'God Is Dead': Catholic Priest Slams Atheism in New Spoken-Word Video Performance

Jun 9, 2012 Full story: TheBlaze.com 212

Fr.A Pontifex A is not just a Catholic priest, but he's also aA successful hip-hop artistA who gainedA notoriety A after he responded toA Jefferson Bethke's " Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus ." Now, he's back with a new clip, this time taking aim at atheist activism.

Full Story
Amused

Lowell, MA

#202 Jun 26, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
The recitation of the pledge of allegiance is voluntary so no one is required to recite it. Another interesting quote is, "When in Rome do as the Romans do". Most people tend to conform more or less to the moral system in which they are born and as the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville stated the United States is probably the most Christian nation he observed and the main reason for its greatness.
The 'when in Rome' argument is at best insipid. You are asking people to compromise their convictions simply to prevent others feelings from being hurt due to the discovery that not everyone thinks like them. Sorry, but that's a lesson everyone needs to learn sooner or later, and the sooner, the better. It is true that there are court decisions on the books saying no student can be forced to recite the pledge. It is equally true that there are many school administrators who remain ignorant of these decisions, or who intentionally choose to ignore them.(Quite a lesson in citizenship being taught by example.) Here's just one example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/08/pled... Note the part about the student having been 'repeatedly suspended' for refusing to recite the pledge.
downhill246 wrote:
As far as a moral foundation for atheism, Vox Day pointed out, "Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior."
So, you get your morals from the bible, do you? Really? When's the last time you killed a gay person or an adulterer? What, you've never done so? Why not? The bible says god commands you to do this. Ever go shopping on a Sunday? The bible says that is wrong, and deserving of the death penalty. Do you own any slaves? Why not? The bible says it is A-OK with god, so long as you don't beat them so badly they take more than a couple of days to recover and you don't break their teeth or hurt their eyes. Did you kill any of your children when they sass you back? Why not? The bible says god ordered you to do so. Do you condone genocide or the killing of innocent civilians during war? Why not? The bible god heartily endorses this, and he is even displeased when his forces leave some of the womenfolk of their enemies alive.

The fact is, you, like all civilized people, reject these biblical commands. In doing so, you apply a moral sense that does not come from the bible, to help you filter which bits of the bible you will follow, and which you will claim are no longer in force, leaving aside the fact that if your god were perfect, as you claim, he would be incapable of error, and thus would not have proclaimed these things moral. We both derive our morals from somewhere other than the bible. Atheists are just more about it.
Amused

Lowell, MA

#203 Jun 26, 2012
should be 'more honest about it."
Amused

Lowell, MA

#204 Jun 26, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
An early examples of my claim
The Constitution of New York : April 20, 1777
VIII. That every elector, before he is admitted to vote, shall, if required by the returning-officer or either of the inspectors, take an oath, or, if of the people called Quakers, an affirmation, of allegiance to the State.
The 1780 Constitution of the state of Massachusetts provided that:
when any person shall be of the denomination called Quakers, and shall decline taking said oath, he shall make his affirmation in the foregoing form, omitting the words "swear" and inserting, instead thereof, the word "affirm," and omitting the words "So help me God," and subjoining, instead thereof, the words, "This I do under the pains and penalties of perjury."
You do realize that neither example supports your point at all. The Massachusetts example has nothing to do with holding office or voting, and merely provides an alternative to swearing an oath for people who have objections to swearing oaths. If anything, it expresses tolerance for the non-religious or religious minorities by providing them with a way to provide testimony without having to invoke a belief in god.

The New York example relates to electoral college voters, and merely requires them to swear an oath, but, again, provides a non-religious alternative.

You really need to work on that reading comprehension thing.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#205 Jun 26, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
I to would like to see the source. Sounds Faux Newsish to me.
<quoted text>
Acually, I know what source he used. Unfortunatly for him, I also read the actual report. The source is a fundie blog. No doubt downsyndrome copied and pasted without checking the accuracy(not that he would care), or perhaps he did no it was modified, and just doesn't care.. He has been shown to be a vicious liar many times before, so this is just one more example of the dishonesty of a christian.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#206 Jun 26, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
That same old lie. You are truly one of the most dishonest people I have ever seen.
To date, you have still completely failed to give even one example of someone convicted to death as an enemy of the state, who was spared because they were an atheist.
Do they pay you to be an apologist for militant atheism? I mean you are always defending Murder Incorporated on steroids. Obviously state atheism produced so many back stabbers that they didn't hesitate to kill each other but how would that exonerate those that killed to promote state atheism? It doesn't so state atheism remains the number one killer of men women and children in recorded history.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#207 Jun 26, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait a sec ... in the last post you were talking about how Christian the U.S. is, now it's too secular. You just make up whatever delusions you want to justify your preconceived notions. Too funny.
<quoted text>
You do not want to get into a Founding Fathers quotes battle here. These were complicated men of the Enlightenment. To paint them as strictly one way or another does a disservice to our country.
Our Constitution, however, was most notable as the first country whose founding document specifically did NOT claim any sort of divine right to rule. It very clearly founded our rights as a country on "WE THE PEOPLE."
<quoted text>
So you are completely in support of Universal Healthcare. That's nice to know.
But you still did not cite any one moral precept that can be shown to have originated from Christianity.


It is all relative and you know it.. In the last decade of the 19th century the Supreme court outlawed polygamy and did so because, according to them, it conflicted with Christian morality. Today in our more secular nation a decision like that would be unheard of.

Actually you don't want to get into a Founding father quote war because they all were theists, the vast majority Christians, and they all opposed atheism, including our dear friend Thomas Jefferson.

As far as rights, all the Founding Fathers stated our unalienable rights are God given so in essence the government secured God given rights to "We the People."

Wasn't that easy?
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#208 Jun 26, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you please post your source for the above post?
The fact of the matter is that you ADDED the words "state atheism" to Mr. Rummels finding.
You are a lying piece of sh1t. Dishonest to the core, and a wonderful demonstration of how theists lie.
I certainly did because it was certainly state atheism.

Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends, Communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails a destruction of faith and nationhood. Communists proclaim both of these objectives openly, and just as openly put them into practice."
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Solzhenitsyn, Acceptance Speech, Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, 1983; Russkaia Mysl', no. 3465, 19 May, 1983, p. 6 (R).

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

Seems like the experts agree with me , not you.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#209 Jun 26, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you please post your source for the above post?
The fact of the matter is that you ADDED the words "state atheism" to Mr. Rummels finding.
You are a lying piece of sh1t. Dishonest to the core, and a wonderful demonstration of how theists lie.


Must be a bummer slithering around trying to defend state atheism ,Murder Incorporated on steroids. no matter how you whine and foam at the mouth it remains the #1 mass murderer in recorded history.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#210 Jun 26, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do they pay you to be an apologist for militant atheism? I mean you are always defending Murder Incorporated on steroids. Obviously state atheism produced so many back stabbers that they didn't hesitate to kill each other but how would that exonerate those that killed to promote state atheism? It doesn't so state atheism remains the number one killer of men women and children in recorded history.
To date, you have still completely failed to give even one example of someone convicted to death as an enemy of the state, who was spared because they were an atheist.

The fact that you were too stupid to know the difference between politics and atheism was obvious at one time, but you have been given the facts, and you still lie through your scum-bag theist teeth.

Oh, by the way, I have not defended a single murder by anyone. You claiming otherwise is just another gutter-rat lie from the extremist, fundie, godbot.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#211 Jun 26, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
I certainly did because it was certainly state atheism.
Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends, Communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails a destruction of faith and nationhood. Communists proclaim both of these objectives openly, and just as openly put them into practice."
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Solzhenitsyn, Acceptance Speech, Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, 1983; Russkaia Mysl', no. 3465, 19 May, 1983, p. 6 (R).
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
Seems like the experts agree with me , not you.
To date, you have still completely failed to give even one example of someone convicted to death as an enemy of the state, who was spared because they were an atheist.

Looks like reality agrees with me you two-bit liar.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#212 Jun 26, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Must be a bummer slithering around trying to defend state atheism ,Murder Incorporated on steroids. no matter how you whine and foam at the mouth it remains the #1 mass murderer in recorded history.
Must be a bummer to you that I never defended state atheism or murder, but rather simply pointed out that you are a filthy liar who makes things up in an effort to spread his gospel of hatred.

Remember:
To date, you have still completely failed to give even one example of someone convicted to death as an enemy of the state, who was spared because they were an atheist.

Sucks to be you.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#213 Jun 26, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
I am glad he included both moral and religious people. I would hate for him to exclude either group.
True.I wonder why he didn't include atheists. He once said that a republican form of government would not be successful in France, calling it “a republic of thirty million atheists.”
redneck

Selma, OR

#214 Jun 26, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Must be a bummer slithering around trying to defend state atheism ,Murder Incorporated on steroids. no matter how you whine and foam at the mouth it remains the #1 mass murderer in recorded history.
Hitler was a practicing catholic. The Holocaust was a christian vs. Jew, gay, gypsy, black, sick & ill,or just liberal.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#215 Jun 26, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
To date, you have still completely failed to give even one example of someone convicted to death as an enemy of the state, who was spared because they were an atheist.
Looks like reality agrees with me you two-bit liar.
Weird argument. Are you on drugs or is it a side effect of your constant slithering?
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#216 Jun 26, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Must be a bummer to you that I never defended state atheism or murder, but rather simply pointed out that you are a filthy liar who makes things up in an effort to spread his gospel of hatred.
Remember:
To date, you have still completely failed to give even one example of someone convicted to death as an enemy of the state, who was spared because they were an atheist.
Sucks to be you.


Slither on apologist for state atheism, the #1 mass murderer in recorded history.

"The centralized atheism before whose armed might the whole world trembles still hates and fears this unarmed faith as much today as it did sixty years ago. Yes! All the savage persecutions loosed upon our people by a murderous state atheism, coupled with the corroding effect of its lies, and an avalanche of stultifying propaganda--all of these together have proven weaker than the thousand-year-old faith of our nation. This faith has not been destroyed; it remains the most sublime, the most cherished gift to which our lives and consciousness can attain."
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Must suck to be you.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#217 Jun 26, 2012
redneck wrote:
<quoted text>Hitler was a practicing catholic. The Holocaust was a christian vs. Jew, gay, gypsy, black, sick & ill,or just liberal.
Lol.

The first leader of nazi ideology was Ernst Roehm, who met Hitler at a meeting of a socialist terrorist group called the Iron Fist and "saw in Hitler the demagogue he required to mobilize mass support for his secret army" (Hohne:20).

With Roehm's backing, Hitler became the first president of the party in 1921 and changed its name to the National Socialist German Worker's Party. Soon after, the Sturmabteilung (Storm Troopers) or the SA became its military arm. The SA was created by Gerhard Rossbach. Both Roehm and Rossbach were openly homosexual.

Historian Frank Rector records that the German Workers Party-the forerunner to Hitler’s Nazi Party-"was founded at a gay bar in Munich, called the Bratworstglockl.

Jonathan Katz, a gay Holocaust historian, writes, "most, if not all, of its founding members were either homosexuals or bisexuals." Katz writes that "the founders of the party were also founders of the `Bund fur Menschenrecht’(The Society for Human Rights), the largest homosexual rights organization in Germany at the time."

Historian William L. Shirer writes, Roehm "was a stocky, bull-necked, piggish-eyed, scar-faced professional soldier-a tough, ruthless, driving man - albeit, like so many of the early Nazis, a homosexual-he helped to organize the first Nazi strong-arm squads which grew into the S.A., the army of storm troopers which he commanded until his execution by Hitler in 1934."

Imagine that.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#218 Jun 26, 2012
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
The 'when in Rome' argument is at best insipid. You are asking people to compromise their convictions simply to prevent others feelings from being hurt due to the discovery that not everyone thinks like them. Sorry, but that's a lesson everyone needs to learn sooner or later, and the sooner, the better. It is true that there are court decisions on the books saying no student can be forced to recite the pledge. It is equally true that there are many school administrators who remain ignorant of these decisions, or who intentionally choose to ignore them.(Quite a lesson in citizenship being taught by example.) Here's just one example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/08/pled... Note the part about the student having been 'repeatedly suspended' for refusing to recite the pledge.
<quoted text>
So, you get your morals from the bible, do you? Really? When's the last time you killed a gay person or an adulterer? What, you've never done so? Why not? The bible says god commands you to do this. Ever go shopping on a Sunday? The bible says that is wrong, and deserving of the death penalty. Do you own any slaves? Why not? The bible says it is A-OK with god, so long as you don't beat them so badly they take more than a couple of days to recover and you don't break their teeth or hurt their eyes. Did you kill any of your children when they sass you back? Why not? The bible says god ordered you to do so. Do you condone genocide or the killing of innocent civilians during war? Why not? The bible god heartily endorses this, and he is even displeased when his forces leave some of the womenfolk of their enemies alive.
The fact is, you, like all civilized people, reject these biblical commands. In doing so, you apply a moral sense that does not come from the bible, to help you filter which bits of the bible you will follow, and which you will claim are no longer in force, leaving aside the fact that if your god were perfect, as you claim, he would be incapable of error, and thus would not have proclaimed these things moral. We both derive our morals from somewhere other than the bible. Atheists are just more about it.
Your argument works both ways. Ignorant school administrators have been know to prevent students from silently reading their own bibles believing it violates church and state .

You do realize many of God's commands in the bible were directed at a certain group of Jews at a certain time in history while others were merely ceremonial, done away with under the New Convenant which apparently you are ignorant of, or purposely ignore so you can cherry pick. Some of God's commands were carried over into Christianity and, as an example, according to the Apostle Paul, the restrictions against homosexual relations remained. The bible does not say shopping on Sunday deserves the death penalty. It may say doing so on the Sabbathdeserves the death penalty but Christians don't observe the Sabbath(Saturday, they observe the Lord's Day (Sunday) and there is nothing in the New Testament promoting death for working on Sunday. Glad I could help.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

#219 Jun 26, 2012
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize that neither example supports your point at all. The Massachusetts example has nothing to do with holding office or voting, and merely provides an alternative to swearing an oath for people who have objections to swearing oaths. If anything, it expresses tolerance for the non-religious or religious minorities by providing them with a way to provide testimony without having to invoke a belief in god.
The New York example relates to electoral college voters, and merely requires them to swear an oath, but, again, provides a non-religious alternative.
You really need to work on that reading comprehension thing.
You are confused. The only reason "affirmation" was added to the US Constitution was as an accommodation to different Christian sects who believed in God but didn't believe in oaths. Its addition had absolutely nothing to do with disbelieving.

"In England, Quaker eschewal of litigation was founded in part on the religious inaccessibility of the courts. Courts required oaths, and Quakers, taking Christ's admonition in the New Testament to "swear not" literally, refused to take oaths. Once the Quakers started founding settlements in America, however, this problem went away, as Pennsylvania law allowed for "affirmations" in place of oaths, an explicit religious accommodation that eventually found its way into the Constitution."
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/20...

He, Eugene Volokh, then points out the long history of such exemptions, even in the Constitution itself (the provisions requiring oaths but allowing affirmations were put there to allow Quakers, whose religion forbid taking oaths, to hold public office and fully participate in the government).
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/06/vo...



To be sure, the Constitution allows individuals to give an affirmation rather than an oath. That provision, however, was not aimed at protecting nonbelievers, although it certainly does protect them. Instead, the affirmation option was principally aimed at protecting “several small religious sects, including the influential Quakers,[who] refused to swear oaths, on authority of Matthew 5:33–37.” As Justice Story observed,“there are known denominations of men, who are conscientiously scrupulous of taking oaths ... and therefore, to prevent any unjustifiable exclusion from office, the constitution has permitted a solemn affirmation to be made instead of an oath, and as its equivalent.”


Robert G. Natelson, The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause, 14 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 73, 109 (2005)
SOSO

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

#220 Jun 26, 2012
.

&fe ature=BFa&list=PLD29DF97C8 175EE79

.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#221 Jun 26, 2012
Oh look!

Pages and pages of flat lying.

How do we know?

The poster is well established as a pathological liar.

He's aptly named "downhill" as in he's going down one...

... finished this thread in seconds, because I could safely skip all the lies (downhill's posts).

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 37 min Richardfs 233,181
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr Morse 23,268
Evidence for God! 1 hr Morse 373
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 9 hr Morse 5,951
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 9 hr RayOne 2,621
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... 11 hr SnuffAGlobalisst 23
Atheism: On the Rise? (Jan '13) 16 hr Dee 41
More from around the web