Did A White Supremacist Shoot Sikhs in Wisconsin Because of Atheists?

american atheist

Allow me to begin by saying, I am an atheist. I don’t believe in God or Jesus or the Holy spirit…none of them. But I don’t associate the true believer of the religion to any sort of vile or violence, even though their book of belief — their story book, the bible — hosts stories where their god allows men to kill unborn babies, rape women, kill the men, women and children and pets, and allow for human sacrifice… For example:

Human Sacrifice:

Genesis 22:1-18
Exodus 13:2
Leviticus 27:28-29


Judges 21:10-24
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14

I believe there are good Christians out there who follow the new covenant and actually support their fellow human being and yes, accept LGBTQs. But they are in the minority. They lack the hundreds of millions or billions of dollar to spread their word like Pat Robertson:

According to Robertson, god led Wade Michael Page to the Sikh temple and killed the church-goer because I hate god…OK. How can I hate something I can’t see? There seems to be some sort of desperation from the religious right, be it, Florida Pastor Terry Jones, Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart or the right winged religious kooks who turn a blind-eye to these so-called christian soldiers:

Michael F. Griffin
Rev. Paul Jennings Hill
John Salvi
Eric Robert Rudolph
James Kopp
Scott Roeder

And shift the blame to non-believers. All these men are anti-choice, all convicted murderers and all Christian. Yet the nonbelievers, the liberal Christians, the people who follow the teaching of Christ, who abhor the violence are the TRUE enemies of god. The right-winged belief seems to be to not necessarily lead the sheep to their god, but to drain the life-blood of already gullible folks, so televangelists can part you from your money and guarantee you a mansion in the clouds called heaven. And when you are broken, blame people like me.

In my humble opinion, there have been more terrorists attacks upon our citizenry than say from the Asians in the middle east, yet people like Page are either mentally ill or spiritual martyrs doing the lords work. But this time, Page was NOT mentally ill, but a purveyor of hate. He gets his message from the folks like Robertson: kill the OB/Gyns, kill the non-Christians, the atheists, the liberal Christian, because this is God’s country and folks like Robertson praise these hate-filled groups by shifting the blame to people like us.

How can all this end? Two words: Tax churches. With no platform to spew their bigoted hatred, the real ministering can be done because there would not be a platform to spread the gospel of lies. No more tax breaks or the usage of OUR public airwaves to cause violence… intentionally or out of sheer stupidity. Tax deduction is NOT a right but a privilege, and maybe if churches paid corporate taxes, the funds could go to programs to actually do God’s work.

37 Replies to “Did A White Supremacist Shoot Sikhs in Wisconsin Because of Atheists?”

  1. Robertson is a hate group all on his own. Proving daily he is not any kind of a xtian that any one should model themselves after, his chances of getting into his own personal hell are very good.

  2. Pat Robertson is, without exception, one of best examples of why his type of Christianity is a hate-club. Unbelievable

  3. Amen tax churches… Jesus would be pissed off if he saw these people who use his name, hell I aint even Jesus and I’m pissed off enough to go kick some church money around and rant. These people like Robertson are dumb, vile and twisted ignorance. Evil maybe… Blind and arrogant defintely..

  4. I thought that the killer was a neo-Nazi who had been identified some time ago by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I think that the Sikhs are correct that this is some more genuine US ignorance of the people and the faiths that make up our “melting pot.” Since 9/22 Sikhs have frequently been targeted because their attire is so different. Only Pat Robertson would conclude that the problem is that we are not all fundamentalist Christians. When will Robertson and his ilk start paying attention to that part of the First Amendment to the Constitution about the freedom to practice one’s religion.

  5. A good first step is to re-establish required reporting of church finances (including what goes to the preacher) with severe penalties if the rules are broken. I’d also love to see a requirement that a church demonstrate that it serves a benefit and not a liability to the local community if they want any sort of tax break (I’m thinking of the damage that our little church would experience if we had to dig up money for taxes too).

    As far as blaming the atheists… obviously that jackass doesn’t know anyone who is atheist.

  6. BTW… I’m reminded of a scripture that is very appropriate here.

    “If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.”

    Someone needs to remind Robertson of that scripture.

  7. Churches should not and should never have had a general tax exemption. The federal government should neither interfere with the legal activities of any church, nor should it subsidize them.

    IMO churches should be treated just like any other non-profit corporation. Same rules, same requirements, same limitations on outside income, politicking, and activities outside their non-profit mandate.

  8. “When” I win the Powerball this week…bill boards everywhere with this message! And, I would add at the bottom names of the “hater-club”. Genuine Americans need fight back $$$ to shame these cretins and cause them to feel the wrath of their own “karma”; (every action has a reaction) the majority of America is sick of their behavior.

    Sidebar–we watched the good old “As Good as it Gets” last night. There is a scene where Jack Nicholson is confronted to leave the restaurant where his abusive behavior has reached a tipping point; as he walks to the door, every single person in the restaurant claps cheers and says “It’s about time”. I think we are at that tipping point with the haters-club. They need to leave.

  9. Do we know anything about the religion or lack thereof of the shooter? Not to my knowledge, we just know that he had neo-nazi leanings. This does not make him an atheist. And really, doesn’t Robertson understand that an atheist doesn’t hate god – indeed, god is a non-issue, since he/she/it doesn’t exist. Instead, many atheists are secular humanists – good people who are ethical and believe in doing the right thing because it’s, well, the right thing to do. Not because they’ll get rewarded or punished when they die.
    Huh – then atheists are a bit more mature? Not worried about what a heavenly dad will do to or for them, but doing what’s moral and good on their own.

  10. if you read revelations mr “atheist”. in the end times there will be plenty of false profits. and yes I spelled that the way I wanted it. People like pat robertson are not there for god. he is there to prey on the fears and sheepleness of people. his followers have been taken by the nose to their doom and have no Idea they have been.

  11. Oh and when you do win makes sure that the billboards are owned by Clear Channel and also, plug Politicus USA too!

  12. I read Revelations. Growing up in the church, that was my favorite chapter in the bible. Then I stopped going.

  13. I’m a Christian, and nothing makes me more disturbed than other people claiming to be Christian, while spreading hate and anger at their fellow man, and using the Bible to attempt to justify their hate filled messages. Politicians that use the word of God to hurt other people and gain political favor by dividing people are a special category of evil, this group, I feel will really suffer when the day of judgement comes. Changing God’s word to suite one’s political agenda must be one of the things, the Lord will judge harshly. I have many friends that are not belivers in Religion, and I don’t feel bitter about it, I don’t think they are going to hell. I don’t feel it’s my place to push my beliefs on them. I don’t feel superior to them and It just does not bother me, I feel God will reach whom he chooses, not my place to condemn or convert. I try to live good, set a good and honorable example, I wish politicians would do the same.

  14. Separation of Church and State. What all of us have been insisting on.

    There are and should be rules regarding what a church can and cannot do… common sense ones, and they’re already in place. The problem is that many of them don’t want rules, except for everyone else.

  15. I’m uncomfortable with the description of Atheists as being more mature. That implies that those of faith are not, and that can only be argued from one point of view. It’s also rather elitist.

    As angry as I am at “Christianity” and “Good Christians”, and as much damage as they’ve done to me and mine, at the same time I still am Christian. I am a person of faith, weak and almost moribund as it is.

  16. You sound a little like a UU Christian to me… the idea that God will reach those whom and however God wishes is central to the Universalist side. The refusal to condemn or convert those who aren’t Christian is also central.

    We also believe that God tries to reach everyone in ways that they can understand and be comfortable with – thus all religions have at least a little of the truth (maybe – I’d say usually – a great deal of the truth). It kind of falls under the “God is Love” idea.

  17. This is a very complex and convoluted subject.

    People in churches are there because they hold very strong beliefs about morality ad how things should be done.

    As religion is based on old texts and their interpretation, many people tend to be quite conservative so as to retain the meaning of those old texts as they were passed down to them.

    Yet religion has a dynamic side as well- the Sikh beliefs being a case in point. The key Sikh beliefs are:

    * to be productive and not burden society &
    * to give back and make society better &
    * to respect and tolerate non-Sikhs.

    It seems a shame that Christians should ever argue with people who hold beliefs like that, even while praying for them to take the next step and move into faith.

  18. Two words: Tax churches. With no platform to spew their bigoted hatred, the real ministering can be done because there would not be a platform to spread the gospel of lies. No more tax breaks or the usage of OUR public airwaves to cause violence… intentionally or out of sheer stupidity. Tax deduction is NOT a right but a privilege, and maybe if churches paid corporate taxes, the funds could go to programs to actually do God’s work.

    There are two issues here, one is the matter of tax exemptions, the second the issue of the use of public airwaves.

    The second, the use of public airwaves is shorter and simpler. There is simply not such an issue here, Jimmy Swaggert, Pat Robertson and all the lesser known Christian evangelists appear on cable which is not part of the public airwaves.

    On the first issue, we are dealing with the first amendment rights of governmental non-interference with religion. Working withut notes, I cannot make the citation precisely, but there is a landmark SCOTUS decision that equates the power to tax with the power to destroy.

    STemming from that churches are tax exempt, they do not receive deductions. Congregants receive dedcustions when they right off their church contributions.

    Even salutory church avtivities like ministering to the poor must be separated from the religious arm to receive government funding. For example, Catholic Church auditoriums with crucifixes in them cannot be used as cafeterias for the homeless if the church receives government funds for the food or salaries of the administrators.

    But there is no way that the government can control what is preached from the pulpit or what people say to each other in the social gathterins that accompany divine services.

    It is reprehensible to use such gatherings to preach hate.

  19. Please. Liberal Christians don’t follow the “true teachings of Christ” any more than the Fundies. Did Jesus oppose slavery? Did Jesus treat his female disciple equally? Does Jesus come back in the End Times and give everybody a cookie, or does he obliterate all life on earth except 144K chosen?

    The Liberal Jesus fallacy is a con to perpetuate religious privilege. You can buy into the con if you want, but the rest of us atheists aren’t feeling as gullible these days.

  20. Might I add, a tenet of Sikhism is, all Sikhs work righteously by the sweat of their brow–there is no such thing as “paid clergy” per say (yes, the old Gianni-ji’s needs are provided, mostly by relatives, when they become community elders as they do all the daily Temple work so EVERYBODY else can work…). It is also a Sikh “tradition” that all women should be well-education as the mother gives birth to “saints” or avtars who will in turn, raise them; mothers must be the best, brightest, well-educated. Every Sikh child is proud of their mother’s education…but gawd help them if they don’t do their homework! Who do you think invented the saying “You should try harder”?

  21. Tax free hate-mongering by mega-church is as toxic as lead poisoning. Hate-mongering kills innocent civilians. As the FCC permits lies, hateful, fear-mongering, violence-inducing lies, to be broadcast on OUR airwaves, perhaps the EPA could assist us in cleaning up the noxiousness of our environmental airwaves. Since “tax” has become a dirty word in 2012, we could call it a user’s fee. They use our airwaves; they pay a user’s fee, and just as in road construction areas, lies will cost you a double fine/fee/penalty.

  22. A truth in reporting law, like Canada’s, might help to lower the “temperature” a bit and force some rational thinking into the situation. The law would have to have some pretty sharp teeth.

    It won’t reach the hate groups, however. That’s going to take something different.

  23. A tenet of our traditional religion (I should add that UUism is generally compatible with it) is that everyone has an equally important role on the Square Ground, and even the most minor roles are necessary for the ceremony. That’s something we heard regularly because of the non-Indian tendency to assign higher status to the more visible roles.

    I thought you might find that interesting… there is similarity there!

  24. Not all atheists are mature. Not mentioning any names, there was one who made a threat against the President and the Secret Service made a visit. This atheist had to be taught that making a threat is a crime. I said if you disagree with the President, it’s perfectly legal to say that the president should be executed for war crimes after a trial. Not be…(OK secret service, I’m not saying which and the “p” is lower case). So the person realized the mistake and stopped making the stupid comments.

    So no, not all atheists are mature

  25. Why not tie their tax exemption to the dollar value of the services that they (supposedly) provide to the community? Show us the records for the food expenses, meal preparation expenses, etc. Show us the records for any monies given out to individuals to help pay their energy bills, rent, etc.

    Churches cannot expect to become the arm of a certain political party and still enjoy a tax free status. Also, churches proliferate with almost no restrictions. How many of them sit less than half-empty on Sundays? How many of them serve no purpose whatsoever during the rest of the week? Why not have several small churches combine with a larger one and return the land they presently occupy to the tax base of the local community? I’d rather see a convenience store generating tax revenue for the community than yet another storefront church.

  26. Most churches in America have organized as “501c3 tax-exempt religious organizations.” This is a fairly recent trend that has only been going on for about fifty years. Churches were only added to section 501c3 of the tax code in 1954. We can thank Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson for that. Johnson was no ally of the church. As part of his political agenda, Johnson had it in mind to silence the church and eliminate the significant influence the church had always had on shaping “public policy.”

    Although Johnson proffered this as a “favor” to churches, the favor also came with strings attached (more like shackles). One need not look far to see the devastating effects 501c3 acceptance has had to the church, and the consequent restrictions placed upon any 501c3 church. 501c3 churches are prohibited from addressing, in any tangible way, the vital issues of the day.

    For a 501c3 church to openly speak out, or organize in opposition to, anything that the government declares “legal,” even if it is immoral (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, etc.), that church will jeopardize its tax exempt status. The 501c3 has had a “chilling effect” upon the free speech rights of the church. LBJ was a shrewd and cunning politician who seemed to well-appreciate how easily many of the clergy would sell out.

    Did the church ever need to seek permission from the government to be exempt from taxes? Were churches prior to 1954 taxable? No, churches have never been taxable. To be taxable a church would first need to be under the jurisdiction, and therefore under the taxing authority, of the government. The First Amendment clearly places the church outside the jurisdiction of the civil government: “Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    Religion cannot be free if you have to pay the government, through taxation, to exercise it. Since churches aren’t taxable in the first place, why do so many of them go to the IRS and seek permission to be tax-exempt? It occurs out of:

    Ignorance (“We didn’t know any better”)
    Bandwagon logic (“Everyone else is doing it”)
    Professional advice (many attorneys and CPAs recommend it)

    Does the law require, or even encourage, a church to organize as a 501c3? To answer that question let’s turn to what the IRS itself has to say.
    Churches Need Not Apply

    In order to be considered for tax-exempt status by the IRS an organization must fill out and submit IRS Form 1023 and 1024. However, note what the IRS says regarding churches and church ministries, in Publication 557:

    Some organizations are not required to file Form 1023. These include:

    Churches, interchurch organizations of local units of a church, conventions or associations of churches, or integrated auxiliaries of a church, such as a men’s or women’s organization, religious school, mission society, or youth group. These organizations are exempt automatically if they meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3).

    Churches Are “Automatically Tax-Exempt”

    According to IRS Code § 508(c)(1)(A):

    Special rules with respect to section 501(c)(3) organizations.

    (a) New organizations must notify secretary that they are applying for recognition of section 501(c)(3) status.
    (c) Exceptions.

    (1) Mandatory exceptions. Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to—

    (A) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches.

    This is referred to as the “mandatory exception” rule. Thus, we see from the IRS’ own publications, and the tax code, that it is completely unnecessary for any church to apply for tax-exempt status. In the IRS’ own words a church “is automatically tax-exempt.”
    Churches Are “Automatically Tax-Deductible”

    And what about tax-deductibility? Doesn’t a church still need to become a 501c3 so that contributions to it can be taken as a tax deduction? The answer is no! According to IRS Publication 526:

    Organizations That Qualify To Receive Deductible Contributions

    You can deduct your contributions only if you make them to a qualified organization. To become a qualified organization, most organizations other than churches and governments, as described below, must apply to the IRS.

    In the IRS’ own words a church “is automatically tax-deductible.”
    Churches Have a Mandatory Exception To Filing Tax Returns

    Not only is it completely unnecessary for any church to seek 501c3 status, to do so becomes a grant of jurisdiction to the IRS by any church that obtains that State favor. In the words of Steve Nestor, IRS Sr. Revenue Officer (ret.):

    “I am not the only IRS employee who’s wondered why churches go to the government and seek permission to be exempted from a tax they didn’t owe to begin with, and to seek a tax deductible status that they’ve always had anyway. Many of us have marveled at how church leaders want to be regulated and controlled by an agency of government that most Americans have prayed would just get out of their lives. Churches are in an amazingly unique position, but they don’t seem to know or appreciate the implications of what it would mean to be free of government control.”

    from the Forward of In Caesar’s Grip, by Peter Kershaw

  27. Well, if the liberals want to infiltrate the church and address these issues, which I agree with you, let them. At one time, the Republicans were progressive, until the neo-cons infiltrated the party. Could they not do the same? I mean, I still won’t attend, but it would be interesting

  28. Tim from LA… the “Good Christian” “schools” (ersatz universities for instance) teach their students how to infiltrate and try to take over other churches and organizations. When I was a member of the Assemblies of God cult, I used to hang out with the students being so trained. They also receive training on how to make life more difficult for organizations they don’t like – like how to approach and block booths and tables set up to provide information. I’ve seen all of that myself – many times.

    When I hung out with those “College students”, we often discussed ways and means… and there are certain characteristics of the trained people that tend to mark them. For one thing, they always work in teams and those teams are usually multiples of two (I have heard that they’ve backed off from that because it can be so distinctive). They also are very eager and willing to volunteer for everything (making themselves valuable to clergy) – usually so much so that it’s strange.

    Another characteristic is that they will try to gain “positions” within the church as soon as possible, because that’s part of the takeover game plan.

    I also know of a couple of Amateur Radio groups that were infiltrated and taken over like that – and then they started talking about “Taking over the airwaves for Christ”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.