Skip to main content

Let’s Drop God from Public Pronouncements

By Carl S ~

Millions watched one morning after the tragic school shooting in Florida. The words of the policeman were displayed beneath him: “Student survived by the grace of God.” He should have added that seventeen students didn't survive by the grace of God. Come to think of it, the media reports on those survivors who thank God their prayers were answered, but they never report from those who prayed and perished. In the spirit of unbiased fairness, they ought to report all the experiences they have time for in their available 7 days, 24 hours per day. We might even hear from survivors who said no prayers at all.

The name of God doesn't have to enter into tragic news, since God isn't present when tragedy strikes. No witness reports seeing God preventing harm or doing anything, saying anything, to those who are suffering and dying. Neither are there reports of bullets bouncing off the invisible hands of God, thus shielding the students, nor of bullets being removed from bodies by God, or of humans being transported through the air away from danger, etc., by an invisible God-force. Even the survivors who “thank God” don't get a “You're welcome” from him.

After every mass shooting, politicians commonly pronounce, “Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families and friends of the victims.” And we don't need to ask them who their prayers are addressed to. These are the very same politicians who invoke the same “God” whenever they want to get re-elected or pass laws in his name. It behooves them to stay on the safe side with him and his adoring fans who aren't paying attention to the evidence of his absence whenever shootings occur.

The media also does service to this God myth with an over-saturation of reporting, de-sensitizing the populace to mass murders, thus making it easier for God's spokesmen to carry on with their messages of “God's punishing America” or “Thank God more were not killed,” or “God works in mysterious ways,” yadda, yadda. Notice that anyone brazenly standing out there speaking for “God,” clergy and politicians alike, does nothing to stop future carnage. They're cowards who use their “God-given” power to avoid really doing anything. They can't be bothered. Some prefer to defend “In God We Trust” on coinage, and even pushing for laws preventing access to birth control. They are indifferent to the absence of quality of life experienced by those who are truly aware and suffering. It's easier for them to repeat “They're in God's hands.”

It looks like God only hangs around when people believe they've got all the answers to life's problems if they trust in him, so they'll feel secure and comfortable. But this feel-good daddy flees the scene whenever innocent human beings are in danger of never feeling anything again.

The world will be better off if “God” gets out of public pronouncements. No more using that name to deny human rights, shut the doors to reasonable discourse, impede scientists from teaching truths, and to justify wars or immoral actions. “God” requires employment for obstructing apologists, defenders, explainers, and justifiers. “God” is a write-off for refusing to deal with cold-hard facts and inconvenient realities. God is a dead end when it comes to investigating and searching for realities. God is used as an excuse to make unfair laws and to avoid making reasonable decisions for the common good.

There are multitudes of voices releasing floods of God on society. One voice never heard is God's.

God should be permanently erased from oaths.Think of it: Using God as an excuse or copyright for whatever clergy and politicians want is grossly unfair to both God and humans. Every pro-God voice is permitted, but not God's. Every defendant is entitled to confront accusers; the common citizen is entitled to question those claiming to say things in his or her name. God should have that right, too. It's just not fair.

It's asserted God chooses to remain invisible. (Since all the other gods are invisible, we may wonder which one of them came up with this policy first.) Invisibility should be no problem: he could come in as an eternal burning bush or in a Looney Tunes Tasmanian Devil whirlwind, a Disney Aladdin working wonders in seconds, or anything else to indicate his presence. He could hire a team of personal attorneys to represent him. For thousands of years, there've been those who speak for him by proxy. But even they can't agree with each other. So how are we to know he hired them? Ah, that's always been the problem. The system is set up entirely by those who claim God set it up. That's not fair to us or him.

There's something else that's not right. Since the evidence proves evolution is fact and the Earth is billions of years old, we know these are true, and so God has to know this too. So why would he want those who speak for him teaching evolution and the age of the Earth are lies? Why would he want people to remain in ignorance about these wonders? God should contradict his spokesmen citing books written by testosterone bullies who took their frustration out on women because they couldn't get it up any more, as his “wisdom.” God needs his time in court, and to be present on all media, since being a No-Show would make him a quitter. Until he does show up, his “experts” should shut up with their public God-pronouncements. It's only fair.

God should be permanently erased from oaths. Physical witnesses to oaths aren't deterrents to liars, much less invisible ones. Many people take oaths, ending with “so help me God,” and go on to not abide by them, even when it's illegal. They'll swear to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,” and then proceed to lie their asses off. The phrase is meaningless. Those who want the Ten Commandments posted on government property are ignorant of this fact: the second commandment is about swearing falsely using the name of their God. They don't agree with that.

It's better to get “God” out of public pronouncements. God has become a copyright symbol of the Christian kingdom and has no place in a democracy. He doesn't represent everyone and he needs to get with the program, because the world is much different now than when he lived. His prejudices are welcome by very, very, few. That's the image of God the public sees. It's much too divisive. Besides, one should never invoke what one has no solid evidence of existing.

Most people have no problem with God. Unlike clergy and politicians who render lip service, they just pretend to believe. Plus, they notice a lot of people get pleasure in believing there's a God, (and pleasure is, let's face it, America's prime pursuit), so they let this stuff go on. And although it's socially unacceptable to offend someone for his or her beliefs, it's not illegal or immoral. Believers might be offended to hear that “God,” in essence, is an individual's taste or addiction. So let's leave it at that and stop pretending and referencing “God” as if “he” is real or makes a difference.


Popular posts from this blog

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not

I can fix ignorance; I can't fix stupid!

By Bob O ~ I 'm an atheist and a 52-year veteran of public education. I need not tell anyone the problems associated with having to "duck" the "Which church do you belong to?" with my students and their parents. Once told by a parent that they would rather have a queer for their sons' teacher than an atheist! Spent HOURS going to the restroom right when prayers were performed: before assemblies, sports banquets, "Christmas Programs", awards assemblies, etc... Told everyone that I had a bladder problem. And "yes" it was a copout to many of you, but the old adage (yes, it's religious) accept what you can't change, change that which you can and accept the strength to know the difference! No need arguing that which you will never change. Enough of that. What I'd like to impart is my simple family chemistry. My wife is a Baptist - raised in a Baptist Orphanage (whole stories there) and is a believer. She did not know my religi