(no subject)
Hi,
I wanted to reply to this email I got, but thought it might be better discussed here.
I feel the email is worth commenting on because it's using a bunch of flawed arguments and rhetoric to attack the separation of church and state, which is not only a good idea but put in place originally - in the US at least - to protect freedom of religion. I like freedom of religion.
I'm sorry if this comes across as some kind of atheist hatewagon, that's not how I intend it. This email is a groundless attack masquerading as a reasoned argument and so I've treated it as one. I'm going to do that annoying thing where I comment after each bit of the original text. Sorry.
As a quick aside, I invite you to find all those "facts" that the subject line mentions. I don't think this guy states a single, actual fact at any point. Here goes:
FW: We are reaping what we sowed? Some interesting facts?
> The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.
>
> My confession:
>
> I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejewelled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees.
A Jew! Well, he's impartial then. No problem.
> It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.
Alright, I like this bit. This is a perfectly valid argument, but there's a clear division from this and the rest of the email. Stein - I will assume this is actually written by him, though chain emails tend to get little bits added here and there - is talking about the cultural elements of a religion being accepted as part of society and tolerated as such. I'm in favour of this. A Christmas tree is not offensive. If you had a religious holiday for celebrating the Holocaust or something then it would be a different story, but to my knowledge no one's tried that on yet. If three-quarters of your country is Christian and you're complaining that someone's got a nativity scene in their front yard, get over yourself.
> I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.
Okay, I see what he's getting at here. He's implying that atheists are objecting to Christmas celebrations and that this qualifies as 'pushing Christians around'. It's not - if that's what they are doing, then you're protect by the law, as you are free to celebrate your faith. Again, I pretty much agree with this guy on principle. America's society has its roots in Christianity and you can't really make a huff about it's role there while the majority of the country follows that faith. I am perhaps simplifying this, but not as much as Stein is. Where he talks about the concept "that America is an explicitly atheist country", he's confusing atheism with freedom of religion. It's not that atheism is the favoured religious-belief, but rather that no specific religious-belief is favoured - it's not the same thing. Also, since he asked so nicely, I'm pleased to answer that all this lovely freedom of religion business is outlined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. I guess he didn't look too hard.
Freedom of religion means that the government can't impose religious beliefs on individuals. This works both ways. They can't tell you to take down your nativity scenes and you can't make schools teach creationism. School is compulsory but religion is not, so people are free to choose their beliefs as they see fit. If you want to convert people, go door-to-door or let your noble, Christian life be an example to them. Jesus said, "Let the children come to me," not, "Make sure your kids read the Bible for at least an hour a day".
> Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.
See, this is wrong. Nothing's stopping you from worshipping God as you see fit, no more than you are hindered in worshipping anything - Nick and Jessica included. If you were actually being persecuted for your religion, it would be a violation of your rights and you'd be able to talk to the nice people at the courthouse instead of sending chain mails.
> In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.
Sure. But I wish you'd started thinking first.
> Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'
>
>
> In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.
Hang on, hang on, stop. Firstly, the way it's written you'd think this woman was murdered because she didn't want prayer in schools. See how God's wrath smites the unbeliever! And yet, is that not a contradiction of his own, completely ridiculous argument? Here God is both ignoring our welfare because we don't want him to intervene (in the first paragraph) and intervening because we told him not to (in the second). Make up your mind.
Secondly, this is just terrible reasoning. We have been hit by a hurricane because we don't teach Christianity in our schools? This can be extended to anything: You got a cold sore because you punched your sister. Africa has an AIDS epidemic because God hates black people. We're having a recession because we don't have animal sacrifices anymore! The world is going to end because Janet Jackson got her tit out! Just pick a problem and decide what you want to complain about.
You know what else says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal? How about the law. Or every other religion. Or atheists (gasp!). OR EVERYONE.
> Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.
>
>
> Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
You're asking why people are killing other people? Oh I see, it's because you're not drilling Christianity into them at school regardless of their faith. It must be because you're discouraged - not banned, discouraged - from spanking your children. Every generation thinks the next generation is morally bankrupt. Get out a history book, you'll find that people from the 1800s were worried because their children were hooligans who were murdering the language. Humanity is fragile and has a turbulent nature. Sometimes, yes, that can combine with people's personalities and their environment to produce tragedies like suicide, as Stein has so tactfully mentioned happened with Spock's son - what shameful point-scoring. Again here he has not given any information, trying to lead the reader into assuming that Spock's son committed suicide Spock would not spank him. The real point of interest is that this seems to have little to do with anything else Stein is saying.
> Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'
Yeah, maybe. But not everything. And Stein's being very exclusive about what it is that we have 'sown'. Religion in schools is clearly the prime candidate for why children are murdering people? Does that not sound a little bit far-fetched? Why is it that some Christians assume that no one can form any kind of moral code without having been force-fed the Bible from a young age? Surely if that were the case then every non-Christian country would be a hotbed of violence and lawlessness. While we're making comparisons, why not take a look at France, whose secular values are what America's were founded on and which it has stuck to for the last two hundred years. It has little of the trouble that Stein is blaming here on church and state separation, whereas the US does. Perhaps there are other factors, n'est-ce pas? Why not suggest that American children have less of a respect for life because their government teaches by example that it can be acceptable to kill a person? I'm not saying it's correct, just that it's a much better argument than this one.
> Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
I wish I could ignore this part. Yes, questioning the Bible is good. We should question the newspapers as well. Questioning - to a reasonable level - pretty much everything is good. And yes, religious discussions are generally frowned on in the workplace in the same way that lewdness is - because sending an email to someone explaining how their child is going to kill people and then commit suicide because they a) weren't taught the Bible from an early age and b) haven't been beaten enough might somehow damage your working relationship.
I'd just like to pause for a moment to admire how flawed the last sentence is. Isn't it funny how is fine in but isn't welcome in ? Well, gee. Ain't that amazing. You can say more or less whatever you like on the Internet, but schools and workplaces have strict guidelines and what is and isn't acceptable in those environments. Remarkable!
> Are you laughing?
No. Should I be? Are you joking? Please say you're joking.
> Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.
I wouldn't say it's funny, I'd say it's pretty obvious. Unlike Stein's proposal that we should send messages about our religious beliefs to our co-workers and people that we know will not appreciate them, it actually makes some sense.
> Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
If God damns me for not forwarding an email then he's pettier than I am.
> Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in. My Best Regards.
I'm passing it on because I think it's a great example of something that has little merit other than to serve as an example of poor reasoning. Not only am I going to discard this 'thought process' (how is that a process? Processes are clearly defined, not collections of rhetoric and fearmongering) as an object of derision, but next time I worry about what bad shape the world is in, I might just try to think of a practical solution to better it in some small way, instead of blaming anyone who doesn't agree with me.
> Honestly and respectfully,
>
>
> Ben Stein
Well, you're a liar if you say you're being honest, Ben Stein. Stein's main beef with the ban on teaching religion in schools, a little research tells me, is that it interferes with teaching creationism (I shall not refer to it as Intelligent Design, thankyou very much). He describes it as an ideology (not, apparently, a scientific theory) similar to Marxism, saying it "cannot be verified" and is "without much evidence". Well, that explains a lot.
> P.S. He left out the impact TV, movies and video games have had on our society. They are filled with images of hurting and killing people.
I am actually going to avoid commenting on this last statement on the grounds that it's clearly not part of the original document and could in fact be a legitimate argument if it wasn't simplified so thoroughly.
So, in conclusion:
* The ban on Bible-study in public schools did not cause Hurricane Katrina.
* The same ban is not responsible for all of the evils of society.
* Freedom of religion is a good thing and this email doesn't provide any legitimate reasons to think otherwise.
I wanted to reply to this email I got, but thought it might be better discussed here.
I feel the email is worth commenting on because it's using a bunch of flawed arguments and rhetoric to attack the separation of church and state, which is not only a good idea but put in place originally - in the US at least - to protect freedom of religion. I like freedom of religion.
I'm sorry if this comes across as some kind of atheist hatewagon, that's not how I intend it. This email is a groundless attack masquerading as a reasoned argument and so I've treated it as one. I'm going to do that annoying thing where I comment after each bit of the original text. Sorry.
As a quick aside, I invite you to find all those "facts" that the subject line mentions. I don't think this guy states a single, actual fact at any point. Here goes:
FW: We are reaping what we sowed? Some interesting facts?
> The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.
>
> My confession:
>
> I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejewelled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees.
A Jew! Well, he's impartial then. No problem.
> It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.
Alright, I like this bit. This is a perfectly valid argument, but there's a clear division from this and the rest of the email. Stein - I will assume this is actually written by him, though chain emails tend to get little bits added here and there - is talking about the cultural elements of a religion being accepted as part of society and tolerated as such. I'm in favour of this. A Christmas tree is not offensive. If you had a religious holiday for celebrating the Holocaust or something then it would be a different story, but to my knowledge no one's tried that on yet. If three-quarters of your country is Christian and you're complaining that someone's got a nativity scene in their front yard, get over yourself.
> I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.
Okay, I see what he's getting at here. He's implying that atheists are objecting to Christmas celebrations and that this qualifies as 'pushing Christians around'. It's not - if that's what they are doing, then you're protect by the law, as you are free to celebrate your faith. Again, I pretty much agree with this guy on principle. America's society has its roots in Christianity and you can't really make a huff about it's role there while the majority of the country follows that faith. I am perhaps simplifying this, but not as much as Stein is. Where he talks about the concept "that America is an explicitly atheist country", he's confusing atheism with freedom of religion. It's not that atheism is the favoured religious-belief, but rather that no specific religious-belief is favoured - it's not the same thing. Also, since he asked so nicely, I'm pleased to answer that all this lovely freedom of religion business is outlined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. I guess he didn't look too hard.
Freedom of religion means that the government can't impose religious beliefs on individuals. This works both ways. They can't tell you to take down your nativity scenes and you can't make schools teach creationism. School is compulsory but religion is not, so people are free to choose their beliefs as they see fit. If you want to convert people, go door-to-door or let your noble, Christian life be an example to them. Jesus said, "Let the children come to me," not, "Make sure your kids read the Bible for at least an hour a day".
> Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.
See, this is wrong. Nothing's stopping you from worshipping God as you see fit, no more than you are hindered in worshipping anything - Nick and Jessica included. If you were actually being persecuted for your religion, it would be a violation of your rights and you'd be able to talk to the nice people at the courthouse instead of sending chain mails.
> In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.
Sure. But I wish you'd started thinking first.
> Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Katrina) Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'
>
>
> In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.
Hang on, hang on, stop. Firstly, the way it's written you'd think this woman was murdered because she didn't want prayer in schools. See how God's wrath smites the unbeliever! And yet, is that not a contradiction of his own, completely ridiculous argument? Here God is both ignoring our welfare because we don't want him to intervene (in the first paragraph) and intervening because we told him not to (in the second). Make up your mind.
Secondly, this is just terrible reasoning. We have been hit by a hurricane because we don't teach Christianity in our schools? This can be extended to anything: You got a cold sore because you punched your sister. Africa has an AIDS epidemic because God hates black people. We're having a recession because we don't have animal sacrifices anymore! The world is going to end because Janet Jackson got her tit out! Just pick a problem and decide what you want to complain about.
You know what else says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal? How about the law. Or every other religion. Or atheists (gasp!). OR EVERYONE.
> Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.
>
>
> Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
You're asking why people are killing other people? Oh I see, it's because you're not drilling Christianity into them at school regardless of their faith. It must be because you're discouraged - not banned, discouraged - from spanking your children. Every generation thinks the next generation is morally bankrupt. Get out a history book, you'll find that people from the 1800s were worried because their children were hooligans who were murdering the language. Humanity is fragile and has a turbulent nature. Sometimes, yes, that can combine with people's personalities and their environment to produce tragedies like suicide, as Stein has so tactfully mentioned happened with Spock's son - what shameful point-scoring. Again here he has not given any information, trying to lead the reader into assuming that Spock's son committed suicide Spock would not spank him. The real point of interest is that this seems to have little to do with anything else Stein is saying.
> Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'
Yeah, maybe. But not everything. And Stein's being very exclusive about what it is that we have 'sown'. Religion in schools is clearly the prime candidate for why children are murdering people? Does that not sound a little bit far-fetched? Why is it that some Christians assume that no one can form any kind of moral code without having been force-fed the Bible from a young age? Surely if that were the case then every non-Christian country would be a hotbed of violence and lawlessness. While we're making comparisons, why not take a look at France, whose secular values are what America's were founded on and which it has stuck to for the last two hundred years. It has little of the trouble that Stein is blaming here on church and state separation, whereas the US does. Perhaps there are other factors, n'est-ce pas? Why not suggest that American children have less of a respect for life because their government teaches by example that it can be acceptable to kill a person? I'm not saying it's correct, just that it's a much better argument than this one.
> Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
I wish I could ignore this part. Yes, questioning the Bible is good. We should question the newspapers as well. Questioning - to a reasonable level - pretty much everything is good. And yes, religious discussions are generally frowned on in the workplace in the same way that lewdness is - because sending an email to someone explaining how their child is going to kill people and then commit suicide because they a) weren't taught the Bible from an early age and b) haven't been beaten enough might somehow damage your working relationship.
I'd just like to pause for a moment to admire how flawed the last sentence is. Isn't it funny how is fine in but isn't welcome in ? Well, gee. Ain't that amazing. You can say more or less whatever you like on the Internet, but schools and workplaces have strict guidelines and what is and isn't acceptable in those environments. Remarkable!
> Are you laughing?
No. Should I be? Are you joking? Please say you're joking.
> Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.
I wouldn't say it's funny, I'd say it's pretty obvious. Unlike Stein's proposal that we should send messages about our religious beliefs to our co-workers and people that we know will not appreciate them, it actually makes some sense.
> Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
If God damns me for not forwarding an email then he's pettier than I am.
> Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in. My Best Regards.
I'm passing it on because I think it's a great example of something that has little merit other than to serve as an example of poor reasoning. Not only am I going to discard this 'thought process' (how is that a process? Processes are clearly defined, not collections of rhetoric and fearmongering) as an object of derision, but next time I worry about what bad shape the world is in, I might just try to think of a practical solution to better it in some small way, instead of blaming anyone who doesn't agree with me.
> Honestly and respectfully,
>
>
> Ben Stein
Well, you're a liar if you say you're being honest, Ben Stein. Stein's main beef with the ban on teaching religion in schools, a little research tells me, is that it interferes with teaching creationism (I shall not refer to it as Intelligent Design, thankyou very much). He describes it as an ideology (not, apparently, a scientific theory) similar to Marxism, saying it "cannot be verified" and is "without much evidence". Well, that explains a lot.
> P.S. He left out the impact TV, movies and video games have had on our society. They are filled with images of hurting and killing people.
I am actually going to avoid commenting on this last statement on the grounds that it's clearly not part of the original document and could in fact be a legitimate argument if it wasn't simplified so thoroughly.
So, in conclusion:
* The ban on Bible-study in public schools did not cause Hurricane Katrina.
* The same ban is not responsible for all of the evils of society.
* Freedom of religion is a good thing and this email doesn't provide any legitimate reasons to think otherwise.