GALLUP POLL: More than 8 out of 10 Americans identify with a Christian faith

[Logan13]

GALLUP POLL: More than 8 out of 10 Americans identify with a Christian faith.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/103459/Qu...eligion.aspx#1

PRINCETON, NJ -- This time of year provides an opportunity to answer frequently asked questions about exactly where America stands today in regard to religion, based on Gallup's extensive archives.

Christmas is obviously a Christian holiday. But what percentage of Americans today identify with a Christian religion?

About 82% of Americans in 2007 told Gallup interviewers that they identified with a Christian religion. That includes 51% who said they were Protestant, 5% who were "other Christian," 23% Roman Catholic, and 3% who named another Christian faith, including 2% Mormon.

Because 11% said they had no religious identity at all, and another 2% didn't answer, these results suggest that well more than 9 out of 10 Americans who identify with a religion are Christian in one way or the other.

Has this changed over time?

Yes. The percentage of Americans who identify with a Christian religion is down some over the decades. This is not so much because Americans have shifted to other religions, but because a significantly higher percentage of Americans today say they don't have a religious identity. In the late 1940s, when Gallup began summarizing these data, a very small percentage explicitly told interviewers they did not identify with any religion. But of those who did have a religion, Gallup classified -- in 1948, for example -- 69% as Protestant and 22% as Roman Catholic, or about 91% Christian.

It's one thing to identify with a religion, and another to be actively religious. What percentage of Americans are actually members of a church?

Sixty-two percent of Americans in Gallup's latest poll, conducted in December, say they are members of a "church or synagogue," a question Gallup has been asking since 1937.

And how has that changed over time?

It's down in the recent years of this decade and down a little more compared to the time period prior to the late 1970s. In the 1937 Gallup Poll, for example, 73% of Americans said they were church members. That number stayed in the 70% range in polls conducted in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. By the 1970s, however, the number began to slip below 70% in some polls, although as recently as 1999, 70% said they were church members. Since 2002, self-reported church membership has been between 63% and 65%.

OK, but being carried on a church's roll doesn't necessarily mean one is active in that church, does it?

It does not. That carries us into the realm of self-reported church attendance, which is a complex arena. Scholars over the years have argued about the precise validity of self-reported attendance data. Some argue that respondents either a) deliberately over-report the frequency of their church attendance because it is socially desirable, or b) generalize and guess at the frequency of their church attendance rather than pinning it down specifically.

Having said that, the most recent Gallup assessment shows that when given a choice between five response categories to describe how frequently they go to church -- "once a week," "almost every week," "about once a month," "seldom," and "never" -- only 17% of adult Americans say they never attend church. In other words, more than 8 out of 10 Americans say they attend church or other worship services at least "seldom."

But attending church could mean attending a wedding or a funeral, for example.

Yes. The question simply asks: "How often do you attend church or synagogue?" and doesn't specify for what reason. So some of those who say they seldom attend could be reporting that they go for weddings or funerals rather than to personally worship

How many Americans can be classified as frequent church attenders?

Based on the responses to this question, about a third say they attend once a week, with another 12% saying they attend almost every week. This means that about 44% of Americans report what can be called frequent church attendance -- almost every week or every week.

Are there other ways of measuring church attendance?

Yes. Gallup has long used a somewhat controversial question: "Did you, yourself, happen to attend church or synagogue in the last seven days, or not?" In recent years, between 40% and 45% of Americans have said "yes" to that question, yielding an estimate that is similar to the one derived from the question reviewed above about frequency of attendance.

Why is this question controversial?

Sociologists and other scholars have attempted to calibrate the "last seven days" response against other ways of measuring church attendance, and have argued that it produces an overestimate. Some scholars actually traveled around an Ohio county and totaled the attendance at every church in that county, even including counting cars in parking lots.

They found that the actual "warm bodies" in churches added up to a significantly lower number than what the residents of that county had reported in a survey. Other scholars have looked at church attendance as reported in time diaries where people mark down everything they do day after day. In these instances, the diary entries for church attendance appear to be less than the 40% to 45% figure that people report in response to survey questions.

Nevertheless, the self-reported data give us a useful measure to trend over time. We find that it's remarkably stable. The high point in "last seven day attendance" appears to have come in the 1950s, when at one point 49% of Americans said they had attended church in the last seven days. In 1940, at the end of the Depression and just before America's involvement in World War II, the figure was 37%, and has been in the high 30% range in just a couple of years since then.

But in general, year after year, roughly the same percentage of Americans -- in the low 40% range -- report to survey interviewers that they have gone to church within the last seven days.

Are there other measures of the actual impact of religion in Americans' daily lives?

Yes. One measure Gallup has tracked over time asks respondents to indicate how important religion is in their own lives -- very, fairly, or not very important.

This year, 56% of Americans have said religion is very important. Only 17% say religion is not very important.

Has this changed over time?

Yes. A couple of measures of this question from the 1950s and 1960s indicated that at that time, over 70% of Americans said religion was very important in their daily lives. That percentage dropped into the 50% range by the 1970s, and since then it has fluctuated somewhat, but has generally been in the 55% to 65% range
The responses to the "importance of religion" question -- taken together with some of the previous data discussed -- seem to suggest a pattern by which at least 80% of Americans are religious on one indicator or the other.

Yes. To summarize, more than 8 in 10 Americans identify with a religion and 8 out of 10 say that religion is at least fairly important in their daily lives; more than 8 out of 10 say they attend church at least "seldom"; and again more than 8 out of 10 identify with a Christian religion.

Do you ask Americans about the influence of religion in society?

Yes, since 1957 Gallup has periodically asked this question: "At the present time, do you think religion as a whole is increasing its influence on American life or losing its influence?"

In December of this year, 32% said religion was increasing its influence, and 61% losing its influence, with the rest volunteering that it was staying the same or not giving an answer.

How does that compare historically?

There's been a lot of variance in these responses over the decades. Back in 1957 -- during the halcyon days of the Eisenhower administration -- 69% of Americans said religion was increasing its influence. And in December 2001 -- just months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States -- 71% said religion was increasing its influence in American life, which is the highest reading on that measure in Gallup Poll history. But by 2003, the percentage saying religion was increasing its influence had dropped back into the 30% range and though it has been as high as 50% since then, it is just 32% today.

On the other hand, in a couple of polls conducted in 1969 and 1970, only 14% said religion was increasing its influence -- the lowest readings on record. That of course was during an era replete with hippies, protests, Woodstock, drug use, and other indications of a less than devout, religious population. Another time period with a low "increasing its influence" percentage was in the early 1990s.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,027 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Dec. 6-9, 2007. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls

[Tock]

Let's see . . . what kind of people are telling the Gallup people that they are Christian?

Daryl Gilyard, who is being investigated for sexual impropriety, after having been hounded out of a Dallas church for sexual impropriety, after having lied on Jerry Falwell's TV program.
http://www.cbs47.com/news/local/stor...4-96725e39d982

Ted "I am now heterosexual" Haggard (you know all about him) . . .

Rev. Terry Hornbuckle, who is currently doing 20 years for drugging and raping several women.
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2006-0...verend-freak/1

This anti-bodybuilding Christian nutcase: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=**qX7fFMuAg

The Christians who picket dead soldier's funerals, too . . .
http://www.godhatesfags.com/

-----

I won't say that unbeleivers are more trustworthy and ethical than Christians (although that is most likely the case). I do, however, question the notion that the world is generally better off with Christians than with doubters and atheists.

[Logan13]

Let's see . . . what kind of people are telling the Gallup people that they are Christian?

Daryl Gilyard, who is being investigated for sexual impropriety, after having been hounded out of a Dallas church for sexual impropriety, after having lied on Jerry Falwell's TV program.
http://www.cbs47.com/news/local/stor...4-96725e39d982

Ted "I am now heterosexual" Haggard (you know all about him) . . .

Rev. Terry Hornbuckle, who is currently doing 20 years for drugging and raping several women.

-----

I won't say that unbeleivers are more trustworthy and ethical than Christians (although that is most likely the case). I do, however, question the notion that the world is generally better off with Christians than with doubters and atheists.

You can hate on Christians all that you want, it will not change reality. We all know that homosexuals and atheists do not commit crimes. Jeffrey Dahmer anyone....?

duh.........

[Tock]

You can hate on Christians all that you want, it will not change reality. We all know that homosexuals and atheists do not commit crimes. ..

I'm not saying that gays or atheists are any better than anyone else.
I am saying, however, that Christians aren't any better than anyone else, either. I'm sure you'll agree . . . if you don't, I can always post some more nutty christians for ya. There's no shortage of them, that's for sure.

[kfrost06]

I won't say that unbeleivers are more trustworthy and ethical than Christians (although that is most likely the case). I do, however, question the notion that the world is generally better off with Christians than with doubters and atheists.

You mean better off like Madalyn O'Hair and her family, the communist athiest in your avatar that was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered for a few bucks by the manager of the American Atheists, the group she founded? Is that what you mean by better off?

[kfrost06]

I'm not saying that gays or atheists are any better than anyone else.
I am saying, however, that Christians aren't any better than anyone else, either. I'm sure you'll agree . . . if you don't, I can always post some more nutty christians for ya. There's no shortage of them, that's for sure.

Stalin, Hitler, Castro, etc. You mean there is no shortage of mass murders that are atheist, right?

[Tock]

You mean better off like Madalyn O'Hair and her family, the communist athiest in your avatar that was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered for a few bucks by the manager of the American Atheists, the group she founded? Is that what you mean by better off?

You didn't read my post very well. I'm not saying that one group is any better than the other. I'm saying that religion doesn't make anyone any better than anyone else. Torquemada should convince you of that.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notoriou...quemada/2.html

BTW, I knew Madelyn. She was an odd bird, for sure, and while I'm glad I didn't have to live in her house, the USA is better off for her having lived.

[Logan13]

You didn't read my post very well. I'm not saying that one group is any better than the other. I'm saying that religion doesn't make anyone any better than anyone else. Torquemada should convince you of that.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notoriou...quemada/2.html

BTW, I knew Madelyn. She was an odd bird, for sure, and while I'm glad I didn't have to live in her house, the USA is better off for her having lived.

I have nevr heard of Madelyn, what did she do?

[kfrost06]

I have nevr heard of Madelyn, what did she do?

She is(was) a bitter ugly old woman that wanted to be a lawyer but could never pass the bar. She had multiply kids from mulitple men and hated everyone and everything(like your typical athiest) and blamed the worlds problems on religion. She joined the communist party and decided to take on the school prayer. She used her son as a tool to do so. In Baltimore, MD the public schools began the day with an optional bible reading which her son was not allowed to do because his mother(Madelyn) would not let him. The bitter old hag didn't think any of the kids should be allowed to read from the bible and filed a suit to ban the bible from the schools, it was rejected again and again until it reached the Supreme Court which then ruled in her favor and effectively banned school prayer in all public schools(Murray v. Curlett).

Even by liberal standards she was a nutcase, she fought to have sex education in schools including teaching 6th graders to have sex. She fought to remove, "One nation under God" from all money, banning the pladge of aligence, she assualted 5 cops after she kidnapped a little girl to "save her" from religious parents and she founded the American Athiest where one of the members, the manager and 2 other members kidnapped her, tortured her and then murdered her and 2 of her kids. The group blamed Christians until her dismembered body was found many years later. Her living son has converted to Christianity and describes his mother, Madalynn as a witch.

[Logan13]

She is(was) a bitter ugly old woman that wanted to be a lawyer but could never pass the bar. She had multiply kids from mulitple men and hated everyone and everything(like your typical athiest) and blamed the worlds problems on religion. She joined the communist party and decided to take on the school prayer. She used her son as a tool to do so. In Baltimore, MD the public schools began the day with an optional bible reading which her son was not allowed to do because his mother(Madelyn) would not let him. The bitter old hag didn't think any of the kids should be allowed to read from the bible and filed a suit to ban the bible from the schools, it was rejected again and again until it reached the Supreme Court which then ruled in her favor and effectively banned school prayer in all public schools(Murray v. Curlett).

Even by liberal standards she was a nutcase, she fought to have sex education in schools including teaching 6th graders to have sex. She fought to remove, "One nation under God" from all money, banning the pladge of aligence, she assualted 5 cops after she kidnapped a little girl to "save her" from religious parents and she founded the American Athiest where one of the members, the manager and 2 other members kidnapped her, tortured her and then murdered her and 2 of her kids. The group blamed Christians until her dismembered body was found many years later. Her living son has converted to Christianity and describes his mother, Madalynn as a witch.

I honestly thought that the person in the middle of Tock's avatar picture was a man. Wow.

[kfrost06]

I honestly thought that the person in the middle of Tock's avatar picture was a man. Wow.

LoL!!!

[kfrost06]

I honestly thought that the person in the middle of Tock's avatar picture was a man. Wow.

You know whats funny is when she was married she got pregant by another man(not her husband) that was also married. She wanted the guy to get divorce and marry her. He refused because he was Catholic and did not believe in divorce, she was outraged and thats when she became so anti-religious. The nutcase legally changed her name anyway to the guys name she wanted to marry, Murray. There's always a story behind the anti-religious zealots and why they hate religion so much.

[Tock]

She is(was) a bitter ugly old woman that wanted to be a lawyer but could never pass the bar. She had multiply kids from mulitple men and hated everyone and everything(like your typical athiest) and blamed the worlds problems on religion. She joined the communist party and decided to take on the school prayer. She used her son as a tool to do so. In Baltimore, MD the public schools began the day with an optional bible reading which her son was not allowed to do because his mother(Madelyn) would not let him. The bitter old hag didn't think any of the kids should be allowed to read from the bible and filed a suit to ban the bible from the schools, it was rejected again and again until it reached the Supreme Court which then ruled in her favor and effectively banned school prayer in all public schools(Murray v. Curlett).

It's evident you've neither read her autobiography nor knew her personally. On top of that, you don't know the circumstances of Murray v. Curlett. In that case, the Baltimore School District required Madelyn's son to bow his head reverentially and pray the Lord's Prayer. It was not optional; he had to do it, or else suffer detention. Madelyn asked the school district to excuse her son since he was an atheist, but they refused. So, the lawsuit was filed, and the rest is history.

If you're gonna dump on a poor dead woman, you might at least consider getting the issues right.

[kfrost06]

If you're gonna dump on a poor dead woman, you might at least consider getting the issues right.

let me quote her own son, "My mother was an evil person... Not for removing prayer from America's schools... No, she was just evil. She stole huge amounts of money. She misused the trust of people. She cheated children out of their parents' inheritance. She cheated on her taxes and even stole from her own organizations. She once printed up phony stock certificates on her own printing press to try to take over another atheist publishing company." Murray, William J. (1999-03-01). Madalyn Murray O'Hair Murder: Statement of William J. Murray. Religious Freedom Coalition. Retrieved on 2007-12-01.

[kfrost06]

It's evident you've neither read her autobiography nor knew her personally. On top of that, you don't know the circumstances of Murray v. Curlett. In that case, the Baltimore School District required Madelyn's son to bow his head reverentially and pray the Lord's Prayer. It was not optional; he had to do it, or else suffer detention. Madelyn asked the school district to excuse her son since he was an atheist, but they refused. So, the lawsuit was filed, and the rest is history.

Wrong yet again! Here is a word for word copy of the complaint...

"No. 119. In 1905 the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City adopted a rule pursuant to Art. 77, Sec. 202 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. The rule provided for the holding of opening exercises in the schools of the city, consisting primarily of the "reading, without comment, of a chapter in the Holy Bible and/or the use of the Lord's Prayer." The petitioners, Mrs. Madalyn Murray and her son, William J. Murray III, are both professed atheists. Following unsuccessful attempts to have the respondent school board rescind the rule, this suit was filed for mandamus to compel its rescission and cancellation. It was alleged that William was a student in a public school of the city and Mrs. Murray, his mother, was a taxpayer therein; that it was the practice under the rule to have a reading on each school morning from the King James version of the Bible; that at petitioners' insistence the rule was amended [1] to permit children to be excused from the exercise on request of the parent and that William had been excused pursuant thereto; that nevertheless the rule as amended was in violation of the petitioners' rights "to freedom of religion under the First and Fourteenth Amendments" and in violation of "the principle of separation between church and state, contained therein.... " The petition particularized the petitioners' atheistic beliefs and stated that the rule, as practiced, violated their rights "in that it threatens their religious liberty by placing a premium on belief as against non-belief and subjects their freedom of conscience to the rule of the majority; it pronounces belief in God as the source of all moral and spiritual values, equating these values with religious values, and thereby renders sinister, alien and suspect the beliefs and ideals of your Petitioners, promoting doubt and question of their morality, good citizenship and good faith."


You need to look up the facts of the case, as with most athiest her non-belief was not enough she forces her non-belief on others. He was excused and went to the hallway during such readings of the Bible. His mother, Madalyn, claimed he was tuanted for not taking part in the readings, he has denied that and said his mother made it up to get rid of the Bible readings.

[kfrost06]

Heck even your athiest website states the facts, http://www.atheists.org/courthouse/prayer.html

try reading before you post Tock, please.

[Tock]

let me quote her own son, "My mother was an evil person...

This, coming from a money-grubbing evangelist. He makes his living by renting himself out to churches and telling fundamentalists that his mother was an evil demon.

Some kids just don't appreciate what their parents did for them.

I knew his mom. She was a tough woman, didn't take any BS from anyone. She didn't suffer fools, either.
She had a great sense of humor, and was about as smart as they come. Sure, she pissed off a lot of people, because she wouldn't put up with Church BS. Here in Texas, one of the things she is credited with is getting rid of most of the Blue Laws. Ya, it used to be if you wanted to buy a hammer and nails on a Sunday, you could buy the nails, but not the hammer -- for no other reason than it was Sunday, and buying a tool implied that you intended to work, and that was prohibited by the Christian Bible, so the Texas Legislature made it against the secular law, too. There were lots of other similar stupid laws, and Madelyn challenged 'em in court, and got 'em tossed out.

When she died, she was challenging the Texas Constitution where it says that only people who beleive in God can be elected to public office. Of course lots of people didn't want that; Christian fundamentalists were of the opinion that only an evil demon would want to make such a change.

Not for removing prayer from America's schools...

I guess you haven't heard, but Madelyn Murray O'Hair did not remove prayer from the public schools. Kids are free to pray pretty much where and whenever they like. What the schools can no longer do, is require students to pray, especially if they don't want to, or if they belong to another religion. Got a problem with that?

She stole huge amounts of money.

Unless you can tell when and where this happened, all you're doing is libeling and slandering her. And it takes neither brains nor integrity to do that.

She cheated children out of their parents' inheritance. She cheated on her taxes and even stole from her own organizations.

Looks like more libel & slander to me. BS, too. Can you back this up?

She once printed up phony stock certificates on her own printing press to try to take over another atheist publishing company."

Geez, that was years ago . . . the old guy who started The Truth Seeker died and according to the will, what was left was supposed to go to a freekthinker/atheist organization. Instead, some Christian fundamentalist claimed it, and the whole thing fell into a court fight. Why? The Fundamentalists wanted to burn all the papers that was left over, plus pocket $$$, and Madelyn wanted to add the old guy's writing to her Atheist Library (her library is quite a sight to behold) and get the $$$. It was an ugly fight. But then again, Madelyn was a fighter.

Murray, William J. (1999-03-01). Madalyn Murray O'Hair Murder: Statement of William J. Murray. Religious Freedom Coalition. Retrieved on 2007-12-01.

Bill Murray is full of it . . . just an opportunistic money-grubbing dishonest lying Christian Fundamentalist. If he was on fire, I wouldn't bother to pee on him.
http://www.wjmurray.com/ <----- here's his website. Chuck full of BS. Feast your eyes . . .

[Tock]

Wrong yet again! Here is a word for word copy of the complaint...

that at petitioners' insistence the rule was amended [1] to permit children to be excused from the exercise on request of the parent and that William had been excused pursuant thereto;

You bet it was "at their insistence." The Baltimore School district didn't give much ground without a fight.

You need to look up the facts of the case, as with most athiest her non-belief was not enough she forces her non-belief on others. He was excused and went to the hallway during such readings of the Bible.

Well, yes, that happened, too, according to Madelyn's biography. But not until after the School District had told her that her kid had absolutely no choice but to pray, and to pray reverentially.

His mother, Madalyn, claimed he was tuanted for not taking part in the readings, he has denied that and said his mother made it up to get rid of the Bible readings.

I can understand why he would say that. It makes his mother look like The Evil Atheist Satan that Christian fundamentalists want her to be.

[Logan13]

sounds like a great family................

[Tock]

sounds like a great family................

I'll cheerfully agree that they were all co-dependant, and could have greatly benefited from lots of family therapy. In a lot of ways, they were all wacked-out. But from what I understand from people she routinely did business with, Madelyn was honest. Despite what has been said about her by her fundamentalist preacher son, she was plenty wealthy enough (thanks to $$$ given to her by Larry Flint, the publisher of Hustler magazine) that she didn't need to steal $$$ from her organization.

[thegodfather]

So its ok for religious people to push their beliefs unto us. But when we push our non-belief unto them, we are wrong? Hmmm....gotta love those double standards.

[Logan13]

So its ok for religious people to push their beliefs unto us. But when we push our non-belief unto them, we are wrong? Hmmm....gotta love those double standards.

I can not ever remember having anyone force their religion on me personally. As far as this story is concerned, this lady's son was excused from the daily readings, as it was not mandatory. But this lady wanted to remove it so that no one could do the readings. The only double standard here is on the side of the atheists..........

Forcing one's beliefs on others is silly. But let's not pretend like the belief that there is no God is not a belief, as it most certainly is. Atheism is a religion..........

[Tock]

I can not ever remember having anyone force their religion on me personally. As far as this story is concerned, this lady's son was excused from the daily readings, as it was not mandatory.

Nope, not according to Madelyn.
https://lightning.he.net/~atheists/c...p/prod5376.php
Looks like it's gonna be a he-said-she-said thing. Everyone gets to pick who they beleive, and that's it.

But this lady wanted to remove it so that no one could do the readings. The only double standard here is on the side of the atheists..........

Not a double standard at all.
Picture the uproar if Satanist school administratorss wanted to do religious readings in public school. Picture your reaction if your kids were in that school.
Now picture the horror Orthodox Jewish parents would have when they discovered that their kids would have to say Christian prayers in order to go to public school.
Government shouldn't have the authority to compel anyone to pray, and, of course, it doesn't (at least, not here in the USA). So Madelyn Murray O'Hair's effort to stop compulsory school prayers was a great benefit to religious minorities across the USA.
Any parent who wants their child to pray every day is free to do so. With all the blasphemers, sabbath-breakers, schismatics, and heathens in schools, I have no idea why a conscientious adult would relinquish their child's spiritual welfare to such scoffers.


And . . . as far as "double standards" go, check out the fit that some Christians spout when a Hindu finally gets to give an invocation, instead of the usual Christian preacher. Ya, those Christians really ought to be embarrassed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9To...eature=related
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...0B702D649D.htm
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-07-13.html
Three protesters were arrested in the public gallery of the Senate and charged with unlawful conduct yesterday for shouting down the opening prayer, which for the first time ever was being conducted by a Hindu.
Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D-Pa.), who was presiding in the chair, had to call on the sergeant at arms repeatedly to restore order as the protesters denounced the presence of Rajan Zed, who was standing on the dais wearing saffron robes.

Ya, I'd like to see what those Christians would do if schools required students to pray a Hindu prayer. That would be amusing.

Forcing one's beliefs on others is silly. But let's not pretend like the belief that there is no God is not a belief, as it most certainly is. Atheism is a religion..........

But, having no beleif in anything, as is the case with the vast majority of atheists, is not a religion.

A monotheistic god, such as yours, for instance, knows of no other god, so that would make him an atheist. Is that because he beleives there is no other god? No, it's purely because he has no information about other gods. So, he acknowledges only his own divinity, which makes him not unlike Rush Limbaugh.

Also, if your god knows of no other god, then that would mean that you worship an atheist. Just a thought . . .

[kfrost06]

I can understand why he would say that. It makes his mother look like The Evil Atheist Satan that Christian fundamentalists want her to be.

and even the liberal arse Time magazine named her the "Most hated woman in America"

[kfrost06]

I knew his mom. She was a tough woman, didn't take any BS from anyone. She didn't suffer fools, either.
She had a great sense of humor, and was about as smart as they come. Sure, she pissed off a lot of people, because she wouldn't put up with Church BS.

She hated the Church because the guy that got her pregant would not divorce his wife and marry her because he was Catholic and didn't believe in dovorce(PERIOD). Thats where her bitterness and anger for religion came from. Hell has no furry like a woman scorned.

I guess you haven't heard, but Madelyn Murray O'Hair did not remove prayer from the public schools. Kids are free to pray pretty much where and whenever they like. What the schools can no longer do, is require students to pray, especially if they don't want to, or if they belong to another religion. Got a problem with that?.

yes, schools are not even allowed to have a moment of silence for silent prayer, not allowed to mention God at graduation and made to feel like a criminal for even trying to mention your beliefs cause people like you have a bone to pick with religion.

Unless you can tell when and where this happened, all you're doing is libeling and slandering her. And it takes neither brains nor integrity to do that.

Me libeling for quoteing her son??? I even supplied the quotes and source and referenced it, you can do better than that Tock.

Looks like more libel & slander to me. BS, too. Can you back this up?

see above comment

Geez, that was years ago . . . the old guy who started The Truth Seeker died and according to the will, what was left was supposed to go to a freekthinker/atheist organization. Instead, some Christian fundamentalist claimed it, and the whole thing fell into a court fight. Why? The Fundamentalists wanted to burn all the papers that was left over, plus pocket $$$, and Madelyn wanted to add the old guy's writing to her Atheist Library (her library is quite a sight to behold) and get the $$$. It was an ugly fight. But then again, Madelyn was a fighter.

Tock, she was tortured, murdered, and dismembered by her own followers. Her only living son bad mouths her every chance he gets, she was hated by everyone, she was a big fat ugly vile woman and in the end she got...well, you can finish that sentence anyway you like.

[Tock]

Tock, she was tortured, murdered, and dismembered by her own followers.

Followers? I don't know anyone who "followed" Madelyn Murray O'Hair.
She did have ONE fellow she hired to run her business office who was a crook, and who stole big $$$ from her, and then killed her to hide his crime.
You're trying to make what that one guy did into a vengeful uprising. Sheesh . . .

Her only living son bad mouths her every chance he gets, she was hated by everyone, she was a big fat ugly vile woman and in the end she got...well, you can finish that sentence anyway you like.

Well, I liked her.

She was a big, ugly, bad-tempered woman, and she'd just as soon hit ya over the head with a club as look at ya, but she was interesting. If you knew how to approach her, you'd get along famously.
Plus, she was intelligent. She finished law school, but never took the bar exam because she refused to take the required "So Help Me God" oath that came with the test. She did most of American Atheist's legal work, and used other lawyers (mostly) to make court appearances and file papers.

Ya, so while she might not have been your cup of tea, she had lots of other folks who liked her. And if you feel the need to harp on the woman, go right ahead. You won't be the first, and you won't be the last. But I can guarantee you that if you had the balls to bad-mouth her to her face, you'd have to get a few limbs re-set before you could repeat your mistake.

[Tock]

To tell you the truth, I don't think anyone really cares about this.
I'm not too interested in it myself . . .
================================================== ===============
This is fun, though . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPRm...eature=related <-- a list of who's an atheist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF5yo...eature=related <-- the "new Madelyn" -- the new head of American Atheists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6jco...eature=related <-- with a clip of Madelyn on Johnny Carson

[scriptfactory]

I can not ever remember having anyone force their religion on me personally. As far as this story is concerned, this lady's son was excused from the daily readings, as it was not mandatory. But this lady wanted to remove it so that no one could do the readings. The only double standard here is on the side of the atheists..........

Forcing one's beliefs on others is silly. But let's not pretend like the belief that there is no God is not a belief, as it most certainly is. Atheism is a religion..........

I definitely do not want my son's reading the Bible or learning about God in school...and I'm Christian. I applaud her for what she did! Schools aren't the place to learn about God, IMO. The human reproductive system should be studied there but subjects like abstinence, condoms and oral sex shouldn't be taught either.

[scriptfactory]

Not a double standard at all.

Picture the uproar if Satanist school administratorss wanted to do religious readings in public school. Picture your reaction if your kids were in that school.

Now picture the horror Orthodox Jewish parents would have when they discovered that their kids would have to say Christian prayers in order to go to public school.

Government shouldn't have the authority to compel anyone to pray, and, of course, it doesn't (at least, not here in the USA). So Madelyn Murray O'Hair's effort to stop compulsory school prayers was a great benefit to religious minorities across the USA.

Any parent who wants their child to pray every day is free to do so. With all the blasphemers, sabbath-breakers, schismatics, and heathens in schools, I have no idea why a conscientious adult would relinquish their child's spiritual welfare to such scoffers.

Well said, Tock. Especially the bolded parts. It seems like common sense to me...but then again, so does gay marriage and THAT subject has the entire U.S. confused, it seems like.

[Mike Dura]

Thanks for passing those links. I didn't know that atheists actually organize.

To tell you the truth, I don't think anyone really cares about this.
I'm not too interested in it myself . . .
================================================== ===============
This is fun, though . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPRm...eature=related <-- a list of who's an atheist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF5yo...eature=related <-- the "new Madelyn" -- the new head of American Atheists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6jco...eature=related <-- with a clip of Madelyn on Johnny Carson

[Fat Guy]

To tell you the truth, I don't think anyone really cares about this.
I'm not too interested in it myself . . .
================================================== ===============
This is fun, though . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPRm...eature=related <-- a list of who's an atheist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF5yo...eature=related <-- the "new Madelyn" -- the new head of American Atheists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6jco...eature=related <-- with a clip of Madelyn on Johnny Carson

Tock I think this was the best post of this whole thread. Thanks I enjoyed it.

[Logan13]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9To...eature=related
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...0B702D649D.htm
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-07-13.html
Three protesters were arrested in the public gallery of the Senate and charged with unlawful conduct yesterday for shouting down the opening prayer, which for the first time ever was being conducted by a Hindu.
Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D-Pa.), who was presiding in the chair, had to call on the sergeant at arms repeatedly to restore order as the protesters denounced the presence of Rajan Zed, who was standing on the dais wearing saffron robes.

Ya, I'd like to see what those Christians would do if schools required students to pray a Hindu prayer. That would be amusing.

But, having no beleif in anything, as is the case with the vast majority of atheists, is not a religion.

A monotheistic god, such as yours, for instance, knows of no other god, so that would make him an atheist. Is that because he beleives there is no other god? No, it's purely because he has no information about other gods. So, he acknowledges only his own divinity, which makes him not unlike Rush Limbaugh.

Also, if your god knows of no other god, then that would mean that you worship an atheist. Just a thought . . .

I am agnostic, as you well know.
A belief is a belief. One side believes in a higher power, the other does not. Both sides have their own belief system. To argue otherwise is silly as well.

[Logan13]

I definitely do not want my son's reading the Bible or learning about God in school...and I'm Christian. I applaud her for what she did! Schools aren't the place to learn about God, IMO. The human reproductive system should be studied there but subjects like abstinence, condoms and oral sex shouldn't be taught either.

Your son has the right not to participate. How about lending the same courtesy and tolerance to those who do wish to read? Again, I find it amusing that those who cry out for tolerance seem to be the ones' who refuse to tolerate others.......

[Tock]

Since this thread is about the Christian Faith, and how most of the US supports it, I thought I'd take this opportunity to shed a bit of light on that faith. Presented is part of a re-print of a speech from the most famous orator of the 19th Century. He was a Republican, dabbled in national politics, and almost got picked to run as VP of the US.
He criss-crossed the US in a time when people entertained themselves by attending lectures the way people go out to movies today, and was known everywhere. Beleivers hated him, he was the champion for freethinkers everywhere.

More of Robert Ingersoll's orations (and the rest of this one) can be viewed at:

http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...oly_bible.html

About the Holy Bible

by Robert G. Ingersoll

1894

**** ****
Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself.


There are many millions of people who believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God -- millions who think that this book is staff and guide, counselor and consoler; that it fills the present with peace and the future with hope -- millions who believe that it is the fountain of law, Justice and mercy, and that to its wise and benign teachings the world is indebted for its liberty, wealth and civilization -- millions who imagine that this book is a revelation from the wisdom and love of God to the brain and heart of man -- millions who regard this book as a torch that conquers the darkness of death, and pours its radiance on another world -- a world without a tear.

They forget its ignorance and savagery, its hatred of liberty, its religious persecution; they remember heaven, but they forget the dungeon of eternal pain. They forget that it imprisons the brain and corrupts the heart. They forget that it is the enemy of intellectual freedom. Liberty is my religion. Liberty of hand and brain -- of thought and labor, liberty is a word hated by kings -- loathed by popes. It is a word that shatters thrones and altars -- that leaves the crowned without subjects, and the outstretched hand of superstition without alms. Liberty is the blossom and fruit of justice -- the perfume of mercy. Liberty is the seed and soil, the air and light, the dew and rain of progress, love and joy.

I
THE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE.
A few wandering families -- poor, wretched, without education, art or power; descendants of those who had been enslaved for four hundred years; ignorant as the inhabitants of Central Africa, had just escaped from their masters to the desert of Sinai. Their leader was Moses, a man who had been raised in the family of Pharaoh and had been taught the law and mythology of Egypt. For the purpose of controlling his followers he pretended that he was instructed and assisted by Jehovah, the God of these wanderers.

Everything that happened was attributed to the interference of this God. Moses declared that he met this God face to face; that on Sinai's top from the hands of this God he had received the tables of stone on which, by the finger of this God, the Ten Commandments had been written, and that, in addition to this, Jehovah had made known the sacrifices and ceremonies that were pleasing to him and the laws by which the people should be governed.

In this way the Jewish religion and the Mosaic Code were established.
It is now claimed that this religion and these laws were and are revealed and established for all mankind.

At that time these wanderers had no commerce with other nations, they had no written language, they could neither read nor write. They had no means by which they could make this revelation known to other nations, and so it remained buried in the jargon of a few ignorant, impoverished and unknown tribes for more than two thousand years.

Many centuries after Moses, the leader, was dead many centuries after all his followers had passed away -- the Pentateuch was written, the work of many writers, and to give it force and authority it was claimed that Moses was the author.

We now know that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses.

Towns are mentioned that were not in existence when Moses lived.

Money, not coined until centuries after his death, is mentioned.

So, many of the laws were not applicable to wanderers on the desert -- laws about agriculture, about the sacrifice of oxen, sheep and doves, about the weaving of cloth, about ornaments of gold and silver, about the cultivation of land, about harvest, about the threshing of grain, about houses and temples, about cities of refuge, and about many other subjects of no possible application to a few starving wanderers over the sands and rocks.

It is now not only admitted by intelligent and honest theologians that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, but they all admit that no one knows who the authors were, or who wrote any one of these books, or a chapter or a line. We know that the books were not written in the same generation; that they were not all written by one person; that they are filled with mistakes and contradictions. It is also admitted that Joshua did not write the book that bears his name, because it refers to events that did not happen until long after his death.

No one knows, or pretends to know, the author of Judges; all we know is that it was written centuries after all the judges had ceased to exist. No one knows the author of Ruth, nor of First and Second Samuel; all we know is that Samuel did not write the books that bear his name. In the 25th chapter of First Samuel is an account of the raising of Samuel by the Witch of Endor.

No one knows the author of First and Second Kings or First and Second Chronicles; all we know is that these books are of no value.

We know that the Psalms were not written by David. In the Psalms the Captivity is spoken of, and that did not happen until about five hundred years after David slept with his fathers.

We know that Solomon did not write the Proverbs or the Song; that Isaiah was not the author of the book that bears his name; that no one knows the author of Job, Ecclesiastes, or Esther, or of any book in the Old Testament, with the exception of Ezra.

We know that God is not mentioned or in any way referred to in the book of Esther. We know, too, that the book is cruel, absurd and impossible.

God is not mentioned in the Song of Solomon, the best book in the Old Testament.
And we know that Ecclesiastes was written by an unbeliever.

We know, too, that the Jews themselves had not decided as to what books were inspired -- were authentic -- until the second century after Christ.

We know that the idea of inspiration was of slow growth, and that the inspiration was determined by those who had certain ends to accomplish.


II
IS THE OLD TESTAMENT INSPIRED?
If it is, it should be a book that no man -- no number of men -- could produce.
It should contain the perfection of philosophy.

It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature.

There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject or science.

Its morality should be the highest, the purest.

Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired.

It should contain nothing calculated to make man cruel, revengeful, vindictive or infamous.

It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy and the spirit of liberty.

It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity and superstition.

It should develop the brain and civilize the heart.

It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and wisest.

It should be true.

Does the Old Testament satisfy this standard?

Is there anything in the Old Testament -- in history, in theory, in law, in government, in morality, in science -- above and beyond the ideas, the beliefs, the customs and prejudices of its authors and the people among whom they lived?

Is there one ray of light from any supernatural source?

The ancient Hebrews believed that this earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun, moon and stars were specks in the sky.

With this the Bible agrees.

They thought the earth was flat, with four corners; that the sky, the firmament, was solid -- the floor of Jehovah's house.

The Bible teaches the same.

They imagined that the sun journeyed about the earth, and that by stopping the sun the day could be lengthened.

The Bible agrees with this.

They believed that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman; that they had been created but a few years before, and that they, the Hebrews, were their direct descendants.

This the Bible teaches.

If anything is, or can be, certain, the writers of the Bible were mistaken about creation, astronomy, geology; about the causes of phenomena, the origin of evil and the cause of death.

Now, it must be admitted that if an infinite Being is the author of the Bible, he knew all sciences, all facts, and could not have made a mistake.

If, then, there are mistakes, misconceptions, false theories, ignorant myths and blunders in the Bible, it must have been written by finite beings; that is to say, by ignorant and mistaken men.

Nothing can be clearer than this.

For centuries the church insisted that the Bible was absolutely true; that it contained no mistakes; that the story of creation was true; that its astronomy and geology were in accord with the facts; that the scientists who differed with the Old Testament were infidels and atheists.

Now this has changed. The educated Christians admit that the writers of the Bible were not inspired as to any science. They now say that God, or Jehovah, did not inspire the writers of his book for the purpose of instructing the world about astronomy, geology, or any science. They now admit that the inspired men who wrote the Old Testament knew nothing about any science, and that they wrote about the earth and stars, the sun and moon, in accordance with the general ignorance of the time.

It required many centuries to force the theologians to this admission. Reluctantly, full of malice and hatred, the priests retired from the field, leaving the victory with science.

They took another position;
They declared that the authors, or rather the writers, of the Bible were inspired in spiritual and moral things; that Jehovah wanted to make known to his children his will and his infinite love for his children; that Jehovah, seeing his people wicked, ignorant and depraved, wished to make them merciful and just, wise and spiritual, and that the Bible is inspired in its laws, in the religion it teaches and in its ideas of government.

This is the issue now. Is the Bible any nearer right in its ideas of justice, of mercy, of morality or of religion than in its conception of the sciences? Is it moral?

It upholds slavery -- it sanctions polygamy.

Could a devil have done worse?

Is it merciful?

In war it raised the black flag; it commanded the destruction, the massacre, of all -- of the old, infirm. and helpless -- of wives and babes.

Were its laws inspired?

Hundreds of offenses were punished with death. To pick up sticks on Sunday, to murder your father on Monday, were equal crimes. There is in the literature of the world no bloodier code. The law of revenge -- of retaliation -- was the law of Jehovah. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a limb for a limb.

This is savagery -- not philosophy.

Is it just and reasonable?

The Bible is opposed to religious toleration -- to religious liberty. Whoever differed with the majority was stoned to death. Investigation was a crime. Husbands were ordered to denounce and to assist in killing their unbelieving wives.

It is the enemy of Art. "Thou shalt make no graven image." This was the death of Art.
Palestine never produced a painter or a sculptor.

Is the Bible civilized?

It upholds lying, larceny, robbery, murder, the selling of diseased meat to strangers, and even the sacrifice of human beings to Jehovah.

Is it philosophical?

It teaches that the sins of a people can be transferred to an animal -- to a goat. It makes maternity an offence for which a sin offering had to be made.
It was wicked to give birth to a boy, and twice as wicked to give birth to a girl.

To make hair-oil like that used by the priests was an offence punishable with death.

The blood of a bird killed over running water was regarded as medicine.

Would a civilized God daub his altars with the blood of oxen, lambs and doves? Would he make all his priests butchers? Would he delight in the smell of burning flesh?


III
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.
Some Christian lawyers -- some eminent and stupid judges -- have said and still say, that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of all law.

Nothing could be more absurd. Long before these commandments were given there were codes of laws in India and Egypt -- laws against murder, perjury, larceny, adultery and fraud. Such laws are as old as human society; as old as the love of life; as old as industry; as the idea of prosperity; as old as human love.

All of the Ten Commandments that are good were old; all that were new are foolish. If Jehovah had been civilized he would have left out the commandment about keeping the Sabbath, and in its place would have said: "Thou shalt not enslave thy fellow-men." He would have omitted the one about swearing, and said: "The man shall have but one wife, and the woman but one husband." He would have left out the one about graven images, and in its stead would have said: "Thou shalt not wage wars of extermination, and thou shalt not unsheathe the sword except in self-defence."

If Jehovah had been civilized, how much grander the Ten Commandments would have been.

All that we call progress -- the enfranchisement of man, of labor, the substitution of imprisonment for death, of fine for imprisonment, the destruction of polygamy, the establishing of free speech, of the rights of conscience; in short, all that has tended to the development and civilization of man; all the results of investigation, observation, experience and free thought; all that man has accomplished for the benefit of man since the close of the Dark Ages -- has been done in spite of the Old Testament.

Let me further illustrate the morality, the mercy, the philosophy and goodness of the Old Testament:

THE STORY OF ACHAN
Joshua took the City of Jericho. Before the fall of the city he declared that all the spoil taken should be given to the Lord.
In spite of this order Achan secreted a garment, some silver and gold.
Afterward Joshua tried to take the city of Ai. He failed and many of his soldiers were slain. Joshua sought for the cause of his defeat and he found that Achan had secreted a garment, two hundred shekels of silver and a wedge of gold. To this Achan confessed.
And thereupon Joshua took Achan, his sons and his daughters, his oxen and his sheep -- stoned them all to death and burned their bodies.

There is nothing to show that the sons and daughters had committed any crime. Certainly, the oxen and sheep should not have been stoned to death for the crime of their owner. This was the justice, the mercy, of Jehovah!

After Joshua had committed this crime, with the help of Jehovah he captured the city of Ai.


THE STORY OF ELISHA.
"And he went up thence unto Bethel, and as he was going up by the way there came forth little children out of the city and mocked him, and said unto him, 'Go up, thou baldhead.'
"And he turned back and looked at them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood and tore forty and two children of them."

This was the work of the good God -- the merciful Jehovah!


THE STORY OF DANIEL.
King Darius had honored and exalted Daniel, and the native princes were jealous. So they induced the king to sign a decree to the effect that any man who should make a petition to any god or man except to King Darius, for thirty days, should be cast into the den of lions.

Afterward these men found that Daniel, with his face toward Jerusalem, prayed three times a day to Jehovah.

Thereupon Daniel was cast into the den of lions; a stone was placed at the mouth of the den and sealed with the king's seal.

The king passed a bad night. The next morning he went to the den and cried out to Daniel. Daniel answered and told the king that God had sent his angel and shut the mouths of the lions.

Daniel was taken out alive and well, and the king was converted and believed in Daniel's God.

Darius, being then a believer in the true God, sent for the men who had accused Daniel, and for their wives and their children, and cast them all into the lions' den.
"And the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all their bones in pieces, or ever they came at the bottom of the pit."

What had the wives and little children done? How had they offended King Darius, the believer in Jehovah? Who protected Daniel? Jehovah! Who failed to protect the innocent wives and children? Jehovah!


THE STORY OF JOSEPH.
Pharaoh had a dream, and this dream was interpreted by Joseph.
According to this interpretation there was to be in Egypt seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Joseph advised Pharaoh to buy all the surplus of the seven plentiful years and store it up against the years of famine.
Pharaoh appointed Joseph as his minister or agent, and ordered him to buy the grain of the plentiful years.

Then came the famine. The people came to the king for help. He told them to go to Joseph and do as he said.

Joseph sold corn to the Egyptians until all their money was gone -- until he had it all.
When the money was gone the people said: "Give us corn and we will give you our cattle."

Joseph let them have corn until all their cattle, their horses and their flocks had been given to him.

Then the people said: "Give us corn and we will give you our lands."

So Joseph let them have corn until all their lands were gone.

But the famine continued, and so the poor wretches sold themselves, and they became the servants of Pharaoh.

Then Joseph gave them seed, and made an agreement with them that they should forever give one fifth of all they raised to Pharaoh.

Who enabled Joseph to interpret the dream of Pharaoh? Jehovah! Did he know at the time that Joseph would use the information thus given to rob and enslave the people of Egypt? Yes. Who produced the famine? Jehovah!

It is perfectly apparent that the Jews did not think of Jehovah as the God of Egypt -- the God of all the world. He was their God, and theirs alone. Other nations had gods, but Jehovah was the greatest of all. He hated other nations and other gods, and abhorred all religions except the worship of himself.


IV
WHAT IS IT ALL WORTH?
Will some Christian scholar tell us the value of Genesis?

We know that it is not true -- that it contradicts itself. There are two accounts of the creation in the first and second chapters. In the first account birds and beasts were created before man.

In the second, man was created before the birds and beasts.

In the first, fowls are made out of the water.

In the second, fowls are made out of the ground.

In the first, Adam and Eve are created together.

In the second, Adam is made; then the beasts and birds, and then Eve is created from one of Adam's ribs.

These stories are far older than the Pentateuch.

Persian: God created the world in six days, a man called Adama, a woman called Evah, and then rested.

The Etruscan, Babylonian, Phoenician, Chaldean and the Egyptian stories are much the same.

The Persians, Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese and Hindus have their Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life.

So the Persians, the Babylonians, the Nubians, the people of Southern India, all had the story of the fall of man and the subtle serpent.

The Chinese say that sin came into the world by the disobedience of woman. And even the Tahitians tell us that man was created from the earth, and the first woman from one of his bones.

All these stories are equally authentic and of equal value to the world, and all the authors were equally inspired.

We know also that the story of the flood is much older than the book of Genesis, and we know besides that it is not true.

We know that this story in Genesis was copied from the Chaldean. There you find all about the rain, the ark, the animals, the dove that was sent out three times, and the mountain on which the ark rested.

So the Hindus, Chinese, Parsees, Persians, Greeks, Mexicans and Scandinavians have substantially the same story.

We also know that the account of the Tower of Babel is an ignorant and childish fable.

What then is left in this inspired book of Genesis? Is there a word calculated to develop the heart or brain? Is there an elevated thought -- any great principle -- anything poetic -- any word that bursts into blossom?

Is there anything except a dreary and detailed statement of things that never happened?

Is there anything in Exodus calculated to make men generous, loving and noble?

Is it well to teach children that God tortured the innocent cattle of the Egyptians -- bruised them to death with hailstones -- on account of the sins of Pharaoh?
Does it make us merciful to believe that God killed the firstborn of the Egyptians -- the firstborn of the poor and suffering people -- of the poor girl working at the mill -- because of the wickedness of the king?

Can we believe that the gods of Egypt worked miracles? Did they change water into blood, and sticks into serpents?

In Exodus there is not one original thought or line of value.

We know, if we know anything, that this book was written by savages -- savages who believed in slavery, polygamy and wars of extermination. We know that the story told is impossible, and that the miracles were never performed. This book admits that there are other gods besides Jehovah. In the 17th chapter is this verse: "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods, for, in the thing wherein they dealt proudly, he was above them."
So, in this blessed book is taught the duty of human sacrifice -- the sacrifice of babes.

In the 22d chapter is this command: "Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits and of thy liquors: the first- born of thy sons thou shalt give unto me."
Has Exodus been a help or a hindrance to the human race?

Take from Exodus the laws common to all nations, and is there anything of value left?
Is there anything in Leviticus of importance? Is there a chapter worth reading? What interest have we in the clothes of priests, the curtains and candles of the tabernacle, the tongs and shovels of the altar or the hair-oil used by the Levities?
Of what use the cruel code, the frightful punishments, the curses, the falsehoods and the miracles of this ignorant and infamous book?

And what is there in the book of Numbers -- with its sacrifices and water of jealousy, with its shewbread and spoons, its kids and fine flour, its oil and candlesticks, its cucumbers, onions and manna -- to assist and instruct mankind? What interest have we in the rebellion of Korah, the water of separation, the ashes of a red heifer, the brazen serpent, the water that followed the people uphill and down for forty years, and the inspired donkey of the prophet Balaam? Have these absurdities and cruelties -- these childish, savage superstitions -- helped to civilize the world?

Is there anything in Joshua -- with its wars, its murders and massacres, its swords dripping with the blood of mothers and babes, its tortures, maimings and mutilations, its fraud and fury, its hatred and revenge -- calculated to improve the world?

Does not every chapter shock the heart of a good man? Is it a book to be read by children?

The book of Joshua is as merciless as famine, as ferocious as the heart of a wild beast. It is a history -- a justification -- a sanctification of nearly every crime.
The book of Judges is about the same, nothing but war and bloodshed; the horrible story of Jael and Sisera; of Gideon and his trumpets and pitchers; of Jephtha and his daughter, whom he murdered to please Jehovah.

Here we find the story of Samson, in which a sun-god is changed to a Hebrew giant.
Read this book of Joshua -- read of the slaughter of women, of wives, of mothers and babes -- read its impossible miracles, its ruthless crimes, and all done according to the commands of Jehovah, and tell me whether this book is calculated to make us forgiving, generous and loving.
According to "Samuel," David took a census of the people. This excited the wrath of Jehovah, and as a punishment he allowed David to choose seven years of famine, a flight of three months from pursuing enemies, or three days of pestilence. David, having confidence in God, chose the three days of pestilence; and. thereupon, God, the compassionate, on account of the sin of David, killed seventy thousand innocent men.

Under the same circumstances, what would a devil have done?

Does it civilize us to read about the beheading of the seventy sons of Ahab, the putting out of the eyes of Zedekiah and the murder of his sons? Is there one word in First and Second Kings calculated to make men better?

First and Second Chronicles is but a re-telling of what is told in First and Second Kings. The same old stories -- a little left out, a little added, but in no respect made better or worse.

The book of Ezra is of no importance. He tells us that Cyrus, King of Persia, issued a proclamation for building a temple at Jerusalem, and that he declared Jehovah to be the real and only God.

Nothing could be more absurd. Ezra tells us about the return from captivity, the building of the Temple, the dedication, a few prayers, and this is all. This book is of no importance, of no use.

Nehemiah is about the same, only it tells of the building of the wall, the complaints of the people about taxes, a list of those who returned from Babylon, a catalogue of those who dwelt at Jerusalem, and the dedication of the walls.

Not a word in Nehemiah worth reading.

Then comes the book of Esther: In this we are told that King Ahasueras was intoxicated; that he sent for his Queen, Vashti, to come and show herself to him and his guests. Vashti refused to appear.

This maddened the king, and he ordered that from every province the most beautiful girls should be brought before him that he might choose one in place of Vashti.

Among others was brought Esther, a Jewess. She was chosen and became the wife of the king. Then a gentleman by the name of Haman wanted to have all the Jews killed, and the king, not knowing that Esther was of that race, signed a decree that all the Jews should be killed.

Through the efforts of Mordecai and Esther the decree was annulled and the Jews were saved.

Haman prepared a gallows on which to have Mordecai hanged, but the good Esther so managed matters that Haman and his ten sons were hanged on the gallows that Haman had built, and the Jews were allowed to murder more than seventy-five thousand of the king's subjects.

This is the inspired story of Esther.


Some of the Psalms are good, many are indifferent, a few are infamous. In them are mingled the vices and virtues. There are verses that elevate, verses that degrade. There are prayers for forgiveness and revenge. In the literature of the world there is nothing more heartless, more infamous, than the 109th Psalm.

Is there anything to be learned from Hosea and his wife? Is there anything of use in Joel, in Amos, in Obadiah? Can we get any good from Jonah and his gourd? Is it possible that God is the real author of Micah and Nahum, of Habakkuk and Zephaniah, of Haggai and Malachi and Zechariah, with his red horses, his four horns, his four carpenters, his flying roll, his mountains of brass and the stone with four eyes?
Is there anything in these "inspired" books that has been of benefit to man?
Have they taught us how to cultivate the earth, to build houses, to weave cloth, to prepare food?

Have they taught us to paint pictures, to chisel statues, to build bridges, or ships, or anything of beauty or of use? Did we get our ideas of government, of religious freedom, of the liberty of thought, from the Old Testament? Did we get from any of these books a hint of any science? Is there in the "sacred volume" a word, a line, that has added to the wealth, the intelligence and the happiness of mankind? Is there one of the books of the Old Testament as entertaining as "Robinson Crusoe," "The Travels of Gulliver," or "Peter Wilkins and his Flying Wife"? Did the author of Genesis know as much about nature as Humboldt, or Darwin, or Haeckel? Is what is called the Mosaic Code as wise or as merciful as the code of any civilized nation? Were the writers of Kings and Chronicles as great historians, as great writers, as Gibbon and Draper? Is Jeremiah or Habakkuk equal to Dickens or Thackeray? Can the authors of Job and the Psalms be compared with Shakespeare? Why should we attribute the best to man and the worst to God?

[Tock]

I am agnostic, as you well know.
A belief is a belief. One side believes in a higher power, the other does not. Both sides have their own belief system. To argue otherwise is silly as well.

Sorry, I disagree.

We've hashed this notion out several times already; there's no need to hash it out again beyond stating that the lack of a beleif system is not a beleif system in itself.

[Tock]

Your son has the right not to participate. How about lending the same courtesy and tolerance to those who do wish to read?

It's the rare public school library that is without a Christian Bible. And I know of no public school system that has banned the Bible from its campus.
Consequently, any student who wishes to read the Bible is free to do so.

And there is no school system that explicitly prohibits students from praying. However, school employees cannot lead them in prayer. And preachers cannot use public property to conduct their religious proselytizing.

I dunno what your beef is, other than perhaps you think that it is proper for the government to require kids to attend school, and then once they are there, to let orthodox preachers indoctrinate them in religion. Or do you support letting Satanists ply the supple minds of youthful captive audiences with their notions of God and ethics?

Again, I find it amusing that those who cry out for tolerance seem to be the ones' who refuse to tolerate others.......

Ya, right. Say that when you're ready to grant Scientologists, Wiccans, Rosicrusicans, Priapins, and other odd-balls the same public school access you think Babtists ought to have.

[Tock]

Your son has the right not to participate.

Oh, and BTW, the US Supreme Court ruled long ago that school officials cannot require students to identify themselves to opt out of prayers or other religious activity, because the schools are not supposed to be involved in religious activity in the first place.


Anyone who wants their kid to participate in religious stuff, just do it yourself. Geez . . . Why parents want to turn religious teaching over to State and local government (particularly the liberal unionized teachers) is beyone me.

[Logan13]

Take a walk around Washington D.C some time and explore our national monuments. Noting all of the quotes from our Founding Fathers in regards to GOD. Pull out the money in your pocket and note that it says "In God We Trust" on each one. Although it is always muttered by those opposed to any religion, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.
1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;........"
Declaration of Independence
"....separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them".....
"....all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"........
..."appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions:.....
....:with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence".....

1892 US Pledge of Allegiance: "...Under God...."

Go ahead and use some no-name individual and a page long post in an attempt to validate your position. I will use historical documents and monuments to prove mine. I could fill up dozens of pages with examples taken directly from the Founding Fathers' mouths. The facts are just not on your side.......

[Tock]

Take a walk around Washington D.C some time and explore our national monuments. Noting all of the quotes from our Founding Fathers in regards to GOD. Pull out the money in your pocket and note that it says "In God We Trust" on each one.

National monuments and currency do not tell Americans what our rights are. The US Constitution does.

1892 US Pledge of Allegiance: "...Under God...."

The US Pledge of Allegiance started out without the phrase "under god." It was not until the 1950 Communist scare that it was added.
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

Don't tell me you didn't know that.


And you should look into the history of that "In God We Trust" phrase on coins. When it was first suggested, it was the Christians who were dead set against it. They stated that putting a religious phrase on money would cheapen religion.

Don't tell me you didn't know that either.

[Logan13]

National monuments and currency do not tell Americans what our rights are. The US Constitution does.

The US Pledge of Allegiance started out without the phrase "under god." It was not until the 1950 Communist scare that it was added.

Don't tell me you didn't know that.
The Knights of Columbus are the one's who started the trend. Referring to Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg address, "under God". The question is, is it still in the Pledge?

And you should look into the history of that "In God We Trust" phrase on coins. When it was first suggested, it was the Christians who were dead set against it. They stated that putting a religious phrase on money would cheapen religion.

Don't tell me you didn't know that either.

And yet both references to God have persisted through time. Don't tell me that you didn't know this. No rebut to the other 90% of my post....hmmmm. Again, the facts are not on your side. Being snide in your rebuff is just icing on the cake as it makes it obvious that you are in over your head.........