Home » Atheism, Darwinism, News » “I would like to cut off the heads of these fanatics and spit in it.”

“I would like to cut off the heads of these fanatics and spit in it.”

No, the threat isn’t from who you think this time.

Now and then, Texas Freedom Network (TFN) has crossed our news desk, fronting Darwin, all Darwin, and only Darwin in the schools, opposing any right to dissent in education about evolution.

A friend drew attention to this post on their blog, “Creationist Demands That Houston Museum Ban Atheists and Science Supporters” (July 31, 2013) – and the creationists’ side is here and here. One of the commenters at TFN, angry about creationist opposition, ironically provides a basis for more general concern about TFN’s use of public science museum facilities:

I would like to cut off the heads of these fanatics and spit in it.. no pity for such ignorant scum who are destroying the earth in the name of a fairy tale god.. pathetic in the age of science this type of person is allowed to breath. This may sound harsh but these people are nothing but a destructive force against nature and humanity. I personally belive anyone who take thier child to a church should loose custody and be imprisoned for child abuse.

It’s no surprise this Darwinian atheist yearns for freedom. Every inmate of a prison or asylum who acts out such fantasies wants freedom too.

Dissenting views on the history of life do not threaten civil liberties. But this sort of thing does.

For one thing, if this sentiment is tolerated at TFN, a question arises as to whether the group should have access to public facilities. No group that promotes, encourages, or tolerates hatred or violence should have such access. TFN may be entitled to tolerate or even encourage that type of opinion (it’s a legally dicey area, actually*), but not to public support or subsidy.

Surely, the best solution for TFN’s opponents is to sign up for the programs in public places and listen carefully, without comment. Make a record of public statements that appear to promote hatred or violence, and make them a political issue.

As Professor Rosenberg says, Darwinism (of which he is a proponent) does not provide a basis for morality.

But so much the worse for Darwinism, and so much the less reason to believe it or want it taught in schools.

*Because if anything dreadful should happen, officials may discern a trail back to the group … – O’Leary for News

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

23 Responses to “I would like to cut off the heads of these fanatics and spit in it.”

  1. 1
    Kantian Naturalist

    If you’re willing to judge “Darwinism” and/or “atheism” based on one commentator prone to violent fantasies, get ready to have creationism judged on the basis of Robert Byers’ misogyny, anti-Semitism, and xenophobia. Hope you’re all ready to pull the trigger on this one.

  2. Notice, too, the immediate denunciations of the comment by people who rightly stress that the comments reflects none of the values of reason, humanism, or civic responsibility.

    Plus, historically, those people who have ACTUALLY beheaded others and humiliated the corpses–well, they have tended to be god-fearing folk with the state on their side. It’s one reason to look that the ‘persecuted,’ ‘expelled,’ creationists when they talk of a witch hunt or an inquisition. The REAL witch hunts and inquisitions, the ones that actually murdered actual people, we know who perpetrated those.

  3. LT, there are ‘political lies’ and then there is truth:

    ‘The Very Best Form of Socialism’: The Pro-Slavery Roots of the Modern Left – August 2013
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G.....odern-Left

    The Eugenic Impulse By Nathaniel Comfort – Nov. 12, 2012
    Excerpt: The ultimate ideal sought,” wrote Harvey Ernest Jordan in 1912, “is a perfect society constituted of perfect individuals.” Jordan, who would later be dean of medicine at the University of Virginia, was speaking to the importance of eugenics in medicine—­a subject that might seem tasteless and obsolete today. Yet nearly a century later, in 2008, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the biomedical research institute on Long Island’s north shore, published a book titled Davenport’s Dream, which shows that eugenic visions persist.
    http://chronicle.com/article/T.....se/135612/

    footnote: the body count for abortion is now over 50 million in America since it was legalized, by judicial fiat not by public decree, in 1973 (legislation by liberal justices from the bench!):

    Abortion Statistics
    http://www.voiceofrevolution.c.....tatistics/

    Abortion Has Killed 1-2 Billion Worldwide in 50 Years – April 21, 2013
    http://www.lifenews.com/2011/0.....-50-years/

    The Myth of the Unwanted Child
    Excerpt: As a co-founder of the Radiance Foundation, Ryan Bomberger is one of the minds behind the controversial ‘Black Children Are an Endangered Species’ billboard campaign. Here’s why he thinks the black community should be at the forefront of the pro-life cause.
    http://www.urbanfaith.com/2011.....hild.html/

    Study: Women More Likely to Die After Abortion, Not Childbirth – September 2012
    Excerpt: A new study of the medical records for nearly half a million women in Denmark reveals significantly higher maternal death rates following abortion compared to delivery. This finding has confirmed similar large-scale population studies conducted in Finland and the United States, but contradicts the widely held belief that abortion is safer than childbirth.
    http://www.lifenews.com/2012/0.....hildbirth/

    etc.. etc.. etc..

  4. LT, this more directly addresses your particular ‘grievances’ against Christianity:

    Atheists like to point to the Spanish inquisition and witch hunts, etc.. etc.. to try to say that atheism is better than Christianity. Yet atheists forget to ‘look in the mirror’ at the exponentially worse horror that was visited upon mankind in atheistic regimes: This following video and article are very clear as to pointing the extremely different ‘degrees of evil’ we are dealing with in atheistic and Christian cultures:

    “Christian” Atrocities compared to Atheists Atrocities – Dinesh D’Souza – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk

    If You Thought Religion was a Bad Idea…Check Out Atheism – Kirk Durston – June, 2012
    Excerpt: To summarize why purely atheistic societies are so dangerous, they not only killed for the cause of advancing a purely atheistic society, but their moral guardrail has no grounds. Thus, extraordinary democide can result, because a portable, hand carried moral guardrail is no guardrail at all.
    http://powertochange.com/wp-co.....s-2012.pdf

  5. OT: Highlights: Lawrence Krauss & William Lane Craig: Has Science Buried God? – Posted on August 10, 2013
    http://eternitainment.com/2013.....uried-god/

  6. This may sound harsh but these people are nothing but a destructive force against nature and humanity

    This is typical of the inanities atheist/materialists spout; if humans are entirely natural entities, generated by materials interacting under the guidance of physics, how can any human be a “destructive force against nature”? How can any human be anything other than a perfectly natural representative of humanity?

  7. Though, according to the review, the first debate was a bit of a let down because of Krauss’s attempts to sidetrack the discussion from the main topic of the debate, and by the informal setting of the debate, there are two more debates scheduled between Krauss and Dr. Craig while they are in Australia that may live up to the usual high level we have come to expect from a Dr. Craig debate:

    Prof Lawrence Krauss and Dr William Lane Craig
    http://citybibleforum.org/city.....lane-craig

  8. It would be nice when the point you raise in #6 is articulated again, and again and again, and is never rebutted (because, of course, it can’t be), the materialist in question is banned from this board, until he at least tries (a recognisable endeavour to do so) to rebut it.

    But of course, the bar must inevitably be lowered for atheists to … well.. often, the floor, as in this case, simply to interact with them; so that it’s not just an internal discussion. To my mind, that would be better, but not everyone thinks so, and, for reasons of professional politics, they may be right.

  9. Sorry. My post #8 is addressed, of course, to you, WJM.

  10. Notice, too, the immediate denunciations of the comment by people who rightly stress that the comments reflects none of the values of reason, humanism, or civic responsibility.

    Had a look at that comment. It really doesn’t seem very genuine, especially with the spelling mistakes. Agent provocateur?

  11. This is typical of the inanities atheist/materialists spout…

    Honestly, William, is that really true? I haven’t noticed you getting bombarded with such inanities at TSZ. Do you interact with abusive atheists elsewhere?

  12. Honestly, William, is that really true? I haven’t noticed you getting bombarded with such inanities at TSZ. Do you interact with abusive atheists elsewhere?

    You mustn’t have ventured very far into the reaches of the internet.

  13. 13
    Kantian Naturalist

    You mustn’t have ventured very far into the reaches of the internet.

    The Internet makes everything worse.

  14. Alan Fox at 10: Nice try. The key question is whether such persons get moderated and sidelined by the group’s leadership. TFN is an organized group, not just a bunch of people calling in to a talk show.

  15. LarTanner @ 2:

    Plus, historically, those people who have ACTUALLY beheaded others and humiliated the corpses–well, they have tended to be god-fearing folk with the state on their side.

    When I think of beheadings, I generally think of the French Revolution. Which was economically and politically motivated, not religiously motivated.

    It’s one reason to look that the ‘persecuted,’ ‘expelled,’ creationists when they talk of a witch hunt or an inquisition. The REAL witch hunts and inquisitions, the ones that actually murdered actual people, we know who perpetrated those.

    It is unfair to blame all atheists for the words of one (seriously disturbed) atheist, quoted above. It is also equally unfair to blame religion for the actions of some religious individuals. It is wildly irrational to argue that religious moderates are to blame for the actions or words of religious extremists.

    Regardless of whether you argue that religion is the implicit or explicit cause of war, the argument doesn’t stand in the face of historical evidence. The majority of divisions between peoples aren’t based on religious faith, and religion isn’t the dominant label by which groups of people are identified.

    As far as murdering actual people goes, religion has a way to go to catch up with atheists:

    1.5 million killed (Ethiopia, Derg regime)
    20 million killed (USSR, Stalin regime)
    3.5 million killed (Holodomor, 1932-33)

    If religion vanished today, the majority of human conflicts would still exist. Because, really, it’s the establishment and maintenance of an empire (or nation) that traditionally has accompanied the mass slaughter of recently subjected people, not religion.

  16. Don’t forget the Khmer Rouge: 1-3 million killed

  17. “Dissenting views on the history of life do not threaten civil liberties. But this sort of thing does.”

    That is exactly right! Thank you for saying that.

    Adding to 15 and 16, but certainly not excusing the sins of Christians, this is from p. 240 of The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day:

    “The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists…..The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition.”

  18. gensci @ 17: Thanks for the information. I love Vox’s book, and it’s where some of my information came from as well. His point in discussing warfare (he does go into detail about the Crusades) is that more blood has been shed by atheistic, godless regimes than has been shed by religiously-based or motivated regimes. A point that some seem to forget.

  19. gensci, here is a direct link to your quote:

    The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, And Hitchens – pg. 240
    Excerpt: “The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists…..The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition.”
    http://books.google.com/books?.....38;f=false

    Here is the Amazon link:

    The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, And Hitchens
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Irra.....1933771364

  20. How charming! What I would like to ask that atheist is why he is so angry with Darwinism. After all, if his worldview is true then Darwinian evolution would be 100.000% responsible for my conversion from atheism to trusting in the facts of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. What else could have caused it? So if Darwinian evolution was the cause, why is he so upset?

  21. http://www.samharris.org/blog/.....en-pinker/

    First, the premise that Nazism and Communism were “atheist” ideologies makes sense only within a religiocentric worldview that divides political systems into those that are based on Judaeo-Christian ideology and those that are not. In fact, 20th-century totalitarian movements were no more defined by a rejection of Judaeo-Christianity than they were defined by a rejection of astrology, alchemy, Confucianism, Scientology, or any of hundreds of other belief systems. They were based on the ideas of Hitler and Marx, not David Hume and Bertrand Russell, and the horrors they inflicted are no more a vindication of Judeao-Christianity than they are of astrology or alchemy or Scientology.

    Second, Nazism and Fascism were not atheistic in the first place. Hitler thought he was carrying out a divine plan. Nazism received extensive support from many German churches, and no opposition from the Vatican. Fascism happily coexisted with Catholicism in Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Croatia.

    Third, according to the most recent compendium of history’s worst atrocities, Matthew White’s Great Big Book of Horrible Things (Norton, 2011), religions have been responsible for 13 of the 100 worst mass killings in history, resulting in 47 million deaths. Communism has been responsible for 6 mass killings and 67 million deaths. If defenders of religion want to crow, “We were only responsible for 47 million murders—Communism was worse!”, they are welcome to do so, but it is not an impressive argument.

    Fourth, many religious massacres took place in centuries in which the world’s population was far smaller. Crusaders, for example, killed 1 million people in world of 400 million, for a genocide rate that exceeds that of the Nazi Holocaust. The death toll from the Thirty Years War was proportionally double that of World War I and in the range of World War II in Europe.

    When it comes to the history of violence, the significant distinction is not one between theistic and atheistic regimes. It’s the one between regimes that were based on demonizing, utopian ideologies (including Marxism, Nazism, and militant religions) and secular liberal democracies that are based on the ideal of human rights. I present data from the political scientist Rudolph Rummel showing that democracies are vastly less murderous than alternative forms of government.

  22. Alan Fox at 10: Nice try. The key question is whether such persons get moderated and sidelined by the group’s leadership. TFN is an organized group, not just a bunch of people calling in to a talk show.

    Hi Denyse,

    Had the comment appeared at TSZ, no doubt it would have been moved to the guano pile (not deleted!). I find the language unacceptable. But then I am a shy gentle Brit who would much rather poke fun than rant. I still think it is a very odd comment and just does not seem authentic.

  23. LarTanner writes,

    First, the premise that Nazism and Communism were “atheist” ideologies makes sense only within a religiocentric worldview that divides political systems into those that are based on Judaeo-Christian ideology and those that are not.

    So, Communism is religious? Which religion does it claim to represent? If the answer is “none”, then let’s call it a “godless” regime. It is atheistic in nature, and no amount of semantics will change that.

    In fact, 20th-century totalitarian movements were no more defined by a rejection of Judaeo-Christianity than they were defined by a rejection of astrology, alchemy, Confucianism, Scientology, or any of hundreds of other belief systems.

    Totalitarian regimes are defined by the fact that they wish to have total control over their subjects’ lives. They seek to abolish religion, if not outright control it to achieve their own ends.

    They were based on the ideas of Hitler and Marx, not David Hume and Bertrand Russell, and the horrors they inflicted are no more a vindication of Judeao-Christianity than they are of astrology or alchemy or Scientology.

    The terrors they inflicted showed precisely how immoral (and amoral) godless people can become when they are infatuated with power. They vindicate absolutely nothing.

    Second, Nazism and Fascism were not atheistic in the first place. Hitler thought he was carrying out a divine plan. Nazism received extensive support from many German churches, and no opposition from the Vatican. Fascism happily coexisted with Catholicism in Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Croatia.

    Hitler, like many dictators, sought to control the church. However, this does not mean that there were no religious dissenters: there were, and they were sent to concentration camps. Oh, and Hitler also suggested that Darwinian evolution was part of his grand plan to create and maintain a master race. Any thoughts on that?

    Third, according to the most recent compendium of history’s worst atrocities, Matthew White’s Great Big Book of Horrible Things (Norton, 2011), religions have been responsible for 13 of the 100 worst mass killings in history, resulting in 47 million deaths.

    From a brief Google search, I see that this is not a scholarly work, but rather a pop history book that was apparently also released under the title “Atrocitology”.

    So the first objection is that we’re not dealing with something that is definitive or peer-reviewed. Whereas Vox Day utilizes the Encyclopedia of Wars (2005), which was compiled by 9 history professors including the Director of the Centre for Military History and former Head of of the Centre for Defence Studies. An intelligent person can easily see which book carries more intellectual weight.

    Second, the author errs when he suggests that events described as “horrible” can be done so solely on the basis of the number killed. This disregards torture of all kinds, which the author presumably thinks is also “horrible.” And it should be pointed out that nations throughout history have practiced torture or, at least, turned a blind eye to it. A quick death by firing squad is not comparable to deliberate torture if the author is being intellectually honest in his usage of “horrible things.”

    Third, it is a matter of interpretation as to whether or not the killings were religiously motivated. You offer no details on the matter, only numbers. And considering that you quote Sam Harris, who is dumb enough to believe that Buddhism is not a religion, I’m going to say that much of what White uses as examples here can also be dismissed. One reviewer noted that White makes a “thinly veiled effort” to minimize deaths based on intolerance of thought.

    Communism has been responsible for 6 mass killings and 67 million deaths. If defenders of religion want to crow, “We were only responsible for 47 million murders—Communism was worse!”, they are welcome to do so, but it is not an impressive argument.

    Neither is your quoting Sam Harris. And for anyone keeping count, 67 million is greater than 47 million (which is probably suspect as well).

    Fourth, many religious massacres took place in centuries in which the world’s population was far smaller. Crusaders, for example, killed 1 million people in world of 400 million, for a genocide rate that exceeds that of the Nazi Holocaust. The death toll from the Thirty Years War was proportionally double that of World War I and in the range of World War II in Europe.

    Ah, the Crusades. The atheist’s last resort. However, the consensus among historians is that religion was not anywhere nearly as central to the Crusades as customarily thought (Vox Day, page 89). He cites Sir Charles Oman (Vol 1 of A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages, 1991, page 233) who suggests that religion is but one of the “many complicated impulses” that led to the First Crusade.
    If religion were truly an important element of war, then surely someone like Sun Tzu, Julius Caesar, or Leo the Wise would have written about it. Yet there is nothing in their writings to suggest this to be the case.

    When it comes to the history of violence, the significant distinction is not one between theistic and atheistic regimes. It’s the one between regimes that were based on demonizing, utopian ideologies (including Marxism, Nazism, and militant religions) and secular liberal democracies that are based on the ideal of human rights. I present data from the political scientist Rudolph Rummel showing that democracies are vastly less murderous than alternative forms of government.

    The fact that Sam Harris attempts to condemn religion through implication and not direct accusation is a clear indicator that he has a very weak argument (Vox Day, page 98). An online source, Wikipedia, lists 489 military conflicts, of which only 53 (10.8%) could reasonably be described as having a religious aspect. Out of the 1,763 miitary conflicts listed in the Encyclopedia of Wars, only 123 were religious in nature (6.98%). The historical evidence is conclusive: religion is not a primary cause of war.

Leave a Reply