CHUCK REDUX

The amusing thing about "Steps 2 & 3" of Chuck Norris's "How to Outlaw Christianity" is that even Chuck fans will have a hard time figuring out what the hell he was referring to last week in "Step 1" when he said,

Stay tuned next Monday when I give the second half of this treatise, ... in which I will also convey one of the most shocking, despicable atheistic tactics I've ever seen.

He conveys two tactics -- Step 2 & Step 3 -- and, well, neither one seems the slightest bit shocking. Or despicable. Or intended in any way, shape, or form to affect the legal status of Christianity. So which one is the really evil one? C'mon, Chuck, give us a hint.

Oh, OK, this must be it -- but damn, Chuck, some buildup, please? It's like displaying not-particularly-scary things at a carnival sideshow -- you should at least put signs all along the path to the tent telling us we'll find them "SHOCKING!":

Atheists are making a concerted effort to win the youth of America and the world. Hundreds of web sites and blogs on the Internet ...

(Yes, hundreds! Out of the 68 gajillion Web sites in the world overall!)

...seek to convince and convert adolescents, endeavoring to remove any residue of theism from their minds and hearts by packaging atheism as the choice of a new generation. While you think your kids are innocently surfing the Web, secular progressives are intentionally preying on their innocence and naivete.

Chuck's examples of Web material clearly targeted at teenagers include this rad, X-treme, hyphy, emo banner from the site of Richard Dawkins:



Oh my God! That's so teenager-specific! What impressionable youth could resist?

Or maybe this is "one of the most shocking, despicable atheistic tactics" Chuck has ever seen:

Step three: package and promote atheism as reasonable and scientific

Pass the smelling salts! The atheists are claiming they're right!

Oh, but that's not the problem, Chuck says. The problem is that they're doing this by fraud:

So what credentials does a man like Dawkins have to discuss the presence or absence of God? Answer: He's "a scientist."

No, Chuck. He's not a "scientist." He's a scientist. You, however, are an "actor."

But, Chuck insists, Dawkins and Sam Harris and the like have no standing to talk about this issue because their expertise is only somewhat related to their area of expertise:

[Dawkins] is an ethologist and evolutionary biologist -- since when does that make one an expert on God? (Similarly, Sam Harris has a bachelor's in philosophy -- since when does that make one an expert on the universe?)

So says a real expert -- a former karate champion.

Chuck isn't even half trying here. The hook is that atheists want to make Christianity illegal, but in this installment he doesn't even get around to mentioning the law. His headline wrote a check that his text couldn't cash -- but then again, he probably wouldn't have had many readers if he'd given this series an honest title:

"Eeeuuww! Atheists Exist! I Hate That!"

****

(My previous post on this series is here.)