Need Help Arguing the 1st Amendment with a Christian Cousin

[Kodiak]

I (and about a hundred others) recently received this e-mail last week from my very religious, but still loving and thus far non-judgmental, Aunt:

"You may have heard in the news that a couple of Post Offices
have been forced to take down small posters that say "IN GOD WE TRUST."
The law, they say, is being violated. It is something silly about
electioneering posters (is God running for office)?
Anyway, I heard proposed on a radio station show, that we all write
"IN GOD WE 'TRUST" on the back of all our mail. After all, that is our
national motto, and it's on all the money we use to buy those stamps. I
think it is a wonderful idea.

We must take back our nation from all the people who think that
anything that offends them should be removed.
If you like this idea, please pass it on and DO IT. The idea of
writing or stamping "IN GOD WE TRUST" on our
envelopes sounds good to me.

It has been reported that 86% of Americans believe in God.
Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is
such a mess about having " In God We Trust"on our money
and having God in the pledge of Allegiance.

Could it be that we just need to take action and tell the 14% to
sit down and shut up?

If you agree, pass this on, if not delete."


Feeling a need to respond, I hit the "Reply All" button, and wrote the following:

"For me its not about being offended. I have no problem with American citizens writing "In god we trust" or "Shalom" or whatever, on the back of their envelopes even though I am an agnostic/atheist.

What I, and the Constitution, have a problem with is the separation of Church and State. The Bill of Right's 1st Amendment is clear ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...") in that no specific religion or belief can be sanctioned by government. "In god we trust" being publicly displayed by a branch of the federal government sanctions monotheism over other forms of religious belief (for example, the myriad forms of polytheism, as well as earth/nature worshiping religions).

86% of Americans believe in God. Great. In a democracy, the majority rules. Fortunately, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is in existence to protect the rights of the minority and the individual. In order for you to be willing to tell us 14% to "sit down and shut up", you'd have to be willing to get rid of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which includes the Freedom of Speech, which also happens to allow you to write religious mottos on the backs of envelopes.

Torch the Constitution and the Bill of Rights if you dare. Just make sure you're in the 51% majority IN EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF YOUR LIFE. Otherwise, you may regret your decision..."


Today, a cousin (same side of the family as my aunt, but not one of her children) e-mailed me this:

"If I am understanding you correctly, you are miss interpreting the Bill of Rights 1st Amendment. It means our Government cannot force "one" religion on us. (Make it into law which they have not). They cannot say which religion we "have" to exercise if you live in America. But they also cannot tell us when and where we can or can't practice our religion. So the "separation of Church and State" violates every Americans rights based on the 1st Amendment. The state and/or Government has no right to tell a teacher or student they cannot talk about Christ in a classroom or cannot pray in the middle of their class as with any other religion. According the the Bill of Rights 1st Amendment, I can preach, sing hymns, pray out loud "anywhere" in any building (including government, federal government, city and state buildings, schools, universities) in any city in any state as long as I'm on American soil. "In God We Trust" is printed on money and is written on walls of government buildings because of freedom of speech and, as you stated below, it never became a "law" because our constitution forbids it.....It's just plain old freedom of speech. And the 14% that we somehow keep electing into office as Judges and Presidents because we don't look at who we are electing...because we narrow-mindedly base our decision strictly on Democrat and Republican and they base the "interpretation" of the law on "their" religious beliefs (which they don't have) and their "opinions" and they do not base it on what our Constitution actually says. Everyone is allowed an opinion about a law, but you cannot change the law based on your "opinion". Which this country is currently doing.

You also have to remember, people did not come to America looking for freedom. They came to America looking for "religious" freedom. And from day one our freedom was based on total Christianity. Everything about this country has always been based on Christianity (Christ). Our Government was created from the Bible. If you read the Bible you would see that God set up a Government and appointed Judges to solve the problems and conflicts of the people that Moses was taking to the promised land. Our Government is still run exactly the way God created it in the Old Testament. So, what is being said below is if you do not want to here about God/Christ, which this country was founded on, then go to another country that does not speak or believe in God. (Which you will not find). Because without God/Christ there is no America. And that is our documented history whether you want to accept it or not. Now the Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Satanists, atheists,..etc. are also free to worship (or not) because our Bill of Rights 1st Amendment gives them that "freedom". It does not, however, give them the freedom to try and take away everything this country was built on. And that is what is happening. Evolution is being taught in schools. Some colleges claim you have to take a Muslim or Mormon religious class in order to graduate and their excuse is our country needs to learn to be more diverse. Fine, but when you offer Christianity as a course the world goes ballistic because that's a religion where the Muslims and Mormons claim that it is their culture. BULL!

Also, if you took the time to learn anything about every religion practiced in this country and especially if you studied their history, you'd know most so called religions are actually cults, not religions and, just for the record, Christianity is recorded all throughout our history as fact and truth. It has been proven to be true over and over again and continues to be proven true even today. Trust me, I'm one of those that said "prove it" for many years.

Taking In God we Trust out of America does not protect the rights of minorities. It violates the rights of Christians. Because, again, we have the right according to our 1st Amendment to post that motto anywhere we want even if the Christians work for the Government. You have every right to post In God We Don't Trust anywhere you want. Even in Federal buildings. Moore had every right to put the 10 Commandments in a government building. And every religion in the country had the right to put their beliefs right next to his. But no one has the right to remove them except for the person who put it there, according to the 1st Amendment.

I'm sorry you have chosen to be an agnostic/atheist. But then again our 1st Amendment and Christ both give you that freedom to choose atheism. I keep being told I shouldn't voice my opinion so strongly but then again I could never understand why anyone would choose hell for eternity instead of heaven. But, then again, being atheist, you don't believe in heaven or hell. Aren't you in for a surprise!

Well, as a Christian, I will pray for you...as well as the rest of your family will. And I know someday you will understand what I am talking about because my prayers do get answered and I know for a fact the Holy Spirit is very powerful!

I hope I haven't offended you. I hope I've just given you something to think about. I can do that because the 1st Amendment gives me the right to!

Your cousin,
(and in God/Christ I do Trust)!



I have a couple separate points I feel confident enough to argue, but I know for a fact that many of you JREFers are far better in this area of debate than I am. Could any (or all) of you please contribute any assistence you think might better argue my (our) position? I know we are on average far better at logical and reasoned debate than is our average "true believer".

Chances are this will end up with my cousin saying "Yeah!" and me saying "Nuh-uh!", but I'd still like to hit her with some solid facts and evidence, regardless of whether or not she eventually ends up ignoring it in favor of the bible and religious dogma.

Thanks, Kodiak

[Hexxenhammer]

Wow. Seems to me he's right about the rights of individuals to be able to do whatever they religion wise, but doesn't seem to understand that when judge Moore as an individual placed that memorial in a government building, he was implying that government sactioned that religion.

Tricky had a great thread not too long ago that dealt with this same argument. Hopefully someone will bump it.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Wow. Seems to me he's right about the rights of individuals to be able to do whatever they religion wise, but doesn't seem to understand that when judge Moore as an individual placed that memorial in a government building, he was implying that government sactioned that religion.

Tricky had a great thread not too long ago that dealt with this same argument. Hopefully someone will bump it.
Well, if you insist... (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37603)

[Skeptical Greg]

In light of:
Could it be that we just need to take action and tell the 14% to sit down and shut up?I would reply:

" Sounds like what Jesus would do to me... "

End of rebuttal...


Those silly Christians...:rolleyes:

[Graham]

I voted "no" but will qualify that by adding "as long as you keep pressing "reply to all" rather than just "reply".

It's unlikely you'll ever convince this fool of anything (her complete lack of knowledge about her own religion is laughable, IMO) but the purpose of a debate is not to convince your opponent but to convince the audience (or at least some of them).

If nothing else, it will give you an opportunity to further explain your position before this foolish person does it for you at every family gathering for the next twenty years.

This statement: "Our Government is still run exactly the way God created it in the Old Testament. " is just begging for debunking, IMO.

Graham

[subgenius]

I voted waste of time. The cousin's arguments are so boneheaded that it would take you a week to respond to each one, and none of your points would be conceded or understood.

The argument that taking IGWT off buildings violated Christian's rights......mindboggling.
Reminds me of JFK's comment that the solution to no prayer in schools is to pray more at home. Makes too much common sense for the fundies to ever understand.

If you feel like continuing to talk to the wall you could google some seperation sites and just cut and paste some stuff to save yourself some energy. Cut and paste a lot and see if they read any of it.
http://www.au.org/site/PageServer

[Luke T.]

Kodiak, I have often quoted Alexis de Tocqueville on this subject. In 1832, he wrote of the state of our union at the time, and his work has become known as one of the best political science works of all time.

Many current day religious people are out of touch with the wishes of our forefathers regarding church and state. It is undeniable that many of our forefathers believed in a God of one sort or another, but that in no way implies they wanted a religious influence on our government. In fact, not even the clergy of the time wanted an influence on government. It might be interesting for you to point out to your cousin that the constitution of the state of New York at the time of de Tocqueville's writing actually forbad clergymen from holding public office.

Here (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch17.htm) is an excellent chapter dealing with the subject, and quoted below are two very powerful sections of that chapter:

The unbelievers of Europe attack the Christians as their political opponents rather than as their religious adversaries; they hate the Christian religion as the opinion of a party much more than as an error of belief; and they reject the clergy less because they are the representatives of the Deity than because they are the allies of government.

In Europe, Christianity has been intimately united to the powers of the earth. Those powers are now in decay, and it is, as it were, buried under their ruins. The living body of religion has been bound down to the dead corpse of superannuated polity; cut but the bonds that restrain it, and it will rise once more.

On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country. My desire to discover the causes of this phenomenon increased from day to day. In order to satisfy it I questioned the members of all the different sects; I sought especially the society of the clergy, who are the depositaries of the different creeds and are especially interested in their duration. As a member of the Roman Catholic Church, I was more particularly brought into contact with several of its priests, with whom I became intimately acquainted. To each of these men I expressed my astonishment and explained my doubts. I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.

I think if everyone, religious and non-religious, read Democracy in America, all would be comfortably aligned with each other on the greatness of our country, and with the role religion plays or does not play in it. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

[Brown]

What a shame that the faith of some people is so fragile that they feel that the government must officially concur in the rightness of their religious beliefs.

[Luke T.]

Kodiak, regarding the first quote by de Tocqueville, if your relatives don't "get it," ask them how much they think Islam is being harmed by being associated with the government of Iran and with the Taliban of Afghanistan and any other examples you can think of. Explain that any hatred/fear that people have of Islam is because Islam has chained itself to the bodies of those governments.

[geni]

No seperation between the church and state in the uk. Doesn't seem to cause any problems for the state.

[pgwenthold]

Let me hit a few points here:


Originally posted by Kodiak
Today, a cousin (same side of the family as my aunt, but not one of her children) e-mailed me this:

"If I am understanding you correctly, you are miss interpreting the Bill of Rights 1st Amendment. It means our Government cannot force "one" religion on us.


"Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion"

It does not say "a religion," it says "religion," in general. Hence, it says that government cannot force _any_ religion on us, not just any specific religion.





(Make it into law which they have not). They cannot say which religion we "have" to exercise if you live in America. But they also cannot tell us when and where we can or can't practice our religion. So the "separation of Church and State" violates every Americans rights based on the 1st Amendment.


Not at all. The separation of church and state only regulates the activity of the government, and not individuals. The Post Office is a government entity, and post masters are, in fact, government officials. Thus, in their role as postmaster, they cannot be involved in religious matters.




The state and/or Government has no right to tell a teacher or student they cannot talk about Christ in a classroom or cannot pray in the middle of their class as with any other religion. According the the Bill of Rights 1st Amendment, I can preach, sing hymns, pray out loud "anywhere" in any building (including government, federal government, city and state buildings, schools, universities) in any city in any state as long as I'm on American soil.


Yes and no. You cannot go to a courtroom with court and session and start praying at the top of your lungs, you will be removed. OTOH, this is not an issue of prayer, because _all_ disturbances would be treated the same. Thus, if I went in and started singing a Bangles song, I would be removed as well.

But yes, if I go to the Lincoln Memorial and start singing a Bangles song, I will not be removed, and neither would someone who would pray. The 1st amendment protects that right.



"In God We Trust" is printed on money and is written on walls of government buildings because of freedom of speech


The government does _NOT_ have freedom of speech. Only the citizens do.

Your cousin is making a common mistake. The government does not have the same rights as the citizens. In fact, that is what the constitution does - regulates the government. And it says that the government cannot act to respect the establishment of religion.


The rest of the response is basically back to the issue of distinguish government activity from that of individuals. Individuals have rights and freedom. The government has limits, as outlined by the constitution.

Your initial response was appropriate: write God all over the backs of your envelopes if you want. But leave the post office out of it.

[Kodiak]

I'm ashamed to say, but several of the most rabid christians in my extended family (the closest being a bunch of my Dad's cousins living up in Port Huron) are white supremacists and anti-semites. That people like this can exist in my own extended family reminds me that fundamentalism can exist much closer than Iraq...

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by subgenius
I voted waste of time. The cousin's arguments are so boneheaded that it would take you a week to respond to each one, and none of your points would be conceded or understood.I, sadly, must concur. And chances are that so many people who express themselves with similar assuredness also bemoan the current state of our educational system.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by subgenius
Reminds me of JFK's comment that the solution to no prayer in schools is to pray more at home. Makes too much common sense for the fundies to ever understand.

Praying is not banned in school; that would violate the 1st. Amendment. Its school led prayer is what is wrong. Kids can pray whenever they want.

[Ipecac]

Wow. Your cousin has no clue. I mean, really. Wow.

What a condescending, no-nothing, badly reasoned response.

Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised to get the same response from some in my own family. :(

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I'm ashamed to say, but several of the most rabid christians in my extended family (the closest being a bunch of my Dad's cousins living up in Port Huron) are white supremacists and anti-semites.

Remind them jesus was a Jew.

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I'm ashamed to say, but several of the most rabid christians in my extended family (the closest being a bunch of my Dad's cousins living up in Port Huron) are white supremacists and anti-semites. That people like this can exist in my own extended family reminds me that fundamentalism can exist much closer than Iraq...

Tell them that Jesus was Jewish, and so was Mary, Joseph, and all of the disciples. See what reaction you get...

[MLynn]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I'm ashamed to say, but several of the most rabid christians in my extended family (the closest being a bunch of my Dad's cousins living up in Port Huron) are white supremacists and anti-semites. That people like this can exist in my own extended family reminds me that fundamentalism can exist much closer than Iraq...
I agree with what Brown had to say, and if you have this type of extremism in your family (certainly NOT your fault), it may be futile to waste your breath on these people. On the other hand, it may make you feel better because you spoke up. I've tried to speak reasonably with other Xians (I'm one), and I've been talked down to and rebuffed, so I can't imagine what you go through.

edited to add: Xians who are secure in their faith aren't the troublemakers. Unfortunately, from what I've observed, many/most Xians are insecure and defensive, and therefore hard-headed, hard-hearted, unkind, etc. etc. (sorry for my rant, but it sure felt good!)

[Cleopatra]

Kodiak may I make a totally friendly remark? :)

If you feel that you don't have arguments to confront him why don't you let him persuade you? Do you reject his opinions by principle, just because he is a Christian?

Just wondering. :)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by MLynn

I agree with what Brown had to say, and if you have this type of extremism in your family (certainly NOT your fault), it may be futile to waste your breath on these people. On the other hand, it may make you feel better because you spoke up. I've tried to speak reasonably with other Xians (I'm one), and I've been talked down to and rebuffed, so I can't imagine what you go through.

edited to add: Xians who are secure in their faith aren't the troublemakers. Unfortunately, from what I've observed, many/most Xians are insecure and defensive, and therefore hard-headed, hard-hearted, unkind, etc. etc. (sorry for my rant, but it sure felt good!)

Their reply is that because of christ being who he was (one of the holy and divine trinity), Jesus was the first christian, and his family and followers ceased being jews when they decided to follow christ.

Fortunately, the cousin I'm currently debating, while clearly mistaken about a great many things, is not one of those rabid ones from Port Huron. That said, she is probably anti-gay...

[Tricky]

I of course voted "No", because I found my similar discussion to be rewarding and our family ties strengthened. Also, I'm sure you realize that people forward these things without really thinking about them, so don't give your aunt too much grief. Now as to your cousin, here's what I would say. Feel free to use it without copyright. ;)

Originally posted by Kodiak's Cousin

If I am understanding you correctly, you are miss interpreting the Bill of Rights 1st Amendment. It means our Government cannot force "one" religion on us. (Make it into law which they have not). They cannot say which religion we "have" to exercise if you live in America. But they also cannot tell us when and where we can or can't practice our religion

I believe that this statement is self contradictory. If the practice of your religion includes prayers in places where non-believers are required to go (such as schools, courts etc.) then you are forcing "one" religion (yours) on those people. They are not free to walk away and are forced to listen to you. You wouldn't like it if a Muslim were reading aloud from the Koran in school, would you?

Originally posted by Kodiak's Cousin
So the "separation of Church and State" violates every Americans rights based on the 1st Amendment. The state and/or Government has no right to tell a teacher or student they cannot talk about Christ in a classroom or cannot pray in the middle of their class as with any other religion. According the the Bill of Rights 1st Amendment, I can preach, sing hymns, pray out loud "anywhere" in any building (including government, federal government, city and state buildings, schools, universities) in any city in any state as long as I'm on American soil.

That is simply not the case. Like all freedoms, freedom of speech has limitations. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. But you can pray at any time you choose, provided you do not force others to listen. In fact, this is exactly what Jesus suggests. (Matthew, 6:5-6).
Originally posted by Kodiak's Cousin
"In God We Trust" is printed on money and is written on walls of government buildings because of freedom of speech and, as you stated below, it never became a "law" because our constitution forbids it.....It's just plain old freedom of speech. And the 14% that we somehow keep electing into office as Judges and Presidents because we don't look at who we are electing...because we narrow-mindedly base our decision strictly on Democrat and Republican and they base the "interpretation" of the law on "their" religious beliefs (which they don't have) and their "opinions" and they do not base it on what our Constitution actually says. Everyone is allowed an opinion about a law, but you cannot change the law based on your "opinion". Which this country is currently doing.
I am afraid that this is also incorrect. The US Constitution is what is called a "living document". Very much of what is now codified into our laws is based upon interpretation of the Constitution. Indeed, the fact that people disagree strongly about what it means suggests that. The reason why we call them "judges" is because they judge how to interpret things. That is their job. You can disagree with their judgment, and even try to get judges who will more closely follow your beliefs, but you cannot take away their power to judge without destroying the foundations of this country.

Originally posted by Kodiak's Cousin

You also have to remember, people did not come to America looking for freedom. They came to America looking for "religious" freedom. And from day one our freedom was based on total Christianity. Everything about this country has always been based on Christianity (Christ). Our Government was created from the Bible. If you read the Bible you would see that God set up a Government and appointed Judges to solve the problems and conflicts of the people that Moses was taking to the promised land. Our Government is still run exactly the way God created it in the Old Testament.
Some people (like the Pilgrims) came to America looking for religious freedom, while others came to make a new life or to escape famine or non-religious oppression. Do not forget, though, that the Pilgrims actually came here to excape persecution from other Christians, specifically the government-sponsored Church of England, not from atheists or Muslims. So trying to prevent the government from forcing one brand of religion on us is in the highest and most honored traditions of our country. Let us not become like what the Pilgrims were trying to escape.
As for the Bible, and especially the Old Testiment, it is a very good thing that we do not adhere to all it's teaching, which include the advocation of murder and slavery (read Leviticus if you want to know more about some of the screwy things said in the OT.) I would also be willing to bet that you either break or have varying interpretations as to what the Ten Commandments mean. Most Christian denominations disagree about what "remember the Sabbath and keep it holy" means. Have you ever bought anything from a store on Sunday? If so, then you are a blasphemer, by the beliefs of some Christians. The Old Testiment says you should be stoned to death for working on Sunday. Do you agree with that?


Originally posted by Kodiak's Cousin

Because without God/Christ there is no America. And that is our documented history whether you want to accept it or not. Now the Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Satanists, atheists,..etc. are also free to worship (or not) because our Bill of Rights 1st Amendment gives them that "freedom". It does not, however, give them the freedom to try and take away everything this country was built on. And that is what is happening. Evolution is being taught in schools. Some colleges claim you have to take a Muslim or Mormon religious class in order to graduate and their excuse is our country needs to learn to be more diverse. Fine, but when you offer Christianity as a course the world goes ballistic because that's a religion where the Muslims and Mormons claim that it is their culture. BULL!
First of all, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, just not the same kind as you. They are part of that "86%" that you appear to regard as a single group with identical thoughts.

And colleges, especially private colleges, have the right to require whatever courses the feel are necessary. I have known a whole lot of college graduates, and aside from the Theology students, not a single one from a public college or university has ever been required to take any course in religion, either Islam or Christianity. However, it would be useful to know about Islam. You don't have to convert to take a course in it.

But I see Christian churches, groups, even radio and TV stations quite prominantly in the US. No US politician dare say anything against Christianity, though many unleash tirades against atheism and some against Islam. You will have a hard time convincing me that the Christian message is being discriminated against in the US.


Originally posted by Kodiak's Cousin

Taking In God we Trust out of America does not protect the rights of minorities. It violates the rights of Christians. Because, again, we have the right according to our 1st Amendment to post that motto anywhere we want even if the Christians work for the Government. You have every right to post In God We Don't Trust anywhere you want. Even in Federal buildings. Moore had every right to put the 10 Commandments in a government building. And every religion in the country had the right to put their beliefs right next to his. But no one has the right to remove them except for the person who put it there, according to the 1st Amendment.
Do you agree then that we should allow 14% of US money and US buildings should say "In Allah we trust" or "In Satan we trust"? Because if you don't then you are engaging in exactly the same kind of behavior that sent the Pilgrims to this country in the first place. It is called "The tyranny of the majority" and our government and Constitution were specifically designed to prevent it.

You have the right to put anything (within certain limits as decreed by law) on things that you own, but public buildings and money are owned by all of us, and should not be used for advertising.


Originally posted by Kodiak's Cousin
I'm sorry you have chosen to be an agnostic/atheist. But then again our 1st Amendment and Christ both give you that freedom to choose atheism. I keep being told I shouldn't voice my opinion so strongly but then again I could never understand why anyone would choose hell for eternity instead of heaven. But, then again, being atheist, you don't believe in heaven or hell. Aren't you in for a surprise!

I think you said something there that sums up your position. You cannot understand. I'm sorry that you have chosen not to try to understand the positions of others, as I always try to understand yours, even when I do not agree with them. And you can threaten me with supernatural punishment if you choose, because I know that you do not make that decision. But I also hope that you have found this exchange worthwhile. Maybe you can learn to understand me better.

Originally posted by Kodiak's Cousin
I hope I haven't offended you. I hope I've just given you something to think about. I can do that because the 1st Amendment gives me the right to!

I choose not to be offended, even though you have essentially told me I am going to hell. I forgive you. I believe that is in the tradition of one you claim great respect for.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Let me hit a few points here:
The government does _NOT_ have freedom of speech. Only the citizens do.

Your cousin is making a common mistake. The government does not have the same rights as the citizens. In fact, that is what the constitution does - regulates the government. And it says that the government cannot act to respect the establishment of religion.


The rest of the response is basically back to the issue of distinguish government activity from that of individuals. Individuals have rights and freedom. The government has limits, as outlined by the constitution.

Your initial response was appropriate: write God all over the backs of your envelopes if you want. But leave the post office out of it.

I would also point out that 'In God we trust' was added to our money during the McCarthy era, when the Red Atheist Menace could only be countered by Christian Faith.

[Fidelio]

…Also, if you took the time to learn anything about every religion practiced in this country and especially if you studied their history, you'd know most so called religions are actually cults, not religions…

…Moore had every right to put the 10 Commandments in a government building. And every religion in the country had the right to put their beliefs right next to his…

Sounds to me like someone is in favor of government deciding what is and is not a religion.

Or this person would have no problem with verses from the Koran, statues of Hindu gods, Buddhas, Native American symbolism all crowding into every government building along with Judge Moore's rock.

I wonder which it is.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Kodiak may I make a totally friendly remark? :)

If you feel that you don't have arguments to confront him why don't you let him persuade you? Do you reject his opinions by principle, just because he is a Christian?

Just wondering. :)

No problem.

There are at least a dozen points of refutation I can make based on logic, history, and constitutional interpretation and application. That said, I know that sublime arguments may exist that either I cannot/have not thought of, or that I cannot yet grasp. I was raised Roman Catholic and was even an alter boy. At the time I believed because I was taught and told to believe. In high school and college, after learning how to think thanks to classes like chemistry, biology, philosophy, logic and reason, algebra and geometry, physics and comparitive religions, I came to the conclusion that I was an agnostic in principle, but an atheist in practice.

Basically, I don't think I'd have any problem hitting a homerun by myself. That doesn't mean I wouldn't rather hit a grand slam... :)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Anyway, I heard proposed on a radio station show, that we all write
"IN GOD WE 'TRUST" on the back of all our mail. After all, that is our
national motto,

No, it isn't. Our national motto is E pluribus unum, or "one from many," because we are one nation made from the diversity of having many separate states.

and it's on all the money we use to buy those stamps.

Theodore Roosevelt had this to say about that:

My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege...it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements.

—letter to William Boldly, 11-11-1907

We must take back our nation from all the people who think that
anything that offends them should be removed.

It isn't about "offending" people. It's about liberty. The government has no business respecting religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This certainly does the former, and arguably does the latter as well.

If you like this idea, please pass it on and DO IT. The idea of
writing or stamping "IN GOD WE TRUST" on our envelopes sounds good to me.

Fine. Your envelope, you do what you want with it. That's what freedom gives you.

It has been reported that 86% of Americans believe in God.

And good for them. But which God? How many are Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, or whatever? And does that include people who believe in more than one God, like Hindus and Shintosits?

Either way, it's wrong to exclude the 14% of people who don't agree with you and to force your beliefs onto them. Do it voluntarily all you want, but don't go using the Guns of Government to do it for you.

Could it be that we just need to take action and tell the 14% to
sit down and shut up?

Why should they? You, apparently, don't want to do that. Why do you get to speak and they don't?

[i]"If I am understanding you correctly, you are miss interpreting the Bill of Rights 1st Amendment. It means our Government cannot force "one" religion on us.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't use the word "one," even though that was put in quotes. It doesn't say "one" religion; it just says, "religion," period. (Well, comma, actually...)

But they also cannot tell us when and where we can or can't practice our religion.

Absolutely true. Now, how does taking "In God We Trust" off of money and postage stamps and taking "under God" out of the pledge (none of these were there until the 20th Century, BTW) do anything even resembling that?

The state and/or Government has no right to tell a teacher or student they cannot talk about Christ in a classroom or cannot pray in the middle of their class as with any other religion.

Agreed. The problem is, in the government school system teachers are also government agents, and government agents should absolutely not be doing this.

According the the Bill of Rights 1st Amendment, I can preach, sing hymns, pray out loud "anywhere" in any building

No, you can't. If you own the building, sure, but if not you need permission from the property owner. Your free speech rights do not give you the power to force other people to give you a venue.

You also have to remember, people did not come to America looking for freedom. They came to America looking for "religious" freedom.

Yes, and that's exactly why we have separation of Church and State to begin with: they knew that government and religion put together was a terrible and oppressive combination.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

—Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, 1-1-1802

And from day one our freedom was based on total Christianity. Everything about this country has always been based on Christianity (Christ).

Wrong. In fact, many of our founding fathers weren't Christians, but Deists.

Our Government was created from the Bible.

No, it wasn't. It was created from British Common Law, which was not Biblical in origin.

Also, if you took the time to learn anything about every religion practiced in this country and especially if you studied their history, you'd know most so called religions are actually cults, not religions and, just for the record, Christianity is recorded all throughout our history as fact and truth. It has been proven to be true over and over again and continues to be proven true even today. Trust me, I'm one of those that said "prove it" for many years.

If you understand why you reject their religions, then you understand why I reject yours. Christiainity has never even come close to being "proven" as fact or truth, and yet you cling to that claim just as the cultists cling to theirs. And this behavior is born out in the actions of creationists who, unable to convince anyone on rational or scientific grounds, are turning to the Guns of Government to get their cult foisted on the mind of man.

[scotth]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


I would also point out that 'In God we trust' was added to our money during the McCarthy era, when the Red Atheist Menace could only be countered by Christian Faith.

The phrase was added to 1, 2, and 3 cent coins in 1864.
Was allowed on all coins by 1873.
Required on all coins in 1908

Was added to paper money in 1955.

[MLynn]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


I would also point out that 'In God we trust' was added to our money during the McCarthy era, when the Red Atheist Menace could only be countered by Christian Faith.
I think you're referring to "Under God" which was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.

[Silicon]

They won't even read or be moved by a non-biblical argument.




Find a BIBLICAL argument, such as taking the lord's name in vain, or the official money-changers in the temple, the government-connected jewish temple-leaders that killed jesus, etc.


Say: God's doesn't want His name to be bought and sold on a dollar.

If I knew more about the bible, I'd quote real scripture. I'm sure there are folks who could find you some.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Silicon
They won't even read or be moved by a non-biblical argument.




Find a BIBLICAL argument, such as taking the lord's name in vain, or the official money-changers in the temple, the government-connected jewish temple-leaders that killed jesus, etc.


Say: God's doesn't want His name to be bought and sold on a dollar.

If I knew more about the bible, I'd quote real scripture. I'm sure there are folks who could find you some.

You know, if they aren't convinced by Jesus's teachings, not much will work. Recall he taught that one should pray in a closet all by themselves.

[rikzilla]

Kodiak,

I voted "No" for the same reasons as many of the above. Keep hitting "reply all" and perhaps you'll find one of your family members open their eyes and see reason in an argument that you cannot fail to win.

I could have offered a nugget or two, but I think Tricky and Shanek have given you the grand slam response you were looking for. I can't improve upon them.

I would just add this point,...that skepticism and disillusionment are the very beginnings of real knowledge. Dogmatically religious people are not fools, they've just failed to do any profitable philosophising.

Ask her what philosophical/religious works she's read besides the Bible. When she replies with the expected answer, ask her if she doesn't think it's worth educating herself rather than just absorbing the cultural American proclivity for Christianity, and asuming it's superiority. After all, isn't this exactly what the "uneducated" Muslim extremists are doing with militant Islam??

Hope that helps! Let us know how it goes.

-z

[daenku32]

I'd tell the Cousing to go to hell. Just because of the few arrogant lines at the end.

Religion is poor excuse for arrogance.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by geni
No seperation between the church and state in the uk. Doesn't seem to cause any problems for the state. For the state? No. For the Puritans in the 16th century, who then had to leave the UK in order to freely practice their religion? A bit. For the Catholics during the reign of Henry VIII who suddenly found themselves criminals when he created the protestant Church of England? Sorta.

But you're right. No problems for the state. Unless you count those various times when the new monarch was of a different faith than the previous one and the entire government had to convert or risk losing their jobs (and occasionally lives).

So, long live the union of church and state! ;)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Upchurch
For the state? No. For the Puritans in the 16th century, who then had to leave the UK in order to freely practice their religion? A bit. For the Catholics during the reign of Henry VIII who suddenly found themselves criminals when he created the protestant Church of England? Sorta.

But you're right. No problems for the state. Unless you count those various times when the new monarch was of a different faith than the previous one and the entire government had to convert or risk losing their jobs (and occasionally lives).

So, long live the union of church and state! ;)
Indeed. Both the church and the monarchy of England are toothless remnants of a bygone day when they ruled hand-in-hand in an often brutal manner. Now they're just for tourism.

[diddidit]

I voted no, but, as others have said, only because someone with a crack in their armor of faith might also be reading. With your cousin, it sounds like you'll be pounding sand.

did

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Upchurch
For the state? No. For the Puritans in the 16th century, who then had to leave the UK in order to freely practice their religion? A bit. For the Catholics during the reign of Henry VIII who suddenly found themselves criminals when he created the protestant Church of England? Sorta.

But you're right. No problems for the state. Unless you count those various times when the new monarch was of a different faith than the previous one and the entire government had to convert or risk losing their jobs (and occasionally lives).

So, long live the union of church and state! ;)

Ahh,...not to worry Upchurch....when Mary I got into power she fixed that little problem and a whole new set of individuals got to re-convert or lose their lives. Archbishop Cranmer re-converted, then decided he sinned and un-re-converted. Mary was so pissed she had him burned at the stake. Cranmer is famous for what he did once the fire was lit. He thrust his offending hand (which signed the (re)convertion papers) into the flames first. Thereby giving Bloody Mary the everlasting finger.

Gotta love them religious nuts!

-z

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Silicon
They won't even read or be moved by a non-biblical argument.




Find a BIBLICAL argument, such as taking the lord's name in vain, or the official money-changers in the temple, the government-connected jewish temple-leaders that killed jesus, etc.


Say: God's doesn't want His name to be bought and sold on a dollar.

If I knew more about the bible, I'd quote real scripture. I'm sure there are folks who could find you some.

"And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." Luke 20:25

Kuroyume

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I'm ashamed to say, but several of the most rabid christians in my extended family (the closest being a bunch of my Dad's cousins living up in Port Huron) are white supremacists and anti-semites. That people like this can exist in my own extended family reminds me that fundamentalism can exist much closer than Iraq...

heh heh heh... (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870397450)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Kodiak's Cousing


[i]"If I am understanding you correctly, you are miss interpreting the Bill of Rights 1st Amendment. It means our Government cannot force "one" religion on us. (Make it into law which they have not). They cannot say which religion we "have" to exercise if you live in America.

You can so lay a trap for this guy.

I would bet this guy would be against Islamic, Hindu and other religions being represented on government property and the currency. I would bet he is all about forcing "one" religion (Christianity) on the U.S.

[Sindai]

Originally posted by Tricky
Indeed. Both the church and the monarchy of England are toothless remnants of a bygone day when they ruled hand-in-hand in an often brutal manner. Now they're just for tourism.

"Cake or death?"

"Death- wait I meant cake!"

"Aha! You said death first!"

"But I really want cake!"

"Well...alright. Give him some cake. You're lucky I'm Church of England."

[Segnosaur]

Its probably pointless to argue with this person if your goal is to change their minds. I'm sure they're not the type to let facts get in the way. However, I have to admit, I do like debates just for the intellectual challenge, and as such, it can often be fun to argue with them.

The biggest problem that this person has is their inability to understand what the 1st amendment says and what its impact is. They fail to see that any government sanctioning of the christian religion (even stating 'in god we trust') is unconstitutional.

Some things I noticed:


Originally posted by Kodiak
"If I am understanding you correctly, you are miss interpreting the Bill of Rights 1st Amendment. It means our Government cannot force "one" religion on us. (Make it into law which they have not)....But they also cannot tell us when and where we can or can't practice our religion.


However, other laws in the U.S. do limit free speech to certain times and locations. As others have stated, you can't interrupt 'official' govenment business (such as court proceedings, or class time) without getting in trouble. The fact that you're interrupting it with prayer shouldn't give you any more protection than if you were interrupting it shouting the results to last night's episode of Survivor.

Originally posted by Kodiak

So the "separation of Church and State" violates every Americans rights based on the 1st Amendment. The state and/or Government has no right to tell a teacher or student they cannot talk about Christ in a classroom or cannot pray in the middle of their class as with any other religion.


A teacher has a set cirriculum. If a teacher is spending time in the class praying or talking about Christ, then there is a very good chance they are neglecting required material that they are supposed to teach.

Originally posted by Kodiak

And the 14% that we somehow keep electing into office as Judges and Presidents because we don't look at who we are electing...because we narrow-mindedly base our decision strictly on Democrat and Republican and they base the "interpretation" of the law on "their" religious beliefs (which they don't have) and their "opinions" and they do not base it on what our Constitution actually says.


This is curious... are they claiming that the U.S. has been electing Athiests as presidents? I'm sure G.W. Bush would have issues with that claim. (Now, your relative could be claiming that the people elected as president claim to be christian but aren't really, but then that would probably eliminate a good portion of the 86% as well.)

Originally posted by Kodiak

You also have to remember, people did not come to America looking for freedom. They came to America looking for "religious" freedom. And from day one our freedom was based on total Christianity. Everything about this country has always been based on Christianity (Christ). Our Government was created from the Bible. If you read the Bible you would see that God set up a Government and appointed Judges to solve the problems and conflicts of the people that Moses was taking to the promised land. Our Government is still run exactly the way God created it in the Old Testament.


I find it very ironic that they bring up the old testament, considering many Christians try to distance themselves from the old testament because it contains a lot of strange laws.

Of course, you could challenge them on some of the rules the Old testement lays out to see what they say. (Like, "should be bring back the old testament law that says you can avoid jail for raping a virgin by paying off her dad and agreeing to marry her?)

Originally posted by Kodiak

Evolution is being taught in schools.


You may want to mention that there are many scientists (and even many main-stream christians) who believe both in god and evolution.

Originally posted by Kodiak

...Christianity is recorded all throughout our history as fact and truth. It has been proven to be true over and over again and continues to be proven true even today.


You could go through the skeptics annotated bible and point out many of the contradictions and other fallicies that appear in the bible.

Originally posted by Kodiak

And every religion in the country had the right to put their beliefs right next to his. But no one has the right to remove them except for the person who put it there, according to the 1st Amendment.


Ask them if you can create a 'cult' religion that worships naked women, and post a statue of your religion right next to Moore's 10 commandments.

Originally posted by Kodiak

... I could never understand why anyone would choose hell for eternity instead of heaven. But, then again, being atheist, you don't believe in heaven or hell. Aren't you in for a surprise!


Unfortunately you can't say the same for them.... They won't be suprised when they find out that there's no heaven or hell.. because they'll be dead and decomposing.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Sindai

"Well...alright. Give him some cake. You're lucky I'm Church of England." "Well, we're out of cake!"

"So, my choices are 'or death'? I think I'll have the vegitarian plate then."

"There you go. Thank you for flying Church of England."

[jimmygun]

It is disconcerting to me that anyone can summarily dismiss 14% or about 42 million people as inconsequential. Isn't that an awfully big crowd of people to keep quiet?

My wife is a teacher and she finds it difficult to keep her class of kinderkids sitting and quiet.

[rachaella]

Originally posted by jimmygun
It is disconcerting to me that anyone can summarily dismiss 14% or about 42 million people as inconsequential. Isn't that an awfully big crowd of people to keep quiet?

My wife is a teacher and she finds it difficult to keep her class of kinderkids sitting and quiet.

14% is a pretty large group. What percentage of the Roman population were christians back when they were being persecuted? Why didn't they just sit down and shut up?

[rachaella]

What is interesting to me is that christians seem to simultaneously promote crushing the minority and praising martyrs in countries where christianity is the minority. Would they tell the christians in Israel or Muslim countries to "sit down and shut up"?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by rachaella
Would they tell the christians in Israel or Muslim countries to "sit down and shut up"?


BZZZZZRRRRT>


Does not compute, I am Nomad, I am perfect...does not compute..... BZZZZZT BEEP BEEP>>>>>




That logic wouldn't work, Rachaella.

NO logic works.


Here's the answer you get.

"Of course not, they're CHRISTIANS. Christians are right, as GOD told them."


See? Equal rules and fair play, and minority OR majority rights mean NOTHING when God says you are right.

[kuroyume0161]

What I find amusing is the Christian attitude in the US.

First, they believe that our country, government, ideologies, entire purpose, even our hard-won freedom are based upon their deity. Then they believe that they can do anything with their religion here (because of the first misconception). Whenever there appears to be injustice towards them or their delicate beliefs, they are quick to point out their persecution or the moral decay surrounding them while also using their numbers as evidence of their correctness.

But as soon as any minority steps on their toes, they persecute them and, as you can read clearly, tell them to sit down and shut up.

Once finished, they return to their state of self-persecution and request the appropriate pity for being lowly, humble Christians.

- Note that this is a generalization and does not reflect on all Christians or sects thereof, only on a large, vocal majority of them, organized politically under various names. -

1. US Federal government is based on several major influences: British Common Law, Roman Republicanism, Greek Democracy.

2. Our freedom from English tyranny under King George III was due to a small vocal group of elite citizens (the so-called 'forefathers), an angry mob that eventually was molded into a militia, lots of support from several mercenary groups, and, at the time, England's worst enemy, France. Much blood was spilt to gain this freedom and the resolve was tested several times afterwords (framing a federal government and the War of 1812, for example).

3. Although the majority counts in elections and in passing laws, individual and minority rights are upheld by the Constitution (Bill of Rights) and judicial review. The majority of the populace does not get to dictate the laws for minorities or individuals carte-blanche.

4. Religion is a right, not a governmental institution. If you want religion in government, move to Afghanistan and restore the Taliban. Religious freedom means not only freedom to religion, but freedom from religion as well.

5. GWB needs to go... and the sooner the better. Although I sincerely think that he thinks his motives and deeds are for the good, because of his fundamentalist religious tainting, they are causing more stress, death, hatred, and destabilization than I've seen in my lifetime. Under his presidency we've lost more civilians, both US and foreign, since any other besides those terms occuring during a World War (and they were consequences of armed conflict or other nations' practices). Yes, FOUR MORE YEARS!!! That's what we need to ultimately reach nuclear annihilation. ;)

Kuroyume

[Riddick]

Originally posted by MLynn
edited to add: Xians who are secure in their faith aren't the troublemakers. Unfortunately, from what I've observed, many/most Xians are insecure and defensive, and therefore hard-headed, hard-hearted, unkind, etc. etc. (sorry for my rant, but it sure felt good!)
Opinion noted, although it is inaccurate.

[Silicon]

Agreed, Riddick.

When I was a Christian, I was hard-headed, hard-hearted and unkind to non-believers.

But I was secure in my faith. Very secure.

Insecurity might be the cause of the hard-headedness, but I'm certain there are secure people who are even more hard-headed.



I'd rather think that perhaps one causes the other. Hard-headedness causes the secure religiousity, rather than the other way around.


I'm sure the attackers on 9/11 were life-and-death secure in their faith. And yet the most hard-hearted and unkind people I can imagine.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Silicon
Agreed, Riddick.

When I was a Christian, I was hard-headed, hard-hearted and unkind to non-believers.

But I was secure in my faith. Very secure.

Insecurity might be the cause of the hard-headedness, but I'm certain there are secure people who are even more hard-headed.



I'd rather think that perhaps one causes the other. Hard-headedness causes the secure religiousity, rather than the other way around.


I'm sure the attackers on 9/11 were life-and-death secure in their faith. And yet the most hard-hearted and unkind people I can imagine.

I would have to think it is the other way around. Those who are least secure in their faith would be far less likely to take a stand against those who believe otherly, because they know they could be right.

It is those who are so certain in their faith that will be the most prosecutional, because they are the ones who are convinced they are right and all others are wrong. Yes, like the 9/11 hijackers...

[MLynn]

Originally posted by Silicon
Agreed, Riddick.

When I was a Christian, I was hard-headed, hard-hearted and unkind to non-believers.

But I was secure in my faith. Very secure.

If it's ok to ask, what changed your mind about being a Christian?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by MLynn


If it's ok to ask, what changed your mind about being a Christian?

Well, I was a child at the time. Junior high-school, very impressionable. A very argumentative sort of belief. Could have a lot to do with the fact that I was picked on a lot, so it became a way to vent my anger (they'll be sorry when they burn in hell, that kind of thinking).


By the time I got midway through high-school it had morphed into a sort of shirley mcclaine extreme credulity, which I kept mostly through college.

Not sure what exactly caused the drift. Probably the strength of my parents' beliefs in the MacClaine direction, and the introduction of Richard Bach books and A Course in Miracles, etc. Attending the Unity Church, and having relatives who swore up and down that they had supernatural experiences all the time. (Never substantiated, all self-delusional, but nevertheless formidable when told to me as eyewitness fact by my own parents!)

At least it got me to a less angry worldview.

Just as morally bankrupt as condemning people to hell, but less angry.


I didn't like the moral gap in that worldview (people are poor, sick, etc because of karma, or their own choosing before birth, so I don't have to help them or feel empathy -- yeech.)

Then in my later college years I suffered the death of a close relative, and sat at her death bed and watched her die.

I think I was looking at her in that moment, waiting for some confirmation of the final mystery. Some moment in the last fleeting instants of her life where she showed some release, or some sudden insight, or some serenity or peace, just as dying people do in the movies.

Instead I saw a biological process. No mystical moment. Nothing that showed there was anything to death other than an end of life. It was her body shutting down, not her spirit leaving.

Over a couple years after that, I slowly kept working on my beliefs. Trying to work my way through each one, seperating the true from the untrue. There were quite a lot at that point. Beliefs including Jesus, the Virgin Birth, Revelations, UFO's, the Bermuda Triangle, Atlantis, Crystals, Trance Channelling, meditation, chakras,

A list that had been growing my entire life was now slowly being pared away. I HAD to find SOME tool for guiding which things were real and which things were superstition. I started growing bored and discarding the obviously faulty things, like bigfoot, or the loch ness monster... then went to astrology, witchcraft, psychic powers, UFO's and was left with organized religion, which didn't pass the tests I had set up for the other things, so it fell away as well.

And there I stayed, with a sort of scientific deism. I think there might be a god, but I cannot in good faith claim that I have any correct information about that god.

Now I'm pretty happy! I don't feel the press of horror of mortality that I always thought atheists felt. But that mostly changed since I had a daughter. (I am IMMORTAL, HA!)

I love finally having a tool with which to sort out my beliefs, which were becoming overwhelming to me before. Too hard keeping up with all the magical powers I just had to believe in, because they were so darn cool.

As I said to a christian friend of mine, the ONE THING that is a given, if you accept the idea of God, is that He created the universe.

Man created the Bible, perhaps with God's help, perhaps not.

But only God could have created the universe. So I will look at the universe as my bible, and read the wonders written there.

[Ladewig]

Whenever I hear people explaining how christian this country is and was, I like to point out that one of our earliest states, Rhode Island, was formed because a christian minister, Roger Williams, was banished from the christian Massachusetts settlement because of differences in religous beliefs.

As for praying in schools, I've always maintained the position that prayer is too important to leave to public school teachers. Ask your cousins if there is anything wrong with their kids' public school teacher throwing out a long prayer in which he or she asks forgiveness for the people who think they are Christians but are not really Christians because they were not baptised a certain way? Or a prayer about the importance of Mark 16:18 in which the teacher mentions snake handling as the only true test of christian faith?

[MLynn]

Thanks for sharing your personal journey. My journey is different, but I'm looking forward to attending TAM3. I'm going to listen, learn and meet people and I know I'll be thinking in new ways by the time it's over.

I've always marvelled every time National Geographic updates their map of the know universe. Our planet is so small in the great scheme yet we haven't been blown away yet by a cosmic chunk of rock.

Sorry, I guess I got off-thread.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Kodiak
[i]You also have to remember, people did not come to America looking for freedom. They came to America looking for "religious" freedom. And from day one our freedom was based on total Christianity.

I realize I'm late to the game on this one but:

a. Has your cousin heard of Jamestown?
b. Which "day one" is he talking about? 1607? 1620? 1776? 1781? 1789?

[evildave]

We don't have to resort to the constitutional ammendments for religion.


Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

In other words, people who insist that being religious (or a member of a particular religion, or no religion) to hold office, or do work for the government are basically violating the constitution.

It boils down to the same thing. You want your religion in the government? Then you want the government in your religion. There's no way around it.

Of course, the other little issue, once you have a Good CHRISTIAN government comes up immediately: Which fruity flavor of Christian? Shall it be the Good Catholics? The Good Baptists? The Good Mormons? Take a pick. You know whoever ends up in charge with complete Authority from Jesus (TM), will (once they've silenced every other non-Christian voice) eventually get around to making it a little easier on their own church, and a little harder on every other kind of Christian church that isn't the officially regulated one. Year by year, a little bit at a time.

You thought the IRS was bad? "The Holy Inquisitors have come about a little error on your tax form."

[evildave]

"If I am understanding you correctly, you are miss interpreting the Bill of Rights 1st Amendment. It means our Government cannot force "one" religion on us. (Make it into law which they have not). They cannot say which religion we "have" to exercise if you live in America. But they also cannot tell us when and where we can or can't practice our religion. So the "separation of Church and State" violates every Americans rights based on the 1st Amendment. The state and/or Government has no right to tell a teacher or student they cannot talk about Christ in a classroom or cannot pray in the middle of their class as with any other religion.

You can, if you so choose, pray at school. Anywhere on school. You just can't use your position within the school to tell everyone to pray like you do.

Do you understand this? Perhaps an example is required:

If a school and/or teacher insisted that you must pray to SATAN, your argument upholds that teacher's right to make you pray to SATAN. Do you understand now?


According the the Bill of Rights 1st Amendment, I can preach, sing hymns, pray out loud "anywhere" in any building (including government, federal government, city and state buildings, schools, universities) in any city in any state as long as I'm on American soil.


Yes, you can. You are free to do so. But would a teacher or school administrator, or a police officer be alowed to FORCE you to pray? Perhaps to Hare Krishna?



"In God We Trust" is printed on money and is written on walls of government buildings because of freedom of speech and, as you stated below, it never became a "law" because our constitution forbids it.....It's just plain old freedom of speech.



http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/motto.htm
The United States' use of a national motto with a religious reference despite the First Amendment's prohibition against Congress' making any "law respecting an establishment of religion" remains a contentious issue. "In God We Trust" was established as the national motto of the United States through a law (36 U.S.C. Section 186) passed by Congress in 1956, and two federal statutes require its use on all U.S. coins and currency. Three federal appeals courts have heard cases (most recently in 1996) challenging the constitutionality of the mandated appearance of "In God We Trust" on coinage and currency, but all these cases have so far been unsuccessful. (The United States Supreme Court has not yet decided a case challenging the constitutionality of the national motto.) The precedent remains the ruling handed down by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1970, that "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency, 'In God We Trust', has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."



And the 14% that we somehow keep electing into office as Judges and Presidents because we don't look at who we are electing...because we narrow-mindedly base our decision strictly on Democrat and Republican and they base the "interpretation" of the law on "their" religious beliefs (which they don't have) and their "opinions" and they do not base it on what our Constitution actually says. Everyone is allowed an opinion about a law, but you cannot change the law based on your "opinion". Which this country is currently doing.


You claim our leaders are unchristian? Congress is overwhelmingly Christian. So have most of our presidents been. And the Supreme Court. And state governors. All the way down to state, county and city legislatures.

http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html
http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html
http://www.adherents.com/adh_gov.html
http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html

Yet, somehow, the notion that religion should not be preached by the government has held. Possibly because these wise old men realise that if you want your religion in your government, you want your government in your religion.


You also have to remember, people did not come to America looking for freedom. They came to America looking for "religious" freedom. And from day one our freedom was based on total Christianity. Everything about this country has always been based on Christianity (Christ). Our Government was created from the Bible.


Most of the immigration in the US for the last 150 years has been escaping wars and for economic betterment. Nearly everyone in Mexico and elsewhere south of the border are Catholic. They don't flee for not being allowed to be Catholic. That country's in the 99th percentile Catholic. There really is Catholicism and not much else, and they continue to be Catholic when they cross the border into America looking for JOBS.

A better life in a place where the local royalty or war or thugs weren't going to oppress, starve or kill them in any of a number of ways.

The original Pilgrims themselves weren't looking for religious freedom. They had absolute religious freedom in Amsterdam, where they had originally fled to from England. They wanted a place where only their own religion was practiced. Food for thought.


If you read the Bible you would see that God set up a Government and appointed Judges to solve the problems and conflicts of the people that Moses was taking to the promised land. Our Government is still run exactly the way God created it in the Old Testament.


Did you REALLY read that bible you're citing, or are you just quoting what somebody said about it? It says if you beat a slave and it takes three days for him/her to die, you have not murdered. Go back and re-read exodus and deuteronomy if you actually have the stomach for it.

When's the last time a rapist was fined fifty shekels of silver to the victim's father and forced to marry his victim? Seen anyone excused from military service for taking a wife? When was the last time you saw a woman stoned to death for adultery?

Our laws were derived from ROMAN law, as rinsed through the English legal system. You'll find out more of this if you stay in school and study actual history.



So, what is being said below is if you do not want to here about God/Christ, which this country was founded on, then go to another country that does not speak or believe in God. (Which you will not find). Because without God/Christ there is no America. And that is our documented history whether you want to accept it or not. Now the Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Satanists, atheists,..etc. are also free to worship (or not) because our Bill of Rights 1st Amendment gives them that "freedom". It does not, however, give them the freedom to try and take away everything this country was built on.



Keep in mind that Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses are in fact Christians. As are Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, as is whatever church you belong to that tells you that Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses are not "really" Christians. Can you imagine how many other Christians probably don't think you are Christian in the same negative light?

What are you saying that America is "really" built on? The right for a majority religion to oppress the minority? Is that it? It sounds like it.

You sure sound like an angry kid.



And that is what is happening. Evolution is being taught in schools. Some colleges claim you have to take a Muslim or Mormon religious class in order to graduate and their excuse is our country needs to learn to be more diverse. Fine, but when you offer Christianity as a course the world goes ballistic because that's a religion where the Muslims and Mormons claim that it is their culture. BULL!



You wouldn't want to learn about other cultures and their practices? It would help you to make more coherent arguments about "other people's religion" if you knew anything at all about them. Of course, if you're afraid that learning about other things would change your opinions, you're right.

If ignorance is all your religion is about, then feel free to remain ignorant. It's youre right.

There are whole private colleges dedicated to teaching ONLY approved Christian lessons. Some of them are run by televangelists.



Also, if you took the time to learn anything about every religion practiced in this country and especially if you studied their history, you'd know most so called religions are actually cults, not religions and, just for the record, Christianity is recorded all throughout our history as fact and truth. It has been proven to be true over and over again and continues to be proven true even today. Trust me, I'm one of those that said "prove it" for many years.



I have actually taken that time, and you obviously have not, child.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ has many simple easy to read descriptions of religions, and even cults.



Taking In God we Trust out of America does not protect the rights of minorities. It violates the rights of Christians. Because, again, we have the right according to our 1st Amendment to post that motto anywhere we want even if the Christians work for the Government. You have every right to post In God We Don't Trust anywhere you want. Even in Federal buildings. Moore had every right to put the 10 Commandments in a government building. And every religion in the country had the right to put their beliefs right next to his. But no one has the right to remove them except for the person who put it there, according to the 1st Amendment.



Somehow, we survived 180 years before the 'in god we trust' slogan was passed. Somehow, I think we'll carry on with or without it.



I'm sorry you have chosen to be an agnostic/atheist. But then again our 1st Amendment and Christ both give you that freedom to choose atheism. I keep being told I shouldn't voice my opinion so strongly but then again I could never understand why anyone would choose hell for eternity instead of heaven. But, then again, being atheist, you don't believe in heaven or hell. Aren't you in for a surprise!



Ooh, scary! Won't you be in for a surprise one day when a bogeyman jumps out of your closet! "ARRGHH!!! BOOGEY-BOOGEY!"



Well, as a Christian, I will pray for you...as well as the rest of your family will. And I know someday you will understand what I am talking about because my prayers do get answered and I know for a fact the Holy Spirit is very powerful!



As an apathetic agnostic, I hope that you will eventually use put that organ in your skull that you believe your god gave you to good use and learn a few things about the real world. If not, enjoy dreaming of the hells and demons and such I'll hypothetically be subjected to for not learning how to kiss deity ass.


I hope I haven't offended you. I hope I've just given you something to think about. I can do that because the 1st Amendment gives me the right to!

Your cousin,
(and in God/Christ I do Trust)!


Of course I am not offended. I know you probably are offended and angry, and bitter about people not being just like you are, but there isn't anything I can do about that but hope you mellow out and at least visit a few of the web sites that I have linked. They have fascinating content for any audience.

[Silicon]

Oh Evil Dave, Evil Dave....

Tsk tsk...

You've never argued with these people, have you?

None of that works... Shall I model for you?



Originally posted by evildave

If a school and/or teacher insisted that you must pray to SATAN, your argument upholds that teacher's right to make you pray to SATAN. Do you understand now?


No way. I'm not arguing that people have a right to pray to satan! For I am the way and the truth and the light, no man comes to the Father but through Me... (insert rambling bible quote here)



Yes, you can. You are free to do so. But would a teacher or school administrator, or a police officer be alowed to FORCE you to pray? Perhaps to Hare Krishna?


Everyone knows that prayer is voluntary. Even if someone forced you to say words you didn't believe in your heart, you could still pray silently to the real God. AGAIN, I'm not saying that Harry Krishmas should be leading prayers to their idols. I'm saying that America was founded as a Christian Nation. To deny that goes against God and all of History. For I am the way and the truth and the light, no man comes to the Father but through Me... (insert rambling bible quote here)




Yet, somehow, the notion that religion should not be preached by the government has held. Possibly because these wise old men realise that if you want your religion in your government, you want your government in your religion.


A cute phrase, but totally against the Word of God. (Insert rambling bible quote here about proclaiming the Good News)





The original Pilgrims themselves weren't looking for religious freedom. They had absolute religious freedom in Amsterdam, where they had originally fled to from England. They wanted a place where only their own religion was practiced. Food for thought.

Well NOW we have it, and you want to throw it away? Have you looked at Amsterdam lately? Drugs and Prostitution. They've gone the way of the Sodomites and the Gommorrites. (insert rambling bible quote.... yadda yadda)



Did you REALLY read that bible you're citing, or are you just quoting what somebody said about it? It says if you beat a slave and it takes three days for him/her to die, you have not murdered. Go back and re-read exodus and deuteronomy if you actually have the stomach for it.


Yadda yadda yadda... old testament. Talk to the hand. Read the New Testament, all that old stuff was washed away with the blood of Jesus. (IRBQ)



Our laws were derived from ROMAN law, as rinsed through the English legal system. You'll find out more of this if you stay in school and study actual history.



All laws are God's laws. You'd learn that if you cracked a bible once in awhile (IRBQ)



I'll stop here, because this gets boring after awhile.

It's why I stopped arguing this stuff with my fundie relatives. It's all just a string of argument by assertion.

I had a discussion back when the Flag Burning Amendment was vogue, with such a relative. It went like this. (I was taking a class in First Amendment Law at the time, so I was citing actual cases here, some of my best arguments).

ME: Subtle, nuanced talk about the history of First Amendment arguments.

HIM: Nevertheless flag burning should be illegal.

ME: But even offensive speech must be protected, especially if it's political.

HIM: Nope. Soldiers died protecting the flag.

ME: Soldiers died defending the Constitution! You're the one trying to lessen freedom.

HIM: Not everything should be free. Murder shouldn't be free.

ME: SPEECH should be free.

HIM: Not flag burning.

ME: Flag burning is speech... as decided by the Supreme court in United States v. Eichman, Justice Brennan, writing for the majority said .....Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable

HIM: I don't care what he said. It's not speech and it should be illegal.

ME: BUT WHY?

HIM: It just should.

ME: WHY? Give me a reason.

HIM: Soldiers died.


On and on. Merely assertion. No legal grounds. No historical grounds. Flying in the face of 200 years of jurisprudence. He believes what he believes. No external facts required.



Sorry Evil Dave.

And Kodiak, you're stuck. I say you change your email address and don't give your relatives the new one.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I (and about a hundred others) recently received this e-mail last week from my very religious, but still loving and thus far non-judgmental, Aunt:



Today, a cousin (same side of the family as my aunt, but not one of her children) e-mailed me this:

"If I am understanding you correctly, you are miss interpreting the Bill of Rights 1st Amendment. It means our Government cannot force "one" religion on us. (Make it into law which they have not). They cannot say which religion we "have" to exercise if you live in America. But they also cannot tell us when and where we can or can't practice our religion.



The answer to this one is that she is right, the govt cannot tell you when and where to practice religion. However, the govt itself cannot practice a religion or even seem to endorse a religion in any way.





So the "separation of Church and State" violates every Americans rights based on the 1st Amendment. The state and/or Government has no right to tell a teacher or student they cannot talk about Christ in a classroom or cannot pray in the middle of their class as with any other religion.


As long as there are tests there will be prayer in school. Somebody said that. Ask her if she wants her kid's math teacher to teach about the wonders of Wicca, Mormonism, Buddah, or Islam while he/she is collecting a salary for teaching math.

Ask her why your tax dollars should support her religion.


According the the Bill of Rights 1st Amendment, I can preach, sing hymns, pray out loud "anywhere" in any building (including government, federal government, city and state buildings, schools, universities) in any city in any state as long as I'm on American soil.



Even if preaching, singing and loud prayers interrupt the procedings paid for by other people's tax dollars? Doesn't she think that govt has enough waste already? Govt. buildings are paid for and maintained by everybody, ask her again why your tax dollars should go to her religion.




"In God We Trust" is printed on money and is written on walls of government buildings because of freedom of speech and, as you stated below, it never became a "law" because our constitution forbids it.....It's just plain old freedom of speech.



As stated before, the govt has no freedom of speech, only people do. Of course, religious sentiment sometimes prompts "In god we trust" and other silly things, but we should change it back to the original "E pluribus unum" Out of many, one.

Ask her how she would like it if money had "Joseph Smith" printed on it.





And the 14% that we somehow keep electing into office as Judges and Presidents because we don't look at who we are electing...because we narrow-mindedly base our decision strictly on Democrat and Republican and they base the "interpretation" of the law on "their" religious beliefs (which they don't have) and their "opinions" and they do not base it on what our Constitution actually says. Everyone is allowed an opinion about a law, but you cannot change the law based on your "opinion". Which this country is currently doing.


That's laughable. Of course, law is changed upon opinion every day. Slavery used to be okay, now it's illegal. Jim Crow used to be okay, now it's illegal. Duels used to be okay, now they are illegal. Drinking liquor was legal, then illegal, now legal again. You used to be able claim that your brand of snake oil cured everything, now you have to prove it.

Ask her if she would give up her vote because it was only opinion that changed the requirement for voting from white male landowners 21 and over to all citizens over 18.




You also have to remember, people did not come to America looking for freedom. They came to America looking for "religious" freedom.


From the majority religions back home. However, many Americans were not relgious pilgrims. Many were rebels, debtors, criminals, et who were sent here because their countries did not want them any more. Many of the early Americans were the refuse of their societies.



And from day one our freedom was based on total Christianity. Everything about this country has always been based on Christianity (Christ). Our Government was created from the Bible. If you read the Bible you would see that God set up a Government and appointed Judges to solve the problems and conflicts of the people that Moses was taking to the promised land. Our Government is still run exactly the way God created it in the Old Testament.

Ask for chapter and verse because I've never read anything about democracy in the bible.



So, what is being said below is if you do not want to here about God/Christ, which this country was founded on, then go to another country that does not speak or believe in God. (Which you will not find). Because without God/Christ there is no America.



So she is denying you your religious freedom? The right to not hear about a religion if you choose not to.

And Jefferson referred to "Creator" w/o defining it. Since the Greeks invented democracy, then he was probably referring to Zeus. ;-)



And that is our documented history whether you want to accept it or not.

Ask her to produce those documents.



Now the Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Satanists, atheists,..etc. are also free to worship (or not) because our Bill of Rights 1st Amendment gives them that "freedom". It does not, however, give them the freedom to try and take away everything this country was built on. And that is what is happening. Evolution is being taught in schools. Some colleges claim you have to take a Muslim or Mormon religious class in order to graduate and their excuse is our country needs to learn to be more diverse. Fine, but when you offer Christianity as a course the world goes ballistic because that's a religion where the Muslims and Mormons claim that it is their culture. BULL!


I note the freedom is in quotation marks. Ask her why when she stated earlier that she couldn't change law based on her opinion.

Also ask for the names of the colleges that require Mormon or Muslim religious classes. If she can't produce them, ask her where did she hear about these colleges. If she does produce them, check out the colleges and see if they really require a religious course. I have found that people often make claims from 2nd or 3rd hand sources and that they are unreliable. It could be that if you major in Middle Eastern studies that a course on Islam is required to graduate with that major. Also a course in Mormon religion may be required at Brigham Young university, but unless you are already a Mormon, I doubt that you'll be attending.


Also, if you took the time to learn anything about every religion practiced in this country and especially if you studied their history, you'd know most so called religions are actually cults, not religions and, just for the record, Christianity is recorded all throughout our history as fact and truth. It has been proven to be true over and over again and continues to be proven true even today. Trust me, I'm one of those that said "prove it" for many years.



Ask her which religions are cults and what makes the difference between religions and cults. And which history is our history, US history where the treaty of Tripoli states that we are in no way a "Christian nation"?




Taking In God we Trust out of America does not protect the rights of minorities. It violates the rights of Christians. Because, again, we have the right according to our 1st Amendment to post that motto anywhere we want even if the Christians work for the Government. You have every right to post In God We Don't Trust anywhere you want. Even in Federal buildings. Moore had every right to put the 10 Commandments in a government building. And every religion in the country had the right to put their beliefs right next to his. But no one has the right to remove them except for the person who put it there, according to the 1st Amendment.

Ask her what she would think if a Mormon judge put a huge rock with parts of the Pearl of Great Price engraved on it right in the middle of her local courthouse. Where she couldn't avoid seeing it every time that she had to go to the courthouse for business.

Better yet, should a Muslim be able to put a paperweight that has engraved: "There is only one God, and Mohammad is His Prophet" by his station at the DMV?

How about going with your grandmother to the social security office and seeing a worker with "Lest ye harm none, do what thou will." in needle point, displayed so she has to read it?

According to her, no one has the right to remove these things and she has no right to complain about them. But under the current separation of church and state they are all illegal, because these are govt. workers and they have no right to use the govt to forward their own religion.


I'm sorry you have chosen to be an agnostic/atheist. But then again our 1st Amendment and Christ both give you that freedom to choose atheism. I keep being told I shouldn't voice my opinion so strongly but then again I could never understand why anyone would choose hell for eternity instead of heaven. But, then again, being atheist, you don't believe in heaven or hell. Aren't you in for a surprise!

Well, as a Christian, I will pray for you...as well as the rest of your family will. And I know someday you will understand what I am talking about because my prayers do get answered and I know for a fact the Holy Spirit is very powerful!

I hope I haven't offended you. I hope I've just given you something to think about. I can do that because the 1st Amendment gives me the right to!

Your cousin,
(and in God/Christ I do Trust)!



Why do many Christians make the subtle or overt threat of hell when discussing religion?

Tell her that you do understand but you don't agree. Ask her if she's willing to alternate years with "In Goddess we trust" on coins and paper money. Or any number of different deities, religious sentiments et.

Ask her if she's going to think about those questions.



I have a couple separate points I feel confident enough to argue, but I know for a fact that many of you JREFers are far better in this area of debate than I am. Could any (or all) of you please contribute any assistence you think might better argue my (our) position? I know we are on average far better at logical and reasoned debate than is our average "true believer".

Chances are this will end up with my cousin saying "Yeah!" and me saying "Nuh-uh!", but I'd still like to hit her with some solid facts and evidence, regardless of whether or not she eventually ends up ignoring it in favor of the bible and religious dogma.

Thanks, Kodiak

Just keep asking questions, Kodiak. Usually believers wither under the onslaught of continuous questions about their stance. Especially the ones about other religion adherents displaying their mottos in govt buildings. Whenever she comes up with "some colleges" or "I heard..." et ask her for some back up.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Silicon
Oh Evil Dave, Evil Dave....

Tsk tsk...

You've never argued with these people, have you?

None of that works... Shall I model for you?

....


Sorry Evil Dave.

And Kodiak, you're stuck. I say you change your email address and don't give your relatives the new one.

Well, I hate to give up hope on one who would not know. I suppose the key to the response is how many people he/she CC'd when she sent you the letter, and the possibility that some of them might be receptive to reason, as opposed to being a spiteful "you'll get yours in Hell" little robo-Christian.

Yes, one-on-one, with such a person, nothing "wins" except what their "cult" leader said, and unless you can spend about a year deprogramming their broken little mind, no rational argument will ever win.

HOWEVER

In an argument where there are others who might be receptive to reason, go ahead and put in the research and utterly demolish the fundy, point for point. If there are a few people who will actually click through the links and find out that the fundy is blowing smoke out their @$$, they will learn about fundy talk and you will be a minor hero to them.

Usually in such an email, there will be umpteen CC responses. Your response goes to all of them, if it's an open letter to you. Of course, who knows how many BCC's "cousin" made when he/she sent his/her response to you.

They're the ones that the argument is for. Not fundy cousin.

It is just as important to discredit this sort of "thinking" as racism or the "bomb now, worry later" brands. Either you formally disagree and educate, or you implicitly agree that this person has a point, which obviously this fundy "cousin" person does not.

[Ipecac]

Some Christians are remarkably clueless.

If I sent an e-mail around and at the end of it said,

"Sorry you disagree with me but because of that disagreement someday you'll be imprisoned and tortured; you'll be disemboweled and burned, your eyes will be put out and your tongue dipped in acid. Then you'll wish you had agreed with me."

Most people would be horrified at the inappropriateness of such a statement. Yet some Christians throw out the equivalent ("you'll burn in hell") with some regularity.

I guess it's like condemning violence in movies unless it's a movie that supports your religion (i.e. the Jesus snuff film).

[Tony]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161
What I find amusing is the Christian attitude in the US.

First, they believe that our country, government, ideologies, entire purpose, even our hard-won freedom are based upon their deity. Then they believe that they can do anything with their religion here (because of the first misconception). Whenever there appears to be injustice towards them or their delicate beliefs, they are quick to point out their persecution or the moral decay surrounding them while also using their numbers as evidence of their correctness.

But as soon as any minority steps on their toes, they persecute them and, as you can read clearly, tell them to sit down and shut up.

Once finished, they return to their state of self-persecution and request the appropriate pity for being lowly, humble Christians.

- Note that this is a generalization and does not reflect on all Christians or sects thereof, only on a large, vocal majority of them, organized politically under various names. -

1. US Federal government is based on several major influences: British Common Law, Roman Republicanism, Greek Democracy.

2. Our freedom from English tyranny under King George III was due to a small vocal group of elite citizens (the so-called 'forefathers), an angry mob that eventually was molded into a militia, lots of support from several mercenary groups, and, at the time, England's worst enemy, France. Much blood was spilt to gain this freedom and the resolve was tested several times afterwords (framing a federal government and the War of 1812, for example).

3. Although the majority counts in elections and in passing laws, individual and minority rights are upheld by the Constitution (Bill of Rights) and judicial review. The majority of the populace does not get to dictate the laws for minorities or individuals carte-blanche.

4. Religion is a right, not a governmental institution. If you want religion in government, move to Afghanistan and restore the Taliban. Religious freedom means not only freedom to religion, but freedom from religion as well.

5. GWB needs to go... and the sooner the better. Although I sincerely think that he thinks his motives and deeds are for the good, because of his fundamentalist religious tainting, they are causing more stress, death, hatred, and destabilization than I've seen in my lifetime. Under his presidency we've lost more civilians, both US and foreign, since any other besides those terms occuring during a World War (and they were consequences of armed conflict or other nations' practices). Yes, FOUR MORE YEARS!!! That's what we need to ultimately reach nuclear annihilation. ;)

Kuroyume

Nice post.

[Silicon]

Here's where I wouldn't jump into the debate, I'd go straight to their tactics, using them back at them and worse. Argument from authority, argument from assertion, etc... but then back them. But couch it in sophistry, because it's what their pea-brains understand.


Assertion.

"Well, I just don't agree with you, and just like Jesus, I won't 'sit down and shut up.'"

Authority.

"I disagree with you, and so did Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and the other Founding Fathers. And the Supreme Court and hundreds of years of American History."

Ad Hom.

"If you don't agree with Thomas Jefferson and me, you are Anti-American. You have no idea what the Constitution stands for. I think the Supreme Court knows a lot more about the Constitution than you do, don't you think? I'll take their word before yours, or do you even have a LAW DEGREE?!!?! I think not!!!!!!1!"


If you agree, pass it on, if not, sit down, shut up, and leave America, because Freedom doesn't suffer fools.

Rinse, repeat, ad-nauseum.


When in Rome, speak Roman.



Or you could do it the more polite way.

"I don't agree, and neither do hundreds of years of Supreme Court rulings on the Constitution. You might ask yourself how the Supreme Court could come to this reasoning. If you want to know. If you REALLY want to understand how Constitutional Law gets decided in the United States of America, I can explain it to you. I can recommend some books, but only if you really want to take the time and effort to learn about the American Judicial system and how it works.

If you don't want to learn and know how America really works, please delete this message."

[Kodiak]

Thanks one and all for the excellent material.

Continuing the baseball analogy about wanting to hit a grand slam, I think I now have enough for a ten-run inning!

If anyone still has anything they want to add that they think hasn't been touched upon or could be better evidenced or demonstrated, feel free to keep posting.

I'm currently busy with work, what with model changeover occuring currently in the recreational boating industry.

I'll present my response to my cousin here once I've written it and any further responses.

Thanks again.

- K

[gnome]

Go for it... I agree again with others that your arguments will mostly bear fruit with those on the fence reading it.

You know... the ones that went along because they agreed with the Christian beliefs, and really hadn't considered the issue fully.

Personally I think this is the target to hit every time--somehow there is an urge among even relatively open-minded Christians to automatically agree with anyone who sounds pious... but many of them can be provoked into a more rational outlook, even without challenging their core beliefs.

[csense]

Maybe it's just the way I was raised, but whatever disagreements I might have with any member of my family, be it conceptual or otherwise, I would never subject any of them to such public scrutiny, criticism, or ridicule.

I personally find it distasteful and dishonorable.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by csense
Maybe it's just the way I was raised, but whatever disagreements I might have with any member of my family, be it conceptual or otherwise, I would never subject any of them to such public scrutiny, criticism, or ridicule.

I personally find it distasteful and dishonorable.

The aunt's statements are not her own. She just passed on some spam.

The cousin wrote back most likely using the same reply to all that Kodiak did. Writing to over 100 people at once is public. Plus, we are not saying anything bad about the cousin, both aunt and cousin are probably pretty nice people but they've never really learned to think critically. If our responses cause them to look more closely at what they're being told, even if they hold to religious dogma, then we've done well.

We are not subjecting Kodiak's aunt or cousin to scrutiny, criticism, or ridicule. Just their arguments, and arguments are not people.

Why don't you champion Kodiak's aunt and cousin and write some responses?

[evildave]

Originally posted by csense
Maybe it's just the way I was raised, but whatever disagreements I might have with any member of my family, be it conceptual or otherwise, I would never subject any of them to such public scrutiny, criticism, or ridicule.

I personally find it distasteful and dishonorable.

That's all right, I find the attitude that "14%" of the population should just "sit down and shut up" to be offensive, and highly deserving of challenge.

According to the 2000 US Census data, black Americans are only 12.9 percent of the total population.

Shouldn't you be telling blacks to "sit down and shut up" as well? After all, using this very mode of thinking, the rights of black people are subordinate to the rights of white people.

[gnome]

Originally posted by csense
Maybe it's just the way I was raised, but whatever disagreements I might have with any member of my family, be it conceptual or otherwise, I would never subject any of them to such public scrutiny, criticism, or ridicule.

I personally find it distasteful and dishonorable.

Well, if they started by sending out a big message to a large group, they weren't afraid of broadcasting their beliefs... to me that makes it fair game for open discussion...

[evildave]

Oh, the reference for the census data: From http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs.html

The Black Population: 2000 (C2KBR/01-5) [PDF 504k]
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-5.pdf

Here is what the census people have to say about religion:
http://www.census.gov/prod/www/religion.htm


The Bureau of the Census collected information in the Census of Religious Bodies from 1906-1936. This information was obtained from religious organizations.

Public Law 94-521 prohibits us from asking a question on religious affiliation on a mandatory basis; therefore, the Bureau of the Census is not the source for information on religion.

Some statistics on religion can be found in the 2000 Statistical Abstract of the United States, tables 74, 75, and 76. These tables are in Adobe Acrobat's Portable Document Format (PDF). To view PDF files, you will need Acrobat Reader which is available for free from Adobe.

Please contact one of the following for further assistance regarding religious information:

Adherent Statistics and Religious Geography Citations
website: www.adherents.com

Glenmary Research Center
1312 5th Avenue, North
Nashville, TN 37208
(615) 256-1905
website: www.glenmary.org/grc/default.htm

Hartford Institute for Religious Research at Hartford Seminary
77 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
(860) 509-9543
Fax: 860-509-9559
E-mail:hirr@hartsem.edu or www.hartfordinstitute.org
website:hirr.hartsem.edu/csrr/

American Religion Data Archive
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Purdue University
1365 Stone Hall
West Lafayette, IN
(765)494-0081
Fax: 765-496-1470
website:www.ARDA.tm


So, as you can see, the census has been "officially" blind to religion for a long, long time.

According to their census abstract, Jews are 2.3%, so when Christians persecute jews, they should probably "sit down and shut up", as well, according to the aforementioned so-called 'reasoning'.

Of course, from the church attendance records from which the Census people derived these same figures, "Christians" are only 52%, which is an awfully tenuous 'majority'. A 3% move in the numbers, and perhaps everyone else could finally tell the Christians where to cram it?

[evildave]

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#attendance

Largest Denominational Families in the U.S., 2001
(based on church attendance, ARIS/Barna)
Religious identification is only one component of religious statistics, and identification with a particular religious group may or may not be sociologically meaningful for a particular meaningful. As Kosmin notes in the ARIS report:


Of course, given these figures, Christians who care enough about their faith to regularly attend church is actually around 31.50% of the US population.

Shouldn't that be the real metric for a church that claims to have "millions"; how many of these so-called believers actually show up?

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Kodiak, regarding the first quote by de Tocqueville, if your relatives don't "get it," ask them how much they think Islam is being harmed by being associated with the government of Iran and with the Taliban of Afghanistan and any other examples you can think of. Explain that any hatred/fear that people have of Islam is because Islam has chained itself to the bodies of those governments.

Such excellent points. And thanks for the de Toqueville quotes.

One reason that arguing from this point is so powerful is that it's not a negative attack on religion, it's a positive explanation of how separation can benefit the religious and religious freedom.

[MLynn]

Originally posted by evildave
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#attendance


Of course, given these figures, Christians who care enough about their faith to regularly attend church is actually around 31.50% of the US population.

Shouldn't that be the real metric for a church that claims to have "millions"; how many of these so-called believers actually show up?
Thanks, evildave, for all the statistics. A lot of the christians I've talked to don't go to church at all for various reasons. Some don't even think it's important.

[evildave]

You're welcome.

Actually, it's just knowing where to find the quality ones, and as you can see I've left the links all over this topic. I recommend people collect 'em and keep them. They come in handy again and again when discussing such things online.

The adherents.com site contains much contradictory data... because there is much contradictory data about religious statistics. Be forewarned when using ANY religious statistics in a debate that (like any religious subject matter) someone who is canny will automatically argue with contradictory and probably equally credible statistics. It's always better to find a small sampling of religious statistics to cover your bases, so to speak.

[gnome]

I think it's completely possible to be a real Christian without going to church... the real test is whether they act according to what they claim to believe--which is why the ones that make sweeping statements about the bible's inerrancy get into the most trouble with me.

[evildave]

Yes, but at that point are you more of a follower of Baptist-based-beliefs or Methodist-methodology, or whatever, or an official member of that particular church's flock?

Of course, the church membership could be a poor source of information.

For instance, assume there are 12 Baptist churches you could visit, and being a picky shopper, you visit each of them to see what they're like, and sign the sign-in sheet to get the mailings.

Do you count as 12 Baptists?

How long until the various churches clear your name off each of their respective records? Might you count as four or six Baptists a couple of years later? After all, probably not a lot of churches will administrate their records for this all that tightly, nor do I recall in any of the various instances that I had darkened the door of a church that there were any role calls.

I suppose they could count pews with people in them and get a quick guestimate at each service, pick the peak attendance for the year and claim that's "the number". Still some churches will have special activities that will attract extra bodies, so most of the visitors of any such church using this method would count for every church.

[KillerBob]

Originally posted by evildave
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#attendance


Just a quick question for Kodiak's cousin. Since there are 50% more catholics than any other single denomination in the US, should the catholics get to make all decisions for everything regarding christianity on behalf of all other christians? I mean, if a baptist doesn't like what the catholics have decided for them, they should sit down and shut up, right? They [I]are[/] a minority there.

Christianity was obviously founded on the principles of the Roman Catholic Church.

[EdipisReks]

no offense Kodiak, but your cousin seems to be a jackass. some people are willfully ignorant, and no amount of reason will sway them. your cousin appears to be one of them. just be glad that the constitution safeguards the minority.

[Kodiak]

I am currently getting my (and your) comments organized for a response.

I will reprint it here in its entirety, along with any possible responses I might receive.

- Kodiak

[epepke]

I voted that, yes, you are wasting your time.

However, since we're all wasting out time, here, I don't think that's much of an issue.

You might consider keeping it simple.

Matthew 6:

5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

[a_unique_person]

I voted yes, but at the same time, the point is that all xians talk to each other about 'faith'. That is, believing something they know is just a fairy story, but still feel compelled to believe.

All you can do is point out that half their time is devoted to telling each other that what they know is twaddle, is not. One day, when he is doubting his faith, your relative will remember that you offered him a reasonable and rational way out, and he may take it. He certainly won't do it on the spot when you are debating him.

[Graham]

Originally posted by KillerBob


Just a quick question for Kodiak's cousin. Since there are 50% more catholics than any other single denomination in the US, should the catholics get to make all decisions for everything regarding christianity on behalf of all other christians? I mean, if a baptist doesn't like what the catholics have decided for them, they should sit down and shut up, right? They [I]are[/] a minority there.

Christianity was obviously founded on the principles of the Roman Catholic Church.

I like that - perhaps you could ask him if he would like the hail Mary printed on his banknotes?

Graham

[aries]

Hello :)

Just a quick note on the way out of the door here :D

Even the Native American Indians have what they call --

The Great Spirit = God

The Indian (ind India :D) religions, buddhism and hinduims also have a similar belief in The Great Spirit.

I would think the reason for the 1st amendment to the US constitution were passed ( by congress?) was this:

The founding fathers of the republic didn't want a state chuch (like the church of England i.e. which was (and is) a state church).

Hence, the mind of the American people should be set free --- in order for them to believe --- in what they deemed best.

This relies heavenly on the Enlightement's Tradition --- for people seeking out their own way in life --- and not being told by 'a state' or 'church' what to do.

Also, since, I live in Denmark, Europe, where we do not have written "In god we trust" on our stamps (or envelopes) or on our money, the issue do not seem to matter overhere.

The point of this post was to get people to reflect:

How is God defined --- can God be defined as the Earth, Wind and Fire (sorry guys from the rockgroup, I couldn't help myself :D)
can god be like the the great spirit of the Native Americans ?

I take it, if you do not believe in God, this is an irrelavant issue.
Since, you still could claim that the *in God we trust' is an endorsement by the US Government of obe religion, Christianity, to another.

Personally, I would keep my on eye on the current Prez. mr. G. Bush the second --- as he seems to have trouble separating the two, church and state, in his politics.

But that's just my Danish European 2 cents for ya!

best wishes
aries

[Martin]

Originally posted by evildave
That's all right, I find the attitude that "14%" of the population should just "sit down and shut up" to be offensive, and highly deserving of challengeI don't find it offensive at all. When Rosa Parks was ordered to give up her seat, she just sat down and shut up. When black students were refused service at the F.W. Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, NC, they just sat down and shut up. And thousands across the nation followed suit.

I think it's a brilliant idea. When patriotic Americans who care about their country and its great Constitution, to which they owe so much, are asked to recite this unconstitutional pledge, perhaps they should just sit down and shut up. Maybe then people will take note.

Then again, maybe not :(

[rebecca]

This topic hits close to home for me, as my brother is an ultra-conservative christian. He used to include me in mass e-mails of articles that supported his ideals, until a few weeks ago he cc'ed me on the wrong thing. It was an anti-gay marriage initiative, and I totally lost it.

After a long e-mail debate, I realized why we were getting nowhere: he wrote, "Everything I read and learn makes my opinion stronger, what about you?" It occured to me that everything I read and learn causes me to reevaluate my position and adapt my view of the world.

My brother's selective learning technique means that no amount of logic could ever make him change his mind, and his pride will always stand in the way of interesting discourse with him.

I voted for "No, you're not wasting your time," but in truth it depends. If one person in this debate is learning from the other, it's useful. Otherwise, life is too short to get your blood pressure up over this. Go teach your dog to appreciate poetry - you'll at least have a more willing participant. ;)

[Bubbles]

I would define God as the greatest possible being (a normal natural theology position). I would argue that, by definition, there can be either 0 gods or 1 god (if there were two gods, then there COULD be something greater than both of them, and hence neither of the two would be the greatest POSSIBLE being (though they might tie for the greatest ACTUAL being).

My argument against religion in the workplace is simply that an employee is a representative of the company that they work for. A postal employee is not free to freely practice their religion when they are acting as a representative of the USPS. A teacher is not free to evangelize when they are teaching (and, hence, acting as a representative of the school). Now, if a postal employee feels that they cannot be a faithful post office employee and a faithful Christian, they should resign from the post office. That is the honorable thing to do.

My general argument on church-state matters is not a constitutional one, but a moral one (I am a Christian). If I lived in Saudi Arabia (or some other country where another religion was the predominant one), how would I wish to be treated? I would not want my tax dollars supporting the local mosque. I would not want my child (actually, I don't have any children, but work with me) saying "There is no God but God, and Mohammed is His prophet" in school every day. I would think it appropriate to have the Muslim equivalent of the manger scene in public places, to have public holidays planned around Islam, and to hear the prayer bells five times per day.

That is, as I say, a moral argument instead of a constitutional argument: I should try to have the law treat people with beliefs other than mine as I would want my beliefs treated if I were a minority faith. Of course, it may be countered that in Saudi Arabia I might be treated far worse than I am calling for other faiths to be treated here, but I think the golden rule is to 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you', not to 'do unto others as they would do unto you (if given the chance)'.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by Bubbles
I would define God as the greatest possible being (a normal natural theology position). I would argue that, by definition, there can be either 0 gods or 1 god (if there were two gods, then there COULD be something greater than both of them, and hence neither of the two would be the greatest POSSIBLE being (though they might tie for the greatest ACTUAL being).

Hi Bubbles, welcome to the forums.

I'm a little confused by the above portion of your post, and I was hoping you could elaborate. What is it about two gods that means there can be something greater than both of them, while one god is the greatest possible being? What if there was one major god, and then many slightly lower gods beneath that? In other words, Zeus isn't the greatest possible god in his mythology, but the Christian god is the greatest possible god in HIS mythology?

I'm also wondering what, in particular, this has to do with the rest of your post?

[Bubbles]

Sorry: I was writing as I thought (actually, I'm giving myself a WHOLE lot of credit there). Previously it had been posted "How do you define 'God'". I was proposing a definition.

I would assume that most of the people here don't have much of an interest in natural theology. For those not familiar with the term, it is an attempt to speak about God apart from revelation (A lot of what Thomas Aquinas did was natural theology), but strictly from nature and reason. Unfortunately, much of it gets off on the boring and dubious path of "does / must this thing exist".

Sorry to have included such a painful jump in thought.

Thank you for your welcome. I'll try to do better.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by Bubbles

Thank you for your welcome. I'll try to do better.

Well, now I feel harsh . . . wasn't criticizing, just curious, that's all.

Natural theology is a mystery to me. Sounds interesting, as I thought that all a god really has going for it is revelations. Maybe you should start a thread sometime, it could produce some good debates.

[Kodiak]

I saw my cousin Sunday at a common family member's wedding. She asked me if I was angry at her because I had not, to date, replied to her e-mail. I told her that I was not angry at all. I told her that two things combined lead me to not respond: I hadn't had the time to compose and send an e-mail, and that while I had gathered a wealth of evidence to refute her positions, I decided to not offer it to her because she was operating from a position based on faith, and not logic, reason, or evidence. She started getting a little annoyed after that and wanted to get into a discussion right there. I told her to send me another e-mail, as I had deleted her original, and I promised I would respond this time.

If/when I receive her e-mail, I will let you all know here, or in a new thread if this gets pruned. I'll also of course, post my response.

>>> Kodiak

[csense]

"...I decided to not offer it to her because she was operating from a position based on faith, and not logic, reason, or evidence."

It seems to me that you did offer it to her.

I have a question for you though:

Tell me what truth, does logic or reason, in and of themselves, infer about the nature of reality.

As far as evidence, I think you intended to mean empirical evidence. If not, then you might as well include that term in with my question.