brighid

Here is a great article on slavery:
<a href="http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa112598.htm" target="_blank">http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa112598.htm</a>

Through teaching slaves the message of the Bible, they could be encouraged to bear the earthly burden in exchange for heavenly rewards later on - and they could be frightened into believing that disobedience to earthly masters would be perceived by God as disobedience to Him. Ironically, enforced illiteracy prevented slaves from reading the Bible themselves. This is ironic because a similar situation existed in Europe during the Middle Ages, as illiterate peasants and serfs were prevented from reading the Bible in their own language - a situation which was instrumental in the Protestant revolution. Now, Protestants were doing much the same thing African slaves: using the authority of their Bible and the dogma of their religion to repress a group of people without even allowing them to read the basis of authority on their own

"A Scriptural View of Slavery:"

...Jesus Christ recognized this institution as one that was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties... I affirm then, first (and no man denies) that Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a prohibitory command; and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction...

Of course, Christians in the North disagreed - and some denominations, like Quakers, appear to have never been afflicted by slavery. Interestingly, most abolitionist attacks were based on the premise that the nature of Hebrew slavery differed in significant ways from the nature of slavery in the American South. Although this was meant to argue that the American form of slavery did not enjoy Biblical support, it nevertheless tacitly admitted that the institution of slavery did, in principle, have divine sanction and approval so long as conducted in an appropriate manner.

Brighid

other links about Roman slavery:
<a href="http://www.crystalinks.com/romeslavery.html" target="_blank">http://www.crystalinks.com/romeslavery.html</a>
<a href="http://www.ucd.ie/~classics/96/Madden96.html" target="_blank">http://www.ucd.ie/~classics/96/Madden96.html</a>

Bob K

The Xn Babel's Ten Commandments include recognition and therefore sanctioning of slavery (and therefore should not be posted in classroom/courtrooms and if so posted should be removed ASAP).

Check out Commandments #4 and #10.

The Ten Commandments of the Judeo-Christian Religions

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Ex. 20: 3.
2. Thou shalt not make any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. Ex. 20: 4., 5.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain. Ex. 20: 7.
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy works; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy stranger which is within thy gates. Ex. 20: 8-10.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Ex. 20: 12.
6. Thou shalt not kill. Ex. 20: 13.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Ex. 20: 14.
8. Thou shalt not steal. Ex. 20: 15.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Ex. 20: 16.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house; thou salt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s. Ex. 20: 17.

Note: Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy works; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt do any work, thou, nor ... thy manservant, nor thy maidservant ... clearly recognizes and therefore sanctions slavery (it certainly does not command that slaves be freed and slavery be abolished)

Note: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ... manservant, nor his maidservant, ... Clearly recognizes and therefore sanctions slavery (it certainly does not command that slaves be freed and slavery be abolished).

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: Bob K ]</p>

NOGO

Nice try!
Let`s see. If we are to believe the bible then the Hebrew people were slaves in Egypt for 400 years. Then YHWH heard their cries and sent them a saviour. From this certain lessons were learned. One of which resulted in the Sabbath. Even slaves would have a day of rest. Another (and I don`t remember the book and verses) is that the people of God will never be slaves again to no man. I believe that this is the significance of the headdress which Jews, Muslims and some Christian clergymen wear.

So, was slavery any different in ancient times?
I would say no.
Do the authors of the bible clearly indicate the evils of slavery?
I would say yes.
Do the authors of the bible have enough wisdom to ban slavery not just for themselves but for everybody?
I would say for themselves - yes, for others - NO!

Hebrew slaves in Egypt, should indicate to you the race related nature of the beast even in ancient times. The passover when the angel of the Lord killed Egyptian firstborns but passed over the hebrew households can also be clearly seen as race related revenge for the crime of slavery.

I think that you need to do a lot more work on this issue.

EDITED TO ADD
NASB Jer 30:8 It shall come about on that day,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'that I will break his yoke from off their neck and will tear off their bonds; and strangers will no longer make them their slaves.

This is not actually the passage that I mentioned above but until I find it this one will have to do.

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Bob K

NOGO:

Thanks for your Reply.

When Xns are confronted with truth/reality concerning their precious Babel they typically defend/apologize by denial/evasion/obfuscation/attack.

Slavery is denial of an individual’s freedom/liberty and is therefore an injury to him.

According to Thomas Jefferson, “The essence of all law is that no man should [be permitted/allowed to] injure another [man]; all the rest [of the law] is commentary.”

NOTE: For clarity for the words slave(s) and slavery, The American Heritage Dictionary offers the following definitions: NOTE: For clarity for the words polemic and polemical, The American Heritage Dictionary offers the following definitions: The Haran quote: ... attempts to deny the reality/truth that slavery was and is recognized/supported/encouraged by the Xn Babel by evading the fact that slavery is slavery.

Where is the logic in denying that slavery is slavery? Are we to seriously believe that denying a person his liberty by owning him and forcing him to do work he does not necessarily want to do is somehow different in modern times than in ancient times? Are we to believe that slavery in ancient times was okay because the slaves were better off being slaves than being freemen and therefore gleefully accepted their slavery?

The Haran quote: ... is an evasion by which we are supposed to switch our thinking to a phony issue of “Black slavery” being different from other forms of slavery and an obfuscation by which we are to be confused into looking at “Black slavery” instead of slavery in general.

Further, we are not told how modern “Black slavery” is different from ancient slavery.

The Haran quote: ... is a further obfuscation because we are not told how being “not far removed in time from the abolition of slavery, so the evils of it are still very much on our modern minds so that we are sensitive to the mere mention of it” confuses our understanding of modern slavery with ancient slavery, again, as if the two are different, and, therefore, modern slavery is not ancient slavery, and, therefore, slavery is not slavery.

The Haran quote: ... is a general attack upon those of us who criticize (“denigrate”) the Babel by labeling us denigrators instead of labeling us critics, connotatively a more pleasant term.

The American Heritage Dictionary: critic
1. One who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter.
2. Abbr. crit. One who specializes especially professionally in the evaluation and appreciation of literary or artistic works.
3. One who tends to make harsh or carping judgments; a faultfinder.

NOTE: In my own case either critic or denigrator is appropriate because I do in fact attack/speak ill of/defame/disparage/belittle the Xn Babel; case-in-point: my use of the term Babel instead of Bible. But others ought not to be generally labeled denigrators when they are in fact critics.

Haran does not show how our conscious or unconscious “relatively recent aversion and sensitivity to slavery (among other subjects)” causes us to confuse modern slavery with ancient slavery and further does not show how ancient slavery was somehow different from and therefore better than modern slavery, as if ancient slavery is not modern slavery and therefore slavery is not slavery.

Any attempt to prove slavery is not slavery is evasion and obfuscation of the worst kind.

But evasion and obfuscation, along with denial and attack, are necessary methods of defense against the indefensible, and therefore are necessary for Xn defenders/apologists.

From here on, whenever Xns crow “Christian principles!!!” or “Christian values!!!” we who are critics (and denigrators) of Xnity and its Babel can remind them that Xn principles/values include recognizing/supporting/encouraging slavery.

NOGO

Hi Bob K,

I agree with you 100% however if I can express a critical opinion of your posts it would be as follows.

When you have a very strong case (as with slavery) on your side it is no point diminishing it by overstating it or by denigrating you opponoents.

Haran

Well, I had tried to let this thread go. I am a Christian on an Atheist's website and I expect that people will disagree with me.

However, I just wanted to let Bob know that his intense rhetoric will get him nowhere. As a matter of fact, most of the "tactics" that he accuses me of can also be identified in his own posts if someone really cared to point them out.

Hopefully, if his goal is a noble one (i.e. to help people he believes to be mislead), then he will one day realize, as I have stated several times in this thread already, that his rhetoric only stirs up logic-obscuring emotion, blocking rational discussion. Until he learns this fact, he will see himself fail repeatedly and miserably.

Otherwise, since my post dealing with slavery was labeled by others as "underwhelming" and "stubborn wrong-headedness", I believe it was completely misunderstood.

Rather than beat a dead horse, I will offer more from the Bible that I believe shows that the Bible does not "support" or "encourage" slavery, as Bob puts it.

Frankly, I don't know how one can even argue with this. Slave traders are grouped with murderers!, adulterers, perverts, and liars!

If that's not enough, it flat out states that it is "contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God"!

There are plenty more quotes, but some of them I've posted already...about neither free nor slave (which is repeated over and over in the NT, btw). I just don't understand how anyone can honestly ignore the combined evidence of all these verses.

Jesus told us that the whole of the Law of Moses could be summed up as: "Do to others as you'd have them do to you." He wanted us to understand and follow the "spirit" (underlying purpose) of the Law, and not the "letter" of the Law. To me, as a Christian, this doesn't say to me that I should view slavery as something to be condoned.

I'll leave you with one last source on <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm" target="_blank">Slavery and Christianity</a> which speaks much more eloquently then me.

If there are disagreements with this post, then I suppose that we will just have to agree to disagree. I will not be back no matter what vehement, intolerant, anti-Christian rhetoric Bob invents next.

Haran

NOGO

Haran
First the reference to pagan society is rather improper here since the Jews had slaves and there was no such rule of religious equality. Yahweh had no problem with slavery so there cannot be an distinction between pagan society and Jewish society of the time as far as slavery is concerned. In Israel of the time there was no such thing as a citizen's rights. Rights of the citizen was a part of Roman law as can best be examplified by Paul's brush with a centurion who actually saved his life.
Paul was going to be mobbed for his beliefs. The centurion arrested him and was going to beat him for disturbing the peace. Paul then told the centurion that he was a Roman citizen. He was immediately released. Under Yahweh's law Paul would have been dead.

As for religious equality...
Perhaps this was true of the early Christians who were out to convert anyone.
Slaves were perhaps easier targets for conversion than free men. This is however one small period of time and is a result of practical need rather than a fundamental belief.

The fact is that Christianity and slavery lived side by side without much trouble for centuries. The reason for this should be obvious.
Jesus may have said do unto other etc...
But this kind of rule is only good if applied to one and all. How then is it possible for Christian countries like Britain and the US and most european counties to have slaves.

The fact is that rules like "do unto other as you want other to do unto you" can easily be overlooked as it has been. Especially if spoken by a man who also said ...

Mt15
24 But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
25 But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!"
26 And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."

If Yahweh had had an elenth commandment such as "thy shalt not have slaves" then history would perhaps have been very different. If Jesus had said "Do not enslave your enemies" then we would not be having this discussion. In practice Christianity never had any trouble with slavery.

Fundamental rights of the citizen is what got rid of slavery not Christianity. Roman law started the idea that a citizen had rights by virtue of the law of the land not by God's law. There was no such thing in Hebrew society of the first century. There was no such thing in medieval society. It returned with the renaissance when people started to think again and shed a millenium of religious intellectual oppression.

You have made no attempt to answer by previous post. I suppose that as a Christian you believe that Jesus was Yahweh but you don't feel a need to defend the old testament.

NOGO

First a slave trader and slavery is not the same thing. It is like comparing a soldier fighting for his country to a mercenary. One can consider mercenaries scum without necessarily being against fighting for one's country.

One can definitely argue the point not only from what I say above but also because you are quoting the opinion of one person and in a narrow period of time which must be viewed against mountains of contrary evidence.

Just because one Christian said something against slavery that this absolves all of Christianity of everything for all times.

If Christianity had come clearly on the side of zero tolerance for slavery we would not be arguing the point today. My point in a previous post is that it seems that the whole bible thing started by an anti-slavery story. The exodus out of Egypt is clearly that. Egypt is referred to the "house of slavery" many many times. The Sabbath, headdress, passover etc are results of the injustices of slavery. We can therefore expect a clear anti-slavery bias but it isn't there.

Bob K

NOGO:

Thanks for your Reply: If I point out the fact that the typical Xn apologist/fundie defense of the indefensible is one of or a combination the ‘tricks’ of (A) denial, (B) evasion, (C) obfuscation, and/or (D) attack then this is good argument and not necessarily overstatement nor denigration.

I have myself pointed out that I am so outraged by the nonsense of the Babel that I call it what it is—The Babel—and that I am willing to denigrate it as a personal statement of my contempt and a challenge to the apologists/fundies to prove it is worthy of respect.

Many other theists, atheists and agnostics use foul language and would use obscene gestures if possible on the internet but at least I have restrained myself except for the obvious humor involved in accusing someone of being a graduate of The Joint Academy of Confused Knowledge, Obfuscation, and Fraudulent Facts. [Should it be The Joint Academy of Confused Knowledge, Obfuscation, Fallacies and Frauds?]

While we’re at it, I am not aware that there is a typed universal obscene gesture known as The Finger or The Bird inviting an individual to perform what is theoretically an impossible sexual act.

Could any of the following suffice?:

(A) iiIii

(B) ii1ii

(C) f1u

(D) \\1//

[;&gt ]

Regardless, notice that Haran has accused me of denying/evading/obfuscating/attacking without being specific re: what he gives as examples of denying/evading/obfuscating/attacking and thereby giving me a chance to respond.

Another apologist/fundie tactic is the Wild Goose Chase in which the apologist/fundie humbly admits his poor ability to respond/argue effectively and refers atheists/agnostics/critics/skeptics/challengers to a writing which is supposed to effectively state his--the fundie’s--point/argument but far more often than not denies/evades/obfuscates/attacks and produces no convincing argument supporting the fundie’s point(s).

The Wild Goose Chase is perhaps categorizable as an evasion or an obfuscation and certainly in most cases is a waste of time.

Out of respect for the argument, I generally chase wild geese and do so as objectively as I can despite knowing from experience that fundies are defending the indefensible and that the chances of a wild goose providing new convincing information providing support for a fundie’s argument are slim to none.

Haran has sent me on a Wild Goose Chase to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Xnity and slavery.

I will chase this goose and report.

Bob K

Haran:

Haran Quote: Your feigned humility does not improve your credibility.

You just want to let me know that my ‘intense rhetoric’ will get me nowhere?

‘Intense rhetoric’?

Is that an attack?

Is it possible that you really want people to believe not what the Babel actually says but what you say is truth even if it contradicts the Bablical reality?

What a humble man you are, Haran!

Why don’t you do us the honor of pointing out my denials/evasions/obfuscations/attacks specifically and in great detail?

As I do unto you, so can you do unto me.

If you can.

I do not defend the indefensible as you do.

Haran Quote: The goal is noble: to help people who are being mislead -- by Xns!

You hereby claim that I am repeatedly a miserable failure.

This is an attack.

Why don’t you specifically identify the words and phrases that constitute the rhetoric you accuse me of using that “only stirs up logic-obscuring emotion, blocking rational discussion.”

Haran Quote: If someone disagrees with you he incorrectly ‘misunderstands’ you?

Is there any possibility that someone (A) understands you and (B) disagrees with you and (C) has valid reasons for disagreeing with you?

Haran Quote: The first way I can argue with the Haran 1 Tim. 1:8-11 quote is to prove that it is not identical to the KJV translation: Your quote is similar to the NIV translation which includes the term slave-traders in place of menstealers.

Are menstealers = slave-traders?

Could menstealers = kidnappers?

We note that the term in the Haran quote is slave-traders, not menstealers.

Allowing menstealers = slave-traders, we see that your quote is not clear.

Slave-traders were condemned but not slave-OWNERS!

Were slave-owners also slave-traders?

That could have been.

Were there differences between Israelis and nonIsraelis concerning who can and who cannot be slaves?

Exod. 21:2, 4-6. If thou buy an Hebrew manservant... If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he (the manservant) shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, “I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free”; then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.

Lev. 25:44-46. Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families. ... And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.

We have therefore justification for asserting that there was a difference between an hebrew/Israeli servant/slave and an nonHebrew/nonIsraeli servant slave.

We have therefore reason to assert that slave-traders of Hebrews/Israelis were to have been condemned but slave-traders of nonHebrews/nonIsraelis were not to have been condemned. [Thanks to both excreationist and bd-from-kg for revealing the racism of Jewish/Hebrew/Israeli slavery practicies.]

Note the following: The above is evidently an NIV quote.

Here is the KJV quote: Thus slave-traders who are kidnappers/menstealers of Israelis are to be condemned and yet we find no injunction that says slave-traders of nonIsraelis are to be condemned, with the obvious logical conclusion that slave-traders/menstealers of nonIsraelis are not to be condemned, with the obvious conclusion that slavery of nonIsraelis is supported/snactioned/encouraged by the gods and the Babel.

Therefore slave-traders who traded slaves who were Jews (and, later, we can assume, Xns) were specifically targeted by the 1 Tim. 1:8-11 quote.

The NIV 1 Tim. 1:8-11 quote is therefore not clearly and obviously a condemnation of slavery nor an injunction to free slaves and abolish slavery; the KJV quote is certainly less clear.

The Haran quote re: neither free nor slave was incomplete, as pointed out by ______ (?), and therefore not proof of a condemnation of slavery.

The combined evidence of the pro-slavery quotes/evidence in the OT AND the NT clearly show that slavery was recognized/sanctioned/supported/encouraged by the pure word of the gods as inspired by the gods themselves in the Babel and therefore by the Jews and therefore by the Xns who followed both the letter and the spirit of the Babel.

Haran Quote: Here we have another example of your denial/evasion/obfuscation.

Remember the premises in the original Post:

Premise #1: Prov. 30:5. Every word of God is pure.

Premise #2: 2 Tim. 3:16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

Premise #3: The law for the Jews is the Pentateuch [the first five books of the Babel].

Remember the NT John 1:17: For the law was given by Moses, ...

Remember the NT Matt. 5:17-19: [Quoting JC] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am come not to destroy the law, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass for the law till all be fulfilled. whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

The OT Mosaic law is specific. It recognizes/supports/encourages slavery. It instructs Jews and Xns to capture enemies and enslave them. It does not condemn slavery and does not instruct Jews/Xns to free their slaves.

The NT specifically instructs slaves to obey their masters, and for everyone (A) to accept his status/calling and (B) to act accordingly.

And the NT specifically says that, according to JC hmself, JC did not come to destroy the Mosaic law but to fulfill it.

That means whatever the Mosaic law specifically states, so must the law be and the people must respond according to their calling.

The JC statement that the essence of the Mosaic law ‘could be summed up as’ The Golden Rule: “Do to others as you’d have them do to you” if applied to slavery [and there is no guarantee that it is anything than a general statement instead of a specific injunction against slavery] is an obvious contradiction of the specific Mosaic law recognizing/supporting/encouraging slavery, and the Pauline injunctions to slaves to obey their masters.

Is JC trying to destroy the Mosaic law re: slavery? Or is JC trying to make a general statement that does not necessarily specifically destroy the Mosiac law re: slavery?

The JC statement that the essence of the Mosaic law ‘could be summed up as’ The Golden Rule: “Do to others as you’d have them do to you” is nowhere near as clear as an Hebrew scholar’s statement paraphrased by Thomas Jefferson as “The essence of the law [or all law] is that no man should [be allowed to] injure another [innocent man; defined ooperationally as an individual who does not intend to injure someone who does not intend to injure him]; all the rest [of the law] is commentary.” [Brackets added for clarification.]

There is an anti-Xn joke re: the 23rd Psalm that goes thus: “Yea, though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death I will fear no Evil, for I am the meanest SOB in the Valley!” [Cruder versions use another phrase I don’t want to include in this Reply.]

This joke reveals the weakness of “Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you”: If might makes right, then, if you have the right might—the right of might, you can do unto others as you want and defy them to do likewise unto you.

T. Jefferson’s “the essence of the law is that no man should injure another [innocent man]” when modified by the bracketed expression of [innocent man] and the innocent man is defined operationally to be an individual who does intend to injure those other people who do not intend to injure him, as to read “the essence of the law is that no man should be allowed to injure an innocent man who does not intend to injure anyone who does not intend to injure him” is far more clear, for there can be no “meanest SOB” who can be allowed to injure an innocent man, because there can be no “might makes right” and therefore “the right might” an individual can use as an excuse to do unto other innocent individuals as he pleases and thereby injure them.

The S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS description of human nature coupled with the Jeffersonian Essence of the Law with appropriate modifications leads to an awareness that where individuals recognize that they would not want to be slaves they therefore should not hold slaves, should free slaves they owned, and should abolish slavery.

Thus, when Xns acted to free slaves they did not necessarily do so as Xns, for the Mosaic law recognizes/sanctions/encourages slavery, but, instead, they did so as anti-Xns defying the Mosaic law [destroying the Mosaic law] in accord with human nature [S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS + T. Jefferson’s The Essence of the Law as modified].

Haran Quote: Here is a potential Wild Goose Chase type of evasion/obfuscation Xns like Nomad and Haran are wont to request those who misunderstand them/disagree with them to read.

Haran Quote: Notice that Haran attacks with the phrase describing my ‘rhetoric’ [a term which has negative connotations of blowing smoke?] as an ‘invented rhetoric’ [supposedly consisting of fictions instead of realities?] as vehement/intolerant/anti-Christian.

You’re damn right I’m vehement! The Babel contains garbage that should be recognized as garbage. And for Xns to pass this garbage off as the pure word of the gods, as inspired by the gods, and as the law according to Moses is outrageous even if done through ignorance. Innocent people who do not have the basic baloney detector and argumentative skills to defend themselves and others by challenging the nonsense Xns are throwing out as claims of facts are injured by the fraudulent nature of the Xn philosophies and their requirements for specific actions including belief in the fraud, evangelizing, supporting Xn political candidates, imposing a de facto state religion by supporting school prayer, the posting of religious sayings such as the Ten Commandments in classrooms and courtrooms, the teaching of creationism as fact/denying teaching evolution as fact, outlawing abortion, outlawing personal termination/assisted suicide, outlawing the stem cell research that might help millions of suffering individuals—including perhaps some of their close relatives and friends, and, of course, donating personal money and possibly allocating public money to support the fraud. And then there are those innocent individuals who ae not religious and who are injured by the actions of the Xn religionists who perpetrate their fraud.

T. Jefferson: The essence of the law is that no man should injure another; all the rest is commentary.

Am I claiming that the US Const. 1st Amend. should be violated?

I am not claiming that religion should not be practiced. If it is to be practiced, in accord with Matthew 6:5-6, it ought to be practiced not in public places but in private places. And it should not be funded with public moneys.

I am not claiming that the practice of religion should be forbidden.

I am claiming that we can benefit young people as well as ourselves by teaching in our schools and colleges philosophy courses that show what is logical argument, the Code of Science including operational definitions and the scientific method, etc, and thereby help people develop baloney detection skills that could help them defend themselves and others from the fraudulent claims of other human beings including religionists, economists, politicians, and salesmen of any kind. By this we can help people avoid or/and defend against injury to themselves and others.

Fraud = fraud. Calling fraud religion still does not change that fact that fraud is fraud and religion = fraud [because religious claims cannot be proven to be true].

You’re damn right I’m intolerant!! See above!!!

You’re damn right I’m anti-Christian!!!! I’m anti-anyone who cannot prove his assertions/claims of facts by (A) physical evidence, (B) eyewitness reports from credible eyewitnesses and corroborated by credible corroborators or/and (C) logical arguments consisting of verifiable/falsifiable/verified premises leading to a relevant conclusion which can only be true if the premises are verified, atheists included. So where Xns cannot prove their assertions/claims of facts I am anti-Xn—as is anyone else who rejects the philosophies of people who confuse their opinions with facts.

There is a difference between truth/knowledge and belief/opinion. Truth/knowledge is based upon observable facts/data, experience, and scientific experimentation; belief/opinion is unproven, having no conclusive proof supporting it [otherwise it would not be belief/opinion but instead would be truth/knowledge].

If you cannot prove your assertions/claims of facts, then (A) you should not utter them so you will not risk injuring an innocent person who does not have the skills necessary to realize that your assertions/claims of facts are actually statements of opinions/belief/superstition and are therefore not necessarily true or (B) you should clearly label them as statements of opinions/beliefs/superstitions and not as statements/assertions/claims of facts/truth.

Years ago, so I am told, religion was considered by the American Psychological Association (The APA) to be a delusion [a belief not supported by proof or otherwise believed despite contrary proof] and therefore religion was considered to be a mental disorder in the APA’s DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual].

Perhaps it is time to revive the equation: religion = delusion = mental disorder.

Andrea Yates supposedly killed her children to save them from Hell.

Where did she get the idea that there is such a thing as an Hell? From religion! Are we justified in claiming that she killed her children because of a delusion concerning religion? That she therefore killed her children because of religion?

What is the possibility that if (A) our American society had a philosophy of labeling religion to be a delusion and therefore a mental disorder because religious claims cannot be proven to be true and (B) all children attending public schools are taught how it is that religion cannot be proven to be true and therefore is a delusion and therefore is a mental disorder and helped to develop baloney detection kits and argumentative skills that at least some Andrea Yates might be helped to deal with their post-partum disorders and might not kill their kids?

It is entirely possible that if an individual is psychotic because of an extreme post-partum depression that she would kill because of her insanity and therefore find another excuse that to her seems logical and that that excuse may not concern religion.

But since religion = delusion = mental problem is a reasonable logical equation, then it would be good to eliminate religion as a potential delusion and therefore a potential mental problem.

We would not have to target any specific religion(s) in a public school philosophy course. Just developing a baloney detection course including a description of logical argument, proof, the philosophy of science including operational definitions and the scientific method would suffice because religion does not offer a well-reasoned logical argument for the existence of gods consisting of premises which are verifiable/falsifiable/verified leading to a relevant conclusion which is true if the premises are verified true, and, therefore, religion cannot stand up to a well-reasoned logical counterattack.

Does Haran label all people who disagree with his Xn philosophy anti-Xns?

Does Haran expect me to be pro-Christian?

Haran pulls the typical Xn apologist/fundie denial/evasion/obfuscation/attack tricks including evasions/obfuscation by wild goose chases and therefore stands to be challenged on his tactics.

Another Xn tactic is to run away when losing an argument, and, of course, leaving final attacks.

Is that not a description of Haran’s last quote?