Atheists Outline Their Global Religious Agenda

Recently, atheists met at a conference in Copenhagen and released what they call their “Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life,” which really means they released their statement of faith and their declaration against Christianity. Their declaration is reprinted below and indented, which is interspersed with my translation (not indented) on what they actually mean. These atheists think they can indoctrinate the public by their statements, but many are awake (and hopefully this blog post will help even more people to awaken) to their agenda to indoctrinate the public in their anti-God religion:

Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life

We, at the World Atheist Conference: "Gods and Politics", held in Copenhagen from 18 to 20 June 2010, hereby declare [our Statement of Faith] as follows:

• We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one's religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.

We recognize the unlimited right (even though we have no objective basis for “rights” in our system) to freedom of conscience, religion, and belief—except for Christians—and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others (this is the golden rule: “do unto others . . . ” for which we have no logical basis in our way of thinking)—except for Christians, as we reject Christianity totally and must try to eliminate it.

• We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.

This is our dogma: we submit that public policy should be informed by evidence—except we discount the Bible as evidence—and reason—as long as it is autonomous human reason, as we arbitrarily reject the biblical God totally—not by dogma (except for our dogma of course)—as we reject the claim of the absolute authority of the Christian God.

• We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.

We assert the need for a society based on democracy (even though this has no logical basis in our evolutionary worldview)—as long as the absolutes of Christianity are not allowed—human rights (for which we have no basis), and the rule of law (which protects the weak from the strong—despite the fact that we believe in evolution, which is about the strong dominating the weak).  History has shown that the most successful (“successful” by our arbitrary dogma) societies are the most secular—just like the countries led by Mao, Pol Pott, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, and many more (killing off millions of human animals for their cause).

• We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.

We assert (that is, we take the non-neutral position) that the only equitable system (even though we have no logical basis for what is fair) of government in a democratic society is based on secularism—the religion of naturalism and atheism—and thus relative morality, rejecting any absolutes (except we absolutely reject Christianity and the Bible)—state neutrality in matters of religion (by which we mean the state must enforce our view)—that is why we are absolutely against any absolute morality based on the Christian God—favoring none—except the religion of naturalism/atheism which is the only favored religious system—and discriminating against none—except Christians, as it is okay to discriminate against them because by our own arbitrary definitions we have eliminated Christianity, belief in a Creator God, and the claims of the Bible as God’s revelation—thus it is okay to discriminate against Christians.

• We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.

We assert that private conduct—except for Christians—which respects the rights of others—even though we have no basis for determining what “respect” means, nor any logical basis for why people (who are chance conglomerations of chemicals) ought to have “rights”—should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern—unless it involves Christians, as we have determined they should not be allowed freedom for their religion because they believe in absolutes and have a system of absolute morality.

• We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.

We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life—as long as Christians do not use their position to act or even vote in accord with their Christian morality etc., as in public life they must act and vote in accord with what we call neutrality, which is really our religion of atheism and naturalism—because that is what we demand be imposed on our culture—and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process, as long as they agree with our atheistic religion—otherwise, they are not allowed equality and must be marginalized and eliminated.

• We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law - laws which all governments should respect and enforce. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.

We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all—except for Christians, who cannot express their beliefs in public and certainly not in public schools, though it is okay for Muslims and atheists to indoctrinate kids in the public school system, but Christians can’t even mention the Bible or their Christianity or they will be fired—subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law (which we will determine, as we reject the Bible)—laws which all governments should respect and enforce—even though we have no basis for any laws except our opinion, if we can impose that. We reject all blasphemy laws (except for those which protect our religious belief in atheism and evolution, which must not be criticized) as we have determined that it is okay to blaspheme the Christian God (though we try to avoid speaking against the Muslim god or others) because we have, by our arbitrary definitions, determined there is no God anyway—and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances—as long as no one criticizes atheism, because we have determined that this is fact and therefore any other position is outlawed if we can get away with that, as we are totally intolerant of others who don’t have our position.

• We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.

We assert the principle of one law for all—which is our law, which is arbitrary because we have no basis for it except that we want to impose it—with no special treatment for minority communities (except ours)—even though we have no ultimate basis for such a belief—and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes—which means no Christians can be involved in such courts because we reject Christianity—therefore, only courts based on our atheism and relative morality can inconsistently rule on such matters imposing their atheistic opinions on others.

• We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation.

We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders)—as no one has a right to impose any morality on their organization except our system of morality (which is arbitrary, of course) and is against Christians—and of course we want to have atheists as leaders in atheist organizations so we need that freedom for our leaders—though in the organization itself we allow freedom, except for Bible-believing Christians of course, as they have (by our arbitrary definition) been eliminated anyway—and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation—as we are tolerant of all, except we are intolerant of those dogmatic Christians who claim they have an absolute morality based on the Bible, which of course we reject as we want our own absolutes, which deny Christian absolutes, imposed on the culture.

• We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life, and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants for the promotion of any religion as inimical to the interests of non-believers and those of other faiths.  We oppose state funding for faith schools.

We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life—except for the religion of atheism, as we want to control politics and public life and impose our arbitrary relative morality and intolerant system on the culture—and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants for the promotion of any religion—except the religion of atheism, as we want all the grants and the tax-free status—as inimical to the interests of non-believers and those of other faiths. We oppose state funding for faith schools—except for the atheist faith, as that is the only faith allowed in schools to be funded, which is why it is now really the official religion of the public schools in the USA, where Christianity by and large has been thrown out and replaced with the religion of naturalism/atheism—which is what we want to happen to all schools. That way, we can control the coming generations and indoctrinate them in atheism and against Christianity—which we are doing quite successfully at the present time.

• We support the right to secular education, and assert the need for education in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge, and in the diversity of religious beliefs. We support the spirit of free inquiry and the teaching of science free from religious interference, and are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise.

We support the right to secular education—which means atheist-based education, as we totally reject Christian education because we are atheists out to impose our religion of atheism on the culture—and assert the need for education in critical thinking—except for naturalism/evolution—evolution is not allowed to be critically analyzed, because we need to indoctrinate kids totally in evolution so they will more easily accept our religion of atheism—and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge (except for our faith in atheism which we simply redefine as “reason”)—as we reject knowledge claimed to be from God and only allow knowledge to be determined based on our arbitrary definitions of science being naturalism—and in the diversity of religious beliefs as long as Christianity is not allowed, because we are tolerant of all religions except Christianity. We support the spirit of free inquiry—except no one is free to base their beliefs on the Bible—and the teaching of science free from religious interference—except for the religion of atheism, as by our definition, science can only explain things based on natural causes, because we have by definition eliminated the supernatural from any part of science—and are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise—except for the indoctrination in atheism/naturalism, which is what we are determined to do—and as long as we don’t allow people to even consider the Bible or Christianity because atheism is the religion we demand be imposed on everyone—as we totally reject the God of the Bible.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken