Mark Levin "schools" an intolerant atheist

Post Reply New Topic

Here is a link from a source openly biased toward the right (so no one can toss about accusations of liberal media distortion):

http://therightscoop.com/awesome-mark-levin-schools-intolerant-atheist-caller/

Levin: “Oh, I forgot, I’m not supposed to mention faith or God. I’ve decided to bring it up because I’m sick and tired of us being told, ‘Just tax cuts, don’t bring up that other stuff. Oh, my God! Don’t bring up God! For God sakes!’ Right? You got it?”

Caller: To narrow down your desires, your qualifications for the next president, to list among them a professed faith, a religious faith, is ridiculous. I don’t want a religious president, no.

Levin: So, you’re an atheist, right? Okay, great. Can I help you out, pal? This world wasn’t created by atheists. Meaning, this country was not created by atheists.
The great thing about our Constitution and the great thing about the Judeo-Christian belief system is its tolerance. You see, you have almost no tolerance for my viewpoint. This is the thing that really angers you! On the other hand, if you’re an atheist, I could care less.

Caller: First of all, Mark, it’s ‘couldn’t care less.'

Levin: Actually, it is could care less. You know, you’re an ass. I’ve had about enough of you. You’re a real punk. You know that? You have contributed nothing to this program in ten minutes. Zero. And you’re not that smart.
The problem that some of you atheists have is you’re intolerant. You’re intolerant. And you’re a punk. So, get lost. Get out of here.

Levin disconnects the caller.

Mark Levin's an example of what the U.S. needs: someone willing to walk against the PC wind, and say "this is enough; no more". Too many in the public eye are terrified of addressing religious concerns because they'll lose financial support...and frankly, I'm sick of it. I've said many times that I don't want a theocracy, where everyone's bound to my beliefs whether they like it or not...but I don't want to be chained to someone else's either, especially by the federal government.

The First Amendment clearly prohibits nationwide establishment of one religion over any other on a federal level, but nowhere does it ban influence. Most of the Founders expressed a belief in God as described in the Bible, basing their morals and this country's laws on that. Did they make mistakes? Absolutely. Were they perfect? Hell, no. But they were steadfast in their conviction that everyone in the United States should be allowed completely free, equal expression of whatever religion they held dear, both publicly and privately. The only limits they placed were on individually-related things like rape, murder, theft, etc. They wanted to include slavery, but a few states threatened to leave, so they temporarily skirted it because a divided nation would've been easier to destroy.

Levin sounds like a self opinionated dickhead to me.

When Mark Levin gets mad he sounds like Master Shake.

lol no, not really. They were all snooty aristocrats, and at that point in time Deism was in vogue among the well-learned. Thomas Jefferson even made his own version of the Bible with all of Jesus' miracles cut out because he didn't believe that they really happened.

So it is ok for him to be intolerant of someone who expresses his opinion that religion shouldn't be a deciding factor in a political candidate? And at the same time talk about how intolerant someone else is being? Talk about speck and plank.



I have yet to see anyone in the federal government try to force their religious beliefs on another who was not a christian. Unless you count the separation of church and state as a religious atheist agenda.



I would not have a problem with this statement if it weren't for the fact that most of those in DC who say things like this are fairly open about their belief that all legislation should be based on Christianity.



Not even remotely true.



Also not true



Which is my biggest problem with this. Levin keeps talking about how tolerant christianity is, and yet he is 100% intolerant of anyone who is not a heterosexual Republican christian.

Freedom of religion for all (christians)!

Hey, hey, heeey, everyone! I just came up with a catchy phrase:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Cool, right? And wouldn't it be even cooler if someone put it in some big and important official-like document or something? ... just sayin'.

Lol, it's ass if Mark Levin doesn't realize that he is acting like he is being trolled...

When in fact the caller really said nothing antagonistic as far as I can tell.

It's kind of funny because I can empathize with someone who is being trolled but there's just nothing there to justify it. Pundits. Go figure.

I never would have made that connection, but it is so true!

Jesus' parable about the speck and plank was in reference to hypocrisy, which is about doing the same thing you're condemning someone else for. Mark wasn't restricting the caller having his own views, but tolerance does not equal embracement. If you already agree with someone else's stance, its not tolerance.

That term was originally used by Thomas Jefferson to say that the government should have no place in controlling the church outright...but he never said the two couldn't influence each other. In fact, just three days after writing that letter in 1802, Jefferson attended a church service in the U.S. Capitol Building; how's that for "total separation"?

The main reason behind that is because most of those who made our laws for over 150 years were Christians, and they didn't feel a need to apologize for it just because some special-interest group decided to be "offended". It wasn't until the 1940s that devout atheist Hugo Black twisted the "separation" phrase from Jefferson's 1802 letter, and violated the Constitution by placing related provisions into our laws.

Here's just a few examples...

1) "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor." ~George Washington~

2) "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." ~John Jay, first U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1816~

3) "Our Laws and our institutions are necessarily based upon the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise, and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institution are emphatically Christian." ~U.S. Supreme Court, 1892~

4) "No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people." ~Noah Webster, statesman~

5) "The United States was founded on the principle of Christianity. Every thinking man, when he thinks, realizes that the teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life, that it would be literally - I do not mean figuratively, but literally - impossible for us to figure what the loss would be if these teachings were removed. We would lose all the standards by which we now judge both public and private morals; all the standards towards which we, with more or less resolution, strive to raise ourselves." ~Theodore Roosevelt~

Guess what? Tolerance isn't the ultimate solution to anything. The fundamental flaw of politically-correct mindset is its stubborn insistence that nothing's truly right or wrong for everyone, regardless of personal belief.

The Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson about the Connecticut state government keeping their charter (Connecticut did not have a state constitution like the others when America became a country until 1818, and at the time was essentially a theocracy) and favoring a certain Christian denomination. In case that is not clear, the Danbury Baptists wanted the major denomination to stop influencing their beliefs on others.

The church services of the federal government were open to all denominations, not just one. So they are different.

Important Jefferson quote at end of video explaining the situation about a "Protestant popedom":

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waFqAGvqXtM[/youtube]

The British monarchy ruled by divine right. What makes you think they wanted to leave the door open for that to happen again?




Politics are not a recent invention. Neither is pandering.




Good luck crusading against treating people with dignity. I'm sure it will make you many friends.

There is no way to listen to that exchange and come to the conclusion that Mark Levin is anything but a pompous, condescending ass. He's verbally abusive and disrespectful, with no consideration whatsoever for the caller's point. That you suggest that he is an example of what the U.S. needs is a complete abandonment of rational thinking. Your respect for his venom demonstrates clearly that you value your religion's social affiliation more than you value the tenets of christianity.

I'm apatheist and generally don't care about religion debates, but I become hostile toward theism when I see arguments like this. You are demonstrating that religion and rational thinking are mutually exclusive.

Some people just like the combative dialog. I have friends for instance who would listen to Savage, Levin, etc. any time they're on but had zero interest in Prager because he does almost the opposite and tries to pick apart arguments without getting riled.

Levin is a bomb throwing nutjob. You'd learn more by talking to your dog.

That's because Mark Levine IS a self opinionated dickhead, not unlike every other right wing talking bobble head.