One of the reasons I like Dennis Prager (His radio show and columns, that is. I don't know the man personally, though I'm sure the two of us could be good friends as the only personality quirk that I am aware of is his tendency to patronize – as quirks go, more amusing than irritating.) is that, though not a Christian himself, he has a solid understanding of Christian thought and belief. He also produces the most level-headed and thoughtful discourses on Christianity and religions in general. It is easy to rip apart the rantings of a religious nut case. It is more challenging to find fault with what Dennis Prager says and writes.

Dennis, however, has a huge blind spot in his otherwise rational view of existence when it comes to God and religion. When he sticks to current events or the human condition, his insights can be quite brilliant. He has so managed to compartmentalize his religious views, however, that his maxim of “State the truth first and then give your opinion” can't seem to find a foothold.

Here is his latest example with my comments interspersed. It is his latest article (at the time of this post) entitled "If the Almighty Doesn't Exist" on some sites or "If There Is No God" on others. The article itself is short, but this post is quite long – 9 pages in my word processor – but I wanted to be sure that all of Dennis' words were kept in context, so I present the article in its entirety. Find the original here to verify I have not changed it.

We are constantly reminded about the destructive consequences of religion — intolerance, hatred, division, inquisitions, persecutions of “heretics,” holy wars. Though far from the whole story, they are, nevertheless, true. There have been many awful consequences of religion.

What one almost never hears described are the deleterious consequences of secularism — the terrible developments that have accompanied the breakdown of traditional religion and belief in God. For every thousand students who learn about the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials, maybe two learn to associate Gulag, Auschwitz, The Cultural Revolution and the Cambodian genocide with secular regimes and ideologies.

It is fairly easy to apply the term secular to any belief or even policy that is not explicitly tied to a religion. But is it accurate to do so? This could be the subject of an extensive paper so I won't go into an exhaustive examination of the subject. I would only point out that attempting to tie Nazism to secularism has been a controversial, and not particularly successful, tactic for many years. The Nazis, though not expressly identifying their movement with a particular religion or even religion in general, did not make any effort to distance themselves from religion or from religious thought in general. Apart from their fanatical hatred of Jews (which probably played more of a role of the scapegoat every dictatorship finds necessary to rationalize its excessive behavior), Nazis gave religion neither an ancillary nor subversive role to play in “the effort.”

The Communists, on the other hand, did. Karl Marx had labeled religion as “the opiate of the people,” a powerful sedative to make the people submissive to the rule of the Capitalist masters or any political masters for that matter. There is some truth to this claim, but at best religion is a double-edged sword that can just as readily be used against the ruling power. In fact, he needed to look no further than the American and French revolutions to find imperfect but still quite significant examples of just that. So it could be argued that Marx really saw religion as too corrosive to co-exist with Communism and that was why it had to go. Communism and religion were not so much antithetical as they were competitors.

Either way, Communism was from conception onward explicitly anti-religious. Which is not to say that the Communists simply refrained from using religion to keep their population in check (instead it used fear to do that). The American Founding Fathers also saw the ability of the State to use the power of religion to lock in its power. The solution, however, was not to attempt to destroy religion but to build a wall between State and religion to prevent misuse of religion.

The Communists never made an effort to prevent themselves from using religion to gain and/or retain power. They attempted to wipe it out altogether and the fervor this effort has always been pursued points out that Communists see religion as much more than simply a tool they must prevent themselves from misusing. They saw (and still see) religion as anathema to their goals. They set them as anti-religious (not secular) because they perceived (rightly or wrongly) that religion was competition for the hearts and minds of the populace.

The American Constitutional Republic, on the other hand, is quite deliberately a secular form of government. It does not attempt to forbid religion in all other walks of life, it simple bans its use as a justification for political action. And, outside of present-day American academia, it is generally recognized that the largest source of Good in the world for the last 2 centuries, if not in all of human history, has been the United States of America – history's first true secular State.

For all the problems associated with belief in God, the death of God leads to far more of them.

A fact so far unsupported by the evidence. Let's see if any evidence is forthcoming.

So, while it is not possible to prove (or disprove) God’s existence, what is provable is what happens when people stop believing in God.

Half right. It is not possible to disprove God's existence. It is not possible to disprove the existence of Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster or even the Easter Bunny as anyone with a passing knowledge of Critical Thinking 101 can tell you. Logically speaking, it is perfectly possible to provethe existence of God, Nessy, UFO aliens or any number of seemingly wild claims. Simply provide enough evidence.

1. Without God there is no good and evil; there are only subjective opinions that we then label “good” and “evil.” This does not mean that an atheist cannot be a good person. Nor does it mean that all those who believe in God are good; there are good atheists and there are bad believers in God. It simply means that unless there is a moral authority that transcends humans from which emanates an objective right and wrong, “right” and “wrong” no more objectively exist than do “beautiful” and “ugly.”

An little example of Dennis' patronizing attitude here, acknowledging the fact that there may be “good” atheists. Thank you, Dennis, I sleep better knowing this.

But the claim that Good and Evil are mere points of view without “a moral authority that transcends humans which emanates an objective right and wrong...” is meaningless at all levels of examination. What is so special about morality that we need such a transcendent reference for it when we need no such thing for any other field of study. We require no such thing for mathematics, physics, chemistry or even psychology. We are quite capable of determining objective truths in all other such studies without a supernatural – excuse me, transcendent – standard or authority.

But morality is different, you may say. Well, no, it's not. I am a programmer and I remember a few years ago, reading an article on Artificial Intelligence. The author stated flatly that we would probably never be able to develop an AI that could understand morality or make moral judgments. It just goes to show that many people hold morality as some sort of mystical force that is projected onto us rather than something we learn and develop and come to know from study and evaluation.

A simple question: does morality have a real-world function? That is, does morality have a purpose other than to worship and praise God? Of course it does. That purpose, then, is the objective, non-transcendental basis for moral judgments. In as much as a certain rule or action promotes that purpose, it is a moral good. If it detracts or goes against that purpose, it is a moral evil.

Another simple question: assuming for a moment that there is no God, does Dennis mean to say he could not provide any objective, secular reasons why murder is bad? – or Rape? – or theft? I can. I have no doubt Dennis also could.

The truth is we have an objective standard by which we evaluate the current state of our moral codes, just as we constantly evaluate the current state of all schools of knowledge. Just look at the Bible. The Judeo-Christian morality of today is much different from the morality God taught His people in the Old Testament. Human civilization has advanced since those days. We know more about everything – science, art, literature, life, morality. Some would agree and point to the New Testament, claiming it is an update of the old moral code to bring it up to the then current level of intellectual attainment. When we were ready for a change, God provide us the change. Fine, but that was two thousand years ago and not only have we continued to advance in that time, we now advance at a faster pace. Even the Judeo-Christian moral codes have advanced – without benefit of another upgrade from God. Every moral advancement in the last two thousand years we have done on our own.

“Like what?” some may ask. Take slavery, as one historically recent example. Slavery is now recognized as a preeminent evil even in – or especially in – the Judeo-Christian morality. But can we give God credit for this moral advancement? No. His last pronouncement to the Human Race was two thousand years ago. A quick look at any Biblical concordance will show many entries for “slave” and “slavery.” None condemn the practice. The Old Testament gives rules for the proper practice of slavery just as it gives rules for the proper practice of marriage, eating, worshiping and the million-and-one other aspects of what is to be considered a “good” life. An Israelite cannot own another Israelite as a slave, but having a non-Israelite as a slave is fine and, as could be expected, a non-Israelite may own an Israelite as a slave and there is also a time limit to the period if enslavement. There is nothing about non-Israelite slaves and non-Israelite slave owners. In fact, it is clear that morality as defined in the Bible are intended only for the Israelites. The tone of the Bible gives tacit acknowledgment and endorsement of moral relativism. God apparently was not the least bit concerned with the moral health of anyone outside the Jewish community. In fact, the first big controversy in the budding Christian faith, as recorded by Paul, was whether or not it was allowed to take Christianity into the non-Jewish world.

What happened? Consider the fact that there was very little difference in human society and state of knowledge from the time of Abraham to Moses to David. By the time of Jesus, advancements in knowledge, particularly by the Greeks and Romans, led to a reexamination of Gods laws and there was found...deficiencies. Jesus provided us with the means to update the laws, to move from the letter of the law more to the spirit of the law, from technicalities to outcomes.

Civilization has advanced far more in the two thousand years after Jesus than in the two thousand years before Jesus. The need for moral revisions have come more and more often. But there can be no more Jesuses to provide an excuse for these revisions – for if God gave us the laws, only God can change them. But what to do about such things as slavery? We now know it is intensely evil, but we wait in vain for condemnation from God. Sure, some scriptures were interpreted to provide at least a hint of support. But more was needed.

Ironically, the same advancements in knowledge make another Jesus necessary made another Jesus impossible. It's not just that we are less gullible than the residents of Judea circa year 0. We have much more extensive and accurate means of investigation for claims that anyone may make, including claims of Divinity. There actually have been other Messiahs since Jesus. None have passed our more modern tests.

So we update God's law surreptitiously. We have come up with the idea of “personal revelation” in which God writes (or re-writes, as it were) His laws directly upon our hearts. It is sound logic, as far as religionists are concerned. Only God can determine Right from Wrong. If we know that slavery is wrong (not to mention newer concepts such as War Crimes which would have been totally alien to those living during Biblical times) then that knowledge must have come from God. Since God has not made any public pronouncements recently, He must be telling us individually.

They know this can't be proven, of course. But that is no concern – it also can't be disproven and as far as religionists are concerned, lack of proof is all the proof they need.

2. Without God, there is no objective meaning to life. We are all merely random creations of natural selection whose existence has no more intrinsic purpose or meaning than that of a pebble equally randomly produced.

I am going to cheat a little and bring up a point that Dennis makes at the end of this article, “[This] makes the case for the necessity, not the existence, of God.” In logic, this fallacy is known as “argument from necessity.” In fact, most of this article consists of nothing more than various examples of this fallacy. The basic argument goes like this, “Only God gives life meaning so if there is no God, life has no meaning.” In the more general case, it is circular reasoning.

Dennis did an entire hour of his radio show recently using just this fallacy when he argued for the existence of Hell. “If you don't believe in Hell, then you believe that Hitler, Pol Pot and Mother Theresa all end up in the same place.” If we are speaking objectively here, the existence of Hell or evolution or dark matter is effected not one little bit by what we may believe or not believe or of anything we may desire. Existence is what existence is. Beliefs bend to what is real, not the other way round.

Returning to the specific point, is there objective meaning to life? Not really. In general, the only intrinsic meaning for life is to provide nourishment for other life. God or no God, we humans must give our own lives meaning. God does give Dennis' life meaning. Actually, it is the belief in God that gives Dennis' life meaning, but I'm not going to be the one to break the news to him. His radio show, his writings and his lectures also give his life meaning, as does his family and any hobbies or avocations that he may have.

We must each ultimately decide what gives our life meaning and what meaning that will be. For most people, including myself, it is our work. This is so common that we all seem to realize it of each other. When we meet a stranger, at a party or just in line in a grocery store, and we fall into conversation and start to learn what kind of person he or she is, there is one question that we always ask and we ask it early as it provides the most amount of information about the other person: “What do you do for a living?” If it is a youth, the question may be, “What is your major?” or “What do you want to be when you grow up?” depending on just how young the person is. We may as well be asking, “What meaning have you selected for your life?”

3. Life is ultimately a tragic fare if there is no God. We live, we suffer, we die — some horrifically, many prematurely — and there is only oblivion afterward.

Another textbook example of Argument from Necessity. If there is only oblivion afterward, then our belief (or unbelief) in God will not effect that. Desiring it does not make it true.

4. Human beings need instruction manuals. This is as true for acting morally and wisely as it is for properly flying an airplane. One’s heart is often no better a guide to what is right and wrong than it is to the right and wrong way to fly an airplane. The post-religious secular world claims to need no manual; the heart and reason are sufficient guides to leading a good life and to making a good world.

Correct in the first point, wrong in the second. Yes, we humans need guidance. We are a rational creature and not instinctual. We need food and shelter to survive, as does any creature. But we have no built-in guide to help us as we go about providing for ourselves. That, in fact, is the objective basis for morality. Morality provides the rules we must follow to provide the maximum survivability to the maximum number of people. The heart (and I sincerely hope that everyone realizes this is just a metaphor for emotions) cannot provide accurate guidance for moral behavior. In fact, the emotions respond to what we have already learned and internalized. We have so learned since earliest childhood that cutting in line is “wrong” that we react emotionally when we see it, and even more so when we are a victim of it.

If I were to invite someone into my living room and he were to sit across from me and stretch out his legs with his toes pointing in the air, I wouldn't even notice that the bottoms of his shoes were pointing in my direction. It would be a matter of total indifference to me even if it were pointed out to me. To someone from the Middle East, however, the emotional response, anger at such an insult, would be swift and strong.

The emotions can give us an immediate guide to how to react to rules we have already accepted. They provide no advance guidance to which rules we must accept.

The second point, that the “post-religious secular world claims to need no manual...” is wrong, or, at best, not entirely correct. I do not argue that there is no one who claims that we should be guided by our emotions – a “listen to your heart” kind of romantic nonsense – 'Use the Force, Luke!” Sure these people exist, but they are fools who have little influence on anyone else who are not already fools. But being a card-carrying member of the “secular world” myself, I can assure Dennis that there is no such claim about the heart.

Ah, but Dennis performs a little trick call a “package deal.” He says something that is reasonable and correct but then, when he sums it all up to hand over to us, he sneaks in another concept that would have been objectionable had he mentioned it earlier. Notice, after having rightly stated that the heart cannot be a moral guide, goes on to claim that the “post-religious secular world claims to need no manual; the heart and reason are sufficient guides to leading a good life and to making a good world.”

Well, yes, we do claim reason is sufficient. In fact, reason is the only tool we have in providing “guides for leading a good life and to making a good world.” It was reason that led us to believe that slavery was wrong and that we shouldn't kill non-combatants even in the heat of war. The reasoning was so sound and the arguments so compelling, that even the religionists couldn't argue. They had to make a modification to their doctrine to invent a concept that would allow us to change what God was telling us when we found instances where God was wrong or just silent on the subject.

5. If there is no God, the kindest and most innocent victims of torture and murder have no better a fate after death than do the most cruel torturers and mass murderers. Only if there is a good God do Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler have different fates.

I already discussed this.

6. With the death of Judeo-Christian values in the West, many Westerners believe in little. That is why secular Western Europe has been unwilling and therefore unable to confront evil, whether it was Communism during the Cold War or Islamic totalitarians in its midst today.

I find it amusing when people such as Dennis refer to Europe as part of the “secular West” when most of Europe still has no concept of the separation of church and state that makes the US such a model of secularism. Dennis' point here makes sense only if you accept the, largely self-identifying, labeling of the Conservative Right as religious and the Liberal Left as secular. But if you concentrate just on Conservative and Liberal, you will find just as much mainstream religion on one side as the other. In fact, I think you will find Mother Theresa more of a idol of the Left than the Right as she personifies the more Liberal ideals of self-sacrifice, service to others, helping the poor is the greatest good, etc.

The Liberal Left are unwilling to identity and confront evil because they are afraid (rightly so, in my opinion) that an accurate moral assessment will not be complementary to their beliefs. So they have adopted what is very much a modern day religious principle. “Who am I to judge, only God can judge other people, etc.” When your arguments lack moral support, attack morality. When your arguments lack rational support, attack reason.

There are religious people on the Right and there are secular people (like me) on the Right. There are religious people on the Left and there are secular people on the Left. There is nothing particularly religious or secular about being too cowardly to face up to evil. The characteristics that Dennis attempts to apply to the “Secular Left” are actually only characteristics of the Left (Liberal) crowd, whether they be identifiably secular or religious.

7. Without God, people in the West often become less, not more, rational. It was largely the secular, not the religious, who believed in the utterly irrational doctrine of Marxism. It was largely the secular, not the religious, who believed that men’s and women’s natures are basically the same, that perceived differences between the sexes are all socially induced. Religious people in Judeo-Christian countries largely confine their irrational beliefs to religious beliefs (theology), while the secular, without religion to enable the non-rational to express itself, end up applying their irrational beliefs to society, where such irrationalities do immense harm.

I think this is the most profoundly silly excuse to put up with religion that I have yet heard. Religion provides an outlet, a “safety valve”, if you will, for any irrational tendencies we may want to express. I really don't think Dennis realizes just how insignificant a role in human affairs this assigns to religion. In order for the statement to be true, religion itself must be no more important than stamp collecting or a preference of Coke over Pepsi. Religion is useful because it channels irrational beliefs out to where it can do us no harm? What an admission!

8. If there is no God, the human being has no free will. He is a robot, whose every action is dictated by genes and environment. Only if one posits human creation by a Creator that transcends genes and environment who implanted the ability to transcend genes and environment can humans have free will.

This is more “facts that are true because we have defined them that way.” Do we have free will? If your answer is “yes” then if I should somehow provide you with absolute proof that God did not exist, would we still have free will or would it suddenly disappear with your realization that there was indeed not a God?

Free will, human dignity, purpose – these all exist completely independent of God.

9. If there is no God, humans and “other” animals are of equal value. Only if one posits that humans, not animals, are created in the image of God do humans have any greater intrinsic sanctity than baboons. This explains the movement among the secularized elite to equate humans and animals.

Humans are special only because they were created in the image of God? Yet another truth by definition. Humans are special because of all the characteristics of humans that make us special. Chimpanzees and jellyfish are special because of all the characteristics of chimpanzees and jellyfish that make them special. However, part of what makes humans special is exactly the characteristics that require us to adopt a moral code to govern our behavior to each other. Chimpanzees and jellyfish have no need of such a moral code and couldn't live by one even if one were provided to them.

Even in a totally secular world, humans and animals are of different value – with humans at the top. One could say we are at the top of the food chain or at the pinnacle of evolution. Or we could just say we are the most valuable because we are the only creatures that even have a concept of value. That being the case, everything has precisely the value we give it. And this is true. Everything in the universe has value only in regard to the value it supplies to humanity (or to any unknown alien on another planet that also has a concept of value).

10. Without God, there is little to inspire people to create inspiring art. That is why contemporary art galleries and museums are filled with “art” that celebrates the scatological, the ugly and the shocking. Compare this art to Michelangelo’s art in the Sistine chapel. The latter elevates the viewer — because Michelangelo believed in something higher than himself and higher than all men.

I'm afraid Dennis is showing us some pretty big blinders here. Some of the most ugly and shocking art in the world is religious in nature. Scenes of Hell, Satan, Demons running wild devouring the souls (and bodies) of The Damned. Such art was meant to be shocking and frightening. That was its purpose.

Yes, an awful lot of contemporary art is just ugly – even worse, it seems to just be ugly for ugliness' sake. Part of it is that it has been chic for some years now to refuse to make judgments concerning art, much the same as refusing to make judgments concerning people's actions. “What is art?” is the question – usually rhetorical, as if there was not an answer – and if we cannot decide what is and is not art, how can we decide what is “good” art and what is “bad” art? Again, this is just a cowardly refusal to render a judgment and that is more a political rather than a religious view.

How about the fact that there is a lot of religious art from the Middle Ages because in the Middle Ages only religion bought art? Don't you think that might have had just a little bit of an effect? Today even the poorest among us are consumers of art of one form or another. So there is a larger market and there are those who attempt to appeal to the “lowest common denominator” or the basest among us. That is the disadvantage of having art so cheap (and the poor so rich) that anyone and everyone influences the market.

But there is also an awful lot of secular art that is uplifting, inspirational (if I may be allowed to use that word) and just downright beautiful. I submit to you The Truman Show, Orinoco Flow, or just about anything by Phillip Glass. I rest my case.

11. Without God nothing is holy. This is definitional. Holiness emanates from a belief in the holy. This explains, for example, the far more widespread acceptance of public cursing in secular society than in religious society. To the religious, there is holy speech and profane speech. In much of secular society the very notion of profane speech is mocked.

Damned right it's definitional. I am secular to the core. I am not an agnostic, I am a devout, born-again atheist. Yet the most “profane” word you will likely ever hear me use is the first word of this paragraph, and even then so sparingly that when I do use it, it accomplishes what such words are meant to accomplish: strong emphasis. The descent of modern speech is also the result of the Liberal rejection of all rules – moral, civil, artistic, what have you – than any requirement or goal of secular society.

In fact, as I hope anyone reading this should realize, there is no requirement or tendency of secularism to reject the civil, the beautiful, or the Good in human society. In fact, the only valid complaint that I can see that the religionists have about secularism is that we study the civil, the beautiful and the Good because we don't believe that such things are simply handed to us. We discuss them and test them and argue about them and finally decide which really fits, which doesn't, and which is superfluous.

This is a continuous process because so much of what is correct is determined by context, which is subject to change. Thus we may realize that there was once a perfectly sound health benefit to refraining from eating pork. Now, with better technology both in the raising and processing of meat, such restrictions are no longer necessary. We can realize that slavery is evil and start acting on that realization without having to wait for confirmation from some “transcendent” authority. And it is certainly nice to be able to call foolish people “fools” without fear of damnation and hellfire!

12. Without God, humanist hubris is almost inevitable. If there is nothing higher than man, no Supreme Being, man becomes the supreme being.

I, on the other hand, could well argue that, assuming we are the most supreme being so far in existence, and all indications seem to support this, then we should acknowledge that fact so we can start taking the responsibility that comes with such a position. If we realize we are the sole definers of morality, then we will realize that we have to work hard at getting it right, correct any mistakes as soon as we can (slavery) and adjust it when conditions warrant it (pork).

When all of us realize that it is we and we alone who are responsible for the “human condition,” it is we and we alone who are to blame for travesties, then we will work all the harder to get it right. Human history is full of tragedy but it is also a record of gradual improvement of everything we control. When we fully take control of ourselves, we ourselves will join that relentless march to betterment.

13. Without God, there are no inalienable human rights. Evolution confers no rights. Molecules confer no rights. Energy has no moral concerns. That is why America’s Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed “by our Creator” with certain inalienable rights. Rights depend upon a moral source, a rights giver.

This is the most specious argument among all the arguments of religionists. Religion has been around since...well, since day one as far as we know. But the first real achievement of “human rights” was achieved precisely when we removed God from the political arena. I am well aware of all the references to God that can be found in the writings of the Founding Fathers. I am also well aware, based on their actions which, after all, speak much louder, that when it came to running a country, they had absolutely no trust in God whatsoever. The slogan “In God We Trust” was a much later addition to the national narrative. It would be more historically accurate to print “In God We Have Never Trusted” on all our money.

14. ”Without God,” Dostoevsky famously wrote, “all is permitted.” There has been plenty of evil committed by believers in God, but the widespread cruelties and the sheer number of innocents murdered by secular regimes — specifically Nazi, Fascist and Communist regimes — dwarfs the evil done in the name of religion.

Even assuming that the Nazi, Fascist and Communists were indeed secular, I think the Islamists have shown us that the disparity in body count was simply a matter of technology. We can do anything more efficiently today than was possible hundreds of years ago – including killing.

Another lesson from the Islamists that should be learned: neither religious societies nor secular societies have a monopoly on good or evil. Both societies will produce good people who will do good things and evil people who will do evil things. However, it is only religion that can get good people to willingly do evil things.

As noted at the beginning, none of this proves, or even necessarily argues for, God’s existence. It makes the case for the necessity, not the existence, of God.

A bit of “argument from necessity” as well as circular reasoning. If every Good Thing is defined in relation to God, then God becomes necessary for any Good Thing. But God is not necessary.

It has often been quoted that 90-95% of Americans believe in God. I live and work here. I know lots of people and can watch many more as they go about their public lives. I see very few people who allow God to play a role in their lives of any significance at all. So it must be that when they are asked, “Do you believe in God?” they answer, “Yeah, sure.” Why not? It costs nothing to answer in the affirmative. And who knows, maybe Pascal was onto something with his famous wager. So go ahead and give the right answer in case there turns out to be a God after all.

But actions not only speak louder than words, they speak truer than words. When you look at the actions of Americans, you realize that America is really and truly a secular society. This is praise, not criticism. We make the occasional polite nod in God's direction, but we go about our lives as if we alone are responsible. We question everything and go where the evidence leads us. If that evidence leads us to decide that slavery is evil, then by golly slavery is evil and God had best fall in line. At some level, I think a good many Americans have decided that if God can't be trusted to run the Peoples lives, He can't be trusted to run a person's life.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. God helps those who help themselves. Two expressions that are not to be found in any scriptural writings, but which express the view that God may be nice to have around but for anything really important we're on our own.

Some people would argue with me, pointing out that there are an ever increasing number of Americans that expressly do not take responsibility for their own lives. They live quiet, purposeless lives on welfare, assuming that any needs they may have will be met – by someone, eventually. Yes, sadly that is true. But it is still a small minority of Americans, and we seem to have reached the peak in this trend – at least for the moment. We just have to keep overpowering the siren song of the Liberal culture, seducing our people for the sake of their own power.

“Which God?” the secularist will ask. The God of Israel, the God of America’s founders, “the Holy God who is made holy by justice” (Isaiah), the God of the Ten Commandments, the God who demands love of neighbor, the God who endows all human beings with certain inalienable rights, the God who is cited on the Liberty Bell because he is the author of liberty. That is the God being referred to here, without whom we will be vanquished by those who believe in less noble gods, both secular and divine.

Nonsense. Unless the religionists are willing to concede that the Declaration of Independence was divinely inspired, we have no reference of God granting any rights to Man, inalienable or otherwise or of showing any concern for the rights of anyone. Certainly, judging by His actions as “documented” in the OT, God seems to have no concept of human rights whatsoever. There is also no scriptural reference showing that God is the “author of liberty.” These are empty accolades. No religionist argues with them because all religionists readily accept any good thing said about God, whether there is any scriptural evidence or not – whether there is scriptural evidence to the contrary or not.