Homegrown Christian Terrorists.

BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Homegrown Christian Terrorists.

Here is an interesting story. Luckily no one was hurt or killed.

Should homegrown terrorists be treated any different than terrorists from other countries? Should religion even matter? Why should this type of story be addressed any differently?

From Austin Cline,
Your Guide to Agnosticism / Atheism.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Christian Terrorists Leave IED Outside Abortion Clinic
There are always new reports about Muslims using IEDs to terrorize and kill Americans in Iraq, but now we have a case of Christian terrorists using IEDs to terrorize and try to kill Americans in Texas — at an abortion clinic, to be specific. Law enforcement is treating the matter seriously, which is good, but I wonder if those who regularly complain about Muslim extremism and terrorism will treat this incident in a similar manner, or if they will start making excuses that they never accept on behalf of Muslims.

The device, discovered Wednesday, prompted an evacuation of the surrounding south Austin neighborhood and a brief shut down of Interstate 35. A team of local and federal police agencies, working under the Joint Terrorism Task Force, is investigating the incident.

“The device that we examined was in fact an explosive device. It was also configured in such a way as to cause serious bodily injury or death,’’ said Assistant Chief David Carter of the Austin Police Department. “I want to stress that it was a dangerous device.’’

The device, left in what authorities compared to a duffle bag, was found in the parking lot of the Austin Women’s Health Center, which provides abortion services. The city bomb squad remotely destroyed the device with a robot, officials said.

Source: Star-Telegram

This is just about the extent of reporting that has been done on the story. Had an unmarked bomb been found outside a government building, every news organization would be doing wall-to-wall coverage of the suspected Al Qaeda terrorists. Granted, there's probably not much more information than what has been released, so on just about any other topic the amount currently being reported would seem reasonable. That wouldn't stop our Liberal Media if Muslim terrorists were the issue, though. They would have bloviating pundits giving their malformed opinions every ten minutes, just to keep up ratings.

Let Christian terrorists try to initiate an attack in the pursuit of their quest to exercise dominion and religious fascism over America, though, and no one cares. They can't even be bothered to yawn because Christian attacks on women, abortion, science, critics, and so forth just aren't "news." If such events were publicized, people might start to develop a negative impression of Christianity and we just can't have that, can we?

Fox News originally reported that, according to a federal source, the attempted bombing was "not a big deal." That wording has since been changed to remove the quote. Now they report:

The device, found in a duffle bag Wednesday, "was configured in such a way to cause serious bodily injury or death," said David Carter, assistant chief of the Austin Police Department.

The bomb, which was found in the parking lot of the Austin Women's Health Center, comes on the heels of last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling which banned a controversial type of abortion and was viewed as an anti-abortion victory. ...

In the last 30 years, abortion clinics have been bombed 41 times according to law enforcement statistics compiled by the National Abortion Federation. Many of the crimes directed at abortion providers, including 93 attempted bombings and arson, were committed during times that abortion issues were prominent in the news, Saporta said.

"Last week we put out an update to our members ... we reminded them that when abortion is featured prominently in the news we often see an increase in violence aimed at clinics and encouraged them to take increased security precautions," [Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation] said.

Here we have an actual case of a bomb planted on American soil — not a bomb plot, but an actual bomb. If conservative evangelical Christians are consistent, shouldn't they treat this the same as they would have theoretical bombing plots treated? Shouldn't they call for the government to infiltrate and spy on pro-life churches, just as they have supported the infiltration and spying on mosques? Shoudln't they favor the arrest and detention of suspects as "enemy combatants"? Shouldn't they support the use of "alternative" interrogation techniques — including torture — in order to learn the identities of all invovled? How many conservative evangelicals will volunteer for water boarding in name of the War on Terror?

Or do you suppose that conservative evangelical Christians who support such measures against Muslims suspected of terrorist ties only support them in cases where Muslims are involved and never in cases where Christians are involved? These same conservative Christians set themselves up as arbiters of law and morality in America, condemning all who don't toe the line when it comes to believing in and obeying their god. At the same time, though, they support the use of illegal and immoral tactics to promote their religion or defend America.

In fact, some conservative, evangelical Christians openly support terrorist violence. Wiley Drake, currently the second vice-president of the Southern Baptist Convention, signed a declaration supporting James Kopp, the Christian terrorist who assassinated a New York doctor for performing abortions:

The declaration signed by Wiley Drake, elected last June as second vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention, appears on the Army of God Web site. The National Abortion Federation describes the Army of God as an "underground network of domestic terrorists who believe that the use of violence is appropriate and acceptable as a means to end abortion."

The Army of God Web site describes Paul Hill, a Presbyterian minister executed in 2003 for the 1994 killing of a doctor and bodyguard outside an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Fla., as "an American hero." ...A note on the declaration of support for Kopp suggests: "I would advise, if you contemplate ever taking action against babykilling abortionists or their houses of murder, e.g. abortion mills; you DO NOT SIGN THIS, NOR MAKE YOURSELF OR YOUR PLANS KNOW IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER TO ANYONE AT ANY TIME."

The declaration bearing his name says: "We, the signers of this declaration, proclaim that we support and stand for righteousness in the defense of the unborn.... We will stand with our brother Jim Kopp. We will support him for his love of unborn children." It ends with a reference to "those who have made the ultimate sacrifice" in defending unborn children.

Source: Ethics Daily

Although this particular terrorist act was obviously aimed at abortion, it's a problem that should be recognized as affecting us all — or at least all of us who oppose the agenda of Christian Nationalists. Once any group falls into the mindset that it's appropriate to pursue a political agenda through violence and murder, it's difficult to expect them to cease such activity at the boundaries of just a single issue. This is, in fact, why it's wrong to think that violence is little more than a short-cut to the same goals that might otherwise be pursued through nonviolent, political means. The use of violence isn't just a different method, but in reality can change the nature of the destination as well.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Imagine how they'd react if

Imagine how they'd react if we started sending anyone who ever gave money to Operation Rescue to Guatanamo Bay!

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
It is quite telling that I

It is quite telling that I haven't heard a thing about this. I watch the news daily and nothing came up. If it had been the same situation except that it was at a different building and/or muslims everyone would be up in arms. This is hyprocracy to such a degree it is sickening. I think there should be (if there isn't already) a list of terrorist plts planned by Christians so when a Christian tells us that they've never done such a thing we could show them a list.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10599
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
This will be handy to point

This will be handy to point to the next time a christian suggests there aren't christian terrorists. I too haven't noticed it in the news, but I'm certainly going to spread the information personally.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Well we all know the news

Well we all know the news are corporations with an agenda.  The biggest qualm I have about this is the underlying fact that these people feel as if they have a right to "play god".  It is a dangerous delusion, much like the muslims that they feel they have to kill for god.  The irony here is that they call themselves "prolife". 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Notice they don't care about

Notice they don't care about actual people? Only fetuses and the brain dead (ie Terry Schaivo.) They pretty much say "fuck you" once you're born - notice most of the "pro-life" people are pro-death penalty, anti-gun control, against welfare and national healthcare, etc.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Wishkah311
Theist
Wishkah311's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Everywhere I turn these

Everywhere I turn these crazy Christians are getting worse and worse.  It's disgusting...The most disturbing part is I can think of some people in my old church who would probably do the same thing.

Ah, the pitter patter of tiny feet in huge combat boots.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Last time the bomb

Last time the bomb detonation robot got sent to the abortion clinic here the box that got blown up contained a bunch of religious propaganda.  It was rolled up to simulate a pipe bomb when viewed through an x-ray machine.  There was little doubt it was sent by Operation Rescue members who have their HQ here in Wichita but the local police don't investigate such matters.

 Thankfully we've elected a new mayor, who is a Democrat, so the governmental and police protections OR enjoys may go away.


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Oh Yeah good thing these

Oh Yeah good thing these people are our moral superiors......


HumanisticJones
HumanisticJones's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
And to think that the bible

And to think that the bible says that until the fetus is infused with blood it isn't alive.  That's right, Leviticus 17:11 specifically claims that "The life of the flesh is in the blood".

So until the fetus' heart begins to beat at around 21 days in, by that definition it isn't alive and thus shouldn't count in the "culture of life".

As for Christian terrorism, I do feel that if we are going to treat one group's terrorism as such, all groups should get the same treatment.  I don't care who or why, if you try to use terror and mass violence to make your point, you are a terrorist and should get the same attention that Islamic terrorists recieve.

The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Everyone knows there are

Everyone knows there are people who take God's word beyond it's meaning and defy the actual meaning with their own interpretation.  Of course there are so called "Christian" terrorists; to say there aren't isn't being realistic.  The problem has always been...are they doing it for the glory of God or their own.  If they had God's word in their hearts, going to an abortion clinic or doing a hate crime would never happen.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Everyone

razorphreak wrote:
Everyone knows there are people who take God's word beyond it's meaning and defy the actual meaning with their own interpretation. Of course there are so called "Christian" terrorists; to say there aren't isn't being realistic. The problem has always been...are they doing it for the glory of God or their own. If they had God's word in their hearts, going to an abortion clinic or doing a hate crime would never happen.

No true scotsman.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote: razorphreak

triften wrote:

razorphreak wrote:
Everyone knows there are people who take God's word beyond it's meaning and defy the actual meaning with their own interpretation. Of course there are so called "Christian" terrorists; to say there aren't isn't being realistic. The problem has always been...are they doing it for the glory of God or their own. If they had God's word in their hearts, going to an abortion clinic or doing a hate crime would never happen.

No true scotsman.

And you come here and don't give an explination...seems you hide behind your fallacy definitions.  Until you explain yourself I don't think you understand what "no true scotsman" actually means... 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
No, razor, it's you who

No, razor, it's you who cannot refute the observation that it's a fallacy.

It's honestly not anyone's fault but yours that you don't comprehend the way logic works or that a fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
But, because we are here to

But, because we are here to help, and you asked for an explanation, I will offer you the following:  The italics are my words.

The "No True Scotsman..." fallacy

Suppose I assert that no Scotsman (Christian) puts sugar on his porridge (bombs or threatens or terrorizes abortion clinics). You counter this by pointing out that your friend (Operation Rescue)Angus likes sugar with his porridge (Bombs or threatens or terrorizes abortion clinics). I then say "Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." ("If they had God's word in their hearts, going to an abortion clinic or doing a hate crime would never happen.&quotEye-wink

This is an example of an ad hoc change being used to shore up an assertion, combined with an attempt to shift the meaning of the words used original assertion; you might call it a combination of fallacies.

************

Now razor, it has been demonstrated that your argument is a fallacy.  Either abandon it or prove that it is not through the use of valid logical constructs.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Here is an

BGH wrote:
Here is an interesting story. Luckily no one was hurt or killed. Should homegrown terrorists be treated any different than terrorists from other countries? Should religion even matter? Why should this type of story be addressed any differently?

Would this have been treated differently if a bomb had been found in a school planted by creationists? Would this have been treated differently if a bomb had been found in a polling place because one of the candidates was pro-choice/gay/female/atheist?

It almost goes without saying that had a bomb been found in a church, the media coverage would be extensive and the religious right would be screaming for blood (ironic?).

How many more lives have to be threatened or lost because of religion/hate before people collectively decide to treat these situations as the terrorist acitivities that they are?


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:
It's honestly not anyone's fault but yours that you don't comprehend the way logic works or that a fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy.

Because you have biased yourself against anything a "theist" would say, could you not say your so called "logic" is flawed, almost blind? Because my logic comes from a source you do not accept, you'll call it a fallacy. Tell me, are you here to listen or to judge before understanding?

Hambydammit wrote:
Suppose I assert that no Scotsman (Christian) puts sugar on his porridge (bombs or threatens or terrorizes abortion clinics).

First, why would you do this? Did I ever say that no person who labels themselves a Christian would NEVER bomb or threaten? Perhaps you need to re-read what I wrote. I did say there ARE Christian terrorists. I am not blind to the fact that they exist.

Hambydammit wrote:
You counter this by pointing out that your friend (Operation Rescue)Angus likes sugar with his porridge (Bombs or threatens or terrorizes abortion clinics).

Did I actually do this? I guess since you didn't come here to ask me question but impose your own assertions you didn't actually discover that I am truly ashamed at the actions that those who are calling themselves Christians do to others who think or believe differently. Why didn't you approach me with that first?

Hambydammit wrote:
I then say "Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." ("If they had God's word in their hearts, going to an abortion clinic or doing a hate crime would never happen.&quotEye-wink

Of course you would. But then, it came to this point without any actual questions, merely assertions and assumptions.

Hambydammit wrote:
Now razor, it has been demonstrated that your argument is a fallacy. Either abandon it or prove that it is not through the use of valid logical constructs.

I will when you choose to approach me with valid questions about (a) the thread and (b) how it related to the faith that I follow. I don't expect you to follow what I believe (you've made it clear you don't) but what I would hope for is first some respect as a human and second inquiries to why I believe what I do. Is that too much to ask?.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Because you have

Quote:
Because you have biased yourself against anything a "theist" would say, could you not say your so called "logic" is flawed, almost blind?

No. I am no more biased against the existence of god than the existence of anything else. It just happens that there's no evidence, so I don't believe. This is not bias.

Quote:
Because my logic comes from a source you do not accept, you'll call it a fallacy.

No, I call it a fallacy because it is. Read a freakin' book about logic.

Quote:
Tell me, are you here to listen or to judge before understanding?

No. Are you?

Quote:
First, why would you do this?

Because you asked for an explanation.

Quote:
Did I ever say that no person who labels themselves a Christian would NEVER bomb or threaten?

No, you said no "true Christian" (Scotsman) would do it. Here. Read for yourself:

Quote:
If they had God's word in their hearts, going to an abortion clinic or doing a hate crime would never happen.

Quote:
Perhaps you need to re-read what I wrote.

Perhaps you do.

Quote:
I did say there ARE Christian terrorists. I am not blind to the fact that they exist.

So, you're contradicting yourself, although I didn't see where you said this. You said true Christians wouldn't do it. Or, are you going to backpedal now and say that some true Christians would?

Quote:
Did I actually do this?

I showed you your own words.

Quote:
I guess since you didn't come here to ask me question but impose your own assertions you didn't actually discover that I am truly ashamed at the actions that those who are calling themselves Christians do to others who think or believe differently.

You still need to work out some basics of logic. You made the assertion. I know you're ashamed of them. It's not the first time we've debated, kiddo. Every time you bring this up, someone points out that it's a fallacy, but you insist on repeating your error. Again, not my fault that you're not getting it.

Quote:
Why didn't you approach me with that first?

You've been on the board a long time. I've read almost all of your posts. I know how you feel about Christian Terrorists. Still doesn't mean god exists or that your divinely inspired interpretation of the bible is more correct than the terrorists. Why are you ranting? You could actually respond to my refutation. That would be more productive.

Quote:
Of course you would. But then, it came to this point without any actual questions, merely assertions and assumptions.

Um... you know that I reversed the speakers for my demonstration. You're correct. That statement (No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge) is a baseless assertion. Thank you for proving yourself wrong.

Quote:
I will when you choose to approach me with valid questions about (a) the thread and (b) how it related to the faith that I follow. I don't expect you to follow what I believe (you've made it clear you don't) but what I would hope for is first some respect as a human and second inquiries to why I believe what I do. Is that too much to ask?.

You expect me to forget that I've asked you numerous times in numerous threads to give me a rational reason for your belief that your particular interpretation of the bible is correct, and how you managed to stumble onto it even thought theologians for 2000 years haven't managed to come to a consensus??

My, you must think I have a memory problem.

Let me rephrase something from my last post so that you'll have a question:

Oh, razorphreak, holder of the mystic secrets that have eluded theologians for millenia, would you please (if you have time) mind passing along your wisdom to a humble petitioner? I would like to know how you came to know that your interpretation of Christianity is correct, despite the fact that it is riddled with what appear to any competent logician to be logical fallacies? Specifically, I would like to know why you are allowed to use the No True Scotsman fallacy when it is not allowed for any other logical construct. Furthermore, if you don't mind, would you please explain to me why the concept of your god is self-contradictory, and how this can be possible in light of the tautology of non-contradiction?

Thank you.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: You

Hambydammit wrote:
You still need to work out some basics of logic. You made the assertion. I know you're ashamed of them. It's not the first time we've debated, kiddo. Every time you bring this up, someone points out that it's a fallacy, but you insist on repeating your error. Again, not my fault that you're not getting it.

This is the only part of your response that I'm going to address because the rest of it is you taking me out of context and twisting it.  I might go back to it later but it was frustrating reading your post...

You know I have tried to present to you an easy way to understand the message of the bible.  I've even given examples. My very first post on this thread was in AGREEMENT with what BGH wrote.  My post only went further to attempt to explain how a person who says they are Christian but does not follow the example of Jesus and the words from the bible are not representative of what being a Christian is about. 

I don't consider myself to be stupid; I understand how you can twist this into a fallacy.  If I was blind or biased I'd run with that and not look back.  But then, I'm the one who said it so I've got to mean something by it no?  If you wanted to know this, you would have asked.  You would not have turned it into a condescending post or an insult or be combative. 

You always seem to revert every argument to "proving God exists", so what exactly is the point of asking questions or debating details?  From my side it sure seems like you are wasting your time.  How can anyone who is waiting for proof that I tell you now will not come from any person on this Earth, ask someone else for it?  How is it that I've reminded you of this fact over numerous posts and yet you still keep on with the same question?  And you tell me about memory loss.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:
Quote:
Tell me, are you here to listen or to judge before understanding?

No. Are you?

I'm always here to listen to you. I'm not going to assert my beliefs on you - I will however assert the truth of the message to overcome misunderstandings and and mistruths (if that's a word).

Hambydammit wrote:
Quote:
First, why would you do this?

Because you asked for an explanation.

An explanation as to why you assert an invalid position instead of asking is this what your position was. Of course you'll think it's fallacy if you are in fact going from that kind of position. I was not approaching you this way and yet you changed it. I want an explanation for this.

Quote:
Did I ever say that no person who labels themselves a Christian would NEVER bomb or threaten?

Hambydammit wrote:
No, you said no "true Christian" (Scotsman) would do it. Here. Read for yourself:

Quote:
If they had God's word in their hearts, going to an abortion clinic or doing a hate crime would never happen.

And that's not truth? If you are a true atheist, you'll always answer with "God doesn't exist". Is that also a fallacy?

1 John 2:4-7 The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard.

 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I would

Hambydammit wrote:
I would like to know how you came to know that your interpretation of Christianity is correct, despite the fact that it is riddled with what appear to any competent logician to be logical fallacies? Specifically, I would like to know why you are allowed to use the No True Scotsman fallacy when it is not allowed for any other logical construct. Furthermore, if you don't mind, would you please explain to me why the concept of your god is self-contradictory, and how this can be possible in light of the tautology of non-contradiction?

I thought I'd put this part in a separate post, even though this is way way way off topic...

I am no expert.  I can only describe myself as a follower of Jesus who I accepted as being the way to salvation.  Because I believe this I have a relationship with God and his word through the bible.

How do I know? 1 John 2:5.  You don't ask God to do something so you can believe; you believe (which starts with what can only be described as a "calling&quotEye-wink and then he'll do (obedience).

You ask why is the concept of god contradictory?  Because I don't see how it is, since the message is the same from Genesis 1 through the NT, I feel I need to ask, why do you assert this without understanding or, more so, attempting to understand?  You start with "it's contradictory and any explanation to show otherwise is fallacy"....so my question is why are you not trying to understand (note...I didn't say believe)?  Are you capable of understanding no matter how "irrational"?  Are you capable of debating the point without asserting your own personal beliefs ("God doesn't exist&quotEye-wink to understand mine (yes, I can do that to you, and I believe I have though I wonder if you'll acknowledge it).

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire