For Goodness Sake: Who says Atheists have no Sense of Humor??

It’s becoming an annual event these days; it’s time once again for the Christmas Wars to begin with ACLU law suits against manger scenes and department store clerks wishing us a pointed “Happy Holidays”.  Now we have a new wrinkle on attacking Christian heritage that began in England with adds that proudly proclaimed; “There’s Probably No God”.  Not to be out done by our friends in Merry Old England some American Atheists have unleashed an add campaign that advised us:  “Why believe in a god?  Just be good for goodness sake”.  Here are some clips from a piece on the Associated Press that flesh out the add campaign and its goals:

WASHINGTON (AP) — You better watch out. There is a new combatant in the Christmas wars.

Ads proclaiming, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake,” will appear on Washington buses starting next week and running through December.

“Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of nontheists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion.”

Edwords said the purpose isn’t to argue that God doesn’t exist or change minds about a deity, although “we are trying to plant a seed of rational thought and critical thinking and questioning in people’s minds.”

Last month, the British Humanist Association caused a ruckus announcing a similar campaign on London buses with the message: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

In Washington, the humanists’ campaign comes as conservative Christian groups gear up their efforts to keep Christ in Christmas. In the past five years, groups such as the American Family Association and the Catholic League have criticized or threatened boycotts of retailers who use generic “holiday” greetings.

Best-selling books by authors such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have fueled interest in “the new atheism” — a more in-your-face argument against God’s existence.

There was no debate at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority over whether to take the ad. Spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein said the agency accepts ads that aren’t obscene or pornographic.

What is it about a Jewish carpenter from an obscure province of the Roman Empire, two thousand years ago, that inspires ads in England and the United State of America in the year 2008?  What is so threatening about Christianity that there’s increasingly little room for it in our secular, tolerant, diverse and multicultural world? 

Just be good???  Hmmm?

Bill Clinton considers himself a good man but I wouldn’t want my daughter to be his intern.

OJ Simpson was a good man until he was finally convicted and sent to prison.

There are people out there who believe that adult child sex is acceptable and that we should have, for the common good, abortion on demand.  Some people think it would be good to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities out of existence immediately and these folks see themselves as good people. Some people think we should turn socialist and others think we should be advocates of smaller government and massive government spending cuts. 

Whose definition of “Good,” for goodness sake, shall we adopt since there’s so much variation in people’s behavior who claims to be “good”? 

Should we adopt “good” as defined by Nancy Pelosi?  Harry Reid?  President-Elect Obama? 

Or is the definition of “good” as defined by Newt Gingrich, Strom Thurmond, and Dick Cheney the standard we should adopt? 

When our Atheist friends run adds to replace the biblical standard of good as espoused by Jewish and Christian religion they’re suggesting that we replace these time honored values with what exactly??

Perhaps the issue comes down to the inherent narcissism of our times that too many of us can’t imagine something or someone bigger than ourselves and the idea of confronting our moral failings has become too damaging for our inflated self image.   It would be great to live in a world where self esteem was never lowered and where any act we commit, or omit, can be justified to ourselves and our fellow humans and where shame became obsolete.  Imagine a world where Bill Clinton didn’t have to feel ashamed for “not having sex with that woman, Ms Lewinski, not a single time!”  Is there room for Hillary or Chelsea in that world?     Is the world of Christian absolutes of right and wrong, good and evil, inferior to a world in which truth is about how “is” is defined? 

Is it really bad that social creatures, like human beings, are drawn, across all cultures, to draw cultural norms, define good and bad behavior, and to have a group identity that is accepted by the majority?  Are people who disagree with the majority really “oppressed” by this disagreement?  Are people in a “Christian Society” free to reject Christian values?  Sure!  Are people in a secular humanist society (like a college classroom) free to reject humanist values in favor of Christian values?  Who is more “tolerant” Billy Graham or Michael Moore?  Nancy Pelosi or the 72 old women attacked by the Proposition 8 protestors?  Whose values uplift and protect mankind and whose degrade and sicken society perhaps to its death?

Would you like to live in a world where Jeffry Dahmer and Nancy Pelosi are free to define “good” and be good for goodness sake? Why is the standard of “good” defined by Charles Manson less valid than the Standard of Jesus Christ and the Golden Rule? Is goodness whatever we say it is? Are ethics situational?  Are ethics personal?  Are societal ethics oppressive?

Would you like to live in a world where people Love their neighbor as themselves and where they believe in something bigger than themselves that compels them to view lying, cheating, stealing, envy and murder as wrong? 

Look at it this way:  Is murder wrong because it’s against the law?  Or is Murder against the law because it’s wrong? (I.e. Not Good)

What would a society look like in which Manson’s definition of “good” was accorded equal respect and recognition as Billy Graham’s?  If everyone is free to develop their own definition of “good” and no one is allowed to observe that some definitions are better than others, than what kind of society, if any, would be created?

The atheists are out on their annual pilgrimage to delegitimize Christianity and to smear its good name, but the counterfeit values of secular humanism, with its relativity and self centeredness. is tearing our culture and country apart. 

You can feel it can’t you? 

We’re in big trouble not because of Christian values but because we’ve replaced them with a humanism that is as flawed as each of us are.  How is it possible that a belief in God can have no logical merit in the eyes of atheists and socialist, progressive whatever’s, when you can demonstrate that the societies produced by Christian Values consistently outperform secular humanist socialist nations every day of the week and twice on Sunday? 

What’s up with that, huh?

2 responses to “For Goodness Sake: Who says Atheists have no Sense of Humor??


  2. Thank you Gary, We’re working on it and may have one soon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s