Atheism not new
In Monday's
Daily Forty-Niner, Ken Hanson wrote an editorial praising Jesse Ventura's
courage for "standing up for what he believes" by calling religion a "crutch
for the feeble-minded."
Hanson went on to criticize Minnesotans
for getting upset at Ventura's remarks.
After all, the people elected Ventura into
office because they wanted "new ideas and solutions for the stateís problems."
Hanson canít understand why, when Ventura
expresses one of these new ideas (atheism), that ìthe people turned against
him."
What was most disturbing was Hansonís assertion
that Venturaís atheistic beliefs would make him better suited to address
moral and ethical issues -- such as genetic engineering -- because he would
be ìwithout religious concerns."
At this point in Hansonís editorial, I
began wondering who needed smelling salts more: Ventura or Hanson?
First, does Hanson truly believe that atheism
was one of the ìfresh ideas" Minnesotans were looking in their new governor?
I doubt it.
Second, how was Ventura discriminated against
for expressing his religious beliefs? Was he not served at a particular
restaurant? Was he the object of ridicule at the office?
Ventura's atheism will, without a doubt,
influence the way he approaches problems and makes decisions, especially
moral and ethical ones.
The Bible says there is a God who will
hold each of us accountable. Venturaís atheism says there is no God, and
consequently no accountability.
Which one of these views is wishful thinking?
Which one of these beliefs is the bigger crutch? |
![[opinion]](http://www.csulb.edu/~d49er/Icon/opinion.gif){kind=icon}
![[news]](http://www.csulb.edu/~d49er/Icon/news.gif){kind=icon}
![[sports]](http://www.csulb.edu/~d49er/Icon/sports.gif){kind=icon}