Bizzarro World


If you’ve read Superman comics, you should be familiar with Bizarro, a freakishly flawed clone of Superman who, although trying and thinking he’s doing good, does nothing but harm. Well say hello to the ACRU, the Bizarro ACLU, and then say hello to Hans Zeiger and his craptastic piece entitled, So Help Me God.

But as an operative view for society, atheism is destructive, to say the least.

Yes, this is a comment by someone part of an organization whose mission is “to protect the civil rights of all Americans”. I’m not sure how defaming a minority achieves this end. In fact, I’m not even sure how he arrived at his claim since he never once attempted to explain that or support it. Why is atheism destructive? Well apparently because Mr. Zeiger says so, that’s why. Talk about “to say the least”. Yes, bald assertions without support is indeed saying the least.

Here in America, we’ve found a way to include God in our national creed without excluding people of diverse faiths — indeed, without excluding those who don’t believe in God.

A national creed? The only national creed I’m aware of is The American’s Creed adopted by Congress in 1918, and there’s no god in it at all.

Anyway, on the foundation of his bald assertion that “atheism is destructive”, he erects the argument that “no atheist should take offense at the mention of God in the inaugural ceremonies”. Why? Because god isn’t destructive. Got that? How do we know? Once again, he simply asserts it by saying, “God is understood as the provider of our liberties.” Yes atheists, who feel the belief in a god is unwarranted, should not be bothered by invoking god. Why? Because god is non-destructive pretext. Aside from this being wrong in reality, for anyone who feels that god belief is unwarranted would naturally object to invoking this entity whose existence is unwarranted, but it’s also wrong in the Bizzarro world of Mr. Zeiger, for if atheism is destructive then as a subscriber I should naturally take offense to invoking non-destructive ideas, no?

Another place where his bullshit is self-refuting is in his quoting of Washington’s farewell address. He points out Washington’s claim that religion is necessary for maintaining morality, but yet Mr. Zeiger also put forth the idea that atheism is a religion. Well lookey there, even in his Bizzarro World, America is just fine with atheism. See, here’s yet again the problem of stretching definitions. You can’t both stretch it to also fit what you want and have it snap back to just cover only what you want when it suits you. In quoting Newdow’s use of “religion”, he used the broad definition of it which colloquially is used to refer to any pursuit or cause which is followed passionately (ie – ‘he exercises religiously’, ‘gardening is her religion’, ‘their religion is preaching conservation’, etc), yet, when it suits him, he wants classic religion, the faith-based belief in the supernatural. Nope, sorry sir, you can’t have it both ways.

if ever we become “One nation under the Government” — then we will be living under despotism.

First, let’s return to the ACRU’s mission statement:
Believing that the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is the greatest legal document ever written, the ACRU stands against harmful anti-Constitutional ideologies…
Where is “god” in the “greatest legal document ever written”? Have you ever read it? If you had, you’d never arrive at the ridiculous notion that somehow without your god we’d be “One nation under the Government” (I know you conservatives think government is a bad, evil monster, but come on). Perhaps we should take a look at that ‘national creed’:
I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people by the people, for the people, whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed;
Again, not only don’t I see your god, but I also don’t see how his absence leads to despotism. The only despotism I can imagine is one where we are under the will of a single entity, a despot in the sky. Argue all you will of your god’s supposed benevolence sir, if he exists he’s still a despot, a singular entity of supreme power. You, like many of your kind, conveniently cite the Declaration of Independence rather than the Constitution due to its reference to a “Creator”, but sadly you’ve completely missed the point of the document, to declare independence from a tyrant. “One nation under god” is merely exchanging one set of shackles for another.

Oh, and as the first commenter pointed out, you also completely missed the point of the Newdow case. It’s not Obama’s utterance that was objectionable but rather Roberts’, but take solace in the fact that every one of your fellows who, over the past week or so, ranted about this case also made the same mistake. Of course, you’re supposed to be a lawyer, aren’t you? Senior fellow of the ACRU? Well, perhaps you could read better without that beam in your eye, but then you’re calling them as you see them in your Bizzarro World.

Atheist Spot Bookmark and Share

15 Responses to “Bizzarro World”

  1. Jesus C., Philly C., I never heard of the ACRU. Thanks for that. There must be hundreds of these cranky christianist groups all trying to make the U.S. into something it was never meant to be.

    You’re right on: Have they ever read our founding documents?

    I don’t think so. I think they read stuff by Barton and other Reconstructionists and the Pentecostal rewriters of history and “believe.”

    Great post.

    Jacob

  2. The Creator that the Declaration of Independence mentions could very well be interpreted as Nature. Ergo, all men (and women) are endowed by their Nature, in an evolutionary sense, to certain inalienable rights.

  3. “God is understood as the provider of our liberties.”

    I studied a bit about human rights theory back in the day, and the idea that rights are god-given is generally considered an out-dated 17th Century concept. Nowadays they say that rights are innate within humans due to our capacity to reason. Supposedly it’s that trait that makes us human. Well. Clearly not an argument without its flaws, but suffice to say that god-given thing is many hundreds of years out of date. Kind of like Christianity itself.

  4. Well 17th century is quite better than 1st or 4th century where a lot of their crap comes from.

    What they forget is rather than an affirmation of a god, that shit was just to get those on the fence to go along. It wasn’t easy getting every state on board for revolution, and of course since every country was ruled by some king who claimed authority from a god, well, let’s just say it was kinda clever of the Founders.

    If they just scribbled “kings suck, so there” then every nation would have been on England’s side. So clever wig wearing dudes that they were, they (yeah, Tommy gets credit, I know) essentially wrote that since rights come from a creator, then a king denying them is going against that creator. Ha HA! Well that worked of course, especially since with all that in-breeding, kings at the time weren’t all that bright. Still, very clever.

  5. Do you ever wonder whether the founders of the US realized that their inheritors were doomed to be infinitely less intelligent than themselves?

  6. The ACRU – Protecting the civil rights of all Americans. Except the ones who don’t believe the same things we do. They aren’t really Americans, anyway. And gay people. Muslims, they’re a bit scary, so not them either. In fact, let’s be honest, the tag should really be:

    The ACRU – Protecting the civil rights of white, weathly, Evangelical Protestant Christian, male Americans.

    Glad that’s settled.

  7. Well guys like Hamilton certainly imagined such a thing. He didn’t trust the average citizen and wanted voting to be limited to property owners. I believe the thinking was both that if you had property, you’d have a greater stake in the country and also if you had property, you probably were educated. It’s that first sentiment that actually had repercussions recently because that was the motivation for little to no money down mortgages. Of course that paired with no banking oversight and BOOM.

    I’m all for that 2nd sentiment though, the educational test for voting. Naturally those who suffer from poor public education systems (and those who champion them) scream bloody murder at this, claiming it would be disenfranchising, but rather than see that as a negative, I see that as a positive. Positive not because people would be disenfranchised, but because FINALLY the government would have to do something about guaranteeing a higher level of education be provided. IF there was an education test, THEN people would have to have access to at least an education sufficient enough to pass the test.

    The ACRU is just another fine example of packaging shit in a pretty box with a bow. Evil never calls itself evil or wears a black hat, twirling a mustache. No, they always have warm fuzzy names and window dressing. Lots of “America”, “Democratic”, “Family”, etc., and never “bigots”, “exclusionary”, “white”, etc.

  8. ACRU. Cute imitation of a much more famous acronym. That's the extent of the group's creativity – and they pretty much stole that one.

  9. Philly,

    Lots of “America”, “Democratic”, “Family”, etc., and never “bigots”, “exclusionary”, “white”, etc.

    Reminds me of “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”. Sounds somewhat nicer than the reality.

    I completely agree with you on the education front though. A few decades ago, someone suggested this idea of meritocratic voting, where your vote would carry extra weight depending on your level of education, job, history of foreign travel, etc. Controversial, but it would help the system change from “1 man, 1 vote” to “1 man, 1 vote, 1 inbred retarded hick, half a vote”.

  10. “Kings suck, so there!”

    Damn! Wouldn’t that make a whacking good bumper sticker?!

    I love it! Maybe I’ll have it put on my memorial book.

  11. Feel free to use it before someone trademarks it. :)

  12. Again, not only don’t I see your god, but I also don’t see how his absence leads to despotism. The only despotism I can imagine is one where we are under the will of a single entity, a despot in the sky. Argue all you will of your god’s supposed benevolence sir, if he exists he’s still a despot, a singular entity of supreme power. You, like many of your kind, conveniently cite the Declaration of Independence rather than the Constitution due to its reference to a “Creator”, but sadly you’ve completely missed the point of the document, to declare independence from a tyrant. “One nation under god” is merely exchanging one set of shackles for another.

    That was applause-worthy.

    The article, however, was something else altogether. I like that Michael Newdow is listed as a “professional atheist”. So many of us do it for free, and this guy’s getting paid to do it? Nice work, if you can get it.

    Reading the comments sets my teeth on edge more than the article itself. There really is some powerful stupid in this country. The idea of combating it is daunting. I dunno how guys Newdow, or bloggers like you and the Chaplain keep up your morale, and continue to address it head on. More power to you.

  13. My morale comes from a little ball of anger which grows and grows with every one of these ridiculous comments or fundie antics until the veins in my temples throb and I have no choice but to say or do something.

    I gleefully bow before your applause. :)

  14. My morale comes from a little ball of anger which grows and grows with every one of these ridiculous comments or fundie antics until the veins in my temples throb and I have no choice but to say or do something.

    Oh, I have one of those too, I was wondering what it was. I thought it was just a cyst or something.

  15. I love it! Maybe I'll have it put on my memorial book.

Leave a Reply