So You’re Offended, Are You?


Every day we see news stories in the main stream media reporting that activist atheists and non-religious groups, such as those involved in the LGBT community, attack any demonstration of religiosity.  Catholic hospitals, schools or charitable organizations, for example, who employ anyone who is not a nun, priest or brother, are being forced to ignore their own religious doctrines and supply contraceptives and abortifacients as part of the health insurance that they offer to their lay employees under the mandates of Obamacare.

Christmas particularly seems to drive atheists wild for some reason.  The idea that a community wants to put up a Christmas tree in a public space (even when no public funds are involved) seems to cause the vapors among those groups.  And their passive-aggressive posture of being “offended” by any demonstration of Christmas, or singing Christmas carols in a school that have any connection to the idea that Christmas is actually connected to, you know, the birth of Jesus, will cause them to have a figurative brain hemorrhage.

This particular and peculiar obsession with Christmas makes one wonder why they never seem to sue to get the Saint Patrick’s Day parade shut down.  It is all about a saint, after all.

There seems to be  ongoing and vicious assaults on Judeo-Christian beliefs in this country, and directed against Christians even more than Jews.  Many Christians are outraged at this assault in direct contravention of the First Amendment’s protections of religious freedom, of course when Christians find this to be offensive, they are simply viewed as being borderline retarded, and so they are ignored and marginalized.

Even non-religious organizations are bowing before the non-God of atheistic conformity, so we have stores referring to “holiday trees”, the “holiday season” or printing “holiday greeting cards.”

So what should Christians do?

My (sarcastic) answer to them would be very simple.  Offer to cooperate with the posturing fools who want to kill Christmas.  Let’s suggest to the atheists and Democrats (or is that redundant?) that they eliminate Christianity and Judaism altogether.  Wouldn’t that be great!  Think of all the benefits that would accrue to the country if actually did eliminate Christianity and Judaism along with their antiquated and obviously wrong-headed and ignorant ideas that form the basis of Judeo-Christian morality.

Since Judeo-Christian morality is the basis for all law and governmental intrusion to moderate the activities of human beings in Western Civilization, what might happen?  Well, just hypothetically speaking of course, here are a couple of possibilities:

1) The crime statistics would drop to nearly zero.  After all, 99.9% of all the laws in this country are based on the biblical Ten Commandments.  Get rid of that relic of a time long past and VOILA!  No crime, therefore no crime statistics.  It would be every man for himself in the realm of jurisprudence and police activity.

2) Once crime is eliminated, think of the vast reductions in government spending that would ensue.  Welfare?  Gone.  It’s based on the religious concepts of three major religions (Judaism, Christianity as well as Islam) that preach that people should act charitably toward the less fortunate.  Get rid of religion, then charity, in all its governmentally coerced forms such as welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, unemployment insurance, workers comp insurance, food stamps and all their supporting bureaucracy would vanish.  Cool, right?  We could save hundreds of billions, perhaps even a trillion or so, each and every year and wipe out our entire national debt in less than ten years.

3) Gun and ammunition manufacturers would find their revenue stream increasing rapidly, since without those pesky, antiquated laws based on the so-called Ten Commandments, there would no longer be any restraints on anyone’s behavior.  So you’re daughter gets raped, what are you going to do?  Call a cop?  It’s not a crime anymore, right?  So get your gun, and start killing everyone that remotely resembles your daughter’s rapist.  Murder isn’t a crime either.  Well, maybe it would be classed as “Felony Littering”, although I don’t recall one of those Ten Commandments saying, “Thou shalt not litter.”  It follows Point #1 above:  You’re on your own.

4) Divorce attorneys might be upset when the divorce laws become inoperable.  That whole “Thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife” business would be a thing of the past, wouldn’t it?  And while you might not have to worry about alimony anymore, you might want to review Point #3 about murder not being a crime either.  Just sayin’.

5) And changes need not be limited to domestic affairs.  Think how different foreign relations would be if we could ignore the Judeo-Christian tradition.  For instance we could eliminate all that nonsense about the Geneva Convention, and torturing enemy combatants.  The concept of innocent civilians would be gone, so the rules of engagement for our military would be soooo much simpler.  If it moves, kill it!

I feel sure that all the atheists and other anti-Christian, anti-Jewish rabble rousers would just love those kinds of changes, right?  And if they don’t, what rationalization could they offer to replace laws based on the Ten Commandments?  No matter how they twist and turn, the simple truth is that the Ten Commandments offer the same thing that our Constitution offers – a simple, understandable guide for how to conduct the affairs of human beings to inflict the least suffering on one’s self or on others.

So if these individuals who object to the observance of these simple rules want them eradicated because, to use the words of Karl Marx, “religion is the opiate of the masses”, and want to lead all of us away from the basis for all law that controls our behavior, how should Christians and Jews respond?  When one of these rabid atheists claim that they are “Offended by (fill in the blank however you prefer)”, there can be only one rational answer:

So what? Who cares if you’re offended?

No matter what a person or group is offended by, I see nothing in the Constitution that equates having hurt feelings with, say, unreasonable search and seizure.   Even the Bible doesn’t say “Thou shalt not hurt anyone’s feelings”. So long as whatever is used to “fill in the blank” does not actually cause physical harm to an individual or restrict in any way their constitutionally enumerated and protected rights, the fact that they are offended is utterly irrelevant.  Saying that they’re offended is just one of those passive-aggressive ploys that the left uses to get everyone else to change their behavior to avoid “friction” or “bad feelings” and to enhance “cooperation” (meaning, simply, do it my way).  How about we simply ignore the fact that their feelings are hurt?  If they can’t handle that, well, Obamacare offers psychiatric care, doesn’t it?

There, that should make them happy.



About Jim Yardley

Retired after 30 years as a financial controller for a variety of manufacturing firms, a two-tour Vietnam veteran, and independent voter.
Gallery | This entry was posted in Constitution, Department of Education, Education, Freedom of Religion, Humor, Observing Our Culture, Political Doubletalk, U.S. Government and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to So You’re Offended, Are You?

  1. Pete Morin says:

    Very interesting article, Jim. I could agree that this Nation was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics, but then again renouncing such a founding may not produce the result you expound upon. (Full disclosure-I am an atheist)

    Atheist’s don’t believe there should be no rules for a civilized society to live by, they just disagree on the source of said rules as exemplified in the Ten Commandments. As an atheist, I believe it’s possible to come to live a decent life based on the experience of untold numbers of people who came before us and the rules they formulated which can lead to an ethical life. Regardless of our respective positions, this mere space will not allow us to elaborate in a philosophical way.

    All of this does not change my belief in the greatness of our founders, and our founding documents. Their greatness is exemplified in the liberty and freedom of the individual, versus the heavy hand of the state. I respect those people who have faith and want to live their lives on time tested principles. As a believer, or as an atheist, one can come to the conclusion this was the founders intent. It expresses itself best in one of the tenants of the first amendment in the Bill of Rights: Freedom of Religion,( not Freedom From Religion) a time tested principle that should not be cast aside. Atheist groups such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation(FFRF) want to destroy religion without understanding, should they be successful, they would simply be destroying their own freedom.

    • Jim Yardley says:

      Pete, you’ve read enough of my stuff over the past couple of years to recognize when I’m using a “Reductio ad absurdum” type argument to make a point. I have just as much of a problem with those who aren’t atheists, but who think that they can pick and choose which of the commandments they like and will follow and those that they don’t like and essentially say to themselves “Well, God couldn’t possibly have been serious”. If, like you, a person believes that the Constitution is the best we have to guide us toward treating each other fairly and avoiding unnecessarily reducing our freedoms (even the freedom to do things that others might think absurd) you can’t pick and choose only those parts that you like, as our magical President tries to do.

      You know as well as I, in every group there are extremists. The point of the article was to mock those extremists, a la Saul Alinsky, and put them on the defensive for a change. We will lose what makes our nation exceptional if we allow personal freedoms to be eroded because some extremist, from any group, to declare that they find what someone else does to be offensive and uses the weight of the courts or the administration to curtail that freedom.

      • Pete Morin says:

        Jim: I get the message. There are organizations out there, FFRF as such, that are militant and can fit your, obviously, absurd argument to a tee. I’m just pointing out there are atheists ( hopefully, more than one) who believe in the Constitution, and the beliefs of the brilliant men who wrote it.

        A few years ago I wrote a satirical blog that was similar in style to this post. Keep up the great work!

  2. Kathy says:

    This article needs to be read by every God-fearing American,. You have addressed.a real problem that we face today. The founding fathers were Bible read, God-fearing men and they knew that for this republic to last, people had to be virtuous and religious in the Judeo-Christian tradition. And we have to be proud that we rely on God’s Word, the Bible, for direction.
    Thank you, Jim. I am going to use your rejoinder if anyone tells me they are offended …..”So what? Who cares if you’re offended.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s