For years, the ACLU along with their atheist clients have argued that the public square was no place religious discussion. They claimed that signs and pictures encouraging or promoting a particular religious view was offensive and a violation of the “Separation Clause.” Many churches and schools have found themselves coming under fire from such groups. But now things have changed, and this change shows the real goal of both the atheists and the ACLU.
Christian News reports:
An atheist group has sued a transit system in Pennsylvania for refusing to run a bus ad that expressly sought to connect with other atheists.
That’s right. An atheist group is upset because their advertisement was rejected by the bus line. These people have no problems playing both sides of this argument.
Christian News explains, “The Northeastern Pennsylvania Freethought Society filed the lawsuit on Tuesday against the County of Lackawanna Transit System (COLTS) after it declined to place an ad citing atheism on the sides of its buses.”
According to COLTS, the sign would violate their policy. No ad can promote debate among its riders. Anything that could potentially lead to an argument on a bus is prohibited. This actually makes sense if you think about it for a second. If you have a sign promoting a particular religion or the like, and it hits a rider wrong, they may decide to voice that anger with others. Those other riders might like the sign or ad and disagree. The next thing you know, there is a fight.
But, the ACLU again picks the atheist’s side.
“[T]here is simply no justification for banning all references to religion,” ACLU attorney Monica Clarke Platt told reporters. “Religion is such an important issue, and speech related to religion is exactly the kind the First Amendment is designed to protect.”
Mrs. Platt cannot be serious. This has not been the stance of the ACLU for the last thirty years. In fact, in almost every case I have reported that includes the ACLU, they have taken the opposite view. They have argued that the First Amendment was to protect people from religion. Yet, her statement is revealing in two ways.
First, it points to something about atheists and their view. The atheist is religious. Atheism is a religion. The atheist worships man in general and himself in particular. He is the end of all things and the greatest to be praised. This is expressly the reason that he is so offended when God is mentioned and especially when God, in Christ, is promoted. With God, in general, the atheist is confronted with the fact that man is not the first and best of beings. With Christ, more particularly, he sees that he is not the best human.
Second, the atheist has as his main goal the silence of the Church. They do not care about freedom; they want to stop the spread of the kingdom of God. The Church, being the bride/body of Christ on the earth, is His image. They seek in all that they do to destroy, suffocate, and ridicule that image. They wish to silence her because her message is what brings life to the dead. They, being dead, want the rest of humanity to die with them. It is never enough that the nihilism of the atheist will destroy himself; he wants to rush to mass destruction.