Atrocities of Atheism:Episode VI -- Return of the Believers (Conclusion)
To view the global atrocities of Atheistic Governments please read:
Atrocities of Atheism: Episode I -- The Atheist Menace .
Atrocities of Atheism: Episode II -- Attack of the Chinese .
Atrocities of Atheism: Episode III .
Atrocities of Atheism: Episode IV -- A New 'Killing-Field' .
Atrocities of Atheism: Episode V -- The Evil Empire Strikes Back .
Atheists in the United States of America and summary:
The global atrocities of Atheism is why the advance of Atheism in the United States, is so troublesome. I explain some of the advances Atheism has had in taking over our culture in my articles "Is Atheism Bad for America?" and "The Rise of the Godless Religion". Not to mention the alarming fact that Secular Humanists extemists (aligned with Atheists) turned the might of the US Military to massacre a small religious group in Waco. Even in the United States, Atheist allies have used the military to wipe out a religious group. Don't think it can't happen here. Do not let our great nation turn into a mass murdering Atheistic Nation (Communist Regime).
Why do I write this? Is it because I think all Atheists are violent and murderers? No, of course not. I know some very nice Atheists. Do I mention all this to say that Atheism should be banned? No, of course not. Everyone in the United States of America has a God given right to believe any religion, even the right to believe in the absence of God. If Atheists want to hold fast to their unreasonable faith that their is no God, despite others personal testimony and overwhelming Teleological evidence, then that is their right to hold those beliefs. But forcing atheistic beliefs on others, through government coercion (as is the history of Atheism, whenever it takes control of governments) is wrong.
I mention these historical events because of the irrational fear that is being generated by the left, the Secular Humanist extremists and Atheist extremists about our nation turning into a "dreaded" Theocracy. The fear, irrationality and illogical conclusions that are being devised by these extemists are silly, although the left wing allies in the mainstream media promote this fear mongering. If any logical person looks at the last century, they would see that it is not people of faith, voting democratically, that has proven to be the real threat to civilization. The most unfair, oppressive, and human-killing regime's have been when Atheists have taken over governments. The untrue propaganda today, perpetrated by the mainstream media, is that people of faith are to blame for mass amounts of people's lives being taken. This is not based on the facts or truth of the past century, where the least tolerant religion of Atheism, forced its beliefs on people of faith or simply slaughtered hundreds of millions of them.
I pray that Atheism does not take over the US, because they have brought much bloodshed and oppression to every nation it has become the prominent religion. I am happy that in our last Presidential Election the wise people of the Untied States of America voted our faith, our moral values and voted to protect our Freedom of Religion. Those who believe in God took back this nation, from those who were trying to remove Him. Thanks to all of you who voted with moral values as your conviction. God bless America!
posted by FreedomDefender @ Friday, May 27, 2005
10 Comments:
**Sigh**. Where to start. First your name- Freedom defender. What kind of a hoax is this? What are you defending? Its certainly not freedom. You are defending your own beliefs and you are pushing it on others. That has nothing to do with freedom of anything. Religious conservatives are obsessed with the word “freedom” and how they are constantly defending it. In truth they are constantly attacking it, by isolating their beliefs from the freedom of others.
Your defending Waco??! What the hell is a matter with you. That was a freaking CULT, that was endangering human lives, not some religious victims. And the way you relate this to Aetheists is absurd.
Another thing- God can neither be PROVED or DISPROVED. Accept it. I have and I’m an aetheist. Personal testimony is not fact or a valid reason to say that god exists. And this Teleological argument you present, is nothing more than recycled CREATIONALIST rhetoric trying to justify a creator with scientific evidence (good luck!). All this so called proof that is presented by creationalists has been disproved time and time again. You keep holding on to it and call it by new names. All one needs is common sense and a rational mind to realize it’s the same old BS.
You voted your moral values in 2004? This I never understood. Moral values has nothing to do with putting your faith on your sleeve. It has nothing to do with selling your faith for votes. How can someone who intentionally lies, shits on the environment, is greedy and corrupt be an ideal for morals? You got suckered buddy. They fed you what you wanted to hear and you swallowed it with a smile.
Look man, the sad truth of this matter is that people like you are not going away, and people like me are not going away. We can fight and argue over and over, but the fact is that neither of us is going to win. We have to put our differences aside to come to some kind of common understanding on the issues. We have to be rational, and not let our “faith” or “non-faith” get in the way of progressing society for the better. But of course, that means different things for the both of us, and that’s where the trouble comes. But anyway, we are stuck here together so lets deal with it.
Hi BB! Thanks for your input and contributing to dialogue. You too certainly have a barrage of issues you brought up.
On your first point, you espouse that I am "defending [my] own beliefs and [that I am] pushing it on others". I am both defending freedom and the ability for everyone to have their own beliefs... including me. I am not however, pushing my belief on others. I'm not sure if you have read my blog or just this one article. If you read my blog you will see that I believe in the First Amendment, the Freedom of Religion. I don't try to rob people of their freedom of religion, no matter what faith they are (including someone's faith that there is no way that there is a god or gods... which by the way... takes a great deal more faith than believing in God).
I am not someone who tries to strip away someone's rights, by branding people with hate-language by calling them "CULTS". What if the Government decides that Atheism is a cult and it is a danger to human lives? I'm sure then you would change your mind and realize the horror of the precedent that was set. At that point it would be too late for you to change sides, to the correct one. As long as the Government and the media say someone is a cult, then you believe it justifies sending the might of the US Military after them? If that is truly what you believe you are not for Democracy. I don't think you believe that. You sound reasonable... somewhat :)
I'm not saying the Branch Dividians were great people, they could of been terrible people. Don't you understand that when you condone the government murdering people for their religious beliefs, that it endangers your freedoms too. Just because people aren't being killed for their beliefs in Atheism, doesn't mean it's ok for atheists, agnostics, Human Secularists or anyone a to kill people for their beliefs.
I am defending the Freedom of Religion for my protection and for yours. If you don't want to protect other religions when they are attacked... LITERALLY ATTACKED, by the US government, how can you expect anyone to help you if atheism is declared a "cult" and a danger to others? I am trying to protect you and me ...I am protecting both of our freedom.
And where is this evidence that the Branch Dividians were "endangering human lives"? Was it simply the repetition of that being said on the news that caused you to easily believe what you were told? Was the evidence of their "terrible plot" spelled out in their compound that the US Military "lost" because they blew it up? I don't see how you think the Brach Dividians were a worse threat to the people in their "cult" than the tanks, guns and firepower of the US Military, which wiped them out. That is not logical. Even the World Socialists say that this was not a justifiable tragedy, on their website: http://www.waco93.com/wsws.htm , but you seem to think it's ok to kill a religious minority, when the government and media propaganda are against them. That's one mass death sentence I certainly can't condone.
"God can neither be PROVED or DISPROVED". Amen. You are correct. However you should know that there are tons of evidence that God exists. I know He exists because I have a personal relationship with God. I can’t PROVE that anymore than you can prove that your father loves you. You can only give me evidence that he loves you... not proof. Just because you don't want to believe the evidence that God exists, you say it is creationist propaganda. Another dismissal of information, because you claim it to be invalid (first the dismissal of killing, because it was only the life of "cultists" and now you dismiss evidence in God, because it is biased towards revealing the existence of God). What about the evolutionist propaganda being forced on children in public school? I suppose you don't mind proselytizing and indoctrinating impressionable children if it benefits and promotes your beliefs. This is a double standard. It is those people who promote teaching this evolutionist propaganda, who are forcing their beliefs on others, not me.
"All one needs is common sense and a rational mind to realize it’s the same old BS". You are correct, but this is true about evolutionist propaganda on the origin of man. They haven't found a missing link, because there is no missing link. It's simply hocus-pocus mythology, with scientific wording. And those beliefs are being forced on innocent children in Schools... not beliefs in God ...but beliefs in evolutionist mythology. Those are the people forcing their beliefs on others.
You say that my voting for moral values is voting for "someone who intentionally lies, s#!ts on the environment, is greedy and corrupt". I find it surprising that you claim to know if someone, who you don't personally know, is lying INTENTIONALLY or not. That’s like claiming that you can PROVE there’s no god. Secondly, you claim that I am the one who is being fooled by the powers that be, but you are the one quoting Democratic Talking Points almost verbatim. You are the one who was fooled into thinking killing people of a different religion is ok, as long as the media calls them a cult and a danger to society. You are the one who says that beliefs shouldn't be forced on other people, but then you believe it is ok to force evolutionist propaganda on children, because the media tells you that it's true, even though it can't be proved and there is contrary evidence. You're the one who believes in the evolutionist propaganda that public schools force fed you, not me. So please be careful when you throw stones from that glass house.
I really liked your last paragraph. In your last paragraph you seemed like someone I might be able to have a real discussion with about the issues facing our country. With the emergence of globalization, I feel that this is a crossroads of our nation. This is a time when the dawning of a new era is upon us and that these questions are more important than ever. I started this blog to write out my beliefs and to try to do my part to protect the freedom of those who agree and disagree with me. You and I ARE in this together. I hope you can see that it's to everyone's advantage to protect the freedom of religion of everyone. I hope I can reach people that I might not run into, that this is an important part of human freedom for you and for me. God Bless you.
Ok, i'll back off on the Waco thing- mostly because i dont have any background in it. It was before my time, and honestly, i only know it as a name, and yes, what i heard is from the media. And ive come to learn that we cant always trust the media. The thing about cults though, is that they cut themselves off from the rest of the world. They seclude themselves with their beleifs (whatever they may be) and surround themselves with their own kind. There is no input of fresh, new information. They recirculate among themselves. As a metaphor, ill relate this to a progressive city and a stagnant city. The progressive city has constant peculation of new ideas, thoughts with a mixture of people. People come in and people leave. There is a flux and this is healthy. The mind needs to be kept open and moving with constant thought and input. The stagnant city has no flux, nothing new coming in, only the ones who already live there reside. They never leave, or come up with anything new. They stew in their ideas until they become twisted and tale while the ideas solidify into the minds of its citizens. The one thing i fear in life is to be stuck in my ways like so many are already. Why do people close their minds?
I'm going to have to disagree with you when you say that there is tons of evidence that god exists. There’s simply not. What there is evidence for is science. And boy, i do not want to get into a science vs. religion debate here, and i'll try to avoid it. So bear with me here and let me try and relate our worlds for a second. Science and religion can almost be thought of as one and the same. You fall in love with your faith over time by experience and what it reveals to you about yourself and the world. You feel you understand the way things work, and life begins to have a purpose. You feel a sense of one with man (and god). Religion gives you a code to live by; it makes you feel good about yourself and what you are doing. Similarly science is the blood in my veins. Over time and study, i have seen a bigger picture. There are moments of clarity where everything seems to make sense, and then suddenly the clouds fill in and that feeling goes away. It makes me a better person because i learn more about life than i ever thought i could. I understand why things happen, and the mechanisms that are working. I love it like you love god.
Now, i hope that you will agree that for either parts of that paragraph, the word science or relgion could be interplaced and it would still be meaningful for both of us.
You believe in god because you feel you have a personal relationship with him. The reason I dont believe in god is not because I don’t or have not yet, but because there is something in me that tells me that its not right. It doesn’t add up or make sense in my head. I strive for more and I don’t settle. Science offers unlimited answers if you take the time to understand them. God offers unlimited answers if you take the time to understand them.
I don’t feel I am dismissing information about god and creationalism. I just feel the information that I receive has no base, no roots, other than that of faith. Give me something I can hang on to and take hold of. We are not forcing evolutionist propaganda on children in schools. We are giving them the best information we have thus far with an open mind, for their study, and their advancement toward greater achievement. Maybe they will prove it wrong, but either way they need to have it as a way to understand the whole picture of human progress. We can not deny the advancement of science. Religion and faith should be taught in the home and by ones personal journey, not in our public schools.
Hocus-pocus mythology with scientific wording?? Come on, just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The evolutionary theory is a damn good one, with the pieces fitting together very nicely. It continues to build support and evidence even to this day. In fact, just yesterday, scientists filled another “gap” by discovering some important tissue inside a T-Rex bone that links dinosaurs to birds as the closest ancestor. Progress toward understanding, isn’t that what we both are seeking? Why would you want to keep children from understanding? Instead you want to fill them with mythological beliefs about a feeling and a want for a creator that can never be found or proved. (See it goes either way)
And lastly, I do really want to understand why you voted for Bush. If moral values truly were your reason, then please tell me what that was, and how he possessed it. I am still confused to the meaning of moral values to religious conservatives. I don’t think I quoted Democratic talking points either. The dems never called him an immoral liar to his face (even though they should have ; ).
FreedomDefender, I'm afraid you come across as a crass, pugnacious, tunnel-visioned fascist. Yes, really. This is really like something out of The Onion. I had to double-take to ascertain that you were serious in all this drivel.
What constructive ends do you think are being accomplished by your writing on this blog? I can only testify that you greatly muddy and deface the image of Christ with your words and your attitude, and your ridiculous, sophomoric "arguments." Honestly, the only thing that would be good for you to do to at least not hinder the cause of Christ is to simply shut up.
Do you actually read the Bible? I mean, besides the few isolated verses you beat people over the head with? Because I don't recognize anything Christlike in you at all. How about just reading the gospels? I mean, all the way through, in context. Or just the Sermon on the Mount. Just read it over and over. Honestly, I can't tell that you've ever read it.
Sorry, I need to add one more thing, because this is just too rich:
You're the one who believes in the evolutionist propaganda that public schools force fed you, not me.
That is just breathtaking. You have successfully combined a tu quoque with a petitio principii (two logical fallacies in one sentence!). I confess I have never seen that done before. A stupendous accomplishment, as befits the level of discourse happening here.
BB, thanks for sharing your view and taking the time to read and consider others viewpoints. I appreciate that.
My impression of the talking points in your first comment posted, came from one of your statements with a barrage of accusations against the President.
You're comment about Bush lying was repeated over and over by John Kerry leading up to the last election. This was also echoed by other leading Democrats including Ted Kennedy. Al Gore continually brings expresses that Bush S#!ts on the environment, although he does not use that colorful imagery :) Dr. Dean levied the corruption charge against the President when he said "Senator Kerry apparently ...supports the kind of corrupt fund-raising, politically corrupt fund-raising mechanism that George Bush has also employed". Kerry also liked linking corporate greed to the President. So that one line you wrote referencing all of that simultaneously is the only thing I was referencing, by mention you using talking points. Each allegation listed there can be debated at length, but it sounds like you're truly more curious on what it means to have voted for Bush on the basis of "moral values". I admit, if I wasn't a "values voter", then it would seem very vague and possibly dubious on what is meant by that term.
But first let me clarify. You said that, "Science and religion can almost be thought of as one and the same". Nothing could be further from the truth. Science, according to Merriam-Webster online is not a belief... it is
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
I have no desire to eliminate science and I do not believe that religion and science conflict at all. The term "science vs. religion" is a fallacy. I believe that science is the study of God’s creation and reveals the intangible laws God set in place.
I think it’s great to teach Children how to study the world, to analyze it, to try to figure out how it works. Knowledge about the Earth and universe God created is a great thing. I’m not sure where you get the idea that I, or any creationist, would be against science or learning. It sounds very narrow minded to say if someone is a creationist... that means they don’t believe in science. I use math, logic and the scientific method every day in my job. I think science is great! It was one of my favorate subjects in school (except for the Darwinist propaganda part).
What I have a problem with is a belief system that is forced on children in the name of science. It is not science to say that man evolved from genetic goo (primordial soup) and then evolved into a primitive proto-primate and then into homo-sapiens. That is a belief. That is a faith. You said about evolutionist theory that "just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist". I understand it quite well thanks. Just because I am not a whole hearted believer in the Darwinist faith, does not mean I don’t understand it. I could go into all the flaws in that theory and the cases that can’t be explained, but I’ll just try to be positive. I'm also familiar because, Darwinism has been pushed on me in New York public schools since I was a child. Just because I didn’t fall for it and I can see it’s flaws, doesn’t mean I don’t understand it. In College it was hoisted on me again, but this time, at least in College, my University had the intellectual honesty to place it where it belonged... in the College of Liberal Arts, not in the College of Science.
What I object to is the Darwinist FAITH being pushed on our children. The science of intelligent design is not taught in school. You may not be as familiar with that field of science, because the Darwinists are trying to maintain a monopoly on our public schools. On the Intelligent Design Network website this is what they believe: "We believe objectivity will lead not only to good origins science, but also to constitutional neutrality in this subjective, historical science that unavoidably impacts religion. We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality". I don’t see the harm in teaching our children science and not religion in SCIENCE class. Why must you force your religion of Darwinism in science class? If you must force religiously infused Darwinistic beliefs in the classroom, can’t the science of Intelligent Design be taught too? Why must Darwinists be against this kind of objectivity? Let’s put an end to this narrow mindedness in science and keep philosophy and religion in their proper contexts. Why must the Darwinists force their beliefs on others? ...please tell them to stop. Let’s seek scientific advancement without prejudice.
I think we should strive for more and not settle for such a narrow-minded and religiously-partisan view in SCIENCE class; in a class that’s SUPPOSED to teach children how to analyze the world objectively.
If you are unfamiliar with this science you can look at: http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/design.htm
There are also a multitude of books on this subject.
Just to clarify this is in NO WAY an argument about science versus religion. This is about the Darwinist faith on the origin of man versus Christianity. This is about Darwin’s theories being forced upon children captive in classrooms. It’s about Darwinism, which is a recycled version of the theory of Spontaneous Generation first mentioned in the 4th Century BC by Aristotle and later scientifically disproved by Louis Pasteur and Francisco Redi in the 17th Century (This was the theory that garbage actually turned into maggots and then flies and then rats). This is about Darwin’s Theories, based on theories that garbage turns into rats, versus Intelligent Design. This discussion is about science vs. science or religion vs. religion. This is not about science vs. religion.
"Religion and faith should be taught in the home and by ones personal journey, not in our public schools". If faith was not being taught in public school I wouldn’t be bringing this problem up. The problem is that faith in Darwinism is being forced on children in schools. You wouldn’t like it if someone was forcing creationism on your kids. Please don’t advocate forcing Darwinism on others kids... especially without balance.
"The reason I dont believe in god is not because I don’t or have not yet, but because there is something in me that tells me that its not right". What is it about God that makes you uneasy? Is it the problem of evil in the world? Is it because some of us Christians are not perfect about reflecting God’s heart? I know I’m not perfect. What is it that troubles you about God? You obviously have a lot of faith... it’s just not in God.
I was a little worried at something you said. It sounded very totalitarian. You said "They seclude themselves with their beleifs (whatever they may be) and surround themselves with their own kind. There is no input of fresh, new information". I hope you are not suggesting forcing people interact with others or making hermits illegal. I hope that doesn’t mean you want to eliminate the Amish people, because they don’t want to join in "progress" (because they REALLY DON’T want progress). I hope that doesn’t mean you believe in forcing Amish people to destroy their culture and society. It sounds scary that you think that secluding yourself is wrong and must be stopped. That sounds like your trying to force your beliefs on Amish society and MAKE them use electricity. I believe they are good and decent people, even though I disagree with them. I don’t believe their society should be destroyed. I hope you’re not advocating that type of totalitarianism with saying that you think seclusion is wrong.
"People come in and people leave. There is a flux and this is healthy. The mind needs to be kept open and moving with constant thought and input". From this statement, I’m not sure where you think new ideas come from. Do you think new ideas only come from other places? Wouldn’t that just be old ideas from other people’s societies? It sounds like you’re saying the only way to get a new idea is from some other country or city. I guess the origins of Darwinism is from the 4th Century BC in Persia, but then isn’t that an old idea and not a new one? It sounds like you don’t believe in a society’s ability to mentally evolve without external assistance. I believe that people do have the potential to continually make scientific advances. This statement sounds like someone who doesn’t believe in a society’s ability to advance themselves. I strongly disagree. I believe we can make great advances as a society in and of ourselves, although I welcome new ideas.
"There is no input of fresh, new information. They recirculate among themselves". There are lots of people who gained new ideas through seclusion, Albert Einstein for example. This study and reflection of a person can have great results. I don’t think just because a society hangs around with themselves that they don’t learn anything new. That is a misconception.
To address your predominant question about moral values, here’s the large chunk of your answer. I believe in protecting innocent life. The Bible says "Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." (Psalm 82:4). The Republican Party sent me a survey in 2004, so I could give my input to say what my main issue was. That one issue was the sanctity of life. I believe in protecting innocent life. Please read my post "The Culture of Death" for more details BB.
http://freedomdefender.blogspot.com/2005/04/culture-of-death.html
To me that is one of the most important moral values. Jesus himself showed he cared for children in a culture that looked down upon children. Thanks for asking such great questions. I’m glad we can have a dialogue.
You keep drilling in the same points over and over (Waco, Atheism= communism, values, bibilical quotes)in every one of your posts. Its like you're trying to physically force it into the readers head. Brainwash maybe? I'm almost glad people like you are out there to reinsure myself that the ideas and positions you stand for are completely misled and plain wrong. Thanks again!
[the other Anonymous]
See what I mean??
Dear other Anonymous (9:37AM & 1:31PM),
I am glad that you enjoy the content. I do find your second post ironic (tu quoque), since your first post is nothing BUT personal attacks, absent of any actual discussion of the issues. If you have legitimate issues about the direction of our great nation, let's discuss. If your intent was to beat my ability to combine circumstantials with petitio principii's then you win, because in your second post you turned each personal attack on me in your first post (ad hominem abusive), into a ad hominem tu quoque (where the purity in argument you demand from others, is not exemplified by your actions).
I will be happy to discuss your position and my position based on the facts available. Your passion is commendable and I appreciate the opportunity to learn of another's viewpoint. I commend you for your successful navigation through what you described as "drivel" and for not being fooled into thinking it was a piece for "The Onion."
However, without a coherent defense or argument from your side, I find it difficult to repond further.
Dear Anonymous 11:08AM,
The point that I express over and over again is the First Amendment. And I am repeating it again. In this great nation we have the Freedom of Religion. It is constitutionally guaranteed to citizens of the United States of America. This freedom is the first amendment, because it is of the utmost importance. It is a freedom to be defended.
There are people working to erode this freedom of religion. Any religion that tries to erode this freedom is wrong. This nation was founded by people who were being religiously persecuted by European Governments encroaching on citizen’s freedom of religion. The United States founders came to this nation looking for a place where they could practice their religion without government interference and governmental oppression. The Founding Fathers then wisely set up a Government where people could practice any faith and that each person’s Freedom of Religion was respected. They set up a government opposed to totalitarian techniques of forcing of religion on the people, by the government, like the European governments did, and outlawing those oppressive tactics. This country was founded on great principles.
I did not however say that Atheism = Communism. That is a misstatement. The examples I listed of China, the USSR and the Khmer Rouge are all states where Atheism was the declared state religion. My comments were about governments controlled by Atheist militants. The links I have list Communist government slaughters. The top offenders (multi-murderers), that I wrote posts about were all governments formed and ruled by Atheist militants. As I said in my conclusion, there are lots of great and good atheists that I know personally, it is the militant atheists who force their view on others, which are listed here, that are very concerning.
The fallacy perpetrated in the media (as you may have seen in Atrocities of Atheism: Episode I – The Atheist Menace), is that "people of faith", by which they mean theists (Christians, Muslim’s, etc.), are to blame for the worlds greatest atrocities. This is false. This is what is drilled in over and over by the media, or as you say "brainwashing people", without regard to the truth or the history of the 20th Century. They just use rote repetition to coerce people to ignore the facts and just FEEL that "people of faith" are more dangerous than militant atheists. The truth is being covered up. The facts are not specified by those who repeat the untruthful drivel that "people of faith" have been more of a problem in the 20th Century. I lay out the facts, the deaths, the truth.
I would be interested to hear if you know of any openly Atheistic government that does not have grievous human rights atrocities associated with it. Please tell me if there is such a place, I certainly don´t know of any. I´d be fascinated to learn if there is such a place.
Some use this fallacy that religious extremists are more dangerous than militant atheists, to justify persecuting all “religious” people or a particular religion. Not only is this factually incorrect it creates a system of prejudice and intolerance, of which neither are helpful for Democracy. Let’s put an end to this intolerance and prejudice. Let’s return this nation to the greatness it was founded on, by not persecuting people on the basis of their religion (Christianity, Islam, Atheism, Judaism, Buddhism, Hindu). Let’s allow everyone to have their own beliefs and for the government not to force any religion upon any man, woman or child. Let’s agree on that Anonymous 11:08AM.
This is actually a great intro to my next post listing the ways the government of the United States of America struggled to maintain the Freedom of Religion of less popular faiths. Thanks for reading.
Post a Comment
<< Home