I get typical Right wing and Christian propaganda email from one of my contacts. Feel like writing a response to this one? Most of you folks are much better at it than I am.
I don’t really understand the premise of this one. They talk about “freedom of religion,” but there is absolutely no mention of Vishnu in any of the state constitutions. How is that religious freedom?
I’m not really clear on how that statement from Barack Obama is an attempt to suppress freedom of religion
Funny thing is, there’s no mention of Jesus, either. There’s nothing in any of those preambles that is specifically Christian, as opposed to any other belief system that says there is a God.
Of course, you should realize that nothing you say to these people to refute these glurge emails is likely to make one bit of difference. It’s pretty much a waste of your time.
Actually, the e-mail I received didn’t have the beginning part, it started with: "President Barack Obama said in Turkey: "
I would point out that all of the religions mentioned worship some sort of Supreme being and that none of the preambles mention any particular religion. Once again Obama is right and the wackjobs are confusing A god with MY god.
Why respond? Most email programs have some way to block sender, or route stuff to your spam folder.
Suppressing other religions IS religious freedom, silly.
FSM be praised!
Unfortunately, the worst offenders are sometimes your dear Grandma, or beloved Aunt Sarah. You don’t want to block them, in case they send you their stuffing recipe. On the other hand, you don’t want to open their letters titled “Re:RE:re:Re:RE: <whatever it is>”, either, because they usually have appended their own thoughts to today’s glurge, and will be Very Hurt if you don’t respond. You love Grandma and Aunt Sarah, you just wish that they’d never learned to forward stuff, or at least that they would learn how to cut and paste the body of the letter without forwarding it.
Most glurge senders sincerely think that you’re interested or should be interested in this stuff. Especially if you’re a Godless Heathen like me. It’s all new and shiny to them. They really believe that you can Make Money Fast if you follow these three easy steps, and are shocked that they get such nasty replies to it. They really think that Microsoft is gonna pay out good money to those who forward emails. My brother, who does not suffer fools gladly, reduced one of our cousins to tears in his response to her group email. He doesn’t like having his email address widely known, and was not particularly kind in informing her of the use of the BCC function, as well as the fact that he is not interested in any sort of glurge.
In the alternative, one can, as I have, become known as the family curmudgeon who does not deal with bullshit. Or sign them up for gay porn, which should either shock them bad enough that you get early inheritance, or at least they never log on a computer again.
Look, the solution is very simple: Reply to the e-mail saying, “Please do not forward this sort of thing to me again.”
If they try to argue, say, “Please show some respect for my wishes.”
Solution to what? I never said I had a problem not knowing how to no longer receive these type of e-mails. I guess I should have been more clear in my OP.
What’s a good response that just because all 50 states acknowledge God, this doesn’t mean the “out-of-control” federal courts and ACLU are wrong?
In my world, the most appropriate response is something like “You’re a fucking moron. Don’t contact me again. Die. Die. Die.”
Of course, as Lynn pointed out, if the sender was Dear Aunt Suzy, that may seem harsh.
You’ve posted a link to content on my website that is entirely referential in nature (all 50 states refer to “God” in one way or another in their respective state constitutions, and, my site published the content in each constitution that does that), which is NOT from any “email” nor has my site sent out any “email” to you or anyone else in reference to that thread on my site or any other thread on my site.
My site does not publish any newsletter, I don’t email anyone with my site’s contents, nor do I have plans to do so.
If you don’t care for the contents on my site, don’t read it. If you don’t care for email you’ve received from someone else reprinting content from my site (which is your problem as to your misleading complaint here), don’t read that. Your problem isn’t the content you’re receiving but your irritation with information you don’t care to read. So don’t read it.
If you want to complain about email you’re getting from someone else, at least be realistic and direct enough to identify the sender and not create, as you have here, the allusion that it was my site that sent out that content to you (that you’re irritated about) in any email.
I think your rather murky, smoke-ridden post, however, well suits your state of mind.
Maybe you should just stop using email if it’s such a hassle for you.
About the content that is published on my site, however (not about Fantome’s or anyone else’s troubles with managing their email), that’s interesting information about state constitutions.
What I posted does not direct, dictate or demand anyone believe in anything that’s contained therein.
If you’re in a fearful state of mind – some here appear to be so – then anyone declaring “their” faith (as all fifty states have done in the preambles to their respective state constitutions, as per what I posted on my site) could then be perceived as threatening.
If you have no faith in anything, or faith in a silly idea (flying spaghetti monster, whatever) to ridicule religious theology you don’t respect or understand or find tolerable in your social environment, then, anyone else with clear or clearer ideas that work for them is going to be threatening. So ridicule follows.
However, I can’t see how it would become a personal issue of ridiculing other individuals for publishing sheer information (as I did on my website).
I’d like to repeat, however, that if you don’t like any email you’re receiving, learn to handle your email more efficiently and to accommodate your likes and dislikes.
My website, however, did not send out any email with reference to nor copies of that published site content of mine. You might want to be more specific in your complaints if you want to actually resolve the issues you’re complaining about. I have nothing to do with your inbox, your email problems, nor your “feelings” about the contents on any or all state constitutions, however.
Would it be worth mentioning that the 50 state constitutions were written between 1776 and 1959; 48 of those 50 constitutions were written when women could not vote; [40-something?] were written when slavery was still legal; you could go on and on with such a list. Taking what is clearly a formulaic utterance over the following fifty years’ worth of legal thought seems ignorant at best.
I never implied the email was from your site. As a matter of fact, I implied the opposite when I mentioned that the e-mail did not include the beginning part. The email was not from a site at all but just text, which is pretty hard to link to, so I Googled a portion of it and your site was one of many hits with the same text. Have a problem with me linking your site in a thread here? Take it up with the folks that run this one.
I doubt anyone gives a damn.
I’ll read whatever I like. I don’t like everything I like here either, but me continuing to read it anyway is my business and I don’t need you or anyone else telling me what to read.
Oh? You’re sure that content originated on your site or you’re just flattering yourself?
What was misleading?
You’re making stuff up. I was never irritated and I do care to read it.
That’s the third time you said that. I’ll read what I like.
Oh, get a clue. I mentioned it was one of my contacts and if you bothered to read the responses here with mentions of “Aunt Sarah” and other quotes, people here realize I was only linking to the content and not implying that the website I linked to was responsible for the email.
A bit of a drama queen?
Maybe you should stop making things up.
Why yes, I think it would be worth mentioning those facts. Context is vital.
Why not just quote the Treaty of Tripoli?
“Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
“I’m sorry, I’m a militant agnostic. I don’t know and neither do you.”