Answering the New Atheism - a book review

Why are there so many people who have to insist that there side is right and the other is wrong?

I keep encountering religious types who claim all none believers are going to burn in hell or militant atheists who claim that anyone who believes in god is a superstitious nutcase.

I am an atheist, in that I do not believe in god, but that doesn't mean that I assume that everyone who believes in god is wrong. Who am I to say who is right? I don't intend to tell anyone that there belief is incorrect and I refuse to suffer anyone telling me that mine is wrong.

It's my name, it's my code:

Live and Let Live

I actually agree with you too, Live and Let Live!

You are one of the minority in that you aren't calling believers lunatics, comparing their faith to that of the Easter Bunny, accusing them of all of being pedophiles and the myriad of other things that I've seen here on the vine and out in the world.

Unfortunately for you and for us, we both run into those individuals who will ask us all kinds of questions or who will try to "corner" us with verbal bullying etc. I'm sure many atheists have run into overly zealous people of faith who are inappropriately in their face about their lack of belief. On the other side of the coin, many Christians are also being taken to task by overly zealous atheists as well. It is to -those- that we (the people of faith) must be able to answer when confronted. So, we read and study to prepare for those people who try to "corner" us with verbal assaults ....not so that we can go out and attack them instead.

I'm with you. I wish people would treat each other with all due respect and courtesy. Part of behaving that way is to stop attacking each other and being disparaging.

In God We Trust is in danger.

Why change now, since we have had it since 1776.

Wrong. That is not the original National motto. E Pluribus Unum was the original motto.

It is the people who object to a prayer in school; those who claim to be affronted by God's name, the ACLU, and on and on.

Christian prayers should not be taught in school. It violates the Religious freedom of non-Christians. Children in secular schools are free to pray on their own and say grace over their meals. Is that not enough for you? Do you really need to force your religion down the throats of other people's children as well?? I don't want MY children introduced to your superstitions, never mind lead in prayer. What gives you the right to violate my right to raise my children the way I see fit? I don't stop you from brainwashing yours.

Religious freedom was the basis for our founding.

Wrong again. Some of the early colonizers came here for religious freedom (and then promptly denied it to others), but that was in the early 17th century. Our nation wasn't founded until the late 18th century, because the people objected to taxation without representation. Have you READ a history book?? The founders purposely kept religion OUT of government becasue they knew it could only cause trouble. You have religious freedom BECAUSE it is kept out of government. You should be trying to keep it that way. Unless you'd like to leave it up to a vote and have Muslim prayers forcibly taught in public schools in the very near future.

In God We Trust is in danger.

This book will help us defend the tradition that our nation was founded under.

Below are the facts - constitution was trampled out of religious sentiment. Kinda like events in our recent past. The term "god" does not belong in our schools, on our money, in our court houses or anywhere Constitutional Government exists to protect the liberties of the American People.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

History of 'In God We Trust'

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chasereceived many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read:

E Pluribus Unum was the original motto.

That is true.

Christian prayers should not be taught in school.

Although I hesitate to speak for Charlie, I don't think he was talking about "teaching" prayers to school children but to allow for them. And actually, the rights of Christian school children to express their beliefs -is- being taken away in public schools via the "church vs state" issue.

An example that happened just recently was seeded here on the vine. It had to do with a teacher telling a student in art class that she wasn't allowed to draw the US flag and put the words "In God We Trust" on it because it was "offensive". The student was drawing the flag for art class and this happened while in that class. The teacher was the art teacher. She only stopped the child when she began putting "In God We Trust" on the picture. This student was in no way forcing her beliefs on others. She was merely doing her project quietly like all the other students. Then when the student told her parents what had occurred the teacher told the student she should not have gotten her parents involved. That wasn't the teacher's place to tell the child this or to stop her from writing "In God We Trust" which is in current use on her picture of the flag. This is only one example of many where students with a religious faith are not being allowed to express it.

Some students have been forbidden from wearing "purity rings" etc as well. They too, do not force their beliefs on others but are merely an unassuming personal decoration that has spiritual meaning. Other students have been told that they weren't allowed to bring Bibles to school to read during their free period or at lunch.

So, while I agree that no student should force another to listen to their beliefs as in preaching etc...neither should students who -do- have a religious faith be forced to NOT express it of themselves.

Religious freedom was the basis for our founding.

Wrong again. Some of the early colonizers came here for religious freedom (and then promptly denied it to others), but that was in the early 17th century. Our nation wasn't founded until the late 18th century, because the people objected to taxation without representation.

I know this is a bone of contention between believers and secularists. Usually when a person says that this country was "founded on religious freedom" they mean exactly what you said when you said this:

Some of the early colonizers came here for religious freedom

The entire reason why we even exist as a nation was due to the fact that those early colonists came her to escape religious intolerance in Europe. If not for their coming here, the rest that followed would likely never have been or at least not when and how it did. They were the first to come...the trend setters, as it were, lol. And they came for religious freedom.

Now...yes, you are right that the actual birth of what we call the USA didn't actually happen until July 4th, 1776. I agree 100% with you on this. The declaration of independence and the constitution of the United States are the two MAJOR documents for saying who we are as a nation. The designers of the constitution wanted to make sure that nothing like what happened in England etc EVER happened again. This desire encompassed both political aims and religious aims as well. Now enter "church vs state"....

The separation of church and state was crucial! The founding fathers wanted to make sure that a nation would NOT -ever- tell it's citizens that they had to believe this or that religious doctrine. They wanted to make sure without a doubt that people were free to believe as they would -without- the government interfering and also without the government setting up a "national" religion. Freedom -of- religion was of utmost importance to them. Never again would they allow their freedom of worship, of belief, or even of non-belief to be dictated by the government! To that I say Hip hip hooray and thank goodness!!

However, what's happening in the country today is that some people are trying to limit eah others freedoms. That is happening on both sides, mind you. Some religious people are trying to force a more theocratic style government while other people are trying to force an entirely secular government. Neither is right to do because if the government leans towards in more theocratic direction the rights of citizens who are not religious are bound to be stepped on. They may be limited in theri freedom of speech to speak their beliefs that are in opposition to religion. They may be treated or viewed as "unworthy" of basic courtesy and respect...not to mention be the victims of outright discrimination based solely on the fact that they are not believers. That would be completely and utterly unacceptable!

The same can also be said if the government leans in a mainly secular direction wherein the common constitutional right "freedom -of- religion" is rephrased in the minds of people to be "freedom -from- religion". Just like in my example above....if the government becomes mainly secular, the basic freedom of those who profess a belief in a religion may find their freedom of speech limited where that speech contains references to prayer, praise, and so on or if they are speaking out for the freedom to live their faith publicly especially if done in a public venue. That could result in things like what happened to the elderly in the one retirement home who were forbidden to pray aloud as a group over their meals simply because those meals were partially paid for with government funds. Or, as the example of the student in a public school I mentioned earlier. This too is totally unacceptable!

I hope that you can see by what I'm saying that I want us BOTH to be able to have the freedom to live our lives freely without fear of censure or rebuke. I don't at all advocate for a Christians rights to be more important than an atheists. I would combat that viciously if it ever seemed to be the direction n which the government is leaning. I want you to be just as free to be who you are and not have to hide it as I want myself as a Christian, or my Jewish or Muslim, etc neighbors to be as well.

The ONLY place I would draw the line is if the practice of a person's belief caused physical harm etc to another. For example, 9/11, or the bombing of abortion clinics and the murder of doctors, etc. The people who do horrendous acts of pure terrorism in the name of a "religion" are the bane of everyone...including the nice, normal, generally peace-loving people who make up the majority of a belief system.

Maybe I'm just different from most Christians, I don't know. I want you to be free to be who you are and believe as you will! I want to be that free too. Is that such a bad thing?

I get the feeling you've had some really really bad experiences with Christians. I wish that wasn't so. I wish we all lived up to the example of Christ. I with the zealots and extremists in every religion didn't ruin the reputations of all the others in that religion.

kaviaq, I totally and completely respect you as a human being and a fellow citizen. No, we don't agree on the existence of God or whatever but that is no reason for me to treat you poorly or tell you you are a bad person or that I hope you burn in hell or any of the other horrid things I've heard some so-called Christians say to people who don't believe as they do.

What I want...really from the bottom of my deepest heart....is for us to be able to shake hands, go grab a pizza and a soda (or a beer if your prefer, lol) and just embrace the fact that we can do that in a country such as this.

I know this was a long post...but I really care about you and I care about what you think of us Christians. I want peace between people of various beliefs or non-beliefs so badly that it makes me cry at times. I am being as open and transparent as I possibly can be with you even though I know it makes me look like a mush ball, lol. I know I leave myself open to ridicule from you but I think you're worth it. I think trying to find ways to live in harmony with each other is worth it. We can, you know. We -can- live in harmony even if we fundamentally disagree spiritually or politically.

Charlie, please forgive me for derailing your thread. If you want to delete this post, by all means do so as I know it's utterly off topic. I just -had- to answer kaviaq. I made a copy of this post so I could send it to him/her personally just in case you delete it.

kaviaq, can't we do this? Can't you and I be the start of it? Just you and I. I can't speak for any other Christians just like you can't speak for any other people but yourself. I would so love to be able for us to be the ones who can come from totally opposite sides of the "debate" without ever disparaging each other, without being snarky towards each other, without name-calling and sarcasm.....

Is that possible?

In all sincerity,

Mrs Rachel M

Wow. What you said, Rachel. Good job!

You are one of the minority in that you aren't calling believers lunatics, comparing their faith to that of the Easter Bunny, accusing them of all of being pedophiles and the myriad of other things that I've seen here on the vine and out in the world.

I have several friends who are what you would call militant atheists. It is sad, but understandable. You see many of my friends are gay or bi, and so have faced a lot of discrimination from religious types, leading them to feel the way they do about religion. I try to tell them that not all religions are bigoted or intolerant, but they seem to make little distinction. It is a sad thing on several accounts.

mrsrachelm,

I don't necessarily want to butt into a conversation you are having with kaviaq; however, I thought I would just make a comment or two about your 1.6 manifesto.

First off, I would have to agree with the general tone of your comment that we should all be free to worship, or not worship, in any way we see fit. I generally don't see that as a problem in our country. For instance, I haven't seen any cases of government policy where a student or group of students have been told that they couldn't pray (or otherwise religiously express themselves) as long as it wasn't interrupting normal school curriculum.

Now for the one case you did mention (and perhaps a few others)... there have been a few isolated instances where a rogue teacher has gone off on a tangent and wrongly tried to enforce their particular belief system in the classroom. For instance, on the other side of the coin, we have the case of John Freshwater.

There is a BIG difference between these isolate instances of misguided teachers and official government policy. The "In God We Trust" motto, the National Day of Prayer, and the introduction of the Ten Commandments into courthouses, are but a few of the instances where Christians attempt to assert their belief system through various arms of the government. These actions are unconstitutional and need to be dealt with as such! If you don't think they are unconstitutional then just apply the "Lemon Test" to each of these instances, and if you are at all honest, you will agree that they fail this test.

Now I have heard time and again on many of these threads that we have freedom OF religion but we don't have freedom FROM religion. First of all I find that statement more than a bit disingenuous. We don't have the the freedom from being exposed to religion in our daily lives... no, that would infringe on the rights of the religious. However, we are suppose to have a government that is free from any religious entanglement whatsoever. Does that make sense?

Lastly, another thing I often hear is "What's the big deal?" Well, if the tables were reversed would you think it's a big deal? For instance, would you be equally enthusiastic about a "In Buddha we Trust" motto? Would equally celebrate the introduction of a National Day of Spells for the Wiccans among us? How about a National Day of Blasphemy? If you're truthful I would bet the answer would be no, and you might get a glimpse where folks like kaviaq and myself are coming from...

I see the first review of this book from Antony Flew... Christian apologists do love to trot out this guy, don't they? First of all, Christian apologists should be ashamed for exploiting this poor fellow... it is clearly obvious from his many restatements of his position that the poor guy was losing some of his mental faculties later in his life. Hey it happens to the best of us!

Anyway... I'll see your Antony Flew and raise you a Dan Barker! :D

mrsrachelm,

Most of the Christian I know are perfectly nice people and couldn't care less if I don't believe what they do. Many of the Christians I know also support the separation of Church and State, since it protects both sides. You seem to realize that as well. My problem isn't with those Christians. It is with the ones who keep trying to slip by their "innocent" violations of secular law and gasp in astonishment that anyone could be so mean as to curtail their "religious freedom".

As per your example I think the teacher was entirely wrong to tell the child she couldn't write "In God We Trust" on her art work. First of all it IS the National motto (even though I think that should be changed back). Secondly the child has the right to express her religion. If the teacher was making everyone in the class write it THEN we'd have a violation. A child in school can pray and say grace over their meal. The Teachers and staff CANNOT lead a prayer. The line seems pretty clear to me.

I'm not at war with Christians and I don't hate Christians. I am fighting against the violation of the Separation of Church and State and fighting against the blind faith that makes many religious people so dangerous to our society.

I hope your recovery is swift and comfortable Charlie.

Charlie, I hope all went well and you recover quickly and without complication.

To Darwin:

You're not butting in at all! :-)

I generally agree with most of your comments. And yes, I write long comments, lol. I try not to but it's hard to say things in "sound bites" most of the time...especially when I'm really trying to discuss and not just drop a bomb and then move on.

I understand how having the Ten Commandments in courthouses etc can express an overall atmosphere that leans towards favoring Christian beliefs over and above all others or those who have no religious belief. It's a bit of a horse apiece sometimes because if we don't allow -any- religious elements than are we not deliberately representing the government as a solely secular one. By that I mean making it seem just the opposite wherein those who -do- have a religious belief are now the odd man out? Then there's the whole argument that says "why just Judeo-Christian representation and not anything from the other religions practiced in this melting pot of a country? It's a valid question. Personally, I could accept the removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses etc. I wouldn't like it, lol, I -am- a Christian after all...but I could support it in the spirit of fairness.

I grew up with the motto "In God We Trust" so it never occurred to me to notice it one way or the other. But, even though it would make me personally unhappy to see it revert to E Pluribus Unum simply because for me, personally it's a beautiful sentiment, I could understand and support it reverting back to the original.

About the National Day of Prayer. On -this- I stand more firmly. Why? Because I don't think that allowing those persons who pray, regardless of their religious affiliation, to have a that one day a year set aside to represent -them-, who are also citizens, is asking so very much from the rest of the country's citizens. That day is not telling people that they -must- pray. It's not establishing a national religion as it is not defining prayer by any specific religious belief. It is merely setting aside one single day in 365 for those who -do- pray to be represented and have a day when they can all join together across this nation in prayer even though they may be separated by thousands of miles. It isn't in any way discriminatory to non-believers in religion. So, I ask you, in the same name of fairness with which I am willing and supportive of removing the Ten Commandments from courthouses, etc and the reverting to E Pluribus Unum....can you (and maybe other non-religious) allow us to have something too? Is it really so bad a thing to allow us to be represented as well?

I have never asked "what's the big deal?" while I admit I have heard that from others both religious and non-religious alike. When I see that another person is being put in a position where they feel marginalized, I always want to know why. I -want- to understand because only through understanding can problems be solved. Problems will never be solved if we as a body of citizens don't seek to mutually understand and want each other to feel and be -both- represented in this nation. It's also a part of my Christian belief system. I -am- my brothers keeper as it were and I am commanded by the Christ whom I serve to love my neighbor (that basically means everyone else, lol) as myself. Therefore their feelings should be very important to me as much as my own are to me.

What I fear happening is this: I fear that in those who want to remove any and all religious based issues removed will go so far as to marginalize people of faith. I fear it'll swing from one extreme to the other. I fear this because it seems that many people out there are trying to do just that down to the last symbol, public display, etc. Can you understand how horrible that is for those of us that follow a religious belief system? You, and others, who have felt the discomfort of being the victims of religious intolerance...can you see that by going in the other direction too far is only doing the same exact thing to people of faith that was done to you? Extremes in either direction are -both- discriminatory.

What I'd like to see is a lot more working together between citizens who practice a religious faith and those who are strictly secular. That would mean compromise. Compromise is both sides giving a little to the other side and accepting that neither side can have it all their way. My suspicion and fear is that this will ever ever happen because people tend only to want to dominate each other.

Actually, I've never heard of or read anything by Anthony Flew or Dan Barker, rofl. So obviously I can't really comment on those guys. For me personally, I've always thought the very best "apologetics" was to live my faith in truth and sincerity. Those who get to know me or have to interact with me regularly will "see" and "experience" that and hopefully -that- will be the very best "apologetics" of who Jesus is and the effect He has on an individual. If I'm asked questions or am in a discussion where religious views are the actual topic I hope and pray only that I fully and honestly represent Christ in how I conduct myself during those conversations. I -do- fail at this, lol. But, I go back to the person and apologize, admit my failings humbly and even -this- is an example of Christ in my life.

I hope I've been a good representative of Him during the exchanges I've had here on this article.

Hope you feel better Charlie...

First of all... I too wish you well Charlie. We may be on opposite sides of the faith issue; however, I do wish you good health.

Now on to you mrsrachelm...

So, I ask you, in the same name of fairness with which I am willing and supportive of removing the Ten Commandments from courthouses, etc and the reverting to E Pluribus Unum....can you (and maybe other non-religious) allow us to have something too? Is it really so bad a thing to allow us to be represented as well?

So let me get this straight... you just want the government to sponsor a little bit of religious activity? I don't really want to be harsh with you because you really do seem to be a pretty decent person. However, I for one, will not barter with my Constitutional rights. I really don't know how to explain it any better... the government simply has to take a totally neutral position when it comes to religion or the lack thereof. So here's the deal... you can pray as much as you wish every day. If you want to set aside a *special* day for prayer... why not have the National Council of Churches sponsor such a day? That way we can keep the government completely secular as it should be and you can have your special day as well.

What I fear happening is this: I fear that in those who want to remove any and all religious based issues removed will go so far as to marginalize people of faith. I fear it'll swing from one extreme to the other. I fear this because it seems that many people out there are trying to do just that down to the last symbol, public display, etc. Can you understand how horrible that is for those of us that follow a religious belief system? You, and others, who have felt the discomfort of being the victims of religious intolerance...can you see that by going in the other direction too far is only doing the same exact thing to people of faith that was done to you?

Wow! Rachel, that's a lot of fear you've got going there! Let's see... the overwhelming majority of Americans are some brand of Christian. You have public houses of worship practically on every other street corner. I for one cannot name one non-believer that holds public office of any significance whatsoever. In addition to all of the aforementioned items, you also claim to have the power of God almighty behind you... and you're the one with all of the fear??? What I think you are really afraid of is that you see the tide turning on how people perceive religion. You might also realize that in the marketplace of ideas some of those ancient bronze-age myths simply don't hold up very well. Well, we shall see; however, lets do it on a level playing field, shall we? BTW, I don't think you have anything to fear from the average non-believer. I can only speak for myself; however, I am willing to let you hang on to your cherished belief system for as long as you wish...

My suspicion and fear is that this will ever ever happen because people tend only to want to dominate each other.

It's not about domination! It's about the freedom to have a government that is free from religious entanglements. Other than that... have at your worship in any way you see fit. As far as our ideas go... let's throw our cards on the table a see how they fair. Don't worry, I'm sure you are going to come out on top for the foreseeable future. After all, the truth of the non-believer is a "hard truth;" there is no living happily ever after and that can be a tough sell. But you're right about one thing... I would like to see the myths of religion cast off once and for all. Why? The biggest reason is that religion is an enabler which makes it quite easy for so many folks to simply ignore issues of sustainability that are staring us square in the face. After all... why worry about sustainability when the rapture (or some variant thereof) is just around the corner? You can also relax because the non-believer won't attempt to gain any advantage through the government. No, logic and reason are the tools of the non-believer and as long as we have a secular government and freedom of speech those can't be taken away! So again... relax, we are not about to ask you to remove your religious symbols from public display (not including government property of course) and we aren't going to take away your right to worship. About the worst thing that might happen is a non-believer will argue with you till they are blue in the face! :)

Darwin:

I for one cannot name one non-believer that holds public office of any significance whatsoever. In addition to all of the aforementioned items, you also claim to have the power of God almighty behind you.

Peter Stark is the only one I can think. I can't think of any in a nationally elected office.

mrsrachelm:

So, I ask you, in the same name of fairness with which I am willing and supportive of removing the Ten Commandments from courthouses, etc and the reverting to E Pluribus Unum....can you (and maybe other non-religious) allow us to have something too? Is it really so bad a thing to allow us to be represented as well?

I agree with Darwin, don't barter rights. Besides you are represented just like the rest of us. Non-believers are not asking for a day of skeptical thinking are we? Why do you need a day devoted to a one-size-fits-all religious high-five when nothing any day of the year prohibits you from practicing your faith.

So let me get this straight... you just want the government to sponsor a little bit of religious activity? I don't really want to be harsh with you because you really do seem to be a pretty decent person. However, I for one, will not barter with my Constitutional rights. I really don't know how to explain it any better... the government simply has to take a totally neutral position when it comes to religion or the lack thereof. So here's the deal... you can pray as much as you wish every day. If you want to set aside a *special* day for prayer... why not have the National Council of Churches sponsor such a day? That way we can keep the government completely secular as it should be and you can have your special day as well.

Thank you for the compliment. I try to be a decent person. I really do, lol. But, you're right I -did- make it sound like a horse trade. That was out of line, actually. One person's rights shouldn't be traded upon another's persons. Thanks for calling me on that one.

The National Council of Churches thing is actually a really great idea. A part of me still feels that having a NDoP isn't asking all that much but I understand your reasoning completely. I think a lot of my, and maybe others' too, resistance to losing that day stems from the feeling that people of faith are being "ousted" from being represented -equally- by our government. It's almost like that "give and inch and they take a mile" feeling. I'm sure many people of faith are concerned about the "slippery slope" effect which, in my opinion, is understandable.

Wow! Rachel, that's a lot of fear you've got going there!

Ain't it though?! LOL You could substitute the word "concern" and it would be just as appropriate to describe the underlying emotion. I'm not trembling in my boots with fear or anything of that nature.

What I think you are really afraid of is that you see the tide turning on how people perceive religion.

Yes, I think that may be part of it. With some exceptions, of course, it seems as though there is an ever-growing population of people in this country and the world who view people of faith (especially Christians and Jews) with not only contempt but with a singular hatred. You may not be among them but I'm sure you've seen some of the comments directed at people of faith here on the vine. They are down right spooky. If those people could silence us completely and/or drive our faith into oblivion they would do so in a heart beat. They tend to lump all Christians or all Jews or all Muslims etc into one big group of extremists and by doing this feel that it is justified to make us go away. Surely you can't deny seeing some of the consistent anti-Christian sentiments being said again and again by long-standing members of the vine? These people aren't trolls...they believe people of faith are a danger to a free society. So yeah....that can be worrisome...lol.

It's not about domination!

When I spoke about how people seem to want to dominate each other, I meant that for both sides of this issue. I wanted to make sure you understand this. While you and I may truly want a free America for everyone regardless of religious or non-religious belief...many on both sides want to legislate the other into tidy little boxes. I hope neither side manages to succeed in this.

Overall, I think you and I share a common love for our country and it's constitution. We may be on total opposite sides of the political fence but I don't see you, at least right now (lol), as an extremist.

But you're right about one thing... I would like to see the myths of religion cast off once and for all. Why? The biggest reason is that religion is an enabler which makes it quite easy for so many folks to simply ignore issues of sustainability that are staring us square in the face. After all... why worry about sustainability when the rapture (or some variant thereof) is just around the corner?

I can understand how you would think this and it may even be true for some few believers out there. The majority of believers however (including myself) take our "stewardship" of the planet pretty darned seriously. We also know that we're called to love our neighbor (meaning everyone who isn't us) as ourselves. The vast majority of Christians and churches etc are actually -very- involved in grass roots efforts to make a difference in the her and now in a wide variety of ways.

Many churches operate food pantries, clothing drives, homeless shelters, shelters for battered wives and children, etc etc etc ad naseum. Many people of various faiths are volunteers in these areas whether it be through their church or through a secular agency. Some just live their faith in smaller ways. For example, mowing their elderly neighbors lawn in the summer and shoveling her walk and driveway during the winter without asking or expecting anything. Some take grocery lists from the shut ins nearby and doing their marketing for them, etc. These aren't people who are living only for the Rapture or for heaven. They are actively applying the example of Jesus to their every day lives here and now.

A lot of these things are just done without a lot of fanfare. They don't make a big deal about it nor does the media. The media will focus on the "juicy" news but the every day nicey nice stories don't sell papers or get ratings.

So I hope I've at least deterred your thoughts a bit about people of faith ignoring the issues of sustainability. Many many of us are working on it and will continue to do so.

I've enjoyed our discussion a lot!

About the worst thing that might happen is a non-believer will argue with you till they are blue in the face! :)

ROFL!! And vice versa, Darwin.

;-P

The National Council of Churches thing is actually a really great idea.

I'm sorry, but putting the word "National" anywhere near the word "church" is NEVER going to be a good idea, and it is against the Constitution.

It is unconstitutional - we already have a public office titled "Office of faith based initiative's."

There are a lot of unconstitutional things done everyday for the sake of religion - No liquer on Sundays in a lot of counties... Tax free status giving an imbalance to christian based business existing inside tax free zones... swearing in on a bible... etc...

Just a clarification... the NCC is in no way associated with the US government...

The majority of believers however (including myself) take our "stewardship" of the planet pretty darned seriously.

You know what mrsrachelm, I've decided that I must simply "call you" on this one. Generally, I find statements like this to be pretty disingenuous. Yes, many Christians do get behind some environmental issues, i.e. things like clean air and water. However, the religious are MUCH more prone to spew out babies as a tool to advance their own particular brand of theism. Many Christians simply ignore sustainability when it comes to creating new little "souls" for Jesus! This could not be more evident if one simply takes a look at the likes of the Duggars or the Quiverfull movement (and Vatican policy as far as that goes)! BTW, this applies to many religions... I was aghast after hearing one Muslim woman during a Afghanistan war interview declare: "You may have smart bombs... but we have the "womb bomb." Statements like this are really disturbing on so many levels!

Darwin:

I find the segue from environmental issues to a couple's desire for children or a large family and -then- to compare -that- to a statement made by a Muslim woman from another country and culture using the term "womb bomb" very disingenuous. It's like you went from apples to oranges to potatoes and say there is a correlation simply because they are all food!

Unless we've adopted the one-child rule like in China when I wasn't looking, Americans are allowed to have any size family they want. Should they temper that based on their ability to care for them? Yup. But the size of a family or the number of children any couple has (regardless of their religion or lack thereof) is not related to whether or not the couple and/or the children are taught to be good stewards of this planet.

As far as what a Muslim woman from a foreign country says or doesn't say about how -they- view children or family size...that has absolutely no bearing on this conversation as she was neither a Christian nor an American citizen. Talking about -her- statement would be better discussed in an article or seed concerning that situation.

The topic I replied to was how -Christians- view their responsibility to the planet generally. While many of us -do- get involved in issues such as clear air and water by charitable donations to those causes etc we also go about this on a very personal everyday level as well. Things like recycling, not running water while brushing our teeth or washing dishes but only when needed, using energy efficient light bulbs, and on and on and on.

I find the segue from environmental issues to a couple's desire for children or a large family and -then- to compare -that- to a statement made by a Muslim woman from another country and culture using the term "womb bomb" very disingenuous. It's like you went from apples to oranges to potatoes and say there is a correlation simply because they are all food!

Wrong! The point I originally made concerned "sustainability." Sustainability is directly connected to the overall population of the earth. In fact, for the most part, environmentalism is simply an effort to mitigate the effects of the hoards humans that are clogging the earth.

Unless we've adopted the one-child rule like in China when I wasn't looking, Americans are allowed to have any size family they want.

WTF? I never said that we need a one-child rule. I'm just saying the attitudes of the world's various religious organizations are a significant aggravating factor for the problem.

Should they temper that based on their ability to care for them? Yup. But the size of a family or the number of children any couple has (regardless of their religion or lack thereof) is not related to whether or not the couple and/or the children are taught to be good stewards of this planet.

Just because you can afford to deplete all of the worlds resources doesn't mean that it is ethical to do so...

As far as what a Muslim woman from a foreign country says or doesn't say about how -they- view children or family size...that has absolutely no bearing on this conversation as she was neither a Christian nor an American citizen.

I'm trying to make a point about all religions not just Christians. Christians really aren't so special... I suggest you try getting over yourself!

Things like recycling, not running water while brushing our teeth or washing dishes but only when needed, using energy efficient light bulbs, and on and on and on.

Like I said, environmentalism (saving energy, saving water & recycling) is fine; however, in the context of a planet that has become overrun by humans it's a bit like pissing on a forest fire!

Charlie,

May God bless you with a quick recovery! Feel better my friend!

To Charlie

May your god grant you a full and healthy recovery.

Now to the fun stuff. The Bible lies, Christianity is founded upon those lies and those lies invalidate Christianity. As such while Christianity is valid as a personal and individual belief as all religious beliefs are, Christianity nor any other religious belief is valid as a Universal Authority. Which means no (In God We Trust) no (Under God) and the absolute seperation of Church and State.

No religion and no Godhood belief can be proven to be valid which means non of them should be used or be allowed in the secular arena.