SIMMONS: Confusion reigns

Relativism has no moral's, it only seeks consensus. As we have seen on Krystal Nacht and July 17th, 1918 with the Romanoffs, consensus has no conscience.

Jesus is the only way

As an agnostic, I am surely envious of those that enjoy faith. But I still have a strong sense of right and wrong, a sense of outrage at excessive greed, and also a deep conviction that no person has a right to impose the subtleties of their moral code on others. It is important to distinguish that just because one lacks religious faith does not make one greedy, evil, or otherwise especially onerous. I resent being lumped into the category of the Godless heathen. And now that the uber-religious nut-jobs are lathered up, I want them to gently recall the crusades and all the innocents that died in that dark, dark time. Tolerance, tolerance, tolerance. And try to lighten up and have a little fun.

Our country was founded on the belief that a Christian society would enable a tolerant, democratic government. The commandments to love God and love thy brother, when observed, go a long way in tempering the role of authority in the lives of the people. Followed perfectly, we wouldn't need policemen or government agencies that take care of individuals. People would take care of each other. But many in America shun God, and by doing so, deny themselves his Grace. Since greed has supplanted respect as our defining, national characteristic, the Government can no longer remain the benign, gracious arbiter of our Federation. It has become intrusive and demanding of acquiescence. The less godly we act, the more totalitarian the Government must become to maintain order. And that is what we are witnessing today.

I hate the in-your-face atheists who give the rest of us a bad name. If someone wants to believe in a mythological creature that will punish you for your wrongdoings, fine. If it helps keep people from behaving like savages, good. The Constitution protects freedom of religion, not from. It just doesn't allow for the establishment of an "official" religion. If people want to pray in school or put up a nativity scene, so what? On the other side if you're a holy roller, keep it to yourself.

The "immaculate conception led to the birth of Jesus"? The Immaculate Conception (feast day December 8) is a doctrine of the Catholic Church that has nothing to do with the Virgin Birth or, directly, with the birth of Jesus. The doctrine holds simply that Mary was conceived without Original Sin. It has nothing to do with sex.

There are those who dislike "in your face" atheists. Well enough. At the same time, there are those nonbelievers who are sick and tired of "in your face" religion, which has a much, much longer history. The USA belongs to everyone, believers and nonbelievers alike. The strident atheist types are merely returning to believers what believers have dumped on them for generations, going back to the time when Christianity was established as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Let us hope we have gone beyond the stage at which atheism was literally a capital offense. If freedom of religion means anything, it must also include the right to be free from religion, in which case the state has no business endorsing it. The USA is not now and has never officially been a Christian - or any other religious - nation. If the religious types quit shoving their religion at nonbelievers, then maybe the nonbelievers will in turn not try to shove their nonbelief on the belivers.

The article mentions the Beltway Atheists being "in cahoots" with the AHA for an event on Dupont Circle. Just so y'all know, they were there to give out clothes to the homeless. By all accounts it was quite successful.

This whole article is pretty dismissive of other religions and viewpoints--are you sure you're a serious journalist? Have you bothered to do any research at all about the groups you've mentioned? It doesn't sound like it.