Hitler? Atheist?

Some theists argue that atheism was responsible for the deaths of so many people at the hands of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao.

The claimants fail to realize that these individuals simply happened to be atheists (or were they?) who had ridiculous ideas that lead to the deaths of millions. There is no logical connection from "I don't accept the claims of theists" to "I'm going to set up a personality cult, brainwash a nation, kill people, and take over the world."

If a high-school student was very interested in Greek mythology and killed students at his school, would you blame Greek mythology? The reporters found dozens of books in his house! It must have been that belief in Zeus!

The idea that Hitler was an atheist is actually very questionable.

The Nazi regime forced the German soldiers to wear religious symbols such as the swastika and they placed religious sayings on military gear. An example here is the German army belt buckle which reads “Gott Mit Uns”. For those of you who do not speak German it is translated as “God With Us”.

“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922

"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf

“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” –Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

So, even if Hitler were an atheist, would you expect a speech like this to be the cause of his evil?

Video - The Trouble With Atheism - Part 3 Review

"If it's not enough that belief in a divine being is improbable, but it's actually laughable."

The idea that an all-loving being who did nothing for 100,000 years while humans suffered from war, famine, disease, birth, childbirth, teeth growing in, etc and then decided to intervene in the Middle East about 2000 years ago by offering his son as a human sacrifice and calling it love is ridiculous. People who believe that God sends miracles on the sides of sauce containers are laughable (There, happy? I'll make fun of them).

Do you say that the existence of leprechauns is improbable? Do you say that Thor's existance is improbable? Do you say that it's improbable that Elvis is back from the dead? There are all supernatural claims that should be put in the same ark with Jesus and God. We should reject all of these claims because no good evidence, argument, or reason has been put forth by the people making the claims.

Why should religion get a special spot on the discussion table where we can't question and poke fun at it?

"It's the same when you speak to a fervent believer...they're right and you're wrong!" and more on "arrogance"

Again, we're not believers. Anyway, our reasons for claiming that "you're wrong" are much different than those of believers. First, the burden of proof is on the theist to demonstrate God's existence since he/she is making the claim. If you're talking with a "fervent believer," this isn't the case unless the believer claims that his/her god exists. What are we right about, anyway, other than our position in not accepting theistic claims? We aren't even arguing that our position is right, but rather are countering the claims of theists.

Again, why should religion have any different rules for discussion? If we're having a discussion about the members of the Village People, you claim that there was a disco dancer, and I ask you to tell me why you believe this, why am I considered arrogant or "fervent?" If you don't provide good reasons to back up your claim, you simply "lost" the discussion at hand. I may tell you that I'm very confident that there's no disco dancer because I've listened to their music, was a big fan of the group, and know that the members are comprised of a cowboy, electrician, police officer, Native American, biker, military man, and construction worker.

Am I considered arrogant for this?

"Fundamentalist Atheists"

I already discussed this with the "dogmatic" claim.

"Science...the only tool for understanding...the way, the truth, the light"

Science doesn't claim this at all. It is, though, the best tool for understanding about our physical universe. Why cast doubt on science, anyway? It's our most reliable method for testing and finding out information about our universe. Science, unlike religion, is self-correcting.

"Science may not be as far from religion as you imagine"

The core of science is a demand for solid evidence, intellectual discussion, peer review, and honesty. Science puts hypotheses to rigorous tests in the scientific method and represents our best way of knowing things about the world we live in. Can religion do this for us? All or most religious ideas simply stop at a hypothesis and claim “you have to have faith.” Why should we have faith? Why should we believe things on no or insufficient evidence? Why is this considered noble to do so? If we don't have evidence to support something, the rational response is either “this is not true” or “I don't know.” Science immediately discredits hypotheses that are either wrong or backed by no evidence, yet religion embraces and says that belief without evidence is virtuous.

"Temple to Science"

Here's more trying to compare science to religion.

"Which option you take, god is no god, is a matter of choice because there's no scientific evidence either way."

Wow. This might be the worst comment in the video yet. Belief in a god isn't simply a matter of "choice." You don't "choose" to believe or not believe, but rather (I hope) examine the claims and make a decision...not because "there is no evidence either way." Unfortunatly, the belief is forced onto many people in childhood, but that's a story for another day. The lack of evidence for God actually favors the position of the atheist.

Many theists feel that science cannot “test” religion and that science can not “disprove” God. Science can certainly test religious claims through its own methods. Science can't not disprove God – and no one can disprove anything – because it is impossible to do so. An infinite amount of possibilities such as unicorns, trolls, celestial teapots, Santa Claus, and faeries can't be disproven, but do we say that science can not disprove them and continue to believe? Do we say that because they can be possible that we should not cease belief? Do we say that we need to or should have faith in the celestial teapot? We do not believe in faeries because there is no evidence of faeries and the arguments put forth by fairy believers are insufficient.

"Theoretical Physicist...now a priest...god stands apart from the world"

Argument from authority. The author uses this person's position to cast doubt...but what does the priest say...something very, very unscientific "the non-existence of God would be scientific and knowable." He also makes terrible arguments from complexity. Couldn't they get a priest who actually understands the arguments against God?

"Scientists who believe in God are dualists ... I don't see that as a contradiction."

Another ignorant comment about science and religion.

Religious ideas and scientific ideas are clearly in conflict because both systems of knowledge make overlapping claims. If religion proposes specific claims about our universe (virgin births, resurrections, miracles, prayers can work, or that the world was created by an intelligent designer), these claims can be tested by science. Any claim about our natural and physical world, according to the definition of science, ought to be subjected to scientific examination. For example, the mere idea that humans were created in their present forms less than 10,000 years ago is a claim that directly opposes what we know about cosmology, physics, geology, biology, anthropology, and archeology. If this claim were true, all of what we know about the world through the lens of science would be demonstrably false and we would have to revise everything. Fortunately, this is not the case. Fossils and radioactive dating show that the earth is significantly older than six thousand years. Science has shown that intelligent design and creationism are false and has found no sufficient evidence to attest to the claims of prayer, virgin births, resurrections, or miracles.

"You can't live by cold logic alone."

Appeal to emotions and a false claim...also notice the weasel word "cold."

Atheists don't live by "cold logic alone," but rather use logic, rational thinking, and skepticism to find out about reality.

"I can't be a 100% atheist."

The author quote mines Dawkins here. Dawkins explains that he can't be totally sure about God because the claim would be ridiculous to make for him. He explains that he's the same way with God and faeries - no evidence, no belief. The author fails to explain the missed parts. He's trying to cast doubt on atheists and make them look like we not sure. We're sure; we don't accept the claims of theists. If we were not sure, we wouldn't be atheists.

Video - The Trouble With Atheism - Part 2 Review

First, let's get this out of the way (from Atheist-Community.org):

A: The website Dictionary.com gives the following definition of "religion."

1. 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
   2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Clearly, definitions 1-3 do not apply to atheists since we reject the notions of supernatural powers and spiritual leaders. Definition 4 could possibly apply to atheists, but then, it could also apply to a bowling league or a Britney Spears fan club. The claim that atheism is a religion is generally made by Christians who have been religious all their lives and thus cannot conceive of anyone not having some kind of religion as an integral part of their lives.

It's instructive to point out that theism is not a religion either. Theism simply has to do with believing in a god, which one can very easily do without engaging in any sort of religious activity—to wit, the practice of worshipping that god. A person who believes a deity or higher power exists, but never in his life sees fit to go to a church or pray or partake in any kind of practice designed to worship or revere that deity, would be theistic, but not religious.

Atheism, which is about not believing in god(s), and theism, which is about believing in god(s), are philosophical or theological points of view, but they are not religions.

Back to the video...

"David is such a good atheist that he changed his name to Darwin much like an Islamic convert may change his name to Mohammad."

There is no expectation whatsoever to change your name to Darwin because you're an atheist. In Islamic culture, though, many males change their names to Mohammad. What does this have to do with anything, anyway? This video is trying to make atheism seem like a religion...but it's not.

"Why can't you believe what you believe and let other people believe what they want?"

This question is nothing but evasive. Theists, instead of defending their claims, often resort to tactics like this. We're not "taking away" any beliefs as this argument seems to suggest. People of all stripes, creeds, factions, and ideas should honestly examine their beliefs and come to a decision on their own time, after their own research, and then be able to defend it as the Bible suggests.

The reason that I challenge religion is because it is very dangerous. It's doing a great deal of harm to society everyday, offering a tremendous amount of false hope, scaring and indoctrinating innocent children with the idea of Hell, repressing sex, making people feel worthless and guilty of imaginary crimes... I've been over this a great deal in previous posts.

I would certainly just "leave people alone" if they left everyone else alone, but this is not the case. Religion can't leave us alone because it insists on putting tremendous pressure on governmental policy, everyday life, children, Sub-Sarahan Africans (don't use condoms although there is so much AIDS in Africa), and science.

"You're arrogant!"

Actually, no, I'm not. I give very good reasons and arguments against religion, don't claim absolute certainty, admit that I don't know about many topics, and am very open to discussion. Sure, I think that I'm right about the idea that God doesn't exist, but who is really more arrogant...me or the people who claim that the universe was made just for humans with humans in mind, that God created them in his special image, that when they die they know they are going to live another life, people who say they are chosen individuals who make daily contact with the creator of the universe, or me? Do you ever hear a priest in church saying "Well, there's a possibility we might be wrong, but when you die we think that you might just happen to go to place of wonder and survive death?"

When do you ever hear a priest, rabbi, or pope saying, "Hmm. I think that god, if he exists, wants me to life a certain eway in my life" or "There's a good chance that Jesus existed, so you should probably accept that he did exist, here is what he had to say according to this book that humans wrote?

Am I arrogant for saying that the earth is not flat? Am I arrogant for saying that 2+2=4? I'm presenting my arguments as to why I don't believe in the supernatural.

"Even the rational way breeds bonified loonies"

Right after the reporter said that atheists aren't like David, he tries this tactic.

"Devout believers can be contempt of the beliefs of other religions...the same can be said of atheists."

Atheists don't discriminate. We disagree with all religions. This, though, does not add any evidence to the claim "atheism is a religion" that is being levied throughout this video.

"Sulfurous wiff of the true believer"

Atheists aren't believers. Atheism is not a religion...*yawn*

"Why do you have an organization to profess that you don't believe"

Atheists have organizations just like any bowling league, darts group, sports club, or anything, really. We're simply people who meet together who have similar viewpoints. There's no need to "profess that we don't believe" ... and atheists simply don't. We meet together, kick back, relax, enjoy others' company, meet new people, and discuss what's going on in the local area, in the national news...

Roman Catholic church, though, from what I have attended for years, is certainly a profession of faith that resonates throughout the services via the Nicene Creed, various hymns, saying AMEN before communion....

"Villifying religious beliefs"

No. The atheist here is simply talking about the stranglehold that religion has in our nation. How is this villifying? So what if we point out the dangers and negatives of religion...Do restaurant critics, book reviewers, movie critics, etc get slammed like atheists do for questioning beliefs and critiquing?

Video - The Trouble With Atheism - Part 1 Review

Part One:

It's odd to say that atheism is as intolerant as religion. What exactly are we doing besides rebutting claims made my theists, endorsing critical thinking, promoting skepticism, and encouraging people to think about their beliefs in fair conversations?

What is "intolerant religion" doing in the United States? Religion insists that gays can't marry, hates people who uphold the idea of separation of church and state, causes an extreme amount of divisiveness, threatens free speech, halts stem cell research, offers people a false view of the universe, teaching children that the world started with Adam and Eve about 10,000 years ago, convinces people that faith is a good thing, leads parents to think that their children don't need medicine because God will heal them....

Atheists aren't dogmatic as the video suggests...what's there to be dogmatic about? We don't accept the claims of believers, therefore we don't believe. If believers offer some evidence for their claims, we'll be more than happy to join their camps. When do you ever hear theists saying things like this about atheists? Theists will often start with the idea that God exists and ad-hoc their way to defend it instead of viewing both sides and making a decision of their own.

We also don't insist that all religious people are stupid. Many religious individuals are well-educated, intelligent, and studious. I don't think that the people are "stupid," but their beliefs are certainly nonsense.

"If we all become atheists tomorrow, will the world become a better place?"

It's quite an odd and improbable proposition, but let's just imagine that tomorrow every news outlet published a definitive argument that convinces everyone that God is imaginary. Do you think that we'd continue all of our religious-based conflicts or do you think we'd realize "Wow, what a waste that was?" Paul said it himself, "If Jesus didn't come back from the dead, our preaching is in vain."

"The people they so despise."

I don't despise religious people. I despise religion. I do, though, despise people who use religion as a tool to behave poorly, inflict harm, shield their positions from judgment, take no responsibility for their actions, and claim that the bad things they do are justified because God says so. I may disagree with the run-of-mill theist, but I don't despise them.

"Atheism is becoming its own religion"

Let's get this straight. An atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in God. That's it...there are no ceremonies, no prayers, no sacred texts, no leaders, no rules... The video is dishonest saying that atheism is a religion and points to...a physics building. Really?

"Stalin, an atheist leader, killed so many people"

Stalin was simply a leader who is believed to be an atheist. This, though, has no bearing on his actions whatsoever. There is no logical connection from "I don't believe in God" to "I'm going to set up gulags, set up a personality cult, brainwash my nation, send people to death, etc." It's like saying this, "Hitler had a mustache, this mustache leader killed so many people" and trying to blame it on the moustache.

More on Stalin from IronChariots.org:

He attended an Eastern Orthodox primary school. This was not out of the ordinary as nearly all primary schools were administered by the church. Then he attended seminary at Tbilisi. There are many stories about him leaving seminary, some with scandal, some with conspiracy. Regardless, he "left" seminary at the end of his final year. There are accounts that he was ordained as a priest, and others that he was not. These accounts are so specious because Stalin silenced many of his former classmates and teachers, in fact he did not like it known that he came from Georgia at all. Little is known about Stalin's life until the age of 44 when he became the head of the Communist Party.

As the de facto ruler of the USSR, he initiated many purges. Many clergy were killed and this is often cited as Stalin's anti-christian mark. However, like Henry VIII he did not simply remove clergy, he replaced them. He established a new national church of Russia, which of course answered to him. He considered the church very important to extending control from Moscow to the satellite nations. Stalin's church was called the Russian Orthodox Church or The Moscow Patriarchate; and the suppressed church was called the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. They have a bitter history.

That Stalin was many things, a former theologian, the head of the national church, and one of the most brutal dictators ever. His own views on religion are difficult to guess. Many scholars think of Stalin as a ruler you envisioned himself as a god. To claim that he was an atheist is overly simplistic.

Furthermore, there is the concurrent claim that the USSR was an atheist nation. While the Communist Party suppressed religious fervor, it did so only out of jealously of loyalties. The Communist Party demanded loyalty to the itself above all others even God. Russia has always been an intensely religious nation. They consider the leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church to be equal to the Vatican's Pope; or even above the Pope. To claim that Russia became atheistic overnight in 1917 only to emerge deeply religious in 1989 is incredibly ignorant.

"Atheism...a belief in a negative."

This misunderstanding of the definition greatly undermines the credibility of the video's author. Atheism simply means "without theism." It's not a belief - it's a response to claims being made by theists. Would you say that bald is a hair color? Would you say that someone who is a Muslim has a belief in the negative about Zeus?

"How could such a blank position show us how to live our lives?"

Another definitional misunderstanding...atheism says nothing about how to live life. You don't get from "I don't accept the claims of theists about God's existence" to "Here is how to live life." When looking at morality, though, from a non-theistic perspective, one may find that this life is more worthwhile because it's so limited and finite, we should focus on human-based ethics, we should insist open debate on important ethical issues and not limit the conversation to what we think God wants...

I Answer Questions (2/27)

Justin- honest questions about atheism. Is atheism the rejection of theism or is it the belief that a diety doesn't exist... or is that more of a personal definition of atheism? Do atheists believe everything in life is the result of chance/the hard work of your own accord? And, the miracles described in the New Testament, do you believe that they are all lies/fabricated stories, or do you recgonize them as actually happening bu t as no result or connection to a superior being?

Atheism simply means without theism. An atheist is a person who does not believe in any gods - it's the sole qualifier. Anything beyond that is what an individual believes or does not believe, but most atheists don't believe in anything supernatural, are skeptics, embrace science as the best way to find information about our physical world, and are generally liberal.

Most atheists, since they don't believe in any gods believe that this life is the only one that we have, so we ought to live the best life while we have it.

I don't accept miracle claims in the NT at all. As far as Jesus is concerned, I think he is the product of various myths, older religions, tall tales, various preachers at the time, addition of qualities after the first century, etc.

The first mention of Jesus is in the Gospels which are literally religious devotional writings - they aren't historical documents, but rather are more like religious propaganda. The Gospels started around 40CE, well after Jesus supposedly existed and was crucified. The stories have many, many contradictions, different information, and false claims (Quirinis was not the governor of Syria at the time, there was no census driving everyone home...)

The silence on the matter of Jesus from historians is astonishing. During the first century, we have many detailed writings about early Rome (Especially from Philo), and other areas, but no historians from this time who were in the area mention anything of Jesus.

Josephus barely mentioned something close to Jesus in his writings, but this was not until ~90CE. There are many, many problems with this mention...many scholars believe that it is a forgery.

We've nothing from the first century...and no good reason, especially, to believe that Jesus came back from the dead and performed miracles even if he did exist.

Don Tony, It's a-Jesus in a-Pizza!

Article: Pizzeria worker sees Jesus in sauce bucket on first Friday of Lent

View it here.

Shame on Times-Shamrock for publishing this "news" ...unless it's some big joke, but it's probably not.

When Mary Louise Salerno saw Jesus Christ in a bucket of pizza sauce, her instinct was not to alert the media or even to tell many friends.
She did not want people descending on her family's West Scranton pizzeria, and she did not want to invite critics or doubters of what she felt was a clear sign.
"To us, it was something special," Ms. Salerno, 65, of Old Forge said. "God smiled on us that day."

So, of all of the works, good things, and clear signs that your god who supposedly exists can be doing, he decides to "appear" on a bucket of pizza sauce.

What exactly is this a "sign" of, anyway? And why assume that some supernatural force has something to do with this? Don't you think that it is more plausible that pizza sauce dripped out of a bucket and formed some sort of image that looks like a man? We have a tendency to see faces and images in tree trunks, windows, and all sorts of items. We're bound to see "something" in patterns that look similar to images.

Bill Salerno, the owner of Brownie's and brother of Ms. Salerno, said he was skeptical until he saw it for himself. Maryann Marsico, who works at Brownie's, said even an atheist would find it unmistakable.

Actually, no. I'm an atheist and the image really looks nothing like what we associate Jesus with. If anything, this looks more like a Geico Caveman wearing a white t-shirt. What's even funnier is that the Jesus image we have from the Shroud of Turin is a forgery.

It was not lost on Ms. Marsico that Jesus appeared at Brownie's at the start of Lent, a holy Christian time that also happens to spur pizza sales because observers are not supposed to eat meat on Fridays.
"I will never cheat and eat meat again," she said.

Oh, yah, a time where Christians come to eat pizza...and now even more stupid people who believe this ludicrous image was a sign from God will eat at your pizza establishment. It's certainly good advertising (based on a lie). Let's be honest about this story...pizza sauce formed a pattern that people think looks like Jesus. It's no sign from God.

If you honestly believe that a supposed all-just, all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe will be offended (it's a sin, right?) by meat eating on Friday, you need to get your priorities straight. Sure, some Catholics may choose to fast...but to think that meat eating is a sin that deserves punishment or feelings of guilt...? What kind of twisted morality is this?

Mr. Salerno, 55 and also from Old Forge, said he is not a churchgoing man but he is religious, and seeing Jesus on that pizza sauce bucket was all the proof he needs.

What exactly is this proof of, anyway? It's certainly all the proof I need to attest to the fact that the Salernos and other "pizza believers" are off their rockers.

Religion really makes many people crazy....and here's some very good proof of it. Suppose that the Salernos believed that Elvis came back from the dead and sent a sign of his image in pizza sauce, decided to report this to the media, and seriously believed it...we'd consider them crazy.

What about if they saw a sign from Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster (would be plausible, it's in sauce after all!!), Lord Xenu, Poseidon, Joseph Smith, or Michael Jackson? Change the subject to Jesus, though, and all bets are off.

Anyway, let's laugh at some comments on this article:

Wilkes Student Urinates on Church Steps

Hold the presses! It's happened again!

Urination really gets in the news when it's on a religious area, but forget all of the other urination in Wilkes-Barre that is not in toilets.

To start, I don't condone urinating on churches, church steps, or breaking the law by desecrating churches.

I'm sure I'm going to be somehow mentioned with this (update: I already have been).

This student, though, had no intention to defy or challenge religion, but the media and people interviewed are making it seem that way. This act was a case of public drunkenness.

From the news article and video:

"It's happened again in Wilkes-Barre. Someone has urinated on a place that people hold in religious regard. This time it's a church and once again it's a college student who stands accused.

Good Shepherd Lutheran Church holds weekend worship services after what many call a disgusting and despicable act. Someone urinated on the front church steps late Friday night."

It's quite funny how the media treats this as a normal occurrence that we're used to. As the article clarifies, the urinating was not directly on the church or any "object", but rather on steps. It's still desecration of venerated objects which is, under PA laws, a misdemeanor charge.

Police say 19-year-old Noah Svoboda of Wilkes-Barre was relieving himself in plain view when they caught him. An officer identified him by his Wilkes University ID. "Hearing that a person urinated on our church steps primarily is one of disappointment for that individual," said church co-pastor Peter Kuritz.

Wilkes and King's are now TIED in the epic "Who shall have more students urinating on church property?" race. The media and I are keeping count. Who shall be the victorious school in the River Street Urination Battle of the 2009-2010 semester? Sarcasm aside, people are already getting the facts wrong and mischaracterizing this as an anti-religious act:

Hearing about the incident was upsetting to the Good Shepherd's Director of Music Sandra Keator. She said, "I was immediately disgusted and actually a little bit angry that anybody could be so ignorant."

Young parishioners like 13-year-old Joey Siewell are also offended. He said, "I think it's just disrespectful to the church and to actually society by itself."

This incident comes just 1-month after a 22-year-old King's College student urinated on a nativity scene on Wilkes-Barre Public Square.

Responsibility in the alcohol department was obviously lacking for both students. Unfortunately, for Nathan Strawn and now this student, people and the media blow events like this way out of proportion and demonize. Other students who damage property and are arrested or fined because of alcohol aren't lambasted by the public...but when you add religion into the mix...

Some say this behavior shows a lack of family values. "They should have more respect," said parishioner Shirley Estus. "I think that's the whole thing with today's society. They have left God out of their lives. "

Shirley misses the point and makes a really uninformed comment here. Again, this has nothing to do with respect, religion, or the church, but rather alcohol/drunkenness.

A faith lesson that some say the suspect behind this latest incident needs to know. "To be respectful and to love each other and to try and take care of each other and that's something this young man obviously has a great deal to learn about," said Keator.

Again, people are missing the point. This young man merely needs to learn about responsible drinking, not some nonsense from a "faith lesson" (whatever that means).

Threats from a King's College student

Some theists are so dishonest and unable to have a discussion and often resort to threats:

More Ignorance from December

Here are comments from newspaper articles. Unfortunately, many of the articles are archived, thus the comments are not accessible.