I published an open letter to Graham Langdon yesterday, which I ended with the suggestion that atheist blogs be move out of the religion and spirituality category. I wrote:
Lastly, the RagingRev blog should definitely not be listed in the Religion and Spirituality category by Entrecard. It should be listed in a separate category call non-religious, non-spiritual or words to that effect: Atheism. That blog is not religious or spiritual. It is the exact opposite. I was planning that as my first forum-statement but was cutoff by Satan [the forums were restricted shortly before], so I've stated it here to be heard.
In reaction, the atheist, Matt Oxley, left a comment on that post as follows:
Seeing as how my blog (the ragingrev one) is highly focused on religious subject matter and debunking religion or having religious debates, I don't see any reason to move it into it's own category. It simply wouldn't make sense and it would harm my current audience...people like you are the ones i want to read it...not just Atheists.
Furthermore, I have never laid personal attack on you but I have to wonder why there is no category for "zealot" on Entrecard...you may feel more at home there.
see...that doesn't feel too good does it?
The idea of having a category called "Atheism" offends you, you say. How does my calling for an atheist category appear analogous to your calling for a category for zealotry? The logic isn't there.
Your feelings are hurt because the Christian says you don't fall within the set defined as religious or spiritual? There are pagans in the set. They're spiritual. If there were subcategories for Christians and another for pagans, that wouldn't be disorganized. An atheist in with the religious and the spiritual though shows a lack of good organization. There are some gray areas, but atheism is not gray here.
This situation is analogous to atheist science teachers saying that there is no place in science classrooms for teaching the watchmaker concept of the origins of the material universe: Intelligent Design. Well, there is a place, but its limited and a class of its own called the Philosophy of Science. That though doesn't take up the whole category of what is currently termed science in the mundane. The same applies here. Your blog is not centered on religion and spirituality but against it, just as the atheist science teachers are dead set against centering any part of their courses on teaching any alternative to testing. Do you see that, or not? I know it isn't lost on the other readers here.
No one seeing the category "Atheist" would miss the idea that atheists blogs would be found there and that those blogs would be anti-religion and anti-spirituality.
You don't need to be in the Religion and Spirituality category to have people who are not atheists see your site. I visit plenty of sites that are decidedly anti-Christ. I'm not the only one who does.
Your position comes out here though. "Me thinks thou protesteth too much" even though your comment is not that long. Understand?
You want people to stumble onto your blog who would otherwise choose not to visit. Your 125x125 image is deceptive with your employment of the cross. Your use of the term "Rev" in your name is likewise deceptive. You are not a Reverend. When coupled with being listed in religion and spirituality, your image is designed so that the unsuspecting will click initially expecting to find a Christian site perhaps of a zealous Christian, hence "raging" in the name. It's all clearly deliberately deceptive.
Also important though concerns the numbers, in terms of popularity within the category. There are many religious and spiritual sites within the category. There are not many atheist sites. The atheist audience on Entrecard is not diluted across many sites with the category when dropping, etc. Such is not the cased with the other blogs in the category. That gives you an advantage for being nearly the only atheist site, at least the only one pushing nearly as hard as you are, working the system even from within.
No one would be harmed in the mundane or otherwise by a category "Atheist." In fact, you would be at the top of that category in terms of popularity. Everyone dropping on you now would still be directed to your site. People who want to avoid atheist sites though could. Atheists wanting to avoid religious and spiritual sites could too. My point was not to achieve that. I have regular back and forth with atheists on my blog. My point is being clearer for all the users and not to be benefiting you at the expense of most others, which is the current situation.
Of course you want non-atheists to read your blog. So what? Just because you want there not to be a category for atheism doesn't mean there shouldn't be such a category.
As for your more than insinuating that I, what are your choices of words, laid a personal attack on you, if you take my suggestion for an atheist category as a personal attack, you need to do quite a bit more growing up.
As for your attempt to hurt me, I know who the Zealots were and are. I'm not one of them. You claim to have been a Christian minister at one point. Don't you know who the Zealots were and what Jesus had to say to them and why? Well, no, you never really knew, did you?
Look, Matt, I don't have to be "nice" to you. I don't have to "like" you. I don't have to avoid saying that atheism and atheists are inherently evil, lost for a time in case of some, but nevertheless, still an evil condition or state of being, that is dead of the Holy Spirit.
If you don't like it, it doesn't mean I have to coddle you in your atheism.
You're an enemy of Christ, Matt. You're working for the satanic spirit. You're up to no good. It's obvious. I don't know the specifics of what happened to you that caused you to fall as you have. I'm sure it was bad. I've never heard of anyone falling on account of good things happening to that one.
You've commented on this blog before. I've replied. You never returned to answer even to give information you promised to supply. Now you're here sniveling. That's right.
So, Matthew ("The gift of the Lord"), what exactly do you have against Jesus that he doesn't countenance homosexuality or what?
There's something you're doing or want to do that Jesus says is wrong. What is it?
Why do you want to do it?
Where did you learn it?
Who did it to you?
Is it harmful in anyway to anyone?
Are you honest even with yourself?
I know you aren't. I don't say it to hurt you, but you ought to have a good very long, purgative cry, perhaps 40 days, and not blame God or Jesus or me.
You fell. So, get up. Don't imagine you've debunked anything. You haven't debunked God, Matt. You've been exposed and rebuked for cause. That's what's happened.
What were you expecting, popularity with the Christians. Keep going in the direction you're heading and you'll land in the proverbial Lake of Fire, and no Christian is going to pull you out at the last minute. They will rather be simultaneously sadden by your error but joyous at being delivered from evil temptation that you are supplying with a vengeance.
Truth, Matt, how does it feel? Does it feel good? It should. The righteous love it.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
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.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)