Excerpt from "An Open Letter to Glenn Beck"

[Sean O'Connor]

I do want to address my fundamental disagreement with you.

I identify myself ideologically as a scientist (not to be confused with a Scientologist)[i have since decided to refer to myself as an Optimist], i.e., I believe in the rational study of the universe’s aspects, which is incompatible with Christianity, thus I reject it, along with all other religions, and ideologies. Christianity’s fundamental contradiction is monotheism.[More fundamentally, theism] Gods do not exist. I shall elaborate.

To quote Ayn Rand’s primary axiom: “existence exists”, thus a god. i.e., a supposed supernatural creator of existence cannot not exist in a nonexistent non-dimension of nonexistence where it creates existence, for such an assertion is loaded with contradictions. Existence either exists, or it does not, and if it does not exist than nothing exists, which is obviously not the case.

There are some serious consequences to holding a Christian premise. For example, when you say, in the event of peril or feeling hopeless, that we should get down on our knees and beg “god” for forgiveness, that’s not true, for that is a complete renunciation of the mind, and the self. To the contrary, we must command our subconscious’ to logically provide us with confidence and a solution.

Also, when you condemn people for being selfish, you are using the word incorrectly; selfishness is a good thing. As Ayn Rand explains in her essay “The Virtue of Selfishness”: “When one speaks of man’s right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest, most people assume automatically that this means his right to sacrifice others. Such an assumption is a confession of their own belief that to injure, enslave, rob, or murder others is in man’s interest- which he must selflessly renounce.” Obviously, it is not in a human’s interest to violate another human’s self determination, it is destructive to life, and promotes destruction of life, increasing the likelihood that the violator’s own life will be injured. The proper word for one who sacrifices others to his whims, and violate’s a person’s self determination is “violent”.

Despite our ideological differences we both appreciate the fact that freedom is a universal ideal. When differing ideologies share a common belief an ideological alliance is established. Our ideological alliance, which I call The Absolute Freedom Alliance, upholds two beliefs: that truth is absolute, and that thus, the right to freedom for every individual is absolute. Unfortunately Christians are carrying the weight of this alliance. By this I mean that most of the people who speak to the public for the purpose of preserving and advancing our freedom are Christian. If more non-Christians spoke to the public about freedom, freedom would reach a much wider audience, and thus more people would likely be receptive to it. Although freedom is not the only ideal I write about, it is one I write about quite often, and one I hope to convince people to appreciate.

As you have said, Americans today are being divided, and a divided America is key to the communist movement, for as Karl Marx writes in “The Communist Manifesto”: “Communism abolishes religion and all morality”. (Thus it abolishes reason, absolutism, and objective evaluation). There are two major ways which the communists are attempting to divide us that merit more discussion. You have mentioned that public education as one of the institutions where this is occurring. What is especially disturbing is how universities are using their philosophy departments to foreword this attempt at dividing us. Given the fact that most people do not think much about philosophy, who among the anti-philosophical masses, would ever think to consider how ideas and beliefs are circulated? Who would ever think to consider where they originate? Ideas and beliefs are produced by fraudulent theoreticians posing as philosophers, and subtly lacing what they teach their students with their deranging theories. Their theories spread to the other academicians. These theoreticians are working to divide us by invalidating the definitions of words, then redefining those words to subtly inculcate communist beliefs. A con-artist named Julian Friedland wrote in an online New York Times article that “[The word] ‘game’ can be made to be a family” (“Philosophy Is Not a Science”) (Italics mine) They teach that what “reason” means to me, is right for me, and what “reason” means for you, is right for you. The varying definitions of reason are members of the “reason” family. Their ultimate goal is to redefine “freedom” from “self determination” to “the balancing of competing interests”. (Which is how communist congressman Rush Holt defines freedom, or claims to be his guiding political principle) They are programming minds to submit to coerced equality, mistakenly believing that it advances their individuality and freedom. Those poor minds will resent anyone who claims anything to be absolutely true; anyone who claims that some people are correct, and other people are wrong; anyone who says some services or products are worth more than others and that thus, some people should make more money than others. I know and encounter many, many people are victims of this “public education”. You asked one night, how many people we know who think, or talk like President Barack Obama. You asked, who among us is he really representing. I know an American citizen who has said that Obama is “not communist enough”. He is a victim of this postmodern word game which is taught by public educators, not only in America, but throughout the world. This “public education” will make the free exchange of ideas purposeless. More so than divided, we will be isolated.

This is why I urge people to debate. Debate prompts the free exchange of ideas and beliefs. It promotes the value of discussing truth, convincing people to believe in the truth, and caring to discover more about the truth; it promotes the virtue of integrity. Debate strengthens one’s reason, one’s ability to interact with others selfishly. Debate today is being attacked, avoided and, in the media it is virtually forbidden, and replaced with superficial debates among pragmatists, i.e., people who believe in immoral, short term solutions to fundamental problems. Even Fox News, the media corporation which claims to be capitalistic, has never, so far as I have seen, broadcasted metaphysical, or epistemological debates. (There may be a few exceptions in which a metaphysical or epistemological comment or two are squeezed when an objectivist such as Yaron Brook is invited to speak. I am extremely grateful that you have invited him on your Fox News show.) In other words, nobody in the media is checking their premises and nobody is being held accountable for their premises. This makes for terrible television, and a dying culture. (This is why I emphasized the value of your ideology-conscious commentary.) Today’s debates do not even touch on reason or explanation although some may claim they do. Instead people cling to such comments as “it is constitutional therefore it is good” as opposed to saying “it’s good that it is constitutional because…”. Another example is when people complain about politicians being “political”. To say that being political is problematic is an equivocation. “Political” means, of or relating to policy. It is a politicians job to be “political”. This nonsense comes from the same people who complain about “partisan politics”, i.e., integrity. The fact that integrity is often described as a bad thing is extremely problematic. This is a point that needs to be addressed so that people can see through the muck on their television screens, their magazines, their blogs, their newspapers, et cetera; in defense of reason, freedom, and thriving.

The second way we are being divided is what will serve as the alleged justification for perpetuating the aforementioned tactic: the atheists versus the Christians; which is contrived to infuriate the already mentally weak. Here I must point out that most so called “atheists” are not atheists by rational conviction. They’re angry communists who want to obliterate absolutist beliefs, since absolutist beliefs lead to absolute (although not necessarily objective) value, specifically, an absolute hierarchy of values, since any acknowledgement of an absolute hierarchy of values is the antithesis of communism. Furthermore, if values are non-absolute, then those minds which attempt to evaluate and valuate will ultimately malfunction and thus they will then need the government to determine their values for them. That is what the Federal Reserve and its fiat money does.

A perfect representative of this evil brand of atheism is Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA) who implies that Christianity is a threat to “public education”, i.e., communist indoctrination, i.e., the disabling of evaluation skills. He says this in the name of atheism and reason. ( “Dem. Rep. Pete Stark Praises Atheists‘ ‘National Day of Reason‘ Against ‘Day of Prayer‘ on House Floor”; 4/30/12;http://www.theblaze....on-house-floor/)

Furthermore these irrational atheists, like congressman Stark, claim that Christianity is a threat to their free speech! That is an illogical claim. What they are deceptively implying is, as you have virtuously exposed, that actually, they do no want Christian ideology to be freely expressed in public. It is, they claim, okay, for them to omit “under God” from the pledge of allegiance but not okay for a Christian (or any other monotheist) to say “under God”. That is just as evil as forbidding an atheist to omit “under God”. It is an insult. A logical atheist would enjoy a courteous debate; a free exchange of ideas. It demonstrates confidence, righteousness, and integrity.

Furthermore, this propped up conflict misrepresents both Christianity, and science. Jesus says: “forgive them of their sins, they know not what they do”, and science says: “be courteous with those you disagree with and persuade them to accept the truth if you can.” The worst misrepresentation I have ever seen of Christianity, and non-Christianity was in the video you showed of “It Gets Better”’s spokesman Dan Savage blaming gay bashing, and sexual policing, on the Bible. The Holy Bible is not to be blamed for either. What is to blame is the failure to recognize the fact that every individual has the right of freedom. It is not coincidental that gay bashing is being falsely attributed to an absolutist, pro-freedom ideology.

It is when insults are exchanged between Christians and atheists that the communists will claim this is their proof that people should never condemn another person’s beliefs. It arouses hate, they’ll say. They’ll say, whenever people discuss their beliefs it leads to civil unrest which the government must resolve. They are the ones who live by the principle “no consequential discussions about sex, religion, or politics at the dinner table”.

This division between Christians and atheists is also a serious problem within the Republican party. A perfect example here is Rick Santorum. He used the “attack on Christianity” to further this division, especially by framing America’s foundation as exclusively Christian influenced. To the contrary, America’s foundation was logical. I shall cite the “The Declaration of Independence” as my evidence. “To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world”. (Italics mine) The Holy Bible does not require of its followers to believe anything based on “proof”. Instead, the writers of The Holy Bible expect readers to have faith in the literature. The fact that America’s founders proved why their independence from England was justified indicates that America’s independence is not founded with only Christian principles in mind....

(If you are interested in reading the entire essay, you may do so at http://seanoconnorli...-to-glenn-beck/ )

Edited January 5, 2013 by Eiuol

[Hairnet]

I would love to read your essay, but you need to format your posts so that they are readable.

[Sean O'Connor]

Hairnet, thanks for commenting. Would you explain what you mean when you say "format your posts so they are readable"? I am new to this site so if I have posted improperly I apologize and was not aware.

[Eiuol]

Hairnet, thanks for commenting. Would you explain what you mean when you say "format your posts so they are readable"? I am new to this site so if I have posted improperly I apologize and was not aware.

Well, the forum doesn't read paragraphs you typed in, unless you perhaps enable HTML and put in <p>...</p> for each paragraph. Or put a blank line between each paragraph. It would look fine if you do that (since you can't edit your post now, I'll fix it for you).

[Justin Benner]

I think it is a fine letter, although I should warn you that, if read by a member of the general public (or Reddit), you are going to get this as a response: TL;DR.

[Sean O'Connor]

Justin, thank you. What does TL;DR. mean?

[Sean O'Connor]

Eiuol, thank you for commenting. I regret to confess that I am not quite internet savvy or forum savvy so I do not know what it means to enable HTML. I merely copied text from my website and pasted it onto a post here. Strangely, for me, my post shows up without any problem.

[Justin Benner]

Justin, thank you. What does TL;DR. mean?

Ah, I forgot everyone isn't as nerdy as I am. It means Too Long; Didn't Read. Grab their attention quickly, make your points as succinctly as possible, and close with a bang.

[Sean O'Connor]

Eiuol- thanks for your help. Justin, thanks for explaining