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: 115

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

No doubt.   they thought that blacks and minorities weren't really people and women should shut up and spread eagle right after they did everything around the house and cooked a large meal.  the only people who could vote were landed white men who were over 21.  My stepmom thinks the tea party wants to take it right back to the original constitution as far as voting rights are concerned.  I think she may be right.  I have found articles which stated they want to role back the voting rights act of 1965 (there can be no "test" for voting), the 17th  amendment (direct election of senators as opposed to governor appointed) and the 14th amendment (birth right citizenship).  sorry to go off topic, but as a woman, I am concerned these folks are after my right to vote.

I also heard about the birth right citizenship issue being brought up. Though I would stress that when you hear that politicians are planning to do something, after some research you may find it's actually just one guy with no support from the rest of his party. This is often the case where a single Democrat suggests some idea and suddenly conservatives are spreading around "look what Democrats are trying to do!"

 

That said, sometimes it's true. There are more than a few tea party ideas that seem entirely backwards to me, so I wouldn't necessarily be surprised by some of this. However, if they seriously attempt to remove the voting rights of the majority of Americans (more women than men in this country), that would probably end in political suicide for the entire movement. Sort of makes you hope they try it, eh?

Hope I provided support and encouragement David with all those numerous posts I made, its the least I could do for a fellow atheist.

Thank you very much. Some of them I had heard before, but some I had not. Although this conversation with my uncle ended before I saw many of these responses here, you've given me plenty of things to look up and learn more about, which maybe will help in the next argument I end up in.

 

You know how some Christians talk about a verse in the bible (can't remember the exact words) that says that Christians should always be prepared to defend their beliefs and convince others? It very much feels that way being an atheist. It's like I need to study up for the next test.

Why is your uncle so into what past presidents think? And so long ago?
He was making a point that the separation of church and state as interpreted today is very different than what it was intended to be. I actually somewhat agree with him, though I think he is exaggerating the point and his supporting arguments are flimsy.

In the thread, there were 3 of us (two atheists, one liberal Christian) all arguing against my uncle, though the arguments took very different directions. I decided to post the pieces of the argument that were specifically between the two of us, mostly just to keep it shorter.

 

Anyway, the reason I'm saying this is that during one part, he was questioned why he felt that gay people were evil (he didn't specifically say they were, but heavily implied it). To this he responded with something to the effect of "I didn't say it, God did, and I trust his word." This gives me the impression that most of his thought went into how to stop gay marriage, rather than whether gay marriage should be stopped. There is an assumption being made that isn't being questioned, which is the backbone of religious thinking.

For him to say he didn't say it ,'god' did, is where I would say no 'god' said anything, because there isn't one.  PEOPLE wrote the bible.  On their own.  The stories aren't even good or original.  Just because something says 'god' wrote it doesn't mean it's true.  Don't believe everything you read.  If that's the only way this great 'deity' can communicate, it's obvious he/she/it is not that great.
"All too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind, let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty, and even life itself, are but dreary things. And let us reflect that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance, as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions." - Thomas Jefferson inaugural address
That's amazing. You would never hear a president today say those words about religion in their inaugural address.
I may be biased, but it looked to me like you were 'winning' the arument - from the little you posted, your uncle consistently fails to address your points and questions, instead choosing to make points that have nothing to do with what you previously said.

Thank you!

 

Even though you are certainly biased, it's still good to hear.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service