Sir;...Let me express your thought more directly: ...Hi; I'm Chuck Norris, A star of televison and screen, and I support the freedom of speech as long as you shut up when I disagree with you.... Is that about it??? Thanks...Sweeney

". . . (M)ay reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." Do these words sound hate-filled? Do they preach bigotry against any group? Are they full of spite? Are they "verbal vomit"? Or do they simply and calmly argue for . . . REASON?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
"If you admit that we can't peer behind a curtain, how can you be sure there's nothing there?" Good point. I've never been to the end of the rainbow either, so I can't know for certain that there isn't a pot of gold there. With a leprechaun standing guard over it.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
And to Mr. Sweeney: Of course, Mr. Norris has as much right to make his views public as any liberal Hollywood celebrity has. But, for once, I agreee with you.

To whom it may concern: I love Christmas! and now, to Pi$$ everyone off, I love the reason for the season. Don't even bother commenting on my comment. There's a lot of baggage attached to "belief in something greater than ourselves" and I don't mean Santa Clause. I leave the debate up to the debators. I know Santa is a myth created for children. Atheists and "reason"able people would have us believe Jesus is a myth created for adults. Well guess what? I contributed to a Secret Santa fund this year, did you? The recipients of my and others gifts will never know who we are. We do. We are their "Santa". But we are not the reason for the season. Whatever "magic" touched our hearts to make us share and care for another is what makes this time of year so special. The beauty of it is that it does last all year. Peoples hearts are being touched daily to help others. That part is not stressed enough. So much more excitement is generated by what one doesn't do to help others than by the news when they do good. The reason for the season...that's the real deal. Just as the myth of Santa has sprung up, so have many other myths. Winter Solstice is not something you believe in. That would be like saying I believe in Wednesday or the snow. Winter Solstice doesn't have miracles and wonder attached to it unless you link it to what we Christians are celebrating during this solstice. As for me, this is a harsh, unforgiving world at times. Christmas brings a lightness of heart, a sense of hope, and trust that Peace and Goodwill on earth is a possibility, Where there is hope there is life. I just have to look up to the stars to see and know. There is so much more out there and right here than I, or you, can possibly imagine. And I am thankful for all that I know and all that I don't know. I'm now and always going to believe in the magic and miracles of Christmastime that are worked in the heart that makes people do strange and wonderful things now and throughout the year. Just because they can. So call "it" what you will, there's only one time in the year that we give thanks and celebrate something greater than ourselves that makes us do things greater than ourselves. You can enjoy it or ignore it but you can't stop a Christian from saying it. Merry Christmas! And God Bless you, everyone.

Sir;...Let me suggest that what societies and individuals need in their character is not far different... We all need a little reason, and yet to be moral, we all need an emotional connection with humanity... Too much reason does not protect people from excess...The Germans are a highly reasonable people, and it did not stop them from beginning WWII in Europe, and tossing some ten million unarmed people into the ovens like so many potatoes... They had reasonable science behind them, and it turns out their science, upon which they reasonably acted was garbage... And that is a problem all over, that people act on the garbage they accept, even it is comes from their priests or ministers... And that is not what we need from government... Government has got to work for people... It has got to accomplish certain goals, that if it does not meet, makes us all miserable...I don't need to tell you that if you believe in God, then that should be sufficient... Jesus did not feel the need for political power, but he seemed on the whole to be a perfect candidate for office... He was reasonable... He cared about injustice...He could see what wealth was doing to his religion and to the people of Judea... He did not demand equality; certainly not of God... Nor did he advocate for injustice between people... If you have God; what is your interest in the affairs of adults??? WE need to make this society work, and any society we come up with,- Work... If you are ruled by faith you cannot prove yourself free of prejudice, and so you do not belong with free people deciding on the important questions that face a democracy... Hold back, go along if you feel able, resist if you must; but do not believe everyone should simply accept that you, being controlled by your dogma, or your ministers, have some right to gum up all the works so you can have complete control, and run us all into complete ruin... If you want a seat at the table, then pay the going rate in taxes for the political clubs you have made of your churches... You know; that many of us see in religion the greatest of all social evils, and that is: ignorance... And I am not calling people ignorant because they believe in God, or in the welfare of their fellow man... I guess I believe so myself... But looking at history even down to this present moment we see religions pushing violence and war, supporting extremes of wealth and poverty; and advocating for the destruction of the environment upon which all our lives depend... Organized religion cannot be good if it gives birth to such evil... So I would suggest that the safe place for religions to play might be out of the road... You think you want this country to change...I'm telling you this country has got to change... And when it changes, if it will live; then that change will be toward freedom, and all your Christian Soldiers trying to stop the wave of human progress and return us to a dark age of belief may find themselves trampled in the dirt....God willing...Thanks...Sweeney

Thanks, Chuck, interesting that you should refer to the God-fearing and bible-believing outlook of the founding fathers of the US. Their (KJ) Bible-believing disposition enabled the creation of the most powerful nation on earth. By contrast, atheists have established nothing apart from repressive military dictatorships such as Red China where 'free-speechers' get tanks driven over them as at Tianamen Square, June 4th 1989. It is also interesting to reflect again on this comment from The Christian's Handbook of Science and Philosophy, by Dr Peter S. Ruckman, p 117 about the great German God-denier, Friedrich Nietzsche. "During Nietzsche's lifetime a number of "graffiti" showed up on walls in Germany. They said "God is dead, signed, Nietzsche." His body was not cold before a dozen showed up saying, "Nietzsche is dead, signed, GOD."" It is true that either a Christian or an atheist may get dirt shovelled in his face given enough time. But if you are the former, the dirt can't keep you. As Solomon said, "The wicked is driven away in his wickedness: but the righteous hath hope in his death" Proverbs 14:32.

Let me ask Chuck Norris and any Christian readers if they endorse The Bible. If you are a Christian do you really think The Bible speaks the truth? Are the words of The Bible sanctioned by who you claim to be the creator of the universe? Should we as humans follow the dictates of the God of The Bible? If your Christian assumptions are true then Islam and Judaism as well as atheism, all of which clearly deny the divinity of Jesus, are obviously patently false in their claims that there is no begotten son of God. The fundamental tenet of Islam is “There is one God, Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet”. Your claim that Jesus is the son of God denies their claim that the only divine entity is Allah. Judaism proclaims that the messiah prophesized in your Old Testament has not yet come. Your claim that he has and his name is Jesus denies their claim that he has not yet come. Likewise your claim that Jesus is the son of God overtly denies the claim of atheists that there is no god for Jesus to have been the son of. Now, am I out of line to suggest that your approval of as well as desire for the nativity scene's placement on government property is your endorsement of The Bible to include The New Testament? What if I were to tell you that I endorse the words of the sign posted by atheists at the Washington state capitol? Would you then claim that I do so with “harassment and hatred”? Would it be OK with you if some Muslims were to put up a sign that said “There is but one God Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet” along side your Nativity Scene? What if the Muslims had gotten there first with their sign? Would you then denigrate their religious message by putting up a Nativity Scene, which overtly denies their fundamental belief, in the same area? Let's go a little further with this. Let's assume for sake of argument that you are right in your belief that The Bible is The Word of God. Leviticus 20:13 in The King James Version states “If a man also lies with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: They shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Does this at the very least not make it abundantly clear that homosexuality is a grievous sin, and that those who practice it are practicing that which is evil? Does your endorsement of The Bible not tacitly show your clear disapproval of those God said should be put to death? Let me say that if The Bible really is The Word of God then homosexuality is a sin which we should all despise to say the least. But what if you are wrong? What if Jesus was not the son of God and The Bible is no more true than The Koran ( which you have to believe is patently false because it makes abundantly clear that Jesus was not the son of God)? What if the truth is that God doesn't hate homosexuals or homosexuality because they and it were all part of His creation? If that is true then what does it make you? Just consider for a minute, for sake of argument, that this might be true. Can you not at least understand how homosexuals might think that you are the ones who speak and act with harassment and hatred under the guise of free speech and it is therefore you who are despicable? And likewise what if the atheists are right in their fundamental belief that there is no god? If they are right then is your belief anything more than a ridiculous superstition? Then is your Christian belief any more reasonable than that of the Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or Hare Krishnas? Personally I am more of an agnostic, but the real issue here is REASON vs. FAITH. If you should be free to endorse FAITH by putting a Nativity Scene on State Property, then why should the atheists not be allowed to endorse REASON to include their personal belief that there is no god on the same public property? Although I personally question their certainty that a sentient entity didn't precede the universe and possibly have a hand in its creation, let me close by seconding Scot Penslar's refutation of Churck Norris' characterization of the sign posted by atheists at the Washington state capitol. “‘. . . (M)ay reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.' Do these words sound hate-filled? Do they preach bigotry against any group? Are they full of spite? Are they "verbal vomit"? Or do they simply and calmly argue for . . . REASON?”
Wade Mathias

Re: "Let me ask Chuck Norris and any Christian readers if they endorse The Bible. If you are a Christian do you really think The Bible speaks the truth?" Yes. The KJB does. Perhaps Mr Norris could do a follow-up article on the issues you raise. The sovereignty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain is unequivocally based on the Bible (KJB) as "the word of truth" 2 Corinthians 6:7. I can state definitely that the UK is constitutionally a Bible-based nation because the monarch takes the Coronation Oath on the Holy Bible, as HM Queen Elizabeth II did in June 1953 at her Coronation Service. I believe the same basis applies in the US, though what will happen with President-elect Obama, I'm unsure. However, in summary answer to all your questions, apart from the "What if" ones that are mere speculation, I suggest that anyone in the US who disagrees with the country's constitutional basis should emigrate to one that has a constitution they agree with, e.g. Red China (atheism), Saudi Arabia (Islam). These systems of governance are clearly subversive to that of all Western English-speaking nations and therefore have no place in them. Re: sodomy, yes, it is an abomination to God, before the Mosaic Law, Genesis 13:13, during the Mosiac Law, Leviticus 20:13 and after the Mosaic Law, Romans 1:27. God's judgement on the first-recorded 'gay community' when He finally unleashed it, Genesis 19:24, 25, is instructive. Note also the Biblical (KJB only) revelation of the link between sodomy and child molestation, Genesis 18:20, 19:4, 5, which is another reason why sodomy should be outlawed. That is my answer. I'd be very interested in Mr Norris's.

I was very disappointed to read Chuck Norris' comments on the Freedom From Religion Foundation display in Olympia, WA. His characterization of their Winter Solstice message as hateful, harrassing and filled with spite was simply untrue. Anyone reading the message objectively would realize this. His article goes on to state: " But anti-religious bigotry is in vogue these days. Still, there is absolutely no justification for these atheists' written revile. And if they want to keep using hate-filled language against theists -- particularly Christians -- then they shouldn't be surprised when they meet up with a yuletide (written) roundhouse kick." Mr. Norris, not atheists, is provoking violence. The winter solstice is a natural event that is the basis for all the man-made belief systems that exist today; including Christianity. Why is this so threatening to him? In closing, I would like to remind Mr. Norris that religiosity and morality are inherently unrelated. You do not need to believe in imaginary beings to be a good person. Please open your heart and mind to reality-based thinking and set yourself free. You'll be a kinder, gentler Chuck Norris.

Re: Alan O'Reilly's comment on my comment of 9:21 PM Dec 19. Alan, given your premise that The Bible is The Word of God I certainly understand your position. It certainly follows that if “The Word of God” (The Bible according to Christians) states God says homosexuality is evil (and it certainly does make that point abundantly clear), then God must consider homosexuality and those who practice it to be evil. Furthermore, all of us should consider it so. And I really do understand how you and those other Christians who believe The Bible really is The Word of God think those of us who do not believe it are evil and as such will unrepentantly burn in Hell forever. However, Chuck Norris' article wasn't really about who is right about who God is or if God exists at all. His article was about the rights of atheists to disagree with the Christian majority and the propriety or lack thereof of their posting the following sign in the Washington state capitol: "At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." To his credit Chuck Norris stated “I am a patriot, and I believe that atheists are free to believe, speak and post whatever they want.” However, Chuck chose to take issue apparently with the choice of words which the atheists used in that posting. Let me ask all Christians if they think the atheists choice of words would not reasonably apply to bin Laden's Muslim religion. John 3:16-18 states clearly in my New International Version of The Bible: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.” If the preceding words of my Bible are true then what does it say about bin Laden's Muslim religion? Do you not consider his “….religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." But what if bin Laden is just as right as you think Joshua was when The Bible says God told him to destroy Jericho and every living thing in it (which of course included the proverbial innocent women and children)? This of course is not to say that all Muslims agree with bin Laden any more than it is to say that all Christians agree with Alan O'Reilly. But Chuck Norris used words like “bigotry, hate-filled language, harassment, despicable, and verbal vomit” to describe the above posting by the atheists. But again let me ask those who agree with Alan “What if you are wrong?” What if God likes homosexuals as well as he does the rest of us? What if God likes the typical homosexual better than he does you? Does that not make the statements (then wrongly) attributed to God in The Bible as well as the restatements of Alan in his comments here “bigotry, hate-filled language, harassment, despicable, and verbal vomit”? I'm not asking you to agree with me but only to consider what I am saying hypothetically.
Granting the homosexuals their premise as I have granted you yours for sake of argument, what should they think of you and your Bible? And is the placing of a Nativity Scene in a state capitol not an endorsement of that same Bible? For close to 2000 years the true believers of Christianity have been telling the rest of us (including those who claim there is no god as well as those of us who don't claim to be smart enough to know) that we are evil and will burn in Hell for it. I assure you that I have no more argument with you than I do with Osama bin Laden given your respective premises. But if Chuck Norris or any religious people are going to pretend to allow the rest of us our opinions, then it is absurd for you to claim it is wrong for us to state that your belief is “myth” and that it is your belief which is “superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” And a final word to Chuck Norris: You rhetorically asked several questions which you preceded with “What profit would there be if I posted” concerning atheists. Then you went to great length to denigrate atheists and by extension the beliefs of agnostics like me. Chuck, didn't you just do in your article what you spent the whole article railing against? But I assure you that it really is OK with me. I really do understand how and why you think so little of the rest of us, and any PC mealy mouthing would merely get in the way of true communication. Although I strongly disagree with your premise of faith I really do understand why you think so little of us nonbelievers, and I actually appreciate your making it clear to me. I'm only afraid that I have not made my position, which quite a few people basically share, clear to you.
Wade Mathias

Dear Mr Mathias, I think my point was that, as you mention in your comment and which Mr Norris takes issue with, is the inappropriateness of the aggressive nature of the anti-Christian lobby, or lobbies in the US. I suggested a practical resolution of the difficulty. I also set out to answer your basic question and to substantiate that answer. You are, of course, entitled to dissent from my answer, as you do. But at least you have my answer. I think your task now, as suggested in my earlier post, is to elicit an answer from Mr Norris - possibly via a petition, like Messrs Norris and Huckabee orchestrated during the party nominee campaign on fuel prices. Re: your 'What if' questions, the difficulty here is that they are hypothetical (Mr Norris's 'What if' questions differ in that they simply refer to proposed actions on his part to assert, in part, historical events that could be substantiated). As I indicated, I think in a discussion of this kind, you have to stick to reality, not speculation. God's judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah, for example, Genesis 19, can be studied by archaeology as well as biblically. Check Halley's Bible Handbook, Revised Edition, p 98-99. The web will no doubt be able to furnish material as well.

Hi.
I used to get your letters in my e-mail box all the time,now I get none.Have you stopped sending them or what?Please reply, Norm