Background: On May 29th, 2000 Ilene Sidoran wrote the following reply to my earlier letter that addressed a certain minister's disparaging remarks about non-believers having immoral offspring. I've put her letter in Red, and my remarks in black:
Addresses Schiffer Letter
To the Editor:
In response to the recent letter to the editor from Doug Schiffer who is an acknowledged atheist, I have only this to say. Your interpretation of Mr. Kellenbergen comments on Christian homes standing a better chance of bringing up moral children rather than not is a bit colored.
Of course, it may be the case that the only reason I found his remarks offensive was that I am a member of the group that was being insulted. However I like to think that I am more fair than that. I would have found his remarks to have been offensive had he been a follower of some other religion saying that somebody should not marry a Christian, because Christians have degenerate descendants.
Since you are on the side of science let us interpret this topic. It is common knowledge that a farmer, orchard grower, or cattlemen will pick only the most sound seed, trees and cattle to produce their needed outcome and in most cases they get this desired result. However, instances happen where defects come through despite all precautions. This is so in child rearing. As you said, some children can come out of so called bad situations and vice versa. However, in the case of the former - nature is in control. On the side of child rearing, you must realize that children make their own choices. Despite good guidelines they go their own way - free will. (God’s gift to us.)My whole point in writing my letter was that Rev. Kellenbergen claimed that there was "a study" done that said point blank that non-believers had degenerate offspring. I can only surmise that Mr. Kellenbergen used the phrase "a study" because it sounds scientific - yet I seriously doubt that his study was anything like real science. Many times when Christian apologists try to use scientific phrases and such, they want the credibility of science, yet they aren't willing to actually use the scientific method. And that is dishonest.
Since you are dedicated to science and reason in public policy, I suggest you research what science has to say and has proven scientifically about the Bible; that it is true. On WMHR radio 102.9 is a program called Science, Scripture and Salvation and many scientists have confirmed a world wide catastrophic flood. Evidence is world wide that life came to an abrupt end, not naturally. Ancheologists have unearthed artifacts mentioning events, leaders, etc., in Biblical times.Ilene may be interested to know that I occasionally do tune in to that program. My reaction to the show is that it is anything but scientific. Science, Scripture and Salvation is a travesty to science. I consider a grave disservice to not only science. It is a disgrace to fundamentalist Christianity as well, that it has to use bogus science to support its claims.
Yes, certain biblical events and stories have some evidence in the physical world. Just as many of the ancient Greek myths and legends have some historical basis. Homer's Odyssey mentions a city named Troy, and yes that city has been discovered to exist. Does this mean I accept the existence of cyclops, sirens and other magical beings and gods mentioned in the Odyssey? Of course not. Those things are fictional.
It IS documented in studies that ATHEISTS have studied the Bible to prove it wrong and in the process have become Christians because they found the truth. I suggest you do the same.Again, Ilene may be interested to know that I have studied the Christian scriptures, as well as several other religion's sacred texts. What I have found is that not only is the Christian bible scientifically unsound, but it contains much that is morally, ethically and logically repulsive. One of the members of our group ( a former Christian) became an atheist precisely because he started to study the Christian bible. What is Ilene to make of that fact?
Governments do intrude on religious rights because of laws. some non-Christian groups push through, such as abortion and no prayer in school. If anything the Christians are the ones who have been offended.I fail to see what religious rights of Ms. Sidoran are being intruded upon because of abortion. All the law says is that she can have one if she wants to. The law doesn't require her to have one if she doesn't want one. If Ms. Sidoran doesn't like abortion, then she doesn't have to have one.
Not having compulsory prayer in schools is in everyone's best interests. Public schools are there to educate all of our children. Prayer is a private matter, and last time I checked there were plenty of churches in the Camden area for her to take her kids to. If starting the day with Christian prayer is something she wants her kids to do, she is free to pray with them before they leave the breakfast table. Further, her children can pray to themselves silently any time they want during the school day. But Ms. Sidoran has no right to force other parents' kids to pay vocal homage to her god, or any god. Such a policy isn't a violation of her rights, it is a recognition of others rights.
(Anyone who actually believes what the bible says should have a peek at Matt 6:5-6, where Jesus Christ himself laid down the law on public prayer. Why would Christians want public prayer, when their god told them not to do it?)
Matt 6:5-6 (NIV)
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites,
for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners
to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward
in full.
But when you pray, go into your room, close
the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who
sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Despite all this, I have NO fear of your points of view because I'm secure in the knowledge of the Lord and my future. I know in your research project you will find the answer to your own personal life and your future. Where you spend eternity depends on it.Personally, I don't believe there is an "eternity" for me to experience. But if I am wrong, and there is a kind and loving Supreme Being, then I am confident that I have nothing to fear. Such a god might conceivably punish me for misdeeds in my life, but such a punishment would be finite and proportional to the wrongs committed. I have committed no infinite crimes worthy of infinite punishment.
On the other hand, if am wrong and there is a god so cruel, depraved and irrational as to punish me for everlasting periods of time over the trifling matter of what I believe, then I would say that we are all of us in grave peril. Such a capricious god might just as well punish us for our choice to worship Jesus as to not worship him, or for the color of socks we wear, for that matter.