Efforts by religious and anti-religious interest groups to push their beliefs and agendas are unavoidable, if often annoying. When their machinations threaten real harm, they ought to be condemned, opposed, and told to behave. In its response to two recent incidents, our government is batting .500.
The Memorial Power Play
The Obama administration announced its objection to a Republican-backed proposal to add President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s D-Day prayer to the World War II Memorial in Washington. This would block the intent of Congressman Bill Johnson’s bill, the “World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2011.”
The Administration maintains that altering the memorial would violate to the Commemorative Works Act, which prohibits “encroachment by a new commemoration on an existing one,” and dictates that respect should be paid to a “completed work of civic art without alteration or addition of new elements.” Johnson’s bill is a perfect example of why the Act is necessary: to stop grandstanding politicians from grafting political, ideological, religious or interest group advertisements on monuments and memorials after their design and content have been finalized. Times change, fads and movements come and go. Johnson’s addition of a prayer to the World War II Memorial could open the floodgates for partisan bickering over new additions to dozens of Washington attractions.
Naturally, Johnson and others are attacking the Administration’s position as hostile to religion, when in fact it supports integrity over propaganda. “For there to be objections to demonstrating a faith in God at critical points in our nation’s history – particularly D-Day – boggles my mind,” Johnson said. “I was very surprised they were going to object.”
Oh, be still, you silly man. If Johnson’s bill passes through the Senate, Obama should veto it.
2. The “Offensive” Toy Drive
Meanwhile, one doctrinaire, mean-spirited cadet at U.S. Air Force Academy managed to use an anti-religion organization to bully the Academy into pulling out of a children’s toy drive because it happened to be organized by evangelical Christians.
Operation Christmas Child is sponsored by Samaritan’s Purse, headed by Franklin Graham, the son of evangelist Billy Graham. It packs donated toys and other gifts into shoe boxes and sends them to poor children around the world, along with a Christian message. After announcements encouraging cadets to give to the drive were made in the dining hall, one cadet claimed he was “offended” and sicced the Military Religious Freedom Foundation on the Academy.
Mikey Weinstein, an academy graduate who runs the group, claimed that a direct appeal to cadets violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. After originally arguing—correctly— that the drive “doesn’t promote a particular faith, it promotes a charity event,” the Academy caved, deciding to move the drive under the auspices of its chaplains, where it will attract less visibility, less support, and fewer toys for kids.
I hope the graduates of the Academy show more courage and fortitude under the stresses of minimal conflict than those who run their institution. The argument that a toy drive constitutes government endorsement of a religion because the drive is sponsored by evangelicals is attenuated at best, and should have been opposed, if only to avoid giving satisfaction to a small group of jerks who think it is worth robbing small children of gifts in order to press a political point. No harm would have been done, and innocent children would have avoided the cross-fire, if the meddling cadet had shown some compassion and proportion, and Mikey had resisted the urge to earn a pathetic “victory” at the expense of kids.
Ethics Alarms 
Reading the first section, my mind started envisioning the inevitable “Home Depot World War II Memorial”, located between the “Wendy’s Washington Monument” and the “Ford-Lincoln-Mercury Lincoln Memorial”.
I’m with the President 100% on this one.
–Dwayne
Upon further reflection, I would like to add that I WOULD support an effort to change the Martin Luther King Memorial so that it would only have *actual* MLK quotes on it, and no misleading paraphrases.
–Dwayne
I’m pretty sure that actual errors can always be fixed, and THAT was an error.
I have a strong feeling that you don’t understand the protocol required for USAFA-wide communication. Per USAFA guidelines, all email is technically FOUO. When an unsolicited, faith-based charity sends out a wing-wide email with no prior consent granted, it should expect a much more hostile reaction than it actually received (a few complaints to Mikey). Honestly, they’re lucky that was all they got. Had an atheist/Wiccan/Islamic group sent out a wing-wide email without prior consent about some silly holiday they supported, the uproar would have been audible from three states away.
For your review, this is the same institution with dozens of incidents involving evangelical Christianity and institutional support. This is the same institution that provides near-infinite funds to an off-campus “retreat” for Christian students. This is the same institution at which a Wiccan ritual site was defaced with a large cross. This is the same institution where a board designed specifically to avoid religious discrimination chose to bar entry to three separate atheist speakers regardless of the fact that they would consume zero resources AND that dozens of Christian speakers had been allowed the very same year.
Frankly, it seems like you have no god-damned idea of what you’re talking about.
I don’t see how any of the factors you describe address the ethical issue. Was the e-mail a mistake? OK—that doesn’t have anything to do with the validity of the drive. Was the bitching less than you might have expected? Okay—that doesn’t change the fact that complaining was petty and unnecessary, and the the Constitutional argument is utter hogwash. The appeal was for a toy drive, not a pro-religious holiday drive, at least as far as the recipients of the charity were concerned. Those items “for my review” might justify valid independent challenges, but they shouldn’t affect the assessment of the toy drive one way or the other. Are you saying the toy drive is being sacrificed because of excessive pro-religious activity in other respects? That’s a justification, in your view? Not in mine.
Frankly, you interpreted the post to support venting about your own agenda. Stick to the topics, please.
My point, very briefly, is that this email was unjustified and unacceptable – no matter what it supported. There hardly *is* an ethical issue, here – only a political one.
Now, if you want to take the Mikey angle – that it was unacceptable *even if it did not expressly violate policy* – that’s a more interesting case, I suppose. That is the relevance of my small list of issues in which USAFA has been involved. Given that the institution already has a pervasive history of religious problems, specifically those stemming from the overwhelming evangelical Christian majority, it hardly seems surprising that individuals without the same partially-updated, Bronze Age proclivities are somewhat sensitive to further intrusion of the religion on the day-to-day operations of the institution. The project is a religiously-motivated toy drive sponsoring a particular religious holiday (which has roots from other religious holidays). Had the toy drive been “Operation Give Crap to Poor Kids Because That’s The Good Thing To Do” it would have been infinitely more acceptable, albeit not catchy. Even then, including the Christian message would be antithetical to the “united” drive to give gifts among cadets. Cadets are not homogeneously evangelical Christians, and should not be addressed as if they are.
It’s an insult to rational discourse to claim something titled “Operation Christmas Child” has no religious connection, and to become self-righteously offended when somebody else takes offense.
You even practically concede it is religious, but just think that the “meddling cadet” and “group of jerks” should keep their mouths shut.
*Absolutely Not*. That kind of backwards, lackadaisical thinking is exactly what should be fought without abandon. I know you understand what a slippery slope is – and how legal precedent can help effect it.
Oh, you jerk, meddling cadets… Just shut your mouths while we send out this *one* religious email. Just keep quiet while we have this *one* mandatory prayer. Keep it down as we don this *one* mandatory Christian patch. Put a lid on it while we have this *one* rule about not insulting Christians. Take a hike while we give this *one* Christian event exclusive Air Force funding.
This petulant boo-hooing of a cadet’s attempt to avoid *further* institutional sponsorship of a religion is disappointing given the other material I’ve seen on this blog.
On a side note: if you’re asking is it *ethical* for the cadet to report it outside the chain to Mikey, you might have a discussion there. Though, that’s almost explicitly what Mikey’s foundation is for, because many at USAFA haven’t felt adequate resolution through repeated dealings with the CoC.
1) I think this is a poor candidate for a “slippery slope” argument. Most Americans, before atheists became militant and thought it would be fun to throw up road blocks to secular celebrations and harmless church activities, participated in church-organized charity events without giving a damn what the underlying faith was. My family did. I still do. The object of a charity is the object of the charity.
2) Please stop putting words in my mouth…I’m not “offended” by a cadet freezing a charity effort because his little sensibilities were offended by a charitable appeal. I think it’s a lousy, unnecessary and petty thing to do. And it is.
3) Christmas is a secular holiday, and the giving of gifts at Christmastime supports holiday oriented charities. Participating in a religion-sponsored charity that does not give funds to the religion itself is not supporting a religion, though I’m sure some judge might hold otherwise.I didn’t say it had no religious connection; I said that the religious connection should not have provoked the objection, given its intended result.
4) IF the efforts of Mikey et al really were aimed at avoiding the slippery slope avalanche you suggest, which I guess ends with a theocracy running the Air Force, I might have some sympathy with it. I think, however, as in most cases, doctrinaire anti-religious zealots are willing to do considerable collateral damage to assert their influence and power, aided and abetted by conflict-averse bureaucrats who take the path of least resistance, especially in the politically-correctness haven of Colorado.
5) Every technical “offense’ does not have to be attacked with equal fervor, especially when the only significant result is to make sure fewer kids get some donated gifts.
1) Seriously Jack? You’re speaking as if the erroneously entitled deserve to be entitled. Atheists aren’t putting up road blocks to secular celebrations and harmless church activities. First, fighting secular celebrations is the opposite of what Atheists do. Second, what you call ” putting up road blocks” is really “forcing them to drive on the road, instead of through front lawns.” If you want to have a religious event, go ahead, just don’t violate the constitution to do it.
Calling Atheists militant and suggesting that speaking out against violations of church and state is wrong and we should go back to the time when atheists knew there place shows that you are biased on this topic.
2) You called an action of complaining about unconstitutional behavior both lousy, petty, and unnecessary. You also tried to whitewash that statement by lying about the situation (He wasn’t upset by a charitable appeal. He was upset by the government supporting the religious message).
3) Giving gifts => Secular. Giving gifts along with religious messages => Not secular. The intended results of the drive is two-fold: (1) give gifts to the less fortunate, and (2) proselytize to the giftees. If that’s not a religious connection, there’s no such thing as a religious connection.
4) Apparently trying to avoid getting stomped on is asserting influence and power for the hell of it.
5) To you, it is not significant that the Government is proselyzing.
****
Did you go to the source? 132 complaints. 118 from self reported Christians.
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/2011/11/major-mrff-victory-usaf-academy-backs-down-on-extremist-fundamentalist-charity/
I’m unable to go to the Blaze right now, but they’re not known for accurately representing Atheists.
You should also note this: http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/2011/09/mrff-posts-billboard-of-usaf-chiefs-religious-freedom-edict-in-us-air-force-academys-backyard/
The leaders of the Academy didn’t want to tell their charges that the air force made it clear that commanders cannot push religion on their charges.
The worst case situation for the AFA already exists.
See my other answer to you on this post…I don’t want to repeat myself, though this argument is a repeat anyway.
It is absurd to say that an institution allowing a religious charity to seek contributions for a Christmas gift program is proselytizing. It’s either a dishonest position, or a fanatic and hysterical one. In what way does receiving an appeal from a church in any way affect the cadet’s religious freedom? Ignore the appeal. There is nothing about that e-mail or the charity that “pushes religion” in any way. Saying that the Marine Corp fights for “God and Country” is more like pushing religion—you want to object to that, I’m with you. This—petty, petty, petty.
It is absurd to say that an institution allowing a religious charity to seek contributions for a Christmas gift program is proselytizing.
As I noted on the other response, you are mischaracterizing the problem. I agree that “[i]t is absurd to say that an institution allowing a religious charity to seek contributions for a Christmas gift program is proselytizing.”
Fortunately, that’s not what’s occurring. You’re saying “The Athiests are bad for complainging about neutral thing X”, but the Athiests aren’t complaining about X, they’re complaining about bad thing Y.
I’d also like to note that I have read The Blaze article, and it’s not particularly unfair. It downplays who sanctioned the message, and makes it seem like their was only one complaining cadet (when their were more than 100 cadets and teachers complaining), but otherwise it lays out the issue fairly.
The MRFF didn’t shut down the toy drive, it just complained that the messages sent out were a violation. The toy drive as part of the chaplaincy programs was never at issue:
“Weinstein said he wouldn’t have a problem with the academy participating in a secular toy drive, or the new plan to have academy chaplains promote the religious charity. It was cadet leaders appearing to back Christian evangelism that crossed the line, he said.”
Jack, I don’t know how you read that article and decided the academy pulled out of the drive or that Mikey Weinstein did anything wrong.
I agree on both counts of your article. Nit picking is one of my pet peeves as is making mountains out of mole hills. Regarding Christians and the memorial let’s not cry wolf so much,please. If real persecution comes no one will hear us.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,…”
How is Samaritan’s Purse,which is not affiliated with the government or military,breaking this law? I haven’t seen Congress doing much establishing religions but I’ve seen some people trying to prohibit the free exercise thereof.
Asking a cadet to give to a Christian charity isn’t a violation of this amendment. How does that establish a religion?
That’s my view exactly, Karla.
Sorry, but I can’t agree on the WWII Memorial theme. As I’ve point out before, Roosevelt’s D-Day prayer to the nation was one of the best expressions of his administration AND a key moment of our national heritage. To exclude the prayer from the memorial could only be the result of anti-Christian forces at work.
Yes, yes, trot out the atheist bogeyman.
Well, I’m far from anti-Christian, and I think it’s a terrible precedent….not because its a prayer, but because it’s a collateral attack on what a duly appointed commission decided…and the next proposed addition won’t be a prayer, but a the Italian sauce recipe Eleanor made during the Battle of the Bulge, supported by the Sons of Italy and the Mob.
Organized atheism has gone beyond the “bogeyman” stage, Chase. However, it goes beyond them. There are secularists to many degrees in the political arena (among others) who fear and hate anything Christian because it sets standards of morality and humility that counters their personal ambitions. Militant atheists and Islamists are usually just the vanguard for the secularist movement.
My point here, though, was that Roosevelt’s D-Day prayer was one of those hallmark moments in our culture- regardless of faith or denomination- and deserved inclusion for that reason.
Italian sauce recipe??
Organized atheism has gone beyond the “bogeyman” stage, Chase. However, it goes beyond them. There are secularists to many degrees in the political arena (among others) who fear and hate anything Christian because it sets standards of morality and humility that counters their personal ambitions.
Citations needed.
Militant atheists and Islamists are usually just the vanguard for the secularist movement.
You think Islamists are part of the secularist movement? Insanity.
My point here, though, was that Roosevelt’s D-Day prayer was one of those hallmark moments in our culture- regardless of faith or denomination- and deserved inclusion for that reason.
Irrelevant.
Dear TGT:
1. Citations? Pick up any newspaper on any given day… and read without your blinders on.
2. No insanity. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” And to both, the enemy is Christian America. Once the enemy has been removed, then the “friends” turn on each other! A good recent analogy would be the alliance between America and Russia against Germany in WWII- that was carried forth despite the fact that Russia had far more in common with the Nazis (philosophically) than they did with the free, Christian nations of the West.
3. If that’s irrelevant to you, than what is not??
1. That isn’t evidence. Give me an example.
2. The same logic says that Christianity and secularists are friends.
Anyway, your statement is even worse than that. You said that Islamists are the vanguard of secularists, while they are exactly the opposite. Athiests, meanwhile, are not the vanguard of secularists, they ARE secularists.
3. It doesn’t matter if it did deserve inclusion. It wasn’t included.
1. I repeat my previous statement.
2. Ridiculous. Christians aren’t trying to establish a world “caliphate”, but defending the freedom of people to choose freely, as God intended. Secularists and Islamists are united in that they want a world without that freedom. Once they eliminate Christians and Jews, they can fight it out as to the nature of that world. Each uses the other in that necessary first step.
3. My point is that it NEEDS inclusion. Roosevelt’s legacy, along with those of World War II veterans and America as a whole is not complete without it.
“it sets standards of morality and humility that counters their personal ambitions. ” So do secular thinkers. Plato, Confucius, Siddharta Gautama. Each of these men laid out standards of morality that are still followed today. None were Christian. If organized religion is the font of all morality, I may as well take what I want, when I want, and damn the consequences. But I don’t, and Christianity has nothing to do with it.
Many great men and thinkers existed before the dawn of Christianity, Chase. And that also includes a great many revered persons of the Old Testament. The fact that they existed before Christ’s advent does not exclude them. Who has ever stated this? In Jesus, the threads of all good things that had come before coalesced and were given confirmation.
None of the listed people were Jewish either. The point is that they were secular, and their ideas are separate from the religious tradition. The new testament has nothing to do with it.
You can’t draw a line between Jewish and Christian tradition that easily, TGT. Like it or not, they are joined at the hip.
Considering that my point was that all the listed people are not Jewish, so they weren’t part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, your response seems like a huge non sequitor.
The morality laid out by Plato, Confucious, and Siddhartha has nothing to do with any of the religion in the Christian tradition, including the pre-Jesus period of time.
Your previous response to Chase did not touch his argument.
You were trying to divert attention from the issue at hand with sidelihne irrevelevancies. No wonder I didn’t bother to answer!
When you’re caught out, attack me. The bad thing is that this isn’t odd for you.
Jack,
This post shows the horror of “both sides do it”.
Adding the prayer to the memorial is religious demogoguery. Academy commanders pushing a religious event is government backing of religion, yet it’s the pushback of the latter that you complain about, when it’s the former that is both illegal and immoral. Keeping the status quo is not the neutral position.
We’ve had this debate before, notably about the student stopping the neutral prayer in a graduation ceremony. There, only the graduation experience of the largely religious families were affected. In this case, kids who might have gotten some needed joy over the holidays will be robbed of that pleasure. The problems with zealots, even those with worthwhile goals, is that they acknowledge no balancing interests. Asking cadets to give person gifts to a charity promoted by a religious group is not a serious, and I would argue, any kind of a constitutional breach. It doesn’t have any negative impact on anyone, except zealots who are offended by the existence of an activity, even a kind one, that they might be able to block. This was not the kind of activity anticipated by the authors of the Establishment Clause, and even with the modern, no-tolerance tendencies of many recent courts, there is no good reason to make an issue of it. Doing so is unkind, without compassion, and mean-spirited and unnecessary.
Asking cadets to give person gifts to a charity promoted by a religious group is not a serious, and I would argue, any kind of a constitutional breach.
No, asking cadets to give gifts to a charity promoted by a religious group is not a problem at all. Of course, that’s not what is at issue here.
Your summation is wrong in 3 important ways
1) The cadets were being asked to support a religious charity, not a charity promoted by a religious group
2) The end result was not just toys for kids, but also proselytization.
3) The commanders put the program forth as an official army sponsored event (instead of, appropriately, going through the chaplains).
The problems with zealots, even those with worthwhile goals, is that they acknowledge no balancing interests.
The problem with you, is that you don’t realize that the benefit (toys for kids) doesn’t require the unconstitutional message. There are plenty of charities that do the same benefit without the unallowed part. If the AFA wants to give toys to children, they can do so secularly. If the chaplains want to do so religiously, they can. It’s just mixing the commanders with the religion that’s a problem, and a completely avoidable one.
The problem is that you are balancing “gifts vs no gifts” when you should be balancing “gifts w/ government religion (Commanders email) vs gifts w/o government religon (Chaplains support)”.
You’re arguing that violating the constitution is fine, so long as there are some benefits, and even if those benefits could be had without violating the constitution.
Still has nothing to do with Congress establishing a state religion.
Non sequitor. The Executive branch is also part of the government. You think that the police are constitutionally prohibited from arresting people just because they’re Christian, right?
What? Oh nevermind.
The establishment clause has been interpretted to apply to government backing or denying any religion, not just congress. I was pointing out that that protection goes both ways. It protects the civilian population from any part of the Government backing Christianity, but it also protects the civilian population from any part of the Government attacking Christianity.
If you want to say that it’s appropriate for the Air Force commanders to back Christianity, then you also open the door to allow the Air Force commanders to ban Christianity.
Is that what they’re doing? Backing Christianity? The charity asked cadets to donate. Nobody was forced. I still don’t see how that equates to government establishing a religion…and you misspelled interpret.
Supporting a religious message with their official positions? Yes, that is backing Christianity. Putting out a sanctioned email to request people help them? Yes, that is backing Christianity.
You, like Jack, are misstating the situation. Of course the charity can ask cadets to donate, but the leadership cannot put out the religious request through official channels.
So what you’re saying is a rep from the charity should have been the one to send out invitations to donate. I agree with you on that. It’s too bad the situation had to escalate like it did.
Yes, the charity could have sent it out (with no special treatment that other charities don’t get). Or, what’s happening now should have been done originally (the chaplaincy is leading it).
I agree with your comment on escalation. After the inappropriate action and appropriate complaint, the commanders should have immediately corrected the inappropriate behavior instead of, temporarily, doubling down on it.
So…if the church sends a toy with a religious message, fine. But if they send it and it says “Courtesy of donations by USAF”, doesn’t that put the Government stamp of approval on everything related to the gift?
Basically, the donations by the USAF aids the dissemination of many more messages.
A Muslim family receives a toy with a Christian message. “Where’d this come from?” “The US Air Force!”
So, is it okay if the toy is sent without recognition to the USAF? Possibly.
Does it matter that the USAF is enabling more Christian messages to be disseminated than Muslim messages or Atheist messages without making their enabling support disclosed? Not sure.
Is there a way to get the toys without the message? Surely.
So…if the church sends a toy with a religious message, fine. But if they send it and it says “Courtesy of donations by USAF”, doesn’t that put the Government stamp of approval on everything related to the gift?
I don’t think that’s what is at issue, but it definitely would be a problem. The Government cannot donate to the relgious message, but individuals in the government can.
http://sexspiele.in Thanks for that awesome posting. It saved MUCH time 🙂
A lot of people here are splitting hairs like they were going out of style. What lies at the heart of this is that some live in morbid fear of the Christian faith and its tradition in American life, despite its inextricable influence in every defining document of our free republic and supporting institutions. Therefore, to remold America in their image, they find they must tear up and destroy those institutions in their frenzied hatred of God. However, America is a nation defined- not by pre-existing nationality- but by the ideals of free institutions and peoples united in freedom UNDER GOD. When you take that away, America falls. And a fallen America- without God or any other commonality- is one that can be divided up and controlled by oligarchs. Tammany Hall- then Chicago- then America as a whole. But when you try to take away our faith, you play Hell… in all senses of the word.
A lot of people here are splitting hairs like they were going out of style.
Please define which differences are hair splitting and which are important. There’s no way to respond to such a general statement.
What lies at the heart of this is that some live in morbid fear of the Christian faith and its tradition in American life
Morbid fear in Christian faith and Christian faith’s tradition in American life? Really. That’s the best you can do?
[Christian faith’s] inextricable influence in every defining document of our free republic and supporting institutions
First, I assume you mean Christian beliefs, not Christian faith, as the latter is nonsensical.
Second, this is an overgeneralization. I have no idea how Christianity even could have influenced the federal reserve or CIA.
Other things with inextricable influence in every defining document of our free republic and supporting institution: secular logic, secular morality, and (just as much as Christianity) deism. So?
Therefore, to remold America in their image, they find they must tear up and destroy those institutions in their frenzied hatred of God.
3 invalid premises in one statement. Impressive. (1, That there is a desire to remold America in “their” image. 2, That the (required by law to be secular) government institutions must be torn up. 3, That there is a frenzied hatred of something that doesn’t exist)
However, America is a nation defined- not by pre-existing nationality- but by the ideals of free institutions and peoples united in freedom UNDER GOD. When you take that away, America falls.
Citation needed. Why does America fall if America is simply defined by the ideals of free institutions and peoples united in freedom?
And a fallen America- without God or any other commonality- is one that can be divided up and controlled by oligarchs.
Oh…You’ved defined “falls” to mean “godless” instead of the usual meaning for a country falling. Yes, a godless America is a godless America. What was the point of your previous tautology? Were you equivocating on the word “fall”?
A desire for freedom of all is a commonality, so I don’t even need to get into the fact that your prepositional statement is unsupported, as you don’t even have the necessary premise for it.
But when you try to take away our faith, you play Hell… in all senses of the word.
I have no idea what this means. Also note that in the issues at question, nobody is advocating taking away anyone’s faith.
You knew exactly what I meant in every word, TGT. Good grief, you’re like a catfish thrashing at the end of a hook!
“Why does America fall if America is simply defined by the ideals of free institutions and peoples united in freedom?”
But Teeg,with freedom comes responsibility. America is sadly lacking in that these days. People seem to have few inhibitions and set no boundaries for themselves.America defined by freedom without ethics can lead to anarchy.
Very true, Karla. Boy, I have a huge backlog of messages from Ethics Alarms! I ran across this one while cleaning out hundreds of back messages from the last six months, when a series a computer problems and a monster workload kept me away for the most part.
I agree with everything you said except the “but Teeg” part.
Steven 🙂
tgt I wasn’t calling you a butt. 🙂
The chunk I called out as making no sense? It makes no sense. “you play hell” has multiple meanings? I can’t find one.
By ignoreing everything else, can I take it that you have no defense for your argument?
In regards to” Stupid Religion Tricks”, Sad to say, a day will come in the not to distant future,when the un-believer will regret his/her choice to reject the Christ, who gave his life in payment for their sins. In rejecting the Son of God, mankind seals his eternal destiny. An eternity in which mankind will be tormented by his/her conscience in a lake of fire.
Revelations 20:12-15 man,s eternal destiny