So Apparently I'm Forcing My Beliefs And Am Angry

[xequar]

This might be long, so forgive me if it is.

 

Yesterday, I got yet another of the umpteen-billion emails that my grandmother forwards to everyone on her email list. Normally I delete them, but every once and awhile, one will call for some factual correction. One of yesterday's NINE from Grandma was entitled, "OUR REAL ROOTS," and proceeded, with many pictures and large colorful fonts, to describe how ALL of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were deeply devout Christians that believed the bible as divine truth. It urged that we pray for our nation and, of course, go back to our Christian roots.

 

As I'm sure you all already know, this isn't a Christian nation, nor were all of the signers devout Christians, or even Chrisitian at all.

 

Sure, there are a bunch of Christians in this nation, but this wasn't established as a Christian nation. So, I hit "Reply to All" and composed a reply with facts and links, highlighting that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, two of the signers of the Declaration, were Deists, how Jefferson established the separation of church and state and wrote the Jefferson Bible, and how there were no references to god in the Constitution, and none of the Christian god in the Declaration (which refer's to "Nature's God"). I did not mention at all my personal beliefs, nor did I criticize Christianity. I simply refuted the claims that the signers were all Christian and that this is a Christian nation.

 

 

Today, I have been bombarded by emails from various members of the family, my grandmother spouting the usual, "God loves you and gave you free will, but those who trifle with him will pay," my uncle and mother both accusing me of forcing my beliefs onto the family, and my uncle berating me for emailing my "secular and Agnostic views," "fact or myth" to his son (my 12-year-old cousin that I didn't realize was one of the recipients of the original email) and that he didn't want to have to explain my "rambing." All of them have called me angry, and my mother has basically told me that I can have my views but to shut the fuck up. Of course I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it.

 

I dunno, I must have struck a nerve, you know that whole, "oh, well he went off to the city and forgot his roots" kind of crap, I guess. I wasn't intending it to even touch upon my (non) religious views, and yet everyone took it as some scathing attack upon their values. I don't even know why I'm writing this post, but I guess I needed to vent or something. I've been drafting a reply, but I don't even know if I should send it at this point. I'm really shocked and hurt and, you know, I wasn't angry before, but I sure am now.

 

Blllaaaaaaaarrrrggg!!

[Light_of_Reason]

They perceive your refutation as an attack on their beliefs. They want to believe the founders believed like they do, and facts shatter that. When something like that happens, people tend to take it personally, even if it wasn't intended that way.

 

I say let it blow over.

[Neon Genesis]

When they say you're attacking their values, that means you're attacking their "values" to enforce their beliefs on everyone else. Christian Nationalists don't care about equal rights, they only care about having special privileges over everyone else. Coincidentally, I had a debate yesterday with a Christian friend of mine over removing under god from the pledge who claimed America was a Christian nation. I quoted this quote from John Adams about the subject,

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

We ended the debate after that and didn't discuss it any further.

[Guest]

All of them have called me angry, and my mother has basically told me that I can have my views but to shut the fuck up. Of course I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it.

 

What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

 

I went through a similar thing with my dad after 9/11. He started with the emailing about how this is a xtian nation and if you don't like it get the hell out kinda stuff. I too, would delete them (I had first asked him to stop sending them to me, but he ignored the request) untill he sent one about a verse in the Koran (9:11) that states that the great eagle will be awakened and it will vanquish the evil doers, blah, blah.

 

So I did the same as you. I hit "reply all" and pulled my Koran off the shelf and typed out what Sura 9, verse 11 really said. I also took the email's language apart because it used xtian bible language like "lo, behold, etc", which was probally from Elizabethean English because those words are nowhere in the Koran. I too tried to be factual and not belittling, but was told by my mom that I can have my beliefs but to keep them to myself.

 

"So, does that apply to dad sending out factually incorrect emails, or only to me because I check the facts? If you do not want to be set straight, do not send me factually incorrect email. I was not attacking any beliefs or religions, I only addressed the incorrect information in the email. If you don't believe me, here is the Koran, look it up yourself."

 

It stopped my dad from emailing me anything, ever again. But at least I'm not being told to leave the country by my own father anymore. If they don't want you to shove facts down their throats, then they must stop shoving myths down yours. You may need to spell it out for them like I had to.

[MonolithTMA]

When I reply to such emails I usually start with thanking them for sharing that with me and then send them some Snopes links saying something like, "and here's some more info."

 

The fact is that you pulled their fingers out of their ears and told them the truth that they didn't want to hear. No one wants to have their well ingrained fantasy yanked away from them.

[xequar]

I've taken some time to draft an email that I am going to send to the original recipients of the original e-mail, excepting my 12-year-old cousin. For those who are interested, here is the very long text thereof...

 

 

 

Hello all,

 

I genuinely do appreciate the email and the prayer, and I'll take a moment right away to apologize for any consternation I have caused.  My intent was certainly not to disparage anyone's faith, nor was it to make some great proselytizing declaration about my own personal spiritual beliefs.  My intent was to simply correct some misinformation and hopefully inspire a bit of critical thinking, especially given the precarious state of this nation.  The United States has a great idea going, and this nation and its future being compromised is simply unacceptable.

 

That said, I'll take a few moments to add some context.  Let me absolutely clarify that I have no problem with spiritual beliefs, religious people, or 99.9% of the world's religions or non-religions.  I believe that one's faith and spirituality, or lack thereof in some cases, is a deeply personal affair.  I believe that if a person is so motivated, they will seek the spiritual path that is appropriate for them.  I believe that if a church/faith/religion is so appealing, that it shouldn't need to advertise to gain followers.  I do not claim to know the answers to the Universe, and I would not presume to tell someone else that their spiritual beliefs are wrong. 

 

As such, I also believe that government and religion need to be absolutely separated.  As I mentioned previously, Thomas Jefferson wrote of the idea of an absolute wall between the church and the state, and I wholeheartedly agree with this.  Here in the United States, our Constitution, in Article VI, specifically forbids any religious test to hold any public office or trust, yet we as a nation have spent more time discussing whether Barack Obama is a Christian, Muslim, et cetera, whether John McCain believes what the extremist pastors that endorsed him believe, and earlier if a Mormon could run the country, than the issues that face us as a nation.  Honestly, I don't care about which religion our current president or our future president is or is not.  If a Buddhist is the best candidate, that's for whom I'll vote.  If a Muslim is the best candidate, that's for whom I'll vote.  Atheist, Jew, Catholic, Pagan, Satanist, whatever, it's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

 

It seems to me that over the past 10 to 15 years, the Christian right has gotten far too involved with politics and has lost focus of its original mission of providing spiritual guidance.  To put it simply, the Christian right loves to scream and holler about Islam and how evil their religious rule is, yet the Christian right seeks to establish the same thing here in the United States.  We can look to nations like Iran and Dubai and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia to see the effects of a theocracy.  Personal freedoms are destroyed and the theocratic government rules with an iron fist, not tolerating any dissent or variance from the religious laws.   This is not meant to say that ALL Christians do this, but there are some bad apples that are, as it were, spoiling the bunch.

 

To help put this into perspective, I would already be dead if I lived in Iran.  Amnesty International and other human rights groups have evidence of over 4,000 people being executed, usually by hanging, in Iran on charges of homosexuality.  It's common knowledge that in most of the Middle East, women have to cover their faces in public and are denied most civil rights.  About six months ago, a rape victim in Saudi Arabia was convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison.  Her crime?  Under Shar'ia Law (the Islamic religious law), she was not allowed to ride in a car without her husband.  Never mind that the men who raped her grabbed her and forced her into the car to commit their horrific acts, because the religious law said she wasn't supposed to be there. 

 

Here in the United States, the Christian right has been working to destroy personal liberties and establish their version of religious law, as well.  Here in Michigan, I can be fired LEGALLY at any time from a job for no other reason than because I'm gay.  The same holds true in many states in the U.S., including Florida.  Censorship laws, tax breaks for political action committees that claim to be religious, discriminatory marriage laws, these are things that are undermining the ideals of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness upon which this great nation was founded.  This whole idea of the "Christian Nation" is simply an attempt to cover the harm being done, and I would strongly urge anyone that believes we need more religious influence in our government to take a few minutes to reexamine the bible and ask themselves whether we as a society should be subject to all of the laws contained therein. I would strongly suspect the answer to such a question would invariably be negative. 

 

As we hurtle along toward what could possibly be as pivotal of an election as was the 1860 election which found Abraham Lincoln as president of a dramatically divided nation, I fear that people do not understand the magnitude of this nation's dramatic history or the grand and noble ideals upon which it was founded.  I fear that people are far too willing to exchange liberty for security.  "Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety," the great Benjamin Franklin said.  This country was founded upon truths that, to its founders, were self evident-Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  We've managed to pervert that into a contest of whose god can beat up whose and whose god is better than whose. 

 

And that was the entire purpose of my email, not to fly in the face of anyone's personal beliefs, but to correct information about the inception of our very way of life.  We lead a privileged existence here in the United States of America, and despite the fact that I think some other nations are doing things better than we are, I am still willing to stand up for true patriotism, not that flag-waving fake kind.  I have a Canadian Flag bumper sticker on my car not because I hate the United States, but because I think that Canada is doing things better than we are, and I think we could stand to learn from some of their examples.  Our founding fathers were radical idealists, and it was only that kind of radical idealism that served, and could possibly have served, as a catalyst for the United States to even exist.  That's why I wrote what I did.  I fully urge people to vote and live according to their beliefs.  However, those beliefs are meaningless if they are never challenged, much like a muscle can never get stronger if it is never exercised. 

 

Before I conclude, I'm genuinely confused as to why people allege that I am angry.  I've received that same comment from three different members of the family now, including my mother, and I'm mystified.  I went back and re-read the email I sent previously, and I still do not believe it to be an angry one, nor do I see what caused people to think that I'm some evil person trying to destroy their faith.  Honestly, I found Jason's reply rather hurtful (I know everyone's seen it), and I am greatly concerned that my family sees me now as some angry person with a "lifestyle."  I've sent Jason a grand total of four emails in the entirety of my life, two of which were of a Monopoly game I saw in Toys-R'-Us, and yet he "[deletes] them as he usually [does], usually with one or two eye rolls?" 

 

Trust me when I say that I have done that on a daily basis with more than a fair share of emails patently more religious than was my own, yet I have not even made mention of them or accused anyone of proselytizing or forcing their beliefs with them. As such, I'm going to say that what's fair is fair. By introducing religious topics into a conversation, one is either intending to engage philosophical discussion and debate on the topic, or one is attempting to proselytize and “force beliefs.†Given the reaction to the reply I sent to a factually incorrect religiously themed email, I'm forced to conclude that the original email's intent was not philosophical discussion or debate. I enjoy philosophical discussions about religion, spirituality, and politics and am generally willing to participate in such a conversation. If one is unwilling to hear an opposing viewpoint or have misinformation corrected, I would assert that their primary purpose, then, is not to engage conversation but instead to proselytize and force beliefs, and I would absolutely urge anyone to very carefully consider what their intentions are when sending out such items.

 

No, I'm not angry, but I sure am hurt, and I apologize if I did the same. 

[MonolithTMA]

I've taken some time to draft an email that I am going to send to the original recipients of the original e-mail, excepting my 12-year-old cousin. For those who are interested, here is the very long text thereof...

 

That is a wonderful letter! Anyone who responds negatively to that is truly living in a fantasy world.

 

Great job!

[Heavenslaughing]

What a wonderful letter! I wish you could expect the same treatment from your family that you're giving them. If anything, I'm not sure it's necessary to apologize when you clearly see yourself as not having done anything wrong, though I see you're bending over backwards to be conciliatory. You've articulated yourself very well. Would you mind posting the texts of the original forward and your response, also?

[Outback Jack]

Excellent response, Zequar. I think you handled things just right. And you have my condolences, not just for your situation but because your granny sends you NINE emails in a single day!

[xequar]

Thank you all for your responses so far.

 

What a wonderful letter! I wish you could expect the same treatment from your family that you're giving them. If anything, I'm not sure it's necessary to apologize when you clearly see yourself as not having done anything wrong, though I see you're bending over backwards to be conciliatory. You've articulated yourself very well. Would you mind posting the texts of the original forward and your response, also?

I'm going to give it a try. We'll see if I can clean up the pictures and colorful fonts...

 

OUR REAL ROOTS:

This is one e-mail that needs to be shared. But then, we may already be too late. God help us.

[]

[]

 

Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of The Declaration of Independence were orthodox, deeply committed Christians? The other three all believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God of scripture, and His personal intervention.

 

[]

 

It is the same congress that formed the American Bible Society. Immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of scripture for the people of this nation.

 

[]

 

Patrick Henry, who is called the firebrand of the American Revolution, is still remembered for his words, 'Give me liberty or give me death.' But in current textbooks the context of these words is deleted. Here is what he said: 'An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.'

 

These sentences have been erased from our textbooks.

 

[]

 

Was Patrick Henry a Christian? The following year, 1776, he wrote this 'It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.'

 

[]

 

Consider these words that Thomas Jefferson wrote on the front of his well- worn Bible: 'I am a Christian, that is to say a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also.'

 

[]

 

Consider these words from George Washington, the Father of our Nation, in his farewell speech on September 19, 1796:

 

[]

 

'It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.'

 

[]

 

Was George Washington a Christian? Consider these words from his personal prayer book: 'Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work. Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the lamb and purge my heart by the Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the likeness of thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of the justified unto eternal life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of thy son, Jesus Christ.'

 

[]

 

Consider these words by John Adams, our second president, who also served as chairman of the American Bible Society.

 

[]

 

In an address to military leaders he said, 'We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.'

 

How about our first Court Justice, John Jay?

 

[]

 

He stated that when we select our national leaders, if we are to preserve our Nation, we must select Christians. 'Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.'

 

John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, was the sixth U.S. President.

 

[]

 

He was also the chairman of the American Bible Society, which he considered his highest and most important role. On July 4, 1821, President Adams said, 'The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.'

 

[]

 

Calvin Coolidge, our 30th President of the United States reaffirmed this truth when he wrote, 'The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country.'

 

[]

 

In 1782, the United States Congress voted this resolution: 'The congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.'

 

[]

 

William Holmes McGuffey is the author of the McGuffey Reader, which was used for over 100 years in our public schools with over 125 million copies sold until it was stopped in 1963. President Lincoln called him the 'Schoolmaster of the Nation.'

 

[]

 

Listen to these words of Mr. McGuffey: 'The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our notions on character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. From no source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. From all these extracts from the Bible I make no apology.'

 

[]

 

Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian, including the first.

 

[]

 

Harvard University, chartered in 1636. In the original Harvard Student Handbook rule number 1 was that students seeking entrance must know Latin and Greek so that they could study the scriptures:

 

[]

 

'Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let everyone seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of him (Proverbs 2:3).'

 

For over 100 years, more than 50% of all Harvard graduates were pastors!

 

[]

 

It is clear from history that the Bible and the Christian faith, were foundational in our educational and judicial system. However in 1947, there was a radical change of direction in the Supreme Court.

 

[]

 

Here is the prayer that was banished:

 

'Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee. We beg Thy blessings upon us and our parents and our teachers and our country.

 

Amen.'

 

In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled that Bible reading was outlawed as unconstitutional in the public school system. The court offered this justification: 'If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could and have been psychologically harmful to children.'

 

[]

 

Bible reading was now unconstitutional , though the Bible was quoted 94 percent of the time by those who wrote our constitution and shaped our Nation and its system of education and justice and government.

 

[]

 

In 1965, the Courts denied as unconstitutional the rights of a student in the public school cafeteria to bow his head and pray audibly for his food.

 

In 1980, Stone vs. Graham outlawed the Ten Commandments in our public schools.

 

[]

 

The Supreme Court said this: 'If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments were to have any effect at all, it would be to induce school children to read them. And if they read them, meditated upon them, and perhaps venerated and observed them, this is not a permissible objective.'

 

Is it not a permissible objective to allow our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments?

 

[]

 

James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution of the United States, said this: 'We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.'

 

Today we are asking God to bless America. But how can He bless a Nation that has departed so far from Him?

 

[]

 

Most of what you read in this article has been erased from our textbooks. Revisionists have rewritten history to remove the truth about our country's Christian roots. I , Mary Jones, the designer of this web page, encourage all who read and agree with the words herein, to share it with others, so that the truth of our nation's history may be told.

 

And then, my original response.

 

Hello all

 

 

 

Every so often, I'll receive an email that contains such errors of fact that I feel compelled to make note of and correct the misinformation. This email is such an example.

 

 

 

The Declaration of Independence, of course, is arguably the single most important document in the history of the United States of America, even more so than the "Constitution for the United States of America" that still serves, in whatever tattered form the Bush Administration has left it, as the foundation of government in the United States. The Declaration was a summary of King George of Great Britain's offenses against the colonies in America and served as notice that those colonies were officially seizing their own destinies and their own sovereignty.

 

 

 

The Declaration was drafted by Thomas Jefferson, and although his draft was later reviewed by committee, the work is still largely Jefferson's. Thomas Jefferson was a devoutly religious man, but was by no stretch a Christian. It is Thomas Jefferson who, during his tenure as the third president of the United States, coined the phrase, "Separation of church and state," as he expressed in what is now known as the "Wall of Separation Letter." (http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html) Jefferson was noted as a Deist, although some consider him an Agnostic. He rejected most of the New Testament of the Bible and later condensed what he felt to be the true version of the Gospels in what later became known as the "Jefferson Bible." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_jefferson#Religious_views) In fact, upon a careful reading of The Declaration of Independence, one will note there are no references to any Christian god, but instead "Nature's God" and "Creator," and of even more interest is that no references to god or any creator whatsoever can be found in the Constitution for the United States of America.

 

 

 

Beyond Thomas Jefferson, questions of Benjamin Franklin's religious affiliations are certainly valid, and he referred to himself as a Deist in his later life. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_franklin#Virtue.2C_religion_and_personal_beliefs) Indeed, although many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were in fact Christian, and nearly all, if not all, had some sort of belief in some sort of a god, to say that they were all Christian, or even all had some believe in the Christian god, is utterly incorrect. A number of signers of the Declaration are relatively unknown today, and as such, their religious and spiritual inclinations are to this day unknown. (http://usconstitution.net/declarsigndata.html)

 

 

 

The simple summary of the statements made by this email is that they are all incorrect. Although some of the signers were deeply committed Christians, certainly not ALL of them held the bible to any high standard, and not all of them demonstrably believed in the Christian god.

 

I hope that this knowledge will help remove the blinders and dispel the persistent myth that this is a "Christian nation," as this is actually a secular nation with a sizable Christian population. I further hope that this knowledge will be spread and can help strengthen and stabilize this once-great nation.

Even as I re-read my words yet again, I still don't see the attack on Christianity, my family members' faith, or my own declaration of apostasy. I still read an attack on the myth of the Christian nation, and I still cannot understand how the U.S. being a "Christian Nation" is so integral to the belief structure. I don't ever remember believing that when I was a Christian.

 

At the very least, I've gotten a couple of emails since I sent my reply. My mother said it was a good answer, even though she apparently thinks I'm "free-falling" and that I'm "not happy or content in any way." My aunt, though, had better insights. I've mentioned elsewhere on the boards that I live about three hours from the rest of my family, so I don't get to see them that much. Once upon a time I was really religious, enough that my aunt and uncle chose me to be my cousin's godfather. To them, my coming out and apostasy seem very tied together and very sudden, and based on that, I think I can see how by some stretch I might seem angry. Personally, I think it's more a result of them trying to diminish my views and simply dismiss them as the ravings of an angry person so that their own faith seems far more tenable than it really is.

[Purple]

Xequar, both of those were beautifully worded, I wish I could write out my thoughts as well as you have. I think part of this may be a family thing. For them they see you a certain way, not being in your family, and not seeing you through the family lens I see your words purely, they probably won't.

[Ahh!]

When I tell my mother that I don't understand her objection to women preaching, she roles her eyes at me and tells me, "I have a lot to learn."

 

Earlier today, I saw a bumper sticker that said "Coexist." Being that my mother and I are both pretty sarcastic types, I started joking about what a non-statement that was since it's not like people are beating the crap out of each other in the streets of our town over religious differences. Suddenly, she blurted out, "yeah, stupid Darwinists." "Darwinists?" I asked her what she meant by that. She says, "all of the stupid Darwinists want us to coexist." I tried to explain to her that there was no logical tie between those ideas (especially since there was a couple Christian bumper stickers on the car) and she started to scream at me, "you know what FINE! YOU WIN! YOU WIN! ARE YOU HAPPY?" like I'd been horribly rude to her by saying those people may or may not have been Darwinists.

 

So yeah, there's a certain class of people, unfortunately usually including at least a few people within most families, who are very rude towards other people's beliefs but will start whining if you express your own. They will really shove their beliefs down your throat but a slight correction is taken as an insult to theirs. I suggest ignoring it. Be a bit cold/indifferent towards their beliefs- if they get offended at your response when they've gone in saying something hurtful, don't be afraid to say, "too bad" or leave their messages unresponded to.

[Heavenslaughing]

I don't see the email you sent as having even mentioned your own beliefs; it simply rejects portions of an argument sent to you that America was founded as a Christian nation. You support your details with links, and I think the only part I might question would be your saying that the statements in the forward were "all incorrect" when you only addressed a few, and *some* of the others might be accurate.

 

It's interesting that you'd say that Jefferson wasn't a Christian when to his own understanding he probably was. Your family, if they understood his beliefs, would probably agree that he was not, and I would rather agree with Jefferson's definition of Christianity than theirs. He followed his understanding of the philosophy of Jesus, but he rejected the divinity of Jesus and the supernatural elements he believed early Christians had inserted into the story. Twentieth-century fundamentalism managed to obscure the significance of this sort of Christianity to our Founding Fathers.

[Seeker630]

Ok exequar I've read this entire thread now. I understand your predicament, and I also grasp that your situation vis-a-vis your family may well be very different than mine. But I would have handled this differently, in my situation, and at my point in life. First of all, most of my immediate family know I'm an atheist, and it hasn't caused me any serious problems with any of them so far. Likewise with longtime friends. But if anyone had persisted in sending me bullshit religious, political or social issues e-mails after I had asked them not to, I'd treat them like the junk mail they are. I don't forward out stupid e-mails supporting my position on anything, and I expect and demand the same in return. As far as I'm concerned, getting that pro-Christian, conservative, suck Dubya's ass stuff is right up there with ads for Viagra, cheap Canadian drug stores, and one liners that are titled "Hi I'm Darla---Call me now" at 1-900--------

 

You can adjust your filters for incoming mail in most e-mail accounts to filter out incoming messages with certain words in it like "Lord", Christ", Savior, Jesus, God, Christian etc., so they get funneled off to your spam folder. I know I can do that with either Hotmail or Yahoo for sure. I'm sure you probably can too. Or you can just look at them quickly, decide you're not interested, and delete them. I would make sure to let everyone on that forwarded message list know exaclty what I was doing too.[/i] Trust me on this----it will cut out about 97% of the junk e-mails. I only wish that there was some way they would get it bounced back for cause every time they send you one---you know-----"Postmaster----undeliverable".

 

 

And then there's the nuclear option---------the Blocked Sender's List. If nothing else works. Oh and then there's the ever popular--------shut down your current e-mail account and open a new one, giving it only to people who you know will not share it, or send you obnoxious e-mails. Or maybe use a disposable account and let it just dump everything when it gets too full. There are plenty of options here.

 

I knjow you were anxious to correct some glaring misinformation (lies). But in my experience it's not worth the investment of my time and aggravation. They aren't interested in your opinion. All they want to see and hear is what reinforces THEIR worldview. Not anyone else's. They will sit there and defend that David Barton and James D. Kennedy bullshit from now till the end of time.

 

 

Just my 2¢ ----- your mileage may vary. I just don't have the kind of patience I did when I was a lot younger, with wanton ignorance and stupidity. People like that can live in their little fantasy world if they like, as long as they leave me out of it.

[Taphophilia]

As Madame M points out the myth of a Christian nation is Christian Propaganda. It has no basis in real facts. They blindly accept it and without question, just like they do Christianity. If you counter their arguments with the facts, it will only lead any reasonable person to question everything they blindly believe and accept as truth could be myth also.

[MonolithTMA]

So after I send him this info, he writes back "that jail is in Germany someone changed it to Cook county". No apology for the rant against liberals, or admittance that it was nothing but a piece of strawman propaganda from the conservatives. Just a whoopsie but liberals are still evil type reply.

 

Ya know what's great? That was today's daily Snopes. That prison is in Austria, not Germany.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/architecture/prison.asp

[OnceConvinced]

Personally, I think it's more a result of them trying to diminish my views and simply dismiss them as the ravings of an angry person so that their own faith seems far more tenable than it really is.

You're onto it, I reckon.

 

How dare you try to shake them out of their delusion. You're just supposed to say "Preach it Brother!" and "Hallelujah!

[xequar]

Ok exequar I've read this entire thread now. I understand your predicament, and I also grasp that your situation vis-a-vis your family may well be very different than mine. But I would have handled this differently, in my situation, and at my point in life. First of all, most of my immediate family know I'm an atheist, and it hasn't caused me any serious problems with any of them so far. Likewise with longtime friends. But if anyone had persisted in sending me bullshit religious, political or social issues e-mails after I had asked them not to, I'd treat them like the junk mail they are. I don't forward out stupid e-mails supporting my position on anything, and I expect and demand the same in return. As far as I'm concerned, getting that pro-Christian, conservative, suck Dubya's ass stuff is right up there with ads for Viagra, cheap Canadian drug stores, and one liners that are titled "Hi I'm Darla---Call me now" at 1-900--------

 

You can adjust your filters for incoming mail in most e-mail accounts to filter out incoming messages with certain words in it like "Lord", Christ", Savior, Jesus, God, Christian etc., so they get funneled off to your spam folder. I know I can do that with either Hotmail or Yahoo for sure. I'm sure you probably can too. Or you can just look at them quickly, decide you're not interested, and delete them. I would make sure to let everyone on that forwarded message list know exaclty what I was doing too.[/i] Trust me on this----it will cut out about 97% of the junk e-mails. I only wish that there was some way they would get it bounced back for cause every time they send you one---you know-----"Postmaster----undeliverable".

 

 

And then there's the nuclear option---------the Blocked Sender's List. If nothing else works. Oh and then there's the ever popular--------shut down your current e-mail account and open a new one, giving it only to people who you know will not share it, or send you obnoxious e-mails. Or maybe use a disposable account and let it just dump everything when it gets too full. There are plenty of options here.

 

I knjow you were anxious to correct some glaring misinformation (lies). But in my experience it's not worth the investment of my time and aggravation. They aren't interested in your opinion. All they want to see and hear is what reinforces THEIR worldview. Not anyone else's. They will sit there and defend that David Barton and James D. Kennedy bullshit from now till the end of time.

 

 

Just my 2¢ ----- your mileage may vary. I just don't have the kind of patience I did when I was a lot younger, with wanton ignorance and stupidity. People like that can live in their little fantasy world if they like, as long as they leave me out of it.

I thank you for the ideas, and I didn't actually know you could go as far as word filtering with Yahoo mail. At present, the reason I've hesitated to use any of those options is that my grandfather's health is starting to fail, and my grandmother will sometimes dump a tidbit about his health in with a bunch of stuff about Christ's blessings and yadda yadda yadda. I don't really want to block or alienate or segregate myself from any members of my family. I genuinely do love my family, even for some of their interesting foibles, and I guess that's part of why the reactions I got caught me so off guard. I know that they're all Christian, but generally they've been somewhat on the down-low about it. I guess, though, that was just because they, excepting my grandmother, didn't think they needed to proselytize to the rest of the family.

 

Also, I'm coming to realize that intelligence is a threat to most people. A tidbit of one of the responses I got to my second email was, "Your expressions of your views have come across not as a "I want you to understand how I feel" as much as they have come across as a "This is how I feel and you are stupid if you don't feel the same way". It may not be your intent for the message to come across that way, but it is how it is read. Maybe this is because you have always been able to speak in a way that has left us simple folks heads spinning from the words that you use to express yourself."

 

You're onto it, I reckon.

 

How dare you try to shake them out of their delusion. You're just supposed to say "Preach it Brother!" and "Hallelujah!

I think I'm starting to piece it together now... My "intelligence" is frightening, so rather than attempt to reach out and consider a new viewpoint, they'd rather just attack the smart one because he's a threat to their conservative Christian existence in rural Michigan farm country.

 

 

I gotta say, this whole thing has really been one big drain on me lately, and I thank all of you for your support and insights. *hugs*