I just read a quote from a cranky atheist (wait, is that redundant?) that has just made my day.
I’ll fill you in on the background. Old cranky atheist sees on the internet that a nearby restaurant is offering a discount on Sundays to anyone who comes in with a church bulletin. Instead of hustling down to the local church, swiping a bulletin and eating dinner at 2:30 in the afternoon on the cheap, he filed a complaint with the Human Relations Commission. He says that it’s a violation of some sort or another or maybe it’s just because it’s offensive. Who knows what grounds the dude concocted in his head for filing the complaint. He’s with the Freedom from Religion Foundation so this is probably just about all the guy does all day other than throwing empty whiskey bottles at the kids who sometimes accidentally step on his lawn.
But anyway, here’s the kicker. What makes this article in The Post stand above all the other articles about litigious atheists (wait, is that redundant?) is this money quote from the atheist. Ready for it?
He said he came across Prudhomme’s bulletin promotion while doing an Internet search of the restaurant, which he had heard good things about. But, he said the restaurant’s discount for churchgoers annoyed him. “My interest is in social justice and tolerance, and I get a little annoyed at all the religiosity,” he said.
KaChing!!!
Tolerance, he says. So many people have this odd view of tolerance that only allows a world where people think and act exactly like they do. Tolerance to them actually means submission.
It’ll be interesting to see how this one goes.
July 10, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Yep. The most intolerant people I've ever met are liberals demanding tolerance. I just did a blog on what really happened with Galileo and I expect any libs reading it were thinking "How dare they censor him for ANY reason!" all the while participating in a culture that heavily censors people of faith.
July 10, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Tyranny of relativism!
July 10, 2012 at 5:13 pm
The language of the left is one of irony. They use certain words to mean the exact opposite of what those words actually mean, of what other people mean when they use the same words. They speak out of an inverted dictionary. Words are used, not to express the plain truth, but in order to deceive or dodge one's opponents, and thereby achieve one's end under cover. It's all about disguise. Hence, for the left, tolerance means intolerance; open minded means closed minded; diverse means highly selective; and liberal means oppressive. The method is quite simple to master…if you're not restrained by the virtue of honesty.
July 11, 2012 at 2:12 am
Justice is predicated on intent. If one intends to kill it is homicide, otherwise, without intent to kill, it is manslaughter. The restaurant did not intentionally intend to offend, insult or ostracize anybody. The atheist ostracizes himself and then blames everybody. A relationship between the owner and patron is a sacred and private affair to which no other person is privy unless invited. The offer is actually an invitation to dine. Atheists cannot demand invitation onto private property or businesses. Actually, the lawsuit is slander and calumny in a court of law, extortion and blackmail through frivolous lawsuit and oppression. Prayer in public school is a relationship between a person and God, does not include nor exclude the atheist, nor does it intend to insult. Pray is prayer for all people. When the atheist excludes himself he wants the freedom put down. The atheist denies all unalienable rights endowed by "their Creator" and forfeits his own. The atheist's standing to sue in a court of law without unalienable rights is questionable.
July 11, 2012 at 2:31 am
There are plenty of just-as-bad atheists on the right—Objectivists, for instance. Though, yeah, "social justice and tolerance" is lefty-speak.
Someone really needs to make our crop of atheists read Nietzsche: there are no morals in an atheist cosmos. They should quit being so self-righteous, since they're merely attempting to impose their personal whims—the precise thing they accuse us of doing. Only, our worldview allows for real morals.
July 11, 2012 at 12:08 pm
In addition, the business owner has every right to deny access to his business. No shoes, no shirt, no soul, no service, posted in the window ought to help in court. It is a NO TRESPASSING sign often used to protect property owners from lawsuit. The atheist denies persons the existence of their immortal souls and every unalienable right endowed by "their Creator". Now, that is not very friendly, nor is it American. America is the only nation on the face of the earth whose constitution guarantees FREEDOM, a freedom not to be taken away by anyone who has not bothered to read our founding principles.
July 11, 2012 at 3:25 pm
It bears repeating: NO SHOES, NO SHIRT, NO SOUL, NO SERVICE. Obama has soul, 54 million aborted souls on him. This morning I saw an Obama bumper sticker: OBAMA 2012. I say: OBAMA 2012 NO UNALIENABLE RIGHTS
July 15, 2012 at 3:59 pm
It is wrong to pin every aborted child's death on President Obama. He is however responsible for his voting record and record as an elected official on laws that go against nature and nature's God.