Pathway in the Sea

Atheism, by definition, is not a cause.

Sunday, July 15, 2007 8:41:36 PM
Dr. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens (Anti-Christopher would be more accurate advertising) and their ilk are not true atheists. They are ANTI-theists. Anti-religious activism is not the province of the true atheist. If one holds the view that there is no creator and, therefore, no transcendent cause nor purpose for the cosmos, then one may laugh or weep at the spectacle that meets ones gaze, but one has no rational cause nor purpose for informing or intervening in the political process. Such intervention is ultimately meaningless and futile to the atheist and therefore borders on madness. True atheism offers only despair, and the true atheist will only advocate despair, because hope, and therefore action or activism motivated by the hope of some outcome in the ultimately futile and meaningless future, is inconsistent with, and disingenuous to, the true atheist. In other words, the true atheist knows that he has nothing to contribute and no reason to contribute it to the human experience. Any expression of his belief as an influence on others cannot possibly enrich or enhance their experience and therefore can only harm or injure them. ("Expression of his belief" is not to be confused with any professed atheist's basic impulses or ethical characteristics that are expressed as good works in the world, although identifying oneself as an atheist and then manufacturing "virtue" in an effort to promote atheism as "good" is actually evil and anti-theistic, not truly atheistic.)
Ergo, these anti-theistic activists are not behaving in a manner consistent with their professed atheism. If you are a true atheist, I commend you for the courage to persist in what must be a very desolate and terrifying existence. I must admit dismay, however, at your woefully deficient assessment of the scientific and material evidence to the contrary. For example, what Darwinists cite as "the fossil record" is actually evidence that the mineralized remains of living organisms preserved as fossils experienced sudden death and catastrophic burial consistent with a global event such as the Biblical Flood. In stark contrast to this, organisms that expire in the relatively stable environment of today do not remain physically intact as many of those preserved as fossils obviously did. Therefore, when Darwinists cite "the fossil record" as the evidence of processes that have persisted from time immemorial to the present, they are either manifestly incompetent at interpreting the evidence that is right in front of them, or they are deliberately falsifying the record. In either case, they are not to be trusted nor taken seriously, except as the agents of some hitherto undisclosed and highly suspect agenda that is incompatible with the truth. I am overwhelmingly persuaded that the latter is the case, and that today's Darwinists are motivated in their duplicity and dishonesty by the same impetus that today's anti-theists are: malice and hostility to the Creator and the ultimate proprietary authority that His existence implies.

2 Peter 3
1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.



Atheism, therefore, is a view that insists on being convinced beyond an unreasonable doubt of the existence of God. An unreasonable doubt is impossible to satisfy, because the person is not looking for the truth, but engages in an endless retreat into falsehood, and only an insane person would endeavor to pursue them there. They will simply keep moving the standard of proof beyond the reach of the evidence. (The O.J. Simpson criminal verdict is a perfect technical example of the standard of proof being "persuaded beyond an unreasonable doubt". It's an impossible burden. Even when God weighs in on the testimony.)

It is perfectly acceptable and lawful for any American Citizen to profess atheism and to enjoy perfect liberty in doing so, and they always have, insofar as the law is concerned.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



As far as I know, the federal judiciary shall make no law, period, and when they issue orders abridging the rights of free speech, as in prohibiting prayers in school, and prohibiting cultural expressions of religious faith in the public sector made voluntarily, and preceding their ex post facto rulings, it is the federal courts who are trampling not only the first amendment rights of ALL Americans, but they are arrogating to themselves the powers of the legislative branch of government in gross violation of Constitutional "separation of powers". If they followed the law as it appears in the Constitution, and an atheist brought suit against prayer in school, for example, they would rule that unless the atheist were being coerced or compelled to participate in the prayers or other religious activity, his first amendment rights were not being violated, and his suit was merely a malicious effort to deprive his fellow Americans of their first amendment rights, which is itself a CRIMINAL ACT. When the court rules in favor of the anti-theist's suit in such a case, the court ceases to exist as a Constitutional court of law, and becomes the instrument of the anti-theist's malicious oppression of his fellow Americans and therefore his criminal accomplices. It establishes the atheist's non-observance of religion and imposes it upon the people, thereby prohibiting the free exercise of their religion , and abridging their freedom of speech. It is perverse wickedness that the federal courts cite enforcement of the first amendment as a pretext for obliterating it. This is not inadvertent. "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes", and that something is the Luciferian Oligarchy otherwise known as the New World Order.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zeiger/040114

"Last July, U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones ruled that the Boy Scouts of America is a religious organization. Their presence in Balboa Park was considered a violation of the separation of church and state. Because the Scouts believe in God, said Judge Jones, there is "overwhelming and uncontradicted evidence" that the Scouts have received preferential treatment in being able to lease Balboa Park.

Under terms of the new settlement, San Diego must request Judge Jones to cancel the Boy Scouts' lease on Balboa Park. The city will also pay the ACLU nearly $1 million in court costs and attorney fees, which will, of course, help finance further attacks against the Boy Scouts.

Now that the City of San Diego has given up on the Boy Scouts of America, a nearly 90-year relationship has come to an end. It began after the 1915 San Diego World's Fair in Balboa Park when the Santa Fe Railroad donated its Pueblo Indian Village to local Boy Scouts with approval by the San Diego Parks Commission. For 25 years, the Scouts used the Indian Village as a headquarters and recreation site free of charge. During World War Two, the military took possession of Balboa Park and the Boy Scouts launched their volunteer campaigns to help the war effort from a makeshift headquarters in a local theater.

At the end of the war, the San Diego City Council passed a resolution authorizing the Boy Scouts to take charge of several acres of land in Balboa Park. Through fundraising and volunteer work, a state-of-the-art swimming pool and a 600-seat outdoor amphitheater were constructed. In 1949, the Boy Scouts Desert Pacific Council headquarters building was completed.

Parts of Balboa Park remained undeveloped by 1957, so the city council agreed to transfer additional property to the Boy Scouts for maintenance and operations. A fifty-year lease was signed with a rental fee of one dollar per year.

Today, Camp Balboa accommodates up to 300 campers at a time, and it offers a variety of year-round programs. Each year, 12,000 Boy Scouts take part in day camps, weekend camps, and merit badge classes.

But the Boy Scouts don't have exclusive access to their own camp. Anyone can use it. Last summer, the two-day San Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Festival was held at Balboa Park.

And the Boy Scouts take good care of Balboa Park. The Scouts have spent millions of dollars developing and maintaining the public park over the years, without burden to the city and its taxpayers. In the language of free market think tanks, that's a classic public-private partnership.

The ACLU cares nothing about saving taxpayers money, nor that the Scouts perform millions of dollars and thousands of hours worth of public service for the San Diego community, nor about the fact that the Scouts have been in the park for most of nine decades. The ACLU simply wants to destroy the Boy Scouts of America."



OATH OF OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES JUDGES
(Title 28, Sec. 453 and Title 5, Sec. 16, United States code)


I, ____________________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _____________________________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. SO HELP ME GOD.



According to anti-theistic, secularist judge's rulings, they themselves, and the offices they hold, are religious in nature, and by their own criteria, should be excluded from operating with public funding or in public facilities, such as federal courthouses. This, of course, is absurd, and illustrates the absolute dementia of their "jurisprudence".



In conclusion, atheists enjoy the protections of the Constitutional first amendment, and should support and celebrate those protections for their theistic fellow Americans, and vice versa. That is called "equal protection under the law". Anti-theists do not support and celebrate the equal protection of theistic Americans, and therefore should be regarded as enemies of the Constitution, the American People and the rule of law. Anti-theistic judges should face impeachment for either willful misconduct or legal incompetence. The "wall of separation" between church and state is not found in the Constitution, and, as it has been abused by the federal courts, has actually formed the basis of persistent and criminal suppression of the first amendment rights of the vast majority of American Citizens living since 1947, especially those that were required by law to attend state-run public schools. Talk about making law prohibiting the free exercise of religion and abridging freedom of speech! It is wickedness.

( Etymology 1

--From Middle English, an alteration of wicke, ultimately from the Old English word wicca or sorcerer. In the age that the Bible was written, the British candle makers used to twist their wicks before they dipped them into the candle wax so the wax would adhere to the wick. Thus the term ‘wicked’ came to mean ‘twisted’ and in the King James Bible that was written in the Old English times, being ‘wicked’ meant twisting what was righteous.)



And unconstitutional.



http://liberty-tree.ca/



Famous Quote from Benjamin Franklin



"Our Constitution is
in actual operation;
everything appears to promise
that it will last;
but in this world
nothing is certain
but death and taxes."



Famous Quote from Benjamin Franklin


Outside Independence Hall when
the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended,
Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,
"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,
"A republic, if you can keep it."