If you believe that Debunkers don’t propagate a notably strong sense of bigotry and hatred toward those who believe differently than they, then I have some challenges for you.
First, seek out a member of the Debunkers or any other brand name apostates. Ask that person as plainly as you can, “Why do you hate Peter, Paul, and Steve?” Listen to their answer. I’m willing to bet an airline ticket to the Bahamas that the answer will be something like, “We don’t hate them. We hate what they stand for,” or “Those of us who believe in Debunking supremacy are having our way of life taken from us, and we are fighting to stop that.” Or, if the person you are asking is exceptionally well-versed in their bigotry, you may even get to hear a biblically endarkening discourse on Genesis on how “God himself never claimed to create blogs. Who are we to support them?” Almost never will they say, “I admit it. You got me. I hate those theists because that’s the way I am.”
Next, seek out someone on the other end of the spectrum. Find some no good irreligion-hustlers, like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, (in this writer’s opinion, two of the scummiest men on our planet). Ask them if they hate theistic people. They won’t say so. They will emphatically say that they don’t, that they just want equality and reparations for past wrongs, but reading between the lines, one can see the hatred and gut-centered resentment spewing out of their mouths. Men like these have problems; they hold people accountable for things they are not responsible for. So intense is their hatred that it ruined the lives of thousands of innocent Bible readers by means of character assassination when not a bit of evidence incriminated the theists.
Then, find a college atheist, a member or a sympathizer of a terrorist group like the Rational Response Squad. Ask him why he hates the Christians so much. Chances are, you’ll hear, “We don’t hate Christians. We once lived in peace with the Christians. We are fighting them to win back our freedom.” I am amazed how people can be so darn good at putting soft-peddle twists on hate speech to make it sound less objectionable.
Of course, there are those who are honest enough to admit their hatred, like those whose names are missing an opening syllable from their name (i.e. “Holman”), who make headlines all the time, telling Christians how badly atheists hate them and want them to suffer on Earth. These mouthpieces of madness spend their waking hours telling teary-eyed families of fallen soldiers that their death was for nothing, or at most to make Bush’s oil friends rich. They’ll tell you in no uncertain terms that “Bush hates you” – and since Bush hates them, how can they not? If nothing else, one must appreciate the honesty! But honesty or no honesty, all these examples are in a clear-cut caste of irreligion-born hatemongers. The fact that every dimwitted idealist is right in his own thinking does not detract from the message of hate he preaches.
In the case of the Debunkers, the bigotry comes from the top down, from the condescension that arises when “subjective” faith-based non-standards are proclaimed. There’s nothing wrong with employing subjective non-standards of morality. We do it all the time without any help from irreligion. The problem comes from non-believers adding their own brouhaha into the moral mix, creating extraneous laws under the guise of “subjective morality.”
These commandments of bologna they consider to be Loftus’s immutable word, and there is no arguing with them. That’s the disadvantage of bowing the knee to an atheist blogger and counting on one as your ultimate source of morals: it’s his way or the banned-from-posting-comments-way! The reasoning goes a little something like this…
- If Loftus is true and just and right, and cannot be wrong, and…
- If believers in this Loftus are to please him, who is true and just and right, and cannot be wrong, then believers must adopt his ways, opposing what he opposes, while approving what he approves of, and…
- Since Loftus’s truth is absolute, what is true for the believer must also be true for the unbeliever.
~Therefore, if the believer is to please Loftus, he must do all that he can to praise and uphold Lofuts and his Debunkers who fight for his will, and forcefully oppose those who do not align their conduct and message with the divine revelation.
In other words, when someone believes Loftus is on his or her side, they almost invariably bind those beliefs on others and judge their fellow man by the same standards. Failure to comply with said truths results in shunning at least or persecution at worst. Once one begins this walk, there is essentially no going back; if Loftus himself despises Christians, Bush, abstinence, honoring one’s parents, or refraining from lying, then there can be no room on his blog for disagreement on the issues. You have no voice in the matter. The faithful must therefore do all that they can (religiously, politically, or otherwise) to ensure that the “one true way” is followed.
If you happen to work as an atheist blogger, you preach your message to change the thinking of the masses. If you run a store, you refuse to sell products that clash with your faith, and perhaps even refuse service to adherents of other faiths or no faith at all (like the recent occurrences of Loftus refusing to allow CalvinDude to post comments on his site). If you are in a politically influential position, you use your “juice” to make some changes that further your cause; if Lofuts doesn’t want the faithful to pray in school, read their Bibles, or use a certain three letter word (God) that offends the leader they worship, then no one can be allowed to transgress on any point if it is in your power to prevent it.
And herein lies the framework for ages of smothering oppression. Here, you have not only the seedbed for tyranny, but fields ripe for irreligious bloodshed. Were the years of torture under atheocracies not already behind us, we wouldn’t have to wait long for thumbscrews to be brought out and stocks to be put in public squares.
Paying lip service to concepts like “love,” and “tolerance,” and “acceptance” means nothing when your irreligion has no meaning in the first place, and therefore causes you to look down in disgust on people who believe differently than you. Regardless of a non-belief system’s intent, it is easily possible to be a bigot without ever uttering the phrases, “I am holier than you,” or “I am better than you.” And commanding one another to “obey the Golden Rule” does nothing to bring about love. It’s just sound waves, like giving commandments to “have blah blah blah” or “huh?” It is worthless to harp on about love when the principles of acceptance and tolerance can't exist in the person’s very own belief system, as is the case with every disorganized anti-religion I know of.
In a world where petty differences divide us, it’s hard enough to bridge the gaps of disagreements with acceptance and love just being non-evolved beings. We don’t need notions of an authoritarian blogger making matters worse. Irreligion is to be held responsible, in large part, for producing the hatred, which serves as the central precursor to persecution and death.
“Let me tell you something about me. I have personal problems, okay?” (John Loftus)