Noble has a comment to “Michael Defends Atheism in Comment”. The comment relates to the Treaty of Peace and Friendship (or Tripoli) in 1797. I handle this substantiation of atheism attributed to the Founding Fathers with the post “Annoying Atheists”. Below is the comment which is followed by the segment I wrote about this Treaty.
Noble Comment on Treaty of Tripoli – Michael’s Defense
Sent: Feb 2, 2012 at 9:42 PM
Comment: My comment follows what "Michael defends atheism" says. My comment concerns the intents of our founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson is the man to whom Michael was referring when he said, "One of them wrote their own bible." Thomas Jefferson, like Benjamin Franklin, were deists, not Christians. Thomas Jefferson removed all the supernatural acts which were in the bible and used that as his bible. Thomas Jefferson's predecessor as President of the United States, John Adams had this to say about the United States' stand on religion. You may look this up and verify it quite easily. It is in the wording of the treaty the US made with Tripoli in the Barbary in the year 1797. I will give you
John R. Houk
© February 5, 2012
I have some sad news to inform you about.
I just read an email from my son who has kept SlantRight.com on the WEB at the largesse of his heart on his servers for free (to me).
Over the years the content I have written has widened an increasing gap between our opinions. At this point my son has decided the gap is too wide. Thus SlantRight.com is being taken down. I am uncertain when the doom will come for SlantRight.com. It probably come shortly after this post because these days my son takes differences personally and will not appreciate the warning of censorship that is coming my way.
I do not have the money or the tech knowledge to migrate this blog somewhere else. If you have enjoyed these posts over the years they will be lost here. Any links back to SlantRight.com will not work. So feel free to copy and paste while you have time.
Unless my son changes his mind I will be blogging primarily at SlantRight 2.0 with Blogger.
Friends and Foes alike
John R. Houk
John R. Houk
© February 4, 2012
I received a comment from a defender of atheism identifying himself as Michael yesterday. There are atheists that have no belief in God and that is fine, we live in America. Then there are atheists that may be described as Militant Atheists that go the next level of an atheist belief system. That next level involves insulting believers in God topping off the insult with some kind of self-aggrandized intellectual superiority complex that all believers in God are stupid and uneducated. Such intellectual supremacism is fraudulent because a truly intellectual person – whether religious or atheistic – would comprehend denigrating someone is a sign of arrogance. An arrogant person is a contemptuous person; i.e. when the arrogance is a defining essence of one’s character. Everyone will have moments of arrogance; however wisdom usually tempers arrogance with time. That is not the case when arrogance is a constant of one’s personality toward individuals because one is more intellectual than another or worse only perceives they are more intellectual than another based on a belief system.
Admittedly there is a tone of arrogance in those devoted to a religion because the devotion means the competing religion is an error; hence when one tells another they must join one’s religion because it is the true religion the essence of arrogance is involved. Nonetheless, when one begins to denigrate another’s intelligence or intellect on a personal level for refusing the perceived truth then the character scale begins to tip a character flaw toward ingrained arrogance.
Honestly I have been guilty of that tipping scale especially when I have been angered by another’s intransigent haughty arrogance. Is temporary arrogance a character flaw? It is my opinion it is not a character flaw unless the temporary transforms into
Michele Bachmann sent out an adieu for her Presidential campaign and announces her bid for reelection for her district for the House of Representatives in Minnesota.
Bachmann: Big Announcement
By Michele Bachmann
Sent: 2/2/2012 10:36 AM
Michele Bachmann for President Website
(I am assuming the website will change or go down)
My Dear Friends,
Running for president was one of the greatest honors of my life.
I ran because I believe the times we live in are so threatening to our economic survival, that 2012 is our last chance to change course if we want to remain as the world's leading economic and military superpower. I did not run for president for my own personal benefit, or to climb the political ladder; I ran because someone needed to stand up for our beliefs and voice our sentiments.
In deciding to run, I believed someone needed to talk about our shared values and conservative ideals; to stand up for our voice and belief in the America we grew up in and love; and to fight for our children and grandchildren’s future. We ran an honest campaign and I will always be proud of the work we did and the history we made. Together, with your support, our campaign changed the focus of this presidential election.
We talked about the important issues at hand in 2012: our nearly insurmountable debt, the absolute need to repeal Obamacare, and the necessity of eliminating Dodd-Frank. Frankly, my friends, had I not been a part of those debates, we might not have our voice heard loud and strong on those issues!
As my campaign traveled around the country, I saw the very best in America and our people. From diners, to community centers, to small businesses, I witnessed first-hand that our nation’s best days can still be ahead of us, and the work we did over the past six months can help us turn this nation around. That's why I'm writing to you today.
With your help and support, I am announcing I will seek re-election to
Justin O. Smith provides an education moment about the dark side of Islam. He has a conclusion that is sure to anger Leftists and Muslim apologists with hoots of bigotry and hate-speech. Tough! I agree with Justin.
By Justin O. Smith
Sent: 2/2/2012 4:26 PM
UPDATED: 2/7/12 7:53 PM
Understanding that Muslims have the right to the peaceful "free exercise" of their religion does not negate the fact that despite their protestations of being a "peaceful" and "tolerant religion", Islam and Muslims are anything but "peaceful" and "tolerant"; nor does it negate decades of well documented facts, from 1962 to the present, that illustrate islamists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America, have mounted both political and violent jihad assaults within the U.S. and over several decades with the tacit and active support of most of the U.S. Muslim community, if dancing on New Jersey rooftops the day the Trade Center collapsed is any indication. They have taken these actions in the name of Allah and the false prophet Mohammed as they attempt to spread Islam and Sharia law across America.
More times than not, some of the most uneducated and ignorant Muslim "refuges" are being imported from areas where Sharia law is exalted, and they are fleeing conflicts that pit Sunni doctrinal aspirations against Shia doctrines; they are not fleeing to America due to some new found love of our representational democratic republic and the Judeo-Christian/ Hellenistic philosophies that form the basis of our American brand of democracy. Because the mandate of the U.N High Commission for Refugees determining refugee status is controlled by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and represents the largest bloc of nations in the U.N. comprised of 57 Arab states (remember Obama's 2008 statement "I've been campaigning in 57 states"), Muslims are favored although they face no religious persecution in their homelands; while at the same time, Christians attempting to flee persecution and death under Sharia law in numerous Islamic nations, such as Iraq, Egypt, Nigeria and many others, are denied refugee status, even though they meet the standard under Statute 6B of the UNHCR..." a well found fear of persecution by reason of race, religion, nationality or opinion".
Enabling the islamists assault on America, the Obama administration is knowingly complicit in the advancement of Sharia law within our U.S. legal infrastructure by
Person identifying himself as Michael has sent a rather condescending comment on my thoughts on atheism and Christianity. I have become weary with this poor deluded atheists that believe in their minds (they don’t believe in hearts) that a lack of belief in God makes them a supremely educated person because only the poor and uneducated would believe in a Personal God (Sounds like our President doesn’t it?).
The SlantRight blog is not set up for comments to be delivered to my inbox associated to a post. This leaves me guessing to which post a comment is linked to. In this case Michael could be commenting on “Stand Up to Militant Atheists in Public Society” or “Wilheru Criticizes Standing Up to Militant Atheists”.
I will try to address Michael tomorrow but if not, I will get to his supremacist intellectualism Saturday.
Michael Defends Atheism in Comment
Sent: Feb 1, 2012 at 5:19 PM
Comment: There are so many things fundamentally wrong with this article I don't even know where to begin. However, begin I shall if for no other reason than to be the voice of reason.
Atheism is not a belief system, religion, world-view, or even philosophy. It is merely the opposite of theism. That being said there are ANTI-theists, Pear lists, and agnostics who have a world view you could attack. Either way, to say an atheist believes that humanity is supreme is a fallacy. Evolution proves quite the opposite. Humans, if anything, are just another primate who has developed skills and language. Science is not a deity so it cannot be worshipped. Science is merely the method by which we can prove things not unlike mathematics. It has a self-examining/reviewing factor to it and its success rate is very high. I am not saying I am a god, as this would be a delusion. Just as belief in an outer presence who controls and watches everything from beyond is a delusion.
I would consider myself a center left voter. In this you are right. I am educated. I help my
Here is a comment from one who identifies himself as Mike to the post “What Really Happened In A Georgia Courtroom On January 26, 2012?”
Sent by Mike
Sent: Jan 31, 2012 at 3:01 AM
Comment: DO NOT CENSOR THIS POSTING!!! THANKS!! THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS POST THAT WOULD JUSTIFY CENSORING IT!!
The issue is quite simple. To be President of the USA or to run for the Presidency of the USA, Obama must be a "natural born citizen" according to the Constitution of the USA. The term "natural born citizen" has been defined previously and it requires two conditions:
1) Obama must be born in the USA. Obama's long form birth certificate that Obama has provided through the White House web site HAS BEEN DECLARED BY MANY EXPERTS TO BE SIMPLY A FORGERY!!! --- Just a few links on the forged birth certificate that Obama released through the White House web site for
Joseph Farah is totally on board with the Birther Movement. Whatever your thoughts are on Barack Hussein Obama’s status as a Natural Born Citizen, I believe you will be intrigued by Farah’s thoughts sent as an email to SlantRight.com.
Time to support Arpaio's posse
The guy who can bring down Obama...
By Joseph Farah
Sent by WND Alerts
Sent: 2/2/2012 8:26 AM
Barack Obama's constitutional qualifications for the presidency have never been investigated by any law-enforcement agency.
But that investigation by Sheriff Joe Arpaio's "Cold Case Posse" could easily be derailed for lack of financial support coupled with attacks being launched against his office by Obama's Justice Department.
That's why it is imperative for every American who questions the very legality of Obama's reign and his efforts at re-election to support Arpaio's probe in
John R. Houk
© February 1, 2012
I blog at more place than my primary blog here at SlantRight.com. I was checking for comment at my Word Press blog known as the NeoConservative Christian Right (NCCR). Below is the comment to the post “Stand Up to Militant Atheists in Public Society” (SlantRight.com version). You can read the comment which is followed by my response.
January 31, 2012 at 10:10 AM
This doesn’t make atheists angry, it makes us laugh. It makes us laugh because, frankly, you are misrepresenting atheism. How silly would I be if I claimed that your particular brand of Christianity is all about a wicked ritual which includes cannibalism and drinking blood of other men? That’s how silly your post sounds.
Oh, and the Constitution forbids using government funds (taxpayers’ money, that is) to promote or discriminate on the basis of any belief system. It does not forbid religion to influence the government, nor should it. What I mean by that is the following: the government doesn’t have the right to forbid abortion because it says so in the New Testament (hint: it doesn’t.). That would be discriminatory against every other religion and some Christians too. It has the right to forbid abortion because it considers embryos entitled to protection. In this case, religions can solicit the cause. It isn’t based on their beliefs, but it suits them nevertheless.
You are right when saying that the Founding Fathers considered Christianity when creating the first amendment. That is because they didn’t want to have a war like those in Europe over whose interpretation of the Bible is correct.
I’m curious if you could substantiate: “[The founding fathers] considered Christian culture and Biblical values as
I am a Newt Gingrich supporter. I found an excellent post supporting the reasoning that Gingrich should be the GOP nominee for President.
Newt Gingrich, Evangelicals, & Imperfectability
By Andrew Walker
January 27, 2012
Co-Authored by: Andrew Walker and Eric Teetsel
In recent days, Mere Orthodoxy has played host to several essays on Newt Gingrich. Matthew Lee Anderson—a friend and co-laborer in the effort to engage young evangelicals with conservative ideas—and Jerry Walls have stated their unequivocal opposition to voting for him. For them, a lifetime of personal vanities, grandiose policy proposals, character flaws, and serial adultery disqualifies Newt from receiving support from evangelicals. Even worse, were evangelicals to support Gingrich, it would potentially contradict our Christian witness (especially regarding marriage), making evangelicals “opportunistic hypocrites.”
“The evangelical support for Gingrich, then, erodes and undermines their moral witness on the question of marriage, making it seem nothing more than platitudes that are conveniently tossed aside for convenience and charisma.”
Jerry Walls uses even more forceful language to express his opposition,
“But we do need a President who can lead with moral authority and address moral issues with the sort of credibility that comes from a history of integrity. Newt has forfeited the ability to do that by his multiple betrayals and deceptions, and therefore the right to ask us to support him with election to our highest public office.”
Evangelicals can support Newt Gingrich in