Dear Atheist...

I don't mind seeing "Dear Atheist" letters - really, I don't! Even though I may have seen such a letter a thousand times before, I don't mind answering them. Someone has to if we want to change people's minds! But there are times when so much fail is packed into such a small space that I feel like I'm spinning my wheels. Nevertheless, let's ask some relevant questions:

1. What evidence do you have that a god (esp. your god) created earth? "Because the Bible says so" does not count. That's hearsay - and very old and unreliable hearsay at that.

2. What is heaven? Where is it located? How do you know this? Again, do not say, "Because the Bible says so." 

3. How do you know Jesus existed? That he is Yahweh's son? That believing on him confers peace? Once again, do not say, "Because the Bible says so." 

4. How do you know that there is an afterlife? How do you know that merely believing in Jesus will get me to that afterlife? For the fourth time, do not say, "Because the Bible says so."

5. Why do we all need to believe in something eternal or supernatural? 

6. How do you know that Jesus is the "Truth" and what is "Truth" with a capital T?


If you can ever accept that the Bible alone is not a sufficient reason for believing these stories, then you'll be a step closer to understanding why we don't believe any of this at all. 

If I were going to write a formal reply, it might look like this:

Dear believer,

What evidence (other than a book of hearsay) can you bring to this court to meet your burden of proof?

The best answer I'd get is probably "personal experience" or a "personal relationship" with Jesus. That's all well and good but it won't stand up in court. Think about it.

Christian Flag Pledge Acknowledges Zombies?

"I pledge allegiance to the Christian Flag and to the Savior for whose Kingdom it stands. One Savior, crucified, risen, and coming again with life and liberty to all who believe."

I never got the chance to say the pledge and didn't even know about there being a Christian flag or a pledge to it until a few years ago. Interestingly enough, it caught my eye when I read it the first time. I knew the reasoning behind the words to the American Flag's pledge well enough, but this Christian one at me at a loss.

Being a Jehovah;s Witness throughout my school years gave me the honor of standing in the hall for the first few minutes of class everyday. I could still hear the pledge and even asked my parents about it but they never mentioned anything about a christian flag.

After reading about this in a recent article, I finally sat down and googled the pledge. The first thing that caught my eye was the line about "whose kingdom it stands." It seemed odd to me that Christians would need a flag to show the worth of their devotion on a daily or weekly basis. Wasn't there something about "make no graven images or idols before me" in the Bible? Maybe it was just in New World Translation and not the King James version.

Then the second line caught me and all the "Zombie Jesus: lines I had even heard jumped out at me. I mean, they really waited or are waiting for him to rise again and walk amongst them. Yeah, no zombie referencce there -nope not at all!

The "liberty to all who believe" line also made little sense when the zombie notion came into play. The only liberty I see happening is gonna be the gun-toting, hammer-swinging or sword-slashing people clearing out all the zombies.

Oh, Hell

Credit: jesusplus.org

Hell is eternal torture for temporary crimes. It's the punishment of the immortal soul for something that the fallible mortal body did.

What kind of sense does that make?

What can you do on this earth that is worth eternal torment? Even murder, as bad as it is, doesn't warrant eternal punishment.

But you don't have to be a murderer in the Christian religion to go to Hell. All you have to do is not accept Jesus as your "lord and savior" and you've got a one-way ticket to Hell. What is your crime? That you weren't convinced by the "evidence" presented. 

Hell cannot be the creation of a just god. It can't be the creation of a merciful or loving god.

There is no reason to believe that Hell exists.

Kirk Cameron Persecuted under U.S. Blasphemy Laws

Blasphemy is illegal
This I know
For Kirk Cameron
Tells me so.

Um, not really. Although Cameron claims that he fell victim to our blasphemy laws, he fails to  deliver any kind of evidence. Being disagreed with or even mocked is not the equivalent to being arrested and sentenced to jail.

And even if you buy into his claim that he blasphemed the "god of political correctness," that still doesn't really have anything to do with the law. If he wants to lash out against our growing godless culture, fine - but leave the law out of it. Kirk wouldn't know the law if he fell over it.

Get Thee Behind Me, Jesus!

In today's local paper, Baptist preacher Ronnie Barefield encourages his readers to show more leadership at home, in the church, and in the community. This is mostly par for the course except for this one particular sentence which was a big ole slap in the face:

We need to elect good, moral, Christian, conservative, pro life, pro family state and national leaders to office.

Wait, what? Let's set aside the fact that no religious test is required for office. What does it mean to be "Christian" in America these days? We have two Christians running for the Presidency right now and lots of Baptists don't like either one or even consider them to be "real Christians." Christianity today can be anything from traditional Baptist to Mormon, Catholic, Seventh-Day Adventist, Jehovah's Witness, or even African Methodist Episcopal. You can't guarantee what baggage comes with the label "Christian" so this is far from a sure bet.

What about conservative? Does he mean fiscally or socially conservative? Does he mean "conservative" in a traditional sense or is he talking about this brand of far-right, religious neo-conservativism that is dragging us all down? Does he mean that liberals or libertarians can't be good and moral people?

What about pro-life? Are they the only good and moral people? Can they allow for abortions in case of rape or incest? Can they allow for IVF? Or must they follow the rigid, dogmatic narrative of the most rabidly forced birth among them?

What about pro-family? What kind of family? Can they allow for families that don't look like their own? Can they accept families with two dads, two moms, or any number of both? Or must they only define "family" in the narrow way that the Religious Right does?

Bro. Barefield would have done better to simply say "We need to elect good, moral state and national leaders to office." The problem is that he feels that he has the duty and the ability to define "good" and "moral" for us. I suspect if you took him to task for this, he'd claim that he was only saying what God said but this is untrue. The Bible doesn't talk about abortion or gay rights. It doesn't talk about conservative politics. And Jesus says to stay out of earthly politics and work for his kingdom instead. The most a Christian is admonished to do is pray for their earthly leaders and obey them as much as possible.

But hell, who needs to listen to Jesus when you can just listen to modern-day preachers instead?

Sweet Home (White) Alabama

It doesn't matter how moral you are, how much theology you know, or how many charitable acts you do. All that matters is that you're WHITE.

America wasn't created for freedom and equality. It was created for white Christian males to dominate and reign over the lesser folks. That's what these clowns want to bring back - dominion.

Whether you are atheist or Christian, male or female, black or white, rich or poor, you'd best make a lot of noise against this kind of thing. Better yet, let our pathetic excuses for politicians know that you will not vote for anyone who associates, condones, or excuses this type of bigotry.

The City of Winfield is not happy about it and they're planning to have their own shindig instead. What are you going to do?

Kumbaya in the Classroom

Pope Phil is at it again - fondly remembering a time when kids were forced to listen to state-sponsored prayers and hoping that people will see the "wisdom" of forcing future students to do the same. Who needs freedom of religion when the State of Mississippi can write and say our prayers for us?

"I know it's difficult when you start talking about denominations and different beliefs, but I think there is a way for us to have a nondenominational opening prayer when the opportunity is available to let people know there is a God," said Bryant, who is Methodist. "Those children should know that he does care about them, particularly within their classroom."

Hopefully, most of us already understand the Establishment Clause and how even a non-denominational prayer at school would violate the First Amendment. But I'm going to show you why Pope Phil's "Kumbaya" approach is not compatible with religious freedom and I'm going to use his exact words above to do so.

1. "...there is a God." Zap! There went the atheists' religious freedom. When the State says that a god exists, it endorses theistic belief over atheistic belief.

2. "...there is a God." Zap! There went the polytheists' religious freedom as well. When the State says there is "a" god, it means only one god. 

3. "Those children should know that he..." Zap! There went the religious freedom of everyone who believes in a female deity. The State endorses one male god only.

4. "...that he does care about them..." Zap! There went the deists' religious freedom. The State endorses the idea of a personal god that intervenes in daily life.

Who does that leave religious freedom open for? Obviously, for the Christians, Jews, and Muslims, right? No, not really.

Many (if not all - I'm not sure) Muslims segregate the sexes at prayer time. A state-sponsored prayer in the classroom won't accommodate those needs. Jews also have particular ways that they pray that differ from mainstream Christianity and those needs likely won't be accommodated either.

So we're left with only Christians really having religious freedom, right? Still, no. Jehovah's Witnesses won't participate in a state-sponsored prayer so they don't get religious freedom. Many Catholics have specific prayers or invoke the aid of saints and the Virgin Mary so this state-sponsored prayer probably won't meet their needs either.

So who gets the religious freedom? Pretty much just Protestants and isn't that what Pope Phil really means? I wonder what the teacher is supposed to do after the prayer when the Pentecostal students get filled with the holy ghost and start jumping on desks and shouting. Perhaps some of them will bring rattlesnakes to wave in the air after the prayer to show their faith.

It may sound ridiculous but a lot of people do this stuff because it's an important - sometimes vital - part of their religious faith. No mealy-mouthed "non-denominational" prayer is going to satisfy the needs of all students. It's only going to satisfy the ego of the AFA and like-minded folks. 

If Pope Phil wants prayer in school, he needs to do his job as a pastor on Sunday and encourage his flock to prayer more. But when it comes to job as a governor, he needs to drink a big cup of Shut-the-Fuck-Up and let free people remain free.

Fox's Larry Allen Taunton Needs a Reality Check

Either Larry Allen Taunton is the worst prophet of all times or else he's a dishonest shill for those who hate the fact that atheists exist. His article, "The Rally For Nothing In Particular" is so full of falsehoods and stupidity that he ought to be feeling really ashamed of himself and issuing apologies right now. But he won't, I'm almost sure, because his job is to blow smoke up people's asses for Fox News - not talk about truth.

So as people prepare to gather on the National Mall to celebrate their belief in nothingness, we might reasonably wonder what they want.

If he had waited to attend  the rally rather than writing the article ahead of time, he would have known what we wanted. We had flags flying high promoting our values - reason, diversity, compassion, etc. Our speakers articulated clearly what we want - a better world for everybody that is guided by reason instead of superstition. We want religion to be held accountable for the harm it does and to be treated like every other institute instead of given special accommodation.

Finding abuses of religion is low hanging fruit—the sexual abuse scandal within the Catholic Church, self-detonating Muslim extremists, snake-handlers, etc.—and Dawkins and his ilk have made a fortune peddling it. 

If religious abuse is low-hanging fruit, then let me ask an important and very telling question: why is it still hanging there for us to pick it? Why hasn't religion, that wannabe bastion of morality, cleaned up its own act already? The answer is obvious - they don't care about the abuses until someone exposes them and puts their feet to the fire. Sometimes the faithful (who I believe are more moral than their leaders and their gods) do this but often it is us atheists who must dare to shine that light in the darkness. 

Also, we aren't the ones profiting from religious abuse. The religious institutions, the megapastors, and the televangelists are the ones who profit while the followers suffer. So don't you dare accuse us of profiting off the misery of others, Taunton, you horrible little man.

Paradoxically, it has become a kind of religion, a Church of Unbelief complete with a saint (Christopher Hitchens), a high priest (Richard Dawkins), and holy writ (anything Dawkins writes). And now, with the political nature of this rally, Dawkins is set to become the Pat Robertson of atheism.

Atheism is not a religion and it's a shame I even have to repeat that. Hitchens is not our saint. He was anti-choice (according to some - I have not read it for myself) and pro-war in Iraq. I do not agree with either of those positions. Hitchens was an important voice but he is not a saint, a preacher, or a martyr for any cause. Likewise, Dawkins is not a high priest. Many of us were appalled by his out-of-place response to Rebecca Watson during Elevatorgate. I've read some of Dawkins' books but not all of them. They are interesting but they are not "holy writ." I'm pretty sure if Dawkins thought he was going to be the next Pat Robertson, he'd slit his own throat and bleed out all over the floor. 

But there is something not quite right about all of this. Christianity, whatever the faults of its adherents, has a rich intellectual tradition that has a comprehensive view of life.

It has given rise to the West as we know it. Our laws, arts, governments, and the very framework of our thought find their meaning in Christianity. Take for example the central premise of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal.”

Christianity, like Islam, has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Enlightenment era. And to suggest that the Declaration of Independence means nothing without the light of Christianity is to be so obtuse and so stupid as to not warrant serious thought. The idea that we are equal is the antithesis of the Bible until you get to that one passage allegedly written by Paul and then promptly dismissed as nonsense by later church fathers. Jews were better than Gentiles. Men were better than women. Straights were better than gays. Masters were better than slaves. To deny this is to deny the very words of the Bible.

That not withstanding, atheism does have a history—a bad history. By conservative estimates, the twentieth century, an experiment in secular governance, witnessed the deaths of more than 100 million people. That is more than all the religious wars in all previous centuries combined.

And here we go with more of this nonsense: Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. For the love of all that's true, has Taunton not yet figured out that Hitler used Christianity (in particular Catholicism) to perpetuate his garbage? Stalin and other dictators held up their philosophies of communism as the state-enforced religion to perpetuate their garbage. Those of us at the Reason Rally (with few or no exceptions) do not want a state-enforced religion. THAT'S THE WHOLE GODDAMNED POINT. We don't want to force people to believe like us;  we just want the freedom and the equal opportunity that religious people have in this world. Communist values are not the same as humanist values and Taunton would do well to figure that out before he shows his stupidity even more.

If, for instance, you do not believe in God, you are likely to conclude that man is a temporal being meant to serve the state, an eternal institution. This is the view of the communist world. Sacrificing a few million people for the sake of building socialist paradise was always deemed an acceptable price to pay.

If, on the other hand, you believe in a just, benevolent God who made man in his own image, you will likely draw a very different conclusion: man is an eternal being that the state, a temporal institution, is meant to serve.

Bullshit. Humanists and many atheists believe that since there is probably no god and just this one life, we need to spend it making the world a better place. We champion freedom and justice in this life, not some imaginary paradise after death. Life is important to us and, unlike too many religions, no holy book can justify the taking of it.

On the other hand, if you believe in the Bible god, you might get the idea that you have some special place in creation that gives you superiority or dominance. You might think it's ok to destroy unbelievers, suppress believers who don't believe exactly as you do, or else purge from your ranks those who don't measure up to your standards. That's the fruit of "my way or the highway" religion.

Proponents of a society free from religious influence can point to no nation or civilization that was founded upon atheism that we might call even remotely good. The story of those regimes is well documented and may be summarized in a word—murderous.

What they can point to are secular societies that are still running off of their accumulated Christian capital. But beware. When the fumes in that tank are spent, tyranny cannot be far away.

Nice try, Taunton, but the truth is that religion has ruled this world for millenia and its fruits have been tyranny and evil. Good religious people have chosen to be good in spite of the evil doctrines spread across the pages of their holy books. They are better than their evil "do as I say, not as I do" gods. America once had this brilliant notion that people could be more free and more prosperous if the government minded its own business about religion. That foolish men like Taunton try to turn this doctrine on its head and demand that we bow to Christianity shows their true goal - to tell whatever lies it takes to force us to submit once more to their rule. If there is one thing he should have learned from the Reason Rally, it's that we will not submit!

So as the rally for nothingness meets to celebrate, well, nothing in particular, reflect for a moment on the world they would give us. One need not imagine it. It has been done.

You wouldn't need to imagine it if you had just shown up at the Reason Rally and listened to what we had to say instead of making up shit and flinging it at us to see what would stick. You're a disgrace and a liar in my opinion, Mr. Taunton, and you owe every atheist who was at that rally an apology. We won't hold our breath though because we know all too well how people like you act. 

Christians at the Reason Rally - Part 2

This was Nathan's poster designed to counter the claim that we atheists don't believe in anything. The two young men who approached us seem to have been drawn in by this poster so they came by, acknowledged our values, and then asked Nathan where he thought those values came from. Nathan responded in his usual quiet and pleasant manner and I watched with a small smile until I noticed the guys had gotten on either side of him and were kind of cutting us off from one another. I could tell that things were about to get hot and heavy so I did what any gentle Southern belle would do - I jumped into the fray.

Let me make clear from the very onset that these two young men were very gentlemanly and displayed more good grace than I would have expected. So while I can say nothing good about their arguments and their logic (or lack thereof), I can tell you that I believe they are good people and doing what is right as best as they understand it. Honestly, I have great respect for them because I remember what it's like to feel pressured to witness when the last thing you want to do is confront a person you don't know. It was terrifying for me and I never once managed to find the courage to do it. So my hat is off to these guys for their courage and their good manners.

Nevertheless, we got the standard argument about how we were all going to Hell but Jesus could save us if we'd only believe.  I said that if Yahweh set up the game to be rigged from the start, then he was the one with the responsibility, not me. He was the one who made hell and created the rules that would send us there so they should take it up with him. They retorted that we send ourselves to hell and we responded with the classic, "No, we don't. I'm choosing right now not to go." We got to use the thug and Mafia boss analogies which were difficult to refute.

Amidst the hour and a half that we vigorously debated, my point was that Yahweh, as the Bible represents him, is evil. I asked these young men if slavery in any context was ok. Was rape ok? Was murder and infanticide ok? They said no, of course, and when we confronted them with the fact that Yahweh condones or encourages these things, the best they could say is, "No, he doesn't. That's not in the Bible. You're interpreting it wrong."

My response to that was simply that those things were in the Bible and that they needed to get back with me after they'd read it. I told them I was embarrassed for them - how they came to preach the Word to me and instead they didn't even know what it said. For all their protesting, it became quite clear that they didn't really know their Bible and they could do nothing more than say, "Nuh uh." It truly was embarrassing.

My final point was that these guys were more moral than their god. They didn't think slavery was ok. They would not kill their sons if Yahweh told them to. I asked them how they could live with themselves as good people by championing such a evil, psychotic god. They didn't have a good answer but they tried.

I encouraged them to go home and really read their Bibles...not just the parts they were taught in apologetics classes but the whole thing. I don't know whether they will or not but I suspect that, one day, one of them will. Why? Because I saw humanity in his eyes. I saw that spark of doubt that makes us so wonderful. I believe this gentleman cares about the truth and cares about goodness. I'd like to think that maybe one day he will take the seed of doubt we planted and water it enough so that it can grow.

As for me, I am glad that I got a chance for a hot debate with Christians that ended up with handshakes, smiles, and good wishes for the future. That's what America is really all about.

Christians at the Reason Rally - Part 1

If you were as lucky as we were at the Reason Rally, you either got handed Christian material by drive-by missionaries or else you got directly proselytized by the brave but rather unprepared apologists. The next two posts will be my account of these incidents.

We had not been there very long, sitting wrapped in our clear ponchos and holding our little signs, when the first guy came by. He sort of did a drive-by handout: swooping in long enough to hold out a tract and fleeing as soon as it was in Nathan's hand. I found it interesting that both Christians approached Nathan and not me - perhaps they just assumed that, as the man of the group, he would repent and I naturally would follow his lead. It's dangerous to assume that I, as an atheist female, do not have a functioning brain or a sassy mouth.

Regardless, this tract is the one the guy was handing out. How anyone can pass around this garbage with a straight face is beyond me. If these are the best arguments I could make for my beliefs, I think I'd go home and shoot myself in the head out of shame. It became very clear as I read this why the tract is delivered in a drive-by manner. If the gentleman had stopped and discussed any of these points with us, he would have been laughed all the way back to the port-a-potties (which is where arguments like these belong).

Let's take a look at the "arguments" in this pamphlet. First, we start out with this breathtakingly stupid introduction:

The theory of evolution of the Coca Cola can.

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."

The author proclaims that such a "theory" would be an insult to our intelligence which is true. To use this to try to disprove evolution, however, is even more of an insult. If these people can't tell the difference between living, changing material and an aluminum can, then what hope is there?

Now the test. Let's look at the banana (the one that got Ray Comfort mocked incessantly and then he tried to walk it back and say it was just a joke when clearly it is serious):

Note that the banana:

1. Is shaped for human hand
2. Has non-slip surface
3. Has outward indicators of inward content: Green--too early,
Yellow --just right, Black--too late.
4. Has a tab for removal of wrapper
5. Is perforated on wrapper
6. Bio-degradable wrapper
7. Is shaped for human mouth
8. Has a point at top for ease of entry
9. Is pleasing to taste buds
10. Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy

I'm not sure if Ray realizes it or not but the same could be said of the human penis. It's shaped for the human hand and is rather non-slip (yet easy enough for a hand or mouth to glide up and down). It's outward appearance can give us an idea whether it is ready to be used. It's definitely shaped for the human mouth and is shaped for easy entry of the vagina (or anus) as well. It's very pleasing for both parties when used right and can be curved toward the face.

Does that mean that God designed the penis for all these uses? I really wish I'd gotten a chance to ask the guy. But the point they are trying to make is that God made the banana just for our consumption. They do this by ignoring the fact that we have artificially bred bananas (as well as other things) for centuries to enhance these traits. 

We get into a series of questions now where they try to trap us into answers by only giving a few, narrow options. Of course we know the Coke can was designed by humans. We have no examples in nature of Coke cans randomly coming into existence. Next, they quote mine Darwin about the complexity of the eye, failing to print any of his answer to the problem and failing even further to note that this "irreducible complexity" argument has been shot down both by scientists and by lawyers during the Dover trial. 

Next we get questions about whether stuff has a maker or designer. It's more Coke can rubbish. Then they ask about order in the universe and was it accidental or design. They use more questions to try to trap us into saying that since we don't have complete knowledge of the universe, then we cannot definitively state that there is no designer (God). They neglect the fact that most atheists do not definitively state that but believe that it's true based on observation and testing.

Then they turn the whole thing back on us by declaring that we have chosen to be atheists because we want to sin. The whole 10 commandments thing is flung at us as if it is some model standard when the first part of it is the very antithesis of the Bill of Rights. The only people who could possibly be convinced by this tripe are those who either already believe or those who haven't bothered to examine any kind of logic. 

One of the last appeals is to listen to our conscience. My conscience tells me that any belief based on such irrationality is wrong. It tells me that belief in Yahweh as he is presented in the Bible is unreasonable and the worship of such a creature is evil. Furthermore, my conscience tells me that if I ever want to save someone from certain peril, I'd better do more than just throw a stupid tract at them. I'd better invest my time in actually helping.

Shame on Ray Comfort for selling these ignorant tracts. And shame on the Christians who gave them out without comment and running away before anyone could say anything. 

Here is a link to Part 2

A Better Understanding of Church and State Separation Is Needed

A lot of people do not fully understand the reasoning behind the church and state violation cases that have made the news as of late. Jumping to the "I'm being persecuted!" claim has made it even harder to talk to people about this subject. There are facts at hand that have been established long before these violations have come to light. That being said, I think a little bit of history is needed to educate both the religious and non-religious.

Did you know that the phrase "wall of separation" to describe the relationship of the church and state was first used by Roger Williams back in the mid 1600s. He and his wife arrived in the "new world" (Boston) at the beginning of 1631.

"His search for the true church eventually carried him out of Congregationalism, the Baptists, and any visible church. From 1639 forward, he waited for Christ to send a new apostle to reestablish the church, and he saw himself as a "witness" to Christianity until that time came."

He strongly believed that "everyone had the natural right to freedom of religion" and thus the church and state must be separated in all aspects. Later in 1802, Thomas Jefferson would use the phrase "wall of separation" that echoed Roger Williams in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

"In the spring of 1636, Williams and a number of his followers from Salem began a settlement on land that Williams had bought from Massasoit, only to be told by Plymouth that he was still within their land grant. They warned that they might be forced to extradite him to Massachusetts and invited him to cross the Seekonk River to territory beyond any charter. The outcasts rowed over to Narragansett territory, and having secured land from Canonicus and Miantonomi, chief sachems of the Narragansetts, Williams established a settlement with twelve 'loving friends.' He called it 'Providence' because he felt that God's Providence had brought him there. (He would later name his third child, the first born in his new settlement, "Providence" as well.) He said that his settlement was to be a haven for those 'distressed of conscience,' and it soon attracted quite a collection of dissenters and otherwise-minded individuals."

Something most people didn't know or have forgotten is the establishment or creation of the town of Providence. It was created and became a safe haven for various people regardless of their religious views. It was their "like-mindedness" that drew them together. Now the significance of Roger Williams and Providence, RI, in religious history is about to be revealed:

"Williams had himself baptized by Ezekiel Holliman in late 1638. Thus was constituted a church which still survives as the First Baptist Church in America. A few years later, John Clarke, Williams’ compatriot in the cause of religious freedom in the New World, established a Baptist church in Newport, Rhode Island. Roger Williams and John Clarke are variously credited as being the founder of the Baptist faith in America."

It's a really good read and we strongly suggest it - you won't learn about him in public schools and probably not in most religious schools outside of baptist ones. I didn't even know about him until Tweenky and Jessica had mentioned him recently. I hated history class in school and I blame 50% of that on the way it was being taught and/or presented, the other 50% was me not being interested since I was taught that "the world was going to end soon" or "we are in the last days". After looking back at the history of most religions, I have found that every couple of generations you see them saying something about being in the last days.

Just want to start off with a couple examples and then the feedback or backlash I've noticed from said examples:

One of the main examples that is continuously being brought up here in the South is "prayer in schools." This isn't just something that happens in the South either as we have all probably heard about events in Cranston, RI. Here in the South most of the school games are preceded by a prayer over the P.A. system or at graduation ceremonies.

The problem is not the prayer that is being said (although it is usually exclusively from one denomination) at the school games or ceremonies. Prayer that is lead by teachers, school faculty or even a local priest, preacher, bishop, or father is in itself an endorsement by the school. That is the violation and what makes it unconstitutional regardless of how long they have been doing it. The U.S. Supreme Court first ruled government-sponsored prayer in the public schools unconstitutional in 1962. Ala,s most southern states have held onto their prayers in school thinking that, "We'll do it until we are told or made to stop," as one school principal said at a faculty meeting in Tishomingo County, Mississippi.

Is the bible belt and other places really that thick in thinking they can just do as they please when it comes to our school systems and, most importantly, our children? Indoctrination at a young age is a must for most these religions - get them young and it's harder to lose them. They become entrenched with the constant reminder of being a sinner or threatened with going to hell.

The other example that seems to make headlines every year is the nativity scene "on public/governement property." This was seen last year all over the country with only a few places getting air time on the news. Athens, Texas, was a huge one that got most the publicity. Rick Perry may have had something to do with that, not sure. This was a case in point of an obvious church and state separation violation.

This whole thing was not about the nativity scene but rather its location on the grounds of the government building. Had they just moved it across the street or down the block to a private property location there wouldn't have been an issue. But it was a long standing tradition and had been there for over 50 years. That just means it has been in violation of the law for the last 49 years.

The backlash from all this was a feeding of the faux news trolls and their so called "Christian persecution". They used it to further claim a persecution on Christians by saying they were trying to "take Christ out of Christmas". No one ever said it had to be taken down and never shown again; they just wanted it moved off public property. Simple, right?

So with that I leave you with the following facts available for everyone to look up and read for themselves:

The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states until 1947; when they did, in Everson v. Board of Education, all nine justices agreed that there was a wall of separation between church and state.
(Kermit Hall, ed. The Oxford companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (2005) pp 303-4)

The decision of Everson followed in 1947, the first incorporating the Establishment Clause.
(Larson, Edward John (2003). Trial and error: the American controversy over creation and evolution (3, revised ed.).)

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause)

Like any other case that goes before the court, once ruled on they can set a precedent.

The issue at hand is not the fact that this was a religious prayer but that it was displayed on public school property. It is a matter of location, every citizen can display this prayer on their private property to show how religious they are if need be or wear a T-Shirt. That is your private property. If the government were to pass a law that controls what you can and cannot wear or display on your private property, then you will see people unite from all faiths and non-faiths alike.

Again it is a matter of location, the precedent has been set and will continue to be upheld as long as we have the 1st and 14th amendments intact.

We applaud and thank you, Jessica, and the many others religious and non-religious people over the years that have stood up for church and state separation.