AWESOME: Mark Levin SCHOOLS intolerant atheist caller

Mark Levin laid out tonight several characteristics he believes should embody our next Republican nominee for president, one of which was faith — not any particular faith, but generally a belief in God.



Well that upset an atheist caller who, by the way, said he agrees with Levin on the vast majority of things. But he told Levin that it ‘drives him crazy’ that Levin would suggest that one of the big things our next Republican nominee needed was ‘faith’. Oh boy.

Let the schooling commence:

[flowplayer id=”93681″]

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

679 thoughts on “AWESOME: Mark Levin SCHOOLS intolerant atheist caller

  1. Atheists are morons, whatever political label they give themselves. They cause nothing but totalitarianism wherever they go.

  2. So by schools you mean throws a hissy fit makes random false claims and hangs up cause he knows he is making an ass out of himself.

  3. While liberty provides principles that guide us toward what the law should be, democratic methods can help determine what the law will be.

  4. I would rather have a leader who stood for SOMETHING and understood the meaning of the word tolerant than to have a leader who stands for nothing and spends their days dividing and weakening this country.

    1. So based on your logic you’d choose a leader who stood for Satan, rather than one who didn’t stand for any religion at all.

    2. I’d like a leader who stands for destroying Christianity. As long as they stand for SOMETHING, right?

      1. Ok, first of all that is not what I said. Did I say ANYTHING about supporting satan or destroying Christianity….NOPE! You need to take some valium. Have mercy. I want a president who stands for something….morals, values, beliefs, constitution, family, ….Good LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!! and GOD. You people are over the top. End of my discussion here. Are you honestly SO shallow you cannot see that standing for SOMETHING, given the article that AT LEAST I READ, means God! Did you READ it, or just troll the comments.

        1. You did not specify what “something” meant. Joey probably went a bit too far pointing that out to you, but the fact remains that “something” could mean anything. Believing in humanist ideals is not believing in nothing. Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values-be they religious, ethical, social, or political-have their source in human experience and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny.

          That is standing for something. Whether you agree with it, or not.

        2. thethrownshoe is right…you said stand for SOMETHING in all caps, so I said what something could be…better than nothing, right? Oh wait, you want that something to just be what you want…well there are a lot of other people in this country too.

          Also, a lot of liberals are intolerant, but let’s not act like Christians are a big tolerant bunch.

  5. I’d rather have a candidate who believed in the creator. It isn’t a legal requirement but I have a preference. People voted for Obama because he was Black. People voted for Clinton because of her gender. If someone who is Gay shows up, people will vote because of sexual preference. I can vote for someone because they believe in the creator.

    1. That is good. But be sure your candidate doesn’t use a government office to promote their religion.

      1. Better that than they use a government office to suppress religion. Suppressing religious behavior is an outright clear violation of the constitution. The first amendment doesn’t ban promotion of a religion. It bans the establishment of a religion.

        1. Promoting one religion, without promoting all faiths, or nonfaiths equally, is the establishment of a religion. However, it is legal to promote religion, so long as you promote all other faiths, and nonfaiths, to an equal degree. There is a courthouse down in Florida that has a ten commandments monument next to an atheist monument (a stone bench covered in sayings by great secularists), and plans to install a Satanic monument soon. The only time it’s outright illegal to have a religious monument on public lands is when there’s a monument to a single religion with no other religions, or nonreligions, represented.

          1. You don’t understand what the establishment of a religion is. As understood by the people who approved the first amendment, it was the establishment of a specific religion as the official religion of the US. Allegedly several of the states had established religions which is is the reason why the first amendment only specified congress.

            Furthermore the norm in all state legislatures and congress was to have Chaplains who delivered opening prayers. If the original intent was to outlaw religion in the government, why did they have the opening prayers? Why has the US military always had paid Chaplains who were soldiers? Furthermore “In God we Trust” was put on coins by authorization of Congress. Obviously your interpretation is commonly accepted.

            1. In god we trust was put all over the country back in 1956. The original motto was E pluribus unum, much more inclusive. The prayers before meetings are required to be nondenominational, but even those have been been successfully challenged in court. The pledge of allegiance had “under god” added back in 1954. The military has Muslim chaplains, Jewish chaplains, and Christian chaplains. Even the military is forbidden from picking favorites. Putting a Christian monument outside a courthouse, without other faiths, or nonfaiths present, is the government endorsing one religion over all others, establishing a preferred religion.

              1. The point is that the chaplains in legislatures, congress, and the military have been an encouragement of religion since our founding. Why were they ok until 1960?

                1. They’ve been an encouragement of religion, but not any one religion. Why was what OK until 1960? Chaplains? I’ll need you to clarify that. Atheists didn’t start developing a backbone in this country until Madalyn Murray O’Hair sued the public school system over school prayer in 1960. But now nontheists have a monetary base with which to afford lawyers, and sue for the rights guaranteed under the constitution.

                2. Their goal is to ensure that no one religion gets preferential treatment by the government. No one is saying you can’t stand on public land and preach about your religion. What they are pointing out is that it is illegal for the government, or a representative of the government, to favor one religion in an official capacity. You can legally put a ten commandments monument on a courthouse lawn, so long as you’re willing to let every other faith, or nonfaith, have an equal monument right next to it (e.g., Bradford Country courthouse).

                3. Then why is it okay to teach in a state supported class that there is no god but teaching that there is a god is against the law? Logically the two should be equally acceptable. Neither one can be scientifically proven.

                  Courts have held that they can exclude all religious texts from public property. That is counter to the free exercise clause which you conveniently ignore.

                  Their goal is actually to eliminate religion from the public sphere.

                4. Where did you get the idea that public schools teach that there is no god?!? Logically the two should be equally unacceptable as public school is not a place to indoctrinate children into your faith or non-faith. Courts have not held that you can exclude religious texts from public property. That is nonsense. Nobody has the goal to eliminate religion from the public sphere. It’s about equality. The government was created to be secular and separate from religion in every way so as to not treat any one religious or non-religious belief preferentially. Understand?

                5. Where did I get the idea? My experience with public schools and public colleges.

                  As a religious functionary who frequently interacts with governments and for profit institutions, my experience is that the functional definition of “non-sectarian” is “anti-religious”.

                  Please don’t tell me that what I am reporting doesn’t make sense. I am reporting my experience with real people. The fact that they don’t make sense is not my fault.

  6. Hm… *checks handy pocket Constitution her old Social Studies teacher gave her*

    Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution does say no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

    The guy on the phone could have handled it a lot better (grammar nazis are always annoying), but there it is. *shrug*

    1. You seem to have missed the part where Mark points out that Article IV, Paragraph 3 is part of the FEDERALIZED Constitution and that the thirteen original states already had religious tests in their constitutions before AND after drafting the federal one. Also, note that Mark is not saying it should be mandated in the Constitution or in the GOP’s platform. He is simply saying that he would PREFER the next Presidential Candidate to have a strong faith in God and not be ashamed, or hide it for the sake of “playing it safe” with political correctness. So in effect, invoking Article IV as you (and the caller) do is irrelevant to the actual argument. Popcorn reading from your hand held Constitution doesn’t immediately dictate the objective stance or the last word. Context is everything.

      1. You do know that the federal constitution came before the state constitutions, don’t you? Not only that, all states ratified the federal constitution, including it’s amendments. All states have their own rights, however their constitutions must fit within the boundaries set by the federal constitution. There are 6 states that currently bar atheists from holding office, but only because atheists haven’t tried to contest those laws yet, as they exist in states where atheists aren’t likely to get elected.

    2. I don’t think anyone is advocating that atheists should be forbidden from holding public office, however people may vote for whatever reason they want. Even if those reasons are racist or sexist, like many of the Democratic voters did in 2008.

      1. When did Levin say that he is “advocating that atheists should be forbidden from holding public office?” I must have missed that. He said he wants a leader that stands for something. This is HIS right! One of which I agree with.

      2. I don’t remember any of my friends (in either party) casting their vote for racist or sexist reasons, but we probably move in very different circles.

        1. People voted for Hillary because she would have been the first woman president. People voted for Obama because he would be the first Black president. There were news articles quoting people explaining why they voted the way they did in the primaries.

          1. Possible, possible. But I know I *didn’t* want to see Palin become the first woman vice president. I felt like the female sex could do better. 😉

            And McCain had turned into such a *grouch*. Americans respond to bold, optimistic campaigns. That’s how Reagan beat Carter and G.W. Bush beat Gore. (Well, Bush had a little help there, but let’s not revisit that mess!) Nobody likes a doomsayer, even if they’re right — which both parties would do well to remember.

        1. Sure the appalling Republican ticket played a role in who won. However many people who voted Democrat did so for racist reasons. And many people who voted for Hillary in the primary voted for sexist reasons. Remember all the hype about the first Black president? That is racism.

      3. Atheists are barred from holding public office in 7 states. And you’ll have to tell me how the Democrats were racist and sexist when they elected the first black president, and tried to elect the first female president. Just electing a black person does not mean he was elected for being black. Republican leadership (Boehner and McConnel) stated before Obama ever took office, that their primary goal would be to ensure that Obama would not get a second term. The fact that that was their goal before he even demonstrated his abilities as president, smacks of racial motivation. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the first time Republicans ever made a statement like that just happened to coincide with the election of a black president.

        1. Regarding atheists being barred from holding office, I don’t believe that the statutes are currently on the books.

          If someone votes for or against someone because of their race, that is racism. If they do it because of gender, that is sexism.

          As for why Boehner and McConnell had the goal of keeping Obama for having a second term, it was because Obama was not qualified either by experience or personality for the position of chief executive of anything much less the federal government.

          And finally, about Republicans alleged racism, it was clear from the polls of Republicans in 2007 and 2008 that Condoleezaza Rice could have had the Republican nomination in 2008 had she been willing to run. Or doesn’t she count as female or Black?

          1. The statues are on the books, you can look them up easily.

            If someone were to vote for someone solely because they’re black or female then that would be a bit racist, but saying that he was elected solely because he’s a black man is unfounded, unprovable, and also a bit racist. By the way, affirmative action is designed to counteract the favoritism of whites in this country, and don’t try to pretend their isn’t white privilege in this country. I’m a white male, and even I can see it plain as day. Just look at the ratio of minorities to white men in congress.

            There have been many other successful presidents in our history with less political experience than Obama. He has a better education background than most politicians in office today, and throughout history. He is also way more affable that most politicians, and way less authoritarian than most politicians. By the way, numerous studies have found an extremely strong correlation between conservativism and authoritarianism, and authoritarianism is universally recognized as the worst leadership style to have.

            And Condoleezaza Rice was never considered for president in 2008. She was only ever considered as a running mate for McCain, and that was only so that McCain might appeal to minority voters who feel grossly underrepresented in the government.

            1. The laws aren’t there. I’m not wasting my time. You claim they are there. Prove it. Obama had no prior executive experience. And it shows.

              The health care rollout was completely screwed up managerially. Even if the law was good, the roll out was mismanaged so embarrassingly completely that it is awesome. The software engineers were started on the project in July. The specifications were insufficient. They never had a chance to test it. There was insufficient coordination between state regulators and federal regulators. (Both of whom had authority over insurance policies.). The signup period should have been 3 months longer. All of this is common knowledge among software managers. This is, regardless of policy issues, incompetent management. His lack of skills in management shafted his signature policy.

              I never said that he was elected solely because of his race, I said that some of the people who voted for him did so because of race. And you apparently never read the conservative political blogs about Rice. Please don’t misrepresent what I said.

              1. Article 6, Section 8 of the North Carolina constitution says:
                The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

                Article 19, Section 1 of the Arkansas constitution says:
                No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

                Article 37 of the Maryland constitution says:
                That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

                Article 14, Section 265 of the Mississippi constitution says:
                No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

                Article 1, Section 4 of the Pennsylvania constitution says:
                No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.

                Article 17, Section 4 of the South Carolina constitution says:
                No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

                Article 9, Section 2 of the Tennessee constitution says:

                No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

                Article 1, Section 4 of the Texas constitution says:
                No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

                Here’s a list of presidents with no prior executive experience: John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, Benjamin Harrison, James Garfield, Ulysses S. Grant, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Pierce, Zachery Taylor, and George Washington.

                It is very likely that some people voted for Obama because he was black, but it’s also just as likely that people voted for McCain because he wasn’t black.
                Obviously the Affordable Care Act isn’t perfect. It’s a bill, and bills are never perfect. But it’s much better than no insurance at all. Ensuring everyone has insurance will lessen our overall medical costs, and save the tax payers billions in the long run. It’s implementation was a little rocky at first, you won’t get an argument from me on that one, but it’s running very smoothly now, and getting smoother all the time.
                Obama may be the driving force behind the Affordable Care Act, but he’s not in charge of it’s implementation, or regulation. That would be the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight.

                And blogs are full of biased opinions, not facts. Never get your info from a blog. At least not without looking for quality sources to confirm it.

                1. The sections in the North Carolina and Maryland constitutions were thrown out by the SCOTUS. Arkansas’s was never test and nobody believes it is enforceable. I didn’t bother checking the others. They are dead letters because they obviously conflict with the Federal constitution as currently interpreted..

                  The president is the chief executive office of the federal government. Read the constitution. He screwed up.

                  As for whether blogs have facts in them, yours is a case in point.

                2. I stand corrected on the matter of Maryland, but the law still stands in North Carolina, and all the other states mentioned earlier. There is a man named Cecil Bothwell who found a loophole around the North Carolina law by “affirming” his oath of office, instead of “swearing” on the bible. That being said, yes it’s true that none of those laws mean much since they would be easily overturned if they were every challenged in court, but the fact remains that laws in some states discriminate against atheists.

                  I’m curious what you meant when you said Obama screwed up. I am well aware that he’s the chief executive, but that doesn’t mean he has absolute control over the government and its agencies. Congress is responsible for the vast majority of this country’s operations, including passing the Affordable Care Act.

                  Blogs tend to include a smattering of facts used to enforce a personally biased opinion. Proper journalism (not CNN, MSNBC, or FOX) attempts to be as unbiased as possible, referencing facts constantly. You can sue the news organization that employs a journalist who misrepresents the facts. It’s a lot harder to sue a blogger, and to keep them honest.

                3. There are certain basics of management that Obama doesn’t have. He did not assemble a management team to start Obamacare. He started the project in July with inadequate project specifications. He didn’t give them time to test the site, nor did he allow time or personnel to interact with state official who regulate insurance. Many state laws and regulations which don’t work with Obamacare administratively haven’t been repealed, they are sitting in limbo. The mechanism to direct payments to the insurance companies was not put into place until December. Since people aren’t insured until their insurance company gets paid, the ones who knew what they were doing didn’t know if they were covered and in some cases, still don’t.

                  None of this and other issues are policy. It’s just bad management. The president is responsible for making the whole thing work. He didn’t. Either he deliberately trashed his signature achievement or he doesn’t know how to manage. Nobody has absolute control. But he has to figure out how to make it work. Just like any other manager.

                4. I’m not going to argue that the Affordable Care Act’s roll out did not go smoothly. Yes the president probably screwed up, but I’m sure there’s more to it that his administrative tactics, and the problem is getting fixed. Nothing in politics is ever smooth, ever. And the eventual payout will still be better than what we had before, with our ridiculous health care costs.. That being said, Obama’s administrative abilities are astronomically better than Bush’s. Bush put us straight in the toilet, even with Cheney pulling the strings.

                5. You are simply wrong about Bush vs. Obama’s administrative skills. And management isn’t politics. Sometimes management of government projects goes well. I can point to several Colorado state projects which went superbly including a $7 billion transportation project that came in ahead of schedule and under budget.

                  Yes there is more to the screwup than the Presidents lack of skills, lack of planning, and failure to involve all the people with authority. The president is dealing with the problems by ignoring any part of the law he finds to be difficult. If Bush had done this the press would have been all over him. I don’t understand how anyone can say that ACA is going well. According to the numbers we were given last year, the current enrollment statistics indicate that it’s a disaster because younger people aren’t singing up at the level required to make the system work. These are Obama’s numbers not mine.

                6. Your data is out of date. It has enough people signed up now that it’s going to work, while more and more young people are signing up every day. The insurance companies have now said it’s stable enough that they won’t pull out of the program.

                  Also, I think it’s important to note that when Obama took office he immediately had to start digging us out of our burst housing bubble. I think his progress is rather amazing, considering he had to deal with a House of Representatives that had already publicly declared that their goal was to thwart him at every turn.

                  Bush straight up lied to the American people in order to get us into Iraq (which was incapable of mounting any kind of serious threat against us). I signed up to go to Afghanistan (who actually attacked us), and ended up in Iraq looking for “weapons of mass destruction,” while Bush willfully let Osama prance into Pakistan. And lets not forget Bush’s “President’s Surveillance Program”, and the beginning of warrantless wiretapping. None of those egregious actions landed him in hot water. Everyone was still afraid after 9/11, so Bush could get away with murder. A gross double standard.

                7. Where are these facts I’m supposedly ignoring? Because everything I just mentioned above was a documented fact.

                8. The laws have either been overturned or are dead letters. It doesn’t matter whether they are on the books because they aren’t being enforced. Just like the laws which forbid discrimination against people on the basis of race were ignored during affirmative action. As a white male, I was turned down for my race and gender several times. When I worked for Household Finance, I had to turn down white women on the basis of race for clerical positions because the court said we needed to hire minorities.

    3. I listened to this whole conversation and Levin was not saying there should be a religious test, he said that HE believes that the next President should have a belief in God. There is not a single thing wrong with that….first in the fact that Levin has the right to want this and express that want and his comments about tolerance were right on! Why is it that we don’t just accept that we are not all the same again. Until Obama we did! Funny that the first black President ever would be the one who WANTS segregation! Off topic, sorry, I agree with Levin.

      1. Which God do you think the President should believe in, though? Do mainline Protestants worship the same God as evangelicals and charismatics? I have heard some of the latter say “no”. Do Catholics? Unitarians? Jews? Muslims? And is it enough for a President to *say* he is a Christian, or does he have to prove his theological orthodoxy? (Adams and Jefferson would be in trouble.)

        I’m not trying to be a smartass here. I’m just observing some of the issues I’ve seen come up in discussions and arguments.

        Edit: Oh, and when did Obama call for a return to segregation? I don’t watch the news as much as I ought, maybe I missed something.

        1. Segregation was the wrong word…however he has done more to divide races than I have ever seen. As for religion, I think it is important that he/she (not ever HILLARY) have a belief in a God that believes in life, not one who celebrates death.

          1. It seems to me as though the existence of a black President has itself divided a lot of Americans. (Which is not to say he didn’t do or say anything to increase that divide, but it feels like an awful lot of people would have been upset by his presence no matter what. 🙁 )

            And by a God who celebrates death, do you mean Shiva and Kali? I know some Hindus, and they seem like perfectly nice people. I wouldn’t object if they ran for office.

            1. I am sure you are right that there are people offended that Obama is black…I am not one of them. I am offended because he is not the right man for the job. He has devastated our budget, out health care, our military, our respect with countries around the world. He is not protecting or defending the constitution that he swore to uphold. Sadly, as the first black president, given what he has done to our country, many people will see it as a weakness and be less likely to give a person qualified to do the job a chance. I can think of only a few people that could be strong enough to bail the USA out and Alan West is one of them. I want a president able to do the job, not just pander to whoever will vote for him if he gives them free crap.

              1. How has he done all those things? Devastated our budget? You understand that Federal spending originates in the (Republican-controlled) House, right? You are aware that he has cut the deficit in half, aren’t you? He devastated health care….by making it available to millions more Americans? Hmmm… Does not starting any new wars somehow damage our military? Every respected survey indicates that respect for America around the world INCREASED dramatically after Obama took office (not that hard to do, after W.). With parts of the Constitution, SPECIFICALLY, has he failed to enforce? And finally, you’d prefer Alan West, the war criminal, misogynist and extremist demagogue? Okay…see, this is why Republicans keep losing elections. You spout nonsense as gospel and you promote idiots as saviors.

                1. Printing money and borrowing massive amounts of money does hurt the economy. Devaluing money and importing cheap labor hurts the average worker. And yes the Republicans and Democrats have helped him do this. Most need to be replaced. It’s not a matter of new wars but reducing military funding and rewriting rules on things like how naval ships are counted. As for the health care system, prices and premiums make it unaffordable for small buisnesses, and now we have more part-time jobs. What’s the democratic answer to that? Oh, these people had job-lock. And who will benefit? Illegal immigrant for the most part. That locks the Democrat vote there. And how are we respected more ? Not a huge fan of Bush but at least Libya gave up their chemical weapons. Between Russia, China, and Iran do you really think our allies feel safer. If Russia took Estonia tomorrow, what do you think would happen?

                2. The president is not the one who decides whether or not to print money, that’s Congress. But for your claim that printing money hurts the economy, here’s an informative video that might help you understand the economic situation a little better.

                  As for the military, we’re cutting back on the amount of equipment, because we don’t need it all. The nature of war is changing. We no longer have as big a need for tanks, because tank warfare is becoming a thing of the past. We have thousands of tanks that have never been used, and will never be used, just sitting in lots. We’re cutting back on the number of ships we have because we now have ship that can do the jobs of 10 ships, with a fraction of the crew.

                  Just so you know, the Affordable Care Act is not available to illegal immigrants, so they won’t benefit from it at all. It’s kinda funny how Obama is getting blamed for stuff that was put in place under the Bush administration. Like the NSA spying on everybody, for example.

          2. Again, please be specific. What, exactly, has Obama done to “divide the races”….other than be an articulate, rational black man? I just “googled it”, and I can find no incident where the President insulted or demeaned anyone because of their race. There were however tens of thousands of examples of right-wing insults, slanders and lies directed TOWARD Mr. Obama.
            Your complaint stinks of blaming the victim. “We HAD to lynch him. He was black!”

  7. He “schooled” him? He was dead wrong, it is “couldn’t care less.”

    What an idiot. I guess anyone can have a radio show these days…but thanks for making it clear Right Scoop has no idea what a “schooling” is.

      1. Why do you ask questions loaded with obvious straw men? Hint: you can note someone’s argument is idiotic without hating them.

        It is possible you were being sarcastic. If so…my bad :).

    1. Mark was actually right on saying ‘COULD care less.’

      Why?

      Think about it. He cared enough to discuss it, didn’t he? Yes, he did. So, his point is that he could care less, since he cared enough to engage in conversation.

      I promise you that is exactly what he meant – the fact that you are calling Mark Levin an idiot, speaks volumes about yourself. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

      What a tool.

        1. Wrong.

          It is entirely possible to care less than one currently does.

          For example:

          I could care less about a leftist’s opinion, but I need to care some-what, otherwise they’ll continue to destroy my country. So, stating that I couldn’t care less, implies that I don’t care at all – which I do.

          Making sense now, big mouth?

          You can use that phrase – granted – it is often times used incorrectly and ‘COULDN’T care less’ is usually the proper term.

          In this particular case though, Levin was right.

            1. Did you REALLY just use urbandictionary.com to prove your point?

              I think we’re done here… Now I know you are clueless.

                1. Um. Mr. Sassi. It’s “all right.” “Alright” is not a word.
                  Just so you’ll know.
                  And the Establishment Clause was included in the Bill of RIGHTS to forbid religious expression in the public square, whether in a courthouse or a school, but to foreclose the possibility of the establishment of an official state religion, such as the Church of England or, say, Islam in Iran, How the government’s forbidding religious expression protects a right to a freedom is something only a liberal would be able to believe. Hostility to religion and to its expression by supposedly free men is the current jurisprudence of which you spoke. It is not possible, intellectually, to forbid any type of expression so vigorously and call it freedom. It’s inherently dishonest.

                2. The constitution does not forbid religious expression in a public forum. It does however forbid preferential treatment for one religion over another in anything to do with the government, including public land. For instance, there’s a courthouse down in Florida with a ten commandments monument next to an atheist monument (a stone bench covered in writings from great secularists), and plans to install a Satanic monument. That’s equal representation, and it’s perfectly legal. What isn’t legal is to have a ten commandments monument standing all by itself on government land, because that is preferential treatment of one religion over all other faiths, or nonfaiths.

                3. Alright is a colloquialism that’s generally gaining acceptance, but you’re making the zinger you think you are: in either case, both in that context mean exactly the same thing, and I’m not throwing a hissy fit and hanging up on you and calling you names. Levin by way of contrast said something that means the exact opposition of what he really meant, and is an incorrect idiom that is never considered correct.

                  Nobody’s forbidding your religious expression. We’re simply pointing out that you don’t get any special sanctioning of your religion by the state.

                  Talk about dishonesty–yours is manifold on this point.

    2. I could not care any less. Couldn’t care less. But this is minutia and just takes away from the fact that the caller was reaching for straws at that point.

      1. Caller was calm, rational, and in line with every bit of jurisprudence on this issue.

        1. then why did he take it to snarky correcting Mark about could care less. We know what Mark was saying…. no need for him to correct mark.

          1. Caller’s wrong to note a grammar error? Please. No need for Levin to lose his composure as he did, but people conflating free expression of religion with publicly sanctioned religion should get used to being corrected.

        2. You’re partially right, in that the caller was “in line with every bit of jurisprudence on this issue.” Well, at least with relatively recent jurisprudence. Which, of course, is why Establishment Clause jurisprudence as it exists is a tortured interpretation of the 1st Amendment, designed not to maximize freedom, as the framers sought to do, but to make religion a thing to be suppressed. The whole insane mess was started by Hugo Black (KKK), who had a trembling, irrational fear of the Catholic Church. Atheists and lefties of almost all stripes took it and ran with it, resulting in any religious expression in the public square being FORBIDDEN. Some freedom of expression and and free exercise!
          We want our Constitution back!! And we’re going to take it back. Soon.

          1. It’s like trying to marginalize the Heller court because its finding on the RKBA is recent. But in this case, the jurisprudence has been pretty uniform since day one–you’re free to exercise your religion privately as you see fit, and sure, you can do it in public, but there simply is no such thing as a publicly sanctioned religion here in the US.

            You’ll just have to get over it.

            1. You’re missing a couple of points. First, the Court’s Opinions restricting religious expression in the public square were an interpretation of teh Establishment Clause which was in conflict with understandings of the framers and the public over many years. To say that the Court’s holdings on that topic caused general confusion and consternation among the people and the courts is to commit felony understatement. To use Heller as an example of recent jurisprudential path-clearing is grossly misplaced. Justice Black’s scrawlings were outside any understandings — in fact, entirely opposite to the understanding — of the purpose of the 1st Amendment. On the other hand, the only people surprised by Heller were those who expected the Court to scramble the 2nd Amendment in the same way they have the 1st.
              As for “alright” and “could care less,” I’ll first say that, as far as Mark’s using the latter, I agree that it was wrong. However, your argument in favor of “alright” may be applied equally to “could care less.” Both are in general, common usage, and most people know what is meant by both. However, while they might be acceptable in some circles, they both are corruptions of the proper constructions. I eschew — and will continue to eschew — using either, just as pronouncing the “t” in “often” grates on the ears. I suppose that such things are of consequence only to word snobs, a charge to which I plead guilty.
              But no one misunderstood what The Great One was saying, least of all his caller.

              1. I see you haven’t read the Treaty of Tripoli. http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

                Your evidence for a contradiction is what exactly?

                Ibid Heller–they’re not different just because you say they are. Heller and the relevant rulings on church and state are equally defensible, as neither faces any sort of serious rebuke from any court nor will they any time soon.

                Alright is gaining acceptance because it’s merely a colliding of All and Right, and means the same thing–and you’re missing the point, I’m not tossing a hissy over it the way Levin did.

                Could and couldn’t have exactly the opposite meanings, Levin was dead wrong, and he threw a fit over it.

                1. The Treaty of Tripoli? As defining the Constitution? That’s taking grasping at straws to an extreme, but it’s a baseless argument which impotent atheists have long held dear. That was not the purpose of the Treaty; and the subsequent version of it even omitted the portion you rely upon, with a new provision which more accurately explained the position of the U.S. toward Islam.
                  And you obviously didn’t understand my Heller comments.
                  Conclusion: Mark Levin might have used “could care less” carelessly, but so what? But if you’re going to parse his comments in that way, it only emphasizes the lack of intellectual resources of the entire political left: You have no argument against his philosophy or ideology; so you resort to that sort of response. Pathetic.
                  Goodbye. I wasted enough time on this. The Great One is, not surprisingly, correct, once again. May God bless Mark and you. And I’;m not being sarcastic.

                2. No, as making clear that the Founders did NOT have some unstated intention to make this a “Christian nation” (whatever that would be). The COTUS speaks for itself–you cannot be separated from your religion by the govt. But that’s it, and the TOT is just one examples of the Founders being decidedly against the US having an officially sanctioned religion.

                  Your Heller comments were an unbuttressed-by-any-evidence suggestion that Heller is OK even though it’s recent, but a couple centuries of courts ruling against you can be ignored. Glad I don’t subscribe to such nonsense.

                  Levin’s intemperate response pretty clearly indicates it’s he, and you, that lack much intellectual umph, and frankly, if you’re stilllllllllll trying to push the idea that the COTUS allows for some sort of officially sanctioned religious practice, whatever intellect you ascribe to yourself is decidedly an empty suit.

                  Maybe you be blessed by the FSM’s noodley appendage.

                3. The original Treaty of Tripoli was drafted by George Washington, and signed by John Adams. It at least represents the opinions of those particular founding fathers, and we already know the opinion of Jefferson on religion in government.

                  “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.” – Thomas Jefferson

                  “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” – Thomas Jefferson

              2. “Could care less” may be common, but it is not correct. People who use it are actually saying the exact opposite of what they wanted to say. “Alright” is at least correct, in that it means the same as the less colloquial “all right.”

          2. The first amendment was designed to keep any one religion from holding sway over the government. It isn’t about banning religion from government, it’s about keeping the government from favoring any one religion, or nonreligion. Putting a ten commandments monument on public land is not outright illegal, so long as you allow for all other religions, or nonreligions, to have equal representation. There is a courthouse down in Florida with a ten commandments monument right next to an atheist monument (a stone bend covered in saying by great secularists), and plans to install a Satanic statue soon. It would only be illegal if they only allowed the ten commandments, because that would be the government favoring Christianity over all other faiths, or nonfaiths.

  8. I am so tired of these Asswipe atheists telling me and my country that we can’t have ANY reference to God or Religion in this country. I’m tired of them whining and moaning about them being offended and trying to convince me and others who know better, that this country was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles, by men who had no Christian values or beliefs. It’s a bunch of manure and propaganda, spread by a bunch of angry, whining liberals who want to see religion and faith wiped out completely. You are in the minority and you are wrong. If you don’t like this nation and the way it was founded, then pack you belongings and carry your unhappy little asses to another nation. Because you are destroying the greatest nation ever founded in the history of the world.

    1. yes, misery loves company and the atheist want us to force us to be in the same miserable boat as they

    2. “You are in the minority and you are wrong”
      Just like African Americans who spoke up about slavery being wrong, right? Just like women who spoke up about having the right to vote, right? How about the Jews during the holocaust? They were in the minority, so they must have been wrong. Obviously every viewpoint that is in the majority MUST be “right’.

      1. You are wrong. And you are going to be surprised one day just how wrong you really are. Keep pushing and watch.

      2. So you compare those causes to a bunch or whinny ass unhappy atheists like you, who supposedly get so offended by seeing a cross on a headstone, or the 10 Commandments on a Courthouse Lawn, or somebody’s cross on the roadside where a loved one died? It’s Bullshit and you know it. It has nothing to do with them being offended. It’s a Lame ass liberal agenda and you know it. When the vast majority of people in this nation still believe in God or consider themselves Christian, and even our system of laws are based in Christian beliefs, but for some reason you can’t handle it. Our laws are based on the 10 commandments, in case you couldn’t put 2 and 2 together. Maybe Mommy and Daddy didn’t give you enough milk and cookies, so you have to bring everyone down to your whinny ass level of misery. It’s going to change Pal. We’re seeing through the Bullshit Agenda and we’re fighting back. Stand by.

      3. LF, try Googling the church in the capital building. Try reading the Federalist Papers. It’s an eye opening experience for a Dumbass like you.

      4. You compare a bunch of Whinny-ass, snot nosed, cry baby atheists to the Holocaust, women voting or slavery? You are just a Dumbass. A complete and total Moron Dumbass.

  9. You tell the caller that he added nothing to the conversation, I feel you added nothing to the conversation except trying to argue before he could even get a word in. As soon as he told you he didn’t believe in a God of which is his right here in the USA you were a horrible person towards him, and if you are what a Christian is suppose to be I by far want no part of it!!

    1. Who on earth are you talking to?
      You can’t possibly believe Mr. Levin is on this website or he has anything whatsoever to do with it, do you?
      Oh, just so you can have a wee bit of correct information, Mr. Levin is a Jew.

    2. Wanda! Wanda? I know you! You were Jim’s agnostic aunt,Imogene, also from Tampa, Florida! That’s right! Nice try, Imogene!

      1. Nah, I checked he/she’s profile. Brand new to disqus, and their only 2 comments ever are in this thread. Typical lib that creates a throwaway account to disrupt a Conservative conversation.

    3. Mark is of Jewish descent, so doubtfully Christian, yet tolerant of Christianity… I’m in! Tolerance is great!

  10. Our founders believed our rights came from natural law. This is because they believed in a creator. Religion is undermined by people like this caller. Why? Simple. Without a higher power than government, politicians control what your rights are. Who wants government to give us rights? Anyone really want people we hired to tell them what their rights are? How about an intolerant person like this caller having a say on what you can do?

    1. You might want to familiarize yourself with the general concept of deism and the secularist view of what natural law and ‘God’ are and all of their definitions. Not going to get into an argument telling you most or even some of the founders had world views like this, even though some (not all) definitely did like Paine and Jefferson, and is a common theme in freemasonry, but yours is not the only interpretation to why we have inalienable ‘god given’ rights. Our rights are built around the founder’s view of humanity and this insane concept at the time that people are inherently free and rule themselves, and that government is in service to its *citizens*, opposed to government seeing after its *subjects*.

      1. Your comment makes no sense. I have read it several times. Of course, there was opposition to “natural law”. So, what’s your point? Are you saying that there is no “natural law”? How so you explain life? Some survive and some don’t throughout all life systems & cycles. Does that mean that “humanity” must be protect from natural life cycles? What does “freemasonry” have to do with your argument? Our rights, as a Republic, are built around “mans” ability to govern themselves. Even though, Paine & Jefferson believed that people did not have the education and knowledge to know what was right for themselves, our Republic persevered. That belief was supported by Madison and Jefferson in the end. You don’t have to be educated to have common sense.

  11. The Founding Fathers were not deists. Thomas Paine may have been but that is the big lie spread by the secular Left.

    1. Thomas Jefferson made his own version of the Bible and removed all mentions of any supernatural occurrences leaving behind only the philosophical teachings. You’re welcome 😉

      1. A deist is someone who believes in God, but believes God has removed Himself from our lives. They don’t believe in Jesus as Son of God.
        Thomas Jefferson may have made his own bible on his beliefs about Jesus, but he was not a diest. He like some were anti religionists if anything. They believed in Jesus, and in God.

        1. So what does a christian theist believe in if he does not believe in anything supernatural in the bible? In my mind that doesn’t make someone a theist.

                1. some are not meant to believe in this life, but those of us that believe can become stronger by witnessing this sadness. It shows us how blessed we are not to be stuck in the place of emptiness

                2. As long as a person has breath left, it’s no harm in trying still. Hopefully folks will honestly seek the truth- Jesus will find them there when they come to it.

                3. My brain has an enormous respect for facts and what I can discern logically, I don’t have the capacity to make myself believe something like that is more than talking to myself, it’s the way I am ‘made’ if you prefer. The last time I seriously tried was when I asked god to prove to me that he is real, which is something nobody should ever do apparently.

                  I’ve since discovered belief in the afterlife makes the universe look ugly and cheapens the value of life, and belief in inherent sin attempts to steal from us the only good thing about our human race, our goodness and compassion, it is inherently and uniquely ours, and ours alone.

                  But I didn’t come here to have a debate about religion, just about the way many conservatives put a value on it to an extent that people without it are lesser and unworthy of leadership roles.

                4. God never shows you what you want on your terms only what you need on his terms.

                  Believing in God is about giving up control. The next problem you have… Give it to God. He will show you what is meant to be for the growth of yourself.

                  You think you are too smart for God. You are easily impressed by professors and drs. Well I’m not that easily impressed. The pope, no different than you or I. That homeless person on the street, no different than you or I…. all equal, but that drug user, devil follower/yeah, some lowlifes that I dont pretend to like. There is evil in the world. This I turn my back to.

                5. I am actually largely self educated, though there are people I have enormous respect for including Mr. Levin. I was never academically inclined and didn’t do well in school, I dropped out of high school before my senior year, and completed online. I am not mentally typical, perhaps that is part of the reason for my inability to believe things beyond my reasoning, I need to analyze everything to exhaustion for it to register for me.

                6. God knows every part of you. You dont have to be anything you dont want to be. God made you to be just the way you are and wants you to be happy with who you are.

                7. Oh great I can stop worrying about that eternal damnation and hell thing, load off my mind right there 😉

                  Thanks for the kind words.

                8. So if you didn’t have the threat of eternal damnation looming over your head you wouldn’t be honest?

                9. I hate to break it to you, but numerous scientific studies have found that babies learn right from wrong before they’re old enough to understand words, let alone learn about religion. Morality develops as a product of trying to get along with other people within a society. You’re a very sad individual indeed if you need a threat looming over your head to be a good person. I would argue that being good because you have the threat of eternal damnation looming over your head does not make you a good person, it means you’re doing good to save your own skin, and not for the sake of being good to your fellow creatures. That is not morality.

                10. I am a very very good person thank you. Your words of scientific studies of babies are convenient as you reach for straws with your empty accusations. God is watching you. Have a good life

                11. I doubt if you’d want to read the dry scientific articles, so he’s a New York Times article with pictures and videos. Read it if you want to actually know what you’re talking about. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?pagewanted=all

                  But then there’s still the problem that if you’re good for selfish reasons (saving yourself from eternal damnation) then you’re not actually a good person, you’re only doing it for yourself, not for the happiness of others.

                12. Sarcasm, another leftist tactic when the world doesn’t fit their view.

                  “Oh great I can stop worrying about that eternal damnation and hell thing, load off my mind right there ;)” We all make choices and each choice has consequences…

                13. Toggi3
                  When you go to sit down in a chair you do so with the faith that it will support you right? You have seen others do the same and they were ok in doing so. You don’t question the chair, turn it upside down check out it’s legs or ask it for anything before doing so do you? God works on the same principals so to speak; and that is the principal of faith. He wants a relationship with you which comes in studying his word, believing & trusting his word, talking to him daily confessing your indiscretions and having faith he will forgive. Pray in His word for it does not return unto him void. Is. 55:11 God bless.

                14. I once did look at the chair, turned it upside down, probably at one point or another sampled its taste to the dismay of my mother, learned how it stood, stubbed my toes, leaned on it many directions, discovered a thing called ‘center of gravity’ as I fell in it and thus the tolerances for how a chair may be operated, and assumed those variables would remain the same as other variables do, until one day a chair broke 😉

                  A chair is a poor analogy to illustrate the utility of faith.

                15. Leftist tactic, DISMISSAL! Obviously only your view is the correct view until you prove to yourself otherwise. Based off your statement one must presume you test the stove to see if it is hot by touching it each time it is turned on, it could be broke!

                  “A chair is a poor analogy to illustrate the utility of faith.” Actually it was a very good analogy, you just chose not to except it…

                16. lol, the GOP is in dire trouble if observational reasoning is now a ‘leftist tactic’. I am probably more conservative than most people here, sans superstition.

                17. LOL, yeah sure you are. Everything you do is leftist based off “observational reasoning” of your writings!

                18. touché…. but then who gave you that will/brain of yours??? did you give it to yourself? And don’t be so small to say my parents because they just had sex. The rest was up to God

                19. Were I religious man I would say God, if I were speaking poetically I would say the God of nature, but the reality is I am just neurologically wired in that manner from my genetics, given to me by thousands before me.

                20. “But I didn’t come here to have a debate about religion, just about the way many conservatives put a value on it to an extent that people without it are lesser and unworthy of leadership roles.”

                  Based on your writings you came here to preach your beliefs claiming not to want a debate while making comments about the value of other peoples beliefs being of lesser value to conservatives. HELLO POT, KETTLE CALLING!

                21. lol, people get so mad over some simple questions. Are you really mad at me or are you mad at your cognitive dissonance over the questions I pose?

                22. He/she does a lot of projecting. I think he or she is bored tonight. I get that way sometimes too. 😉

                23. Yeah you nailed it! Just troll night here. Happens every month they come here like a bunch of kids bored on a Friday night looking to stir up some trouble.

                  I got to run, have a good night!

        2. Jefferson as I recall attended a religious education at a Christian school. He didn’t believe miracles in the Old Testament and such things like the Biblical Flood. But I think he did believe the miracles perfomed by Jesus – I’m getting old and my recollection could be wrong.

          The following about how the ‘separation of church and state’ began as an exchange of letters might be of interest to you or more likely, just a reminder:

          Jefferson’s Wall of Separation Letter
          http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

      2. You’ve simply set up a strawman in a failed attempt to refute pdigaudio’s comment. Your comment disproves nothing, and pdigaudio’s still stands true.
        You’re welcome, too. 😉

    2. They were Christians, yes. Christians who were mature enough to recognize that, insofar as the government is concerned, no particular religion should be held in higher or lower regard than any other religion.

      1. Exactly. But nowhere did it say anything about squelching and suppressing expressing beliefs. Atheism is a religion of its own, arguably the least tolerant of all, with the possible exception of Islam.

        By the way, ever notice how the atheists never go after the practitioners of the Religion of Piece (of Arm, of Leg, of Torso)?

        1. But nowhere did it say anything about squelching and suppressing expressing beliefs.

          …which is not what this caller was advocating at all. Quite the contrary, Levin is the one trying to impose an belief requirement on political candidates, and the caller was the one pointing out how wrong that is.

          1. I’d never vote for a Muslim. Any more than I’d vote for a Nazi (essentially the same thing). And I have yet to meet an atheist that wasn’t a complete douchebag, They are indeed the most intolerant people out there. Have zero respect for anyone who digresses.

              1. Just stating the obvious.

                Looked up the word “atheist” in the dictionary, it said “see ‘douchebag.'”

  12. Why are atheist so desperate to be controlling of others. Propaganda on either side is useless. God knows all and sees all. The truth is light and those that dont believe in truth are drawn to the dark.

    1. Did you really just ask why atheists are so desperate to be controlling of others?? wow. I’m not an athiest, but I believe in what Christ said. The majority of Conservative “Christians” don’t believe in the true words of Christ and if they met Christ on the street would likely condemn him for not conforming to their beliefs. I call you folks ‘Bibleists’, not Christians. Perhaps you should look at yourselves with a true and honest light and agree that Christ would have been much more of a liberal than you will ever allow yourselves to become.

      1. I’m not telling the atheist they need to change their mind, I’m telling them to stop trying to rationalize and change a Christians mind. Yes, Christ. Do you own a mirror because you have the same ability to question what you are projecting.

  13. 99 % of militant atheist today are also homosexuals.. So that explains why they hate religion and deny God.. its because of what they do..

    1. That’s pushing it. I think it’s most likely the other way around- 99 percent of homosexuals are agnostic, secular or atheist.
      I know quite a few happy heterosexual atheists.

      1. Sadly a lot of them are pushed towards that direction, away from family, support, community because of beliefs not so different than what OP stated.

        That’s alright spiderman, us humanists will give them the support and community you have denied them.

    2. Are you people insane? No wonder sane people ridicule your belief system. It sounds like a cross between the crusades and a 9 year old.

      1. Your not kidding , no intelligence level even to enter into a conversation of what a Christian should be , this is why people become atheist,

  14. I prefer transcripts. Even with 4G and an ipad or 4G and Windows 7 video presents lots of aggravations.

  15. A side note that seems relevant to the comments section. I am reading G.K. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy; his journey from atheist to Christian. What convinced him? Or C.S. Lewis who made that journey. These are not weak thinkers, easily swayed.

  16. A atheist always says to himself;
    “I trust no one, not even myself.”
    Joseph Stalin……

    And what does God call a atheist?

    Proverbs 28:26—
    “He who trusts in his own heart is a fool,
    But whoever walks wisely will be delivered.”

    Should we listen to fools?

    Proverbs 1:7
    “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,
    But fools despise wisdom and instruction.”

    Mark was correct in calling the caller intolerant, he lacks
    any wisdom about the countries beginnings; the
    Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

    Atheists are fools, why would anyone want to listen to a fool?
    Mark wasted almost 10 minutes on a fool!

      1. I have no idea how old you are, or if you’re a parent, but if your child or someone you loved was doing something foolish, would you let them keep at it or tell them to stop?
        Calling someone a fool is pointing out ignorance.

      2. God called you a fool–sport.

        You turn your back on God, in turn, He’ll turn His back on you. Who says I should love you as a Christian man. If God doesn’t love a fool, then why should I care what you feel!

        Proverbs 15:2
        “The tongue of the wise uses knowledge rightly,
        But the mouth of fools pours forth foolishness.”

        Move-on fool! Go find your own kind—–
        “the walking dead!”

        1. Just, bathed in love! Yes, this is the kind of company I want to keep in my social circles, I’ll convert right now!

          1. Then don’t come here and provoke others. Your sarcastic, demeaning, ridicule is tiresome.

            1. Don’t blame me if someone comes into your house and discovers a train wreck. That is hardly my fault.

              1. That’s what I’m talking about. Most of you atheists have no manners. These are closely and profoundly held beliefs by Christians.
                I would think your mother meant better in how she raised you.

  17. So I can understand the readership here, IS IT actually important for a conservative leader to have faith? Why?

    Would you vote for an atheist conservative?

    1. Answer to second ?: No.
      Answer to first ? Obama, whatever his heartfelt faith really is, exemplifies the philisophical expression of atheistic moralizing. IOW, Obama and atheist share the deep seated conviction that IF they think they’re right, there’s no way to countervail their position. They basically assume the position of the godhead, which is incredibly dangerous.

      1. Why would you not vote for an atheist conservative? Assume they are entirely compatible with your views on governance and ethics/morals outside of their belief in a deity.

        1. there is no such thing as an atheist to a believer in God, therefore we don’t take atheists as complete yet. but time takes them where they need to go.

        2. Though I would respect his conservative values, I wouldn’t trust where he developed them from.
          There was a time in this country when I could have trusted an atheist conservative, since God was respected in the public square.
          God is ridiculed and those who believe in Him are insulted for their beliefs.
          This is a conservative site, most posters are believers, yet you can see how the atheist has taken the time to invade this thread, not to discuss, but to insult and ridicule.
          It’s the atheist behavior that makes me unwilling to trust that they really do support conservative values.

          1. Yeah, well if you take a look around some of the secularists and atheists that have come for logical respectful discourse haven’t been treated so peachy by ‘christians’ either.

            1. The atheist has come into my “home”, uninvited and began by trashing Christian beliefs, insulting and ridiculing along the way.
              It behooves the atheist to mind his or her manners and not provoke. Christians are human beings, with human emotions and in this day and age we are being more and more marginalized and insulted, so we tend to react.
              You’ll just have to get over that, or go elsewhere, since no one is forcing you to remain.

              1. I’m sorry to disrupt your supportive groupthink, it must take a great deal of organizing and mental flexibility to get over all that cognitive dissonance you must have to be so distraught over the questions I pose.

      2. I mean, don’t we all come up with our own decisions about what is right or wrong? Did you form your opinions on right or wrong solely by a guidebook? You have no trace of humanity, of empathy that tells you what is unjust?

        1. No. I didn’t just come up with my belief in God. God gave it to me. He will give it to all that are open to the light of the truth. Simple.

  18. On a side note, I find it bizarre Levin would imply faith, and Christian faith at that is almost a pre-requisite to conservatism, him personally being Jewish. I have to ask, is he personally comfortable with Christian school prayer lead by teachers employed by the government? Would he be OK with Hindu prayer? Wicca? How about Satanic?

    At what point is it not alright to indoctrinate his children with his tax dollars?

      1. Yeah but we know what his audience takes away from it, you don’t need to look very far into just this comment thread to understand the people he speaks to daily.

        1. Most of us here know that Mark Levin is not a Christian, but like some of the Jewish faith, he understands that it is the Christian faith which this country was founded on, and because of that Jews and virtually every other person of a different faith has been able to freely worship here.

          1. Thank you for the insightful reply,

            It isn’t because of the Christian faith, it is because of western christian philosophers that we have the ability to freely worship here. We could have easily ended up a puritan nation and your opinion of free worship in this country and how Christianity impacted it would be very different indeed.

            1. The earliest pilgrims were puritans and others, and yes they set up separate colonies for their separate style of worship, yet the fact remains that the founders for the most part were Christians, among them pastors from different denominations who came together and based our Independence and our Constitution on their beliefs- because true Bible believing Christians know that everyone has free will, and while we try to share the Gospel, we leave it up to the individual to decide.
              That’s why even if Bible believing Christians dominated the government- as they have, we would not be a theocrasy or some taliban type dictatorship that so many militant atheists try and claim.
              Liberty comes from God, and each person has them- until they allow a government who has overstepped their duties and presumed humanist ‘god’ titles for themselves take their liberties away.

              1. I don’t deny the founders were christian, though how many fit today’s definition of christian is debatable, including some very important figures which I am sure you are well aware of.

                My point is that it isn’t the Christianity that lead them to found a nation and its framework to be such that it respected free worship, it was western philosophy and minimal government that did this. The idea that people are not subjects to be ruled over but free citizens who run their government. None of that comes from Christianity.

                1. The founders read western philosophies such as the Magna Carta, the Mayflower compact, the earliest Charters, the Bible and Blackstone’s Commentaries among other works- so of course the philosophies came through in our founding documents. That’s just the point- they read Christian based works, and formed a free Government by the people, for the people because of it.
                  They had seen other forms of government based on human ideologies, and godless ones, other ideologies and knew the Christian based would work. And it did until humanist/secularism started shoving Chrisitanity out.

                2. Only one of those is Christian canon, however much faith played a role in other philosophies, there is nothing in the Bible that says go forth and create a democracy with free worship.

                3. To put it another way, and to invoke Godwin’s law if you’ll forgive it, if every idea that comes out of Christian people is attributable to Christianity, then the holocaust would have to be a Christian idea.

                  Of course, that’s *ridiculous*, it was the idea of a group of very hateful people who happened to be Christian, and used the stigma against thew Jewish people as ‘christ killers’ and ‘not christian’ as leverage to gain public support for their inhumane treatment.

                  Sounds kind of recently familiar from some of the things I’ve read here, referring to entire groups of people as ‘fools’ based on what they believe, not that I would ever compare the suffering of the Jews in the holocaust to the suffering of the non-christians or the homosexuals in america, but the mixture of hatred is made up of the same ingredients.

                  Similarly, American democracy is a wonderful idea by people who predominantly were Christian or at least deists with Christian leanings.

                4. Hitler may have been raised as a christian, but he was not a christian. There’s nothing Christian about his beliefs of a superior race, or his atrocities.

                5. No offense meant, but I was taught that kind of logic was a double standard. Not everything good can be Christian influenced while everything bad is not Christian influenced.

                  You can’t deny anti-semitism was rampant around the world in this era and almost endorsed by many Christians as they always thought of the Jews as Christ killers or unenlightened at best.

                  I don’t blame a religion for that. I blame people. People will use whatever they can get ahold of to justify their bigotry. Similarly, people often attribute much of their humanity and their kindness and their philosophy to their religion, but the truth is it is what is in their heart that makes these things.

                  Be that as it may that good and evil lies in all of us inherently, I will say I don’t think it has benefitted the world very much to believe in Objective right and wrong, because as soon as you introduce the concept of Objective morality, you lose a great deal of potential to be swayed by logic while you are harming society for your ‘Objective good’.

                6. Oh I don’t doubt there are christians who do evil things- and letting someone like Hitler get away with the amount he did by many in the church is a black mark on the churches they belonged to.

                  People are inherently evil, and all have sinned. The only difference between Bible believing Christians and others is that we have asked for and received forgiveness.

                  There are dark times in Christianity- the religion’s history. Many people have done things in the “Name of Christianity” which go against everything Jesus taught. Which is not a mark on Christ, but a mark on those who profess to follow them.

                  None of us are perfect, no matter what our beliefs- so even if a Bible believing Christian held the office of President again, or a seat in the House, they’d still be human and make human mistakes- however it still goes that Christian believers who have been political leaders in our country know and respect that we all have rights which can’t be taken away. Not so with secularists.

                7. Well you use the word secularist, which is interesting because there have been many secularist presidents in the sense that they believe religion should not be married to government, some of which like Thomas Jefferson disagreed with the supernatural so much that he compiled his own bible and removed all supernatural occurrences, and he is arguably one of the greatest philosophers our nation has ever had.

                8. See my reply above about Jefferson…who also said,

                  “ The doctrinesof Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

                  And, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”

                  And, “God who gaveus life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties
                  are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?”

                9. Yeah, I can understand how the definition of Christian can be purely philosophical, but in your own response it would be impossible for him to be a Christian if he didn’t believe in the supernatural, and he was very outspoken about religion not interfering with government, which makes him kind of a secularist in my view, and laid a lot of the very framework of our republic.

                10. “The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.” Thomas Jefferson

                  “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” Thomas Jefferson

                  “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” Thomas Jefferson

                  “Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.” Thomas Jefferson

                  “Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.” Thomas Jefferson

                  “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter.” Thomas Jefferson

              2. Also as I am sure you are well aware, God has many meanings, and in a deistic sense inalienable god given rights can imply natural law or rights derived from our humanity and our ethics, which always were from birth and bear the mark of ‘God’, as in our maker, speaking vaguely whoever or whatever ‘God’ might be.

    1. Christianity is the true step-child of Judaism. Indeed, the New Testament says we are brought into the family by adoption. They’re morally, mirror images. Nothing to debate there. Bringing in the prayer thing is a false start.

      1. If you’re saying the New Testament and Old Testament are morally the same then the New Testament is morally deficient to the point of worthlessness. The Old Testament is pro slavery, pro genocide, pro infanticide, and for all intents and purposes pro rape. The punishment for wearing mixed fabrics is death. The punishment for rape is being forced to pay the father of the the person they raped 50 shekels, and then forcing the raped individual to marry their rapist. That is not morality, at least not by any modern standard. If the bible was inspired by your deity, then your deity is not all knowing, since he/she can’t come up with timeless laws.

    2. I’m a Jew. I went to secular schools before prayer and all things Godly were removed.
      My teachers prayed, some had a Bible on the desk, there were pictures of Jesus posted here and there around the school. The 10 commandments were posted. Not once was I insulted, or felt left out, or less then anyone else. I was never offended, not once. Why? Part of the reason was because no one told me I should be offended.
      The other part was it was accepted behavior, the secularist had not yet gained a strong hold on public education or in the halls of congress, state and national.
      I never felt indoctrinated as I was not and neither was any child. You use that line as an excuse to believe what you will.
      We learned the basics of math, spelling, reading, composition, etc.., there was little or no time left for “indoctrination”.

      1. Thank you for that insightful and genuine response.

        I still have to pose the question though, what if it were something other than christianity like wiccan rituals or devil worship?

          1. So you aren’t OK with that? Would you go far enough to say the teacher engaged in such practices be fired?

            1. I’m not engaging in a discussion with you, Toggi3.
              You are rude and condescending to my beliefs and experiences.
              I don’t know what your purpose is by coming to this website on this thread. Are you trying to make us unbelievers? If so, you’re engaged in the same thing you accuse Christians of doing, if not, then you’re just here to gloat and demean.
              I don’t have time for either.
              I think you’re a worried person, worried we’re right and you are wrong.
              You won’t find peace or strength by demeaning the way others find peace and strength.
              I don’t wish you any ill, but I wish you the grace it takes to treat others who believe differently then you do with respect.

              1. Nope, not my goal to make anyone believe anything, go for it. I’m just posing a question, are you uncomfortable answering it?

                1. Did you read my whole post? If not, go back and read it again.
                  Further, if you’re not here to proselytize, then you’re here to demean and argue with beliefs that are dear and near to the believer.

                2. I read it, it fails to answer what i believe is a fundamental part of my question, it is a yes or no question. Is it OK for government paid staff in a school setting to have, or possibly lead muslim or hindu prayer? How about hang symbols or words from their prophets in view of students? Would you have been equally OK with that as pictures of jesus and the like?

                  If that is inflammatory, I can’t imagine why other than it is NOT OK with you for a reason you are uncomfortable admitting.

                3. Also if you read my posts that are less than fully polite they are always after being called a ‘leftist thug’ or being called a ‘fool’ or other. I entered into this thread stating that the GOP would be a better party to focus on governance than spiritual belief, and that it does itself and the cause of conservatism as a whole great harm by trying to legislate morality over liberty for no other reason than morality’s sake. I think that is a worthwhile message, and I think the GOP would capture more people if it became a movement strictly focused on small government, individual liberty, state’s rights, but it isn’t just that. In the GOP there is a Christian Taliban at work, they are not all the Christians, by no means are they even a significant fraction of them, but they rule the GOP right now and the majority of spiritually reasonable people are finding themselves having to choose between two horrible choices.

                4. While I am not a bully here to demean people’s beliefs, I won’t be trampled on myself without protest and counter ridicule. If you don’t want the conversation of why I believe how I believe and what I think is wrong with religion, don’t try to convert me, don’t call me a fool, don’t tell me I’m damned, don’t call me a liar to say I am conservative. It’s that easy.

                  Now, none of that has come from you in particular, but you kind of dragged yourself into it as though I were out to ridicule and demean you. I’m not, not at all. I’m just not going to take crap from others that would try to ridicule and demean me or judge me of lesser value than the rest of humanity, and for that I make no apologies. If you believe the phrase Christian Taliban is too cruel, I refer to you all the people who seek to alienate me from conservatism because I don’t believe. There is a thug like atmosphere in the GOP right now where nonbelievers are unappreciated in their ranks, this attitude is unnecessary, it does nothing to help the movement and dooms the GOP to failure, it gives the Democrats all kinds of leverage with people. This is why I say I look inside your house and see a train wreck, and that isn’t my fault, after you figuratively compared this forum to your home.

  19. It’s interesting to see a few atheists post so many comments just to get people of faith angry via there petulance albeit they consider it humor.

    How many Americans are atheists? The numbers is less than 3 million in a nation of over 300 million. Atheists may try to obfuscate thier numbers by using percentages, but don’t let them get away with that game. They’re just a loud group of whiners. But they lack the numbers to have a true impact in American politics.

    That’s the reason why they are so litigious. With out the right to sue, they would remain a tiny minority seldom heard from.

    BTW, don’t let them spread disinformation by including agnostics. Agnostics simply don’t know whether God exists. They may not be people of faith, but they normally avoid religious based politics. And they’d don’t file lawsuits over a public cross.

        1. I have no disdain for any religion. They truly mean nothing to me. I do have a disdain for religion in government. And by that, I mean using government to promote religion. I have no problem with a candidates or office holders beliefs, as long as they understand where their beliefs end and their service to the populace begins.

          1. That’s hilarious. There’s nowhere in the Constitution which states a politician has to leave his/her beliefs at the door. As for where their beliefs end and service to the people begin- people rule or lead from their convictions, whether they believe those convictions come from God or whether they believe they come from themselves.

            You would have hated this country at the time of the founding.

            1. If you truly want to serve the populace as a whole, you do not let your religious convictions hold sway. Government is a secular entity. You set aside your private beliefs and govern for all. Not easy. Maybe not realistic. But it is the way it should be done.

              Easy for me to say…I have no religion to get in the way.

              1. How can you guarentee allowing people’s liberties when you don’t know where they come from?

                The reason why we’re even having this thread to discuss on is the freedom of speech and religion- which guarentees our rights to speak publically, politically and religiously because our founders recognized our rights come from God.

                It’s those who want a ‘secular’ governement with no religion who are the first to take others’ rights away.

          2. “I have no disdain for any religion. They truly mean nothing to me. I do have a disdain for religion in government.”

            Which is you do or you don’t have disdain for religion? You say one thing then quantify it negating what you said…

            1. Correction. Disdain would not be the proper word. I am against religious beliefs being involved in government.

              That being said, I do not contradict myself. The fact that religion means nothing to me on a personal level does not mean I can’t be against it’s involvement in government.

              1. You paint with a wide brush then attempt to cover up what you paint. Yes, I would say disdain is accurate!

                “That being said, I do not contradict myself. The fact that religion means nothing to me on a personal level does not mean I can’t be against it’s involvement in government.” That would be true if you were not an atheist, however you have already admitted you are (atheist) so you’ve already prejudiced yourself as anti religious. IOW you are against religion so you would naturally be against religion in government.

                1. Not believing in gods does not make me anti religious. Non religious would be the better term.
                  I just do not accept the use of the government to promote any religious view.

                2. How many comments have you posted on this column? I get it; your not religious and don’t believe in God. You made that abundantly clear in your first few comments yesterday. Since then, all of posts are akin to a broken record.

                  Now tell me what potential presidential candidate from either party supports using government to promote any religion? The answer is simple – NONE and your wasting everyone’s time on a non issue to promote atheism. And that’s sad pal.

      1. Why don’t you just come right out and say it.
        “Racist” “Sexist” “Homophobe”.
        Who you CAN ‘profile’ = White, ‘straight’ Christian, male, conservatives.
        Who you CAN’T ‘profile’ = Everybody else.
        😉

    1. Since people of faith claim to be so tolerant, why would an atheist think anything would rile you up?

          1. “Since people of faith claim to be so tolerant, why would an atheist think anything would rile you up?” But you will jump to conclusions…

      1. How many of the comments posted on this thread have you read? I’ve read numerous because of the topic.

        There were far too many that where sophomoric obnoxious attacks of Christians and since you comment often at the Scoop, you know there’s a majority who are fundamental Christians.

        My post was directed to people I’ve come to know and respect who were being targeted based on their religious beliefs. I can see through some of that chicanery and I don’t get upset by such commentary.

        I don’t know the point you are attempting to make. Are you an atheist? Are you criticizing me? Whatever the case may be, you won’t rile me up by critizing Christianity. I gladly discuss the topic with one atheist earlier today that was lengthy, but was civil.

        But when I see strongly held beliefs being attacked by trolls, I will step in qnd defend people who I admire greatly.

    2. As it relates to conservative leaders having faith or not, which is more on topic for this specific call on this page, agnosticism is equivalent to atheism. Arguably, anything outside of Christian faith applies here, since it is clear from hearing many conservative pundits they certainly don’t mean they would appreciate muslim conservative leaders. When Mr. Levin states he wants a leader of strong faith he almost certainly implies Christian faith, which is kind of a weird thing for a Jewish guy, but he’s very smart and he knows his audience, he knows what people are thinking when he speaks about the importance of faith into his mic.

      1. You forgot to say in your opinion, which that is, and of course placing words in someone else mouth. When did you become the spokesman for Mr Levin?

        1. I left room for being wrong, I said almost certainly. Either he means Christian faith, yet for some reason isn’t a Christian himself, or he means God in general, but as smart as he is, he knows he is being disingenuous with his listeners by not specifying ‘general belief in god’. I am open to the third possibility that he is just ignorant of his own audience, and he is being 100% honest, but I doubt it.

          1. I repeat my question which you did not answer only continued on to attack Mr Levin. Seems you are an anti-Semite. So reread my post above then try again to answer without painting yourself further into a corner…

            Your last sentence shows the true you, and it isn’t pretty!

            1. I answered, that I left room for being wrong using the words almost certainly, so I am not putting words in his mouth, I am just analyzing what he says in the context of his personal faith and in the context of who his listeners are and lastly in the context of his great intelligence and it doesn’t make sense to me.

              1. No you gave third possibility, again commenting for him your opinion but only “open” to one of your beliefs.

                Well thank goodness no ever accused you of be intelligent, they’d sure look foolish now had they. Instead you claim to know what Mr Levin’s faith is, who his listeners are, “and lastly the context of his great intelligence”. Next time take the foot out of your mouth and keep the later closed, then you might appear at least to have some semblance of intelligence, instead you remove any doubt in your favor by commenting.

                1. When did I confuse religion with faith? Google is corrupt? I mean alright, use whatever resource you want to look up his faith.

                  Look at yourself man, you’re coming apart at the seams to rage at me and you don’t even know what for.

                2. Trying to change the subject, sure sign the leftist has lost!

                  “When did I confuse religion with faith?” When you claimed to know his faith!

                3. But I do know his faith, he’s a Jewish man arguing for Christianity in government. As a Jewish man, he doesn’t believe in Jesus and subsequently Christianity, he rarely if ever talks about his faith or whether he even attends religious services.

                  That’s true regardless whether you want to believe in it or not.

                4. In short he probably doesn’t believe in what he is pushing when he says a candidate should have strong faith, with his listeners in majority presuming he means Christians, and he knows it unless he is stupid, and I dare not call him stupid because I believe he is actually quite smart and well learned.

                5. You claim to know others faith, beliefs, and thoughts, all you really do is make yourself look bad. I doubt you have beliefs that someone else has not told you, and no doubt are wrong based on your presumptions of others!

                  Mr Levin has gotten under your skin and really bothered you. He has made you show your bigotry towards people of religions.

                6. Cool story bro.

                  He displayed great intolerance too while shouting from the mountains about how tolerant Christians are, even comparing himself, despite not being a christian.

                  I still don’t know how much I like people of religions, but I know I don’t like the ones here. I’ve encountered a lot of illogical people who took questions for insults and spouted hatred, but you people have taken it to a new level. Enjoy being the last of your kind while it lasts as the future will likely not remember you for very long or think you contributed anything worthwhile. Perhaps you’ll go down in history books as the people who halted rational conservative opposition to the rapid expansion of socialism.

                7. Hey pot, kettle calling again, might want to check yourself seems your bigotry is overflowing!

                  As always in your opinion, but then you never mentioned that, you just assume your view is the correct and only acceptable one!

                  By the way, not liking someone that doesn’t agree with you doesn’t speak well of you.

                  “Enjoy being the last of your kind while it lasts as the future will likely not remember you for very long or think you contributed anything worthwhile.” Back at you “bro”.

                  “Perhaps you’ll go down in history books as the people who halted rational conservative opposition to the rapid expansion of socialism.” Funny how you come here where people are against socialism, are conservative and rational and claim otherwise, where have I seen you do that kind of thing before? Oh yeah, when you speak for other people and claim you know them like you did with Mr Levin! Same old same old from you.

                  The only one you are conning is yourself. You practice deceit claiming one thing while doing another, either you don’t realize it or you are dishonest. I believe the latter based off of your posts and interaction with others.

                  Bye bye!

                8. As far as who his listeners are, look no further than this page, ask a few of them if they think when Mr. Levin says he wants a candidate to have faith if they think he means muslims too. Go on, prove me wrong if you can, or have you only got insults and no substance to your claims?

                9. Does this page represent all of his listeners? Do you know them?

                  You are the one making the claims, I’m merely calling you on them. Nice try attempting to turn it on me, however you are off subject… And again you seem to have taken on the role of Mr Levin’s spokesman knowing what he means.

                  Do you think he would be okay with Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu, etc. or do you only have a problem with certain people of certain faith’s?

      2. Levin doesn’t need my help to defend himself. So I’m not going to engage in a chat about him. However, you’re incorrect about atheist and agnostics.

        Agnostics are not atheists and there is no etymology association of the two words. Agnostic was coined by a Darwinist in the 1800 hundreds. It’s definition is literally lacking the ‘knowledge’ to comprehend God.

        The etymology comes from a group of early Christians who disagreed with the Church from around 100 AD to 400 AD – Gnostic. They had there own holy Scriptures and believed every human processed the ability to gain the knowledge that Jesus had.

        1. I know they are not the same, but they are both people without faith in the context of what Mr. Levin says when he talks about the importance of faith in conservative leaders.

          It doesn’t matter whether you claim no knowledge of god or whether you do not believe in god, both positions are not really ‘strong faith’.

          1. As I stated, I’m not going to spend time defending Levin. He stated his belief and then took the call from the atheist who had problems with his call to elect people of faith.

            You know how ‘Talk Radio’ works. They screen callers and the producers knew they had someone who was an atheist and would object by attempting to use the Constitution. That’s what makes good radio and why Mark is called the Great One.

            But if you’re going to challenge Levin on constitutional issues, you must be a scholar of the Constitution and American history as well.

            1. Not as much a challenge on constitutional grounds as much as it is a challenge on plain logic and honesty. Mr. Levin is very smart, and he is a scholar I respect deeply, and while it doesn’t drive me ‘Crazy’ that he invokes God from time to time in his speaking, I find it weird for him to defend Christian faith based lawmaking to the extent that nonbelievers need not apply or aren’t good candidates for him, when he himself doesn’t believe.

  20. Suppose
    I say, “I could care less but I don’t know how.” It makes perfect
    sense. Any grammatical errors there? So to say “I could care less.”
    is conditional upon something in the speaker’s mind as to how she
    ‘could care less.’ Thus either “I couldn’t care less” or “I
    could care less” make sense in their own situations.

    1. To say “I could care less” means you don’t care that much. Mr. Levin cared quite a bit.

  21. Atheism is a negative religion based on doubt and pessimism. It offers no hope, and it has no appeal, except to the smug who are attracted to the false notion of being smarter than everyone else by not believing in “myths” and “superstitions.” But what atheists do believe in is a myth because it is totally unproven and unprovable. No one can prove that God does not exist. However, God can prove his existence whenever he chooses to do so. In fact, according to eyewitness testimonies through the ages, God has already proven his existence by manifesting himself to many witnesses. Atheists use circular reasoning to discount these Biblical witnesses saying that because God does not exist, the witnesses must have lied or been deceived. But they have no compelling evidence to reject them. While atheists call on others to doubt their beliefs, they are never allowed to doubt their own unbelief. They will be scorned and thrown out of the club if they do.

    1. “Atheism is a negative religion based on doubt and pessimism.” Ok it is clear from your first sentence that have have no clue what you are talking about…

      1. I keep asking, but none of you have the nerve to answer.
        WHO or WHAT unleashes you atheists every time a thread like this is posted?
        You’re so insecure in your own beliefs that you people feel the need to troll these kind of threads.
        It’s so obvious.

        1. Troll? I follow Mark Levin because I have been listening since he has been on the air. I am sorry I didn’t know we were all expected to agree with each other? What Nerve I guess!

            1. It’s not a belief or system. Please research things you speak about. Will make you look less ignorant.

              1. You sure feel the need to blather on about something “neutral”. You’re insecure like the vast majority of atheists, not all are, mind you…but, you’re surely one of them.

                1. I am not claiming to know the hearts and minds of millions while insulting someone who hasn’t said one unkind word to me up until the umteenth time they word rude to me. But then again you are clearly demonstrating the humility of your religion and the secureness of your character. cheers

        2. Don’t waste your time on this one – he has only 1 post on Disqus and it’s the one above.

        3. Atheists can make up an atheist symbol…Someone will figure out a way to express this view… Start a club…I don’t care if you have a symbol up with the rest. But stop demanding that people of faith shut up. It wont happen.

        4. Feeling like under attack for our faith, which by the way doesn’t come at no cost. It does. That is my beef with this argument. Make your sign of non belief…Matters not to a believer.

      2. A religion is based on a belief that is taken on faith. Atheism is based on a negative belief that has to be taken on faith because it cannot be proven. It even has its share of evangelical atheists out to convert the world. As for being based on doubt and pessimism, name something positive or optimistic that flows from atheism?

        1. No it is a neutral position based on the rejection of a claim that has no reasonable or demonstrable evidence. It would be like calling your non-belief of the Hindu God Ganesh or Viking god Thor a religion. It is not a Negative Belief. There is no such thing.

          1. You people are so insecure in your belief system that you find it necessary to troll sites for threads that are speaking of Christianity. It’s really pathetic and only gives credence to the lack of respect your posts warrant.

            1. I don’t troll sites. I follow Mark Levin. Own several of his books, and this link showed up on my news feed. Wow. You guys are paranoid!

              1. Not paranoid. Just sick of being insulted by those such as yourself who think they are so superior.
                Get lost, you’re worthless.

            2. I came here via a post on Fb by a friend (a conservative god loving friend, mind you). Sorry to interrupt your atheist bashing!

              1. You come here and bash Christianity, but it’s we who are bashing atheists….have you had your head scanned to see if your brain is in backwards?

                1. What have I said that bashes Christianity?
                  Tell you what…here’s a taste.
                  You want to base your life on a several thousand year old tribal superstiton. Go ahead. But keep it in your life and keep it out of mine. That is all I ask.
                  Me? I will take reality.

                2. You’re worried. You’re worried we’re right and you’re wrong. Otherwise you wouldn’t care enough to even stop by here, bash closely and dearly held beliefs by people you’ll never meet.
                  Only those who are make the noise are worried.

          2. A neutral position would be agnosticism (being without knowledge.) Disbelieving is not the same thing as lacking belief. Atheists like to confuse the two. So it would help if those who lack belief but keep an open mind would call themselves agnostics. Let those who disbelieve and have closed their mind to God use the term “atheist.”

        2. The freedom to be myself, not beholden to a religion that is…wait for it….based on doubt and pessimism.

            1. If you’re so disgusted with this “lot”, then why not prove it and move along and stop trying to soothe your own insecurities by putting down what others believe.
              Your mother would not be proud, I would hope.

                1. No, I’m not in middle school. But, I have enough manners not to invade someone else’s home and insult their beliefs.
                  You were raised by your mother, I presume.

    2. Well, I have yet to meet an atheist as you describe them.
      Your beliefs are your beliefs, and I, as an atheist, have no problem with that. However, religion is not a basis for government, and should not be promoted as such. Government should be secular while being respectful of everyone’s right to religious practice in private or their house of worship.

      1. Yes, I agree that government should be neutral on the subject of religion. But banning religion from the public square is not being neutral. The Constitution tries to strike a balance by not allowing for the establishment of one religion over another or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. When you chase religion out of the public square, you’re prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That does not create a neutral environment. Instead, it creates a vacuum that is filled by philosophies which claim not to be religious but often are. So you end up establishing certain beliefs, like atheism, over others. Eventually, you end up like North Korea where the official religion is atheism, but everyone is required to worship the state and bow down to Dear Leader.

        1. Your monument in the PUBLIC square IS a problem. A public square is not private property. Therefore your are attempting to impose a religious view via a government process. That is a no.

          1. And the atheists have what they worship – which is nothing – posted everywhere, what do you pose we do about that, in the name of being fair of course?

            You see by being a “public square” the square is for the public, and since most people are religious then having religion in the public square does make it a square of and for the “public”. Having no religious symbols in the “public square”clearly makes the public square a “religious” square for atheists!

            In other words atheists religion worships nothing so where ever nothing is on displayed is showing favoritism to atheists, which they seem okay with, funny that is!

            But of course atheists will deny this…

            1. So any building or space that doesn’t have “God” plastered on it is atheistic? That’s just ridiculous. I think someone needs to explain the difference between secular and atheist. I’d also like to point out that it isn’t just atheism vs christianity. There also aren’t any Satanist, Jewish, or Muslim monuments on courthouse lawns, and they also deserve equal representation in any public forum.

              1. Interesting enough you are wrong, but don’t let that stop you!

                God is different things to different people. Atheists have no God by definition, how is it then that a public square that contains no mention of God, whatever God maybe, cannot be considered a display to atheists, therefore favoring atheists in a public square? How is that ridiculous?

                1. It’s ridiculous to think that the absence of a religious display makes the place atheistic. So a national park is an atheist monument?

                2. If ones belief is atheist how can it not? If one doesn’t believe in God yet demands that others who do not be able to display their belief’s in the same public location how is that not favoring atheists beliefs?

                  “It’s ridiculous to think that the absence of a religious display makes the place atheistic.” Why? Those of belief are not screaming there should be religious displays everywhere, only those that do not believe are screaming their view be everywhere on public display! Those whom do not believe in “God” want any public display of “God” removed on public land, and many times on private land viewable by the public!

                3. Christians are allowed to display religious monuments on public lands, just so long as they’re willing to let other religions, and nonreligions, put up their own equal monuments right next to it. There’s an atheist monument (a stone bench covered in sayings by great secularists) at a courthouse in Florida, right next to a stone ten commandments. There’s also a plan for a Satanic monument to be installed as well.

                  And yes, Christians are screaming to have their ten commandments on public lands, that’s why atheists, and the ACLU, are constantly in the news for law suits. They’re either trying to keep government unbiased, or trying to keep the science in science class. By the way, if it isn’t falsifiable it isn’t science. That means creationism isn’t science, no matter how you try to package it.

                  And you’ll have to tell me about the instances where someone was sued to remove a religious display from their private property, because there’s no way that case would win. The only thing I can think of is if it were a structure that violated some sort of ordinance.

                4. How is religious displays on public land biased?

                  Who told you that?

                  Generally speaking religious groups are fighting to keep their displays, where as atheists and the aclu are fighting to remove displays and install their displays – nothing, which of course is their religion. “that’s why atheists, and the ACLU, are constantly in the news for law suits.”

                  There are plenty of examples of religious displays on private property being sued to have removed, usually using a new zoning ordinance against a long standing display. If you do your own research you will many, I will not “have to tell you”, of course that probably doesn’t fit your agenda or views…

                  Can you explain why if atheists don’t agree with someones religious display they want it removed?
                  Why the hate?
                  Why they cannot except someone else’s views?
                  Why do they not believe in freedom to worship? Do they think someone is trying to convert them, are they like “homophobic” against religions?
                  Can you name other religions beside Christian atheists and the aclu are suing?

                5. The government is not supposed to favor any faith over another. A purely Christian display on public lands, without equal representation from other religions, or nonreligions, is horribly unconstitutional, since it is the government officially favoring a particular faith over all the others.

                  Like I said before, a lack of a monument is not an atheist monument. There is an atheist monument on a courthouse lawn down in Florida, if you’d like to know what an atheist monument looks like (a stone bench covered in sayings by great secularists). It sits right next to a statue of the ten commandments, and soon a statue of Satan. Can I assume since you’re all about freedom to worship that those monuments are all OK with you?

                  The ACLU sues anyone breaking the constitution. If you find yourself getting sued by the ACLU you’re probably breaking the law.

                  If a religious structure was taken down due to zoning regulations then that probably had nothing to do with it being religious in nature. You’re breaking zoning laws when you have structures that are too tall, too deep, too wide, or too close to the public right of way. There’s probably a few other ways you can break zoning laws, but they have nothing to do with religion.

                  Say what you want but according to George Washington, and John Adams, this country “is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” So having a Christian monument standing as a testament to Christianity on public lands, without any other religions represented goes against what the founding fathers wanted for our country.

                  No body is going after churches, except when they break the law. They’re still enjoying the $billions in tax breaks, and no one is going into a church and telling them what they can and can’t preach. They’re even allowed to stand on street corners and protest the funerals of soldiers, and that right is protected by law. Religion is allowed in schools, so long as the teachers teach about all faiths equally and objectively, and don’t pray in class. However religion is not allowed in science classrooms, since religion isn’t science. As long as churches and school don’t break the law they won’t get sued. It isn’t religious persecution to uphold the law, even when it’s a religious organization breaking the law.

                6. I have a very hard time taking your leftist riddle posts of opinions and strawman arguments seriously. The only thing that shines through is of course you are a leftist, and you hate religion. However the most glaring and damaging to you is the repeating of what others have told you. The sad part is you points just aren’t accurate…

                  Bye bye

                7. “leftist riddle posts” That’s funny. It seems like you’re having trouble comprehending the facts of your position, at least from a legal stand point. All of my points are backed up with hard facts.
                  I think you might want to look up cognitive dissonance…

          2. A public square is public property- hense the fact that it’s public. Interesting. Liberty Square was once public property before it became a national park of sorts- shall we remove the liberty bell?

              1. As a matter of fact, it has a Bible scripture quote on it yes.”Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof” Which is taken from Levitcus 25:10

                1. Now there you go, confusing these characters with facts. You know where that’s going to lead. 😉 😉

                2. I would consider that neutral. I would not read that and see it as religious text. Now, if the Leviticus 25:10 was included, I would feel differently.

        2. Atheists aren’t outright opposed to a display of religion on public ground. They’re opposed to only having a Christian display on public land. If you’d be willing to have Jewish, Humanist, and Satanist monuments right next to the ten commandments, then I doubt many atheists would have a problem with it. The fact of the matter is that, historically, you don’t want all religions (or nonreligions) to have an equal footing in government. It seems people want Christians to have a privileged place in the government. I was in the army for four years. I fought for my country, and I don’t want to feel like I’m unwelcome in my government. Having god plastered all over a country that’s supposed to have a separation of church and state, makes it hard for people who don’t believe in a deity to feel welcome. If you promote one over the others you’re bound to alienate someone.

      2. It is not a” basis” for government, Cigol, as much as a desire for candidates to be likeminded to a voters’ core belief. Its how we ALL vote,…with our personal common core beliefs…How can that change now in a persons strategy to vote in America?? Vote for an atheist if you choose…..it is OK… That is what we do…we vote. Nothing new under the sun…How did this get this complicated..??

        1. Do you vote for a candidate expecting them to use their religious beliefs as a means of running the government?

    3. Atheism is not “a negative religion based on doubt and pessimism.” It is an ideology that requires physical proof before the individual is willing to invest themselves in a belief. Eyewitness testimony is ridiculously unreliable, just ask all the inmates set free by DNA evidence after they were imprisoned by the testimony of an eyewitness. Your god hasn’t bothered to make his presence known since science developed the tools necessary to test “miraculous” claims. Also, when a person of faith says that no amount of evidence will ever be able to take away their faith in a deity, they are admitting to being unreasonable.

      1. There are different types of atheists. I wish the ones you describe would call themselves “agnostics.” Others who militantly claim that there is no God are certainly investing in a belief without proof — the belief that there is no God. And many such atheists make it clear that no evidence, testimony, or logical argument will ever be able to take away that conviction.

        1. The idea that a god exists is non-falsifiable, and therefore non-scientific. Without physical evidence there is no basis for belief, and there is no physical evidence for a god. Also, the bible is arguably the most edited book in history, so the notion that it could be the word of god is baseless. For 300+ years it was copied by hand by illiterate tribesmen who had no idea what they were copying. Picture the game of telephone going on for 3 centuries. I don’t know of a single atheist who wouldn’t believe in a deity if one came down and proved it. Atheism is about evidence, not conviction.

          1. You don’t know much about those illiterate tribesmen do you?
            As for that, the Dead Sea Scrolls proved that the Word was the same when it was written as to when it was found.
            The Bible is not the most edited book, but it is the most scrutinized, and most who have investigated it have come to the same or similar conclusions, that compared to manuscripts of other writings of the same time periods the Scriptures have much more geographical/historical and archeologically accuracy.

            1. “What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don’t have the originals! We only have error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways…, There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.” – Bart Ehrman

              Bart Ehrman is one of the foremost experts on the New Testament.

                1. Oh I don’t think so. I don’t need to. I’ve read plenty- like you, I have experts. Maybe you ought to read more of them. As I said, proof is in the geographical/historical and archaeological evidence that not only were the Gospels written within 100 years of the event, but the Old Testament as well is proven accurate at least those which were found in the cave by the Dead Sea.
                  As for the new, one only needs to read the Gospel of Luke to see how accurately he noted everything.

                2. Even though Bart teaches at a Christian college, and is a Christian, you’re still unwilling to look into any evidence that might hurt your faith?

                3. Nothing can ‘hurt’ my faith. While I was raised in a Christian/secular home, I came to my faith through questioning, investigating other religions, philosophies and ideologies, read both sides of the arguments for the Bible, read the Bible, read other religious books.
                  Every bit of ‘evidence’ has strengthened my faith.

                4. Ever notice how fast these Atheists can seem to dredge up a ‘Christian’ (or something like that), when they are trying to make a point? 😉 😉

                5. I was raised Catholic/Methodist. I came to nontheism after years of study and reflection.

                6. I no longer see faith as a virtue. Faith just means you believe in something without evidence. If you have evidence you don’t have to take it on faith anymore. I don’t think you should invest yourself in something that has no physical evidence to support it.

                7. “Faith just means you believe in something without evidence.”
                  PROVE to me there is no ‘God’. You seem to have ‘faith’ that there is no such thing?

                8. There is no physical evidence for a god. It doesn’t take faith to not believe something that has no physical evidence.

                9. I have no physical evidence that there was a guy who built my car, yet I had faith that he existed because I see the creation. And I trust it enough to drive.

                  There is no physical evidence of God in YOUR opinion.

                10. There is most definitely evidence that a person built your car. You can look up pay stubs, camera footage, work history, and maybe even talk to the guy that built it. Of course it’s more likely that your car was built by a computer that was programmed by a person, but there’d be firsthand records of that too.

                11. That’s my point. There is evidence a Creator “built” all I see around me. I can look at the words in the Bible, along with evidence spoken through the spirit of my Creator and even talk to the Son, who “built it”

                12. No you’re looking at secondhand accounts. And even if they were firsthand accounts, you’d still have to factor in that eyewitness testimony is ridiculously unreliable.

                13. In other words, you can no more prove there isn’t ‘a God’, than I can prove that their is. The only thing I have that you don’t is the entire history of civilized man believing that there is something greater than us, right? 😉 😉

                14. If all physical evidence used to assert the existence of a deity can be refuted, which it can, then it would be unreasonable to consider the possibility until actual evidence can be presented. For almost the entirety of human history, until a few hundred years ago, religion was the only method humans had to try to understand the secrets of the universe. They believed the heavens were a curtain with pinholes poked through for starlight, and that the sun was pulled across the sky by a chariot. Then you have to mention that the Catholic church jailed or killed anyone who suggested the historic teachings were wrong (earth revolves around the sun). Religion and science go about discovering the truth in very different ways. Religion makes a claim and then works at making the evidence fit, while science looks at the evidence and goes with the theory that fits all the evidence, not just the bits that agree with their preconceived notions. It used to be that the bible was taken as literal fact, but the more science uncovers, the more metaphorical the bible becomes. Genesis has been proven wrong by science. The universe wasn’t created in 6 days, and man didn’t start out as man. We’ve mapped the human genome. We know where we came from. We’re closer related to Chimpanzees than the African elephant is related to the Asian elephant.

                15. It was pagans who believed the earth revolved around the sun, and that the earth was flat.
                  The Bible taught the proper scientific theories before they were discovered by humans.
                  It was the fact that the Catholic leaders refused to allow lay people to read the Bible for so long which led to ignorance. Those who knew the Bible knew about Creation. And plenty of Christian, Bible believing Scientists have made a case for Creation, just as many agnostic/atheist scientists have tried to make a case against it.
                  Again, it’s according to which world view you’d rather HAVE FAITH in.

                16. Churches taught genesis as fact for hundreds of years. It isn’t fact, it’s dead wrong. The fact that the people who wrote the bible couldn’t figure out how the world came to be shows that they were just guessing. They guessed wrong. How many other biblical guesses were wrong? Since genesis is wrong then there was no garden of eden, and no original sin. If there was no original sin, then not only did Jesus not die for your sins, but there’s no basis for other proclamations. Timothy 2:12 says women can’t hold authority or teach, and it says that because Eve was supposed to have brought about original sin. Except there was no original sin, and the bible comes off as sexist. Or how bout all the various pro-slavery bits? Are you trying to tell me that slavery is OK in the modern world? As far as I’m concerned, that’s just more evidence that the bible is fallible, and anything but timeless. Christians are always telling me they only follow the New Testament, but Jesus said you had to follow the Old Testament too, even with all it’s atrocities. In the bible the punishment for adultery, or working on the Sabbath, or even wearing mixed fabrics, is far worse than the punishment for rape. How moral is that? If a man rapes a woman he has to pay her father 50 shekels, and she has to marry him. The bible actually says women have to marry their rapists.

                17. First of all- were you there at the begining? NO. Neither was I. I believe in the Creation account because it makes sense- reading biblically and also when I look around my natural world.
                  You believe in whatever- big bang, evolution, slime, something from nothing- because that makes more sense to you.
                  There are as many Creation Scientists as there are atheistic we take the evidence we see and believe in – different world views which are opposite beliefs.
                  You and your scientists were not around at the begining, and so far science has not proven exactly how the begining happened. So instead of saying the Bible and what we believe in are “dead Wrong” as if you know for certain, say, there’s no proof that Creation is real. Just as there is no proof evolution the way evolutionists believe is real.

                  As for the rest, Jesus did read from the Old Testament, because the New wasn’t written yet, He was still talking to the Jews at the time. He came to fulfil the Jewish Mosaic law for the Jews. They rejected that, He began teaching gentiles.
                  A new covenant for a different people. The Old is still in place for the Jewish people.

                  As for no sin- while again that is your opinion, but I see evidence of the human heart in atrocities every day. Evil does exist.

                18. Only a small percentage of scientists are creationists. The vast majority of Nobel laureate scientists are nontheistic, or at least religious people who have reconciled their faith with the facts (bible as metaphor). True, I wasn’t there, but they’ve just recently found the gravitation waves left over from the big bang, so now there’s factual evidence to support it. Whether you understand the principle behind it or not, you can’t say scientific facts aren’t facts. Scientists have mapped the human genome, so we know we evolved from an ape-like ancestor. If you don’t believe in evolution then you must think all dog breeds showed up as is. Every dog on the planet (including the Chiwawa) is actually a decedent of wolves who were willing to hang around our humans ancestors. We changed each breed by selecting qualities (genetic mutations) we liked, and killing the dogs that didn’t have those qualities. That’s evolution. There is really no real difference between artificial selection (humans selecting traits they like) and natural selection (nature killing off mutations that made survival less likely), except that we can do it more efficiently/quicker. There is just as much evidence for the scientific theory of evolution as there is for the scientific theory of gravity. Evolution has been around for over 150 years, and countless scientists (creationists included) have tried to disprove it. If they had succeeded they’d be famous, and rich, but no one has been able to disprove it. It’s just as much a fact as gravity. If you’d like to throw out evolution we could use the same criteria to throw out gravity. Just because the facts disagree with your beliefs doesn’t mean they aren’t facts. Which is connected to the point I was making earlier when I said religion tries to make facts fit theories, and science tries to fit theories to facts. When we mapped the human genome we found that we’re closer related to chimps than the African elephant is to the Asian elephant. The genome is irrefutable.

                  As for Jesus’s opinion on the Old Testament.
                  “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid” (Luke 16:17)

                19. I’m not arguing that there is evolution within kinds- but still dogs are dogs- they are all from the same Canine genus.
                  As for the human genome, it may be that our make up is similar to chimps, but that still does not prove that we came from chimps.
                  n.
                  There are just as many facts to back up creation which evolutionists dismiss because they have facts they believe in.

                  Point is, I don’t need to be told I’m ignorant because I look at evidence a different way than atheists or agnostics do. Which is what a lot of atheists love to do.

                  As for Jesus, yes He did say that because it’s true- but so is the fact that the Old Testament law was written for the Israeli people.

                  Christians follow the new covenant. We don’t dismiss the Old, we just aren’t under the command to follow the laws which were specifically for those whom God made His first covenant with. Yet when I worked at a Jewish business, I followed the customs- the laws that they did follow, out of respect, kep the kosher laws, refrained from eating certain things- out of respect because they were following their laws given to them.

                20. There is no difference between macro and micro evolution. Evolution forces some members of a species to change until they can no longer breed with the species of their ancestors. We didn’t come from chimps. Humans and chimps came from the same ancestor. The fossil record shows how the eye evolved over billions of years. It’s also important to note that the eye is a very poor design, so if it was designed by a creator then he’s a lousy designer. He put all the sensors behind a web of blood vessels that decrease our visual acuity. Another example of poor engineering, the recurrent laryngeal nerve runs from the brain, down to wrap around an artery in the chest, and then back up to the larynx. The reason is because that’s how it was growing back when we were still fish. The nerve just got longer as we grew into larger and larger species. That nerve would only need to be 3 inches long, but it’s several feet long instead. Evolution builds off what came before. It doesn’t get to just start over from scratch for every new species. Like I said before, if we were designed he was a really crappy designer.

                  As for the Old Testament, you’re saying your god came up with some rules in his infinite, infallible wisdom, but then a couple years later realized he’d made some mistakes, and revised his earlier laws. An all knowing deity would’ve come up with timeless laws the first time. I’d also like to point out that the New Testament might be less violent, but it’s still very sexist (Timothy 2:12-15), so even it isn’t timeless. And then there’s the fact that the bible is so ridiculously open to interpretation that two people can come up with two completely different interpretations of the same passage. That doesn’t sound like a perfect moral guide to me. Also, even though they may not be forced to follow the Old Testament, they are still encouraged to (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

                21. The bible says that the world cannot be moved. This led to the church’s insistence on a geocentric model of the universe, which in turn led to Galileo being put under house arrest for the rest of his life for espousing the heliocentric model of the universe. The church is most definitely not a fan of free speech, or any scientific progress that conflicts with its dogma.

                22. The Catholic pope and leaders were the ones who threw him in prison.
                  The bible talks about the stars, the earth, the hydrological cycle, the sea springs, the currents, life cycle, horiculture, hygene, medicine all things scientific before they were discovered. Just because the church leaders at the time was corrupted doesn’t mean the Bible was.
                  Christian Bible believing churches are more tolerant than many athiest groups, many athiest scientists and have no problem with teaching both creation and evolution so people can get a more informed and rounded view.
                  It’s evolutionists who are intolerant and don’t allow free speech.

                23. Science can look at collected data, and accurately predict things that will happen in the future. Religion is incapable of making accurate predictions of future events. Add to that Creationism is non falsifiable, and therefore cannot be science. Because it is not science, it does not belong in a science classroom.

                  Just because the bible talks about the stars, the earth, the hydrological cycle, the sea springs, the currents, life cycle, horticulture, hygiene, and medicine, doesn’t mean it knew what it was talking about.

                  Here’s one of the passages they used to condemn Galileo.
                  “He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved” (Psalms 104:5).
                  So like I said before, just because it talks about scientific topics, doesn’t mean it knows what it’s talking about.

                  Atheists are way more tolerant than Christians. We don’t go into churches and tell you what to teach. You’re even allowed to stand on a street corner and protest dead soldiers, and the ACLU will fight to protect that right for you. The only time you hear about atheists in the news is when they’re suing to have an illegal religious monument removed from public lands, or to keep people from teaching nonscientific things in science class, which is illegal. In other words, you only hear about atheists when religious people are breaking the law. It is not intolerant to enforce the constitution, even if the offender is religious and doing it for religious reasons.

                  Recently a little Buddhist boys’s parents successfully sued a Louisiana school system. His teacher gave a “science” test, and one of the questions was “ISN’T IT AMAZING WHAT THE _____________ HAS MADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” The little boy didn’t know he was expected to say “Jesus”, so he put down “Lord Buddha.” When they were getting their graded tests back a student in the class remarked “people are stupid if they think God is not real.” The teacher responded, “Yes! That is right! I had a student miss that on his test.” The teacher also reportedly taught the children that God created the Earth 6,000 years ago and that evolution was an “impossible” and “stupid theory made up by stupid people who don’t want to believe in God.” She told her class that the Bible was “100% true” and that Buddhism is “stupid.” When the parents complained the superintendent told them “this is the bible belt” and even suggested they change their son’s faith. She suggested they move the boy to a school with “more Asians.” Those parents weren’t atheists, they just didn’t want their kid to be bullied by a system that is anything but all-inclusive. The school was forced to stop teaching creationism (which was deemed illegal after the Dover trial), to stop having prayer in class rooms, and to take down the pictures of Jesus they had hanging up. If you’re going to hang up pictures of religious figures in a public place you need to put up pictures to represent all faiths, or nonfaiths (humanism). Christianity is not inclusive, so giving it prominence in the public sector makes people with other beliefs feel less welcome, and that’s wrong.

                  No one’s gong into churches and shoving evolution down the throats of congregants. It’s a scientific fact, but it doesn’t belong in theology. Creationism is not science, it’s theology, so it’s illegal to shove it down the throats of children in publicly funded science classrooms.

                24. OK Mr. Darwin. Without wasting my time picking apart everything you have had to say, How long is a ‘God Day’? How much could you get done in a ‘day’ if you were working at 186 thousand miles per second, for instance?
                  Can you demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that something not of this world (A God, for lack of a better word), isn’t responsible for the 1st ‘Man-Ape’ capable of speech and independent thought?
                  How would you explain an I-phone to somebody who was living in the 1920’s? Don’t you think it might seem like magic? Don’t you think you might have to relate to something within their realm of experience to communicate as abstract as the internet, for instance?
                  It isn’t the ‘Theists’ who are being intolerant here, just the opposite. It is those who can’t entertain the though that there just might be something greater than themselves, that are being naïve, my friend. 😉

                25. How bout the fact that we know how suns and planets form. It’s impossible for the earth to have formed before the sun and the rest of the universe. They got the order all messed up, and if they’d thought the world had taken billions of years to form they would’ve said it took so many trillions of day, but no, they said 6. They set the time scale in days. If they’d actually understood what they were talking about they would’ve been more accurate in their scale of measurement. For hundreds of years you could be burnt at the stake for suggesting that the 6 day narrative was wrong. Don’t tell me atheists are intolerant when some states won’t even allow atheists to run for office, even if it is unconstitutional to deny them. We don’t go into your churches and tell you how to worship. We only object when you try for preferential treatment in a public forum. How would you feel if every act of congress was opened with a Jewish prayer, or a Satanic prayer? Christians all over the country would rise up and start suing right and left. The point of our government is to ensure that every individual feels included, especially the minorities.

                26. “We don’t go into your churches and tell you how to worship.” Actually, you do. 😉

                  Excuse me? I don’t have a ‘church’ to ‘worship’ in. Like I said before, I haven’t been in ‘a church’ in over half a century. You have yet to demonstrate what is practical or even logical in concluding that ‘Man’ is the most intelligent thing in this vast cosmos we exist in. I will continue to be more reasonable and logical and you can continue to be rigid and closed minded.

                27. Give me an example of an atheist going into a church and lecturing everyone about how they’re doing it wrong. I like how you didn’t even attempt to address my point that atheists are way more persecuted than theists. There are still countries where you can be killed by the government just for being an atheist. There are no countries where it’s legal to execute a Christian for being a Christian.

                  I never once said that man is the most intelligent thing in the universe. As a species we’re not all that intelligent. For instance, a great many of us will believe stuff without physical evidence. I don’t know what kinds of species exist in the universe. The odds suggest there’s probably a lot of other species out there, and the odds of us being the smartest are rather slim. But the odds of something being all knowing and all present are rather ridiculous. It’s way simpler/more reasonable to try to explain the universe without a god, than it is with one. If you factor in an all powerful deity, you have to factor in how he/she came to be, and since everything has to have a purpose according to theist, you’d have to come up with a reason why the deity came to exist. Just about every time someone says there’s a supernatural explanation for something, someone comes along later and proves a natural explanation. God of the gaps. An ever shrinking area of unexplained phenomenon, replaced by scientific understanding.

                28. “There are still countries where you can be killed by the government just for being an atheist. There are no countries where it’s legal to execute a Christian for being a Christian.”
                  Give me the name of one, just one Christian country where you can be killed for being an Atheist? On the other side of the coin, you can be killed for being a Christian in just about any Muslim and several Communist countries.
                  This whole conversation is getting ridiculous. Believe (or don’t) whatever you choose to believe (or not).

                29. There aren’t any Christian countries that execute atheist, but there are 13 Islamic countries that currently execute anyone brave enough to come out as nontheist.

                  However there are also no countries anywhere, atheist or Islamic, where Christians are executed for being Christian. Look it up, they don’t exist.

                  Christians like to say they’re being persecuted in America, but they have the overwhelming majority, and they’re allowed to hold office in any state. Atheists are barred from holding office in 7 different states. Give me one example of a Christian man, or woman, who was singled out and punished by the American government for being a Christian.

                30. I’ll bet I could find an Islamic scholar that would be willing to speak for women’s rights. 😉 😉
                  I love these characters. I haven’t been in a ‘Church’ in over half a century but even I’m smart enough to know here ain’t no such thing as an Atheist in a Fox Hole. 😉 😉

            2. The arrogance of Atheism is in it’s self, amazing. To actually think we are the smartest thing in this vast cosmos, truly takes a great leap of ignorance.
              😉

          2. Get back to us on that thebrownshoe…Look around you…maybe you lost that feeling of awe.

      2. Ever hear of a verdict discovered on, not direct evidence, but a preponderance of circumstantial and supporting evidence? Or, to put it to you directly. Did you get up this morning? There’s no lack of evidence. You require a confession in person when, all the while, the evidence is overwhelming.

        1. The only evidence that matters is direct physical evidence. If there is no direct physical evidence then there isn’t enough basis for investing your life in a belief. Jumping to conclusions without hard evidence is very foolhardy. Accepting insufficient evidence leaves you open to the manipulations of others.

  22. I am an Atheist. Now, do I want God removed from everything? No. A beautiful thing about this country is religious tolerance/freedom. Vocal-Atheist-Extremists have undoubtedly set the standard for all Atheists. These bad seeds seek to invoke their way of life upon everyone; just like religious extremists. They use the courts as a shield in an attempt to silence those who believe. These people are not HONESTLY offended by nativity scenes and petty crap like that. They fail to understand what our nation is about when it comes to faith/religion. A beautiful thing (as mentioned before) about this country is that we are free to practice our own religions,and we rarely kill each other over the disagreements. We have not had a war over God in this country. We do not have people in the streets murdering others in the name of their God.

    The caller was offended when Mark mentioned god. Really? He is somehow OFFENDED that someone wants a believer to be president?! I wonder if that kid requires all his friends/family to be nonbelievers. The caller is obviously trolling (trying antagonize Mark).

    Myself, and many others, ENJOY seeing you celebrate your religions without fear of persecution. Most of us do not care when/where you practice your faith. We aim to respect your beliefs and wish for you to understand and accept that we have our own views.

    But sadly, believers are being attacked. And regretfully, it is coming from my side.

    Why don’t non-combative Atheists speak up more? We get shut down before we start. With the bad reputation of Atheists constantly in play, we are usually on defense. Our presence alone is sometimes enough to make others feel threatened. Most commonly I find myself getting read Bible verses after beingasked about my religious views. It almost feels like an exorcism being preformed by a mob. That puts me in an awkward situation. It is very hard to explain unless you experience it for yourself. Additionally, when we speak against “Vocal-Atheist-Extremists” we are often disregarded, portrayed as ignorant, trolled, ect. And instead of antagonizing the situation we often back away; I personally feel they aren’t even worth my time.

    Most atheists get frustrated by these things and usually join in on crap like the flying spaghetti monster thing. Thus promoting the negative image.

    1. From a Christian, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart.
      I agree that the militant atheists ruin the image of those like you, who don’t believe in God, but are not defined by their unbelief. Thanks again, (and I hope you change your mind).

      1. It’s like anything else. What most people know, are media created stereotypes.

        I am atheist too, but someone would have to be willfully blind not to see the government and the media sticking it to Christians.

    2. We have believer for President now. Exactly what he believes in is unclear, but it’s not good.

  23. Friggin Stupid atheists. They don’t believe in anything so it’s their mission to nag others in to forgetting everything they hold dear. Misery loves company!

  24. As an atheist I’m glad someone has finally said this. 99.5% of my fellow atheists are bigots and refuse to respect other peoples views. It sickens me. They also make false claims about all evil in this world being tied to religion. Man has been killing others long before the beginning of any known religion. Another thing that makes me laugh is they only spew their hate about Christians/Catholics. Somehow in their minds spewing hate at Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. is intolerant but putting down Christians/Catholics is just fine.

  25. Here is a little fact most so called atheist today.. are just radical homosexuals.. and they are so afraid of God they deny him.. all because they know how perverted they chose to be and live..

  26. Wow, RS and Levin must really be threatening the leftist, they have sent their trolls here in an attempt to rewrite history and put down anyone that stands up to their false views.

    EXCELLENT JOB RS AND MARK LEVIN!!! You are on target based on the flack being sent out…

    1. The names Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Palin, Beck and (of course) Levin, sure brings the cockroaches out from under the fridge, huh.
      😉 😉

      1. Yep, add in Christianity and the lefties have a melt down. They just can’t handle they aren’t the ones leading the parade…

  27. “SCHOOLS?” I think he needs to go back to school. He’s rather confused about the meaning of tolerance (as is The Right Scoop), as well as the phrase “couldn’t care less.” Mark’s shrill abuse of callers who calmly and rationally disagree with him, even on the smallest of points is embarrassing for all on the right, not in any way “AWESOME.” There are many, many rational freethinkers who are conservative or libertarian and would otherwise be your political allies, if not for the sort of spittle-flecked fury their lack of faith provokes, and Mr Levin frequently demonstrates. It’s a shame, really.

    1. Ah, another toll. I’ve asked before, but never get an answer. Who is it that puts out the bulletin that it’s time to invade a conservative website?

      1. The constitution clearly states that it is illegal to require a test of faith for public office. Mr. Levin is suggesting, over the air, that we should require something unconstitutional from our political hopefuls. It is straight up illegal to require faith from all political candidates. So not only was Mr. Levin the most intolerant person on the program, and wrong about “could care less,” but he was also encouraging the American people to break the law.

        1. It is illegal for the GOVERNMENT to require a test of faith before entering public office, not those who ELECT THEM — the voters, which is what Levin is obviously referring to!

          As a citizen who has the right to vote, I can use whatever litmus I choose, and there is nothing you or anyone could say about it! If I want to throw a bunch of rocks on the ground and conclude that if the light colored ones all land face up I’ll vote for candidate A, and if all the dark colored ones land face down, I’ll vote for candidate B, I can do that and there’s nothing illegal about it.

          However, if the IRS comes along and says that because you’re a Conservative non-profit, you will be scrutinized and/or rejected because of your political position, THAT is creating the very test the Constitution prohibits.

          1. Mr. Levin is suggesting that we require candidates to have faith. The only way to ensure that no atheists make it into government is to pass legislation to that effect, and that would be illegal. Even though it’s against the federal constitution, it is currently illegal for an atheist to hold public office in Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

              1. Actually it is.

                “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.” 1st Amendment

                1. Do you understand the difference between states rights and the federal government?
                  Try looking it up, I’m not doing the work for you.

        2. Who the heck is putting a religious test? Our future leadership is decided, by the voters. You don’t know what qualifications your neighbor is looking for in a future president. That is totally different from a religious test as outlined in the Constitution.

  28. I don’t get how the caller was intolerant. Mark Levin said being religious is a prerequisite for being a good leader. That is indisputably false. Levin then went ballistic. The caller is just making the point that eliminating people from consideration for higher office because they are atheists is a bad idea.

    The caller was calm while Levin went nuts. Anyone who thinks pointing out a demonstrably false assertion is intolerance is an imbecile. The ending was a little cheap, but Levin is wrong. It is “could not care less,” not “could care less.” The fact that Levin was too stubborn to correct himself isn’t great.

  29. Trying to have a discussion or debate with Mark Levin is like trying to have a discussion or debate with a 4 year old. Pointless. Actually, a 4 year old is probably more civilized and mature than him.

    1. Now THAT is the way to frame the criticism.

      He may be intelligent, but the fact that he cuts people off is sometimes very immature.

  30. “Can I help you out pal”? Love that question, but what followed I loved more.
    This nation was indeed not founded by atheists, in fact it was founded by believers in the God of the Bible who became the Savior of mankind.
    That sticks in the crawl of people like the caller and the con man.

  31. Atheist look at North Korea He does not believe in God and he is killing Christians for why? Go move there to Korea, God fearing American.

  32. The tolerance point hit the nail on the head! Athiest and godless Liberals (not all Libs just the godless ones) always bring up the tolerance angle, but when it comes to Christianity; they are the most intolerant of us all!

    1. HYPOCRISY is the tell of delusion and lies…and found in the false isms and faith systems of the left

  33. i will take an atheist more seriously if they start protesting in front of mosque are condemning Islam.

  34. Mark is always educating us. I humbly listen and I always learn something from him. And, sometimes he makes me laugh out loud. When he takes down libs, it is highly entertaining.

  35. Our rights to religion and expression are positive, not preventative.

    How are they twisted from freedom to express belief into freedom FROM others’ views?

    1. i would suggest that the similarity of both sentences (from / of) has been a tool the intolerant atheists have been using for a while to sway public opinion (to the extent they are successful ) that somehow expressing religion in public sq. is unconstitutional,

      I have a question to this atheists Why do you wanna live ?? if your life is miserable would you kill yourself to free yourself from pain ??

      as a religious man i have a different view on life, but i always wondered how non-religious people look at it ??

      their life must be pretty empty,

      1. I wonder at the universe the same, if not more than you. I just do not believe that there is a wizard in the sky that cares if I live or die or score a touchdown or literally eat his flesh and blood on sundays. We atheists have morals and see wonder in the natural world. Often we are scientists searching for the why. Often we find it and if not we keep searching. Why do religious people think that we do not have a passion for life? Why do religious people feel we are inferior?

          1. From Louise Antony

            we find moral value to be immanent in the natural world, arising from the vulnerabilities of sentient beings and from the capacities of rational beings to recognize and to respond to those vulnerabilities and capacities in others.

        1. Actually, religious people like myself often wonder why ya’ll are so perpetually angry and hostile? What, did your Mom and Dad dare to make you go to Church as a kid? Atheists can be the most violent, angry, bitter, base people out there when they choose to be–I know from experience, I had a professor who was an atheist and was prejudiced against quite a few of his students. And why? ‘Cause the rest of us would rather believe in something than not. Because the rest of us have a basis for how we behave, how we worship, how we live. What do you have, other than your intolerance and rage? Can you even give me one way that you’ve been so terribly oppressed or treated as an inferior–one way that isn’t people daring to pray/talk about God/have Crosses up/express their first amendment rights in your presence (in other words, disagree with you, or question you)? Quite frankly, I think it’s your own insecurity that makes you think we look down on you–aside from, y’know, calling God a “wizard in the sky”. No way that’ll tick people off at all ’cause you’re totally tolerant and the victim here.

        2. I’ll never believe atheists or anyone with a different belief is inferior. Usually it’s the secular who believe Christians are ignorant and inferior.
          We may question why you can’t see things in nature as fearfully and wonderfully made by a Creator, and wonder where your morals come from- how to measure morality, have a question about absolute truth- but no Christian I know would ever believe or feel that non believers are inferior!

      2. I had wondered about that. I think people need “belief” as a basic foundation in life or else they would come to despair. The pointlessness of life would lead me to be a hedonist, personally. No point in life? Live it up. Don’t worry about consequences.

        Even this should lead me to realize that morality will serve me better than that ultimately destructive path! It seems you back right into a belief system based at least on basic kindness and decent living. (How far off from faith in God are you at that point?)

  36. I found this discussion very meaningful especially the religious test between someone running for state office versus running for Federal office. I am aware that states like Massachusetts applied a religious test to their office holders as well as encouraging people to attend Church well into the nineteenth century.

    Unfortunately, the Federal Government has usurped the concept of Federalism and the Tenth Amendment. The religion that the Federal government pushes is atheism.

    Please read Sarah Palin’s book, “Good Tidings and Great Joy” to see how Christians are being denied their Constitutional Rights to religious expression.

  37. Amazing, isn’t it, the time atheists spend ranting against the One in Whom they claim to disbelieve? If you’re that convinced He isn’t really there, why bother talking about Him at all, and peaceably leave the rest of us to what you call our delusion?

    1. who is imperfect just like everyone else, as are liberal Constitutional scholars who sit on the benches of our courthouses..

  38. The secularization of America is at the root of every problem that is destroying our society today. Secular humanists have been successful in
    implementing a system of arbitrary morality, apart from Christian teachings, and what’s the result? Drug dogs roaming the corridors of elementary schools, metal detectors at the entrances to high schools, smart alec kids who couldn’t reason their way out of a wet sack, an appalling murder rate of 1.2 million unborn infants every year and corrupt politicians who can’t be trusted any more than the thugs who run Wall Street. Common sense says if you ban children from contemplating things like “don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t murder and don’t cheat” that they’ll grow up to be liars, thieves, murderers and cheaters, yet we continue to allow a few loud mouth atheists to ban even the mention of God in the classrooms of our Christian nation.

    BTW, the atheist was right about one thing, it is “couldn’t care less,” because if you could care less that would mean that you do actually care.

  39. I lost some respect for Levin from of this rant. The caller was more thoughtful, level headed, polite, believed in states right to have religious symbols on state land and seemed to be Constitutionalist. He just objected to Levin promoting a belief in God as a presidential litmus test. Levin flipped out, was rude and called him intolerant without a whisper of support for it. He mischaracterized the caller’s point as being against “bringing up religion”. The caller politely, corrected Levins repeated “could care less” grammar mistake, and tried to move on to make his point. Levin interrupted that, dug in, repeated his mistake several times after this clip, called the caller an “ASS”, a “punk”, said he wasn’t that smart and lost his mind in a hissy fit.

    As I remember, he went on read an often repeated and defeated argument that atheists can’t have objectively based morals, as if the model of the world’s evolution from simple matter to complex sentient life and the need for liberty and free cooperation for prosperity is subjective. He claimed that leaders who believe in God were immune to the tyranny and destruction of life that plagues atheists ones, “at least in this country” he said, as if the Indian slaughter was justified and miniscule. He compared our leaders to atheistic ones, Mao, Stalin and others, as if they were “Americans” as restricted to in his previous sentence .

    When I first heard Levin on Hannity, I thought he as just a blowhard with an anger shtick. Over the last two years, I began to recognize his clear thinking, accomplishments grew to follow him. I now see that he is prone to logical errors, has significant philosophical limitations, can’t admit mistakes and that probably drives his anger as much as creeping state tyranny. I’m disappointed, but I’ll probably listen off and on for what he’s otherwise worth, just with much less trust.

    1. If you lost some respect for Levin because of this, you didn’t have much respect for him from the start. The caller said he had a point to make, but kept repeating himself. If you think you have points, you better do your homework before calling a national talk radio show.

      1. exactly. And why didn’t the caller come out and say he was an atheist from the get go? No, he had to be secretive until Mark drew it out of him. Atheists would have no platform if it were not for a God and our country founded on Judaeo Christian values. Good for Mark; I don’t know how he keeps his composure actually. Contrast that with the caller later in the show from “behind the pinecone curtain”; homeless folks here in Texas that obviously love our country. God bless them and keep them warm and spirits high.

        1. Atheists don’t believe in any god, not just the god of Christianity, so your argument that atheists would have no platform were it not for god in this country is invalid.. Moreover, no person should have to reveal their faith to any other person. Do you reveal your personal beliefs to everyone “from the get go” or are you just being a hypocrite?

        1. That doesn’t excuse him from not making a valid point. Did he get rattled under the pressure? It sounded like it. I had to perform maintenance while underway on a submarine, with a 2-star admiral hovering over me. No pressure there. . . Mmm hmm.

          1. I use to live in a place where we could see the subs going out for practices, the Hood Canal. I could look out my front door and see the subs, they captivated me and my whole attention.
            Thank you for your service!

            1. Thank you! I never got tired of seeing boats going in or out. Coming in was cooler, though. We always knew those guys were ready to be home for a while!

        2. I’ve wanted, for some time, to make a cartoon of a courtroom scene, where a lawyer is hitting a witness with a badger and the other lawyer is yelling, “Objection, Your Honor! Badgering!”

        1. Why couldn’t both be right. “I couldn’t care less” means there is no way you could care less than you do. “I could care less” implies that you actually do care, but could care less.

          1. @Tomme Foster, Both are not right because, as you wrote, both have very different meanings. “There is no way I could care less than I do” passively communicates profound disrespect. “I care, but could care less” is what? A warning that I’m concerned but that could fade? If someone says I think you’re a jerk, do you turn around an say, “I’m concerned about your opinion of me, but that could fade”?;-)

    2. I agree. I like Mark but I think he was off point with this one. I was listening to it while driving. I personally would like to have a leader who had faith in God but would not make that my sole requirement. It was one of 5 points Mark made about qualities of an ideal national leader. If someone had the other 4 they would still get my respect.

    3. What is the moral basis of the atheist faith religion system? ( religion being a set of beliefs, not necessarily involving a known entity)

      1. Atheism is not an ideology, much less a religions system/ideology. It’s an aspect of an ideology, like theism is an aspect of a theology. There are many basis of atheistic ideologies, most bad IMO. “A” basis of Objectivism is that proper principled values for man can be derived through observation of an objective reality and reason. Hope that helps, but I’m not available to discuss this in greater detail now.

      2. Compassion, logic, and philosophy.

        Atheism is a “religion” the same way “bald” is a hair color, or not-collecting-stamps is a hobby.

        1. Philosophy is from two Greek words meaning ” lover of….wisdom”…….all religions say the same thing

  40. My 2cents but I reckon schooling only drives people away from Jesus, reaching out is what is needed. There are a lot of hurting and broken people out there that need a helping compassionate hand. You all know that Jesus hung out with the sinners and prostitutes he listened to them and in turn they listened to him he met them where they were in life. And in so doing they came into His life.

  41. Atheist are intolerant because of their hatred of God. Do not let them lie to you about not believing in God, oh they do! They hate everything about God. #2 point, is that the statement and ruling based on separation of church and state, are actually unconstitutional! The 1st amendment does not restrict religious activities or rights, it restricts the government from establishing a religion and taking away those rights!

    1. I am an atheist, and I more tolerant than anyone I know. And I can’t hate what I don’t believe exists.
      But go ahead. Hang on to those stereotypes and straw men.

      1. But WHAT do you tolerate? Toleration is good so long as it is framed within a moral framework. I can tolerate someone’s right to believe that kids should be taught that homosexuality is virtuous (no matter how ludicrous I think that may be), but I don’t tolerate it being forced on my children, and then when I protest it, I’m silenced, demeaned and thrown in jail for protecting my children from it.

        Once, tolerance was defined as recognizing and respecting others’ beliefs and practices even though you may not have shared them. But today’s definition of tolerance is far different.

        Today, the word tolerance encompasses the wholesale acceptance of all values, beliefs, ideas and lifestyles without question. This language shift is persuasively described in the book, “The New Tolerance”.

        “Where this new tolerance reigns, there can be no heirarchy of truth, and no standard by which to discern between competing truth claims. Every man’s position must be praised and considered equally valid. This is because the new tolerance considers all truth claims to be mere opinions–not absolutes that are true across time and cultures, but culturally created and culturally conditioned ideas.

        “By this new standard, any system of belief which claims to be transcendent and absolute–making truth claims
        that are not qualified as relative according to time, place, and person–is considered to be “intolerant.” In a society which scorns absolutes and denies the existence of any natural law written on the heart, or any intrinsic human nature, there can be only one universal virtue–tolerance–and that virtue must be enforced with almost religious fervor.”

    2. You are delusional and out of your depth. Just because someone chooses to believe differently they hate your belief? Now there are some that do .. but it is not a central precept to not believing (which is atheism) , to hate the belief system you don’t agree with. If this was true, this would mean Atheist hate Odin, Vishnu and the flying spaghetti monster and all other gods. They don’t hate, if anything they are curious to know more about where the belifs came from as a matter of understanding man .. a non-belief is not a hate.

  42. Our Founders understood a couple of things really well when conceiving the foundational principles of their new nation, first religious freedom was imperative and second, other freedoms allowed within the framework would be duly unsuited for any other than men of faith. Freedom, void of a Godly moral compass, results in chaos. A government cannot write enough laws to control a fallen man’s heart and the ensuing evil. They can try, which we are experiencing now, but true freedom can no longer exist under such tyrannical government control. So, Mr. Levin is correct to recommend our leaders be men of faith, because, like it or not, it greatly affects how they make decisions, treat others, and govern.

    1. “freedoms allowed within the framework would be duly unsuited for any other than men of faith. Freedom, void of a Godly moral compass, results in chaos”

      The second does not necessarily flow from the first, and deviates from what the founders meant. Self-government is suited for those with self-restraint, yes. But self-restraint does not have to arise from self-proclaimed godliness. An atheist could equally capable of respecting the property and circle of liberty of others.

  43. Like I told Congress in September 9th 2013.. If I’m elected I will bring to this country three things,GOD, Common sense and the trust in the American people..

  44. “In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.” — John Quincy Adams (Sixth President of the United States; Diplomat; Secretary of State; U.S. Senator; US Representative)

    “The great, vital, and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” — Congress 1854

    “[Governments] could not give the rights essential to happiness — We claim them from a higher source: from the King of kings, and Lord of all the earth. — John Dickenson (Signer of the Constitution; Governor of Pennsylvania; Governor of Deleware; General in the American Revolution)

    “[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

    “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” — John Adams (Signer of the Declaration; Judge; Diplomat; One of the Two Signers of the Bill of Rights, Second President of the United States)

    “Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle… In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity… That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.” — Congress, U. S. House Judiciary Committee, 1854

    “The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible.” — Patrick Henry (Revolutionary general; Legislator; The Voice of Liberty; Ratifier of the US Constitution; Governor of Virginia)

    “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers,and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” — John Jay (President of Congress; Diplomat; Author of the Federalist Papers; Original Chief justice of the US Supreme Court; Governor of New York)

    “There must be religion. When that ligament is torn, society is disjointed and its members perish… [T]he most important of all lessons is the denunciation of ruin to every state that rejects the precepts of religion.”29 — Gouverneur Morris (Revolutionary Officer; Member of the Continental Congress; signer of the Constitution; Penman of the Constitution; Diplomat; US Senator)

    “To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. All efforts made to destroy the foundations of our Holy Religion ultimately tend to the subversion also of our political freedom and happiness. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation… in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom… Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government – and all the blessings which flow from them – must fall with them. 30. — Jedidiah Morse ( Historian of the American Revolution; Educator; Father of American Geography; Appointed Secretary of State to document condition of Indian Affairs)

    “Has [government] any solid foundation? Any chief cornerstone? (a reference to Jesus Christ; Matthew 21:42)… I think it has an everlasting foundation in the unchangeable will of God… The sum of my argument is that civil government is of God.” — James Otis (Leader of the Sons of Liberty; Attorney & Jurist; Mentor of John Hancock & Samuel Adams)

    “I verily believe that Christianity is necessary to support a civil society and shall ever attend to its institutions and acknowledge its precepts as the pure and natural sources of private and social happiness.” — Joseph Story (US Congressman; Father of American Jurisprudence; US Supreme Court Justice Appointed by President James Madison)

    “While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.” — George Washington (Judge; memeber of the Continental Congress; Commander-in-Cheif of the Continental Army; President of the Constitutional Convention; First President of the United States; Father of the Country)

    “[T]he Christian religion — its general principles — must ever be regarded among us as the foundation of civil society.” — Daniel Webster ( US Senator; Secreatary of State; Defender of the Constitution)

    “[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles… This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.” — Noah Webster (Revolutionary Soldier; Judge; Legislator; Educator; Compiled and Produced Webster’s Dictionary)

    “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; may your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countryman.” – Samuel Adams

    “We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.” — Benjamin Franklin

    I don’t know, but it sounds to me like there’s a continuing theme….

    1) Christianity (not islam, not buddhism, not hinduism, nor wiccan) are NECESSARY for the functioning of a civil society.
    2) Our founders PREFERRED Christians as political leaders.
    3) They ENCOURAGED Christian political leadership.
    4) They regarded the subjugation of the Christian faith as a threat to liberty!
    5) They believed that the end of Christianity would be the end of civil society, which coincidentally is what we see happening around us today — the withdrawal of Christianity and the rise of an authoritarian secular state.

  45. Mr. Producer, You did WELL in putting that call on the air! It was very instructive because Mark was giving all the listeners the tutorial in dealing with atheists and others who oppose faith in our leaders…..I would have liked the call to have gone on longer….You learn more about debating and how to oppose their arguments from the callers who disagree than agree with Mr Levin and others…..More tutorials please..

    ..One suggestion though if I may, name calling from the HOST is unsettling and interferes with the flow and retention of what was just heard from the host. ( expected from opposition and shows lack of position)

    Wonderful takedown of incorrect mindset by Levin. Looking forward to more. Thank you very much!!!

  46. Religiosity should not be a measure for how ‘conservative’ someone is. Your political labels should be derived from your theory of governance, not just how eager you are to bend the american public to your rigid understanding of ‘God’. The Christian Taliban has destroyed the GOP, and conservatism. Call me a hater all you want, but if you continue to walk down this path pushing science denial in our schools and standing against birth control and civil rights for same-sex couples, you will lose to the Democrats every time and you’ll only have yourselves to blame.

    1. Okay……you said to! You’re a God hater. True Christianity is essential in every arena in life. “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.” (Psalms 33:12) And true Christianity isn’t a rigid understanding of God. Merely saying you have faith is great and true Christianity is to know this simple yet profound truth, “God is love!” It is one or the other, so do you prefer hate in place of God’s love in this country? Then switch to being a Democrat where you can be “a hater” and fit in with other haters! GOD HATERS! “Whosoever is not for Me is against me!”

        1. I’ve taken the time to read a number of your posts on numerous sites and it’s obvious your intelligent. Thus, to stoop to repeating an ignorant insult – The Christian Taliban – speaks volumes.

          Your comment has no concern about the future of conservatism. I have no interest in taking science
          out of the classroom – I published scientific journals based on my education in the sciences.

          Regarding gay marriage, it should remain a state rights issue without a progressive federal government’s interference. Your point about birth control was laughable; that issue will have no bearing on the outcome of the midterm election that will result in a Congress that’s more conservative while the GOP gains control of the Senate.

          I read you like a book; your attack of Christianity is a guise to hide your real beliefs and again, it has nothing to do with the future of conservatism, just your pro choice and gay marriage support.

          And after Obama’s rein of failure, a pro life anti same sex marriage conservative candidate is highly likely to be elected.

          I read your comments on the Bill of Rights and the specific Amendments you seem to endorse with greater vigor; Amendments 4, 5 (just some for-instances) and the 14th. These Amendments can be used in court to make the issues you care so deeply the law of the land like Roe v Wade.

          BTW, if you post another snarky comment about stop reading, I will laugh knowing you read my entire post and had no response.

          1. Conservator1: I read your post, you are wrong to say that I don’t care about the conservative stance, I care a lot about our rate of spending and the insolvency of the affordable care act (that and we aren’t even getting much for it). You are entitled to your opinion on the states rights thing with gay marriage, however I will say it rings similarly to when people said interracial marriage should be a states rights issue and I don’t believe that should be either.

            Sidney: “spend all your time and effort in trying to attack a non-existent person.”

            I insulted the Christian Taliban, a very real thing that definitely exists in this country that pays no taxes and spends a lot of lobbying money to push creationism on young minds and limit availability of birth control and deny equal protection and commerce or medical privileges such as visitation rights, to gay couples. One could even be a Christian and acknowledge and abhor the Christian Taliban.

            1. I was born and raised in the ghettos of the South Bronx. Do you believe someone with that background would have a problem with interracial marriage?

              That was a problem among African Americans far more than white folks and still is – ask any blonde dating or married to a black man today and they will educate you on the issue.

              What you label as the “Christian Taliban,” I call Orthodox Christians and they have every right to support and express their beliefs as you do.

              But again, the term is demeaning and sophomoric which I believe is beneath someone who’s obviously intelligent.

              And while I hold degrees in science and differ with some here on something like the age of the Earth, I still respect their religious beliefs.

              These are good people at the Scoop and shouldn’t be mocked for their deeply held spiritual beliefs. BTW, while I can spend hours discussing cosmology, that doesn’t interfere with my belief in Jesus as my Lord and Savior or God. In fact, most scientists I know believe in God.

              1. Arguing for trampling on the rights of others or criminalizing people based on spiritual belief isn’t the same thing as arguing for free practice of religion by means of separation of church and state, and letting people be. My argument doesn’t go any further than simple secularism in government, you can behave as you want, just don’t use your belief as a basis to force others to behave as you want and you aren’t part of what I call the Christian Taliban, which is not the same thing as Christians in general.

                1. Your paranoid if you believe anyone is trampling on gay rights or atheism. And your not as intelligent as I thought if you are imaginating that anything I posted is forcing you to behave as I want.

                  You’re forcing your beliefs upon people who don’t agree with your secularism viewpoint. And you are doing so when gay marriage is being legalized across the nation. Also at a time when policies like the “Defense of Marriage Act” has been ruled unconstitutional and the military is affording same sex couples to live together – see US Navy and Japan.

                  Can you cite anything in our constitution that states it’s illegal for Americans to vote based on their religious views? Likewise, can you cite anything that prevents secularists from voting based on a secular viewpoint?

                  The answer is NO to both questions. Yet, you have no problem of forcing your political views and secularism down the throats of people who’s religious views differ with yours (“secularism in government”).

                  And you are the one making threats against anyone who disagrees with you and that directly opposes the rights afforded to all of us by the Founders.

                  Lastly, I don’t care what you do in your life. I’m not a priest or pastor that preaches to anyone. And God didn’t ask me to judge you.

                  But don’t ever think you can intimidate or demand I follow your paranoia pal. Get over it….

                2. Pay attention, we are talking about the christian taliban, not what you wrote.

                  In order to have religious freedom that works, secularism in government is paramount. You may vote how you please, but it is bad policy to create law solely based on a religious viewpoint, especially if it hampers people’s liberty in any way and the exercise of that liberty causes harm to nobody.

                3. Your funny; there’s no Christian Taliban, that’s just a demeaning lefty cultist label. But it’s apparent their is a Secular Taliban and you are a proud member.

                4. How is it forcing my views upon people to tell them they can’t use my tax dollars to fund bad educational or legal policy, making a preference to religion, anyways?

                  Is this one of those “Don’t tread on me while I’m treading on you!” moments?

                5. Of course the other side, religious Christians, Muslims and Jews for example, and using their tax dollars to support abortion, gay marriage or atheism is just fine and dandy.

                  That’s been your position – don’t take my rights away but frack theirs. I’m done.

                6. When I lobby I don’t do it tax free, telling people they must get gay married to enjoy benefits, or that they must use birth control against their will. All I do is say people should be free to the maximum extent possible. I like to think that isn’t a terrible concept, individual liberty.

                  You’d actually be surprised by my stance on abortion.

                7. One, your position on abortion is irrelevant. In one of your earlier posts, you brought up contraception and all of my references was to that.

                  Secondly, below are two LGBT groups with tax exempt status – one is liberal and the other is conservative:

                  Out of Bounds is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization that supports and promotes sports and recreational organizations with interests in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community of the greater New York City area.

                  GOProud is an American tax exempt 527 organization representing conservative gay men, lesbians, and their allies.

                  Are you suggesting that they should loose their tax exempt status like religious groups when they are lobby politicians? I really got to go.

                8. I don’t believe any group should be tax exempt if lobbying frankly, but beyond that, it is also more difficult to become or remain tax exempt if not a religious organization. Traditionally churches obtained the status on the assumption that churches positively contribute to welfare/charity, but today make a great deal of money compared to before.

                  I am surprised GOProud could obtain exemption based on their name, you aren’t supposed to endorse a party.

                9. Up to me, gay marriage wouldn’t be an issue because there would be no ‘marriage’ as recognized by the government. The government doesn’t belong in marriage and we should stop discriminating against single people, not just gay couples. There is no reason to limit who you may assign an insurance policy to, who you may share hospital/medical rights with, etc.

                  Unfortunately in this political climate and dealing with reality, we can’t have common sense approaches to matters like this.

              2. At any rate, if you dug sufficiently into my comments on other sites, you would see I am not claiming to be something I am not, it is all there. Just because I disagree on some individual issues with the GOP does not make me not conservative, from my viewpoint, it makes the GOP statist.

        2. Since you don’t believe in absolutes, pour gasoline on yourself and light it. It won’t absolutely burn you up and kill you. Go ahead. Here is more reality dealing with absolutes. I’ve noticed you atheists who say you don’t believe in God spend all your time and effort in trying to attack a non-existent person. STRANGE INDEED! And the absolute of that
          absolute is you really aren’t atheists based of what I absolutely said, but you are absolutely GOD HATERS HELL BENT ON EXALTING YOURSELVES ABOVE GOD! OH one more absolute. As more join you ranks of GOD HATERS over the last 50 to 60 years the world is falling deeper into wars, crime, promiscuity, pedophilia religion of Muslims, more people under psyches care, etc. etc. etc. Removing God is as becoming Nero and watching America and the world burn and go to hell and absolutely denying His existence, which has brought all of these calamities on us and that’s an absolute truth! Good day and good bye! Like Jerry Garcia sang, “I may be going to hell in a bucket, but at least I’m enjoying the ride.” Well he arrived at his desired destination. May you too enjoy your ride! So long. See you. I wouldn’t want to be you!

      1. Maybe I don’t want to be a democrat, maybe I believe in small government and state’s rights and I believe less government is more government. Maybe I am a strong proponent of the 2nd amendment and advocate open/concealed carry, maybe there are millions of people like me or close enough to me that fringe people like you call ‘god haters’, and maybe they feel completely alienated by the current setting of the Republican party all because people like you were hellbent on telling other people how you want them to live because your morals tell you so.

        What then? Who am I to vote for?

        Here’s a nuttier thought, what if there are more people like me than there are like you, and what if more people like me are being born daily than before. What if the majority of the people like me have decided the GOP is a lost cause and are instead attempting to reform the DNC or are joining 3rd parties like the Libertarians?

        1. As you deleted your comment, I was posting a reply. it’s now address to ‘Guest,’ thus I’m not sure you were notified.

          But your not fooling anyone about your faux concern on the future of conservatism in America. Your a fake phony fraud impersonating someone right of center.

          1. And that’s the attitude destroying conservatism. My existence is uncomfortable for you, so you declare that I must not exist.

            1. Bull pal; address my response below where I discussed your foolhardy attempt to act like you care about the future of conservatism.

              I lived my entire life in NYS. I have traveled the country and then some, and I’m not uncomfortable with gays, pro-choicers, birth control, science in the classroom or atheists.

              Try defending the comment I initially wrote below.

              1. I replied somewhat, I am not completely sure what response you want out of me. I believe in the whole constitution as it is the underlying framework and law of the land, so I make no apologies for defending the bill of rights and the 14th or any other part of the constitution.

                1. I answered your reply.

                  EDIT:

                  My focus was on the Bill of Rights that you have written about on other sites.

      2. “Whosoever is not for Me is against me!”

        Only a sith deals in absolutes!

        I can’t be against someone I don’t believe exists. Maybe I’d like them very much if they would show up now and again and say hello. You aren’t against Thor any more than I am against your personal deity, I am however against his fan club as of late in the USA.

  47. Wasn’t this country founded on freedom of religion? This means freedom to worship as each of us sees fit. Militant atheist are no better than muslim Jihadist or the extreme christian that kills an abortion doctor. They all believe their particular set of life philosophies is the only proper philosophy, to the point of belittling and discounting others beliefs. As a non believer I am extremely disappointed that the views many christians have of atheist, The reason being is they see people like this pseudo intellectual, higher than thou, jack a$$, that called into mark’s show. I also believe Mark had every right to put him in his place as he was out of line. As a whole atheist are well read on religion and have chosen a different path, they don’t despise or fear religion except when it starts to threaten them the way sects of Islam does. Please don’t just the whole by the fringe.

    1. I agree that militancy is the problem whether it comes in the guise of religion or anti-religion. Islam may be too inherently militant to be classified with the rest.

    2. EVERY recognized Christian pro- life group including ” Operation Rescue” OPPOSED the murder of abortionists ( baby killers ) by individuals.
      It is unbiblical..
      ..So it is inaccurate for you to say they were ” extreme Christian”

    3. It’s deeper than just: we all think our philosophies are best.

      There are four fundamental questions of life:
      origin, meaning, morality and destiny.

      How did I come into being?
      What brings life meaning?
      How do I know right from wrong?
      If anywhere, Where am I headed after I die?

      Three criteria can be applied to developing the positive case for Christianity and simultaneously the negative case against other religious belief claims: logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and existential viability.

      logical consistency: Logic is a natural function of human minds and is universally practiced. In fact, the universality of logic itself needs to be explained in a religious worldview. Many religious beliefs can be dismissed at the outset because they fail this first criterion, for example eastern religions that deny rationality and logic. They not only cannot account for logic, they fail the test of rationality since they hold contradictory beliefs.

      empirical adequacy: is a second criterion that should guide the evaluation of possible religious explanations. Science is a deprived discipline without the possibility of theistic explanations. There are good scientific and philosophical reasons to believe that the universe had a beginning and that that cause was personal. Clearly this would rule out natural explanations for the origin of the universe. This also rules out some religious beliefs that maintain that the universe is infinite.

      existential viability: is the final criterion and the most subjective. This criterion is not about the most convenient or appealing religion to live out. It is the most deeply satisfying in a way that is incongruent with the modern notion if satisfaction or happiness; it is a teleological notion. It deals with deep, fundamental issues human beings question. Christianity best answers the challenge of evil in the world. Not only does Christianity explain the origin and redeeming purpose of evil, it gives it a rational basis in that it is the deviation of the good that was innate in creation as God made it. Thus far, Islam and Judaism fare well in their explanation. However, Christianity offers a rational and satisfying solution to evil with the final judgment and the offer of forgiveness for the evil we perpetrate. Christianity does not deny the reality of evil or make it a necessary part of the universe; it presents it as an aberration that will be corrected on a cosmic and personal level. Eastern religions and New Age variations do not account for the real experience of evil, nor do they offer a satisfying solution.

  48. As an atheist, I expected to disagree with Mark on this. I didn’t, except for two minor points.
    First, his closing point about someone of my belief being intolerant is wrong.
    Second, religious symbols in the public square? If I were an appellate judge, the plaintiff would have a very daunting task to convince me that these are not just geometric shapes. Every basic geometric shape – triangle, two triangles, square, rectangle – is the icon of SOMEONE’s ideology. A cross is two lines or two rectangles intersecting. So is an X, so is a T, and so is a V. If someone chooses to worship a geometric shape, it is not the government “establishing” anything that encumbers me in any way. You can’t get more tolerant than that.

    To elaborate the second point, the public buildings and their layouts are often based on theological symbols (especially freemason architecture). What sense does it make to draw the line at someone putting a Christmas Tree in front of it, if the building itself is loaded with religious symbols. Another example, consider the Statue of Liberty. Doesn’t she look like some kind of mythological goddess? She does to me. We cannot tear down every structure because someone thinks it looks religious.

    1. The thing is, Cal, is that this is the way YOU feel. I’m fine with your feelings on that (and I’m a Christian). In fact your approach is much more logical.

      1. In the Christian faith, wouldn’t God be the inventor of logic, and Satan the inventor of illogic (chaos)?
        🙂
        That’s an honest question, BTW.

          1. So, you are saying yes, God is logic and Satan is chaos? So then, by being logical I am being godly?

            1. Job 12:16
              With him is strength and wisdom: the deceived and the deceiver are his.

              1 Corinthians 2:6
              Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to naught

              James 3:13

              Viewing the King James Version. Click to switch to 1611 King James Version of James 3:13.

              Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
              But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.

            2. post # 2 … it’s not allowing it all on one page with editing…but James 3:13-15 shows that there is an earthly sensual demonic false wisdom of the world that agrees with the devil. And it is contrasted with the Wisdom from above that is

              James 3:17
              But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

              As opposed to earthly wisdom which is

              James 3:15
              This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.

            3. There is a satanic logic in chaos also….Hitler was methodically evil and the nazis were incredibly orderly in their evil….I remember reading of the Polish women delivering babies in Nazi hospitals that were duly noted and registered, girls in pink blankets and boys in blue blankets and then the babies were murdered….and then the mothers….so evil can have its logic and order if the end result is chaos and more evil

    2. Good thing you’re completely ignorant of what a cross represents, otherwise you might have made sense.

      Christians do not worship a “geometric shape”. This is typical atheist hyperbole with no foundation in fact (which I have come to expect from atheists). We worship the risen and very ALIVE Christ who died on that “geometric shape” or CROSS as it has been referred to for thousands of years.

      The cross represents something to Christians. It in and of itself is just a symbol, not a holy relic with divine power. Many people died on crosses, but it is that the Lord’s cross represented salvation from sin that we use this as a Christian symbol.

      The country was founded upon Christianity. It is an irrefutable fact. This is not the Soviet Union or France. This is the United States of America, the most unique nation that has ever existed in the history of human time. And it is such PRECISELY because Christianity lays at its foundation. Our Founders believed it, and history has proven it.

      1. I am not unaware of what Christians read into the cross. And I am not unaware of what other people read into circles and triangles and stars.
        And I am hearing standing up for their right to do it. Even though I don’t.

  49. Levin on Point as always. When the other side has no valid point they reduce to_______(fill in the blank). It is always something, but a valid point.

  50. If leader can not stand up for his faith against opposition how can anyone expect him to stand for anything else?

  51. Just like liberals, just like homosexuals… atheists refuse to accept the truth. They keep talking in circles and rarely (usually never) concede to truth. I guess to acknowledge truth, shows weakness or something. These people as Mark points out, are the most intolerant people in this world. (And now I’m going to lump them all together) They go out of their way to impose their viewpoint and punish those who don’t agree with them. Their purposes aren’t for good or out of concern for mankind… it’s a concern to harm or punish non-agree’ers… they’re selfish and corrupt (whether through twisted ideology, whether through sin or ignorance, etc.). So, since they have no moral, selfless values, they are willing pawns of the author of confusion… useful idiots playing their roles. Enslaved. Fools. Blind and deaf. But unfortunately, cruelly, not dumb – meaning they are allowed to speak… and poison everything.

    1. “These people as Mark points out, are the most intolerant people in this world. (And now I’m going to lump them all together)”
      lumping together all of the people who don’t agree with you is intolerant and ignorant.

      “They go out of their way to impose their viewpoint and punish those who don’t agree with them.”
      you are pushing your viewpoint and condemning those who don’t agree as “immoral, selfish, fools, blind and deaf.”

      “But unfortunately, cruelly, not dumb – meaning they are allowed to speak… and poison everything.”
      in the perspectives of many, this could refer to you

  52. Truly, this was 10 minutes of me chuckling at that moron…Mark is too well-versed in American History…what a fool….he’s no atheist, but a masochist to try and correct Mark’s grammar…LMAO!

    1. Yeah? Ever heard of Islam? When was the last time you read a report of a 150 Christians, a report linked to by Right Scoop, being slaughtered by atheists?

      1. Islams god is the devil. Islamists know their god….The thing is that ALMIGHTY GOD gives humans the free will to serve the devil, OR Nature’s God, and that biblical principle was acknowledged in The First Amendment.
        However, our Constitution protects us from living under sharia law which shreds our rights. The Constitution protects us against honor killings and P/C Cultural Marxism/ Faschist……so our leaders better WAKE UP and enforce THE Constitutional protections of Americans…..

        Because sharia law is rearing its demonic head in every area of American life.

  53. Love Mark… he has a heart of gold. Last week, some pet owners called and Mark had me in tears. Have listened to him about 6 years, every night, never miss him. He is an education on the Constitution.

  54. Dennis Miller once said that he knows this country was based on morals and the Documents were written by men of faith. He says that he doesn’t understand why atheists are so worried. What are they scared of? Love thy neighbor? Dont steal and don’t kill? What’s so scary? No where in any of our Documents does it say that every citizen must believe in God, any God. Whats the big deal? Does it say that if you see the Ten Commandments in a courthouse that you have to immediately stop and read it? Stop bitching. Dennis is an agnostic and can grasp this concept.

    Its the Devil folks. The Bible says that Satan is the author of confusion. Look at what is happening today and and tell me people aren’t confused. Mathematics say that if you spend more money than you take in that that doesn’t work. Yet people act as if that isn’t the case. That is confusion. Tons of other examples to name.

  55. Speaking of “schooling”, maybe Mark Levin should familiarize himself more with Thomas Jefferson.

    If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D’Alembert, D’Holbach, Condorcet,are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God.
    – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

    Mark Levin is a bright guy, but he is clearly no Thomas Jefferson and beyond shadow of doubt never will be.

    1. It’s no surprise that people can act ” morally” and yet profess no belief in Nature’s God…….The Word of God clearly explains it.

  56. It really isn’t even faith in a God that matters, it’s a belief that there has to be something greater than Man. When Man, imperfect and imperfectible as he is, places himself above all other authority, then corruption and tyranny reign supreme. We saw enough of that in the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, and Cambodia (among dozens of others) to know better…but some people just don’t realize that they aren’t actually any better than those who came before them.

    1. You forgot Hungary and the Balkan states that are now threatened by not only the Russians, but the Godlessness of their pasts.

      1. And Ukraine who put its faith in the USA promise to defend it……….Israel knows who it’s defense rests on…….for now….until they also enter into the delusion of trusting man

  57. Mark Levin scores again. Two Atheistic Nations in the 20th century killed more than 110,000,000 people for Believing in a God.
    The truth is most Atheists are not real Atheists. They just use it as an excuse to hate God. Guys like this want America to be expunged of ANY Religion. If possible would make having any faith like smoking. Only in special places at certain times, vetted by a humanistic body, particularly Christianity. A special god tax as well. For some reason these folks love Islam.
    Nobody gay forces them to bake cakes.
    Freedom of Religion( Christianity mainly) means freedom to stamp it out, is what they want.
    I laugh at the presumption. It never worked in the Soviet Union,nor China.
    What we don’t want is any sect of any Religion becoming official by Government.
    Which we do already. Its called Humanism. Man is the measure of himself. Like that’s ever worked out.

    1. “Only in special places at certain times, vetted by a humanistic body, particularly Christianity..” Reminds me of the “official church” of China.
      Well said.

    2. Thanks for pointing out the TRUTH….that EVERYONE has faith and religion….it’s simply a set of beliefs

  58. That left a mark!

    Well said Mr. Levin.

    The Declaration mentions God 4 times. . He is Nature’s God, Maker of Nature’s Laws, and Legislature. He is our Creator, our Founder. He is Supreme Judge, and Judiciary, and He is Divine Providence, the Executive.

    Our Founders knew that Nature and Equality could only be truly represented in a limited government which has a separation of powers, and they knew the giver of liberty: “God who gave us life gave us liberty.” Thomas Jefferson.

    Again from Thomas Jefferson, “That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”

    How can a people who don’t believe in a God, believe our rights are secure- because if our rights don’t come from our Creator as our Founders knew, they can be taken away.

    Our Freedoms are embedded in our Bill of Rights and are God given; our Founders knew that.

    “It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave” –John Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, November 20, 1772

    People like this atheist and so many others believe in human nature- but like Mark said, human nature is not tolerant. People call Christians intolerant because of our beliefs, yet it is a historical fact that Christian nations, especially the United States has always been the most tolerant of any other religious beliefs or ideologies.

    Atheistic governments, governments where the head of state is considered a ‘god’ or supreme ruler, are the most oppressive, destructive and murderous nations on the planet for anyone who dares believe in something different.

    Atheism, secularism/humanism are just as ‘religious’ as those who believe in God or more specifically, in Jesus.

    It’s because of our nation’s kicking God out that we are in the mess we are in. You take God out, He will be replaced by something.
    And may He help us, because what we have now is destroying our country.

    “If I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible that main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: ‘Men had forgotten God; that is why all this has happened.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn

    Time to listen to those who lived through and knew of what they spoke and wrote about- stop believing the liberalized crap that’s been spoon fed to the masses for the past 60 plus years.

            1. Too funny! 🙂

              Yes Scoop we think you are awesome too! Guess we haven’t told you in awhile.

                1. I know you didn’t… I had to turn it around on you and even then it was only partially a joke.

                  You are a good guy and I enjoy your sense of humor. We know you are not a needy narcissist that needs continual praise.

                  Have a great day Scoop!

    1. Well said, AD.

      May I add this?

      The true nature of an atheist is such that he deems himself the ultimate arbiter of his destiny. He relinquishes control of his life to no one else.

      If the atheist is correct, then he should be able to have control over all aspects of his life — health, sickness, mental state, even death.

      Show me anyone who has complete control over all aspects of his life, even his death.

      Until such time as an atheist fully demonstrates to me without a doubt that he is indeed the ultimate, final, and complete arbiter of his destiny, I will — I must — continue to take God, the God of the Bible, as the ultimate arbiter of my destiny. I will continue to relinquish control of my life to him and to him alone.

        1. Thanks, AD.

          What I am afraid of is that some human will eventually — and soon — appear to fulfill everything that I’ve mentioned here, that is, have control over all aspects of his life — health, sickness, mental state, even death.

          Others will see that and designate him as “superman”, as Nietzsche put it, that is, someone who is seemingly able to be the ultimate arbiter of his own existence and destiny. He will be able to then fully deem God and therefore his Torah (Law) as unnecessary and irrelevant — separating himself from Torah (Law) — becoming a torah (law) unto himself.

          The most dangerous aspect of this is that other people will see this human who is seemingly in control of his destiny as someone to emulate and to follow, even to worship — consider how some people worship Obama — because he has proven himself worthy.

          One of the heads of the beast appeared to have received a fatal wound, but its fatal wound was healed, and the whole earth followed after the beast in amazement. They worshipped the dragon, because he had given his authority to the beast; and they worshipped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast? Who can fight against it?” It was given a mouth speaking arrogant blasphemies; and it was given authority to act for forty-two months. So it opened its mouth in blasphemies against God to insult his name and his Sh’khinah, and those living in heaven; it was allowed to make war on God’s holy people and to defeat them; and it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. Everyone living on earth will worship it except those whose names are written in the Book of Life belonging to the Lamb slaughtered before the world was founded.
          — Revelation 13 (CJB)

          Some might think this is far-fetched. I’m not thinking that it is so far-fetched after all.

          1. Folks have been writing about this, I have written about it. It’s not far fetched- to those of us who believe it.
            The worship by so many of obama shows that many are ripe to blindly follow anyone who appears to be who he’s not.

      1. Yes but sometimes he does it just right. Like Rush he just let the rope go until they hang themselves. I think if the guy had been more articulate he would of let him go on longer. Really what the guy was up to was using Mark to espouse his atheism since it seems to be the new old time religion these days.

        And let me clear…not all atheists are like that. There are plenty that are tolerant because they seek tolerance. That guy isn’t seeking tolerance by any stretch.

        1. Exactly. He’s the kind that has Ten Commandments monuments taken down and replaced with Atheist monuments with that stupid atom symbol like muslims erecting a mosque at the site of a “victory”.

          1. There are atheists that hate like this clown with Mark and there are atheists that love like Penn Jillette.

        2. I agree not all are like that. I know a few (pray all the time for them) because they’re great people, who recognize the militant type and are disgusted with them. They might not believe, but they know enough truth that militant atheism/humanism is destructive.

    1. Loved that too! Stooping to his snotty little grammar correction thing at the end. He really was an ass and he deserved that.

        1. I disagree. I was talking about the atheist. And we don’t have to play nice with these people anymore.

  59. What a fool this dude is, as soon as he heard Levin’s tone he should have hung up. I would never, ever want to be on the wrong side of Levin..ever.
    Having said that, I am happy he did not as it was fabulous to hear the Great One’s take down of ‘mumbles’!

Comments are closed.