Who Gave You the Right?

Atheists in Olympia, Washington are exercising their right to free speech by denouncing the granter of that right.

A plaque placed next to a Nativity scene at a public building reads, "At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world."

I have no problem wishing our Atheist friends a happy Solstice, but I see no call for such a frontal assault on the beliefs of the majority of the public. Christmas and Solstice observances aside, I want to explore the implications of the Atheist proclamation above.

The denouncement of Heavenly authority is significant to the definition of rights in a society. In an Atheist society, only humans can grant human rights.

If you'll pardon the expression, God help us.

According to the founding documents of this country, the rights of U.S. citizens are not granted by the government. Americans are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." That means the government did not give them, and the government cannot take them away.

The principle of intrinsic rights is the basis of American democracy, and it depends on the recognition of a Creator. The question to ask is: Where does an Atheist get his rights from? If not from God, they must come from the state, and therein lies a serious problem for democracy.

Objective rights are based on an objective authority, and there is none besides God. Ignore God and the best you have is subjective rights, based on the opinions of shortsighted, fallible humans. The founders of this country believed in a Natural Law expressed in the very workings of the universe, physical laws and moral laws and inevitable consequences to human behavior. Natural Law was a pattern imprinted on Nature by Nature's God. Therefore laws and morality transcend human opinions and whims, yet they are knowable and immutable, and it is the task of every leader in a democracy to use every ounce of their reason to discern these transcendent laws.

C.S. Lewis expressed it this way: "Subjectivism about values is eternally incompatible with democracy ... if there is no Law of Nature, the ethos of any society is the creation of its rulers, educators, and conditioners."

Are right and wrong to be based on our own opinions, or worse, the opinions of our rulers and educators? For right and wrong to be nondebatable, they must not belong to humans, but to a higher authority.

Moving on to the Olympia Atheists' further accusation: "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

"Hardens hearts and enslaves minds?" What historical support is there for such a statement? The "founding fathers" of the sciences were almost unanimously theist, and it is Atheist zealots on university campuses today that shut down debates as soon as a participant suggests the existence of a designer in the universe.

Furthermore, Atheism is not exactly known for softening hearts. Compassion traditionally results from a sense of duty to God and fellow man. The most selfless, loving people in history were overwhelmingly theists. The historical heroes of Atheism, on the other hand, don't score high on the compassion scale. Of the more recent examples, Ayn Rand's Atheism led her to despise altruism outright. I know there are sincerely compassionate Atheists, but Atheism in its essence is cold and emotionless, and is far less fertile ground for producing generosity and good will.

I do not need to detail the results of applied Atheism on a nation, but merely point to the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba for a few starting examples. Bill Maher and his subscribers fail to acknowledge that in the past century, Atheist governments have caused more deaths than any other sort of government. The United States is inherently theist by virtue of the "self-evident" truths our founders embraced, yet our country promotes free exchange of ideas and free inquiry, unlike Atheist regimes that necessarily suppress religious and intellectual freedom to enforce non-belief. I believe a nation based on Atheism is destined for either tyranny or anarchy.

Atheists arrogantly regard themselves as beyond religion, thinking their sterile view of nature the purest and most refined, the most evolved. But Atheism is not not the absence of religion, it is a religion itself, a definable system of beliefs about the origins, laws, and future of the universe and of humanity. Olympia's Atheist activists are not directly aiming to remove religion from the public square, they are openly professing their religion. If they go further and attempt to pass laws prohibiting religious displays, they attempt to impose their religion on society, violating the civil rights of others. An Atheist society requires the suppression of religious freedom.

When I consider the bitter condescension expressed on the plaque in Olympia, I pity the the plight of Atheists frustrated that they just have a hard time winning converts. But the primary reason for this is, well, reasonable: Atheism has no spirit. It cannot inspire. If existence has no meaning, what motivation is there to create? If there is no authority, why be good? To embrace Atheism is to assume a lifeless life. Without passion, how does an artist perceive beauty? Without transcendent purpose, why does an inventor invent?

Voltaire wrote, "If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent Him." Notions of civic responsibility, honesty, integrity, and compassion cannot be adequately manufactured without God. The human will for goodness is too weak on its own. That is why Atheism only spreads when it is forced upon the unwilling.

Returning now to Christmas, the dominant anthem of this season for Christians is "peace on earth, goodwill toward men," and in that spirit I wish goodwill to Olympia's Atheists. And as to the societal benefits of Christmas, I invoke Ebenezer Scrooge's nephew, Fred:

"But I am sure I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round -- apart from the veneration due to its sacred name and origin, if anything belonging to it can be apart from that -- as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time: the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys. And therefore, uncle, though it has never put a scrap of gold or silver in my pocket, I believe that it has done me good, and will do me good; and I say, God bless it!'"