I shouldn't be surprised at the blatant subjective information held within the advice to Spammed regarding the emails from his family member, but pointing to an article from the Washington Post as "proof" of any candidates religious/spiritual affiliation is a joke. And going one step further, pointing them to that candidate's own website as proof is laughable. Frankly, Prudie's "factual" stating of Obama's affiliation is also questionable. Everyone knows that one's spiritual affiliation, especially a political candidate, will depend on which constituency that candidate is addressing at that particular moment.

By advising "Spammed" to reply-to-all with his own personal statement of his beliefs with links to "prove" what he's saying, when those resources are questionable in their content, is merely turning the tables on the family member.

My opinion, he should reply, to the sender only, and state his piece and request to be removed from the email list. Everyone else on the list that is being addressed should deal with the email in their own way. If they choose to believe whatever propaganda anyone is selling, then they should do their own research. It's no one's place to tell others that they're wrong, merely because they disagree.

In "Spammed"s opinion, these people are being swayed by these communications, but it's their responsibility to prove or disprove these accusations. It's not the responsibility of "Spammed" to "educate" those on the email list and would merely end up looking like a defensive maneuver.