Church-State Protesting

[Gawen]

How does one talk to Christians about it?

things like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU5T-rLR-q4

Yes. If you remember, I was at one of your meetings where a man shared is experience with his contact with a church.

And yes, it is a start. I may be wrong in this, but debating christians in church over the existence of God and stuff like that is productive in only IF they see that we're not demon filled, satan worshipers or if a Christian who has had doubts and makes contact with the atheist/s. We certainly are not going to change their minds of their own belief system.

So what makes it worth it...(at a loss for words here)...to try to have them change their minds about C/SS?

[Gawen]

What I wish for I think is right, upholds the constitution, gets religion out of politics and still allows for freedom of worship....or worship not at all.

I know, it was more with the conservative theists which echo what religious institutions such as the Vatican (with their own political agenda) says about the 'evils of secularism' in mind that I wrote that comment. Sometimes I think people think that others think too much like them about how the world should be run, religiously and that a theocratic State will protect their interests.

OOOoohhh...duh!...*slappin me forehead*...sorry!

[xSilverPhinx]

What I wish for I think is right, upholds the constitution, gets religion out of politics and still allows for freedom of worship....or worship not at all.

I know, it was more with the conservative theists which echo what religious institutions such as the Vatican (with their own political agenda) says about the 'evils of secularism' in mind that I wrote that comment. Sometimes I think people think that others think too much like them about how the world should be run, religiously and that a theocratic State will protect their interests.

OOOoohhh...duh!...*slappin me forehead*...sorry!

I should've been clearer in my wording. It's just I've was posting at a Catholic forum some time ago and ran into what I thought was a misunderstanding about why people would want the clear separation between Church and State. Most there saw it as a atheists or humanists wanting to eradicate religion altogether and so reacted very negatively towards any mention of secularism. The Vatican does play it's role well, in controlling what people think with false and distorted information. I think the latest was the current Pope comparing the rise of secularism with the rise of fascism in Nazi Germany before WW2. Strange. 

[AnimatedDirt]

I didn't mean you or the LDS as activist in this. I was speaking for myself as needing to be more educated in activism.
However, I leave you with this: If spreading the Good News is right, and standing for Church/State separation is right, why not do both?

Point of correction:  SDA, not LDS.  Two VERY different religions. 

Like I said, I would stand with you on this point.  However when viewed on a timeline of which, for arguments sake, God has already made the end known, there is no point in protesting something that will happen regardless of the amount of protest it gets.  It is one point on a line that continues to a certain end.

A vampire can protest the sun all he/she wants.  This will not stop the sun from rising.  (this is in the context of what God knows as the future is set like that of the sun rising.)

So what then is best to spend time on?  If the Good News is that, yes there will be trouble, but that you can overcome that trouble by..., what is the better "protest" to make?

[AnimatedDirt]

And yes, it is a start. I may be wrong in this, but debating christians in church over the existence of God and stuff like that is productive in only IF they see that we're not demon filled, satan worshipers or if a Christian who has had doubts and makes contact with the atheist/s. We certainly are not going to change their minds of their own belief system.

I would say this thinking is from ignorant Christians.  I don't deny they think like this, but I will deny it is the thinking across the board.

Likewise...in light of many threads and pictures on HAF, what is productive in making fun of Christianity (I would say most of it is pointed at Christians) and/or other religions if the above is the wish?  Is it ok for the Atheist to have preconceived notions on a person because he/she is religious and therefore inferior in intellect? ... 

[xSilverPhinx]

I didn't mean you or the LDS as activist in this. I was speaking for myself as needing to be more educated in activism.
However, I leave you with this: If spreading the Good News is right, and standing for Church/State separation is right, why not do both?

Point of correction:  SDA, not LDS.  Two VERY different religions. 

Like I said, I would stand with you on this point.  However when viewed on a timeline of which, for arguments sake, God has already made the end known, there is no point in protesting something that will happen regardless of the amount of protest it gets.  It is one point on a line that continues to a certain end.

A vampire can protest the sun all he/she wants.  This will not stop the sun from rising.  (this is in the context of what God knows as the future is set like that of the sun rising.)

So what then is best to spend time on?  If the Good News is that, yes there will be trouble, but that you can overcome that trouble by..., what is the better "protest" to make?

That's the problem with self-fulling prophecies. How can you even know if it's the time for it to happen, even if you believe in it?

One of the dangers of theism, IMO. For instance, some people actually want to start a nuclear war in Isreal because that's would mean the second coming of Christ (there's something in the bible that speaks of this, I think).  Of course, for the rest of us who don't want our lives affected in this sort of way, these things are every worrying.

[AnimatedDirt]

That's the problem with self-fulling prophecies. How can you even know if it's the time for it to happen, even if you believe in it?

Hence why it is not important for us to dwell on the when exactly it will happen, but that it will and to live according to our faith either way.  If you've read the NT, you'll know that Christ Himself said the time is near (Matthew 24)

One of the dangers of theism, IMO. For instance, some people actually want to start a nuclear war in Isreal because that's would mean the second coming of Christ (there's something in the bible that speaks of this, I think).  Of course, for the rest of us who don't want our lives affected in this sort of way, these things are every worrying.

Ignorance is the word for those Christians.  The reality is that we are all being affected by it all.

[xSilverPhinx]

That's the problem with self-fulling prophecies. How can you even know if it's the time for it to happen, even if you believe in it?

Hence why it is not important for us to dwell on the when exactly it will happen, but that it will and to live according to our faith either way.  If you've read the NT, you'll know that Christ Himself said the time is near (Matthew 24)

One of the dangers of theism, IMO. For instance, some people actually want to start a nuclear war in Israel because that's would mean the second coming of Christ (there's something in the bible that speaks of this, I think).  Of course, for the rest of us who don't want our lives affected in this sort of way, these things are every worrying.

Ignorance is the word for those Christians.  The reality is that we are all being affected by it all.

If I remember correctly, he said that it would happen within the lifetime of his apostles, but I'd rather not get into that because I don't know the bible well enough to do so.

My (and everybody else's worries is that people will actively try and cause a prophecy to occur (if there are people causing it, how can it not?). Yours just looks a bit too defeatist, like you feel you have a reason to just let it happen.

Though I have no idea what could be done to avoid a nuclear war. I don't have that much faith in attempts to keep the peace nowadays.

[AnimatedDirt]

If I remember correctly, he said that it would happen within the lifetime of his apostles, but I'd rather not get into that because I don't know the bible well enough to do so.

I know the typical response is that "we" spin all this to our interpretive advantage...but then as another thread pointed out, the original text is in Greek and something will always be lost in translation on some points.

Anyway, here is the NIV Commentary on the "generation"

"this generation". If the reference is to the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred about 40 years after Jesus spoke these words, "generation" is used in its ordinary sense of a normal life span. All these things were fulfilled in a preliminary sense in the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem. If the reference is to the second coming of Christ, "generation" might indicate the Jewish people as a race (see NIV text note), who were promised existence to the very end. Or it might refer to the future generation alive at the beginning of these things. It does not mean that Jesus had a mistaken notion he was going to return immediately

Now back to Church and State protesting discussion.

[Whitney]

So what makes it worth it...(at a loss for words here)...to try to have them change their minds about C/SS?

We'll just assume that the average Christian isn't so far lost that they have an ability to judge someone's character when meeting them and they will realize we aren't demon filled satan worshipers (I know of at least one guy who made friends with a christian at either the event in the video or some other similar event).

People who have gay friends are more likely to care about gay rights...people who have atheist friends are more likely to care about atheist rights...

I think it is worth it just to help make it more possible for atheists to be open (positive PR) and to broaden the horizon of religious people who may have not met an atheist before or perhaps never thought about the "why" aspect of their beliefs (education), but I think it will have a side affect of more support for separation of church and state.  Plus, Most Christians do want church and state separate because they don't want government telling them how to worship....but they'll remain apathetic towards the issue and not really think of the repercussions of small violations of separation till it actually starts hitting closer to home; for most people close to home includes friends.

[AnimatedDirt]

Plus, Most Christians do want church and state separate because they don't want government telling them how to worship....but they'll remain apathetic towards the issue and not really think of the repercussions of small violations of separation till it actually starts hitting closer to home; for most people close to home includes friends.

I think you're right.  Most do want C&S separation, however the apathy towards it stems from knowing an integration of C&S won't affect them much (assuming that Church is a Christian Church) because other than small issues separating one religion from the other, the one theme they hold is the day of worship.  (for example I don't see a law coming down to mandate sprinkling as baptism vs. immersion) For many years now, since the birth of this nation, there has been some sort of push to "unite the nation" in a day of worship/rest or family day under the name of Blue Laws.  There are many links if you simply search.  It doesn't matter if you're Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist...those things will not affect your thinking nor your beliefs.  The bible, however, is clear that it will be God's commands and the adherence to them and specifically the day of worship.  The only group that will suffer with the implementation of such laws are those that hold to the literal keeping of the 10.  (not for salvation...but as still binding, but that's another topic)  So what I'm saying is that while most Christians are against C&S integration in theory, most don't see a REAL threat in the event.

[Whitney]

I think the Prohibition would be a good example to use to demonstrate to the average Christian who doesn't understand the importance of full C&S separation.  There would probably have never been Prohibition if it were not for the influence of fundamentalist religion, and I think we all know Prohibition did nothing but increase crime and many people are frustrated with there still being dry areas:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

Even those churches who are personally against drinking alcohol could benefit from an understanding of how imposing their beliefs on the masses could cause big problems...in fact the more conservative churches especially need to have that understanding.

[Gawen]

I think the Prohibition would be a good example to use to demonstrate to the average Christian who doesn't understand the importance of full C&S separation.  There would probably have never been Prohibition if it were not for the influence of fundamentalist religion, and I think we all know Prohibition did nothing but increase crime and many people are frustrated with there still being dry areas:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

I think that's a good start as well. But we'd need to really have our eggs in the basket. We would have to show crime statistics in comparison to Upper Duckwater, Wis.(not a real place) to Chicago, both not dry. But you couldn't show statistics between a huge city like Dallas compared to a dry town like Venus (not sure that's a dry town). You and I both know the counties and town that are dry fall under the "crime" claus, and we both know, as well as the counties and towns know that those that wish to drink will get it anyway. Somehow we have to show a correlation between crime and alcohol for a small town/county, but I think we're sailing against the wind because prohibition is not the same as "You can't buy it here but you can drink it".

Even those churches who are personally against drinking alcohol could benefit from an understanding of how imposing their beliefs on the masses could cause big problems...in fact the more conservative churches especially need to have that understanding.

hmmm...

[Whitney]

We don't' have to use current crime rates, and there are just too many variables to do that anyway...I don' think there is any dry area left where you can't drive 30 minutes and be in a wet area so today's dry spots aren't going to create criminals.  The proof of a correlation between mass Prohibition and increased crime is back when it was nationally prohibited; and that shouldn't require any special education since it was covered in school.  That's why it is a good example, people are familiar with the history of Prohibition but they probably just haven't drawn the connection between modern church-state issues.

[Gawen]

We don't' have to use current crime rates, and there are just too many variables to do that anyway...I don' think there is any dry area left where you can't drive 30 minutes and be in a wet area so today's dry spots aren't going to create criminals.  The proof of a correlation between mass Prohibition and increased crime is back when it was nationally prohibited; and that shouldn't require any special education since it was covered in school.  That's why it is a good example, people are familiar with the history of Prohibition but they probably just haven't drawn the connection between modern church-state issues.

Ahhhh...now I see what you mean.