Chuck Norris Blames School Shootings on Atheism, Evolution
Chuck Norris at a
Mike Huckabee Campaign Event
Photo: Eric Thayer/Getty Images
After events like the shootings in Illinois, you can be absolutely certain that not much time will pas before some religious authoritarians come out to blame evolution, atheism, secularism, humanism, or all of the above. Once a mediocre actor and now an been worse spokesman for Christian Nationalism, Chuck Norris revels in repeating bigoted assertions without any apparent self-awareness of just how immoral his behavior is.
Chuck Norris writes:
I'm not pretentious enough to believe that I or others can wrap up this horrendous cultural dilemma in a trite and tight, neat package.
Source: World Net Daily
Methinks he doth protest too much. Not only is Chuck Norris quite pretentious, the whole point of his column is to "explain" school shootings with a trite package of anti-secular and anti-science canards:
As I've said in different ways in different settings, we teach our children they are nothing more than glorified apes, yet we don't expect them to act like monkeys. We place our value in things, yet expect our children to value people. We disrespect one another, but expect our children to respect others. We terminate children in the womb, but are surprised when children outside the womb terminate other children. We push God to the side, but expect our children to be godly. We've abandoned moral absolutes, yet expect our children to obey the universal commandment, "Thou shall not murder."
These are the tired, familiar complaints of Chrstian Nationalists and Norris offers them without a hint of justification. He may imagine that he's making serious points in a witty way, but nowhere does he try to establish any logical or evidential connection between the advance of secularism and science with school shootings. Chuck Norris is engaging in a dangerous game here by trying to make atheists, secularists, scientists, and others at least partially responsible for school shootings because he's promoting false, hateful bigotry.
Chuck Norris is also encouraging beliefs that are obvious falsehoods. Remember that America is far more religious than other industrialized countries — countries which don't have incidents of violence like those Norris is trying to "explain." If countries where atheism, secularism, and science are far more common don't have nearly the same problems of violence, then what happens to Norris' idea that violence is produced by increased atheism, secularism, and science?
Once upon a time, churches served as moral centers of a community. Of course, not any longer.
Churches only ever served as "moral centers" for Christians living in a community — just as churches continue to do now. The only thing that has changed is that non-Christians are more numerous and more visible in the same communities. Is this what Chuck Norris is lamenting — the fact that it's harder for Christians to pretend that only they and their beliefs exist or matter in a community?
That wouldn’t surprise me because there have been so many times in Christian history when these "moral centers" not only encouraged Christians to hunt down and chase away non-Christians, but even actively participated.
And as Theodore Roosevelt once said, "In this actual world, a churchless community, a community where men have abandoned and scoffed at, or ignored their Christian duties, is a community on the rapid down grade."
Quoting the bigoted views of someone else doesn't give that bigotry any greater validity — not even when the person being quoted was a President of the United States. Does Chuck Norris imagine that racism might be validated if he quoted the racist opinions of any early American leaders? I hope not, but what he does here isn't any different.
The fact that the words were originally someone else's also doesn't relieve Chuck Norris of responsibility for repeating them in a positive manner here. He many not be their author, but he assumes moral responsibility for them by using them. This mean s Chuck Norris is responsible for promoting the view that all communities which do not fulfill "their Christian duties" — which surely encompasses all non-Christian communities — are inferior to Christian communities where "Christian duties" are remembered. This is Christian Supremacism and is every bit as vile as promoting the superiority of "white communities" where people remember their "duties as whites."
Do we now believe we can consider morality and religion optional, without suffering civil and societal repercussions
Notice how Chuck Norris doesn't consider it optional to treat religion and morality as separate issues. Keeping in mind the above quote, we should regard "religion" here as only referring to Christianity. That's the only religion Chuck Norris seems to care about, which is what we should expect from a Christian Supremacist.
The truth, which Chuck Norris will not or cannot acknowledge, is that morality is not dependent on religion, Christianity, or theism while religion, Christianity, and theism cannot guarantee morality. The immorality which Norris decries is occurring in the most religious of all industrialized nations — and so is the immorality which Norris himself commits. The overall religiosity of America doesn't stop the immorality he decries while his own religiosity is the source for his immoral behavior.
Comments
Actually I thought his article was pretty good. While you have some good points, I noted you didn’t quote his citations of George Washington or John Adams. Mmmm…interesting. It seems that Chuck would not be the only one accused of bigotry, but so would Washington and Adams. By the way, it was Washington who coupled morality and religion together (not Norris), “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
Could you imagine how commentators would respond if someone were to say these words today?….
George Washington said in his Farewell Address, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”?
Now who is the bigot???
Chuck Norris is an intellectual sissy.
Perhaps you can then point to what value it has.
Probably because they have nothing to say about school shootings.
Certainly they could. Or weren’t you aware of their views on matters like race or the roles of women in society?
Right now, it’s Chuck Norris. Perhaps you missed where I pointed out in my article that citing the bigoted statements of people from the past doesn’t lend that bigotry any more credibility, not even when the people being quoted served as President of the United States.
If you have a case to make the views in question, and think you can defend them not only as being empirically true but also as not being bigoted, I welcome you to make the attempt. If you can’t, then what exactly is your purpose for posting here?
I blame heliocentrism and protestantism. We need to reject these new-fangled and morally bankrupt ideas and return to the good old-fashioned values that prevailed before the reformation.
Its funny how we can look back through history and see how religion has censored, persecuted and prohibited science and rational thought but we fail to see it when its in our faces.
Last I checked the prison system was less than 1% atheist or agnostic however 80% of those incarcerated are Christian.Furthermore So I am really curious as to how anyone can attribute today’s violence in schools or anywhere really to atheism?
And a tidbit for anyone who is just shocked about the huge increases in school shootings…
“only 12 to 20 homicides a year occur in the 100,000 schools in the U.S. In general, school assaults and other violence have dropped by nearly half in the past decade.” A quote from Bill Dedman, Investigative reporter,MSNBC
Poor old Chuck, I guess he is suffering from one too many blows to the head while
practicing karate. Even his picture has a demented look to it. As to what he writes:
I think he should stick to banging his head around in the gym because his writings are pure garbage.
I think he turned to sensationalist writing because his sorry acting and singing didn’t get him any real attention.
I never liked Chuck Norris’ movies much anyway.
Ick… I hate going on sites like WND and Free Republic; I always feel like I have to take a shower afterwards, the ignorance and hate just drip off the site. Yuck!
Why does the press pay serious attention to what celebrities think? Most people don’t care & if they did, then President Bush wouldn’t have been in office, though Hollywood consistently bashed him. People vote on who they believe is the best candidate & the views of celebrities make little difference.
I really wish the press would stop giving attention to the political views of most celebrities. But here is the contradiction. I haven’t heard many in the press critique celebrities when their views are contradictory. An eg. would be tennis legend Martina Navratilova, who protested experiments to make gay sheep straight. Martina Navratilova protested this on the grounds it’s animal cruelty, yet I haven’t heard Martina Navratilova protest sex changes, which were 1st done on animals & must be abolished. If Martina Navratilova truly cares about animals, then she must support abolishing sex change maimings. Not many in the press have pointed out Martina Navratilova’s selectivity in protesting animal cruelty, because most in the press agree with her ideologically.
There is no brain behind Chuck Norris’ beard. There is only another fist.
Given the popularity of books such as the Left Behind series and those that glorify the “quickly approaching” apocalypse, I wonder why school shootings are never linked to the obvious feelings of futility or lack of any real value that such beliefs can and do foster in people.
Chuck Norris is on the right track. when people ignore God and His moral laws bad things happen. Proof, you want proof. OK. Hitler and Stalin. They followed the Atheistic views of Nietzche and look where it got them. Satlin lead one of the goriest genecides of history causing the extermination of some 15 million. Hitler went and attacked the Jews and 6 million of them were killed. Let me clear about what I am saying. I am not saying that all Antitheist will become like Hitler or Stalin, but that the Antitheistic ideals that they folow can and sometimes do lead to acts of evil. After all if God doesn’t exist then who are we to say what is right and wrong. Truth simplly becomes what we “feel” is right. Stalin and Hitler were simply acting out what they believed. If more Antitheists really lived what they believed we would see more of this kind of violence and evil.
1. The word “atheistic” is not a proper noun because it does not refer to any ideology, belief system, or philosophy.
2. Hitler was a Catholic, never excommunicated, and stated unequivocally that he felt he was doing the Lord’s work. Every detail of Nazi anti-Semitic policy — special badges, ghettos, and even mass murder — were already conceived of or even done by Christians and Christian leaders.
3. What “atheistic views” did both Hitler and Stalin follow? Be clear and specific here, otherwise you won’t be able to support your claim.
Without gods, there is only us to say.
Doesn’t everyone act on what they believe?
So it is your position that all “antitheists” bbelieve in mass murder and destruction? That’s a pretty serious accusation. Can you support it?
Let me clear about what I am saying. I am not saying that all Antitheist will become like Hitler or Stalin, but that the Antitheistic ideals that they folow can and sometimes do lead to acts of evil.
Again I repeat what I said above. I’ll get back to you on the specifics about the Nietzche ideals they took. I left my notes at work. But what I can remember off hand is that Nietzche predicted that the world would eventually become a great insanity due to the the lack of divine command. This I think was outlined in his autobiography “Ecce Homo” Hitler and Stalin lived out this. I have read letters from those close to Hitler who talked about Hitler reading the works of Nietzche. As far a hitler being Catholic, it has nothing to do with his actions. It’s just a label.
I will have to get back to you on the notes I have at my office. That are more specific.
Austin, how long have you studied the atheism/theism subject, just wondering. You have great debate skills.
John
Again, sorry for the grammer issue about “atheism” I am not a english major.
No acts out everything they believe, we are all hypocrites in one way or another, but we ALL try to live out what we believe PASS or FAIL.
The following paper by Michael Kalish was part of my research on the life and work of Nietzche and details the conection between Hitler, Nietzche and the composer Wagner. I found it on the internet, it is way to much reading, but the facts are indesputable. Here is the link.
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133p/133p04papers/MKalishNietzNazi046.htm
John
Which obligates you to explain what those ideals are and why they entail what you claim they entail.
1. You say that the “facts are indisputable,” but it’s only a student paper. We don’t even know what grade the student got. I’m not going to spend time evaluating how right or wrong it is — even if all its facts are technically correct, it’s far too short to contain enough facts, enough history, and enough nuance to be anything more than a superficial summary of a few of the issues. It’s not even immediately clear that the author read the works in question in the original German. Nothing in the works cited is in German.
The fact that you would rely heavily on such a source for such dramatic claims does not say much about your standards and critical thinking skills. If you think that short paper is “way too much reading,” then you probably haven’t read any serious scholarly works on Nietzsche. That would mean you ultimately don’t know much of anything about him or his philosophy. You should consider the possibility that you can’t learn about Nietzsche’s philosophy through the lens of Baptist apologetics — that would be like learning about Christianity through the lens of Nietzsche’s works.
2. This student at least pointed out the fact that Nietzsche’s ideas only reached Hitler in a highly edited form. Nietsche was in fact heavily censored by the Nazis. Nietzsche’s sister was an anti-Semite; when she obtained control over his manuscripts, she re-edited them to fit her own views and the Nazis then used these new works. So when you allege that “antitheists” committed crimes when they “followed the Atheistic views of Nietzsche,” we know that you know that the Nazis could only have “followed” heavily edited material which did not represent Nietzsche’s own personal views. This means that what you attribute to Nietzsche, you know he wasn’t responsible for. That is normally called lying, isn’t it? If I attributed to you ideas and beliefs which I knew were not your original words but only a version edited by someone else, wouldn’t I be lying?
I think you meant to say, “Nietzsche’s sister was an anti-Semite.”
Thanks, John - I’ll change that…
Didn’t Nietzsche despise anti-semites?
I’m just using the same methods and word games you use an Antitheist. Yes I rely on reading other people’s reseach and books. That arguement is in meaningless it, to play fair you would have to ignore other books, and leaders in your belief system like Kant, Steven Gould, and others… The fact I was staing was the conection between Hitler and Nietzsche. From what little i’ve read about Nietzsche he held to a label calling himself a immoralist. He also wwrote alot about a Master/Slave morality which Hitler seemed to bring to life with His actions with the Jews. Last night I was trying to show you the similarities between the two men. We all know that Nietzsche ended the last few years of his life showing symtoms of serious mental illness. Getting back to the Chuck Norris comments, Chuck was right about the idea of Violence in relation to immoral lifestyle, but he should not have perhaps put the label of atheist in his speech, rather a immoral lifestyle.
If I remember correctly, yes.
Feel free to support this assertion.
That’s not a problem. The problem is using college papers rather than quality scholarship.
Both spoke German, yes, but there isn’t much connection between the ideas of Hitler and Nietzsche. Now, if you want to claim that there is a connection between the edited material created by Nietzsche’s sister and Hitler, you’ll be on firmer ground.
And how is that relevant?
He didn’t actually write that. Can you defend what he did write?
Be careful what you say about a man who can speak Braille and slam revolving door.
School shootings have a lot more to do with the violent gun culture that Chuck Norris pandered to. And, of course they have a lot to do with the easy availability of firearms, which makes them an easy resource for lunatics.
The US is more religious than all the other Western countries with it’s bible belt and large fundamentalist movements. Yet it has the highest rate of imprisonment in the western world. As far as I know it is the only western country which executes people. Norris should look a lot deeper at his society than just bagging atheists. What contribution to violence has his macho films made?
The percentage of Xians in US jails is much more than 80% - between them Muslims and Xians account for over 99% of US prison inmates.
To John Weldon,
First and foremost you seem to be under the assumption that all atheists derive their beliefs from Nietzsche, I am an atheist and until today I had never even heard of him. Though I do not take pride in this apparent gap in my knowledge, it does go to show that atheists do not derive their values solely from Nietzsche. Though of course if you actually knew anything about atheism you’d know that anyway, as by definition atheism is not a specific system of ideology, it is simply the belief that there is not a god(s), (and technically the lack of a religion, but one implies the other) nothing more.
Leading on from this fact, it is ridiculous to then say that atheism lends itself to the abhorrent actions of people such as Hitler and Stalin. Just as it would be ridiculous for me to say that the belief in a god is alone responsible for the terrible crimes of many religious people, of course it is not, their sick ideas, like those of Hitler and Stalin, came from various other sources, they only used their belief or lack thereof as a tool to bully and brainwash others into allowing and supporting their twisted actions.
‘I am not saying that all Antitheist will become like Hitler or Stalin, but that the Antitheistic ideals that they folow can and sometimes do lead to acts of evil.’
Could you elaborate as to what exaclty these are? Also I think if you were to look half as critically at most of the religious world you’d find plenty of things that lend themselves to evil actions. Most major religions have at least a few extremist sects, which on the whole do far more evil than the supposed evil ‘antitheists’. By the way, why precisely do you insist on using this term? Though you as a theist may feel the need to try and eradicate all atheism, that does not mean that atheists feel the reverse of this desire, which would earn them the name ‘antitheists’.
P.S. This is not intended as an insult, but simply as your comments are annoying to read, would you please check the grammar and spelling before you post them?
I don’t understand why the motives behind school shootings are such a mystery. Kids are very emotional. They tend to view every little thing as life altering. They don’t have a clear grasp on reality after high school, meaning they don’t realize none of this will matter in the long run.
Basically, a kid is generally disliked, unpopular, gets picked on everyday, and he snaps. Its tough being forced to spend all day in a place where everyone hates you. I remember wanting to shoot up my middle-school when I was a kid, or at least one or 2 bullies who made it their personal mission to make my life miserable for 8 hours a day. But eventually they eased up, school ended, life goes on. I guess some kids can take it and some can’t.
So what is to blame? Well, I can think of a few possibilities: parents who create bullies by abusing their kids, schools that make little effort to stop bullying, an inadequate family structure or support system, a culture that places popularity above all else, easy availability of weapons, etc. However you look at it, its got nothing to do with lack of religion.
Notice how Chuck Norris doesn’t consider it optional to treat religion and morality as separate issues.
It is not optional to treat religion and morality as seperate issues.
If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
If objective moral values do not exist, morality is only a person doing what they feel like doing.
If everyone does only what they feel is right, there is nothing wrong with shooting people at school.
Therefore, noone is being biased by blaming school shootings, on atheism for teaching kids to do it, because it is not a “wrong” thing to do.
Why? If you don’t think that morality and religion are separate, feel free to show how.
Prove it.
Prove it.
Prove it.
Don’t just repeated unsupported assertions you’ve read in bigoted apologetics. Make a serious, substantive argument on your own. Support your assertions or retract them — those are the only two intellectually honest options.
atheism …is simply the belief that there is not a god(s), (and technically the lack of a religion, but one implies the other)
Incorrect.
1) Atheism is, in its broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of gods, not the denial of the existence of all gods . The two concepts are not synonymous. The latter is the definition, not of atheism generally, but of one of two branches of atheism, namely strong or positive atheism . The other, known as weak or negative atheism, is the lack of belief in the existence of deities without denying the existence of all gods . It is possible, however, for a negative atheist to believe, as I do, that the existence of certain forms of deity is logically impossible, while still holding that that of others is not. However, such people remain without reasons for positive belief in their existence. This is not the same as denying their existence.
2) It is mistaken to think that atheism implies lack of religion or visa versa. Some religions, including for example Theravada and certain other forms of Buddhism, are atheistic. Conversely, there are plenty of theists, particularly deists, who do not follow any religion
Great! This time it has gone to the other extreme and not italicised or put in bold ANY part of my post! That’s just superb, that is!