Hate Mail

Michael Miller, Page 11

June 8, 2001:

[Editor's note: he's still trying to defend religious segregation]

Okay let me state it this way. After my surgeries I was told to stay away from others so that I would not catch anything while recovering.

So you equate all other belief systems to diseases. Classic example of religious intolerant thinking. Don't you get it? You keep thinking that if you restate your analogy I will somehow accept that it's not immoral, but you don't realize that the very foundation of your analogy is blatantly immoral. You regard different ideas as infectious disease agents!

God called the Isrealites and us as Christians to be different and separate from the world to be an example and a light to others on how God wishes us to live.

Actually, God called the Israelites to conquer, enslave, and murder those who wouldn't follow him. Try reading the Old Testament some time.

[Editor's note: notice how he thinks he can justify anything and everything by simply saying that God condones it. I accused the Bible of promoting racism and religious intolerance, and he has no answer but to mutter that "God called" his followers to act that way! Who cares whether God says it's OK? The point is that it's not moral, and if God condones it, then that only means that God isn't moral either]

If we intermingle and adopt other life styles then we can't be an example and we are turning our back on God.

In other words, you cannot associate with people who have different life styles because you think they will "infect" you? How fragile your belief system must be, if mere association with differing lifestyles will lead you to change your behaviour!

Like all humanists, I freely associate with people of varying religions as long as they don't pester me (pestering being rude for any reason, whether it be to sell religion or Amway products). I don't care that they behave differently than I do. Their behaviour won't "infect" me, so why should I try to shut myself away from them?

However, I won't associate with people who behave in an unethical fashion (eg. racists, religious intolerants, wife beaters, drunk drivers, etc) regardless of what religion they happen to belong to. And therein lies your problem: you rationalize your belief in religious segregation under what you think is the same principle. Therefore, you believe that anyone who doesn't follow your particular religion is immmoral for that reason alone, so you won't associate with them on "moral" grounds.

This attitude is derived from the Bible itself, particularly the Old Testament. The dividing line between ethical Christians and unethical Christians is therefore quite typically the line between people who are uncomfortable with Old Testament hatred (moderates who take great pains to say that modern Christianity has outgrown all of that) and people who revel in it and support it wholeheartedly (like you).

[Quoted] "So you agree with Hitler that purity is essential?"

Pure behaviorly, yes racially, no of course not.

So everyone's behaviour must be "pure"? Obviously, you're not a fan of multiculturalism. What a shock.

[Editor's note: just look at this! He actually agrees with Hitler that members of other religions should be removed from society (unless he has some other method of ensuring "purity"). He may not agree about the method of that removal (he wants them put in "isolation wards", perhaps better referred to as concentration camps or the Warsaw ghetto, but he hasn't gone so far as to advocate the construction of gas chambers). However, the difference is only one of degree, not one of direction. He doesn't agree with Hitler that members of other races should also be removed, but in his previous message, we saw that he has no problem with minorities being arranged into a racial "hierarchy" (much as the black slaves once occupied a place in the American racial hierarchy). Sadly, his attitude is quite common among fundamentalists: some races are closer to God than others, but all are welcome to take their place in the hierarchy ... unless they choose to be heretics, in which case they should be stuffed into "isolation wards" irrespective of their race. What a nice guy]

There were many interracial and intercultural marriages in the Bible some of which God approved, and the ones He did not were because the spouse turned the person away from God.

Your continual harping on "turning people away from God" is getting repetitive. "Turning the person away from God", if it happens, is a result of free and open discussion and is not immoral. Fundamentalist Christianity makes sins out of free speech and new ideas, and you obviously can't see what's wrong with that.

[Editor's note: I should have asked for concrete examples of these interracial and intercultural marriages which God supported in the Bible, since I already know from his defense of Moses that he is willing to invent Biblical "facts" when it suits him. While I know of at least one case in which a Jew married a black woman, there is no indication that she was treated as an equal. Moreover, I am absolutely 100% sure that God condoned no mixed-faith marriages, so Mr. Miller's use of the term "intercultural" is either a lie or a very narrow definition of multiculturalism]

Thinking for yourself is very different then turning your back on God. In fact I do think for myself. I don't follow every fad or idea that comes along. I pick and choose what I like and what would not be dishonorable to Christ.

Anyone can claim that he thinks for himself. But the fact that you always fall back on recycled stock platitudes whenever you can't respond effectively to an argument tells me that you don't think for yourself.

[Quoted] "Of course they're bigoted! Hitler agreed with your view that those of differing beliefs (the Jews) should be kept in "isolation wards". He segregated them in ghettos as the first step towards his Final Solution. Haven't you ever read a fucking history book?"

I was refering to Medical wards. I know you purposefully missed that so I won't comment any further.

Pathetic attempt to evade. You were using isolation wards as an analogy for your prescribed treatment for religious minorities, and I criticized it on that basis. Like you, Hitler felt that religious minorities should be shut away from the Christian majority, and when you're confronted with the similarity between your own views and Hitler's views, you simply stick your head in the sand with evasions like the one you give above.

[Quoted] "If he's going to do it, then let him do it. Don't try to do it for him!"

He does do it. But instructing us how to live. He called us to be different so we are.

He also called you to conquer, enslave, and murder those who refuse to follow him. Are you planning to do that too? You've already convinced yourself that it's acceptable to ostracize and segregate those who believe differently, so it would appear that you're well on your way.

[Editor's note: notice how he ignores the point, which is that God does not directly enforce any of these "laws" of his, so people like him take it upon themselves to "interpret" his wishes and carry them out]

Actually you are doing the segregating. Kicking Christianity and prayer out of schools and the public forum etc.

And how does that equate to "segregating"? No one is telling Christians to go live somewhere else or stop associating with others. Do you know what the word "segregation" means? It certainly doesn't mean "stopping people from using publicly funded schools to shove their religion down other peoples' kids' throats".

You think we are just ignorant bigoted fools so you must put a stop to us.

You are an ignorant bigoted fool. However, lots of Christians have grown beyond your brand of Old Testament bigotry.

That's what your whole web site about Creationism is all about. You are trying to suppress me and others like me because we don't agree with you.

Classic Christian fundamentalist attempt to fraudulently paint yourself as the victim. When I criticize your attitudes, you call that an attempt to "suppress" you. However, in the normal world, open dialogue and free criticism are the hallmarks of a democratic society. Any system of belief which fears criticism is broken, and your particular brand of Christianity obviously falls into that category.

We welcome anybody who wants to truly be a part of us.

That's the whole point. You only welcome people who will convert. All others are worthless.

We don't turn anyone away. They turn away from Christ. People do it themselves.

People can't "turn away" from Christ if they never cared for him in the first place. The rhetoric of [the] Christian fundamentalist always presumes that all unbelievers believe at some point, and then change their minds. Typically egocentric thinking.

[Trying to defend my in-laws' bigotry] You alienated her family (if I understand you correctly, I may have missunderstood something).

No, they alienated my wife and I by behaving in a grossly bigoted manner. Typical behaviour of the racist: you paint the victim of racial and religious bigotry as the aggressor, for daring to cross the lines of segregation which you regard as inviolate. In your mind, by refusing to accept segregation, I somehow caused her parents' racial and religious attacks so they're my fault instead of theirs! White southerners said the same thing about blacks during the Civil Rights uprisings of the 1960s.

You said you stopped going to Church with you wife. Does she still go? Does she still claim to be a Christian? If so then I stand corrected and I apologize for that.

In other words, if she's no longer a Christian, then her parents' racial and religious bigotry was acceptable? This says a lot about your value system.

In case you're curious, she did stop going to church. I made no attempt to specifically wean her off the Christian religion because religion is a personal choice, and I even let her take the kids to Sunday school although I had always planned to act as a counter-point for open discussion whenever the boys had questions.

However, she is a very moral person, and it was actually Christian fundamentalism itself that turned her away. When we lived in a city where the Christians were mostly moderates, she went to church every Sunday and believed. But when we moved to a city which was dominated by fundamentalists, she was repulsed by the blatant immorality of their attitudes (which were identical to yours). When challenged, they merely showed her the portions of the Bible that supported their views, thus opening her eyes to the immorality of the Bible itself.

This prompted her to study the origins of the Bible itself, and after learning about how it was written, she abandoned the entire religion. After she did that, I felt free to greatly expand my Creationism web page, in which I had previously been rather circumspect about the whole Creationist "moral issue" because I didn't want to offend her.

But you still advise people to avoid the Christian religion.

Strawman. I advise people to avoid your brand of Christianity, which you continue to misrepresent as the only brand of Christianity. I advise people to avoid Old Testament "morality" entirely, and to temper the New Testament with humanist values. Many Christians do precisely that, but you obviously don't.

[Editor's note: It's important to recognize the underlying reasons behind a refusal to associate. If one refuses to associate with, say, white supremacists, that is hardly "bigotry" because the white supremacists behaviour is unacceptable, hence the refusal to associate. In other words, unethical behaviour leads to a refusal to associate, which is perfectly natural. However, the typical religious bigot refuses to associate with anyone who doesn't share his belief system. Note the critical missing element: he doesn't have to bother showing that the nonbeliever is immoral, because his failure to be Christian is considered an immorality in itself!]

There are many who claim to be Christian and are not. Hitler, despite your claim and your proof with those belt buckles, etc., was not a Christian. He even murdered many Christians as well as the Jews.

Hitler wasn't a Christian? He believed in Jesus (like you), he instituted mandatory school prayer (just as you would like to do), he segregated religious minorities (just as you would like to do), and he didn't have a problem with the Old Testament wars and atrocities (like you), so it's not surprising that he revived the practices of Joshua and Gideon in his "Final Solution". The only difference between you and Adolf Hitler is one of magnitude. He was an exaggeration of you.

The fact that Hitler murdered Christians is not proof that he wasn't a Christian, or have you forgotten that Christians have been killing one another for centuries? Christians under his rule were killed only when they directly opposed him, and certainly not for being Christian. I make this point on my web page, but your reading comprehension is obviously no better than your sense of morality.

Your plurality is relativism and I do not wish to rehash that again.

Because you have no case to make. You support moral relativism (even the most heinous atrocity is OK if God does it or condones it), but you refuse to tolerate religious plurality, which is simply the natural result of the fact that religion is a personal choice rather than an objective system like science or engineering.

You seem to not want to accept that so I don't want to go over it again.

Actually, I made several points about that, and you failed to address them. I'm sure you won't address the above point either, except to regurgitate another standard-issue line from your handbook of Christian Fundamentalist Dogma statements.

Also Christians are not the only ones intolerant of other Religions, Islam is another for instance.

Islam is merely another offshoot of Judaism. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all worship the same Old Testament God, or have you forgotten? Given the God-sanctioned events of the Book of Joshua, is it any surprise that this religious triumvirate is the most violent in history?

Being a Christian does not mean you can live any lifestyle you want.

No, but in your case, it apparently means that you're allowed to be a bigot and fight against freedom of speech, as long as you go to church and put your money in the collection plate every Sunday.

If you truly are one of Christ's you'll want to live as He did and would want you to do.

Christ condoned slavery and religious intolerance. You don't see what's wrong with the latter, and I suspect that if you had lived during the Civil War, you wouldn't have seen what was wrong with the former either.

Not all Christians are like you. Some focus more on his message of reciprocity than his specific attitudes about social conditions, which were shaped by his upbringing. Don't you ever ask how you would feel if you were being treated the way you treat others?

How would you like it if Christians were a minority and wherever they went, they were referred to as a disease? How would you like it if Christians were assumed to be immoral simply because of that label, irrespective of what particular brand of Christianity they practice or more importantly, how they conduct themselves in their personal lives? How would you like it if Christians were ostracized and segregated from the rest of the population? How would you like if it Christian children were forced to observe Hindu or Buddhist religious practices in school? Would you be happy under those conditions? I doubt it. But you have no problem with the idea of imposing those conditions to be placed upon others, because you are blatantly immoral and you ignore the Golden Rule.

[Editor's note: his refusal to follow the Golden Rule is ironic in light of the fact that he's a Christian, and Jesus himself took pains to elevate the status of the Golden Rule in relation to other religious laws of the era: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"]

But the point is if you slip and we all do then with acceptance of Him and true repentance you will not be rejected by God on Judgement Day.

I asked you before precisely how acceptance of Jesus absolves you of personal responsibility for your own sins, and as usual, instead of answering the question you mindlessly restate standard-issue lines.

[In response to my comment that he is wrong about all religions having a Heaven and Hell]: True but there are so many rule and rituals that are required almost constantly. Some if even examined closely undignifies Human Kind.

Every religion has rules and rituals and recommendations for how to live your life, but that's a red herring. You're ignoring my criticism, which is that you were wrong in your assumption that all religions have a Heaven and Hell. The rituals and rules of other religions therefore don't necessarily have anything with do with getting into Heaven, since they might not even have a Heaven. Once again, I make a point and you evade rather than answering it.

[Editor's note: did you notice how he claimed that the rituals of other religions might be an affront to human dignity? What other religion's practices could possibly be a greater affront to human dignity than the Old Testament holy wars and atrocities which he staunchly defended? And what business does he have talking about human dignity anyway, when he dismisses human dignity as insignificant in relation to the glorification of God?]

Cute, but not very engaging. Show me what ethical principles I have not observed.

The Golden Rule, for one. Also the principles of internationally recognized human rights, which you regard as immoral because you're a moral relativist and you have your own system in which rights and sympathy for fellow human beings (regardless of religion) are not necessary. Your agreement with Hitler on numerous issues is yet another strong indicator. All of these facts indicate a profoundly unethical character.

People complain about how difficult and negative Christianity is and I show you that it is not as difficult as it is made out to be.

More evasion. I never complained about how "difficult and negative" Christianity is. I complained about how Christian fundamentalists are intolerant (which you've demonstrated quite well), and your "rebuttal" was to try to prove that your religion is better than all the others (which only reinforces the original point).

It is not easy being a Christian when everything in this world is pulling you away in so many directions.

Nonsense. It's easy to be a Christian in America. In fact, America promotes Christianity so aggressively that it violates the human right to religious freedom (particularly with the religious content that was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s).

However, it's not as easy to be a Christian fundamentalist, because Christian fundamentalist is at odds with science, and science is taught in the public school system. You find yourself at war with logic and observation, hence you feel that you're constantly under attack because the rest of society doesn't share your contempt for science.

But unlike other beliefs if you slip, and we all do, there isn't this major ritual and procedure you have to go through the be made right again. That's what I was refering to.

In other words, you don't have to atone for your own sins. Nice escape clause: it eliminates the requirement for justice. Quite handy for someone like you, who advocates segregation even though you know perfectly well that it would be very hurtful to its victims.

[Editor's note: if one is truly ethical, then one will want to atone for one's wrongdoings, so that the notion of karmic penalties or divine retribution is unnecessary. It says a lot about Mr. Miller that he thinks it's a huge benefit not to have to atone for his sins. Many Christians would argue that atonement is an ethical imperative irrespective of whether God requires it, but Mr. Miller is obviously not that kind of Christian]

It seems you are so busy thinking for yourself that you don't listen to what other people are saying.

Like most Christian fundamentalists, you assume that if I don't undergo some sort of epiphany and convert to your belief system after hearing your Wise Words, then I must not be listening to you.

It must be Satan clogging my ears, right? That's why you don't have to bother providing any examples of where I've failed to address your points, or explain why you've failed to address numerous points made by me.

You have your own way and no one can tell you different.

Oh, they can tell me. I'm always open to criticism and new ideas, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. That's the difference between you and me; you treat alien ideas as something to be shut away and suppressed, while I feel that the more open a discussion is, the better it is.

I know that you'll say the same of me but I have changed my thinking on many things. I know I don't have all the answers and I have changed my view on somethings because of what other people have said or experienced and passed that knowledge to me.

Unless, of course, it touches on your religion. Then your mind closes tighter than Fort Knox.

Continue to Michael Miller, Page 12

Jump to sub-page:

Jump to: