Above by Michael Ramirez of Investor’s Business Daily, 26 June 2007
Above by Red Planet Cartoons. The bearded guy so prevalent on shirts is the same one who said: “If the nuclear missiles had remained we would have fired them against the heart of the U.S. including New York City. The victory of socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims.”
Above via Moonbattery.
If you want some gruesome photographic evidence of the above massacres: Here at Moonbattery.
Links regarding Communist-sponsored mass murder: This comment.
The following statements will be offensive to some, and the line of reasoning may be challenged. But I find the logic to be whole.
Communists are de facto atheists. Atheists believe that there is no God – no higher power per se.
If there is no higher power, morals and ethics are determined by man himself. Where there is no God, man makes himself god.
Therefore, morals become relative to the situation. There is no absolute definition of right or wrong – it depends on the viewer, the culture or the majority decision.
The killing of millions therefore cannot be condemned as ‘fundamentally immoral’ if there is no fundamental on which to base a definition of wrong.
If survival of the species is the determinant in a genetic code of morals, then it can be argued that killing 10 million humans is moral if it preserves the life of 100 million humans.
And if there are no longer any morals to offer restraint, then the monster within will be freely unleashed… Like in the case of that most famous of revolutionary poster-boys, Che kill-everyone-out-of-insurgent-hate Guevara.
Similarly, if homosexuality is not considered immoral, there are no moral arguments against bestiality.
If both the human and the animal willingly participate in sex and enjoy it, what protest can be made? That it is unnatural or non-procreative? The same can be also said of homosexuality.
Yet you will be hard pressed to find openly professing supporters of zoophilia, even among PFLAG and other LGBT groups. Is bestiality not yet a socially acceptable lifestyle?
Judging by such standards, I guess certain European nations where animal kinkiness, prostitution, drugs and euthanasia are legal are more advanced civilizations than America.
In conclusion, this is what I am getting at: It is not that atheism is by definition immoral. It is that by definition, atheism cannot have absolute morals, only situation-relative ones.
Right and wrong are no longer set in stone, but always in flux.
See also my post Morality: Of Absolutes and Relatives.