Anyway, this Wisconsin-based Christophobic group was pouting about a nativity scene in Texas and was demanding that it be taken down because Jesus was an “insult to human nature” because He taught that “men were sinners” and would one day be held accountable for their sins if they didn’t repent and would be sent to a slow roast in Dante’s House of Pain.Read the whole thing. As I mentioned in an earlier post, people are fighting back against the War on Christmas. They're not interested in taking crap from a bunch of metrosexual atheists with their undies in a permanent knot.
Dan and his ilk represent the “we will sue you” nuevo atheists who go after our nation’s Christian holidays and symbolism—but not Islam’s—because it bashes their ideas. Waah. Frickety. Waah.
Yep, according to the 21st century metrosexual atheist motif, anything that offends them should now be banned. That makes me scratch my head because I thought the atheists were the tough-minded ones who could stare death in the face and mock God and His dictates, but now a silicone statue of Yeshua in diapers puts them in a tailspin. Hello, sweetie.
FYI to the spindly atheists: You’ve got your work cut out for you if you want to scrub culture of its Christian influence because we have rubber stamped this planet via the arts and human expression for many, many moons. Have you ever heard of Bach, van Eyck, Vermeer, Handel, Mendelssohn, Haydn and a writer named Billy Shakespeare? What about the artists of the early Italian Renaissance or the tens of thousands of other artists, writers and composers throughout history who were either die-hard believers or at least worked within the framework of a Christian worldview? Are you going to take a belt sander to their works because they remind you of Hey-Soos?
Sunday, December 18, 2011
The atheist activists sure seem to be delicate little flowers this year. Doug Giles suggests they need to man up a bit, and also offers this: