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.