Steven Humphrey’s tongue in cheek (hoof in mouth) tirade bashing Jesus in this week’s Source makes me wonder if he really is a) as stupid and uneducated as he writes, b) masquerading as a no-talent writer wannabee, or c) really has no talent as a writer.
Anyway, I’m sure he has never heard of St. Augustine or his book City of God, in which Augustine makes the argument that Rome became a great nation for one reason only – because God allowed it. The same case can be made for the U.S.; We became a great nation because God allowed it. This nation was built upon the foundations of belief and trust in God, as evidenced in the words used on our currency (In God We Trust), in the Pledge of Allegiance, (One Nation Under God), in documents like the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, etc.
In his article (?) Humphrey displays the type of mindset that makes it, sadly, all to easy to understand why this nation has been degenerating into a third world country. Surely he can grasp that Christmas and Easter have been celebrated for thousands of years in honor of the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
So Mr. Humphrey, dude, why not do us all (and yourself) a great favor by seeking employment where you don’t have to rely on your non-existent writing skills to puff you up and start resigning yourself to the fact that millions of people around the world will continue to celebrate the two most significant events in the history of mankind (the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ), in spite of how guilty it makes you feel while you are busy pursuing whatever inane activities you need to conjure up to celebrate those wonderful days in your own special way.
But there is yet hope, because, regardless of the depths of mindless befuddlement to which you should find yourself descended, just remember: JESUS LOVES YOU TOO.
Mike Epstein
This article appears in Apr 16-22, 2009.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
‘This nation was built upon the foundations of belief and trust in God, as evidenced in the words used on our currency (In God We Trust), in the Pledge of Allegiance, (One Nation Under God), in documents like the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, etc.’
Some might say that the nation was founded on principles of equality and mutual respect that excluded by statute any attempt at establishing a ‘superior’ religion that was the national standard. Our currency was modified during the Civil War to include a mention of a deity. The pledge of allegiance was modified around 1950 to include the deity. The Founding Fathers wrestled with the issue of a state religion and rationalism won out: ANY state religion is prohibited. I don’t see Jesus Christ mentioned anywhere.
Augustine stressed the importance of knowing the difference between “having words and having understanding.” Perhaps those acolytes who adhere to a belief in god should spend more time reading not only those arguments that agree with their world view, but those who offer a counterpoint.
Augustine took the view that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. He was truly brilliant–the father of the Christian church. But I don’t think we would find him today advocating a Terracentric universe, a few thousand years old, that saw the coexistence of dinosaurs and men, and condemned that which he didn’t understand as the work of the devil.
The world of atheism and agnosticism is full of snarky non-believers. It’s nothing new–Clarence Darrow was one, Elizabeth Cady Stanton another, Gore Vidal yet another. A distaste for the way they present their point of view doesn’t make it invalid.
Mike–you obviously read–why don’t you pick up a book that challenges your beliefs instead of reinforces them. Learn to logically refute arguments made by those you might consider more competent than Humphrey. Even he will agree he’s not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Otherwise, you are like most self-professed believers. Firm in your belief of what you ‘know’ you will pick and choose from scripture, discredit and discount anything that challenges your beliefs and disquiets your spirit, and march in lockstep with those who agree with you. To hell with the heretics.
By the way, millions around the globe–billions–are Muslim, Hindi, etc. Does the strength of their numbers make them more correct than you?
Steven Cramer,
Well said. A book I’d recommend to anyone interested in believers is Eric Hoffer’s classic, “The True Believer”. Just Google “eric hoffer the true believer” and the links will be at your fingertips. The book most likely won’t change anyone’s mind but it sheds light on the make up of the True Believer.
“Otherwise, you are like most self-professed believers. Firm in your belief of what you ‘know’ you will pick and choose from scripture, discredit and discount anything that challenges your beliefs and disquiets your spirit, and march in lockstep with those who agree with you. To hell with the heretics.”
BRAVO!
Dear Mike,
The content of your letter seems to indicate you are a Christian, although the tone does not. Please remember 1 Peter 3:15.
What was it Jesus said about puffed up pontificating pontificaters puffed-up-edly pontificating on street corners? Oh, right, put it in the closet.
Humphrey is an idiot, please dump it.
Athiest’s tend to shoot the messenger. Some messengers tend to shoot their own feet. Hence, our problems exist.
Blind morality is better than blind chaos. That is that if a person is going to choose to be a follower of something ,It’s better he follows a moral lead. It is better for all society. That would be a good argument for the Us Being a flourishing christian nation. There’s nothing wrong with that.
A christian morality is just one framework of morality. Why would it be any better than a jewish, hindi or buddist point of view? Most of the thinking ‘atheists’ have a framework for their own moral behavior, Hume for example. Why not assume the humanist or rationalist framework?
And exactly which christian framework should we assume is the one that provides the framework we should follow? There are several flavors to choose from–some of which condemn all of the others. Since your christ is not around to provide actual guidance–which one of the people or groups that interpret his words should be in charge of guidance? The leader you advocate following will be all too human and subject to human foibles–something the last thirty years has clearly demonstrated all across the different faiths.
If you want to be blind, you have that right. Everyone has that right. To judge that you are the correct and moral one is an interpretation that will only lead to a flourishing of the very chaos you abhor. The problem with the ‘godlike’ is that they start to truly believe in their own divine status and are more than willing to make decisions for the rest of us.
And that’s why there is a prohibition against a state religion…