Believing in flying reindeer or the Easter bunny is FINE if you want to. But I don’t want THAT PERSON taking part in making laws that affect us all and the American way of life – based on the teaching of their imaginary friend.

I understand your missapprehensions about beatings etc… and I have to admit not being entirely comfortable with them either. Still, it is consistent pedagogically. In forming a community and leading them away from their old ways, God’s way is to do so slowly and patiently. It takes time for people to ‘catch on’… even today all evangelisation ought to “where the person is at” to use the awful catch phrase.

Continuing the same numbers:

1. My point about Judaism and work is actually quite a profound one. There are cultures (still) who think it demeaning to work and therefore this must be left to a lower class of people (a different race, say, or caste or intellectual aptitute). Thus for a Jew, slave and free are co-workers to a degree. The slave was never a mere chattel. Moreover (see Ex 21:2) a slave could go free in the seventh year of service, and there are also some Jubilee commitments (every 50 years) about freeing slaves and returning all land etc. Jewish Law also lays out other rights. Finally, there is only one word in Hebrew for both ‘slave’ and ‘servant’. In most cases, context shows that the latter term is really more appropriate.

3. Do you mean a contradiction between Old and New Testaments on the question of slavery?

4-6 really go together here. You ask why, if Popes were slaves (or at the very least associated with them on equal terms) “why stronger actions were not taken to outlaw slavery earlier.” You must remember that the earlist popes had zero political power at all. Christianity was illegal and regularly persecuted. Even later, when Popes and Councils were able to have effect, still they generally had to rely on cooperation from the rulers for any effective action. In this, a genuine separation of Church and state is respected. Imagine how much worse things might have been without the constant influence of the Church.

7. Slavery in the 17th century is a phenomenon I know little about. Certainly it had something to do with the voyages of discovery and meeting new peoples. I know that slavery was already an ongoing trade within Africa, and maybe merchants simply ‘took advantage’ of what was on offer…. I doubt that it was a Church initiative, but an economic one.

9. Thanks. Yikes! See my response to 1, though. There is no ability in Judaism to enslave anyone, but to purchase those already in that condition.

10. I agree that Jefferson’s God was rather individual. The point is, however, that he recognised that human dignity originates in his creator. I also agree that his views on separating Church and State to be admirable, and quite different to what we currently think of today. Most people (yourself included) seem to think that that means that God should be a purely private thing and out of the realm of government altogether. That is not what Jefferson thought. He simply accepted that judicial and ecclesial powers were complimentary and not to be confused or overlap, just like the office of President and the Supreme Court should be separate. The very fact that your founding documents (with Jefferson’s strong influence) have the word “God” in them so regularly proves this. God, religion, and Church are not identical terms. Separation of Church and State is not the same thing as separation of State and God.

Yes, I closed with a cheap shot, but it was just to keep you on your toes. I’ve had numerous conversations and debates with theists over the years and a common trait amongst believers is to dwell on the good whilst ignoring the bad.

Psy and Atheist – why would not your hate crime slogan be itself an example of hate crime if you accept the (less than satisfactory) Wiki definition:

“Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim [religious believers] because of his or her membership in a certain social group…”

Surely you are not blind to the discrimination against believers also in the political, judicial or economic systems?

The problem with the (Marxist) concept of “hate crime” is precisely indicated in your next statement where you make a belief a crime, ie (that some Christians think that all atheists will go to hell). What, pray, should be the punishment for such a crime?

Yes it is, I’ve heard it used as vengeance or retribution but most often a tool of manipulation used on children, the weak minded and people who are more emotional by nature. I would label it emotional abuse, as I mentioned earlier my children have experienced it at a young age.

This is where I am somewhat perplex by yourself and Jonathan agreeing that children are not capable of critical thinking. At age 5 I was also exposed to the threats of hell routine at my first and last trip to Sunday School. I still clearly remember thinking ‘these people are nuts’, I knew it was a trick, a con, a play on my emotions, a deception even at that age as both my kids did.

Its an indoctrination into authoritarianism as I’m sure you know brings on fear of uncertainty and an amplified fear of death, prejudice and a long list of other disorders.

I’d call it a mental abuse crime.

Off topic again I’d like to mention one of my favorite debate opponents who would often threaten me with hell when confounded by my arguments. Sadly he past away last summer but I respect this man highly as I learned a lot from him and a lot about myself. I won’t give his name or internet name but he was involved with Voyager II for many years and became a priest after he retired. This gave him the advantage of being able to argue both science and religion and insight to the thinking of both believers and nonbelievers. I still find myself unable to put myself in the shoes of believers and comprehend their point of view.

Also these debates aren’t limited to believer/nonbeliver. Jonathan mentioned his interest in Philosophy, I have seen this third party totally confound and confuse an entire forum at times.

I am way out practice with debating and hopefully be back up to par soon, I am an extremely spacial thinker and communication is not 1st or 2nd nature to me. One of the drawbacks of IQ distribution.

To respond to your points in order:

1. I don’t think I, nor anyone else were suggesting all Christians in Bible times had slaves, so I fail to see the relevance. Unless you are suggesting that because the Jewish people see work in a positive light they were doing their slaves a favor?

2. See my opening paragraph.

3. This is one of the many contradictions in the Bible, and a subtle one at that. Again, Christians choose to believe the most socially acceptable interpretation. But we’ve had this discussion elsewhere, and I’m sure you are aware of my issues with the contradictions in interpretations of the Bible and the numerous contradictions.

4. I don’t believe Pius has ever been proven to be a “freedman”, I thought it was only ever assumed because of his associates? But I’m happy to be corrected. I also think the life Callistus lead was not that of the typical slave of the time. But that’s largely irrelevant. If both were slaves, it really makes you wonder why stronger actions were not taken to outlaw slavery earlier. One would have thought their personal experiences would lead them to denounce slavery and use their positions as Popes to enact change.

5. Whilst that may be true, there were also numerous Churches actively purchasing slaves and trading them for profit. The practice was too widespread for it to be a rogue group within the community, and even if it was not policy, it certainly wasn’t punished.

6. Again, if such progress was made in the sixth century, one has to wonder how and why we (and I say we because atheists are not faultless when it comes to slavery) regressed to such a point.

7. So was the reintroduction of slavery a breakdown in the organizational hierarchy of the Church? Or a case of “Do what I say, not what I do”? Or a case of taking the Bible’s word over that of the current Pope? And obviously the Pope only represents a set, albeit a significant set, of theists, so his condemning of slavery would only have been heard by some.

8. I find it always best to approach “facts” stated in such films/books/articles/websites, from both sides of the fence, with a “prove it” attitude. A healthy dose of salt comes on handy.

9. Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT spells it out pretty clearly:

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

I’ve heard of Christian groups who currently advocate slavery but am a loss to remember their specific affiliation. if it comes to me, I’ll be sure to let you know.

10. Jefferson is actually a fascinating case. He clearly struggled with religion, and rebelled against Christianity specifically, despite being raised a Christian. It’s debatable whether Jefferson can be called a theist or not, we don’t know whether the creator he refers to was meant to be a reference to a personal God or a God of nature. We do know he rejected the divinity of Jesus and went to great lengths to establish the separation of Church and State, a divide that is sadly and alarmingly closing. Belief is very clearly a personal thing, and without an affiliation to any major religion it’s difficult for us to guess his beliefs after the fact. “God” can mean many things to many different people.

Yes, I closed with a cheap shot, but it was just to keep you on your toes. I’ve had numerous conversations and debates with theists over the years and a common trait amongst believers is to dwell on the good whilst ignoring the bad.

PSY – Perhaps I was a tad verbose with my campaigns, but I thought they would resonate more with my target audience with some evidence to back up my assertions.

As for your hate crime slogan, I’d have to agree. For lack of a better source, I looked up “Hate Crime” on Wikipedia, which defines it as:

Hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.

We clearly belong to a different social group to theists. There are numerous examples of discrimination against atheists, be it in the political, judicial or economic systems. It’s also worth pointing out that “hate crime” doesn’t necessarily equate to a crime driven by hate. More often than not it’s a crime driven by fear of the unknown and fear of people who are different. Ultimately, it’s a crime driven by difference.

It’s also worth pondering whether the belief generally held by Christians that atheists will go to hell counts as a hate crime, or at the least, hate speech. It’s one thing to deny someone a job because of their beliefs, it’s something entirely different, and more sinister, to state that they will burn in hell for eternity.

The Jill Bolte Taylor talk at TED was absolutely fascinating by the way. A truly unique insight into her experience.

=I suggest you keep them to yourself.

Some may see this as a subtle attempt to suppress my opinion which brings me to another generalized slogan ‘Religion is Oppression’ that many will deny but I think Proposition 8 is a recent example of this.

Don’t think for a second that your comments are wasted on me, many of yours and others have led me to interesting articles and videos related and unrelated to the original subject. Thanks for the lead to a ‘Reform’ article that suggested that it was a stepping stone to modern civil rights which I was unaware of, sadly I didn’t save the URL.. Also another comment on this forum led me to a video on the brain that I thought was a unique perspective. “Talks Jill Bolte Taylor: My stroke of insight”

Thanks for your input and leads to other material.

“I can not use reason to dispel something in your mind that was not put there by reason.” Yes you can, it’s called reasoned debate, not just name calling. I totally disagree with Martin Luther (and the whole Reformation for that matter). Also don’t try to pretend that you just make comments on a public forum whout an agenda or purely for your own self-knowledge. If that is really the case, I suggest you keep them to yourself.

To clarify I was responding to this topic:

“So with that in mind, what would you like to see promoting atheism?”

T-shirts and bumper stickers would work as these slogans are short and to the point. I don’t stop to read long drawn out advertisements and these can be read at a glance whether you want to read them or not.

How do I know these were Christians making racial slurs? Because I know them personally and one actually made the mistake of yelling n*gg*r from the passenger seat of my corvette. I found it odd that he denied being a bigot or racist. But denial in spite of the facts is what faith is all about.

=If you are trying to say that religion is racist by its very nature (and that atheism is not) you’re going to have to work very hard to convince me!

I can not use reason to dispel something in your mind that was not put there by reason. “Reason is the enemy of faith”. ~Martin Luther. Exclusionism and inequality are common traits brought about by abusive indoctrination tactics as shown in the studies I have mentioned in other posts. Don’t feel you need to respond as I have read any number of arguments for and against on other forums that I have visited and I have no agenda of convincing you or anyone else. Its for my own understanding of myself and the world I live in.