Kris:

Kevin:
But the thing is, they weren't Christians, they didn't believe in "the" God, just a god. They were Deists, not Christians.

A few examples of their with issues with it:

 You say "they" were deists. Of course you don't mean "every single one," you just mean "a majority" or "most" or "many." But the fact is not a single person who signed the Constitution was a "deist." The Founders believed in Providence, which is the belief in a personal God who supernaturally intervenes in history to answer prayer and judge tyrants.

Here is a list of Founding Fathers on an anti-Christian, pro-separation website:

Who were the most important founders?

Christians dominate this list.

Christianity dominated the Colonial period. It's a mistake to take the Constitution out of this Christian context.

It's also a mistake to take your quotations out of this context.
Thomas Jefferson
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teachings of Jesus."

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."

 Jefferson called himself a Christian. He was far closer to my position than yours, I feel.

Thomas Jefferson: Enemy of Christianity?

All your quotations are criticisms of clergy, not Jesus. Jefferson opposed a lot of what the clergy said, but distinguished what clergy said from what Jesus said. I can play that game too. I call myself a Christian, but I'm not a member of any church. But Jefferson attended church faithfully.

I also agree with Jefferson that the Civil Government should not punish Baptists for failing to adhere to Episcopalian beliefs.

But Jefferson believed that the Civil Government should punish homosexuals and murderers, and he believed this for generally religious reasons. Jefferson believed God would punish sinners after death. Based on the Jefferson Bible, we can conclude that he believed Jesus was the Supreme Judge of the World.
John Adams
"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole cartloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"

"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

 These quotes are out of context.

By whom is the doctrine of Jesus "made a convenient cover?" Again, these are criticisms of corrupt clergy, not criticisms of true Christianity. Read the proclamation that Adams issued as President. It was Trinitarian. It was also typical of that day, which was pervasively Christian.
Thomas Paine
"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."

"Among the most detesable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers, and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."

"It is the duty of every true Diest to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."

"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance."

"The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretend imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."

 While Thomas Paine wrote on the subject of Independence in a way that most Founders respected, his views on religion were passionately rejected by nearly every Founding Father. Read more.

Again, his criticisms were more against corrupt clergy than true religion. The clergy had a lot of political power in that day, and Paine rightfully criticized it. But Paine was not an atheist, and if he were here today, he would be passionately critical of government-imposed atheism.

"What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith."

 In a sense, every single human being is the result of "debauchery," because every human being is a miraculous creation of God. This is a stupid argument, and an example of why most of the Founding Fathers were highly critical of Paine's criticism of religion.

"We do not admit the authority of the church with respect to its pretended infallibility, its manufactured miracles, its setting itself up to forgive sins.
It was by propagating that belief and supporting it with fire that she kept up her temporal power."

 I can agree with this. It's irrelevant to the question of Christianity itself.

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."

 Arrogant egotist. On the other hand, since I'm not a member of any church, I guess I can say the same thing. But America said no such thing. The Protestant creed was taught in every public school in America.

"The story of Jesus Christ appearing after he was dead is the story of an apparition, such as timid imaginations can always create in vision, and credulity believe. Stories of this kind had been told of the assassination of Julius Caesar."

 I disagree with this, and America disagreed with it. Paine died a despised man.
James Madison
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyrrany. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."		 I agree with Madison in opposing "ecclesiastical establishments." But you can have a Christian nation without any churches at all.

Read Madison's Presidential Proclamations

As Candidate for Congress I would follow Madison's advice. He said legislators should vote against any proposed legislation if the bill

is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift, ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of (revelation) from coming into the Region of it; and countenances, by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachments of error.
James Madison, "Father of the Constitution," Memorial and Remonstrance (1785)

James Madison and Religion in Public
Benjamin Franklin
". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."		 Many Franklin quotes are taken out of context or taken from his early years, even though later in life he retracted them (e.g., deism). This part of his autobiography refers to his youth, and he says he grew out of this.

More on Franklin

"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."

 I can agree with this. The Bible says the same thing. A Christian nation can agree with this.

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."

 I too am critical of churches.

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."

 It's not always easy to tell what "Poor Richard's" proverbs mean, but the next proverb is:

"The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle."

I think Franklin is saying that our pride gets in the way of what the Creator has done.

In any case, I don't believe that Faith and Reason are contradictory, and I don't believe Franklin did either.

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

 I agree. I would say a majority of Americans in that day agreed, but a majority of clergy disagreed. A nation can be a "Christian nation" in its intentions whether churches are tax-supported or not.

"I looked around for God's judgments, but saw no signs of them."

 Context, context, context. I'll bet you don't know when or where Franklin said this. Nearly 30 years later, at the Constitutional Convention, Franklin said God's judgments were evident.

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it."

 A clever and ironic thing to say; no Christian would disagree with this in context.

So here we have 5 founding fathers all with distinct problems with Christianity. There's more but this would get really long really fast if we went into all the lesser known fathers and all their quotations. I don't really feel like writing that book just yet.

 I recommend reading David Barton's book, Original Intent. It has thousands of quotes most Americans are unfamiliar with. It completely changes your picture of America at that time.

We also have:

Ethan Allen

  

"I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism makes me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not strictly speaking, whether I am one or not."

 "as to being a Deist, I know not, strictly speaking, whether I am one or not, for I have never read their writings" 
From the Preface to Reason: The Only Oracle Of Man: A Compendious System Of Natural Religion By Ethan Allen (1784)

Ethan Allen is like Tom Paine in the sense that he helped in the War for Independence, then became a critic of Christianity and lost America's admiration. He fought in the War for Independence as a Christian, not as an atheist:

When word of the skirmishes in Massachusetts and Virginia reached Connecticut, the General Assembly secretly instructed Colonel Ethan Allen to enlist a group of men to disable Ticonderoga, a British stronghold in New York. Late in the evening of May 9, 1775, Allen and his Green Mountain Boys approached the unsuspecting garrison, quietly capturing the sentries and securing the barracks of sleeping British soldiers. Allen then pushed on to camp headquarters and roused the commandant, Captain de la Place. Allen himself described what next occurred:

[T]he Captain came immediately to the door with his small clothes in his hand--when I ordered him to deliver to me the fort, instantly. He asked me by what authority I demanded it. I answered him -- "In the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress."
We also have the Treaty of Tripoli signed by them and in Article 11:
"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the
Christian religion."
  1. This statement is obviously not true. A century later the Supreme Court said America is a Christian nation.
  2. This statement is not found in all copies of the Treaty with Tripoli
  3. Congress made sure to remove this line from all copies the next time the treaty was re-negotiated.
  4. Quoting this line is therefore dishonest or uninformed.
  5. Details.
From the Constitution itself:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Ie. Regardless of what some states chose to do, it is against the Constitution to require any religion in office.
That's not up for interpretation, it's there in plain black and white. (or black and parchment I suppose)

 I appreciate your argument, but I disagree. A "religious test" meant loyalty to the Church of England or any other denominational exclusion. No atheist anywhere in America was allowed to put his left hand on a Bible, raise his right hand toward heaven, and take an "oath." He would obviously be a hypocrite. When the Framers of the federal constitution went back to their home states, they wrote state constitutions which said "no religious tests" but also excluded atheists. The records of the debates show that a "religious test" was a church test. Atheists were excluded until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled such laws "unconstitutional" (along with prayer and Bible reading -- something no Founder would have approved), but the Court did not do so based on Article VI.
[KC:] "You can BELIEVE in the Aztec religion of
the sun-god, but if you try to sacrifice
someone on an altar, you will be arrested,
because this is a Christian nation. That's
what the U.S. Supreme Court said many times
during the first century under the Constitution."

You also can't do a lot of things Christians are supposed to do or you would be arrested, and rightfully so, the Bible preaches a lot of horrible inhumane punishments.
I would almost go so far as to say more than any other religious text.

 Name one "horrible punishment" required by the Bible that was not the law of the land in America in 1790.
> > You can keep core morals without a god figure and the nation is
> > nowhere near to being a christian nation.
>
> It was.
> It no longer is.
> And that would explain why we have lost
> core morals.

The problem is this logic doesn't follow. Plenty of people still have the morals. However we have more Christian leaders than we did in the beginning and they're the ones that don't.
We started with Deists in power and had none of these problems. So if we follow this train of logic, Christianity has pushed the values out of the way and turned them into hate and prejudice which has led to a lot of our less and less moral laws. Granted the overall logic doesn't actually follow either way because there is a LOT more that has effected the US than religion alone. Paranoia about everything from germs to terrorists to cases of mistaken identity has caused more and more ridiculous laws to pop up and though each law seems small they all contribute to our entire problem.

 A person can refrain from killing even if he has no intelligent basis for not killing. A person can say "Human beings are a cancer on the environment and should be eradicated" without eradicating any human beings. America's Founding Fathers, almost without exception, believed that Christianity provided a reason for not killing and stealing, and that without Christianity, there was no durable basis for morals.

A person can also say that Christianity is the only basis for not stealing, but then go out and steal, or act inconsistently with his profession of faith.

I'm not really sure what laws you're talking about.
"The Bible says everyone knows deep down
that stealing and killing are wrong. It's
called "conscience." It exists because
we are created in the Image of God."

The bible does this a lot. Uses basic instincts like this to make itself seem more factual. It says that *insert thing* exists because god made it, and then proceeds to say that god is real because it says it is. Bottom line is this is circular logic, the entire bible encourages this flaw of logic. When in reality there's no evidence one way or the other. This is why I don't follow it.

 And this is exactly why the Framers of the Constitution believed Christianity was important.

George Washington, in one of the most famous addresses in American history, said:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness—these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, "where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?" And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Just because you don't believe what the Founding Fathers believed does not prove that they didn't believe it. They did.
> "Public schools were created to push religion
> onto children. I oppose government-run schools,
> but as long as they exist, they should push
> Christianity rather than atheism or Islam."

But this is denying the children their freedoms. If you only show them one thing, of course they'll choose that thing. You contradict your support of choice here. There can be no choice without presenting the options. Children put their faith in their teachers. If we're going to push religion in school there should be an entire class on it to cover as many religions as possible. That gives a choice. You can't push one religion and claim to be for freedom of religious choice.

If you set a box of pepperoni pizza in front of a child and tell them that there is either that pizza, or another pizza that they might like better somewhere, but don't tell them where, which will they take? The pepperoni of course. It's the only viable choice to them, they know it's there, and they know it's pepperoni. A few hours later they might still be hungry and look for that other pizza out of curiosity and find out they liked it better the whole time, or that they still like the pepperoni.

If you give them one religion, same thing. Then years later they find out they like a different religion, but they've wasted so much time believing in something they didn't really believe because it wasn't truly a choice. At this point they are tied into the community though and Christians are notoriously vicious about people who decide to leave the church. Friends stop talking to you, family excludes you. And thusly the choice is gone. You either fake being Christian, or you lose all the family, friends, and community you've grown to love, all over a choice. Whereas if everyone is given the choice, we end up with more diversity, and universally more acceptance. Because now you, your cousin, and your brother might all be non christians. But you didn't ever claim to be christian, you aren't seen as a turncoat.

Schools have to either push none of the options, or all of them. (Atheism being included an option by the way. It would have to be taught with the other views)

>  "The choice must be free, but not free from facts."

But that's the thing isn't it, we can't call the bible facts. As much as anyone wants to there is no way to prove it as fact. Therefore the bible is still theory. I won't discount it entirely, I'm more open than that but it really can't be considered hard facts. I would have no problem with seeing Christian theory taught. But it would have to be alongside other religious theory to be fair to the children.

 I'm guessing you don't have children of your own.

If you do, I'll bet that you don't say to them,

Some people believe that Jews are not human beings, and that it's OK to gas millions of them to death.
Some people believe that blacks are not human beings, and that it's OK to enslave millions of them.
I'm not going to tell you that it's wrong to enslave or commit genocide. You have the freedom to decide that for yourself.

Parents always teach their children what they believe is true. Of course, children can reject what their parents teach them, but no parent is going to encourage children to believe something the parents are convinced is false.

No parent is going to put pepperoni pizza and cyanide in front of a child and say, "Pizza or poison; your choice."

How could a parent know what a child will embrace in the event the child rejects what the parent thinks is true?

Peer pressure is real, I don't deny that. But if the peers are pressuring you to embrace the truth, that's not a bad thing. Being a fake Christian is better than being a genuine and consistent Nazi.

Not a single person who signed the Constitution agreed with you, and believed that public schools had to teach Christianity and cannibalism both.

 

The overwhelming majority of Americans in the Constitutional era believed that the Bible was true and factual. They did not ratify a Constitution which empowered the federal government to prohibit them from teaching the truth or require them to teach a false religion.
> "The human mind is incapable of creating a
> durable basis for morality if the world is
> ultimately meaningless and purposeless.
> if you are just a cosmic accident, why
> should I not steal from you or kill you
> if it serves my purposes? Who cares?
> What does it matter? What does it mean?"

I disagree with this heavily. I don't like having my stuff taken, I don't like being stabbed. Why would I put someone else through that? I can take another route to get to my end, and when I get there I can share it with the person I didn't stab or steal from and then we both have the thing, whatever the thing was.

 The point is that the people who created the Constitution did not agree with you. They believed you had to teach Christianity in order to ensure morality. Not everyone thinks like you do. Many atheists have concluded that killing other human beings or confiscating their property is OK. It's called "communism." America's Founders believed that human beings were "fallen" and "depraved" and needed religion to keep them from being logically consistent with the premise that there is no ultimate meaning in life.
> "I'm not so sure. There are a handful of
> atheists that are becoming more strident,
> and Britain has been on a secular trend
> for decades, but it's not quite as bad
> in the U.S., and around the world
> atheism is crumbling and Christianity
> is growing."

On the contrary worldwide "No Religion" is the fastest growing religious claim on surveys and census results. Granted this includes more than atheism but at the very least, it isn't Christianity. On the Whole Christianity is definitely shrinking. (Not that I'm saying this is a good or bad thing, though to be honest, modern secular Christianity promotes a lot of horrible things and is quite corrupt.)

Also because I didn't really remember to put it out there last time (if you haven't already figured it out) I am a practical atheist. I won't necessarily tell you outright your god does not exist, however I will say that there is a lack of evidence to me and that even if he does, I don't believe he serves any practical or moral purpose, especially based on what the bible says. With the exception of the last 7 commandments I think the bible is filled with a lot of bad morals and inhumane things, old testament and new. Times have changed, we aren't as brutal anymore(and for good reason), I think the punishments and prejudices that people see in the bible need to be changed. To me the majority of it drags the whole thing down below the morals it claims to support. There are some good moral stories in there, but they're surrounded by tales justifying violence and prejudice.

  

 

 

 

I think you're mistaken. Maybe it's wishful thinking. See this. What census and survey results are you thinking of?

 

 

I agree that we are less brutal, but I attribute that to Christmas and the coming of Christ and Christianity. Not churches, but Christianity (the teachings of Christ and the Bible, not the teaching of the church about the Bible).

The Bible, understood properly, does not "justify violence."


> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 09:02:11 -0600
> Subject: Re: Comment on "The Endangered Bill of Rights"
> From: KevinCraig@KevinCraig.us
> To: zwarrior_gohan1@hotmail.com
>
> Hi Kris,
>
> Thanks very much for taking time to write.
> I'm sure you can imagine that I feel more
> honored when someone writes a long letter
> with a criticism than when I'm just ignored!
>
> In a nutshell, I'm a fanatic Christian,
> but I'm also a radical libertarian.
> I have strong dogmatic views on religion,
> but I don't believe in government force
> or manipulation to compel others to
> agree with me.
>
> I've read your letter. Let me make a few
> comments on it:
>
> On Wed, November 16, 2011 3:41 am, Kris Canty wrote:
> >
> > I agree with most everything you've said, with one exception.
> >
> > On the point of religion if you truly claim to support the founding
> > fathers of the United States you can't lean so heavily toward
> > christianity, or even toward having to have a religion.
>
> I used to believe this, but now I believe
> I was a victim of educational malpractice.
> Every single person who signed the Constitution --
> without exception -- believed that we should
> lean heavily toward Christianity. Atheists were
> not allowed to hold public office anywhere in
> the United States. This widespread practice
> was not held to be "unconstitutional" until
> 1961.
>
> > Many of the
> > founding fathers actually had big problems with christianity,
>
> The word "many" surely means "more than two."
> But I'll bet you can't name more than two
> Founding Fathers who had "big" problems
> with Christianity. The overwhelming majority
> believed Christianity was true and should be
> endorsed and promoted.
>
> http://KevinCraig.us/EndTheWall/promote.htm
>
> http://KevinCraig.us/EndTheWall/endorse.htm
>
> > which is why
> > we are free to choose what we believe.
>
> You can BELIEVE in the Aztec religion of
> the sun-god, but if you try to sacrifice
> someone on an altar, you will be arrested,
> because this is a Christian nation. That's
> what the U.S. Supreme Court said many times
> during the first century under the Constitution.
>
> http://KevinCraig.us/mormon.htm
>
> > Most of them were still religious
> > but that doesn't mean that atheism is a bad thing either,
> > atheism was rare back then.
>
> The Founders believed atheism was a bad thing,
> and that's why it was rare. Ben Franklin said
> it was "unknown" here.
>
> http://KevinCraig.us/deism.htm#F18
>
> John Locke wrote a provision into the
> Carolina constitution excluding atheists
> from public office:
>
> Lastly, those are not all to be tolerated
> who deny the being of God. Promises, covenants,
> and oaths, which are the bonds of human society,
> can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away
> of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all;
> besides also, those that by their atheism undermine
> and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of
> religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of
> toleration.
> Essay on Toleration, Chas Sherman ed.,
> (NY: Appleton-Century, 1937) pp. 212-13
>
> > You can keep core morals without a god figure and the nation is
> > nowhere near to being a christian nation.
>
> It was.
> It no longer is.
> And that would explain why we have lost
> core morals.
>
> > That said I don't think it should be against the law for teachers to
> > display portions of their religion.
>
> The original purpose of public schools was
> to teach the Christian religion and morality.
>
> http://KevinCraig.us/education.htm
>
> > They should not push their faith onto
> > children though, the children should decide for themselves.
>
> Public schools were created to push religion
> onto children. I oppose government-run schools,
> but as long as they exist, they should push
> Christianity rather than atheism or Islam.
>
> > That's the
> > core part of freedom, choosing for ones self.
>
> The choice must be free, but not free from facts.
>
> > Atheism is becoming more and
> > more popular as time goes on.
>
> I'm not so sure. There are a handful of
> atheists that are becoming more strident,
> and Britain has been on a secular trend
> for decades, but it's not quite as bad
> in the U.S., and around the world
> atheism is crumbling and Christianity
> is growing.
>
> > While some don't consider it a religion
> > (which from your article it seems you don't),
>
> I'm not sure which article you're looking at,
> but I believe atheism (or secular humanism)
> is a religion:
>
> http://KevinCraig.us/EndTheWall/humanism.htm
>
> > it is essentially the same
> > thing, it is the freedom to choose not to follow our established
> > definition of
> > "religion" though in itself is a religion based on believing simply in
> > what is here, and what we know to exist. It is still a freedom and doesn't
> > automatically cause people to become immoral like a lot of people attempt
> > to suggest.
>
> The human mind is incapable of creating a
> durable basis for morality if the world is
> ultimately meaningless and purposeless.
> If you are just a cosmic accident, why
> should I not steal from you or kill you
> if it serves my purposes? Who cares?
> What does it matter? What does it mean?
>
> > I couldn't quite tell if you were one of those people but I
> > can say I never needed the ten commandments to tell me that stealing my
> > neighbors stuff and stabbing people was wrong. I knew I liked my stuff,
> > and I knew I would dislike being stabbed, so I saw no reason why I should
> > submit another to it.
>
> The Bible says everyone knows deep down
> that stealing and killing are wrong. It's
> called "conscience." It exists because
> we are created in the Image of God.
>
> >
> > Bottom line, showing your religion whether it be Christianity or Atheism
> > and being proud of it is one thing. But pushing it on someone else,
> > especially a young mind, is where you have to draw the line for yourself.
>
> 99% of the Founding Fathers believed that
> young minds should be taught Christianity.
>
> > Would I put someone down for having one of those mini ten commandments
> > statues on their desk? No. Would I down that same person for insisting to
> > a child that other religions are all wrong and the child must listen to
> > theirs and theirs alone regardless of what the child thinks? Yes, I would.
>
> I would insist that other religions are wrong,
> but saying that a child "must listen to mine
> and mine alone regardless of what the child
> thinks" is not clear to me. I believe we should
> all be taught the facts, and we should all be
> taught how to reason in a logical manner.
>
> http://KevinCraig.us/reason.htm
>
> I don't believe in blind faith.
>
>
> > Because if you manipulate a child into the choice it is no longer a
> > choice, it is no longer freedom.
>
> I don't believe in "manipulation."
> But I do believe in a clear presentation
> of the facts. I believe that will lead
> children to become Christians.
>
> >
> > The same goes for adults in vulnerable positions. I've seen many people
> > use a crisis in ones life to manipulate a person into a different religion
> > when before they were firm in the religion they had chosen, and it takes
> > them months to realize that they were suckered into this new religion and
> > sometimes they change back, but other times they can't bring themselves to
> > do it for fear of recoil from the new religion. I've had this happen to
> > several friends of different faiths, some being suckered into different
> > branches of christianity than they were in before, all the way to a couple
> > who followed the simple Native American religions being suckered into
> > christianity and taking years before they asked me "Why did I do this, I
> > don't buy any of this." But they stayed in the new "faith" because they
> > were afraid the community would recoil against them for a long time, until
> > finally they got the guts to say "No, this is what I truly believe."
>
> I agree that choices should be informed.
> I also agree that friendships and peer pressure
> should be honest and caring.
>
> > Doing
> > things like indoctrinating children into a religion before they have the
> > capacity to research and make the choice that is right from them,
>
> "indoctrinating" is a loaded term.
> Virtually all of America's Founders believed
> in teaching Christian doctrine in public schools.
> Technically, that's "indoctrination." But it
> doesn't have to be manipulative.
>
> > or using
> > a crisis in someones life to indoctrinate them is no better than burning
> > down their church and handcuffing them to your own.
>
> Obviously burning is worse than manipulation,
> but I oppose manipulation.
>
> >
> > We have to let people choose for themselves as they grow and learn.
>
> But there's nothing wrong with helping people
> grow and learn. To learn requires a source of
> new facts. Presenting facts is not always
> manipulative.
>
> >
> >
> > Phew, didn't quite mean to go on for that long but there it is. If I read
> > it wrong I apologize but it did seem very leaned toward christianity and
> > standardized religion in general, which for the topic at hand, just
> > doesn't work.
>
> There's certainly nothing "standardized" about
> my religion. I'm not a member of any church:
>
> http://KevinCraig.us/church.htm
>
> But I admit I lean toward Christianity.
> In fact, I'm something of a fanatic. :-)
>
> > As far as I'm concerned people can follow the Jedi Knight
> > religion if it makes them happy and grants them peace of mind (also yes,
> > it does actually exist) as long as they give, and are given, the right to
> > choose for themselves.
>
> I don't believe in the initiation of force,
> especially government force, to compel someone
> to accept my religion. But I do believe that
> my religion is true and others are false,
> so I want to see people pursuing truth
> rather than falsehood.
>
> http://KevinCraig.us/EndTheWall/true_religion.htm
>
> > PS: I know mine leans toward atheism as well at points, it's hard to not
> > lean a little bit but I try to control my lean, that was part of the
> > purpose of the anecdote about my religious friends, during my talks with
> > them I simply encouraged them to follow what they believed, and I strive
> > to take that neutral stance when it comes to others religions as much as
> > possible because I believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
>
> I think everyone should be passionate about
> the truth. If you think your religion is true,
> you should not be "neutral."
>
> http://KevinCraig.us/neutrality.htm
>
> I admit I'm an extremist:
>
> http://KevinCraig.us/extremism.htm
>
> > The
> > only time I drop my neutrality is when I see people trying to push and
> > indoctrinate someone who clearly doesn't want nor care to be
> > indoctrinated.
>
> I try not to be rude.
>
> >
> > PPS: I went back and read it again and I think I may have read it wrong
> > and you might not have been leaning as heavily as I thought...I don't
> > know.
>
> I think I "lean heavily" more than you realize.
> But I'm also more libertarian than you may realize.
>
> > I'll send this anyway because I'm curious to see if I might have
> > been totally off base the first read through and we were actually on the
> > same page. I think the schools part was what got me, mostly because I was
> > literally forced to pray in high school and got in trouble if I didn't for
> > my middle two years there. Our principle forced it and got away with it
> > for those two years every morning, and all the atheists and non catholic
> > kids who tried to either not pray along, or say their own prayer, would
> > get in trouble. I'm proud to say I stood my ground and never said it once,
> > despite being lectured repeatedly, same for other kids who said their own
> > prayers. (this was in a public school)
>
> I don't think public schools should be
> requiring "catholic" prayers. (But I also
> believe in the separation of school and state.)
>
> > That's the kind of thing I have a
> > problem with, if my teacher wants to have religious paraphernalia in their
> > room, or even talk about religion (without pushing it on us) I had no
> > issue with that.
>
> I believe teachers exist to "push" the truth.
> But they should want their truth to be
> accepted intelligently and freely.
> It doesn't do any good to have your
> truth rejected because you're rude
> and insensitive.
>
> In short, I'm a fanataic Christian, but
> also a radical libertarian.
>
> Feel free to write back if you have
> more questions or comments.
>
> Thanks again for writing.
>
>
>
> Kevin Craig
> www.KevinCraig.us
> Libertarian Party Candidate
> Missouri 7th District
> U.S. House of Representatives
> P.O. Box 179
> Powersite, MO 65731