Category Archives: Anti-God

Bill Lockwood: Socialism is Rooted in Atheism 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

In spite of the many challenges in defining “religion” versus “irreligion”, or even “atheism” as opposed to “theism,” multiple studies indicate that Americans are becoming increasingly non-religious—even atheistic–in their orientation. Why is this? In part, it is doubtless due to the fact that socialism has become the state-sponsored creed not only taught in public schools and universities, but practiced by both major political parties. The philosophy of Socialism itself is rooted in atheistic assumptions, offering an alternative view of man, the family, society, sin, and the role of government.

First, socialism and communism are one and the same. Textbook authors of Elements of Socialism, John Spargo and George Louis Arner (1912) state it plainly. Communism is “equivalent” to Socialism (226). Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who wrote the Communist Manifesto, are lauded as the founders of modern-day socialism.

Second, how is the socialistic system atheistic? Engels argued that the “idea of God” resulted from fallacious reasoning by early man when he observed natural phenomena. “…the first gods arose through the personification of natural forces … out of the many more or less limited and mutually limiting gods there arose in the minds of men the idea of the one exclusive god of the monotheistic religion.” This is a concept still maintained by socialists.

Again, Engels theorizes that the Idea of God is a “reflection of the mind of men.” “All religion, however, is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men’s minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces. In the beginning of history, it was the forces of nature which were at first so reflected.”

Spargo and Arner suggest that, “Primitive man began to think and talk about himself and his environment. The world seemed full of mystery. How could he hunt in a dream when his friends swore that he had not moved? The echo and the shadow puzzled him. The mighty forces of nature awed him. There must be a power greater than himself, and since he could not think of forces as impersonal, he imputed personality to that power. There must be a spirit apart from the body or he could not hunt in is dreams. Thus were evolved the ideas of anthropomorphic gods, spirits, and ghosts.” “…a stage earlier than … even the lowest modern savages …”

What About These Socialistic Assertions?

First, if these things be true, then origin of religion not explained on basis of economic system. Therefore, the economic interpretation of history cannot account for religion which has been one of the most powerful forces in history. Engels himself even agreed to this. “It would surely be pedantic to try and find economic causes for all this primitive nonsense.”

Thus, according to one of the founders of modern-day socialism, it was not until after religion had arisen as a reflection of natural forces in men’s minds, that the social and evolutionary forces began to act and the “changing economic system” forged it differently. The philosophy of communism falls on its own sword here, for not everything can be explained on the basis of economics.

Second, there is no historical PROOF of any of these assertions suggesting that polytheism (belief in many gods) preceded monotheism (belief in one god). Assumption is a long way from proof. Actually, that is also the unfounded position of a growing number of so-called biblical scholars who begin their studies on this assumption. In point of fact, the opposite is true.

When men are not hypnotized by the hypothesis of evolution which demands that historical facts be arranged in such a way as to fit the hypothesis, they realize that the further back into any culture they go the fewer gods that culture has. William W.F. Petrie, in The Religion of Ancient Egypt, “What we actually find is the contrary of this, monotheism is the first state traceable in theology … Wherever we can trace back polytheism to its earliest stages we find that it results from combinations of monotheism …”

Professor Stephen Langdon studied Sumerian and Semitic religion. “Monotheism preceded polytheism and belief in good and evil spirits” (Semitic Mythology, 1931). Herbert Farmer, who was a Gifford Lecturer, stated that with but few exceptions the evidences show that “the most primitive levels of human life which we can reach by the soundest ethnological methods reveal a belief in one supreme deity or High God …” Many other unbiased scholars could be noted.

Third, deception is “built into” the socialistic system. How so? Setting aside the foolish assumption that early man was simply a dumb brute who could not discern his dreams from reality, Spargo & Arner argue at length that they are not “atheists.” But before the page is turned in the book they argue that God is a “construct of the human mind”; that religion itself is “man’s attempt to put himself into harmonious relation with, and to discover the meaning of the universe.”

Deceptively adept again, they rush to say that “The Marxian theory does not deny that men may have benefitted by seeking an interpretation of the universe, or that the quest for such an interpretation is compatible with rational conduct … Marx could not ignore such an important and universal phenomenon as religion” (p. 79-80).

It appears that these socialists believe that we are still “dumb brutes” who cannot reason. The question is not whether anyone believes that “religious belief” itself has played a part in men’s lives or in civilization—but is there any ultimate reality behind this belief in God?? To this question they answer “No.” This is atheism. When they confess that one’s beliefs has been a “force” in human history, that is a far cry from confessing whether or not there is any reality at the base of those beliefs.

As Americans plunge increasingly into a socialistic state, we are fed more and more lies by communistic masters. This is the very nature of socialism. This is one major reason why atheism and irreligion grow in America.

 

William F. Jasper: American Library Association Pushing Perversion Through Drag Queen Story Hour 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by William F. Jasper

The ALA has partnered up with the anti-Christian bigots of the Southern Poverty Law Center to promote the latest LGBTQ agenda item: sex perverts for tots.

OK, kiddies, say so long to Dr. Seuss, Mother Goose, and Peter Rabbit. And say hello to Sparkle Boy, Jacob’s New Dress, My Princess Boy, The Dragtivity Book, and Heather Has Two Mommies.

It’s Drag Queen Story Hour time! And, as a special treat, we have some big, hairy men with beards and mustaches in sequined gowns and some girlie men in fishnet stockings and mini-skirts to read these fun, transformative stories to you. What’s more, they may sprinkle you with magic glitter, blow bubbles at you, lead you in a “gay” songfest, and even let you crawl all over them. Sounds super-fun, right?

Yes, what a short time ago would have been unthinkable, absurd, even criminal, has now become a commonplace occurrence in “woke” cities, towns, and hamlets all across America. How has it happened that Drag Queen Story Hours (DQSHs) have suddenly popped up all across the landscape like mushrooms after a rain? There’s really no mystery about it. The DQSHs are not spontaneously-grown, natural, organic mushrooms; they’re toxic toadstools intentionally planted by sexual predators and the cultural subversives who promote and assist them.

Incredibly, in an era in which all teachers, counselors, coaches, pastors, and almost all adults working with young children are required to undergo background checks, our public libraries and schools have given a free pass to some of the most obvious sex deviants to enable their free access to toddlers.

Among the foremost promoters of this toxic toadstool cult is the American Library Association (ALA), aided by “progressives” and LGBTQ activists posing as journalists in the Fake News Media. And (no surprise) the hateful millionaire LGBTQ cry-bullies at the Southern Poverty Law Center are helping provide critical cover, smearing parents who oppose this outrageous scheme as being transphobic neo-Nazis and white supremacists.

Parents, grandparents, pastors, and concerned citizens have been dumbfounded, not only by the brazenness of this latest all-out assault on decency, but even more so by the adamant defense of the indefensible by librarians, school officials, city councilmen, and local media. It’s become painfully obvious that the Drag Queen Story Hour is a well-planned, carefully-orchestrated offensive, one in which the LGBTQ Mafia has coordinated its moves with its political and media allies.

Make Them “Own It”!

However, the outraged parents, grandparents, pastors, and concerned citizens are fighting back, undaunted by the smears and name-calling. And, as more and more Drag Queen “performers” are outed as convicted sex criminals, it is now the DQSH perpetrators and promoters who are being put on the defensive.

As The New American reported in August (“Drag”ing Kids Into the LGBTQ Abyss), the coverage of the DQSH controversy in the “mainstream” media has been almost universally sympathetic to the crossdressing deviants. “Thus it was telling (though hardly surprising) that when real news broke about one of the much-hyped drag queen stars being a convicted child sex offender, the media cheerleading section went mostly mum,” we reported. “It turns out that 32-year-old registered sex offender Alberto Garza, who participated in the Houston Drag Queen Story Hour under the name Tatiana Mala Niña (Tatiana ‘Bad Girl’), was convicted in 2009 of aggravated sexual assault of an eight-year-old child. He is a ‘Bad Girl’ indeed! Now, might that possibly be of interest to parents, grandparents, and, well, anyone committed to the safety of children? One might suppose so. After all, isn’t ‘child safety’ one of the arguments put forward for the story hour by the program’s proponents?”

“So how did the truth about Garza/Mala Niña’s criminal sexcapades reach the light of day?” we asked. “Was it the library, the city government, the police department, or the local or national media that discovered and exposed this pertinent fact? The answer: None of the above.”

No, as we noted, “Bad Girl” Garza was exposed thanks to the determined efforts of the dads and moms at Houston MassResistance, a Texas affiliate of the national pro-family group MassResistance based in Massachusetts. MassResistance then exposed another Houston DQSH convicted sex offender, William Travis Dees, who, among his various pervert personas, dresses as a mock Catholic nun in the obscene and sacriligeous Drag group “Space Sisters.”

The good folks at MassResistance have continued to expose the criminal degeneracy and child endangerment inherent in the ongoing Drag Queen Story Hour travesty. The librarians and city officials in Austin, like those in Houston, have been caught red-handed. MassResistance revealed the court records of David Lee Richardson, aka “Miss Kitty Litter,” an Austin DQSH performer. Richardson had been previously arrested and convicted of offering sex for money — prostitution. What’s more, they compiled a 135-page report documenting Richardson’s incredibly vile social media postings, many of which would fit into a triple-X rating. One of his postings shows a personalized license plate that reads, “ILUV-ANL.” Another posting shows him in leather and handcuffs promoting BDSM (Bondage, Domination, Sado-Masochism), with the following quote: “Sticks and stones may break my bones but Chains and Whips excite me.” As should be obvious to any reasonable adult, introducing young children to sadomasochist practitioners is not only to endanger them morally and psychologically, but physically as well.

Undoubtedly, the criminal records of DQSH kiddie “entertainers” exposed thus far by MassResistance researchers are just the tip of the iceberg. Where is the due diligence on the part of the public officials and journalists who are promoting this perverse onslaught? Many, if not all of these “performers,” have Web pages and social media accounts that are readily accessible for anyone willing to check them out.  These individuals are narcissistic exhibitionists. They flaunt their aberrant and disgusting proclivities. Some of them have literally hundreds of raunchy photos and videos of themselves in their various drag outfits. It should not be necessary to produce an actual arrest record or conviction to disqualify them as “models” for our children; their narcissistic obsession and degenerate activities should make them abhorrent to all but the most morally bankrupt. The library officials, politicians, and media mavens who support this depravity must be made to “own” the full consequences of this assault on morality.

MassResistance is doing precisely that. It is holding them accountable by exposing the true, sordid nature of the DQSH and its dissolute storytellers. In Houston, public officials who had gushed over Drag Queens were forced to publicly apologize and admit they had failed to conduct even the most elementary screening of their DQSH performers prior to unleashing them on the unsuspecting community and innocent children.

In Chula Vista, California, a MassResistance chapter and local churches went to bat against Drag Queen Story Hour at the local public library. City Councilor Steven Padilla, who is openly “gay,” attacked the Christian opponents of the perverse program as being part of a group (i.e., MassResistance) that “promotes anti-immigrant and white-supremacist beliefs.” He provided no evidence to back up the defamatory claim — because there is none. He was merely regurgitating bile spewing from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which has grown obscenely wealthy by peddling the race card and demonizing Christian, conservative, patriotic, pro-life, and pro-family groups and individuals. The Center has also spread hate and violence while claiming to oppose both.

SPLC/ALA’s Putrid Pipeline

One of the most notorious examples of SPLC hate-inspired violence is the case of the near deadly shooting attack on the Washington, D.C headquarters office of the Family Research Council (FRC). The intended killer, Floyd Lee Corkins, who said he wanted to kill everyone he could at the Christian group’s offices, later told FBI agents that his attack was inspired by information he got from the SPLC that identified FRC as an anit-LGBTQ “hate group.” The FRC released a video with clips that shows Corkins shooting building manager Leo Johnson. Corkins said that “I wanted to kill the people in the building and then smear a Chick-fil-A sandwich in their face … to kill as many people as I could.”

The anti-Christian extremists at the Southern Poverty Law Center also seem to have an inordinate influence at the American Library Association. The ALA website has multiple explicit references to the Center and many additional statements, resolutions, and policies that employ almost verbatim the SPLC’s malicious accusations against individuals and groups that stand against the “progressive” agenda championed by the SPLC. A division of the ALA, the Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC), for instance, published “Countering Hate in Schools,” in which it reports: “The ALSC Board recently voted to sign on with the Southern Poverty Law Center and 20 other education advocacy groups to counter hate in American schools. The coalition is committed to providing resources and support so schools may effectively respond to hateful acts and create learning environments where every student feels welcome.”

The ALA’s webpage, “Hate Groups and Violence in Libraries,” reads as if it were written by the SPLC’s LGBTQ activists (which it very likely was), and it specifically links to the SPLC’s notorious “Hate Map” that maliciously equates Christian conservatives with the KKK and neo-Nazis.

The ALA’s Disgusting Dragline

MassResistance has nailed the American Library Association in its recent report entitled “What you need to know about the ‘Drag Queen’ indoctrination of children in your public libraries.” The pro-family organization charges that “the American Library Association is the radical force behind the scenes across the country.”

When it comes to the very controversial Drag Queen Story Hour issue, there is little doubt as to where the ruling faction of the ALA stands; it has linked arms with the radical LGBTG lobby, regardless of the growing pushback from parents and taxpayers. In “Libraries Respond: Drag Queen Story Hour,” the ALA states: “Many libraries across the country have been hosting or participating in Drag Queen Story Hours. A few have experienced pushback from some members of their community. To support libraries facing challenges we have established this collection of resources. We will continue to add to it and welcome your contributions. ALA, through its actions and those of its members, is instrumental in creating a more equitable, diverse, and inclusive society. This includes a commitment to combating marginalization and underrepresentation within the communities served by libraries through increased understanding of the effects of historical exclusion.”

To demonstrate this commitment, the Association’s website directs readers to the “ALA Resources – Toolkits & Best Practices,” under which we find:

• Open to All: Serving the GLBT Community in Your Library – created by the Rainbow Round Table

• Defending Intellectual Freedom: LGBTQ+ Materials in School Libraries (AASL)

• Drag Queen Story Hour: Reading Fabulously – Program session from the 2018 Public Library Association (PLA) Conference

• Hateful Conduct in Libraries: Supporting Library Workers and Patrons – created in partnership with the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) and Office for Diversity, Literacy and Outreach Services (ODLOS)

In addition, we have these “Blog Posts from Across ALA”:

• Drag Queen Story Hour by Kat Savage from ALSC Blog, June 15, 2017

• Drag Queen Story Hour by ALSC Early Childhood Programs and Services Committee, ALSC Blog, July 22, 2017

• #PLA2018 Drag Up Your Storytime by Erin Douglass from ALSC Blog, March 24, 2018

• Three Queens: Perspectives on Drag Queen Story Hour by Alex Falck from Intellectual Freedom Blog, July 5, 2018

• When a Protestor Interrupts Drag Queen Storytime by Kristin Pekoll from Intellectual Freedom Blog, June 20, 2018

• Ain’t it a Drag? Program Challenges at the Public Library by James LaRue from Intellectual Freedom Blog, June 1, 2017

• Defend Pride at Your Library by Kristin Pekoll from Intellectual Freedom Blog, June 10, 2018

• Drag Queen Story Hour: Q&A with Port Jefferson Free Library, Programming Librarian, Oct. 26, 2018

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/family/item/33901-american-library-association-pushing-perversion-through-drag-queen-story-hour

William F. Jasper is an American journalist and author, and a senior editor of The New American, and long-time member of the John Birch Society.

 

Bill Lockwood: Democrats: The Anti-God Party of Karl Marx? 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

Several recent agendas pushed by the Democrat Party indicate that they are not only the anti-America Party which pushes for Open Borders and a larger socialist confiscation/redistribution program than already exists, but are aggressively adversarial when it comes to belief in God. From chiding judicial nominees who believe in God to removing ‘so help me God’ from oaths—the Democrat Party is adopting the mantle of atheism.

Sen. Cory Booker, for example, recently asked judicial nominee Neomi Rao if she believed that same-sex relationships were immoral. Rao has been nominated to be on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She would replace Brett Kavanaugh if confirmed.

Booker pressed her. “So you’re not willing to say here … whether you believe it is sinful for two men to be married, you’re not willing to comment on that?”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) asked Amy Coney Barrett, “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” in a 2017 hearing. Barret was then a nominee for the 7th Circuit Court. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said to Barrett in that same hearing: “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”

Brian Buescher was nominated to be on a district court in Nebraska. His membership in the Catholic Knights of Columbus was something that brought out the hostility of Democrat Senators Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Kamala Harris (D-CA). The thought patterns of these prominent Democrats is obviously that any sort of Christian belief is a hindrance to public service.

Removing “So Help You God”

Next, as reported by The Hill, the newly-minted Democrat-led House Committee on Natural Resources is seeking to have the words “so help you God” removed from the oath cited by witnesses who testify before the panel. The proposal was originally obtained by Fox News.

The rules proposal states that witnesses that come before the committee during its hearings would be administered the following oath: ‘Do you solemnly swear or affirm, under penalty of law, that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth [so help you God]? According to Fox News, the “so help you God” phrasing is in brackets in red in the draft and indicates that the words are slated for removal.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) probably summarized this Democrat-led move with the best critique: “It is incredible, but not surprising, that the Democrats would try to remove God from committee proceedings in one of the first acts in the majority…They really have become the party of Karl Marx.”

Art. VI. Sec. 3–No Religious Test

Some may suppose that these godless Democrats are in line with the Constitution at Art. VI, sec. 3 which forbids a “religious test” for public officers in government. But this is ignorant of the meaning of the Constitution.

Article VI of the Constitution gives Americans several General Provisions. One of them involves an “Official Oath” that is to be required of Senators and Representatives and all “executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states.” They shall be “bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution, but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

First, there is to be an ‘oath’ of office. What seems to have escaped the modernist anti-theism approach is that the very nature of an oath assumes that the one giving that oath believes in God. By definition an oath is a solemn “calling upon God to witness the truth of what one says.” In effect it is to say: If I am not telling the truth then I call upon God to strike me down or to punish me

This is why Washington, when taking the first oath of presidential office, added “so help me God.” In the Old Testament an oath was to be taken in God’s name for the same purpose. To “take the Lord’s name in vain” (Exod. 20:7) then, is making a profession in “God’s name” and failing to live up to that profession. Primarily, this involved a legal oath. By extension the command meant “You shall not use the name of God, either in oaths or in common discourse, lightly, rashly, irreverently, or unnecessarily, or without weighty or sufficient cause” (Matthew Henry).

Obviously, by the flippant and irreverent manner in which Americans misuse the name of God has muddied their thinking about Deity and the very nature of an oath. And none are more confused than the Democrats who press for an “oath” without realizing the nature of it.

Second, the oath is itself is a recognition of God. James Iredell, a Justice of the State Supreme Court of North Carolina (1751-1799), during the founding period, commented on Article VI in the following manner.

According to the modern definition of an oath, it is considered a ‘solemn appeal to the supreme being, for the truth of what is said, by a person who believes in the existence of a supreme being and in a future state of rewards and punishments according to that form which will bind his conscience most.’ It was long held that … none but Jews and Christians could take an oath; and heathens were altogether excluded…Men at length considered that there were many virtuous men in the world who had not had an opportunity of being instructed either in the Old or New Testament, who yet very sincerely believed in a supreme being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments…. Indeed, there are few people so grossly ignorant or barbarous as to have no religion at all.

We have reached the point at which the “barbarians” are now running the government from the Democrat side. Iredell explained further pertaining to the oath:

…it is only necessary to inquire if the person who is to take it [the oath] believes in a supreme being and in a future state of rewards and punishments. If he does, the oath is to be administered according to that form which it is supposed will bind his conscience most. It is, however, necessary that such a belief should be entertained, because otherwise there would be nothing to bind his conscience that could be relied on; since there are many cases where the terror of punishment in this world for perjury would not be dreaded.

Third, what then of the No Religious Test? Article VI also states that “there shall be no religious test.” Many of the colonies were established by groups of people who subscribed to certain tenets of various faiths—that is, branches of Protestantism (see Thomas Norton, The Constitution of the United States, 183-84). Their state oaths would automatically exclude at a state level those who had contrary views.

But when it came to the federal government these same delegates insisted that it had no jurisdiction over religious matters. They were particularly fearful that a “federal test might displace existing state test oaths and religious establishments” (David Barton, “A Godless Constitution?: A Response to Kramnick and Moore,” Wallbuilders.com). In other words, the framers believed that religion was a matter better left to individuals and to their respective state governments, not to the federal government. No religious test primarily referred to the various exclusive doctrinal tests at the state level and kept the federal government in a neutral position.

However, whether one believed in God or did not subscribe to general biblical principles was far from what was intended in Art. VI, sec. 3. The idea that America might one day become a “godless state” as the current Democrat Party embodies was not in the framer’s minds. As Richard Dobbs Spaight (1758-1802), a representative from North Carolina to the Constitutional Convention, put it: “I do not suppose an infidel or any such person will ever be chosen to any office unless the people themselves be of the same opinion.”

This is what makes the comments of the Cory Booker’s and Dianne Feinstein’s so distasteful. They are not even in a “neutral position.” Their anti-God agenda, which is reflected across the board in the Democratic Party, is open hostility against Christian principles. Little wonder then that the socialism of Karl Marx appeals to them. It begins upon an atheistic platform.