Claire, All religions are based on beliefs that cannot be proven. The very
definition of "faith" in the dictionary is " belief without logical proof
or empirical evidence." Thus, YES, all religions are equally valid!  You
cannot give any evidence, other than your own beliefs, that Christianity,
or your version of Christianity, is superior to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism,
Shinto, Wicca, or Atheism. Of course, everyone thinks that the religion
that he or she has chosen is superior. But, belief is the operative word
here. You can't prove it. You cannot demonstrate it. And, you might pick
the one that is easiest, but i do not follow your logic here at all. Why
wouldn't a person be just as likely to pick a religious doctrine that
challenges them, as all the major world religious doctrines do?

You express two ideas here that I must take issue with. The first is the
idea that viewing all religions as equally valid is the result of adherence
to some kind of evil political correctness instead of a rational, reasoned
assertion. Conservatives and right wing Christians love to use that term to
describe any statement or concept that they disagree with, but the real
political correctness being promoted here is religious conformity and it is
being promoted by them. The second is this truly absurd notion that
Christians are a persecuted minority in this country who are constantly
ridiculed and derided. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some
Christians are claiming persecution today because we will not allow them to
foist their narrow and extremist religious views on the rest of us. But,
the majority of Americans are Christians, although over twice as many
people world wide are not, and they still dominate the debate over religion
in the nation. If you want ridicule and persecution, tell people that you
are either a Mormon, a Wiccan, or an Atheist. The Christians, Jews and
Muslims will figuratively crucify you.

Harry M. Hays
History Dept.


At 02:58 PM 8/21/2003 -0400, Claire McCullough wrote:
>I agree with Pam to the extent that to be a person of faith in today's
>culture is not politically correct, and is often not well received here, and
>at many other universities--it won't get you fed to the lions, but you can
>usually expect a certain amount of ridicule.
>
>What I consider to be  a more interesting issue is the politically correct
>view that all religions are "equally valid."  I have never personally met a
>person of strong faith (regardless of what that faith  is) who regarded
>other viewpoints as "equally valid." If that is the case, shouldn't we just
>pick the religion (or world view or lifestyle) that's easiest?
>
>Claire McCullough
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: UTC Staff E-Mail List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
>Harry Hays
>Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 2:22 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [UTCSTAFF]
>
>
>pam, you create a "straw man" and then proceed to knock him down. no one
>that i know favors stifling your religious voice. i, and the others who
>have participated in this discussion, most of whom are undoubtedly
>christians themselves, will defend your right, as an individual, to express
>you religious beliefs anywhere, anytime. we will not support attempts to
>legislate such ideas or to make the state a sponsor of them. proclaim your
>piety and pray when and where you wish, but don't force me, or my kids, to
>do it at school or in public venues.
>
>what we really object to is the self righteous sanctimony of many so-called
>christians who arrogantly assume that they are right and that all other
>viewpoints are wrong, or even evil. they think that the state should openly
>endorse, not just christianity, but their narrow interpretation of it. they
>even claim that this country was founded on christian principles, and that
>the ten commandments form the basis of our legal system. as an historian, i
>must state emphatically, that this is not so. our nation was founded on
>secular, enlightenment principles by a group of individuals who were
>profoundly agnostic. the basis of our legal system comes from a combination
>of roman and english common law. one might as well assert that our legal
>system is based on the code of hammurabi as on the commandments, for the
>legal precepts found in the ten were anticipated by much earlier codes,
>hammurabi's included. the founding fathers stressed the importance of the
>separation of church and state, not so much to protect the state as to
>protect religion from being manipulated by the state as the
>psuedo-christians i refer to are attempting today. they also stressed that
>in matters of conscience, the government should remain strictly neutral. i
>find it interesting that the one religious group that originally supported
>the separation idea more than any other were the baptists, who were viewed
>by mainstream christians then much the same way that mormons are by
>mainstream christians today. yet, now, the sbc is in the forefront of
>attempts to enforce religious conformity upon us.
>
>personally, i find the creed of a group of people who call themselves
>"militant agnostics" attractive. Their motto: I DON'T KNOW AND NEITHER DO
>YOU!
>
>Harry M. Hays
>History Dept.
>
>At 12:48 PM 8/21/2003 -0400, Pam Carlisle wrote:
> >I have been reading the e-mails bounced back and forth about religion this
> >morning and have to put my 2 cents in. I am a christian but I do not judge
> >others for their choice but I do get angry when I am told that I have the
> >freedom to choose to be a christian as long as I do not speak of Jesus out
> >in public....which seems to be what is happening now. It seems to me if a
> >christian says something about Jesus there is always someone around that
> >thinks they are a Bible thumper. It just seems like you can be a christian
> >today....as long as you don't tell anyone and I think that is sad.
> >
> >
> >Mrs. Pamela Carlisle
> >Graduation Specialist
> >Veteran's Affairs Certifying Official
> >Office of Records and Registration
> >University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
> >(423)425-4418
> >email [log in to unmask]