10 Myths about Atheists Part 1

So I'm gonna get this next set of multi-part entries started.

There are no atheists in foxholes.


I can't even begin to say how stupid this statement is and shows very little information about the actual people who are in the military.

To begin with, and in a very large way, we have what Justin Griffith is doing over on his website http://rockbeyondbelief.com/ He has covered a great many items pertaining to the military as well as outside of the military. For example, the recent "I love jebus" thing done at an elementary school. Though, I think most of what he has covered is military related.

Then there's all the Military Religious Freedom Foundation over at http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/ This group definitely supports atheists in the military, but I've seen them represent christians who have even had issues with the proselytizing of some evangelical groups within the military.

As we can see, these are 2 rather influential groups/people that show that there are indeed atheists in foxholes and they're doing the damndest to make sure we enjoy the rights we have as Americans. I know its a week past but I would call for those currently enlisted as well as those who are veterans to be remembered on a daily basis as they give up their life daily to protect all of ours.

Upcoming posts

I'm just writing to give an update of some planned future posts. I can across a list called "10 myths about Atheism" that I will go into in detail on my thoughts with each one. Yes, there may still be some unplanned posts like the one previous to this as I live around and am friends with some who are still hardcore mormons...so we'll have to see what hilarity...or bullshit...will ensue.

Cross case in Utah being dragged out...

To start off, if you hadn't heard, American Atheists sued the state of Utah for allowing the Utah Highway Patrol Association to but giant roman crosses (they look like lower case t's) in spots where Utah Highway Patrolmen have lost their lives in the line of duty. The initial ruling was that the crosses are allowed, but the appeals court said they are a violation of the separation clause in the first amendment as the cross is a sectarian symbol. Well, here in good old crazy religious fucknut Utah we have a state rep named Carl Wimmer who wants to pass a state law allowing the crosses to be on the public land...despite the appeals court saying they're illegal and the Supreme Court won't take the case.

So I posted the recent news article on my Facebook page regarding Wimmer's asinine obsession of pushing this illegal AND costly law into Utah law. http://www.heraldextra.com/news/opinion/signals-crossed-on-crosses/article_053a63c8-5673-5360-b6c6-007df392771a.html This is the website of the newspaper for the cities around the mormon university...a.k.a. BYU. The author obviously skewed this for the poll off to the left to get people to say to leave the eye sores. But when I posted this to Facebook, this is what I included in my post:

I love the absolute stupidity this author spews, case in point: "That a few hyper-anti-religionists can succeed at removing what has become a purely secular symbol from our roadsides only adds another layer of tragedy to the deaths of troopers who died while protecting us." 

Really? if it's a secular symbol that means that EVERY church who uses it is now in violation on the first amendment, specifically the separation of church and state. 

As for the poll, you should vote with "Erect alternative memorials" cause the cross IS a sectarian symbol and who in their right mind wants to be memorialized with a torture device?

What follows is a couple of exchanges from my friend that I've mentioned on my blog before and his wife. He will be identified with Red text, she will be identified with Blue text and my replies will be in Green.

First reply: Thats like saying people cant publicly wear a cross around their neck. Its their family's memorial, if you dont like it dont look at it.

Wife dose have a good point. Beside, there are much more worse things to be worrying about in this Country besides why 14 memorial crosses shouldn't have been erected. Why do you focus so much on things like this? Why focus on such things at all? OK, so you don't believe in God, that's fine. No one is forcing "YOU" to believe in anything. Arguing about things like this is just a waist of time. Not to mention all it dose is cause heated feuds between people. :-)


However, it's on public land, what a person wears on them is their own business but seeing that there is ONLY the roman cross on public land is what makes it a violation. Besides, as I said at the end of my original point, why would you want to use a torture device as a memorial, that's just morbid

Wow THEYR DEAD. The family has lost a loved one in a bad way. Maybe you should get over your self. i'm sorry to be rude but i take this very insulting that you care more about you being "Offended" over a cross than the familys heart ach. Dont add to thier pain even more. I mean whats most important here???


Morbid maybe. But to some, it is a sacred symbol. :-)>


I'm not saying they shouldn't be honored, I've never once said that, what I'm saying is the state should have realized what this is costing them by not overseeing the UHPA and making sure they chose an all inclusive memorial. And they could very easily fix it where it would be more of a memorial than an issue, put up a replica bad that you can see driving by at 65mph where you see the state seal and the trooper's information, there, problem fixed AND they're being honored without all the legal litigation.


*replica badge not bad, stupid typos (I tend to do this on Facebook too often...I hate typos -_-)

True. But this is how society is. I understand where you are coming from tho. lol I think unless it directly involves you, I wouldn't dwell on such topics. :-)>


The reason for separation of church and state is the same reason we came to the Americas. So we are free to worship as we so choose or in your case, not to worship. Not for you to take away religion. Whats more important, you being offended or adding to a family's heart ache because they cant have a proper memorial for their loved one as they so choose??? Dont you think you are taking this a little too far? You looking at a cross doesnt force you to believe anything. You might as well say they cant have a cross on his tombstone because its in your eyesight. Or churches cant have a cross where people can see it. That cross is not hurting anyone so why should you?


It doesn't force me to believe anything, however, it IS a christian symbol and it is the ONLY religious symbol on government owned land which is an endorsement of said religion. The UHPA won't put up any other symbols which isn't allowed by the First Amendment. Again, I'm not saying they shouldn't be honored, they should for the sacrifices that they did, but what the UHPA did by putting up ONLY the cross is what was illegal in their actions, if they had actually met with proper legal counsel before moving forward with that decision they wouldn't be met with lawsuits right now. Even then, the point of the article I posted here is how Carl Wimmer wants to waste tax payer money defending what the courts have already said to take down, so at this point he is trying to push religion onto public land by doing so.


First off, you'll notice some second rate apologetics going on here from his wife, particularly the "its not hurting anyone" bullshit line. My last reply there was 3 hours ago so I'm not expecting a reply until later today. It's obvious neither of them understand the issue here and are just trying to do the "if I ignore it, it will go away" line of thinking.

Now, what I want to know is if any of what I said seemed out of line? Cause honestly it came off that his wife was accusing me of something I sure as hell didn't do. Any thoughts? Please leave a comment.