Reads: 281  | Likes: 0  | Shelves: 0  | Comments: 2

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest
  • Invite

Status: In Progress  |  Genre: Religion and Spirituality  |  House: Booksie Classic

A sad but typical review of a conversation with a misinformed Millennial.

A little learning is a dangerous thing...” - Alexander Pope


The proverb 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing' expresses the idea that a small amount of knowledge can mislead people into thinking that they are more expert than they really are, which can lead to mistakes being made.” -



Sadly, the above quote and explanation describes the majority of today's liberal Millennials. They are nearly impossible to teach as they disagree with almost everything that differs with or threatens their opinions. In fact, it's not only in the realm of teaching, but even having a discussion with them has become increasingly difficult.


I had not planned on writing this, but during a discussion online I received dozens of private messages amazed at the replies from a particular Millennial on the thread of a post I had made. Their amazement wasn't at the brilliance of his comments, they were messaging me about the ignorance and misinformation being displayed. So, I decided to just write up a brief piece to address it.


If you have eyes the above descriptions are clearly evident on social media in particular. I have witnessed, and been part of, countless discussions with this group and the result is always the same. This point was driven home recently in an attempted conversation I was having online. The same tired and played out tactics were used and since I've had a similar discussion with this individual before the outcome was predictable. I purposefully didn't get too deep as I recognized the pointlessness of such an endeavor. However, we did touch on a couple of issues and the results of indoctrination by the bias, leftist media and the liberal modern day public school system became evident immediately.


The Familiar Babble:

Before touching on a couple of topics that came out of this recent discussion, I'd like to share with you some of the typical script used by these folks which was used in this case as well. I'll spare you specific details at this point and just give some examples.


*ullshit propaganda.” This was used several times, typical, nothing need be said as it has been echoed and parroted so much from the left it has lost its sting.


'Pro life' policy doesn't accomplish ANYTHING [emphasis his], it hurts more.” Yes, he really did say this.


As far as religious freedom goes, t[sic]rump wanted to ban Muslims from the country?[sic]” I can feel the reactions of those reading this. Muslim is not a religion, I know, I agree and brought that up. Banning them from our country? I hear you all, partial and selected statement out of context with a much deeper issue at hand. A typical misrepresentation.


Repeated inferences of me not being smart, that I have no arguments (because I wouldn't adhere to his rules and play his game), claiming he automatically “won” (I didn't even know we were battling), claiming that being pro life and against the taking of human life is “a very simple reactionary mindset” and doesn't look at “objective” data, accusation of using ad hominem when he simply misinterpreted a statement (by the way, his comments were full of ad hominems), pointing out typos or grammar errors which have nothing to do with the issues at hand (again, typical...but I don't edit one finger typing), and telling me I need to take more American history education (this one will be expanded on as he was so off base on the point we were discussing it truly made me sad in regards to the failure of today's educational system).


Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State:

This was the main point of contention and he was so convinced he was correct it caused him to state something along the lines of him now “knowing” he was more educated on this and, as has been previously stated, I really need to take some American history courses. Well, let's take a quick look.


This area of American history was misrepresented back when I was in school, not just currently. However, the script has been flipped. When I was in junior high, high school, and some college, the main inaccuracy regarding this issue was that it was presented as though the founders of our nation were all Christians. While it's true the vast majority were “religious,” they were not all Christians. The false claim being taught as fact today is that the vast majority of the founding fathers were not religious at all. In fact, my Millennial conversation partner diligently insisted they were not religious.


I tried to explain to him that was simply not true and that the first portion of the First Amendment was originated as protection of the Church, or religion, FROM the state. He held me in complete contempt for my claim to the point of “informing” me citizens are not allowed to vote according to their Christian worldview. Which is, of course, foolishness. Everyone, Christian or not, carries their worldview into the voting booth. But I digress.


Amendment 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...or the right of the people to...petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”


Clearly I've left some words out, free speech, press, peaceful assembly, but the quote provided takes nothing out of context as “religion” is one of the groups and issues addressed. This clearly shows the protection of religion FROM Congress, and even makes provision for religion to petition the Government concerning grievances.

My Millennial conversation partner denied this repeatedly and threw ad hominem after ad hominem at me for presenting this truth. Let's look a little further.


The Founding Fathers wrote the Amendment in response to two centuries of state-sponsored religious conflict and oppression in America, and with a keen understanding of the religious persecution in European nations resulting from official state religions and religious wars” (Anti-Defamation League > resources, online).


I'll make the point again, who is being protected from who in this amendment? I think it's quite clear to anyone willing to accept the truth, and accept the reality of how it's been understood throughout our entire history.


The Vast Majority Were Not Religious!”

Is this true? Was my Millennial chat mate right? Short answer, “no.” But, I'll expand a bit.


To begin with, let's remember the subject of one's faith does not have to be God in order to be considered a religion, or declare a person religious. That's not too significant, but even if he had taken his claim a step further saying they didn't believe in God, he would still be mistaken.


Even liberal scholars from liberal universities have “generally argued that the majority of the Founders were religious rationalists or Unitarians [both considered religions, both within specific worldviews].”* On the other end of the spectrum, “pastors and other writers who identify themselves as Evangelicals have claimed not only that most of the Founders held orthodox beliefs but also that some were born-again Christians.”**


This much we do know, “most were Protestants. The largest number were raised in the three largest Christian traditions of colonial American – Anglicanism (as in the cases of John Jay, George Washington, and Edward Rutledge). Presbyterianism (as in the case of Richard Stockton and the Rev. John Witherspoon), and Congregationalism (as in the cases of John Adams and Samuel Adams). Other Protestant groups included the Society of Friends (Quakers), the Lutherans, and the Dutch Reformed. Three founders – Charles Carroll and Daniel Carroll of Maryland and Thomas Fitzsimmons of Pennsylvania – were of Roman Catholic heritage.”***


...most Founders appear to have been orthodox (or 'right-believing') Christians. Most were baptized, listed on church rolls, married to practicing Christians, and frequent or at least sporadic attenders of services of Christian worship. In public statements, most invoked divine assistance.”****


The only problem lies within how much Deism influenced each of these individuals. The school of religious thought called Deism had gained widespread existence by the 18th century. But the problem is with how orthodox their beliefs remained, which is not an issue of whether or not they were religious or belonged to a religion. Deism itself, as stated above, was indeed a school of religious thought.


So were they “religious?” Absolutely. This truth played a great role in why they found freedom of religion so significant as to include it in the very first of the amendments. Sorry Millennial, wrong again.


Originally I was going to continue from here and briefly take a look at abortion as it was another point of contention in our discussion. He actually said, “the argument based on much data that has been taken that making abortion illegal is very detrimental to the country..”, and “to believe that being pro-life is helpful towards humanity you have to have only a very simple reactionary mindset that doesn't actually look at objective data,” and most troublesome, and the phrase I was going to focus on, “please site where in the Bible it is against abortion, because I can site several times in the Bible where people actually do get abortions.”


Of course I blame him for his ignorance, we are all expected to grow in our learning, but I don't put all the blame on him or those who fall into the same category. A large part of the problem is the ever increasing liberalism of the education system. It has happened so gradually, albeit it advancing more rapidly in recent years, those within the system, the students, those being taught, are so conditioned, so indoctrinated they can't see how legitimate the claim is. In fact, when I commented on the increasing liberalism of the school system he called me “Rush Limbaugh.” They just don't get it.


I think I'll just end this here. I will be addressing his comment regarding the Bible and abortion in an article that will be released soon so keep your eyes open for that.


God bless.


Jeff Hagan



*, “The Founding Fathers, Deism, and Christianity,” by Holmes, David L.




Submitted: December 27, 2019

© Copyright 2021 TrueGraceMinistries. All rights reserved.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest
  • Invite

Add Your Comments:



Sat, December 28th, 2019 5:13am


I really find it weird how people nowadays blame liberalism on schools. Is it a global issue or just American, bc I don't blame my own views on the education I've received.

I think to understand people's view on abortion and how it can be good is crucial. Many people think that if you can't take care of the child and the state won't either, it's no use in the first place. In the end, having a kid when u r not ready can easily end the mother's own life. And you can look at it from thia way too: overpopulation is an issue. Many millenials don't care if boomers don't get their retirement money bc millenials aren't making enough kids. And maybe they don't want to bring kids into a world like ours.

Also, "muslim is not a religion". It's not, but that's only because you are using the word wrong. Islam is the religion, they r called muslims. You don't say christian is a religion either, it's christianity.

Mon, December 30th, 2019 10:39pm


You're points on abortion...simple fix. If one is not ready don't have unprotected sex. That's the solution, not the taking of life. As for not recognizing the liberal indoctrination happening in the public school system, I have nothing really to say. If that can't be seen, one does not want to see it. The removal of morals, the push of LGBTQ-XYZ (they are going to steal the entire alphabet soon), etc.

I'll concede to semantics on Muslim and Islam, but your focus was on the main points of the brief article, only on a couple of points made in passing. And it's the attitude with which they discourse. It's disrespectful and intolerant although they champion tolerance. When I'm spoken to in such a way I may reply in kind, I may snip back, but the majority are unable to converse without the use of straw men, ad hominems and misrepresentative fallacies, illogical fallacies and comparisons.

And I'll also concede I am definitely generalizing by the use of "Millennials" to describe the entire group. That was merely done for reasons that are threefold: 1. they are the majority of this type of reactionary discourse; 2. a purposeful choice for a title to grab attention as is the normal practice; and 3. their repeated use of "boomers" as though it's a prerogative term. Which is a bit humorous as none of us take it as an insult even when meant as such.

Thank you so much for your thoughts. I do appreciate it.

Tue, December 31st, 2019 10:39am

Facebook Comments

More Religion and Spirituality Articles

Other Content by TrueGraceMinistries

Article / Religion and Spirituality

Article / Religion and Spirituality