After nearly two months of speculation, it’s official — Al Franken has stolen the election from Norm Coleman in Minnesota.

The amazing thing isn’t that an election can be stolen so blatantly in this day and age, it’s that it can be done after everyone was told it is going to happen. Everyone in their right mind knew that Franken and his state official cronies from the Democratic party were planning on stealing the “recount”, but no one did a damn thing.

Where was Keith Olbermann on this one? You know damn well if the ‘R’ and ‘D’ were reversed on all of the main players in Minnesota, MSNBC and their friends would be all over Minneapolis like it was Wasilla, AK. But this didn’t involve a since defeated VP nominee, it was just an important Senate seat.

And when I say stolen, I don’t mean, “darn, the Democrat won after all,” I mean STOLEN.

For example, from the Wall Street Journal:

Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as “duplicate” and segregate the original ballots. But it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. By some estimates this double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes.

There are also inequalities in many other aspects of the recount. In two separate counties, recount vote totals differed from election night totals. In the case where less votes appeared in the recount, they went with the election night totals, which was a +46 for Franken. In the case where 133 additional ballots appeared in the recount, the board opted to include all of them, rather than the election night total like they did in the previous case, which resulted in a +37 for Franken.

The Wall Street Journal continued:

The question is how the board can certify a fair and accurate election result given these multiple recount problems. Yet that is precisely what the five members seem prepared to do when they meet today. Some members seem to have concluded that because one of the candidates will challenge the result in any event, why not get on with it and leave it to the courts? Mr. Coleman will certainly have grounds to contest the result in court, but he’ll be at a disadvantage given that courts are understandably reluctant to overrule a certified outcome.

To anyone who has been following this since election day, there is no doubt that not only did Franken do everything in his power to steal this election, but he had help from many friends in high places. This is one of the most obvious attempts at political theft in this generation.

Now, I know what many of you are thinking: what about George W. Bush in 2000? Good question. Well, the difference is that under any recount rules and models, Bush still won that election. At no point did Gore win. Not on election day, not in any recount. When multiple newspapers, including the Miami Herald and New York Times did their own recounts, Bush still won. In fact, his lead kept getting bigger.

In Minnesota, Coleman was declared the winner, and only by using slight-of-hand and political chicanery did Franken “win” the election.

I don’t care what your political affiliation is, you should be outraged. The day that a citizen of the United States sits back and supports this kind of election theft is the day that we have lost our place as the world’s greatest democratic nation. We live in a republic, and in doing so we should be above blatant election theft.

If you’ve ever (falsely) accused George W. Bush of stealing the 2000 election, or subsequently (even more falsely) the 2004 election, you have no right to sit back and watch this happen. What Al Franken and friends are doing in Minnesota is so much worse and obvious that no right-minded American should sit back and allow this to happen.

I’m sorry Minnesota, you are about to be wrongly represented, and your state will be much worse because of it. But I suppose that any state that puts Mark Ritchie in office only has itself to blame for its self-destruction.

As I do each and every year, I want to wish a Merry Christmas to all.

Believe it or not, some of us atheists enjoy the Christmas season. Today I will exchange presents with my family in front of a Christmas tree, eat a traditional Christmas dinner, and enjoy the holiday.

Christmas may be based in the West on the birth of Jesus, but in reality, it is an ancient tradition that has taken on many different meanings. Just because I disagree with the history of one version of the holiday doesn’t mean I’m about to deprive myself of the joy and fun that comes with the holiday.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to enjoy some sausage bread, some shrimp cocktail, and later, a nice turkey dinner.

Merry Christmas.

A Jacksonville woman says that her church has threatened her with making her sins public, and tell the congregation about her sexual exploits with her boyfriend.

The 49-year old divorced mother said that the church intends to follow the word of the Bible and “tell it to the church.”

Included in the congregation are her friends and children.

The woman has since left the church, but that hasn’t stopped the church from informing her via letter that her sins will be revealed to the church on Jan. 4.

According to the website for the local channel four in Jacksonville:

The 49-year-old said she has been dating a man for a while and she said members of the congregation at Grace Community Church haven’t been happy about the relationship.

“Because I have a boyfriend that I’m involved with … to not be married to that person is a sin,” Hancock said.

She said the issue caused her to leave the church. However, she said the church has not let go of her.

The letter Hancock received from the church states that because she has refused to end her sexual relationship with her boyfriend, “you leave us with no other choice but to carry out the commands of the Lord Jesus Christ” … “In accordance with Matthew 18:17 we intend to ‘tell it to the church.’”

“On January 4, my sins will be told to the church, publicly, with my children sitting in the church and my friends,” Hancock said.

So, if you’re going to stick the word of the Bible so closely, at what point can I expect to show up for the stonings?

Oh, and also, what are women doing in the church to begin with. According to the Bible, they are only allowed to be taught what their husbands teach them. So it’s the church’s fault for letting this divorced woman in their congregation.

All or nothing, folks. You can’t just start picking and choosing your literal punishments from the Bible, or we’ll start running out of Christians and heathens real soon.

As you may have heard, president-elect Barack Obama has chosen a pro-life, anti-gay marriage pastor to speak at his inaugruation. If he was going for “can’t make anyone happy,” he succeeded.

Let’s face it, no decision Obama makes for a while is going to please conservatives. Giving Rick Warren a microphone to make a speech isn’t going to do it for sure.

And already, liberals are growing wearisome that Obama won’t stick to the left and pass all of their bills. A large part of Obama’s base is supportive of women’s birth control rights and gay marriage. Pissing them off before you even take office is not the best idea either.

So how does he win?

Could he just stick to the party lines? That obviously won’t help with the right, but he knows that before his time in office is up, he will need to work with the Republicans. This choice is a good faith way of getting their approval on at least one thing.

Could he continue to pander to his base? He’s already won their vote, now he needs to do his job. But beyond the voters is the Congress that he will lean on to get his ideas turned into laws. Alienating your liberal Congress is not the best foot to start out on.

So what was the right call?

For me, an atheist, it would be to simply omit the pastor part of the day, but I understand that in today’s day and age that is simply not an option.

So for what his options were, I think he made the right call. It’s more important to reach some level of bipartisan discussion than it is to continue to preach to the choir and please his base.

Obama’s job is to be the president of all 50 states, not just the ones that voted for him. I see this as a good faith act of inclusion to those on the other side of the aisle, and if the liberals in this country are upset, so what?

The sooner the Congressional Democrats realize that they are not getting a blank check and a “yes man” in office, the sooner they can draft solid legislation, not just liberal pleasing legislation.

Including the Republicans, even if it’s only in a symbolic way like this, is an important step in the Obama administration.

I was not an Obama voter, but as an American I respect him for being my president. As such, I will judge him openly and honestly, and in this situation, I think Obama made the right call.

Suck it up, liberals.

Straight out of the Ann Coulter school of extremism and shock, and the Bill O’Reilly school of extremism and incorrectness, Michelle Malkin affirmed her position as Fox News’ minority atheist basher and once again showed her true Christian compassion as she attacked atheists. (Hat Tip: Friendly Atheist)

Joined by the equally (perhaps more so) extreme Gretchen Carlson, the story was originally about an atheist sign that was stolen from a Christmas display in Illinois. The atheist group that put the sign up wants to have their sign replaced with the added addendum “Thou Shall Not Steal.”

It’s an ironic line to attach for obvious reasons, but the backlash from Malkin and Carlson over the insult that an atheist wants to borrow one of the Ten Commandments is outrageous. They defend the commandments as if Christians are the only ones allowed to use such phrasing, or follow such principles.

They never even mention that the likely culprits in the theft are outraged Christians, the people most likely to be moved by such a line. If you ask me, what better way to keep the new sign from being stolen than to play to the compassion’s of Christians.

Within about five seconds, the story is no longer about a stolen sign, but more about “how dare these atheists demand their stolen property to be returned or replaced…”

Watch the riveting television here:

Malkin proceeds to explain how the best way to fight the atheists is to make fun of them and by mocking them. Again, true compassion from obviously a true Christian.

Meanwhile, this story is linked to some woman who wanted Santa and Rudolph banned because of religion. I’ve harped on this before, but picking the most extreme of any group is going to get you loons. I am an atheist and I celebrate Christmas. I do not support in any way the fight against Christmas, nor the removal of any of the Christmas traditions, including Santa and Rudolph.

What they fail to see, like O’Reilly and many others, is that not all atheists are the same. If there were a little more acceptance in this country and tolerance to opposing religious (or non-religious) views, we may not have this fictional War on Christmas.

And as for Carlson, she is practically one step away from Ann Coulter’s “invade them and convert them to Christianity” mindset. She emphasized that not fighting back against atheism will only lead to more power for the atheists and eventually the disappearance of Christianity.

In her defense, Malkin balked a bit at this statement (though saying “that’s true), but she didn’t seem to believe it and she didn’t really seem to want to play along with that argument.

But you can go ahead and add this chapter to the Fox News War on Christmas Holiday Spectacular.

About the only shining moment in this whole fiasco was Megyn Kelly’s in-your-face debate with O’Reilly where she vehemently defended the atheist sign in Washington, despite all of the inaccuracies and wrongness Bill tried to throw at her.

Here’s that one:

That Megyn Kelly is one hot piece of…

So please, Fox News, stop the War on Atheism Christmas that you are pushing so hard. You are simply creating news, rather than reporting it, and that is a cardinal sin in journalism (pardon the figure of speech).

And atheists — lighten up. I agree with you on many of the principles when it comes to Christmas, but I am also a big enough person to enjoy the holidays for what they are — tradition. There is no need to start fights just to get attention, especially when 99 percent of the attention it gets is negative. Just enjoy your time off from work and put up some lights.

It’s also a great time to get some turkey at a reasonable price.

American Atheists is suing the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security to remove language that directly gives credit to God for protecting the state from terrorism.

The actual law as written reads: “The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.”

According to the Lexington Herald-Leader:

“The requirement to credit God for Kentucky’s protection was tucked into 2006 homeland security legislation by state Rep. Tom Riner, D-Louisville, a Southern Baptist minister.

‘This is recognition that government alone cannot guarantee the perfect safety of the people of Kentucky,’ Riner said last week.

Riner said he expects Homeland Security to include language recognizing God’s benevolent protection in its official reports and other materials — sometimes the agency does, and sometimes it doesn’t — and to maintain a plaque with that message at the state’s Emergency Operations Center in Frankfort.

In the suit, American Atheists argues that Homeland Security should focus on public-safety threats rather than promote religion. The suit notes that the federal and state homeland security agencies were created as a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by Muslim fundamentalists, and it refers to those attacks as ‘a faith-based initiative.’

The plaintiffs ask for the homeland security law to be stripped of its references to God. They also ask for monetary damages, claiming to have suffered sleeping disorders and ‘mental pain and anguish.’”

So what the fine people of Kentucky are saying is that as humans, we are powerless to protect ourselves from danger without God. If there is safety, it is because of God. Do you think that Rep. Riner is willing to also add that God must be blamed when terrorism strikes the Commonwealth of Kentucky? Clearly, if the first thing to do is praise God for the security that you have, then you must blame God when that security is broken.

I have a hard time thinking that this language will show up.

From a different article, same paper:

“State Rep. Tom Riner, a Southern Baptist minister, tucked the God provision into Homeland Security legislation as a floor amendment that lawmakers overwhelmingly approved two years ago.

As amended, Homeland Security’s religious duties now come before all else, including its distribution of millions of dollars in federal grants and its analysis of possible threats.

The time and energy spent crediting God are appropriate, said Riner, D-Louisville, in an interview this week.

‘This is recognition that government alone cannot guarantee the perfect safety of the people of Kentucky,’ Riner said. ‘Government itself, apart from God, cannot close the security gap. The job is too big for government.’

Nonetheless, it is government that operates the Office of Homeland Security in Frankfort, with a budget this year of about $28 million, mostly federal funds. And some administrations are more religious than others.”

Here is the bottom line. If the people of Kentucky want to protect themselves with the use of federal funds for their Office of Homeland Security, the God language must go. This one is about as clear as clear can be.

If you want to praise God when you go to church for keeping you and your family safe, go right ahead. But if you want to take my tax dollars and require that plaques be place honoring God and require that God be given credit for protecting your people, you must be crazy.

These are federal funds being spent on this. That means I am paying for you to praise God for protecting Kentucky from terrorism? My money is better spent elsewhere.

I think the American Atheists have got an easy one on their hands here, but when it comes to ousting religion from the Bible Belt, who knows.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is not too happy about the new Capitol Visitor Center, the $621 million underground museum that traces the history of the Capitol, as well as the Senate and House of Representatives.

The U.S. Capitol Visitor Center features exhibits, videos, historical artifacts and restaurants, but according to Sen. DeMint, it is missing something.

That something is God. DeMint is upset that the Center does not honor the history and tradition of faith and religious heritage in the United States.

The full text of DeMint’s statement is here, from TheHill.com:

“The Capitol Visitor Center is designed to tell the history and purpose of our nation’s Capitol, but it fails to appropriately honor our religious heritage that has been critical to America’s success. While the Architect of the Capitol has pledged to include some references to faith, more needs to be done. You cannot accurately tell the history of America or its Capitol by ignoring the religious heritage of our Founders and the generations since who relied on their faith for strength and guidance. The millions of visitors that will visit the CVC each year should get a true portrayal of the motivations and inspirations of those who have served in Congress since its establishment.

“The current CVC displays are left-leaning and in some cases distort our true history. Exhibits portray the federal government as the fulfillment of human ambition and the answer to all of society’s problems. This is a clear departure from acknowledging that Americans’ rights ‘are endowed by their Creator’ and stem from ‘a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.’ Instead, the CVC’s most prominent display proclaims faith not in God, but in government. Visitors will enter reading a large engraving that states, ‘We have built no temple but the Capitol. We consult no common oracle but the Constitution.’ This is an intentional misrepresentation of our nation’s real history, and an offensive refusal to honor America’s God-given blessings. As George Washington stated clearly in his first inaugural address:

‘…[I]t would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge.’

“The fundamental principles of the freedom we enjoy in this country stem from our Founding Fathers’ beliefs in a higher power, beliefs put forth in the Declaration of Independence and manifest throughout our Constitution,” said Senator DeMint. “If we cease to acknowledge this fact, we may cease to enjoy some of the freedoms we take for granted. We must not censor historical references to God for the sake of political correctness. And we must truthfully represent the limited form of government the Constitution lays out so that our ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.’ So help us God.”

I’ve written at length in the past about the myth of the United States being a “Christian Nation,” but DeMint is right that there is faith and religion in the history of the United States. I just don’t know where it would fit into a museum. Thomas Jefferson’s edited Bible on display?

I understand what DeMint is saying about ignoring the facts about America’s history, but I think he is making something out of nothing.

Sure, some of the Founding Fathers relied on faith to get them through troubled times. They also relied on oxygen and the French, but I doubt either of them have exhibits in the Center.

The exclusion of religion from something is not necessarily an attack on religion or an attempt to suppress history. In my opinion, it’s simply a matter of picking and choosing what is not only important and relevant, but what can be displayed appropriately in museum form.

If what DeMint is saying about the architect promising the inclusion of faith in the final product is true, then he has a legitimate complaint. But nevertheless, I don’t think this is an example of us angry atheists forcing God out of everything.

I think Sen. DeMint needs to lighten up a bit and enjoy what the museum does offer. No museum is perfect. Hell, the Museum of Natural History doesn’t even have a creation exhibit and the Creation Museum doesn’t even have any facts. Take what is there and enjoy it.

If the museum does a good job at accurately representing the history of the Capitol and Congress without including the personal beliefs of those who worked there, then the Capitol Visitor Center is doing its job.

Bill O’Reilly’s defense of his culture war continues, as he once again takes on the “war on Christmas” in a recent Talking Points on The O’Reilly Factor.

Here is O’Reilly bashing atheists and the “war on Christmas” on Dec. 2.

If you read this site, you know that I am an atheist, but also a conservative. I also have no problem with Christmas being celebrated in this country. So I take offense when people bash atheists as Christmas-hating liberal godless scumbags. Just as you wouldn’t lump all Muslims into the extremist category, and you wouldn’t call all Christians fundamentalists, it is not fair to call all atheists fanatical. In my disgust at this segment, I fired off the following email to Mr. O’Reilly:

Bill,

Since when are atheists “fanatical groups?” Believe it or not, many of us atheists completely support and celebrate Christmas. I say “Merry Christmas” with no regrets. I do this because Christmas is not a religious holiday anymore, it’s a consumer driven celebration that is simply fun and harmless.

And how is it inappropriate for an anti-religious sign to be posted next to a Nativity scene, but it’s not inappropriate for a Nativity scene to be on federal property?

Your comparisons of Jesus and Dr. King are just plain bad logic. We honor Dr. King’s birthday, but we don’t celebrate “Kingmas,” do we? Dr. King is not the basis of a religion, he was a man who followed one. There are huge differences between the celebration of the birthdays and your comparison of the two is simply idiotic.

Also, your use of the phrase “small fanatical group” implies that we atheists can simply be bullied away because we are in the minority. This will never happen. Sure, there are some atheists who are more “fanatical” (to use your word) than others, just as they are in every religion. Would you call all Christians a fanatical group because of what one Christian, or group of Christians says? Of course you wouldn’t. Atheists are no different than you, Bill. They simply don’t believe in a god.

Do you believe that Zeus is watching over you? No. You are a non-believer of every religion in history, except one. I just don’t believe in that last one that you do. There is nothing extreme or fanatical about that.

I, an atheist, have never been to jail, never been arrested, never even gotten a speeding ticket. I am highly educated and I’ve voted Republican in every election in my life. You and I agree many issues in the political world. The only difference is that I don’t believe in a god. In fact, the majority of educated people do not. It’s not because we’re trying to fight you in a culture war, it’s because we believe what we see and what the evidence shows us. My lack of a religious belief has had zero impact on any other decisions in my life. It does not affect my morals or my decency as a human.

Perhaps if you were willing to have a little faith in human beings you’d see that they’re not all the same. Learn a little bit about atheism and you’ll find out that it’s not so scary.

Perhaps if atheists were treated like equal citizens, instead of constantly insulted and stepped on, we wouldn’t have to fight for attention in such “offensive” ways.

There are more atheists and agnostics than there are Jews and Muslims, but you wouldn’t dare call all Jews in America a “small fanatical group.” Have some respect for your fellow Americans. There are millions of us hard-working atheists that go to work everyday like everyone else. Atheists are policeman, soldiers, salesmen, firefighters and store clerks.

Other than the fictional culture war, I enjoy the show. But please cut the atheist bashing. The majority of us (like any group) are good people.

Merry Christmas.

With the sound defeats suffered in this year’s elections, the Republican Party is taking a long look in the mirror. They need to regroup if they want any chance at having some say in the direction of this country.

Here’s where they went wrong:

Republicans hatched a plan that would win over more than half of the country, playing to the religious base of middle America, with the plan being that once they’re in, they’re in for good.

The religious were catered to by the right, transforming a party of fiscal responsibility, strong defense and small government into a party of Christian ideals and specific fundamental beliefs. This was working for over 20 years. It started before the Reagan administration and continued through the re-election of George W. Bush. The Republicans had it all going their way.

But they went too far.

They made gay marriage, abortion, stem cells and evolution more important than fiscal responsibility and small government. The party of fiscal responsibility forgot how to put away the checkbook. They created a whole they couldn’t climb out of, and they did it by trying to convert people into their party, rather than trying to include people in their party.

Now, the Republicans are hated by an entire generation. The plan to have a permanent majority was broken by the new batch of adults eligible to vote. There will always be voter turnover. Each election, more people die and more people turn 18. If you aren’t always attempting to include both ends of the spectrum, you’ll always be leaving people out.

And now, the GOP must make a major decision.

Should God and religion be a major focal point in their party’s platform? The answer, of course, is no. But will the Republicans see the reality of their dire situation.

A religious base is certainly nice to have if you are running for office, but it’s obviously not bullet proof. What the party is missing is that there are many, many people (like myself) who are conservative in the true sense of the word (small government, strong defense, low taxes) who don’t prioritize their political beliefs with the Bible in mind.

I have views on abortion, stem cells, the environment and gay marriage, but I don’t think that any single issue like that is A) party dependent, or B) big enough to be worth ostracizing so many people.

Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post had this to say on the matter:

“Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth — as long as we’re setting ourselves free — is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that.

The choir has become absurdly off-key, and many Republicans know it.”

I know there are many religious conservatives out there, but they are losing elections because they are practically requiring religious beliefs just to feel like you’re a part of the party.

Treat issues like issues, each individually. Trust the American people to make up their minds on issues and how to make up their minds. There is no need to stick to the party line with every issue on the table. The Democrats are just as bad as Republicans with their partisan views on some topics (like global warming), but they are the party that is at least acting inclusive.

The Republican Party needs to remember what one them so many elections. This is a center-right nation, but it’s not a completely Christian nation. It never was. The foundations of the party still work and can still win elections. It’s the talking down to us godless folk that is losing you votes.

Whether they want to admit it or not, there is a whole generation of agnostics reaching the voting age every year. Religion is becoming less important in this country every year. For some, that’s the problem, but for many, it’s just a reality that is both good and bad.

If the Republicans want to win any elections any time soon, they can’t just try to point at Obama as a failure and play off of it (though it just worked for Obama, so they’ll probably give it a shot). They need to regroup and become a party of inclusiveness, not the VIP GOP that it is these days.

I was once a Republican. If they lighten up on the religion, I might be again someday. But in their current form, my voter card still has the ‘NP’ box checked.

The evolution vs. intelligent design/creation in the classroom “debate” continues in Texas, as the two sides squared off in the most recent school board meeting.

My only information on the meetings comes from one witness, who as any right-minded individual should be, was there to support science.

I can’t even begin to tell you how upsetting it makes me to know that there are people out there whose life goal is to get evolution removed from classrooms. People who get all of their “science” information from the Discovery Institute, people who believe that 8th grade students are qualified to sort through the science presented to them. Their only goal is to try to discredit evolution, and they’ll do anything to succeed.

It doesn’t matter that they have no science, it only matters that they have a controversy.

Here’s my question to the creationist supporting school boarders: If evolution is removed from the classroom, what will you teach? What “science” will you consider worthy of being in a textbook, in the field of earth science?

The thing is, without evolution, they have no science. The entire foundation of ID and creation is to counter the facts of evolution. If they have no science to try to discredit, they are left with nothing.

If it weren’t for the drastic results that I already know would occur, I’d love to have a social experiment where one school district gets taught science and facts and another gets taught creation. Then, let’s compare the students 20 years later to see who is smart and who is not. Since we don’t have 20 years and countless lives to ruin, I’ll tell you now — science will win 100 percent of the time.

The Intelligent Design backers have nothing. They fake science, they distort truths and the spin the facts. They are the equivalent of the most pathetic politicians on both sides of the aisle. They are fighting for a belief. A belief that no matter how much evidence is shown to them, they will never un-believe. They want to be right more than they are willing to be wrong. That is something that doesn’t exist in the real scientific community.

What the scientific community needs to do is take their top speakers and presenters and put together a documentary. Invite the top creationists to show their evidence, then show the real evidence. Make the whole thing for the layman and include everything that would be needed to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what the truth is. Then, solicit private donations from those of us that would gladly pay, and put it on network television. Sure, they may try to counter with their own, but the truth will always prevail.

This is getting ridiculous. Science needs to stand up and be proud of itself. Sure, Dawkins and Hitchens and the like write wonderful books, but science and academia needs a spokesman who is likable and accessible to tell the people what they should be believing. That’s all America needs is the right voice to tell them what to believe, and if no one from the sciences is talking, they’ll gladly listen to whoever is.

Scientists need to stand up and get loud. Get mean if you have to. But these people need to be put in their place. It’s not about belief in anything other than the truth.

If a creationist wants to show me some evidence and submit their hypothesis to the scientific method, we’ll all gladly listen. But they won’t. They are poor attempts at bullies and somebody needs to metaphorically slap them upside the head.