Great post!

I've been the victim of it myself, even though I call myself a born-again Christian (albeit a stumbling, doubting, struggling one).  I also went through a period when I thought it was okay to push Christ on people, as people have pushed Christ and the Bible on me from the time I was a young toddler until the present.  And yes, I have found Jesus, but as U2 once proclaimed in a song, "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For."

As a young adult, I learned that Christ came to the world to "draw" people until himself, not to "drive" them to himself.  There are too many control freaks on both sides---the religious side and the atheistic side.  We need to follow the example of Christ, and the words of the mortal, yet magical, Beatles, who once nearly put themselves on the level of Christ (and paid dearly for it). 

LET IT BE!

I completely agree. Never have I heard more preaching than after my son's accident. Everyone wants to know if I blame, believe, hate, love or know their God. I do so tire of those who believe that their religion is the *only* one and everyone else is condemned. Funny...my friends and I very rarely discuss religion, and I have friends from many differing faiths. If I do not discuss this with my friends, why do strangers think I want to attack the subject at length with them?

I once met a evangelical who boasted of saving 208 souls at a revival.  I reminded him that only God save souls.  And I do agree that it is wrong to try to beat religion into other people.  That is why remove atheistic comments from my blog when they feel compelled to try to force their religion on me.  And it is quite another things to share information with those who want it.  The same that we all do on these Blogs.  I myself have no interest in sports or the latest political gossip.  So I don't read those Blogs.  Nor do I force anyone to read mine.  Unfortunately there are those who continue to try to force their faith on me and eventually they will learn that I am not buying what they have for sale.

I hear you ghost~ after the second son died nearly every idiot I knew or ran into had the same response,who do I hate blame etc. The ones who came to my door I developed this response:them,"Do you think God hates you,that's why your sons died?" Pause,me, "No I think "god" gave me this as a test to better myself". I actually had one lady make me repeat my statement,so she could"check it out" with her pastor. There seems to be a religious test going on in certain circles,and I am not sure who wrote it,is grading it and for what purpose . My personal beliefs are mine  and they are my concern alone.

Am I the odd one here?  I don't recall anyone ever asking me what my religion was,  and especially not strangers.   My (now) landlady saw the cross I wear that my kids gave me and asked if I was a Christian.  That's about as close as it's come.

I would be as shocked as the rest of you had anyone ever come to me and asked that question.  I think Ann Landers said it best when she told readers to respond to any personal question with "Now why on earth would you ask a question like that?"

When I get that question I ask what their favorite sex position is.

"Do you think God hates you,that's why your sons died?"

Then there's the type who will say, "You didn't pray hard enough."

I'll bite: Atheism is not a faith.  It's not even a position on faith.   It's a position on your belief in a deity.  Anyone who says otherwise is mistaken.  It's interesting when someone just can't resist making comments about a group of people whom they know nothing about.  

People ask because they want an affiliation.  Some do it to convert, but others do it to find a common ground.  I'd rather someone ask about my philosophy than assume....so, though I've been asked at totally appropriate times, it's not something that bothers me too much.  For those looking to convert, using that question as a method to proselytize, they'll often claim that it's their duty.  That doesn't make it right.  I usually tell people who ask at inappropriate times that "this isn't the time or place to discuss such a deep and personal issue."  If they persist, then I'm not adverse to telling them that I don't appreciate their disrespect for my privacy.  It's pretty sad actually - if someone feels that they can surmise your ethics or morals or shared interests becase on one question, then I pity them for the wonderful people they're missing out on. 

"At what point did it become socially acceptable for total strangers to inquire about another's religious beliefs?"

Normal people who happen to be Christians don't ask that sort of thing. 99 times out of 100, it's one of those kind who go to some "fellowship" church that has a banner hanging outside of a building that originally was a ToysRUs.  

Atheism is a faith ,because they can't prove basic myth that God isn't real.  Thus they are making that statement on faith.  It is merely the worship of of their own ego and ideals instead of the Creator.  The "In God  Trust" posters are a backlash against such people as the atheist who tried to get the Pledge of Allegiance removed from public schools.  He used the excuse that his daughter was forced to say it in violation of his civil rights.  As you recall the man had no active contact with his daughter or mother.  Both of whom are Christian.  This  and their are many other attempts by atheist to impose their beliefs on others and  has led to such popular backlashes as those posters. 

Wayfarer: There is a big difference between confronting a stranger in person about their faith (Do you know Jesus?) and writing a blog.  I don't think that you can write a blog and assume that everyone will respond positively.  I certainly don't, whether my blog is about politics, education or anything else.  When you post blogs as frequently as you do, and some people do consider that spam intending to convert others, I think you should expect a response and that part of that response will be negative.  It seems cowardly to erase posts by individuals who don't agree with you when you initiate the conversation.  If a stranger askes about my religion and doesn't like my "none of your business" response, they certainly don't get to pretend to be a victim afterward.  If you can't stand seeing their opinions, then don't post and invite them to respond.

Nancy: It's happened to me a few times outside of the context of the posters as well as many times within the context of the posters.  It happened to someone I know this week, which prompted my blog.

Dcs271 and Sojourner:  Why exactly did my advocacy against the posters justify the frequent questions about my religious views? You do recall that the posters were presented by its advocates as a non-religious, historical document used to promote patriotism.  If that's true, then neither the religion of the proponents nor the opponents should matter, right?

Remember that the individuals against the posters were a coalition of persons from many religious affiliations.  If you bothered to attend any of the meetings, you'd know that many people spoke out and some even chose to identify themselves as Christian or Jewish or Agnostic or Wiccan or Atheist.  Rev. Chuck Cournyea protested the posters and then resigned in disgust over the decision. I didn't self identify and a lot of others didn't either.  My arguments were based upon evidence and facts, not religious views.  But my guess is neither of you actually followed the issue or paid attention to the meetings.  If you had, you'd have seen the diversity of Christians, Jews and members of other faiths working with Agnostics and Atheists to protest the posters.

Some people use religion to build relationships and others use it to drive wedges between themselves and others. 

Why exactly did my advocacy against the posters justify the frequent questions about my religious views?

Because when you put the U.S. Constitution - the supreme law of the land - before the Bible, those with a Bible in their hand and an empty room upstairs are going to try to get you to play on their turf, where they can dismiss your logical arguments by throwing their version of "God" in your face.

The proponents of "intelligent design" in Dover claimed that their "science" was different from creationism, and was therefore legal to be taught in the public schools. It was the same cake with different frosting, except that remnants of earlier frosting were (hilariously) still there. People who believe in God lie just like everyone else (as the pro-poster bunch has shown), and many consider lying to promote "God's word" as being perfectly acceptable.

It's not true, but with their limited abilities (why do you think they need to believe in a supreme being?), they don't realize that you're leaps and bounds ahead of them in intelligence. They'll get frustrated, and revert to the inane practice of claiming that their particular brand of Christianity is better than yours is. I can't tell you how many times some escapee has told me that my Lutheran sprinkling baptism "won't get me into heaven," and that I need the immersion type. Since I don't believe in God or baptism or Heckle and Jeckle, I just ignore them.

 Free    ---   It's not your advocacy against or for the posters, it's the subject matter that makes the question relevant.  I personally don't think it's relevant what "religion" you are. Jesus said, "He who is not with Me is against Me." You might think that it's a stretch to imply that because you are against the posters, you are against Jesus. Maybe it is, but I believe that the vast majority of born again Christians,  are for the posters  

  I know several that wish the whole thing would never have come up, and wish Vega didn't try to "hide behind" partiotism, and just embarasement of the whole issue. But as far as taking sides, it's only obvious where I must stand!    The Bible says plainly to trust in God and to acknowledge him in all of our ways.  Christians have been bullied for so long by the ACLU and the 180 degree twisted  "separation of church and state" that we must stand up for the Lord when we can. A simple poster declaring "In God We Trust" --how could I be against that. 

   Strip the politics.   "In God We Trust"  

dcs217, can you hep me understand how the ACLU has bullied Christians?  You might want to take a peek at this page first: http://atheism.about.com/b/...

Tom   --- interesting. You should check into ACLJ  American Center for Law and Justice ( I think that's right) Jay Seculow is the founding lawyer. He has defended thousands of cases of Christian persecution in the schools and the ACLU is by far his main adversary.

Thanks for the heads up, dsc.  They certainly would butt heads with the ACLU on some issues.  Do you know if the ACLJ defends all religions or just Christians?

Christianity and Judaism for sure. The ACLU rarely if ever persecutes any other religions so they don't need defending. And the ACLJ is a Christian Law firm so that would be thier first priority. 

DCS217, thank you for clarifying your position, stretch that it is.  I did not realize that anyone opposing the posters, including the self-identified Christians, were labeled by some as "against Jesus." 

It might be time to remove the giant wooden plank from your eye.

Atheism is a faith ,because they can't prove basic myth that God isn't real.

Not even close, WayBuffoo.  If you don't believe in unicorns, are you taking it on faith that they're not real? 

It is merely the worship of of their own ego and ideals instead of the Creator.

Again... you're projecting.  I don't worship my own ego or ideals instead of a Creator because I don't believe there's a Creator.  Do you worship your own ideas instead of the unicorn? 

The "In God  Trust" posters are a backlash against such people as the atheist who tried to get the Pledge of Allegiance removed from public schools. 

Wow.  Selective memory.  Atheists never tried to get the pledge removed.  A few atheists tried to get the words back to the original pledge. 

He used the excuse that his daughter was forced to say it in violation of his civil rights.

That's not an excuse.  Why should any child be forced to say that they belong to a nation under a God they don't believe in when the very same country guarantees them freedom of religion?  The words "One nation, indivisable, with liberty and justice for all" is a uniting phrase - it sees no religious preference or bigotry.  Anticommunistic scare tactics put "under God" in the pledge - the phrase "Under God" stands in direct contradiction to the idea that the nation is united.  I know that that concept is one you don't understand, but...if we were limited to only the concepts we understand...

As you recall the man had no active contact with his daughter or mother.  Both of whom are Christian. 

Forget the fact that this has nothing to do with the original topic - you're lying.  Newdow's wife was not a Christian, nor was his daughter....and he DID have contact - quite a bit, actually.  Newdow's wife was a deist and more akin to a Wiccan point of view prior to their divorce.  His daughter was being raised agnostic by the wishes of both parents.

This  and their are many other attempts by atheist to impose their beliefs on others and  has led to such popular backlashes as those posters. 

The backlash to the posters was due to the unconstitutionality of the posters.  And, if I recall, there were many, many Christians who opposed the posters as well.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: I have no desire to impose anything on you.  Have I ever come to your blog and forced my beliefs down your throat?  If so, please provide evidence of such.  A difference of opinion is not "imposing beliefs".  You glurge the heck out of this blog with three different identities and on a daily basis - I still don't see your posts as an imposition.  What *is* an imposition is when you speak about atheists as some sort of authority when you're clearly not an authority and when you attempt to tell others what people like me believe.  Out of courtesy, I don't run into every religious post shouting about what YOU, or the orthodox church, believes.  It's common courtesy...but, that seems to be completely lost on you. 

Freecognate  ----  It may very well be.  But realize this: Probably at least  80% of Americans are  "self-identified" Christians.

 I don't think it's necessarily a matter of whether or not atheism is a faith or not.  I think the issue is that it's not a good idea to be too forceful in presenting anything.  I have encountered folks that have been overly intrusive without ever even mentioning religion.  

To me, it's a personality issue, a control issue, and a matter of violating a person's personal boundaries and invading a person's personal space and privacy.  The subject matter or the particular content is really secondary, except that certain extremes of any ideology can feed into a person's perceived need to be a boundary violating individual.   

The Bible does command Christians to "go into all the world and preach the gospel," but when you study the way Jesus interacted with others, you never get the sense that he tried to force or manipulate anybody into believing in him.  

This is how I equate being asked about religion.... Emo Philips (here on youtube) did a skit that says it best to me.... wait for it.

He's an odd bird...That's why I picked  a clip without him in it, just his voice, which is also weird.  But you'll get the point. 

I use to see him on the commuter train when I rode the morning train downtown to Chicago. 

I found Jesus in a bar once...but he was illegally here.

He's a bar to lots of things, but I think you meant "in."  Hope you bought him a drink, sf--that water-to-wine thing was just a fable.

.

BLT, it's been pointed out that "atheism is a religion" is like saying "bald is a hair color."

.

Chica:  When I get that question I ask what their favorite sex position is.

Beautiful!  I can use that.  I think I might even try to convert them to my...position on the matter.

Dcs217 says: "But realize this: Probably at least  80% of Americans are  "self-identified" Christians."

And your point is?

Are you saying that because of their plurality, the Christian majority should be directing the dogmatic show?

Are you saying that under the majority rules theory we should rewrite the constitution to reflect the deistic beliefs of the majority, as Huckabee has suggested that he would work toward if president?

Huckabee and his ilk feel the deistic beliefs or lack thereof of the other 20 percent of the people should be discounted while the Christian majority decides and defines the collective national philosophy, are you in accord with that?

I can't help but wonder how many of that 80 percent Christian majority actually approve of constitutional change to unite church and state?

I wonder how many of that Christian majority are really true believers?

I wonder if maybe a whole lot of them are really agnostics or atheists afraid to buck the trend for fear of being labeled heretic and socially ostracized?

I wonder how many of the righteous 80 are just covering their asses in case there really might be a hell into which they will be cast in a possible afterlife?

I wonder how many of the 80 are merely wrapping themselves in the proverbial clothing of sheep to advance a less righteous personal agenda?

I wonder how many are spouses pressured into the fold by partners?

I wonder how many are children forced into church by demanding parents to be molded into the reflection of the parents' images and beliefs?

Proponents of the "In God We Trust" posters in schools have countered critics of the plan with the fact that the slogan appears on U.S. currency.

One can't help but marvel at the irony that God is prominently plastered on the very money that both God and Jesus so eschewed. 

Poster proponents also argue that God is also cited in the allegiance pledge, while conveniently forgetting that the inclusion was made in very recent history over widespread fears that Godless communism was threatening to take over the country.

Oh, yes, and the fact that God and the commandments biblically ascribed to him has been indelibly etched into the stone edifaces of public buildings and in the halls of revered public institutions somehow proves the existence of God, validates the inclusion of God in government and justifies further public extension of that premise.

That's a tough one to argue, and I suppose there is some history explaining how these references ended up in the construction plans and by whom, but I strongly suspect it wasn't done by Atheists, Agnostics Pagans, Wiccans, Muslims or other adherents of myriad conflicting beliefs.

But the question directly to the point is, what's wrong with Christians just keeping their beliefs to themselves and not forcibly foisting it off on the rest of the presumably disbelieving society?

That's why we used to have a Constitution, dcs--to protect the rest of us from the 80 percent. 

 Freecognate  ---  My point is-- your point that even self-identified Christians were objecting to the posters doesn't mean much. As you pointed out yourself. how many are true believers?   "He who is not with Me is against me." I'm sure you have some fine arguments for why the posters are wrong in your opinion. But none will stand up (in my opinion) to God's decree to trust Him and to acknowledge Him. Again I ask how could I, as a true believer, object to "In God We Trust"

  Once the disciples told Jesus that Men were preaching the Kingdom out of bad motives and Jesus said to leave them alone, for at least the Kingdom was being preached.

Have you found Jesus?

Man I did not know that God was lost! 

Well, he sure ain't around *HERE* anywhere.

.

Actually, dcs, I misstated the reason for the Constitution in my posting above.  It was not just to protect us in the 20 percent (and the others who are in there but can't admit it to their families) it's to protect them Christians from *THEMSELVES.*

Like, *THIS* is gonna hurt a relatively innocent school district who happened to elect massively-ignorant (but "good Christian) folks to the school board.

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/...

(Oh, and the school board's insurance company is suing the district for, basically, being abysmally stupid.  They'll be paying for *THIS* idiocy for years...)

.

And on the campaign trail Mister 894 just came out against immunization...just you wait, flouride is next, then the Red Menace.  McBush must've gotten the information from his new spiritual advisor--the one who wants him to kick-start Armageddon so they can wipe out them Jews and Catholics.

 I find the arrogance of some religions and religious people amazing sometimes, but I also understand why the true believers do what they do.  If they really believe the fantasies of their particular religion, they are compelled to act on them and possibly save a soul.  If, for instance, I believed that a non-Christian was going to burn in Hell for eternity if they did not take Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior ... if I really believed that ... what kind of person would I be if I didn't at least try to lead the non-Christian horse to holy water?

My mother, may she rest in peace, cried when I told her I didn't believe in Hell, so I lied to her and told her that I was kidding.  Sometimes I do the same things with well-meaning religious folks who ask things like, "Have you found Jesus."  I simply say, yes, and do not add "He was under the bed, in back of the Total Gym."  Everyone goes away happy.

Religious converters regularly show up at my door unannounced to discuss my potential conversion to whatever specific faith they represent.

They come in teams of at least two and sometime three or more, invariably all dressed up in their Sunday-go-to-meetin garb, the men replete with suits and neckties, the women in religiously acceptable dresses smiling sweetly and looking all pure, healthy and red-cheeked without cosmetic aid.

I wonder if there's a sex angle involved? Maybe they theorize that one might not answer the door to a couple of dudes looking like multi-level marketing creeps, but chaste looking women will elicit a more favorable response?

Anyway, they continue to return despite my admonitions that I resent their lack of courtesy in failing to at least call on the phone first while my family and closest friends exercise the common courtesy to not just show up at my doorstep without an invitation.

My number is listed in the telephone book, I tell them to no avail.

They always seem to arrive at the worst possible time.

During the last early morning incident, I was nude having just exited the shower.

Trapped in the hallway between the kitchen where I had just made a cup of coffee to take upstairs and the front entrance, I figured "what the hell, if they don't call first, too bad" and decided to appear at the door

I opened the door, leaving my wrinkled scrotum to tacitly convey my message and the women scurried of to their car while the men shook their heads with a look as if they had seen this before. I never got the sense that they were in the least apologetic about the unannounced intrusion. 

After some weeks passed, just when I began to believe they would never return, the same people reappeared. Or at least I thought they were of the same group. It's hard to tell when they all wear the same uniforms.

Only this time the men were without the women whom I presume they feel might be offended at my nudity.

One guy commented on my rudeness on the last visit, remaining oblivious to the fact that I wished to not be surprised with their continual and rude unannounced visits.

Finally, I just shut the door, effectively terminating the inane discourse.

It's a shame that response to such crassness requires such rudeness.

Some of these idiots represent aggressive extremist sects that simply just don't care about your personal wishes to be left alone to your own heresy, they are hell bent (pun intended) on spreading their particular version of  "gospel" whether you like it or not.

Some victims of these sects report this type of harrasment to law enforcement agencies to end the activity.

I am planning to install a video surveillance camera and intercom to screen such unwelcome visitors.

Oddly enough, I have quite often had the incorrect impression that Saberhagen was female.  Please be assured that I will never make that mistake again.

.

For what it's worth, I've read that a single black or red thumbtack pressed into the doorframe sometimes deters such visits.  It's like the old hobo chalk signals on the gate indicating "mean dog here."  Unless you want to have fun with them.   A pair of "mission Mormonaries" once asked my spouse (before the marriage) why she thought we were here.  "God's amusement?" she replied. 

Bless her.  For those needing victims volunteers for ritual human sacrifices or cattle feed or whatnot, I understand a green thumbtack above the door means "likely prospect, about to crack" and will actually get your door knocked on more often.  Red means "angry atheist," and black means "likely to help you along in your journey to the afterlife."

DCS - At no point do I ask about "true believers."  It's not my job to judge the beliefs of others.  But then, I don't think it's your job either.  Big wooden plank.

I put a sign on my door that reads: "All those who knock or ring the door bell will be charged $10 service fee"

It seems to have stopped the Jeeeesus sales calls.

You need one of these....

saberhagen  -- when I read your door answering story  ----LOL  big time!

FreeCognate  ---  "If, on the other hand, I identified myself as a Christian, the response would be no less disturbing: many advocates would have either claimed that I was a deluded Christian or, even worse, acted as if my argument was stronger because I was a Christian.  None of these outcomes are acceptable or productive because arguments should be evaluated based upon the strength of the arguments."

  You're a debater. Is that all all the poster thing was to you, a chance to debate, with the "strength of your arguments"?   Now  I'll be judgemental: You don't have a clue as to how signifigant the city's decisions about faith are to the "true believer" and the spiritual atmosphere  over that region.

Okay then......what's your sign?

No DCS, I don't just argue for the sake of debating.  I just agree with Aristotle that an "ad hominem fallacy" is not a reason to reject an argument.  Apparently, you disagree. 

I am shocked, shocked to find that I don't agree with someone who advocates a legal organization founded by Pat "The world is going to end in 1982" Robertson. 

English please. Sounds like your still in debate class. And what did Pat R. found?

   Are you talking about right here :  "Once the disciples told Jesus that Men were preaching the Kingdom out of bad motives and Jesus said to leave them alone, for at least the Kingdom was being preached."  If that's what your Greek is about, are you calling the Kingdom of God a fallacy?   I think your confusing the subject matter  "In God We Trust"  with the various motives and supposed errs to have it posted. Your making my point.

DCS are you being intentionally opaque?  The ad hominem occurs when individuals judge the weight of an argument by some characteristic of the speaker instead of evaluating the argument itself.  You know... like ignoring an argument b/c it comes from a Christian, or an Asian person, or a Woman.  I was directly explaining your quotation of my original post.  You know, when I said:

"If, on the other hand, I identified myself as a Christian, the response would be no less disturbing: many advocates would have either claimed that I was a deluded Christian or, even worse, acted as if my argument was stronger because I was a Christian.  None of these outcomes are acceptable or productive because arguments should be evaluated based upon the strength of the arguments."

I think that identifying my beliefs would inevitably give people reason to ignore my argument, regardless of my answer to the question of what my religion is.

I never called the Kingdom of God a fallacy.  I suggest that you work on your reading comprehension skills. 

I'll let you use your critical thinking skills to figure out what Pat R. founded.  Maybe you can start by rereading your posts, seeing what organization you advocated, and then doing the research to actually learn about the organization.

I figured you were talking about the ACLJ. I didn't know Pat R. had anything to do with it. It makes no difference, it's a great  lawfirm, helping thousands of oppressed Christian kids and thier parents. Not a suprise at all that you would  denegrate it.

  Your alluding to "ad hominem fallacy" makes no sense to me in context.  But I guess my "critical thinking" and "reading comprehension" are just no match for you. You come off just a tad arrogant. 

 Anyway we'll have to agree to disagree because I am not fond of arguing.

I didn't denegrate the ACLJ, unless you think that my pointing out who factually founded the organization is an insult.  I am not a fan of Pat Robertson or his future forecasting abilities.  Since you brought up the ACLJ, I figured you'd know the organization's founder.

If I come off as arrogant, you'll just have to forgive me.  Seeing that you accused me publicly of being "against Jesus" and then attempted to further judge me by elevating yourself to the status of a "true believer," I think I've been pretty civil, if defensive.  You may not be fond of arguing but you sure do like to imply insults.

But thank you for proving my initial point.  Some people like to use religious beliefs as a lithmus test to judge the unworthy against the "true believers." 

 I think it's fairly clear how you feel about Pat Robertson and the  ACLJ. I thought Jay Sekewlow was the founder as I stated in my comment. He is the one that does the radio broadcast.

  "seeing that you accused me publicly of being "against Jesus"   No,  I "implied" that those who oppose the posters were against Jesus, and I even said it was a stretch. You seem overly sensitive about this. I think you are feeling at least some conviction about oposing "In God We Trust."

  I did say  : "You don't have a clue as to how signifigant the city's decisions about faith are to the "true believer" and the spiritual atmosphere  over that region." That's a little rough and I'm sorry. It's because you exasperate me!   Your'e a good debater. Quite the wordsmith. But I think you debate with your mind and not your heart?

 I'm sorry that you feel judged by the terminology  "true believer"  and are put off by questions about faith. You don't have to be.

 Orthodox Catholics believe I'm lost because I'm not Catholic.  7th day adventists believe I'm lost because I don't keep the Sabbath Day.  I could go on, but  the point is I couldn't  care less. I  KNOW  I'm forgiven for my sin and heaven bound in Christ.  No one has ever asked me, "Have you found Jesus?"  But I certainly wouldn't be offended. (I'd probably talk to him about reconsidering his approach though)

  You are obviously a VERY intelligent young lady. Don't be too smart for your own good. I'm not saying to shut off your brain. We are told to love the Lord with all of our heart, all of our soul, and all of our mind.  But it is with your heart that you believe, and with your mouth you confess Him as Lord -----  And it's done.

 Pretty nervy to preach on your post.   It's really late, I'm going to bed.

Why would anyone want ot hide their religion? I'm not saying you should get a big sign and carry it around, but why is it "personal."

My guess is that you don't know what you believe.

New Testament Christians are supposed to model a Christian life and if you do that, great. But if people don't know you are a Christian, you have done nothing to further "the Word." Evangelism is a duty.

Trust me, I never get in anyones face and I certainly don't grill them ontheir religion at first meeting. BUt to "hide it" implies you are ashamed of it.

Witbee, I think that you misunderstand me.  I don't hide my religious views.  Folks who know me, my family and friends, the students that I coach and the folks that I work with, all know my views and I enjoy discussing issues such as faith with them.  If you and I had the chance to get to know each other in real life, I would be happy to discuss religion with you.  I can assure you that I have studied religion as a serious subject for about 20 years (read the bible from cover to cover for the first time at 12... sigh, I was a nerdy kid).  We could have a great conversation.

However, I am not going to declare my religious views to any random stranger just b/c they ask it.  That seems to me to be a clear power move by the stranger, intended not to promote a free exchange of ideas but instead to launch a cascade of attempts to either condemn or recruit.  I am interested in supporting neither endeavor. 

However, I will say what I don't believe in.  I don't believe in being a self-righteous evangelical who pretends to be capable of judging the hearts and faith of others.  If you think that response is harsh, please take a moment to look at what you wrote simply b/c I refused to share my religious views with strangers.  Your claim that I don't know what I believe is insulting, I wouldn't say that to you and I don't understand why you would expect me to read it as anything except a thoughtless insult.

Witbee---- watch out ---  she'll twist your words.   She's good.

"My GUESS is that you don't know what you believe." -- ( you)   "Your CLAIM that I don't know what I believe is insulting" -- (her)

 It's subtle, but it will get to you.  I know.

I meant no insult. I said it was a guess. I am big enough to admit when I guess poorly.

However, if someone asks you about your faith and you refuse to discuss it, you've already armed them. In fact, they have won the exchange because it looks like you are hiding something.

I can't say anyone ever asks me my religion. And I rarely volunteer it. But I certainly don't hide it from ANYONE.

Thanks for the response Witbee.  I would not have considered that someone would interpret a non-response in that manner had you not brought it up.  Something else for me to think about.

Witbee says: "...if someone asks you about your faith and you refuse to discuss it, you've already armed them. In fact, they have won the exchange because it looks like you are hiding something."

This cryptic statement begs for clarification of its basic presumptive points.

First off, the aspect of "arming" the "winning" inquisitor strongly suggests a warlike adversary with a preloaded argumentative contention designed to force upon another a particular personal belief.

This inane statement very strongly supports freecog's strong inclination to avoid religious discussion with those seeking to argue their faith with the obvious intent of defeating a possibly conflicting view.

But hey, if I'm off base here, can you elaborate on just what dark secrets one might be hiding from such a refusal?

Without clarification, one is left only to wonder about what manner of evil another might conclude lurks in the dark depths of a refuser's soul.

By your absurd "hiding" axiom, the refusal to answer questions concerning any potentially controversial subject could be a sign of guilt, like the ludicrous assumption that exercising one's rights under the fifth amendment must also be a sure sign of guilt.

Given that logic, it makes perfect sense that one declining to state their political views indicates they must be hiding something horrific, like a communist leaning or some other unpatriotic ideology?

Similarly, if one chooses to avoid discussion about say, child abuse, then they also might be hiding something awful like a pedophilic predilection?

The choice by one to avoid discussion of rape equals a rapist, murder equals murderer, etc., etc.?

Witbee, where are you going with this outlandish presumption that anyone who refuses to embrace a religious inquisitor must have something dark to hide?

Are you suggesting - as it seems - that freecog harbors some insidious evil beneath her reasonable appearing veneer?

Is it not possible that she simply feels that there's no point and nothing to be gained by engaging in potentially rancorous theological discourse from a predetermined indefensible position against intractable opponents "armed" with preformed judgments and unprovable factoids indelibly etched in their stonelike heads?