Do you believe in God?

[Tic Tach]

^^^ LOL, lots of laughs in that one.

 

[Vitzio]

Yeah Tic Tach must be from SF or at least the PNW. That sure is quite a lense to see the world through!

I see South America hasn't changed.

 

[Hun200kmh]

To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask. (Geoff Mather)

I didn't say atheism requires faith, did I?

Read again:

LOL, it takes Faith to state that Jesus Christ, the man, didn't exist.

Spot the difference? In any case, let me enlighten you on what is maybe one of the most discussed matters regarding Jesus Christ. Did such a man exist ?(I'm referring to the man in history, not to a supposed son of God as the christian churches teach, nor to the prophet the muslims accept him to have been)

And I'll say this: by middle of the 1st century (and that will be only a few years, maybe a couple of decades, after his death, if such a death existed) you start having historical evidences that are irrefutable about the existence of Christians. In ROME, no less, where nobody claims he ever was.

Now, understand also that such a man, if he existed, would hardly become noticed during his entire (short) life by the guys that would leave us "clean" historical evidence ... the romans. Probably it took YEARS after his death - after all, a minor disturbance in PAlestine, a 🤬 hell-hole that was a poor province of the empire.

In any case, if you want to be as serious and scientifically clean as you preach from high above over the dim-witted that question the dogma of the NON-Existence of JC, you should give in to doubt, and consider these. I just took it out of wikipedia, feel free to say it's all rubbish, after all, I'm not Einstein

From this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

You will get these references to non-christian historical sources regarded as relevant, even if still and always discussed and questioned (because we're talking about scholars, and not internet fighters eager to prove a point )

Greco-Roman Pagan sources

There are Greco-Roman pagan passages relevant to Christianity in the works of three major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries – Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger. However, these are generally references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus. Tacitus, in his Annals written c. 115, mentions Christus, without many historical details (see also: Tacitus on Jesus). There is an obscure reference to a Jewish leader called "Chrestus" in Suetonius. (According to Suetonius, chapter 25, there occurred in Rome, during the reign of emperor Claudius (c. AD 50), "persistent disturbances ... at the instigation of Chrestus".[66][67] Mention in Acts of "After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome."
Charles Guignebert (Professor of the History Of Christianity at the Sorbonne), while rejecting the Jesus Myth theory and feeling that the Epistles of Paul were sufficient to prove the historical existence of Jesus, said "all the pagan and Jewish testimonies, so-called, afford us no information of any value about the life of Jesus, nor even any assurance that he ever lived."[68][69]

Pliny the Younger
Pliny the Younger (c. 61 - c. 112), the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus".
Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.[70]
Charles Guignebert, who does not doubt that Jesus of the Gospels lived in Gallilee in the 1st century, nevertheless dismisses this letter as acceptable historical evidence: "Only the most robust credulity could reckon this assertion as admissible evidence for the historicity of Jesus"[71]

Tacitus
Main article: Tacitus on Christ
Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and "Christus", the Latinized Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah". In describing Nero's persecution of this group following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, he wrote:
Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[72]
There have been suggestions that this was a Christian interpolation but most scholars conclude that the passage was written by Tacitus.[73] For example, R. E. Van Voorst noted the improbability that later Christians would have interpolated "such disparaging remarks about Christianity".[74]
There is disagreement about what this passage proves, since Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information.[75] Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman wrote that: "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."[76]
Tacitus may have used official sources from a Roman archive. Tacitus drew on many earlier historical works now lost to us in the Annals. The description of the suppression of Christianity, calling it a superstition for instance, is not based on any statements Christians may have made to Tacitus. However, if Tacitus was copying from an official source some would expect him to not incorrectly label Pilate a procurator, as he was a prefect.[77]
Charles Guignebert argued "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[78]
R. T. France concludes that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he has heard through Christians.[79][80]
Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz conclude that Tacitus gives us a description of widespread prejudices about Christianity and a few precise details about "Christus" and Christianity, the source of which remains unclear. Christus was a Jew and a criminal whom Pontius Pilate had executed. He authored a new religious movement that began in Judea and was called Christianity which was widespread around the city of Rome during Nero's reign.[81]
Max Radin concludes, based on the text from Tacitus, that these facts can be known from a non Christian source: Jesus was a real person, approximately when his death occurred by execution and that Pilate was his judge.[82]


Suetonius
Main article: Suetonius on Christ
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 69–140) wrote the following in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars about riots which broke out in the Jewish community in Rome under the emperor Claudius:
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [ Claudius ] expelled them [the Jews] from Rome".[83]
The event was noted in Acts 18:2. The term Chrestus also appears in some later texts applied to Jesus, and Robert Graves,[84] among others,[85] consider it a variant spelling of Christ, or at least a reasonable spelling error. On the other hand, Chrestus was itself a common name, particularly for slaves, meaning good or useful.[86] With regard to Jewish persecution around the time to which this passage refers, the Jewish Encyclopedia states: "... in 49–50, in consequence of dissensions among them regarding the arrival of the Messiah, they were forbidden to hold religious services. The leaders in the controversy, and many others of the Jewish citizens, left the city".[87]
Another suggestion as to why Chrestus may not be Christ is based on the fact Suetonius refers to Jews not Christians in this passage, even though in his Life of Nero he shows some knowledge of the sect's existence. One solution to this problem, however, lies in the fact that the early Christians had not yet separated from their Jewish origin at this time.[88][89][90] Even discounting all these points, this passage offers little information about Jesus himself.[76]

In that wikipedia article you will also find the reference and discussion pertaining to jewish sources, to early christian of course, to muslim also, but all these are more, I should say, suspect.

And in any case, I won't say you are dim-witted simply because instead of questioning the historical existence of Jesus Christ, you state a BELIEF that he didn't exist.

All I will say is that that's your BELIEF, and you are entitled to it.

 

[Tic Tach]

I didn't say atheism requires faith, did I?

No, and I was fully aware of that when I offered that quote, I was just reminded of it and it seemed fitting.

 

[homeforsummer]

Noah's ark is more than likely on top of Mount Ararat if it exists, however the Turkish government won't let anyone up there.

Google maps?... "I see no ships!"

Anyway, that isn't strictly true. You're allowed to climb it, you just need a permit. There've been umpteen ascents so someone would have found evidence of it being there if it had been there.

Then we're talking logistical problems for Noah, given that it more than likely would have been an active volcano at the time. And that he would somehow have needed to get things like elephants down a mountainside.

I'm not saying that the whole world flooded killing everything but two of everything, however I wouldn't doubt there was a big ass flood and some guy built a boat. Christianity, Judaism and Islam aren't the only religions with flood stories...almost all of them have one. I'm guessing they came from some event that happen.

Y'mean from the Old Testament, which out of the two testaments that Christians follow is almost certainly the one that's solely there for the purpose of story telling rather than describing events that actually happened?

The Christian, Judaism and Islam connection isn't really a huge surprise either given that the first two share the same religious text in the Old Testament, albeit with slightly different meaning, and that Islam considers characters such as Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus to be prophets.

I'm quite happy to believe that the New Testament is at least loosely based on events that actually happened. Jesus almost certainly existed but I'm more inclined to believe the Jewish and Islamic claims that he was simply one of many prophets who existed at the time. His miracles are most likely metaphors, again lost in translation over two millennium (and even then, we're talking about events that were only written about over half a century after Jesus was around, according to the estimates of scholars).

The Old Testament seems too far out there to have any basis at all in truth though.

 

[PHCharls]

yeah but i dont believe in hell

 

[Joey D]

Google maps?... "I see no ships!"

Anyway, that isn't strictly true. You're allowed to climb it, you just need a permit. There've been umpteen ascents so someone would have found evidence of it being there if it had been there.

This is why I said if it exists. I know there is "photographic" and I use the term photographic loosely, evidence of something that looks like a ship up on Mount Ararat. I'm not saying there is something, but if the boat exists, and the story actually did happen, that would be the first place I'd look.

Y'mean from the Old Testament, which out of the two testaments that Christians follow is almost certainly the one that's solely there for the purpose of story telling rather than describing events that actually happened?

The Christian, Judaism and Islam connection isn't really a huge surprise either given that the first two share the same religious text in the Old Testament, albeit with slightly different meaning, and that Islam considers characters such as Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus to be prophets.

I'm quite happy to believe that the New Testament is at least loosely based on events that actually happened. Jesus almost certainly existed but I'm more inclined to believe the Jewish and Islamic claims that he was simply one of many prophets who existed at the time. His miracles are most likely metaphors, again lost in translation over two millennium (and even then, we're talking about events that were only written about over half a century after Jesus was around, according to the estimates of scholars).

The Old Testament seems too far out there to have any basis at all in truth though.

Most Christians and Jews I come across do not see the Old Testament as fact, but rather stories that have morals in which to base their life on. Think Aesop's fables I guess. I know there are people who take the Bible literally, but I would almost think they are in a small group of people now days, especially since more and more people are educated.

With regards to the flood stories, just about every culture has one, but I think the Bible's account probably came from Ryan-Pitman Theory, in which the Black Sea flooded over. The theory has critics, but there is supporting evidence for it. My guess is it happened and over time it evolved into the Noah's Ark story. It's no different then any other myth, it tends to be loosely based on reality with some flair added in to either promote a positive message or to entertain.

And yes I would agree, if anything Jesus was more then likely a prophet. It doesn't mean he actually did anything though pass telling tales and performing good deeds. I go to church on occasion with family or close friends, more to see what it's about then actually worship, and more often then not the sermons revolve around the message the story tells then the actually act that occurred. At the last Episcopalian church I went to they discussed the story of Jesus turning a small amount of fish and bread into enough to feed thousands, basically what the priest's message was that it wasn't Jesus physically making the food more plentiful, but rather people sharing what they brought with their neighbour.

 

[buggs1a]

Then that pastor is foolish to think Jesus feeding the 5000 was just people sharing. God gave them enough from the 2 loaves and 5 fish.

The thing about God is that you can only believe with faith. And from that you can only believe and know the truth and understand from the holy spirit. Those who do not have faith and who do not have the holy spirit can not believe and can not know the truth and can not understand.

God gives each person a measure of faith and its up to that person to do with it what they want. If someone rejects the truth and rejects Jesus then they can't know the truth and will end up condemning themselves to hell. And that sucks and no one in their right mind would want that.

How does one have faith or use it and believe in Jesus, I don't know. But when one hears the gospel, Jesus' story and how to be saved then they have a choice to make. Believe and ask Jesus to save them or don't and condemn themselves.

One way I think of is if someone is interested and wants to they can research and learn and from that hopefully have faith to make Jesus their lord. Many people have researched God and Jesus and have come to the conclusion that after the research things are impossible without God.

One way to go is look at the world today. Look at history. Stuff the bible talks about has truly happened and is proven in history. Stuff that Jesus and others have said about certain times in history and the last days just before Jesus comes to bring his believers home have happened and will happen. History can and has been proven. And once seen, or learned, you can bet that if the bible and Jesus were right about those things then its a good bet the bible and Jesus are telling the truth about all they said.

I don't know much about faith, but I know without the holy spirit you can't know and understand or believe really. Faith is needed and then making Jesus your lord and saviour, he gives you the holy spirit who then makes you understand. Just without the spirit nothing can make sense.

One thing that's sad is for those who reject the truth and reject Jesus, one day they will stand before him and give an account of his life. One day we all will stand before him and give an account of our lives. We all will know the truth that God is real. And hopefully people will believe and make Jesus their lord and saviour. Not to is something no one wants ever.

I dont know how faith works exactly. I only know without the holy spirit one can't know the truth and believe. And its so very sad. And to be saved is very simple. God didn't make this hard at all. He just wants us to believe and ask him to save us.

 

[Tic Tach]

Video for buggs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CssMKHFfwiA&feature=channel_page

 

[DK]

As if he's actually going to watch that...

Edit: The loaves and the fishes myth is just a logistical nightmare if you ask me...did everyone just take a tiny nibble and then pass it to the next guy? What if they didn't like raw fish? There's a lot to be learned from reading between the lines instead of just reading it literally. I'm guessing buggs doesn't like the "Jesus encouraged the 5000 to share what they have" explanation because it sounds to much like Marxism.

 

[Prosthetic]

Yeah Tic Tach must be from SF or at least the PNW. That sure is quite a lense to see the world through!

I can't say I didn't laugh, but the only thing I think is really SF based would be the Beat LA bit, which I'm sure you love

 

[buggs1a]

Just saw it.
Sadly he's blinded and as I said, no spirit no understanding.
He is more like a comedian then someone true.

Everything he said can be refuted, if that's the right word. Satan is a very powerfully person and does anything and everything to hate and lie etc. He blinds people and lies to them etc.

Anyway. Bye.

 

[Lain]

Just saw it.
Sadly he's blinded and as I said, no spirit no understanding.
He is more like a comedian then someone true.

Everything he said can be refuted, if that's the right word. Satan is a very powerfully person and does anything and everything to hate and lie etc. He blinds people and lies to them etc.

Anyway. Bye.

What makes you so certain that Satan exists?

Unless you can come up with irrefutable evidence of his existence, I think it's pretty clear that you're the blind one.

If you haven't guessed, I definitely don't believe in a god or gods. The existence of higher, seemingly god-like beings is certainly fathomable given the vastness of all existence. Perhaps our universe is just a mere cell in a much larger natural entity. But please, these gods belonging to religions we've invented? They're about as likely to exist as Santa. 👍

It is my personal belief that indoctrinating children into religions should be as illegal as molesting them. At such a young age, they're extremely gullible. And through having the same religious ideas constantly being beaten into them as being the supposed truth throughout their entire upbringing, children can be raised to believe in just about anything, no matter how insanely wrong it is. And there's no cutoff age for salvation, so there should be no reason to oppose this proposal, right? Just let children grow up without having any particular religion forced upon them, and then at 18 they'll be free to make their own informed decision as to which, if any, they believe.

 

[Moot]

Then that pastor is foolish to think Jesus feeding the 5000 was just people sharing. God gave them enough from the 2 loaves and 5 fish.

The thing about God is that you can only believe with faith. And from that you can only believe and know the truth and understand from the holy spirit. Those who do not have faith and who do not have the holy spirit can not believe and can not know the truth and can not understand.

God gives each person a measure of faith and its up to that person to do with it what they want. If someone rejects the truth and rejects Jesus then they can't know the truth and will end up condemning themselves to hell. And that sucks and no one in their right mind would want that.

How does one have faith or use it and believe in Jesus, I don't know. But when one hears the gospel, Jesus' story and how to be saved then they have a choice to make. Believe and ask Jesus to save them or don't and condemn themselves.

One way I think of is if someone is interested and wants to they can research and learn and from that hopefully have faith to make Jesus their lord. Many people have researched God and Jesus and have come to the conclusion that after the research things are impossible without God.

One way to go is look at the world today. Look at history. Stuff the bible talks about has truly happened and is proven in history. Stuff that Jesus and others have said about certain times in history and the last days just before Jesus comes to bring his believers home have happened and will happen. History can and has been proven. And once seen, or learned, you can bet that if the bible and Jesus were right about those things then its a good bet the bible and Jesus are telling the truth about all they said.

I don't know much about faith, but I know without the holy spirit you can't know and understand or believe really. Faith is needed and then making Jesus your lord and saviour, he gives you the holy spirit who then makes you understand. Just without the spirit nothing can make sense.

One thing that's sad is for those who reject the truth and reject Jesus, one day they will stand before him and give an account of his life. One day we all will stand before him and give an account of our lives. We all will know the truth that God is real. And hopefully people will believe and make Jesus their lord and saviour. Not to is something no one wants ever.

I dont know how faith works exactly. I only know without the holy spirit one can't know the truth and believe. And its so very sad. And to be saved is very simple. God didn't make this hard at all. He just wants us to believe and ask him to save us.

But wouldn't you rather just go on a spaceship and travel the Galaxy?

 

[dylansan]

Just saw it.
Sadly he's blinded and as I said, no spirit no understanding.
He is more like a comedian then someone true.

Everything he said can be refuted, if that's the right word. Satan is a very powerfully person and does anything and everything to hate and lie etc. He blinds people and lies to them etc.

Anyway. Bye.

According to the bible, God lied in the Garden of Eden to Adam and Eve. The "evil" snake told the truth.

 

[buggs1a]

According to the bible, God lied in the Garden of Eden to Adam and Eve. The "evil" snake told the truth.

How did God lie? He can't, he's God and is perfect. Satan lies and twists things also. Which is what Satan did.

If you mean God lied when he said if you eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil then you will surely die, and Satan said the truth, you will surely not die, but God knows that once you eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil then you will become like him.

If that's what you mean then here's my response.

God did not lie. Satan did not lie as he twisted what God said. Here's why.

God said you will surely die if you eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God was right. They did die. They died spiritually. Sin leads to death. God is perfect. Sin is what kills. They died spiritually. We all are dead spiritually but alive in the flesh.

Satan said you will not die but you will become like them. Adam and eve did not die physically and then their eyes were open to evil and sin.

But again, without the holy spirit it is impossible for any of you to believe. Without the holy spirit you think all these things are foolish and tales of lies and that I am foolish.

Satan is real as God is real. I know this from my faith, the holy spirit and my own life. I also know this from the bible and what it says about Satan and God because I have experienced things and I have the holy spirit in me that teaches me truth and helps me in all areas of my life.

Yes I sure would love to be able to be in a space ship and go around the galaxy. I would sooo love this

 

[dylansan]

God did not lie. Satan did not lie as he twisted what God said. Here's why.

God said you will surely die if you eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God was right. They did die. They died spiritually.

And God expected Adam and Eve to realize that's what he meant? I don't know about you, but if someone told me I was going to die, I would think that meant physical death, and why should I think otherwise?

Sin leads to death. God is perfect. Sin is what kills. They died spiritually. We all are dead spiritually but alive in the flesh.

But again, without the holy spirit it is impossible for any of you to believe.

Unfortunately, without common sense and a desire to learn it is impossible for you to find the truth. You will never search for the truth because you think you already know it.

Without the holy spirit you think With a little research and intuition and desire for knowledge you realize all these things are foolish and tales of lies and that I am foolish.

Fixed.

Satan is real as God is real. I know this from my faith, the holy spirit and my own life. I also know this from the bible and what it says about Satan and God because I have experienced things and I have the holy spirit in me that teaches me truth and helps me in all areas of my life.

Satan is real, but he's a nice guy. He told me to be a good person and help old ladies cross the street and be nice to people, even people who don't believe in him, or are homosexual or people who have been divorced. Your God says he is evil and I will burn in hell? Satan says God is lying, and that I will go to a nice place if I die, even if I'm imperfect or don't believe in him. God will punish me forever for thinking that? What a nice guy...
So, which one should I believe and dedicate my life to following, and more importantly, WHY?

 

[Villain]

I can't say I didn't laugh, but the only thing I think is really SF based would be the Beat LA bit, which I'm sure you love

No other city's teams get that chant. Lakers, Kings, and Dodgers get it everywhere they go! Only this year did I hear a similar one and that was "Beat the Heat" which I can fully throw my support behind.

 

[Danoff]

Yeah Tic Tach must be from SF or at least the PNW. That sure is quite a lense to see the world through!

Is that not accurate?

 

[Lain]

I don't condone Hitler's actions, but sometimes I feel his methods might be the only possible way to fix this problem of religion...

 

[Prosthetic]

Is that not accurate?

If by how other people view people of SF? Then yeah, but I've never met anyone that even remotely resembles anything that picture makes out.

 

[Villain]

I don't condone Hitler's actions, but sometimes I feel his methods might be the only possible way to fix this problem of religion...

You can't be serious.

If by how other people view people of SF? Then yeah, but I've never met anyone that even remotely resembles anything that picture makes out.

Then you need to meet my Aunt and Uncle. They live in Half Moon Bay and it is a dead on description of them.

 

[Lain]

You can't be serious.

Obviously I'm being facetious. But these folks won't listen to any sort of logic or reason, so we're not left with a whole lot of options.

A legitimate solution though, as I previously mentioned, would be to make it illegal to indoctrinate (aka brainwash) children into your particular religion. I personally think that molestation of the mind should be treated as harshly as physical abuse, if not more so. 👍

And no Christian should have any problems with this, since there's no cutoff age for when you can accept Jesus as your savior, right?

 

[rocko100]

Joking about acting like hitler isn't even ethical let alone funny. Your making it seem like you want to kill every religious person on earth which is what 3 billion people possibly more.

I am catholic myself and the problem with atheists is that whenever some religious person says ANYTHING religious they go on and on trying to prove them false. What I think people don't realize is that atheists aren't going to stop nobody from believing in god and christen people aren't going to make anybody believe in god that doesn't .

 

[Lain]

Joking about acting like hitler isn't even ethical let alone funny .

It's called being facetious. And it's your loss if you can't enjoy non-politically correct jokes.

your making it seem like you want to kill every religious person on earth which is what 3 billion people possibly more.

Well except for the part about me doing the killing, which was never stated or implied, thank you captain obvious. That's the joke. 👍

Also, GTP has rules on grammar and punctuation. Just giving you a heads-up before you get thrashed by the moderators.

 

[dylansan]

A legitimate solution though, as I previously mentioned, would be to make it illegal to indoctrinate (aka brainwash) children into your particular religion. I personally think that molestation of the mind should be treated as harshly as physical abuse, if not more so.

I somewhat agree with that. Children don't have the capacity to make a logical decision about religion until they are older. To tell them that things are true before they can decide for themselves essentially forces them to believe it, unless at a later time they decide to look for answers and make an informed decision then. Unfortunately, this happens far too rarely.

Parents should only teach their kids to be good and moral. Schools should provide facts and information that is not debatable, and let the children come to their own understandings once they have taken that all in. No one should be able to tell their child that God exists and if you don't believe in him you will be tortured forever. It's like blackmail. I have no problem if parents tell their child about Christianity, or any other religion, as long as they don't tell them it is undeniably true, because it's not.

 

[Villain]

A legitimate solution though, as I previously mentioned, would be to make it illegal to indoctrinate (aka brainwash) children into your particular religion. I personally think that molestation of the mind should be treated as harshly as physical abuse, if not more so. 👍

Yeah. You sound just as bad as Evangelical Bible thumpers right now, buddy. Molestation of the mind? Really?

 

[arora]

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with this child abuse claim, the state of Wisconsin went up against the amish over compulsory education, mainly that the amish remove their children from public school after the 8th grade. I'll let you look up the particulars of the state supreme court case but here is the final outcome.

The U.S. Supreme Court held as follows:

1. States cannot force individuals to attend school when it infringes on their First Amendment rights. In this case, the state of Wisconsin interfered with the practice of a legitimate religious belief.

2. Not all beliefs rise to the demands of the religious clause of the First Amendment. There needs to be evidence of true and objective religious practices, instead of an individual making his or her standards on such matters. The Amish way of life is one of deep religious convictions that stems from the Bible. It is determined by their religion, which involves their rejection of worldly goods and their living in the Biblical simplicity. The modern compulsory secondary education is in sharp conflict with their way of life.

3. With respect to the State of Wisconsin’s argument that additional modern education beyond 8th grade is necessary to prepare citizens to participate effectively and productively in America’s political system, the Court disagreed. It argued that the State provided no evidence showing any great benefit to having two extra years in the public schools. Furthermore, the Court contended that the Amish community was a very successful social unit in American society, a self-sufficient, law-abiding member of society, which paid all of the required taxes and rejected any type of public welfare. The Amish children, upon leaving the public school system, continued their education in the form of vocational training.

4. The Court found no evidence that by leaving the Amish community without two additional years of schooling, young Amish children would become burdens on society. To the contrary, the Court argued that they had good vocational background to rely upon. It was the State’s mistaken assumption that Amish children were ignorant. Compulsory education after elementary school was a recent movement that developed in the early 1900s in order to prevent child labor and keep children of certain ages in school. The State of Wisconsin’s arguments about compelling the school attendance were therefore less substantial.

5. Responding to Justice Douglas' dissent, the Court argued that the question before it was about the interests of the parents to exercise free religion, and did not relate to the child's First Amendment's rights. As such, the argument pertaining to the child's right to exercise free religion was irrelevant in this case.

And here is one of the justices opinions you guys will like.

I agree with the Court that the religious scruples of the Amish are opposed to the education of their children beyond the grade schools, yet I disagree with the Court's conclusion that the matter is within the dispensation of parents alone. The Court's analysis assumes that the only interests at stake in the case are those of the Amish parents on the one hand, and those of the State on the other. The difficulty with this approach is that, despite the Court's claim, the parents are seeking to vindicate not only their own free exercise claims, but also those of their high-school-age children.... On this important and vital matter of education, I think the children should be entitled to be heard. While the parents, absent dissent, normally speak for the entire family, the education of the child is a matter on which the child will often have decided views. He may want to be a pianist or an astronaut or an oceanographer. To do so he will have to break from the Amish tradition. It is the future of the students, not the future of the parents, that is imperiled by today's decision. If a parent keeps his child out of school beyond the grade school, then the child will be forever barred from entry into the new and amazing world of diversity that we have today. The child may decide that that is the preferred course, or he may rebel. It is the student's judgment, not his parents', that is essential if we are to give full meaning to what we have said about the Bill of Rights and of the right of students to be masters of their own destiny. If he is harnessed to the Amish way of life by those in authority over him and if his education is truncated, his entire life may be stunted and deformed. The child, therefore, should be given an opportunity to be heard before the State gives the exemption which we honor today

How would a law as you guys suggest be implemented or enforced? Keeping in mind the fine line that would have to be drawn case by case(we already have children removed from 'cult' compounds for instance), and the sheer number of religious parents in the U.S. Put all the parents in jail and all the children in state funded foster care? Just curious if you guys have thought this through or are speaking in ideals.

___________

As for reverse genocide, Hitler being right etc And pointing out poor grammar in response is

 

[Joey D]

I don't mind the government sticking their fingers in some things but when it comes to raising my kids with religious beliefs I can't think of anything more against church and state. That's essentially no better then Joseph Stalin.

Just because your parents are something doesn't mean that's how you'll end up. My mom is Catholic and I was raised as such, I went to church every Saturday night, I was an altar boy, I sang in the choir and I even played the organ from time to time. Not to mention I also attended Catholic school for 9 years. Guess what? Am I Catholic today? Not at all. Just because a kid is raised a certain way doesn't mean they'll turn out like that.

 

[dylansan]

Maybe not, but you must admit the odds are quite high that they will. And it is in a child's best interest if they are given every chance to make the decision themselves with only facts and observations to sway them towards a belief in anything.

As far as enforcement, of course that is not possible at this time. Of course, parents could be given the recommendation to stop teaching their children things they can't prove. Will that change anything? Probably not, and that's my biggest problem with religion. Some (not all) religious people think they know the truth, and ignore anyone who even suggests they consider alternatives. Then they think they are doing the right thing by passing this logic down to their children, when they are only trapping them in a belief that may or may not be true, without letting them decide for themselves.

Now of course this is not true of all religious people, and I have no numerical statistic for how often this happens, but the fact that it happens at all saddens me.