I am currently engaged in a lengthy argument with my uncle on Facebook. While my family has known for a very long time that I am an atheist, this is the first time I've actually argued with someone over it. Now I'm feeling extremely anxious since basically my whole (very large) family is able to see this conversation.

 

The topic is homosexual marriage, which my uncle very much opposes (all of the usual reasons). I wasn't even going to say anything until he started talking about how the founding fathers were almost all Christian and our country is based on Christian values, etc. That is basically my little red button that puts me into argument mode.

 

Now it's turned into an argument about Thomas Jefferson in particular, and whether he is close enough to a Christian to "count."

 

It would be awfully nice to hear from the community about this. Just need to feel like I'm not doing this alone.

 

UPDATES:

 

Thank you all for your responses. It seems that everyone was very interested in hearing more detail about the discussion, so I will give an edited version of the discussion, basically ignoring parts that weren't part of the primary thread of conversation.

 

[Many posts about homosexual marriage, and someone mentions the separation of church and state.]

 

UNCLE: Separation of church and state is a smoke screen set up by non believers wishing to limit the rights of Christians. No founding father would agree with what has been done in this country because of this smoke screen. 53 of the 56 signers of the declaration were avid believers and regular attenders of church. The ONLY thing our constitution forbids is that the rights of church can not be impinged upon. Look it up. Their goal was that there would be no state sanctioned and mandated church like ENGLAND has. You can not take a document out of its historical context.

 

ME: "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for the protection of his own." - Thomas Jefferson, writer of the Declaration of Independence

 

UNCLE: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can be liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated by His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and his justice can not sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson, 1781 Query XVIII of his notes on "That State of Virginia"

 

ME: And which God do you think Thomas Jefferson was referring to? It's true that none of the founding fathers were atheists, but Thomas Jefferson was also not a Christian. It would be a mistake to assume that when someone mentions "God" they are always referring to the Christian god.

 

UNCLE: Thomas Jefferson was a deist. A believer in God. While he did not trust the institution of Christianity, he declared himself a Christian. Good research will show that he was not main stream Christian... but who am I to doubt the word of Jefferson himself?

 

ME: He did not believe that Jesus was the son of God or performed any miracles. I think it is fair to say that he disagreed with some of the most critical beliefs of Christianity. As this subject is about homosexuality, do you believe that he would have supported banning homosexual marriage based on the bible that he disagreed with? I gave a quote suggesting that he would not support that.

 

UNCLE: As you can see I have researched Jefferson. I agree with much of your statements about him. I clearly said he was not a main stream Christian. But he himself said that Jesus Christ is his savior. Obviously I don't agree with all of his beliefs but I can't say he was not a believer in Jesus. He had a strong dislike of Christianity as an INSTITUTION... and I AGREE with him on that. But you can see... I don't trust Christians... I trust the Christ.

 

UNCLE: The founding fathers founded this country to be free from oppression: taxation without representation. (And money: England wanted ours and we didn't want to give it.) Religion fits into the mix because England was oppressing its own people by intermixing government with religion. Meaning that the King of England was also the head of state sponsored and mandated Church of England. THIS is what was opposed by Americans. Proof of this of course is in the Bill of Rights. Our founders were not trying to rid the country of the influence of Christianity nor of God the Creator of all. That is why I call TODAY'S idea of separation of church and state a smoke screen. It does not reflect properly our founders intentions.

 

ME: If the government restricts the rights of citizens based on religious teachings alone, that is intermixing government with religion. Exactly what you have said the founding fathers opposed and exactly what is currently happening to gay people, as they do not have equal rights. Today's idea of separation of church and state is not removing Christianity from society; it is keeping it out of government. Exactly as the founding fathers attempted, yet failed to accomplish.

 

UNCLE: If you restrict the rights of the vast majority over a small minority... do you have a good government? As I said before, what two consenting adults do in their bedroom is none of my business. But when they bring it out of the bedroom and teach American children that it is normal, it becomes my business.

 

ME: I have yet to hear a single convincing argument that legalizing gay marriage would in any way restrict the rights of Christians. You would still have the exact same rights that you do today. Much as abolishing slavery did not in any way infringe on the rights of white people (I understand that slavery is a more severe issue, but the point remains.) I have yet to hear a single convincing argument that legalizing gay marriage in any way "teaches" children anything. Much as legalizing alcohol does not condone its use. The fact that something is legal does not in any way mean that it is moral. The purpose of the government is not to enforce morality.

 

UNCLE: Your point is moot. God makes the rules. We either obey or we will reap what we sew. What you fail to understand, Thomas Jefferson understood. Encouraging immorality is a detriment to society. You wanted an argument that shows how Christianity is being restricted. Okay. 1963 prayer in school was banned. All to provide a right to a small minority at the expense of the majority. Not by a vote of the people at large but by a court designed to protect the rights of citizens. Soon school programs were not allowed to celebrate Christmas. Later, abortion was legalized. Again... no vote taken. Later still, Christians lose the right to pray at football games. Now teachers can't have bibles at school, the ten commandments can't be in a courtroom, crucifixes can't be placed on public property... shall I go on? There is tons more to the erosion of Christian rights. The gay issue is just one more attack on the religious institution of marriage. When morality is abandoned, society falls. Take a good look at the rise and fall of the Roman society if you doubt me.

 

ME: My point is not moot. You claimed that your rights are being infringed upon by gay marriage. Can you or can you not provide an example of this? And actually, today's generation is not taught that religion cannot be practiced in government institutions; you can pray in school, the courthouse, the White House, a military base, you name it. What cannot happen is for a government official to use their position to preach religious practices (even though that's often ignored anyway). For example, kids and teachers can both pray in school if they desire, but a teacher cannot tell kids to pray. However, many teachers and school officials don't understand this distinction and mistakes end up happening where a principle does something ridiculous like suspending a kid for praying. That's not how it's supposed to work and ironically this confusion is largely caused by Christians who exaggerate the situation and claim that prayer is outright banned from school.

 

UNCLE: I am now PROHIBITED from practicing my faith in this country. Now... you were saying?

 

ME: Except that whole fact that you are not prohibited from practicing your faith, and if anyone did prohibit it you could make and win a court case over it. Incidentally, how does gay marriage factor into this?

 

UNCLE: Our constitution (Amendment #1) SPECIFICALLY says: "Congress shall make no law respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF." That should be enough said about this issue. Any restriction of the free exercise of religion ANYWHERE is prohibited in the constitution.

 

ME: So... would you be okay with a teacher in a public school leading kids in an Islamic prayer? According to you, prohibiting this would be a violation of the constitution. By the way, prohibiting prayer in school was something started by Christians who disagreed over which prayers to use. Atheists had nothing to do with it.

 

UNCLE: I have no problem with a Muslim saying a prayer in class. Or a Buddhist, etc. You are dead wrong saying that prohibition of prayer was a Christian idea. Madelyn Murray O'Hair, an avowed atheist, took this issue to court in 1963 and won her case.

 

ME: I didn't ask if you had a problem with a Muslim saying a prayer in class. They can already do that, as can you. The question is are you okay with a Muslim teacher telling your child to participate in an Islamic prayer? And laws about prayer in school date back at least to 1886 and the Edgerton Bible Case, where Catholic parents objected to their children hearing prayers from the King James Bible. It went to the Wisconsin supreme court, which ruled that bibles could not be read in school as it violated the separation of church and state. To be fair, you are right that it was not enforced on a federal level until 1963, but the precedent was already started almost a century before, by Christians.

 

UNCLE: You are wrong in regards to saying prayers at school. Public prayers are not allowed in public schools... not in class, not at football games, and not in commencement exercises. As for Muslims, though this is not our topic, I am for Muslims having the same rights and freedoms in America as all other Americans.

 

[Thread is deleted by original poster.]

Views: 119

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Have you simply quoted the Treaty of Tripoli?  "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."  which was "Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation."

 

Then the question of whether the founders called themselves christians or not doesn't matter, when they agreed that the nation itself is NOT founded on the Christian religion.

 

Thank you both for the ideas. I didn't know about the Treaty of Tripoli, so thanks for that. Though it's not really an issue of me "losing" the argument or anything, I'm just stressed because I wonder what everyone in my family thinks about this. I feel like my atheism is on display and everyone is judging me (even though no one has said anything and my uncle is being extremely civil about it).

Since the original argument was about gay marriage, I would be curious to know what arguments he has against it, as I have yet to hear one that is not reliant on either emotion or religion, or both.  One cannot base law on emotion and one cannot (in this country) base law on religion either... or at least that's what the Constitution says anyway.

So I'm curious what logical reasoning he thinks he can give for not allowing gay marriage.  If he appeals to tradition, then polygamy should be legal.  If he appeals to nature, scientists have been finding more and more species all the time that exhibit homosexual behavior.  If he appeals to the ability to procreate as a pre-requisite to marriage, then sterile couples and post-menopause women should not be allowed to marry either.

 

Like I said, there is no argument I have heard that can stand up to real logical scrutiny.

Basically he believes that biblical values should influence law, and that the separation of church and state was not intended to remove religion from government, but remove government from religion.

 

He conveniently dodged my questions about whether religions other than Christianity have a place in our government. I have updated the original post to show most of the discussion, so you can have a better idea of what he was arguing.

You might want to point out the contradiction between the 1st commandment and the 1st amendment. If this was a Christian nation, and the 1st commandment says, "You shall have no gods before me (close enough)" than how could the 1st amendment give you the freedom to worship any god you want, or no god at all. I don't spend a lot of time debating the thoughts and feeling of the founding fathers...even though plenty of letters and writings exist to prove that many of them were deists, but not Christian. And certainly not Jefferson...."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" –Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

David Anam: {The topic is homosexual marriage, which my uncle very much opposes (all of the usual reasons). I wasn't even going to say anything until he started talking about how the founding fathers were almost all Christian and our country is based on Christian values, etc. That is basically my little red button that puts me into argument mode.}

 

Does this mean that attitudes should not change? Christian values have changed; the attitude to slavery is but one example. Aren't most Christians anti-slavery now, yet slavery is permitted in the Bible, even commanded by "God" in some texts. Q. Why the change in attitude? A. We can see that it's wrong.

 

So attitudes CAN change, even withinn religions. Why is homosexuality deemed wrong/sinful? We know that many parts of the Bible have to be ignored or the interpretations of them twisted this way and that, for modern Christians to feel comfortable with the attitudes which they know they hold, and what the Bible expresses.

 

Is the objection to homosexuality essentially a feeling that some people have; rationalised with some dogma? I don't even think that all of the Christian community is opposed to homosexuality - some are more liberal. I am a heterosexual male, and I'm not opposed to homosexuality, but the thought of homosexual acts makes me feel uncomfortable. I see that as my problem - something I don't have to deal with in my daily life. It only affectrs me in my imaginaton, when my mind occasionally wanders into that zone of thought.

 

To me, homosexual marriage is about the legal equality of two people partnered in such a relationship, as compared to those in heterosexual marriages. If two homosexuals want to be married in the sight of the Christian god and within a particular church, then that is up to the church, not the state, to allow or disallow. So there should be no objection to civil homosexual marriage.

Easy enough rebuttal about the Xtian lie of this being a christian nation. Ask your uncle if he accepts and supports the US Constitution. If he says, "Yes," (which I suspect he will), point Article VI, Clause 2, of the said Constitution. This was part of the original text, and is still an important part today.

Article VI, Clause 2 says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Point out specifically the part about treaties also being the supreme Law of the Land. Then, ask him if he believes President George Washington, President John Adams, and the veterans of the Revolution who were in Congress from 1795 to 1797 had even the vaguest idea what the founding principles of this nation were. Again, I suspect he will say, "Yes."

If he has said yes to the two foregoing ideas, then you might want to ask him why in hell George Washington's administration drafted, the US Senate of the 4th Congress (1795 to 1797) unanimously ratified, and President John Adams signed into law in 1797, the Treaty of Tripoli.

Article 11 of that treaty states, "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

See what he has to say about the first clause of Article 11. It is, after all, the Supreme Law of the Land, unless of course he rejects the Constitution and the idea that the founding fathers knew what they were doing.
I surely cannot quote any articles or give any insight into the founding fathers of our country, but what I can say is to give your uncle one last awesome paragraph with some of the things written above and leave it at that. You will look like the mature adult while this guy continues on with his bull crap. Real sorry you are facing a situation you have always feared and dreaded and are now left with a big pit in your stomach. You are not dealing with an argument with a stranger, but family members who ignorance can leave life-long scars. Good luck, David. I feel a lot of empathy for you.

Thomas Jefferson was a fucking Deist he was absolutely positively not a fucking christian, I consider calling him a christian an insult.

 

Read Thomas Jefferson by Christopher Hitchens
I might just have to check that out. Thanks!
Your uncle is a piece of shit.

RSS

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service