communicator).  In one sense, I do not see this as a First Amendment issue - a private company can fire or hire whom they please, and only government censorship is prevented by the First Amendment.

The idea that a man should be punished, publicly and financially, for expressing his own deeply-held religious beliefs, that is anathema in a country protected by the First Amendment's "free exercise" of religion clause.  In addition, that this man was punished for sharing his mainstream Christian beliefs that are spelled out repeatedly in the bible - in a country with a nominal majority of Christians - well, that says something deeply serious about the culture war against those persons of faith in America.  That's my other disclaimer, or caveat.

On with the show (so to speak).  Those two disclaimers aside, and more to the point, since 1975, I have routinely been called in by clients and employers to resolve self-generated crises, and this is a great example of just such a self-inflicted business and PR disaster.  A&E was pressured to take action when one of its stars honestly spoke of his honest religious beliefs - which is odd since he was hired because of those beliefs and because of the way he expresses them.  A&E, in promoting Duck Dynasty, called this employee a "bible-thumper" in their show promotion.

But they were pressured by well-organized advocates who speak for a minority of Americans, as is their right.  They have the same First Amendment freedoms as does Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty, to say what they believe in the public marketplace of ideas.  However, unlike Phil Robertson, who asked for no censure or punishment for those who violate God's laws, leaving that up to God Himself, GLAAD insisted that any public figure who disagrees with them must be punished - including being deprived of their income.

The irony here is rich.  By asserting the right to demand that others be punished for disagreeing with them, GLAAD, by necessity, must grant the right for others to demand that GLAAD and its constituents by punished for speaking out their own views.  Either that or they're saying that only one set of views (GLAAD's) is legitimate of public protection, and that view can be found nowhere in the Constitution or in statutory law.

A&E, which is in business to make money, not to advocate for fairness or constitutional principles, felt the pressure from GLAAD, and decided to act.  However, they didn't have to boot Robertson off his own show - they could have just decried his position and moved on.  But they did choose to punish Robertson, and now, millions of their viewers will make sure that A&E pays the consequences for their one-sided and anti-religious stance.

The Problem

A&E essentially fired key program cast member Phil Robertson for something he said. Worse, they didn't fire him for anything he said on the show, but for something he said to a reporter from GQ, a magazine interviewing him.  Further, they fired him for speaking out about a topic that had nothing to do with the show.  What Robertson said was a bit crass, but I take it that "crass" is part of his style, part of what makes the show a financial and ratings success for A&E.

I have read the comments, which offer his perspective on what the bible says about all the varieties of sex a person can have that is outside of marriage.  Basically, the bible says that any extra-marital sex is bad, and lists a number of examples, from infidelity to bestiality to homosexuality to male prostitution. 

Here's the rub.  A&E has promoted Robertson and his show for their bible-thumping religiously-conservative and very outspoken views.  They attracted 11.8 million fanatic followers to the premiere episode of their current 4th season - a landmark viewer record for any cable program - and for A&E, that's a gold mine.  According to some sources, episodes of Duck Dynasty have been all five of the top-five A&E shows of all time.

In creating and promoting the show, A&E executives have all but egged Robertson on to become an outspoken redneck "character," and to do that for all for the almighty dollar.  Now, when Robertson does nothing more than express his belief in the bible - which very definitely speaks out against all manner of out-of-wedlock sex, including infidelity, bestiality, homosexuality, the temptations of lewd women (the book of Proverbs is filled with that) and male prostitution.  In this, he was acting in character as a bible-believing saved-by-Christ "bible thumper," exactly the character A&E bought and paid for - exactly the character who helped create the most profitable program in A&E history.

Had any member of the A&E leadership team bothered to check their cash cow, they'd have known that:

a.  He believes what the bible says; and
b.  The bible says that homosexuality is a forbidden sin

If anyone should have been punished (and nobody should) it should be the A&E executive who didn't bother to read his bible before unleashing the Robertson clan on America.  Phil was just doing what he's always done - and what A&E had been paying him handsomely for.  He was telling the truth as he saw it, citing the bible as his source of truth.

Apparently, speaking the truth about belief and about what's in the bible has become - if not against the law - then punishable here in the United States, which was once a bastion of religious freedom.

The Solution

Predictably, the Gay defense groups such as GLAAD immediately denounced Robertson for exercising his First Amendment rights of free practice of religion and free speech.  In their eyes, free speech of course applies to anyone who will speak out in favor of homosexuality - as it should, because advocating for rights and respect for homosexuals is absolutely protected speech.  However, in their eyes, that freedom only works one way.  You're free to support them, but if you oppose what they stand for, you should be pilloried, fired, banished, castigated and mocked in public.  That's their position, and they're entitled to it, but it does tend to make them look like hypocrites, and does make it harder for non-members to support their extreme and one-sided position.

GLAAD also showed themselves to be clueless about Christianity.  GLAAD's spokesman Wilson Cruz told the public that "Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe."

"What true Christians believe?"

If GLADD's spokesmen and leaders had just read the bible, they'd know that Phil Robertson didn't lie about what the bible says.  The bible takes a harsh view on any kind of sexual activity outside the man-woman marriage bed, including homosexuality - but the bible doesn't single that out as an especially damnable sin.  The bible - and bible-believing Christians - take it as an article of faith that all sexual activity outside the marriage bed shared by a husband and wife is on God's sin list.

This isn't "hate" - as far as the bible goes, it's "fact." 

From a purely PR point of view, GLAAD could have decried Phil's views without trying to "out-Christian" a man known primarily for his Christian beliefs.  It's just foolish to appear both more knowledgeable about a belief than it's believer, and to also appear so ignorant in public, especially when there are other options.

But that was GLAAD.  Their default message for those it opposes is a commercial "off with his head."  No surprises there.  But what about A&E?

A&E, which had many options, decided that it's solution was to suspend Robertson indefinitely.  They had other options.  Take a look at their public statement:

"We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson's comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty," A&E said in a statement. "His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community ... "

If A&E had stopped there, they would have expressed their displeasure at Robertson's statement - and his beliefs - and distanced the network from its largest-ever and most profitable star.  End of story.

Except ... they added one more sentence.  They took a reasonable statement and pushed it into the realm of trying to destroy someone financially for the sin of  sharing his heart-felt religious beliefs, beliefs backed by the bible (the best-selling and most-read book in history).  A&E added:  "The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely," and immediately all hell broke loose.

Already, the Robertson family has rallied around Phil.  They have said publicly:  "While some of Phil's unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart' and 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Phil would never incite or encourage hate."

Much more important, however, the family is fighting back, with the only weapon they have - threatening to walk, calling into question the very future of the show that is the top-rated cable program of all time, and A&E's biggest cash cow.  

"We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty." 

Along with that ringing but not unexpected rebuke, CNN reports that more than 350,000 people have already signed online petitions or in some other way "voted" against A&E.  Those who are serious won't just boycott this one A&E program - they will vote with their eyeballs and their wallets and take their viewing elsewhere.  With 500-plus cable channels, plus Netflix and Hulu and Red Box, those viewers won't be starved for entertainment - but A&E will be starved for the revenue they'll lose because of the way they caved in to a special interest group.

There's real iron here -  is A&E's suspension of Robertson is a kind of hollow suspension. It doesn't include next season's shows (which include Robertson in all of them) because they have already been filmed, and to throw them away to enforce the suspension would cost A&E money.  The suspension, if it actually happens, will apply to next season (2015), but only if the show's renewed, and only if anybody still remembers this kerfuffle in 12 or 13 months.

To me, this is a lose-lose situation, and for a couple of reasons.

First, this action has already begun to polarize Duck Dynasty viewers who share a strong Christian faith with its star - and it's a fair bet that few of GLAAD's members are avid Duck Dynasty viewers.  Beginning now, A&E is losing business, and it will only continue as the controversy roars on.

Second, this is a "lose" for GLAAD because it exposes the group's intolerance to a wider public than ever before - and as Christians begin to see GLAAD as an oppressor actively stifling public expressions of faith and belief, they will see a backlash from those who neither want to victimize Gays nor to be victimized by Gays.

Finally he big losers are A&E's shareholders, most of whom (statistically) are more likely to be at least nominal Christians than they are to be Gay, or passionate supporters of Gay advocate groups.  Were I a stockholder, I'd already be asking the executives why they'd taken actions sure to "tank" the value of the stock.  Wall Street doesn't give a tinker's dam about "causes."  They care about profits, and when they see A&E losing viewers, stock prices will inevitably fall.

I would not want to be an A&E shareholder today, nor would I want to be an A&E executive.  Stocks will fall and heads will roll.

But this should also concern any foresighted GLAAD leader, because as networks see the financial cost of supporting a single-issue advocacy group that has nothing to do with their (the network's) business, those networks will re-think blindly caving to GLAAD in the future.

In the long run, the big loser is A&E - a bigger loser will be GLAAD (once for-profit businesses see the dollar-and-sense cost of blindly caving to their high-pressure demands).

But the big winner may be bible-believing Christians, who come to realize that their beliefs are under attack, but that they are also not alone