incognito:

Examples of censorship: Students have been told they can't share their faith in school. They have been told they can't wear Jesus T-shirts. They have received Fs on papers for writing about Jesus. One young man was told he was incompetent because he dared suggest homosexuality was wrong. Judges and other public servants have been ordered to take The Ten Commandments off their walls and have been derobed for not doing so (or they resinged rather than do so).

While I don't doubt that there exists censorship of Christians in public schools, I would be curious about the context of the assertions you make. For instance, perhaps wearing a t-shirt period is against the dress code -- in which case the person in trouble is not being censored because of content. Similarly, if a student is assigned a paper on calculus, it would be incorrect to write about Jesus. Or perhaps the paper was on the correct topic, but was poorly written. My point is that it's not necessarily censorship if someone writes a paper and gets an 'F' on it.

I'm against censorship -- whether or not the point of view expressed is one that I agree with. If students are being disciplined for expressing their views on Jesus (in the appropriate setting -- proclaiming a love for Christ is not appropriate when the teacher is lecturing on the Mean Value Theorem), then I agree with you that it's abhorrent. However, that does not mean that Christians should get a free pass. It would be just as wrong to force atheists to pray or to force them to study the Bible. In my opinion, the solution is secularism in which neither the atheist or Christian point of view is preferred (by gov't or schools). Both sides should have the freedom to express their views.

Your issue with judges and public servants is another matter. I have no issues with judges or other public servants expressing their religious views outside of their office, but when they act in the capacity of government, then they shouldn't.

incognito:

This country was founded on Christian principles. So to say Evangelicals are wanting to change things is wrong. Rather, it is/was liberals who changed things. When this nation started, you could not be in public office if you weren't a Christian. The man who started our public schools (Benjamin Rush) said the Bible needed to be taught in schools so that students would not become criminals. He predicted that if the Bible was taken out of our schools, we would spend too much time and money punishing criminals. And so we have. . . .Even when I was in school, over twenty years ago, I was not taught these facts about our nation, about all the Christians and Diests who framed our Constitution, wrote the Declaration of Independance and so on. All the things they said along the lines of no man could govern this naiton wihtout God's help were totally left out of the cirriculum. Sounds like censorship to me at high levels. I have had to learn these things from men who devote their lives to researching the Christian heritage of this nation.

I'm not sure you're correct that the country was founded on Christian principles. Certainly most of the folks who were here at the founding of the US were Christians, but there were atheists that were around, too. I also disagree with your assertion that you could not hold public office unless you were a Christian. No religious test was required to hold public office. And if the nation were founded as a Christian nation, then why was that not explicitly stated in the Constitution?

Further, even if it was a Christian nation, historical precedence doesn't justify keeping it that. Otherwise you could argue from similar logic that it should be legal to own slaves.

incognito:

If you don't like what this country is founded on, there are plenty of others for you to choose from. Perhaps, a Muslim country where Christians are horribly persecuted for what they believe, disowned by families at the least, killed in the most henious ways at the worst. Do you see Christians killing atheists in America? There are atheist countries. I heard Napal and Albania are atheistic. You see, there are Christian nations, Buddhist nations, Hindu nations, Catholic nations, atheist nations, Santanist (voodoo) nations. . . .Pretty much eveyone can pick a nation that lines up closer to what they believe. In all the countries that aren't Christian, Christians are badly persecuted in some way. And, yes, there's documented proof. I've seen pictures and so on. But, again, do Christians in America kill atheists?

I don't agree with the principle of slavery -- which this country was founded upon. Is that sufficient reason for me to be exiled?

Further, just because atheists aren't being rounded up and murdered doesn't mean that atheists are always treated fairly, either.

incognito:

The "Christians" who do kill those they disagree with are not Christians at all. We get accused of being extreme, and your reasoning follows that if we are extreme we may kill someone (as in those who bomb abortion clinics). A Christian is a follower of Christ. Otherwise, he/she shouldn't wear the term, because that what Christian means. Jesus said He came to seek and to save the lost. That is His mission statement. That being the case, then we can assume those who wear the "Christian" name but kill (The Ku Klux Klan, for instance) are not really Christian. Christians are to be about what Jesus came to do -- seek and save the lost. That is why we share our faith. Christians diagree on many things, but the central mandate of our faith is to preach to people the message of Jesus Christ saving them from hell.

This is a little too convenient -- anyone who calls himself a Christian, but whose behavior contradicts a Christian teaching is therefore not a Christian. May we then presume from this that no Christians exist?

incognito:

(Sorry this is so long, but trying to touch on many comments made).

And, yes, if Jesus walked our streets today, He would talk about hell. Jesus talked about hell more than heaven. (It does help to read the Bible before making comments about what you think you know). He didn't want people going there. He came to make a way so we don't have to. I can not see how it is rude for us to tell you that you can escape hell through Jesus Christ. Telling you this should be our right, just as telling us you don't believe in God is your right. Whether you choose to believe it is your right.

I doubt Jesus would be threatening hellfire to everyone who disagreed with him. If that were the case, why didn't Jesus and the early Christians make any attempts to convert the Roman senators and Caesar? If not mistaken, the message that he preached was along the lines of "let them be -- those who follow me will have it good in the next life".

incognito:

At work, I listen to the atheistic and gnostic and so on way of thinking all day long: they talk about drinking, sex, drugs. They cuss and swear and offend my Christian beliefs in all sorts of manners. Yet, for me to bring up hell is rude? They make outlandish statements about Jesus being with prostitues before he started his ministry; say things like they want to shoot or kill Bush; say that Christians are psychos because we raise our hands like we are trying to touch something. One person said he woulnd't play Jesus music around the others because they shouldn't be forced to listen to it. Yet, I am forced to listen to their music about all sorts of things contrary to what I believe.

Well, I think you're atheist and agnostic coworkers are rude, too.

incognito:

To me this points to the biggest form of censorship there is: Just leave God out. If He doesn't bother me, I won't bother Him. There is only problem with this. In the beginning. . . .God.

incognito

I am not arguing that God needs to be eliminated from public discourse. I am arguing that I shouldn't be forced to believe in any gods if I don't want to nor should I be forced (via legislation) to live by a Christian's moral code. Having a truly secular government protects the rights of Christians, too!