Essay:A Letter to Andrew Schlafly

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Essay.svg This essay is an original work by Let Them Eat Cake.
It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas.
Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights.
Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts.

The following is a letter I wrote to Andrew Schlafly, founder of the fundamentalist Christian blog Conservapedia. You may disagree with the politics expressed within it but I think I set out my case quite fairly.

Dear Mr. Schlafly[edit]

Going by the evidence of the Main Page of your website, it strikes me that you are more concerned with religion than with politics. As far as I am concerned both should be kept separate since unification of Church and State never seems to have done much good, as Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany palpably demonstrate. I also understand that a user named Conservative offered to “debate any atheist”, if only for a sum of $17,000 to a Christian charity. I’m a charitable man but I’m certainly not being blackmailed into debating such an obvious coward. I realise that religious individuals tend to lack machismo but as you started this website and I admire the zeal with which you express your ideas, if not the ideas themselves, I reasoned that you would possess more of a backbone so I decided to take my case to you.

Now, it may not be said that there is no God, it may be said that there is no reason to believe that there is. Remember that the idea of God, which is not exclusive to Christianity, is by definition an omnipotent individual who exists outside the laws of time and space and created the universe. Yet, he so rarely deigns to provide us with proof of his existence. Now on your atheism page, you claim that one of the “symptoms” of atheism, as though being capable of rational thought were somehow a disease, is need for proof of the existence of God. Therefore, it seems that the existence of such a being is a matter that must be taken on faith, faith of course being by definition, the drawing of conclusions without sufficient evidence. I also understand that you claim Christianity to be more faith-based than any other religion. The clownish buffoon Shockofgod frequently embarrasses himself online with the non-sequitur “What proof and evidence is there of atheism?” He obviously fails to realise that the burden of proof, ergo, the need to prove an assertion, rests with Christianity. If people fail to provide proof of a hypothesis, it is the right of their audience to not accept this hypothesis. The fact is that there is no proof that God is not real, nor is there any proof that he is, as the admirable thesis of Charles Darwin clearly explains. No-one can be called upon to prove a negative, it is a logical fallacy. Therefore, to believe in the existence of such a being would be to place something superior to Reason and thereby to destroy the strength and the validity of one’s own personal and moral convictions. I’m not saying that if you’re religious you’re stupid or that you’re somehow a bad person. As far as I’m concerned people are entitled to worship a Christmas tree or a lamppost if they are so inclined. I wouldn’t approve but I certainly wouldn’t try to stop them or attempt to pass any laws stopping them.

Why do you have to suggest that it is somehow wrong or unacceptable to be atheistic? You must have a low regard for humanity if you believe that we require desert scripture enforced by a theocratic regime in order to operate within moral guidelines. Thankfully, the Founding Fathers of your great country formulated a document which restricts governmental interference in peoples' lives which I’m very sorry to see the tyrannical current president is violating. To the best of my knowledge, the Founding Fathers were predominantly deists and there were only two Christians among them while the main author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson was a complete atheist who held religion in utter contempt. I’m not sure how familiar you are with American history but the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution clearly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Ergo, people are more than entitled to practice their religion but are most certainly not free to impose it upon others. The Constitution makes absolutely no reference to Christianity and therefore suggesting unification of Church and State is as patently absurd as suggesting unification of Mosque and State or Synagogue and State. Admittedly the Pledge of Allegiance, which I personally feel SHOULD be practiced in classrooms, makes reference to “One Nation Under God”. This was written by the Christian socialist Francis Bellamy. I abhor socialism as I abhor religion and therefore, I don’t think that if one makes the Pledge of Allegiance, which is after all, a statement of loyalty to America, not to any particular ideology, it necessitates religion, any more than it does socialism.

Furthermore, as America was based upon the principle of individual rights, it is the right of any individual student, not to engage in classroom prayer and therefore it is unprofessional of any educator to impose it upon the class. Prayer can be recited during breaktimes if religious students consider it particularly necessary. Of course you’re entitled to your freedom of speech as is any citizen and of course Intelligent Design should be part of the curriculum but it should be taught in Religious Education, not in Science lessons as religion is unscientific because it is by definition, not a testable hypothesis as that would require proof of God’s existence which according to your encyclopedia and according to Jesus of Nazareth if I’m not very much mistaken (Jesus answered Satan “You shall not put your Lord to the test” – Matthew 4-7) is a sign of atheism. Suggesting unification of religion and state is not only dangerous on a political level, it is as unpatriotic as gun-control (which I am also against) and should not be tolerated. I do not believe in so called “tolerance” when it obstructs freedom. Of course you should be allowed to practice your religion, but the laws of a nation should not be amended to force others to accept the beliefs of a bizarre cult such as your own. I hope that this dissertation has been eye-opening for you and that you cease corrupting the minds of your students by teaching them to ignore scientifically verifiable facts such as evolution and Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.

Wishing you every happiness.

Aftermath[edit]

Within minutes of my posting it, the comment was removed by Karajou and the revision deleted before I was unsurprisingly blocked for infinity with the block reason being "We've heard this whining before." Unless he has the ability to read one thousand and sixty two character texts within mere seconds, I expect he read the first two sentences at most before his reason-repelling senses kicked in and he quickly deleted it. I didn't expect much else but at least Conservapedia can no longer complain that all atheists are hysterical, foul-mouthed liberals. Cowards will have their little ways.