Prophet, look up "Standing." Yes, you can always petition and protest as taxpayer based on the 1st Amendment. However, you cannot file a lawsuit against the government claiming something they're doing is hurting/infringing on your rights solely due to your status as a taxpayer. Admittedly, there are a few isolated exceptions to this, but overall what I'm saying is the law at present. Based ...more

Prophet, look up "Standing." Yes, you can always petition and protest as taxpayer based on the 1st Amendment. However, you cannot file a lawsuit against the government claiming something they're doing is hurting/infringing on your rights solely due to your status as a taxpayer. Admittedly, there are a few isolated exceptions to this, but overall what I'm saying is the law at present.

Based on this, protest away on abortion. I'll be protesting your protests. What you can't do is file a lawsuit against the government seeking injunctive relief against abortion doctors.

Frankly, I'll go one step further and argue that the government should be federally supporting abortion, seeing as our national government considers abortion to be a fundamental right. Some people might lack the funds to get one if they want. The poor urban people, more than anyone are the ones who should be getting abortions.less

RL, True, the people do have the final say in that they can amend the Constitution if they don't agree with the way the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted it. Until that happens, Roe v. Wade is national law. As for slavery, slavery was never considered a "fundamental right," though unfortunately, it was practiced in the U.S. As for God having the final say, I completely agree with yo...more

RL,

True, the people do have the final say in that they can amend the Constitution if they don't agree with the way the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted it. Until that happens, Roe v. Wade is national law.

As for slavery, slavery was never considered a "fundamental right," though unfortunately, it was practiced in the U.S.

As for God having the final say, I completely agree with you. The problem is that all different religions and viewpoints have a different conception of who God is/isn't and what values and rules are "godly." Therefore to prevent religiously-based moral impositions on our population, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that church and state are to be kept separate and that our country is to be secular in nature.less

It will be struck down based on the supremacy clause in Article VI, §1, cl. 2 of the Constitution. The bottom line is that Roe v. Wade is national law and thus trumps state rights.

Midwest_Ben, The difference is that abortion is considered legal now, whereas crack use is illegal at present. Fail!

1. "Since my tax money helps pay for abortions . . ." Nope. Legally, once something has been declared a fundamental right, people can't vote on it. Also, according to a legal doctrine known as standing, taxpayer status, in itself, does not permit one to bring a lawsuit challenging a fundamental right or legislative policy. As abortion during a woman's 1st trimester has been determined to be a...more

1. "Since my tax money helps pay for abortions . . ." Nope. Legally, once something has been declared a fundamental right, people can't vote on it. Also, according to a legal doctrine known as standing, taxpayer status, in itself, does not permit one to bring a lawsuit challenging a fundamental right or legislative policy. As abortion during a woman's 1st trimester has been determined to be a fundamental right, the fact you are a taxpayer means nothing.

2. "It's easy to kill someone who has no voice." Not only is it "easy," I'd argue in many circumstances it's justifiable. Oh, and how many times have you ever offered to adopt a fetus that otherwise would be aborted? You prolifers scream about how its murder, but seldom do you think of who's going to be caring for the huge increase in homeless/neglected babies if abortion is no longer an option.less

Nope, what I'm saying is let's worry about people who are on this planet rather than tiny cell clumps in wombs that psychologically can't influence anything. I'm one of 6 billion people on this planet. I hardly consider this to be self centered.

I have no problem with abortion. Let's worry about people who are already born and can psychologically interact and thrive on this planet rather than some womb bound prenatal fetus. To me it seems that pro-lifers are actually more concerned with womb life rather than already-born people. Additionally, abortion is a great way to control the population. Finally abortion prevents thousands of urb...more

I have no problem with abortion. Let's worry about people who are already born and can psychologically interact and thrive on this planet rather than some womb bound prenatal fetus. To me it seems that pro-lifers are actually more concerned with womb life rather than already-born people. Additionally, abortion is a great way to control the population. Finally abortion prevents thousands of urban mamas from living off the welfare for each child every time they get knocked up. It also serves to prevent future wastes of space on society, seeing as the kids of urban mamas will probably continue the same cycle. Margaret Sanger had the right idea. Let the "disagrees" fly. I stand by my comment 100%, though I realize I'm being particularly blunt today.less

Ketch22, It is YOUR logic (or rather lack of logic) that is "not prevailing." You state: "God does provide this proof... however, in our depraved state, many of us choose to believe it is not enough." This is a biblical wordview, based on what the Bible (if read through a "fundamentalist" lens) teaches about human condition after the fall of Adam. However, because you haven't first prov...more

Ketch22,

It is YOUR logic (or rather lack of logic) that is "not prevailing." You state: "God does provide this proof... however, in our depraved state, many of us choose to believe it is not enough."

This is a biblical wordview, based on what the Bible (if read through a "fundamentalist" lens) teaches about human condition after the fall of Adam. However, because you haven't first provided evidence that these accounts are true, but are also offering these accounts as a conclusion, you are using circular reasoning, a logical fallacy.

Additionally, If God cared, he's know that due to the "fall" we as humans couldn't "see" the supposed evidence that you speak of, and he'd work around that. He provide evidence so obvious that supernaturalism couldn't be denied.

I got up this morning and walked to my car. The laws of gravity were still intact and everything around me seemed naturalistically in place. If God suddenly raised a tree from the ground and had it swirl around me, you bet I'd suddenly start believing in the supernatural.less

ascott314, I'm not talking about objective, empirical proof. I'm talking about inferencial, inductive proof, where an event can be explained more probably than not that it's supernaturally caused. I'm talking about God descending from sky, saying "hi" to a mass of people. I'm talking about God healing people in an observable fashion. Instead God hides behind a veil, claiming he loves...more

ascott314,

I'm not talking about objective, empirical proof. I'm talking about inferencial, inductive proof, where an event can be explained more probably than not that it's supernaturally caused.

I'm talking about God descending from sky, saying "hi" to a mass of people. I'm talking about God healing people in an observable fashion.

Instead God hides behind a veil, claiming he loves us all while sending people to hell. He's God. He could create any rule he wanted.less

Tuxino, That's exactly my point: in Jesus' time, the miracles could be verified. Additionally, those people got to meet Christ directly as a person and interact with him; they knew he existed. I have no problem with faith, but I believe that faith, like everything else in our lives must be based on inferences garnered from proper inductive reasoning. With respect to Christianity, I d...more

Tuxino,

That's exactly my point: in Jesus' time, the miracles could be verified. Additionally, those people got to meet Christ directly as a person and interact with him; they knew he existed.

I have no problem with faith, but I believe that faith, like everything else in our lives must be based on inferences garnered from proper inductive reasoning.

With respect to Christianity, I don't know God exists. I've never seen any unequivocal evidence that more likely than not points to God's existence, let alone the Christian God's existence. Arguably, there is evidence that points towards the supernatural, but more often than not, that evidence can be interpreted naturalistically.

My point is that if God truly cared, he'd provide evidence that couldn't be interpreted any other way. He'd dispense with the faith baloney, descend from the sky and say "look everyone. I exist. If you don't follow me you guys are all going to hell. I love you and don't want this to happen."

I'm sure there will always be some stubborn people who will refuse. But many honest skeptics would convert. They'd realize that God actually existed based on the evidence.

My point: If God truly loved us, he'd be doing everything in his power to get us to be saved rather than hiding behind a murky glass of ambiguous evidence.less

Angela, and one other thing, You can certainly argue that its all head knowledge, but I guarantee you I can hold my own on a biblical theology discussion. I've read the Bible cover to cover multiple times in several editions, along with various commentaries. So please don't say that I haven't "tried," as you accuse.

Angela, I cannot reconcile the Bible's claim that God loves us with the fact that some people will be going to hell, suffering for all eternity when they didn't necessarily get the evidence that they needed to follow Jesus. If God truly cared, he'd provide any evidence necessary to reach as many different types of people as possible. For some people, simply a subjective experience is eno...more

Angela,

I cannot reconcile the Bible's claim that God loves us with the fact that some people will be going to hell, suffering for all eternity when they didn't necessarily get the evidence that they needed to follow Jesus. If God truly cared, he'd provide any evidence necessary to reach as many different types of people as possible.

For some people, simply a subjective experience is enough. However, many other people need more. How about God raising a building from the ground, causing an animal to talk (he did it in the Bible, why not now?), etc.?

The fact that Christian God doesn't do this, proves to me he doesn't care to have everyone join him in heaven. This to me contradicts the biblical claim that he loves us all.

The bottom line is that the expectation to have faith on such an important matter as one's eternity is cruel. As humans we spend our lives making reasoned, rational choices. Yet, all of the sudden on such an important matter, we're expected to follow a phantom that we don't even know for certain exists? Cruel.less

What I can't stand are Christians who fuse republicanism with their faith, arguing that uniting church and state is a good thing, that abortion should be banned for everyone, and that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed, etc. How about this? Just because the Bible says something doesn't mean that it should become national policy, forced on non-believers and everybody else. If Christianity...more

What I can't stand are Christians who fuse republicanism with their faith, arguing that uniting church and state is a good thing, that abortion should be banned for everyone, and that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed, etc.

How about this? Just because the Bible says something doesn't mean that it should become national policy, forced on non-believers and everybody else.

If Christianity is a voluntary, sincere relationship with Jesus than it should stay as an individual relationship within a larger societal structure.less

"Yancey makes it clear that his Christian identity comes not from how Jesus' way benefits society but from his belief in the faith that he holds to be true." I'll disagree and argue that the concepts of benefit and truth are interrelated. The Bible claims that God loves us. Yet, the Bible also claims that all those without Christ are going to hell. Some people would be perfectly willing ...more

"Yancey makes it clear that his Christian identity comes not from how Jesus' way benefits society but from his belief in the faith that he holds to be true."

I'll disagree and argue that the concepts of benefit and truth are interrelated.

The Bible claims that God loves us. Yet, the Bible also claims that all those without Christ are going to hell. Some people would be perfectly willing to be believe (skeptics, atheists, etc.) if there was just objective proof of supernatural activity. According to the Bible, Thomas got to directly feel Jesus' hands with the nail marks, whereas Paul was given a life-altering vision on the road. In contrast, today, we're expected to believe a shadow, who only supposedly shows himself through subjective encounters which can always be explained another way.

I think this a major contradiction in the Bible, as many people would be perfectly willing to believe if they had strong evidence that Christianity was truth. Yet, by not giving them the proof they need, these people will be going to hell. I can't see this result as the action of a loving God. As such, the Bible contradicts itself, and hence I don't think Christianity can be true.

I love how Christians, eager to combat my point about the lack of evidence, will claim, "Oh yeah? On a missions trip in Africa, some guys broken leg was HEALED after we prayed about it . . . etc. etc., blah, blah." Okay God. How about allowing such a "miracle" to occur on national TV or in a medical lab so it can be intelligently analyzed and discussed by people trained in the field. For all we know, that guy in Africa never had a broken leg in the first place and thus the "miracle" is naught.

Yancey states at the end of the article, "what good is God? He rescued me from sex slavery and drug addiction. “God brought me back to life.”

Tons of people in all different faiths have been "healed" through believing in a concept. Mormons claim it too. Arguably, Yancey's religious devotion merely allowed him to redirect his life psychologically. This doesn't mean the underlying faith is true, however.less

Believer, What I'm getting at is this: I think a lot of people identify themselves as Catholics, Protestants, Jews, etc., because they were raised with some kind of superficial background in these faiths, and due to this claim to identify with those faiths, even though in reality, they're not really believers in them. For example, I've met a ton of people who don't believe in God, don't g...more

Believer,

What I'm getting at is this: I think a lot of people identify themselves as Catholics, Protestants, Jews, etc., because they were raised with some kind of superficial background in these faiths, and due to this claim to identify with those faiths, even though in reality, they're not really believers in them.

For example, I've met a ton of people who don't believe in God, don't go to church, yet claim, because they celebrate Christmas, or when they were a kid that they went to church a few times a year, that they're "Christian." This happens all the time in our culture where people haphazardly identify with a movement or cause when in reality, once you break down their stances on the issues, they're really not a member.

A basic definition of a Christian is one who follows/adheres to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Obviously, different denominations go into more detail. I'd argue that in order to determine the religious literacy rates among Christians, each person answering the survey questions must agree with this basic definition. If they don't, than they're not really a Christian and their answers should not be used. Someone who superficially went to church as a child but doesn't even believe in God, yet claims to be a Christian because they don't know what else to call themselves would be nixed immediately.less

Aerie, I'm laughing due to the emotional fervor and anger in your post. Calm down. Let's look your comments in greater detail. "tenants of atheism." Atheists believe that due to the lack of evidence in design/the supernatural coupled with affirmative scientific evidence for naturalism that it's more reasonable to assume that God doesn't exist. Broadly speaking, to be an athei...more

Aerie,

I'm laughing due to the emotional fervor and anger in your post. Calm down. Let's look your comments in greater detail.

"tenants of atheism."

Atheists believe that due to the lack of evidence in design/the supernatural coupled with affirmative scientific evidence for naturalism that it's more reasonable to assume that God doesn't exist. Broadly speaking, to be an atheist in the first place one must adhere to this definition (or a similar one). If I claimed to be an atheist, but really believed in the God of the Bible, I wouldn't really be an atheist. Now imagine, a survey is being given to determine knowledge of atheism among atheists. A Christian claims to be an atheist but really isn't. He knows nothing about atheism except that he's been told its wrong. Obviously he won't score very high.

Next you state: Agreement with the "underlying core philosophies" of religion is NOT required to "intelligently discuss religious literacy". "That's asinine. Why should ONLY 'believers' be considered?"

Only believers should be considered when one is discussing the religious literacy rates within the catholic, protestant, Jewish, etc., religions. It's "asinine" and disingenuous to speak of religious literacy among, say, the catholic community when no one being surveyed is really a catholic.

"The facts are facts, no matter how you choose to spin them."

You've never taken a research design course in college have you? If you had you'd know how one compiles the data can have a huge impact on how the facts are determined and whether those facts correspond with reality.

I suggest rereading my post because I don't think you understand what I'm getting at.less

Note that I read the actually study itself and there was no explanation of how the testers determined who the religious adherents were.

Normally, I'm all set to prove the ignorance of many Christians. However, I think this new study is flawed in its methodology. Specifically, I question how it was determined who was Protestant or Catholic for purposes of the study. When someone claims to be an atheist, that person believes in the tenants of atheism and thus knows something about them, and about contrasting perspectives. H...more

Normally, I'm all set to prove the ignorance of many Christians. However, I think this new study is flawed in its methodology. Specifically, I question how it was determined who was Protestant or Catholic for purposes of the study. When someone claims to be an atheist, that person believes in the tenants of atheism and thus knows something about them, and about contrasting perspectives.

However, in contrast, many people call themselves Christians merely because they were raised haphazardly, celebrating Christmas (a predominantly secular holiday in the U.S.) and perhaps attending church every now and than when they were kids. In such a case, many of these people, don't know/or agree with the underlying religious points of view, but assume that they are Christian due to confusing cultural upbringing with religious adherence.

This clearly could skew the results in the study as the people being identified as atheists would more likely actually be atheists (atheism is a minority viewpoint and hence isn't "cultural" to the same extent that many Christian concepts such as celebrating Easter are. Thus fewer people claiming to be atheists would make this mistake) whereas those surveyed as Catholic or Protestant might not actually be Catholic or Protestant in the first place, merely thinking they are due to cultural background.

In order to intelligently discuss religious literacy, only those people who admit to honestly agreeing with the underlying core philosophies of Protestantism and Catholicism should be considered. I do not think this was done here and thus I question this study.

I'm curious to hear what others have to say about my opinion on all this.less