Chuck Norris and ***holes

Foxhole atheist

Foxholes, that is. In his latest column for ClownHall, titled “Atheists in the Capitol’s Foxhole“, Norris defends your right to his religion.

He’s upset that the fundie push to engrave two prayers (a.k.a. the national motto and the Pledge of Allegiance) on the Capitol Visitor Center has been met with a lawsuit from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Norris writes:

Engraving the motto and pledge in the CVC sounds so basic and reasonable, doesn’t it?

Actually, it doesn’t. But notice the tactic he and his cronies take. By acting like the government endorsement of his religion is the norm, it paints the FFRF and other defenders of the First Amendment as extremists outside the norm.

According to The Associated Press, the Freedom From Religion Foundation says its lawsuit is based upon the foundations that “both the motto and the words ‘under God’ in the pledge were adopted during the Cold War as anti-communism measures.

Laws enacted during times of national hysteria and mass panic are seldom rational, beneficial, or constitutional. The Patriot Act (during the Bush War on America) and the internment of Japanese Americans (during WWII) are two perfect examples of this.

Engraving them at the entrance to the U.S. Capitol would discriminate against those who do not practice religion and unfairly promote a Judeo-Christian perspective.” (I guess that also transforms our coins and bills, which have “In God We Trust” on them, into Christian tracts?)

Why yes, actually it does. I’m glad he sees that.

“This lawsuit is another attempt by liberal activists to rewrite history and deny that America’s Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation,” said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.

Nobody is denying that religion has been part of our history. It just has never been part of our Constitution. They need to stop pretending it is.

So, could the lawsuit prevail and prevent the engravings in the CVC? Are you kidding? Mark my words: If a few liberal judges get the case and we the people do nothing, it will. And then that precedent will be used to extend their next argument — that our national motto, “In God We Trust,” is unconstitutional.

Logic is a bitch, isn’t it, Chuck?

7 Responses to “Chuck Norris and ***holes”

  1. Brian Says:

    Jesus Fucking Christ, and I thought “Walker, Texas Ranger” was Norris’s greatest contribution to our collective stupidity. No wonder he has a man-crush on Mike Huckabee.

    I’ve probably asked this before, and I already know the answer, but I’ll feel better asking it again: if God is omnipotent and his existence is so damned obvious, why in the name Zeus do Christians become so afraid of their precious mottos being removed from public places? Does God really need the advertising? Well, yes he does, because without the constant carping about Jesus and his bloody sacrifice, we’d probably have moved on by now to a belief system a bit more enlightened. Used car salesmen and pastors – there’s really no difference.

  2. Another Steve Says:


    Used car salesmen and pastors – there’s really no difference

    I suggest that used car salesmen are slightly more ethical than pastors. There’s only so much money a used car can cost you before you get fed up and walk away.

    A pastor will keep lying to you week after week. You’re not worthy. You’re not worthy. Pass the collection plate.

    That said, one of the things in Chuck’s screed that pushed the red button for me was:

    …another attempt by liberal activists…

    I get tired of the notion that being a liberal somehow makes a person un-good or inherently bad in some way. You know, I don’t only care about my rights, I care about your rights as well (I’m ranting implicitly here guys).

    It not only pisses me off that it says “In God we Trust” on our money; it would also piss me off if it said variously “Allah Akbar”, or “May the blessings of Buddha be upon you”, or fill in your choice of crazy bat-shit ravings about your favorite imaginary friend.

    I feel better now. Thanks. Could someone help me get this soapbox back under my desk please?

  3. OtherRob Says:

    Norris defends your right to his religion

    That’s a good way of putting it. I like that.

  4. Jeff Eyges Says:

    I’ve seen it time and again. He finds a woman who’s born again; next thing you know, he’s campaigning for Huckabee and trying to get Bibles into schools.

    This demonstrates two things:

    1. Dawkins is right; religion is a mind-virus.

    2. Men are imbeciles. How this planet is not being ruled by a world government of women is a frakking mystery.

  5. SamHouston Says:

    Regarding “In God We Trust” on our money,

    “Sin” and crime all over the world is lubricated by US money. I tell my xian critics that their forcing this motto on our money demonstrates the weakness or uncaring of their personal God. I have never heard of a potential “sinner” or criminal who was redirected to the righteous path because, just in time, he or she saw the motto IGWT on the money before making the payment. Where are the benefits? Do we have a lower crime rate compared to other countries with “godless” money? (No.)

    Can you imagine: With money in hand and just before purchasing a major “sin” Chick Norris (as an angle) floats into the scene and says “Read the damn motto!” And, it works. The xian pulls back the money, does not “sin” and goes to church to praise the Lord. (And gives the money to the preacher.)

  6. Meee Says:

    “This lawsuit is another attempt by liberal activists to rewrite history and deny that America’s Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation,” said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.

    I love how they claim that removing “in god we trust” would be “revising history” when it was inserted into the pledge by revising history in the first place.

  7. Parrotlover77 Says:

    I agree. I always thought that the attitude (at least post-cold war attitude) of having the motto on the money was very… ironic. But fundies and neocons love to embrace the ironic without ever understanding the irony. It’s sort of similar to how they have so closely adopted the slogan of “teabagging” for opposing taxes on the wealthy when it is almost always used as a degrading sexual euphamism at their expense.