Young People turned off to Christianity
Ray Fischer
/This post, written by Sara Robinson, originally appeared on Orcinus
/
I've been saying for a while now that the religious right in America
finally and firmly jumped the shark over
the past few years. But now that that big ol' shark's behind them,
there's another bunch of critters looming ahead that may prove to be
even more damning. It's that whole big flock of chickens that are
finally coming home to roost.
I don't know how long they thought they were going to go on that way,
all self-righteous and judgmental, blaming homosexuals and feminists
for everything from 9/11 to the price of gas, ignoring the interests of
the poor in favor of those of big business, and dismissing any kind of
environmental stewardship as nothing more than a way to waste time
until the Rapture comes. Clearly, the didn't see anything at all wrong with
elevating the most spiteful and amoral among them as their national
spokespeople, and rewarding them in direct proportion to the heat of
their rhetoric. No, these folks were on fire (we're still not sure if it
was Jesus or heartburn), and they weren't afraid to let their bilious
light shine on the TV, in the streets, all the way to the White House.
They did their best to set it high above the rest of the culture,
where none of the rest of us could miss it if we wanted to.
And now, a new study reveals that young Americans, both inside and outside
Christianity, have indeed taken note of this righteous spectacle-- and a
large and growing majority of them are absolutely revolted by what they've
seen.
A study released last week by the Barna Group, a reputable Evangelical
research and polling firm, found that under-30s -- both Christian and
non-Christian -- are strikingly more critical of Christianity than their
peers were just a decade ago. According to the summary report, Barna
pollster David Kinnaman found that the opinions of non-Christians, in
particular, had slid like a rock in that time frame. Ten years ago, "the
vast majority" of non-Christians had generally favorable views of
Christianity. Now, that number stands at just 16%. When asked
specifically about Evangelicals, the number are even worse: only 3% of
non-Christian Millennials have positive associations with Evangelicals.
Among the Boomers, it's eight times higher.
When Kinnaman asked senior pastors if they were seeing this too, half of
them told him that, yes, they are finding their work to be an uphill
battle -- "because people are increasingly hostile and negative toward
Christianity." And his research bore this out. When he ranked young
non-Christians' most common perceptions of Christianity, nine of the 12
most common attributes they named were negative ones. According to the
study, "Common negative perceptions include that present-day
Christianity is judgmental (87%), hypocritical (85%), old-fashioned
(78%), and too involved in politics (75%)."
And this wasn't just ignorance talking. The people interviewed had an
average of five Christian friends. Eighty percent of them had spent at
least six months attending church themselves in the past; and half of
them had considered becoming Christian, but rejected it. Familiarity
with the faith, it appears, has bred quite a bit of contempt:
"As we probed why young people had come to such conclusions, I was
surprised how much their perceptions were rooted in specific stories
and personal interactions with Christians and in churches. When they
labeled Christians as judgmental this was not merely spiritual
defensiveness. It was frequently the result of truly 'unChristian'
experiences. We discovered that the descriptions that young people
offered of Christianity were more thoughtful, nuanced, and
experiential than expected."
Some of the young adults' disdain for Christianity is the result of
another new wrinkle that was nowhere on the scene a decade ago. The
study found that 91% of non-Christians in America -- joined by 80% of
the their peers in the pews -- now believe that Christianity is
"anti-homosexual." (Gee. I can't imagine where they got that idea.)
And no, they don't mean that in a good, God-fearing, General-JC-Christian
sort of way. In the Barna summary, Kinnaman says, "Non-Christians and
Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose
homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and
unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent
criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made
homosexuality a "bigger sin" than anything else. Moreover, they claim that
the church has not helped them apply the biblical teaching on homosexuality
to their friendships with gays and lesbians."
Yeah, well, it's hard to find a practical way to apply a contradiction
like "hate the sin, love the sinner" -- especially when everybody who
isn't an ideologue knows that the "sin" is a pre-determined biological
trait.
Roughly a quarter of both the Christians and non-Christians in the
under-30 group also mentioned -- without being prompted -- that
"Christianity has changed from what it used to be," and that it "no
longer looks like Jesus." Their sheer frustration level over how far
the modern Christianity had deviated from its roots took Kinnaman by
surprise:
In our interviews, we kept encountering young people - both those
inside the church and outside of it - who said that something was
broken in the present-day expression of Christianity. Their
perceptions about Christianity were not always accurate, but what
surprised me was not only the severity of their frustration with
Christians, but also how frequently young born again Christians
expressed some of the very same comments as young non-Christians."
And, to top it all off, Kinnaman found that the American population as
a whole is on a long-term trendline that's moving the country away from
Christianity. "This is not a passing fad wherein young people will
become 'more Christian' as they grow up," the Barna report states.
"While Christianity remains the typical experience and most common
faith in America, a fundamental recalibration is occurring within the
spiritual allegiance of America's upcoming generations." This trendline
points to a far more diverse -- and possibly more secular -- nation in
the decades ahead:
This study is prompting quite a bit of soul-searching among
Evangelicals. Some feel this study verifies things they've long
suspected; others are just stunned. Maybe it's the way everybody's
always ignored their persistent conversion efforts -- they just got so
used to being tuned out by the mainstream culture that it never occurred
to them that anyone might ever take anything they said seriously. And
now, they're genuinely surprised to find out that yes, we were
listening -- and yes, we did take it all very much to heart. And, furthermore,
what we've heard has deeply damaged our opinion of them.
It seems likely that this study will trigger the persecution reflex
among the more reactionary and defensive factions of the religious
right. They've always felt like an embattled minority; and this report
just proves what they've always intuited, which is that they're living
amid a dominant culture that's increasingly hostile to their beliefs.
(Some groups seem poised to honestly examine their own role in fostering
that hostility; however, the more radical a group is, the less likely
they are to bother with this.)
But at least it will be harder now for them to delude themselves that
their efforts to drag us into theocracy are succeeding. The Barna
numbers clearly show that the goal of making America a Christian nation
is actually receding into the distance as successive generations turn
away from the faith -- in no small part because they're gagging on the
overwhelming authoritarian stench that's seeped in from the extremist
edges toward the great middle.
But the study also opens the way for new developments that may prove
to be very positive -- both for Christians, and for secular America.
-- There's a surprisingly unified sense between young adults, both
inside and outside the faith, that the divisive, judgmental
authoritarianism that's dominated Evangelical Christianity for the past
30 years has run its course. Furthermore: the "insiders" (as Barna terms
Christians) see the same issues and agree with many of the criticisms as
those on the outside -- and are openly talking about taking their
theology in some new directions. There's an emerging sense that it's
time to let go of the harsh legalism that's defined American
Protestantism for the past three decades, and return to something more
like the Social Gospel that demanded more of Christians than merely
passing judgment on the details of other people's lives.
-- With the publication of this study, homosexuality's long, mean run
as the hot-button issue that reliably rallies the faithful is probably
finished. When even the next generation of Christians thinks their
elders' behavior on this issue is useless and shameful, even the most
die-hard culture warriors will be forced to admit that this battle is
finally over -- and they lost.
As more and more Evangelical groups read the writing on the wall and
back away from the issue, it may mean that full equality for gays comes
considerably faster and with far less resistance than it has in the
past.
-- This study gives lots of ammunition to would-be reformers within the
Christian movement, and will thus hasten the demise of the old-guard
leaders who built vast empires on gay-hating and abortion-baiting. Last
year, Rev. Joel Hunter
resigned as the head of the Christian Coalition after just three weeks
after being hired because the board refused to let him back away from
abortion and homosexuality as their key issues, and re-orient the group
toward issues like social justice and the environment, which he argued
were more interesting to younger Christians. This report gives strong
support to reform-minded leaders like Hunter, so we may see more of them
emerging to take the Christian right in new directions over the next
few years.
-- The long-term trend toward a less Christian nation is probably good
news for liberalism in general. If there are comparatively fewer
Christians, there will be more people of other faiths -- though other
Barna studies have found that the biggest gains of all are being made
among atheist and agnostic free-thinkers, who are also the most likely
to be political liberals. This, in turn, bodes well for the various
scientific fields that have come under attack by the religious right;
and it opens the way for Christians and non-Christians to find some
fresh common ground on issues like social justice and the environment
as
the religious leadership changes.
Overall, the new Barna study seems to offer some hopeful prospects for
a more generally liberal and diverse America in the decades ahead.
Evangelical Christianity won't go away -- but there's a shift in its
essential character afoot, which may even reverse the trend toward
minority status over time. And it seem likely that big changes are
coming that will not only make it more progressive in its view of its
own mission; but will also make it a much better friend to democracy
than it's been in recent years.
/*Sara Robinson has worked as an editor or columnist for several
national magazines, on beats as varied as sports, travel, and the
Olympics; and has contributed to over 80 computer games for EA,
Lucasfilm, Disney, and many other companies.* /
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
No One
> http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/robinson/64873/*
>
> /This post, written by Sara Robinson, originally appeared on Orcinus
> I don't know how long they thought they were going to go on that way,
> all self-righteous and judgmental, blaming homosexuals and feminists
> for everything from 9/11 to the price of gas, <snip>
> And now, a new study reveals that young Americans, both inside and outside
> Christianity, have indeed taken note of this righteous spectacle-- and a
> large and growing majority of them are absolutely revolted by what they've
> seen.
>
> A study released last week by the Barna Group, a reputable Evangelical
> research and polling firm, found that under-30s -- both Christian and
> non-Christian -- are strikingly more critical of Christianity than their
> peers were just a decade ago.
No surprise - by just rolling their eyes and ignoring the nuts, the
mainstream Christians let the Wingnuts become the official spokesmen
for Christianity. (By "mainstream", I mean the ones who go to church
on Sunday morning for whatever reason and spend the rest of the week
doing their own thing. Or the politicians who regularly go to church
but are like the Roman senator in _Spartacus_ who said, "Publicly I
believe in all the gods; privately I don't believe in any.")
Besides, how many 20 year olds are going to think highly of a religion
that does everything possible to make them feel guilty about sex?
Michael Gray
>http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/robinson/64873/*
>
>/This post, written by Sara Robinson, originally appeared on Orcinus
>/
>
>I've been saying for a while now that the religious right in America
>finally and firmly jumped the shark over
>the past few years. But now that that big ol' shark's behind them,
>there's another bunch of critters looming ahead that may prove to be
>even more damning. It's that whole big flock of chickens that are
>finally coming home to roost.
:
Interesting.
It is revealing that none of the stated objections are based on the
concept of god as being a fiction, but instead on the behaviour of
self-proclaimed Christian hypocrites.
This is disappointing, as it shows that the respondents have yet to
grow out of the belief in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy.
(Or that the Barna Group with-held any atheistic comments, which would
not surprise me, given that:
1) They are Christians, who by definition are required to lie.
2) They are funded by Christians, who are required to lie.)
If they were losing interest because they came to the adult
realisation that it is a steaming pile of fraudulent bullshit, I would
inclined to celebrate.
Michael Gray
Denis Loubet
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:470d9bd9$0$14059$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/robinson/64873/*
>
> /This post, written by Sara Robinson, originally appeared on Orcinus
> /
>
> I've been saying for a while now that the religious right in America
> finally and firmly jumped the shark over
> the past few years. But now that that big ol' shark's behind them,
> there's another bunch of critters looming ahead that may prove to be
> even more damning. It's that whole big flock of chickens that are
> finally coming home to roost.
Well, this has my mouth watering, but I've been disappointed before.
I hope this plays out as the article suggests.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
patrick...@standardregister.com
> http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/robinson/64873/*
>
> /This post, written by Sara Robinson, originally appeared on Orcinus
> /
>
> I've been saying for a while now that the religious right in America
> finally and firmly jumped the shark over
> the past few years. But now that that big ol' shark's behind them,
> there's another bunch of critters looming ahead that may prove to be
> even more damning. It's that whole big flock of chickens that are
> finally coming home to roost.
>
The author makes the same mistake that most anti-religious bigots
make. She starts out talking about the "religious right" but later on
simply uses the term "Christians", then Evangelical Christians, then
religious right again, etc. She needs to make up her mind who she is
speaking about.
> I don't know how long they thought they were going to go on that way,
> all self-righteous and judgmental, blaming homosexuals and feminists
> for everything from 9/11 to the price of gas, ignoring the interests of
> the poor in favor of those of big business, and dismissing any kind of
> environmental stewardship as nothing more than a way to waste time
> until the Rapture comes.
This is nothing but rhetoric.
> Clearly, the didn't see anything at all wrong with
> elevating the most spiteful and amoral among them as their national
> spokespeople, and rewarding them in direct proportion to the heat of
> their rhetoric.
So what? The feminists elevated the most spiteful and amoral amongst
them as well. Gloria Steinem was not exactly a paragon of moderation
and tolerance, now was she? Her solicited suggestions for reforms in
the law were rejected out of hand as being so biased and
unconstitutionally draconic as to be worthless to even use as a basis
to start from.
> No, these folks were on fire (we're still not sure if it
> was Jesus or heartburn), and they weren't afraid to let their bilious
> light shine on the TV, in the streets, all the way to the White House.
> They did their best to set it high above the rest of the culture,
> where none of the rest of us could miss it if we wanted to.
>
Which is also true of the feminists.
> And now, a new study reveals that young Americans, both inside and outside
> Christianity, have indeed taken note of this righteous spectacle-- and a
> large and growing majority of them are absolutely revolted by what they've
> seen.
>
And studies also show that modern young women are reluctant to
identify themselves as feminists. So what we're actually here is
nothing specific to Christianity, but is a trend amongst social
movements regardless of what specific tenets they hold.
> A study released last week by the Barna Group, a reputable Evangelical
> research and polling firm, found that under-30s -- both Christian and
> non-Christian -- are strikingly more critical of Christianity than their
> peers were just a decade ago.
I wonder if they would have been "reputable" if their findings hadn't
agreed with author's bias.
> According to the summary report, Barna
> pollster David Kinnaman found that the opinions of non-Christians, in
> particular, had slid like a rock in that time frame. Ten years ago, "the
> vast majority" of non-Christians had generally favorable views of
> Christianity. Now, that number stands at just 16%. When asked
> specifically about Evangelicals, the number are even worse: only 3% of
> non-Christian Millennials have positive associations with Evangelicals.
> Among the Boomers, it's eight times higher.
>
And with biased articles like this being broadcast worldwide, that
really comes as no surprise.
> When Kinnaman asked senior pastors if they were seeing this too, half of
> them told him that, yes, they are finding their work to be an uphill
> battle -- "because people are increasingly hostile and negative toward
> Christianity." And his research bore this out. When he ranked young
> non-Christians' most common perceptions of Christianity, nine of the 12
> most common attributes they named were negative ones. According to the
> study, "Common negative perceptions include that present-day
> Christianity is judgmental (87%), hypocritical (85%), old-fashioned
> (78%), and too involved in politics (75%)."
>
And gee, what a surprise. The most common negative perceptions about
Christianity are exactly the most common insults flung at Christianity
by the leftists. Sort of a self fufilling prophecy there. You could,
of course, argue that the perceptions are simply recognitions of the
truth and that the accusations are only made because they are true,
but that doesn't wash. Because, as earlier asserted in the article,
ten years ago the perceptions were completely different and yet there
is no evidence whatsoever that Christianity in 1997 was appreciably
different than Christianity in 2007. So what has changed here is that
the accusations have taken root in society and transformed mass
opinion.
> And this wasn't just ignorance talking. The people interviewed had an
> average of five Christian friends. Eighty percent of them had spent at
> least six months attending church themselves in the past; and half of
> them had considered becoming Christian, but rejected it. Familiarity
> with the faith, it appears, has bred quite a bit of contempt:
>
No doubt. Liberal culture in America is tolerant and open minded in
name only. In practice, it is quite militant. Young people in
general have a great need to belong, and being openly Christian is not
exactly a ticket to entrance with the "in crowd" in today's liberal
society.
> "As we probed why young people had come to such conclusions, I was
> surprised how much their perceptions were rooted in specific stories
> and personal interactions with Christians and in churches. When they
> labeled Christians as judgmental this was not merely spiritual
> defensiveness. It was frequently the result of truly 'unChristian'
> experiences. We discovered that the descriptions that young people
> offered of Christianity were more thoughtful, nuanced, and
> experiential than expected."
>
I'm sure people have had unChristian experiences throughout history.
I doubt the people burned at the stake during the Inquisition were
real fans of Christianity. You'll need a lot more evidence than that
to demonstrate that there has been some sudden transformation of
Christians into fascist hatemongers in the last decade. The key word
in that paragraph is "perceptions". Someone 40 years ago may have the
exact same experience as someone today and yet not labelled it as
judgemental as they had not grown up indoctrinated in liberal values
and culture the way people are today.
Once again, feminism comes to mind -- feminism taught women to value
career above all else, and now you have news reports of the amazing
discovery that career women are finding their lives unfufilling as
they near the end of their reproductive lives without having started a
family.
> Some of the young adults' disdain for Christianity is the result of
> another new wrinkle that was nowhere on the scene a decade ago. The
> study found that 91% of non-Christians in America -- joined by 80% of
> the their peers in the pews -- now believe that Christianity is
> "anti-homosexual." (Gee. I can't imagine where they got that idea.)
It was certainly on the scene a decade ago. Conservative Christianity
has always been anti-homosexual. That's nothing new or different.
What's new and different is that being anti-homosexual is now out of
fashion.
> And no, they don't mean that in a good, God-fearing, General-JC-Christian
> sort of way. In the Barna summary, Kinnaman says, "Non-Christians and
> Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose
> homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and
> unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent
> criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made
> homosexuality a "bigger sin" than anything else. Moreover, they claim that
> the church has not helped them apply the biblical teaching on homosexuality
> to their friendships with gays and lesbians."
>
This is further evidence that this is all a matter of warped
perception. Murder is certainly a bigger sin than homosexuality. But
murder is already illegal in secular society, so there's not much use
to rail against it from the pulpit, now is there? On the other hand,
you may have gay pride parades marching right past the front door of
the church. There is no real risk that the congregation will be
influenced by secular society into suddenly supporting murder as a
viable activity. The same cannot be said of homosexuality.
> Yeah, well, it's hard to find a practical way to apply a contradiction
> like "hate the sin, love the sinner" -- especially when everybody who
> isn't an ideologue knows that the "sin" is a pre-determined biological
> trait.
>
Another paragraph which imparts no information, but is instead nothing
but bias. Not that the original author will ever see my response, but
just as a note -- if one's purpose is to simply address those who
already agree, then there's really no point in writing something like
this article at all. if one's point is to convince others of the
rightness of one's point of view, however, then penning blantaly
biased and mean spirited paragraphs like the above only detract from
the credibility of the piece as a whole and detract from the actual
evidence and arguments being made.
> Roughly a quarter of both the Christians and non-Christians in the
> under-30 group also mentioned -- without being prompted -- that
> "Christianity has changed from what it used to be," and that it "no
> longer looks like Jesus." Their sheer frustration level over how far
> the modern Christianity had deviated from its roots took Kinnaman by
> surprise:
>
Of course, the under-30 group has, of necessity simply by virtue of
membership in the group, limited experience of what Christianity used
to be. So the point here is of rather limited significance in
demonstrating any actual change in Christianity. What it rather says
is "Christianity didn't turn out to be what I wanted it to be" which
is an entirely different proposition. And is demonstrated amply by
the previous section on homosexuality. Conservative churches have
always been openly anti-homosexual, from Biblical times right on up to
the present day. Christianity didn't change. On the contrary,
society changed and Christianity remained the same.
> In our interviews, we kept encountering young people - both those
> inside the church and outside of it - who said that something was
> broken in the present-day expression of Christianity. Their
> perceptions about Christianity were not always accurate, but what
> surprised me was not only the severity of their frustration with
> Christians, but also how frequently young born again Christians
> expressed some of the very same comments as young non-Christians."
>
I don't see why that should be surprising. Young born again
Christians do not spend 24 hours a day in Church. They go to school
with, work with, and otherwise interact with mainstream society. As
Christians in 2007 they face an uphill battle being accepted by that
society, just as an atheist would have faced a similar uphill battle
attempting to integrate into a mostly Christian society in 1857. The
general tendency is to believe that whatever society's prevailing
attitudes are at the time are correct. So therefore it is natural
that impressionable young people will turn against their own beliefs
and Church. It is expected both from peer pressure and from the
principle that people generally take the path of least resistance.
It's far easier to just reject your faith and meet with mainstream
approval than it is to maintain your faith in the face of a liberal
society which is hostile towards it.
> And, to top it all off, Kinnaman found that the American population as
> a whole is on a long-term trendline that's moving the country away from
> Christianity. "This is not a passing fad wherein young people will
> become 'more Christian' as they grow up," the Barna report states.
> "While Christianity remains the typical experience and most common
> faith in America, a fundamental recalibration is occurring within the
> spiritual allegiance of America's upcoming generations." This trendline
> points to a far more diverse -- and possibly more secular -- nation in
> the decades ahead:
>
I have no doubt that religion is in an irreversible decline in Western
society for the forseeable future.
> This study is prompting quite a bit of soul-searching among
> Evangelicals. Some feel this study verifies things they've long
> suspected; others are just stunned. Maybe it's the way everybody's
> always ignored their persistent conversion efforts -- they just got so
> used to being tuned out by the mainstream culture that it never occurred
> to them that anyone might ever take anything they said seriously. And
> now, they're genuinely surprised to find out that yes, we were
> listening -- and yes, we did take it all very much to heart. And, furthermore,
> what we've heard has deeply damaged our opinion of them.
>
Yes "maybe" that's what happened. And maybe it isn't. The
speculation of what the inner thoughts and feelings of Christian
evangelicals are, when coming from an author whose article has a clear
anti-Christian bias, is "suspect" to put it mildly.
> It seems likely that this study will trigger the persecution reflex
> among the more reactionary and defensive factions of the religious
> right. They've always felt like an embattled minority; and this report
> just proves what they've always intuited, which is that they're living
> amid a dominant culture that's increasingly hostile to their beliefs.
> (Some groups seem poised to honestly examine their own role in fostering
> that hostility; however, the more radical a group is, the less likely
> they are to bother with this.)
>
I seriously doubt this study will trigger anything at all. It simply
isn't significant enough to cause a massive shakeup or soul searching
effort on the part of the Christian community as a whole.
> But at least it will be harder now for them to delude themselves that
> their efforts to drag us into theocracy are succeeding.
Indeed. Now I wonder what would make it harder for the author to
delude herself into thinking that anybody was attempting to "drag us
into theocracy" in the first place. Having a moment of silence in
schools, putting the ten commandments on courthouses, having a manger
scene at a public building at Christmas, etc are hardly "theocracy."
If the author wants to see theocracy, I invite her to move to
Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.
> The Barna
> numbers clearly show that the goal of making America a Christian nation
> is actually receding into the distance as successive generations turn
> away from the faith -- in no small part because they're gagging on the
> overwhelming authoritarian stench that's seeped in from the extremist
> edges toward the great middle.
>
Happily, the same can be said of feminism.
> But the study also opens the way for new developments that may prove
> to be very positive -- both for Christians, and for secular America.
>
Where, in this case "positive" is a euphemism for "agrees with liberal
leftist values"
> -- There's a surprisingly unified sense between young adults, both
> inside and outside the faith, that the divisive, judgmental
> authoritarianism that's dominated Evangelical Christianity for the past
> 30 years has run its course.
For now, maybe. Religion, like most other social trends, runs in
cycles. There are alternating periods of reformation and revivalism.
The same evangelical fever that flared up in the 70s and 80s and is
petering out now also gripped the nation late last century as well.
It will no doubt come again.
> Furthermore: the "insiders" (as Barna terms
> Christians) see the same issues and agree with many of the criticisms as
> those on the outside -- and are openly talking about taking their
> theology in some new directions. There's an emerging sense that it's
> time to let go of the harsh legalism that's defined American
> Protestantism for the past three decades, and return to something more
> like the Social Gospel that demanded more of Christians than merely
> passing judgment on the details of other people's lives.
>
That's the first thing in this article that I can say I wholeheartedly
agree with.
> -- With the publication of this study, homosexuality's long, mean run
> as the hot-button issue that reliably rallies the faithful is probably
> finished.
Again, I think this gives the study too much credit. It is not a
groundshaking revolutionary development in Christianity.
Homosexuality's status as hot-button issue would be dead with or
without this study, as societal attitudes are simply making the
homosexuality debate a dead issue.
> When even the next generation of Christians thinks their
> elders' behavior on this issue is useless and shameful, even the most
> die-hard culture warriors will be forced to admit that this battle is
> finally over -- and they lost.
>
I'm sure they will lose, but I'm not certain they've lost. The main
objection to homosexuality is not homosexuality itself, it is
specifically homosexual marriage. And studies show that the majority
of Americans do still oppose that. I think that majority will shrink
over time, but I do not think it is fair to say that they have already
lost.
> As more and more Evangelical groups read the writing on the wall and
> back away from the issue, it may mean that full equality for gays comes
> considerably faster and with far less resistance than it has in the
> past.
>
Gays already have full equality. They are guaranteed equal
opportunity and protection under the law and have been for years.
> -- This study gives lots of ammunition to would-be reformers within the
> Christian movement, and will thus hasten the demise of the old-guard
> leaders who built vast empires on gay-hating and abortion-baiting. Last
> year, Rev. Joel Hunter
>
> resigned as the head of the Christian Coalition after just three weeks
> after being hired because the board refused to let him back away from
> abortion and homosexuality as their key issues, and re-orient the group
> toward issues like social justice and the environment, which he argued
> were more interesting to younger Christians. This report gives strong
> support to reform-minded leaders like Hunter, so we may see more of them
> emerging to take the Christian right in new directions over the next
> few years.
>
Then it won't be the Christian "right" anymore, will it? It will be
the Christian left.
> -- The long-term trend toward a less Christian nation is probably good
> news for liberalism in general.
That's personal opinion only, and based on a biased view of
Christianity. I guarantee if the trend towards a less Christian
nation in America takes the same course that is taking in France, that
the author of this article will be fervently sorry she ever said those
words as she is being helped into her burqa by men with guns.
> If there are comparatively fewer
> Christians, there will be more people of other faiths -- though other
> Barna studies have found that the biggest gains of all are being made
> among atheist and agnostic free-thinkers, who are also the most likely
> to be political liberals.
More feminism and multiculturalism doesn't sound like a good thing to
me. Seriously, I'm sure the founding fathers would be horrified to
see the bloated and controlling state of our modern liberal government
today. I don't think affirmative action programs and hate speech laws
ere exactly what they had in mind when they thought of equality and
freedom of speech.
> This, in turn, bodes well for the various
> scientific fields that have come under attack by the religious right;
Not really. No significant scientific progress in modern times has
been stifled by religion anyway.
> and it opens the way for Christians and non-Christians to find some
> fresh common ground on issues like social justice and the environment
> as
> the religious leadership changes.
>
Again, not really. As I mentioned at the very start of this article,
it's only the most fundamentalist of Christians who attempt to
legislate their religious views and those are the exact sort of
Christians who aren't likely to change much. The Christians who are
most open change are the Christians who are alreadly least likely to
impose their religion on nonbelievers to begin with.
> Overall, the new Barna study seems to offer some hopeful prospects for
> a more generally liberal and diverse America in the decades ahead.
Which is sad news indeed.
> Evangelical Christianity won't go away -- but there's a shift in its
> essential character afoot, which may even reverse the trend toward
> minority status over time.
Unlikely. Religion will rise again as it always does just due to the
cyclic nature of society. This will happen regardless of the specific
tenets of the religion. If anything, the closer a religion is to
mainstream the less benefit it is likely to see from a future
resurgene in religious ferver as it will be too mild for a new
generation of religiously passionate people.
> And it seem likely that big changes are
> coming that will not only make it more progressive in its view of its
> own mission; but will also make it a much better friend to democracy
> than it's been in recent years.
>
Again, I have to say that the Christian denominations most in need of
such a change are the ones least likely to make a change, and the ones
who do adapt to the developmetns in society are the ones who were
already progressive anyway.
> /*Sara Robinson has worked as an editor or columnist for several
> national magazines, on beats as varied as sports, travel, and the
> Olympics; and has contributed to over 80 computer games for EA,
> Lucasfilm, Disney, and many other companies.* /
>
Which just goes to show that even otherwise reasonable, talented, and
successful people can be ignorant bigots when it comes to their anti-
Christian biases. And goes to show the low level of dedication to
precision and objectivity required as long as you're writing for
liberal points of view.
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net
Dennis Kemmerer
news:87bqb6p...@nospam.pacbell.net...
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>> http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/robinson/64873/*
>>
>> /This post, written by Sara Robinson, originally appeared on Orcinus
>> I don't know how long they thought they were going to go on that way,
>> all self-righteous and judgmental, blaming homosexuals and feminists
>> for everything from 9/11 to the price of gas, <snip>
[snip]
> Besides, how many 20 year olds are going to think highly of a religion
> that does everything possible to make them feel guilty about sex?
I had that particular revelation at about 14. I've been happily agnostic
ever since.
Al Klein
>Roughly a quarter of both the Christians and non-Christians in the
>under-30 group also mentioned -- without being prompted -- that
>"Christianity has changed from what it used to be," and that it "no
>longer looks like Jesus."
It hasn't "looked like Jesus" since about ... oh ... 2,000 years ago,
when Saul of Tarsus supposedly wrote some books.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
He is one of those orators of whom it was well said, 'Before they get up,
they do not know what they are going to say; when they are speaking they
do not know what they are saying; and when they have sat down they do not
know what they have said.'
- Winston Churchill
Cappy
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.flame.faggots/browse_thread/thread/be1f372eb33c5f08
Ray Fischer
>On Oct 10, 11:43 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/robinson/64873/*
>>
>> /This post, written by Sara Robinson, originally appeared on Orcinus
>> /
>>
>> I've been saying for a while now that the religious right in America
>> finally and firmly jumped the shark over
>> the past few years. But now that that big ol' shark's behind them,
>> there's another bunch of critters looming ahead that may prove to be
>> even more damning. It's that whole big flock of chickens that are
>> finally coming home to roost.
>
>The author makes the same mistake that most anti-religious bigots
>make. She starts out talking about the "religious right" but later on
>simply uses the term "Christians", then Evangelical Christians, then
>religious right again, etc. She needs to make up her mind who she is
>speaking about.
cavil: make petty or unnecessary objections
>> I don't know how long they thought they were going to go on that way,
>> all self-righteous and judgmental, blaming homosexuals and feminists
>> for everything from 9/11 to the price of gas, ignoring the interests of
>> the poor in favor of those of big business, and dismissing any kind of
>> environmental stewardship as nothing more than a way to waste time
>> until the Rapture comes.
>
>This is nothing but rhetoric.
You have nothing but whining.
>> Clearly, the didn't see anything at all wrong with
>> elevating the most spiteful and amoral among them as their national
>> spokespeople, and rewarding them in direct proportion to the heat of
>> their rhetoric.
>
>So what?
So Christians have no morality.
> The feminists elevated the most spiteful and amoral amongst
Ad hominem.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Denis Loubet
"Bibon" <bibob@râlant.org> wrote in message
news:i4ktg359p3r2dj506...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:27:21 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>news:470d9bd9$0$14059$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>> http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/robinson/64873/*
>>>
>>> /This post, written by Sara Robinson, originally appeared on Orcinus
>>> /
>>>
>>> I've been saying for a while now that the religious right in America
>>> finally and firmly jumped the shark over
>>> the past few years. But now that that big ol' shark's behind them,
>>> there's another bunch of critters looming ahead that may prove to be
>>> even more damning. It's that whole big flock of chickens that are
>>> finally coming home to roost.
>>
>>Well, this has my mouth watering, but I've been disappointed before.
>>
>>I hope this plays out as the article suggests.
>
>
> only people worried about the out come. Why is that?
Well, we know what happened to us during the dark ages when religion was in
charge.
osprey
>
> read more »
There is a reason why atheist, like Fischer, worry about
Christianity. That reason is due solely to the fact that they are
unsure whether they are right or wrong about the existence of God.
Atheist who make noise about religion, the existence of God, ect...
are concerned.
Do you see people making noise about the existence of Santa Claus?
No, you don't.
Do you see people making noise about Unicorns, as to whether they
exist or not?
No, you don't.
How about the Easter Bunny or little Leprechauns?
No, you see nodoby making noise as to whether they exist or not.
But you do see Atheist making noise about the existence of God and
they try very hard to argue this.
Why?
Because they are unsure and concerned about this. There is something
about the existence of God, and whether God really exist or not.
When I see atheist making postings like this, it reminds me that they
are trying harder to convince themselves, rather than convince anyone.
If they truly knew and understood the bible, they would know that
postings like the one Fischer is posting is supported in the bible. We
know, if you know the bible, that the closer we approach the end times
when man will finally destroy himself...that religion itself will
fall. We expect this to happen because this is the work of Satan
himself, as more and more people will deny the existence of God and
more people like Fischer will be working hard to convince others that
God doesn't exist. In reality, they are trying to convince themselves
because deep down inside, they are not sure if they are right.
Like I said, they make no noise over Santa Clause, Easter Bunny,
Leprechauns, or Unicorns. We know these characters are fiction and do
not exist.
They sure make a lot of noise about God though, and look at the
responses Fisher is getting. It's the Atheist babble...a lot of
noise.
Syd M.
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:27:21 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> >news:470d9bd9$0$14059$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> >>http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/robinson/64873/*
>
> >> /This post, written by Sara Robinson, originally appeared on Orcinus
> >> /
>
> >> I've been saying for a while now that the religious right in America
> >> finally and firmly jumped the shark over
> >> the past few years. But now that that big ol' shark's behind them,
> >> there's another bunch of critters looming ahead that may prove to be
> >> even more damning. It's that whole big flock of chickens that are
> >> finally coming home to roost.
>
> >Well, this has my mouth watering, but I've been disappointed before.
>
> >I hope this plays out as the article suggests.
>
> only people worried about the out come. Why is that?
Well, some of us remember the last time you lot were in charge...
PDW
osprey
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:45:37 -0700, osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
>
>
>
>
>
> <1192171537.920262.245...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >There is a reason why atheist, like Fischer, worry about
> >Christianity. That reason is due solely to the fact that they are
> >unsure whether they are right or wrong about the existence of God.
> >Atheist who make noise about religion, the existence of God, ect...
> >are concerned.
>
> >Do you see people making noise about the existence of Santa Claus?
> >No, you don't.
> >Do you see people making noise about Unicorns, as to whether they
> >exist or not?
> >No, you don't.
> >How about the Easter Bunny or little Leprechauns?
> >No, you see nodoby making noise as to whether they exist or not.
>
> >But you do see Atheist making noise about the existence of God and
> >they try very hard to argue this.
>
> >Why?
>
> their myths.
No different than the atheist nuts who are trying to push for laws
that outlaw any type of religion. Seems to me I have read postings by
you, in which you stated you supported the outlawing of any religion,
including parents teaching their own children at home anything about
God.
>
> I fear no god,
Bull, you are in denial. You're one of the ones who makes the most
noise about Gods existence.
>but I do fear my god-fearing neighbors.
I think many should fear you, you're the one who wants to change our
constitution.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Because they are unsure and concerned about this. There is something
> >about the existence of God, and whether God really exist or not.
>
> >When I see atheist making postings like this, it reminds me that they
> >are trying harder to convince themselves, rather than convince anyone.
>
> >If they truly knew and understood the bible, they would know that
> >postings like the one Fischer is posting is supported in the bible. We
> >know, if you know the bible, that the closer we approach the end times
> >when man will finally destroy himself...that religion itself will
> >fall. We expect this to happen because this is the work of Satan
> >himself, as more and more people will deny the existence of God and
> >more people like Fischer will be working hard to convince others that
> >God doesn't exist. In reality, they are trying to convince themselves
> >because deep down inside, they are not sure if they are right.
>
> >Like I said, they make no noise over Santa Clause, Easter Bunny,
> >Leprechauns, or Unicorns. We know these characters are fiction and do
> >not exist.
>
> There is exactly as much evidence for their existence as there is for
> any god.
>
>
>
> >They sure make a lot of noise about God though, and look at the
> >responses Fisher is getting. It's the Atheist babble...a lot of
> >noise.
>
> --
> Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
>
> Every illegal alien is a criminal.
> No amnesty under any name or for any reason.
> Deportation upon identification, not work permit or citizenship.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
IAAH
No, that's not it.
It's because so-called "Christians" try to force
their beliefs on others in the name of religion to
the point of denying rights. You don't see people
using Santa Claus for that.
I only speak for myself, of course. Next time you
should try the same thing instead of trying to
speak for an entire group and making an ass of
yourself.
Osprey
"IAAH" <ia...@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:CcmdnZjekrFZ85La...@giganews.com...
Yes, it is absolutely it. You can deny it all you wish. Atheist make no
noise over Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, Fairies, ect..
But you all make a LOT of noise over the existence of God. It's simple..you
don't know and you're trying to convince yourselves more than anyone else.
> It's because so-called "Christians" try to force their beliefs on others
> in the name of religion to the point of denying rights. You don't see
> people using Santa Claus for that.
I see some atheist who want to change the constitution and outlaw freedom of
religion, your buddy Attila is one of them Geoff is another.
>
> I only speak for myself, of course. Next time you should try the same
> thing instead of trying to speak for an entire group and making an ass of
> yourself.
Oh yea..I forgot to tell you..FOAD.
Seems you have a hard time with reality, but I already knew that.
Scruffy McScruffovitch
"Osprey" <NoNeed...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:KJOdnY8bgoVM5JLa...@comcast.com...
Because there aren't a pack of religious zealots trying to push a belief in
in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, or Fairies down everyone's throats like
Christian zealots do for their God. Output is directly related to input,
as they say. It has nothing at all to do with being "unsure" about it.
IAAH
No, idiot. I already told you the facts about my
feelings on this.
You're also going to now have to prove it for
every atheist, as you so frequently demand of others.
>
>
>> It's because so-called "Christians" try to force their beliefs on
>> others in the name of religion to the point of denying rights. You
>> don't see people using Santa Claus for that.
>
> I see some atheist who want to change the constitution and outlaw
> freedom of religion, your buddy Attila is one of them Geoff is another.
That's nice. Why are you trying to hold me
responsible for what they say? Is it because your
claim is so weak you have to? I bet it is.
>
>>
>> I only speak for myself, of course. Next time you should try the same
>> thing instead of trying to speak for an entire group and making an ass
>> of yourself.
>
> Oh yea..I forgot to tell you..FOAD.
Awww. Po' little ospwey's having a tantrumy day.
>
> Seems you have a hard time with reality, but I already knew that.
I've established my reality on this issue. You're
the one who can't deal with it and so has to make
shit up.
Hatter
tales. There is is lot more than just whining.
Hatter
Osprey
"Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:13guvbk...@corp.supernews.com...
Every year, millions of parents tell their childrens stories about these
mystical myths.
You don't hear Atheist making noise.
But if a parent tells a child about God, the atheist is in an uproar
demanding proof.
or Fairies down everyone's throats like
> Christian zealots do for their God. Output is directly related to input,
> as they say. It has nothing at all to do with being "unsure" about it.
You can live in denial all you wish.
>
>
Pr0r3p
I don't believe so. It's more about keeping religious radicals from
legislating their beliefs into law. I say you can believe in any
god you want, so long as you don't attempt to force those beliefs on
my through legislation.
> Atheist who make noise about religion, the existence of God, ect...
> are concerned.
>
> Do you see people making noise about the existence of Santa Claus?
> No, you don't.
No one that I know of is trying to legislate their beliefs in SC.
> Do you see people making noise about Unicorns, as to whether they
> exist or not?
> No, you don't.
See above.
> How about the Easter Bunny or little Leprechauns?
> No, you see nodoby making noise as to whether they exist or not.
See about.
>
> But you do see Atheist making noise about the existence of God and
> they try very hard to argue this.
>
> Why?
>
Well, as I said, it's because some religious radicals believe they
have the right to force their religious beliefs on others through the
use of legislation.
> Because they are unsure and concerned about this. There is something
> about the existence of God, and whether God really exist or not.
No, I don't believe that's really the case. It's more a concern of
having religion stuffed down our throats via legislation than a
concern over whether we really believe in god or not.
>
> When I see atheist making postings like this, it reminds me that they
> are trying harder to convince themselves, rather than convince anyone.
I read the article, and I don't see anything that suggests what you
are saying. The article showed that young people are seeing the
hypocrisy that exists within religion and questioning it.
>
> If they truly knew and understood the bible, they would know that
> postings like the one Fischer is posting is supported in the bible. We
> know, if you know the bible, that the closer we approach the end times
> when man will finally destroy himself...that religion itself will
> fall. We expect this to happen because this is the work of Satan
> himself, as more and more people will deny the existence of God and
> more people like Fischer will be working hard to convince others that
> God doesn't exist.
I honestly don't know if Ray's attempting to convince others of that,
however, most atheists I know don't usually bring up the subject of
religion. In fact, I have many friends who are religious and several
who are atheists, and there are many times that we are all together
and there was only one time that the subject was discussed and no one
tried to convince the others that they were right. It was open
discussion which was quite refreshing.
> In reality, they are trying to convince themselves
> because deep down inside, they are not sure if they are right.
That may be what you perceive to be the case, but it is not really
what's happening. Most atheists are committed to their belief that no
god exists and don't question that belief, just like you don't
question your belief that a god does exist.
>
> Like I said, they make no noise over Santa Clause, Easter Bunny,
> Leprechauns, or Unicorns. We know these characters are fiction and do
> not exist.
That's correct. However, unlike some of the religious radicals, I
know of no one who is trying to force their belief of any of these
characters onto others via the legislative process. And, I want to
make it clear that I'm not stereotyping all people who are religious
as radicals as that simply isn't the case.
Hatter
Such a steaming pile, Osprey, such a steaming pile. Here's a thought,
although I know you are incapable of comprehending it, you don't hear
a lot of noise about Leprachauns and Santa Claus, etc because of the
following
1)Nobody discriminates against you when you don't believe in them
2)Nobody passes laws based on what they perceive as the wants of said
mythical creatures
3)Nobody is out on Street corners proclaiming doom and gloom if you
don't believe
4)There aren't loads of adults running around saying what they believe
to be quotes of said mythical beings
5)There aren't loads of organizations based on their belief in said
mythical beings
6)There aren't otherwise good social contacts that will exclude you
because of disbelief
7)Politicians don't have to loudly proclaim there allegiance to The
Easter Bunny in order to get elected
8)Wars are not started over whether the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus
has the best holiday
9)People don't solicit donations EVERYWHERE to support institutions to
further Leprachaun belief
10) In Santa we trust does not appear on money
Basicly you only see atheists complain because of THE DEAFING NOISE of
the mythological beliefs of theists everywhere. Notice no noise about
Shinto deities in the Western world, so no atheist reaction. Same
prinicple. Ideally I view a persons religion as important as what they
had for breakfast. I wouldn't worry about it except for the fact they
throw it up all over me.
Hatter
Pr0r3p
> "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
>
> news:13guvbk...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> >> Yes, it is absolutely it. You can deny it all you wish. Atheist make no
> >> noise over Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, Fairies, ect..
>
> > Because there aren't a pack of religious zealots trying to push a belief
> > in in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny,
>
> Every year, millions of parents tell their childrens stories about these
> mystical myths.
True. But, these parents tell their children this because we remember
that wonderful, magical feeling we had as children believing in those
things. Eventually, though, all parents tell their children the truth
about these myths.
>
> You don't hear Atheist making noise.
Again, that is because people aren't trying to force their belifs in
these myths down anyone's throat via the legislative process.
>
> But if a parent tells a child about God, the atheist is in an uproar
> demanding proof.
I consider what parents teach their children about god to be their own
business. My wife and children attend church every week. I go with
them as well because my children are very involved in the church
services and like me in attendance to see them. They've put on plays
and my daughter has choreographed dance to christian music that is
presented in the church. I go because my children consider that an
important part of their lives and want me involved. My children know
my beliefs and they know their mothers beliefs as well, and we all
manage to live in a single house without causing an uproar.
Osprey
"Hatter" <Hatt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192199728.7...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
How are atheist being discriminated against?
> 2)Nobody passes laws based on what they perceive as the wants of said
> mythical creatures
Give some examples of laws being passed on what they perceive as the wants
of God.
> 3)Nobody is out on Street corners proclaiming doom and gloom if you
> don't believe
I don't care for those people myself, I just walk away though.
> 4)There aren't loads of adults running around saying what they believe
> to be quotes of said mythical beings
So you don't approve of a persons freedom of speech?
> 5)There aren't loads of organizations based on their belief in said
> mythical beings
These organizations have a right to exist, just as an atheist organization
has a right to exist.
> 6)There aren't otherwise good social contacts that will exclude you
> because of disbelief
Give some examples of "good social contacts" that exclude you. Also give me
a good reason as to why an atheist group can't form their own organization?
> 7)Politicians don't have to loudly proclaim there allegiance to The
> Easter Bunny in order to get elected
Where is it written that a politician has to loucly proclaim their belief in
God?
> 8)Wars are not started over whether the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus
> has the best holiday
What the Vietnam War started over the belief in God? WWI or WWII?
Granted many wars in our history have religious beginnings; however, not all
wars and in fact the biggest of the wars were not fought over religion.
> 9)People don't solicit donations EVERYWHERE to support institutions to
> further Leprachaun belief
People have a right to solicit donations to whom ever they wish.
> 10) In Santa we trust does not appear on money
Do you spend money with "In God We Trust"? Can't you rely on checks, credit
cards, or debit cards?
If you truly were to able to stand by your ideals and/or beliefs you can do
without currency and/or coin.
I bet you have cash on you right now. Why? Stand up for what you believe.
>
>
> Basicly you only see atheists complain because of THE DEAFING NOISE of
> the mythological beliefs of theists everywhere.
I think you're trying to just justify it and you're going to deny it
regardless.
Face it, you don't know if God exist or not.
Osprey
"Pr0r3p" <pr0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1192200195.1...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
I can respect that. That takes a lot of care and love for your children.
Scruffy McScruffovitch
And every year, millions of parents also tell their older kids that those
mystical myths were made up.
Will Christians eventually do the same?
>
> You don't hear Atheist making noise.
>
> But if a parent tells a child about God, the atheist is in an uproar
> demanding proof.
Because the parents actually believe that their made up god exists, and they
often demand that everyone around them also buys into the delusion.
>
>
>
> or Fairies down everyone's throats like
>> Christian zealots do for their God. Output is directly related to
>> input, as they say. It has nothing at all to do with being "unsure"
>> about it.
>
> You can live in denial all you wish.
>
Well, I see that is the advice that you have chosen. I prefer the real
world though.
Hatter
>
> > Such a steaming pile, Osprey, such a steaming pile. Here's a thought,
> > although I know you are incapable of comprehending it, you don't hear
> > a lot of noise about Leprachauns and Santa Claus, etc because of the
> > following
>
> > 1)Nobody discriminates against you when you don't believe in them
>
> How are atheist being discriminated against?
>
Let see, how many people get into political office that espouse
atheism? How many "faith based inititive' dollar go to atheists? How
many times is religion used as a criterion in child custody cases? Why
must I pay property taxes, but a church does not?
> > 2)Nobody passes laws based on what they perceive as the wants of said
> > mythical creatures
>
> Give some examples of laws being passed on what they perceive as the wants
> of God.
Lets see "One nation uder god" added to the pledge, Anti-prostituion
laws, Gay marriage bans, anti-sodomy laws, blue laws.....really the
list is quite long.
> > 3)Nobody is out on Street corners proclaiming doom and gloom if you
> > don't believe
>
> I don't care for those people myself, I just walk away though.
>
That's not the point. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed,
I'm just saying if they weren't doing it, I wouldn't be vocal in
saying they are deluded jerks
> > 4)There aren't loads of adults running around saying what they believe
> > to be quotes of said mythical beings
>
> So you don't approve of a persons freedom of speech?
That's not the point. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed,
I'm just saying if they weren't doing it, I wouldn't be vocal in
saying they are deluded jerks
>
> > 5)There aren't loads of organizations based on their belief in said
> > mythical beings
>
> These organizations have a right to exist, just as an atheist organization
> has a right to exist.
Bing! There you go. You were asking WHY atheists have to come out and
say they object to the insanity that is God belief rather than these
other insane ideas, I was giving you why
> > 6)There aren't otherwise good social contacts that will exclude you
> > because of disbelief
>
> Give some examples of "good social contacts" that exclude you. Also give me
> a good reason as to why an atheist group can't form their own organization?
KOC, Boy Scouts, YMCA You asked why atheist have to single out
religous beliefs over other beliefs, I gave you why. I don't object to
the rights of these organizations to exist. But if comething as big as
the BoyScouts was espousing that Invisible Gnomes are the source of
wisdom....I'd be pointing out how that is wrong as well
> > 7)Politicians don't have to loudly proclaim there allegiance to The
> > Easter Bunny in order to get elected
>
> Where is it written that a politician has to loucly proclaim their belief in
> God?
>
The election polls
> > 8)Wars are not started over whether the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus
> > has the best holiday
>
> What the Vietnam War started over the belief in God? WWI or WWII?
>
I'll do that right after you show me a war started over Easter bunny
beliefs. Now, I can tell you several Wars that were started over
religous reasons or supported over religous excuses.
> Granted many wars in our history have religious beginnings; however, not all
> wars and in fact the biggest of the wars were not fought over religion.
>
Note I didn't say "ALL" wars.
> > 9)People don't solicit donations EVERYWHERE to support institutions to
> > further Leprachaun belief
>
> People have a right to solicit donations to whom ever they wish.
>
Yes and once again, if it is for stupid reasons...I will tell you they
are stupid.
> > 10) In Santa we trust does not appear on money
>
> Do you spend money with "In God We Trust"? Can't you rely on checks, credit
> cards, or debit cards?
No.
> If you truly were to able to stand by your ideals and/or beliefs you can do
> without currency and/or coin.
No I can't. lets see, yard sales, parking meters, bodegas, yada yada.
You are lying.
> I bet you have cash on you right now. Why? Stand up for what you believe.
>
>
>
> > Basicly you only see atheists complain because of THE DEAFING NOISE of
> > the mythological beliefs of theists everywhere.
>
> I think you're trying to just justify it and you're going to deny it
> regardless.
Listen up, you ask why, I gave you why. Religion is dumb, so is belief
in Santa. There is no a-santaism because of the reasons I gave you.
> Face it, you don't know if God exist or not.
>
ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. Once again, you asked why, I gave you why.
Don't go changing the subject and claiming victory.
Oh wait a second, you are a theist. that's what you guys do.
Hatter
bobandc...@hotmail.com
Osprey
> On Oct 12, 11:12 am, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Such a steaming pile, Osprey, such a steaming pile. Here's a thought,
>> > although I know you are incapable of comprehending it, you don't hear
>> > a lot of noise about Leprachauns and Santa Claus, etc because of the
>> > following
>>
>> > 1)Nobody discriminates against you when you don't believe in them
>>
>> How are atheist being discriminated against?
>>
> Let see, how many people get into political office that espouse
> atheism?
You're not answering my question.
>How many "faith based inititive' dollar go to atheists?
Oh puh-lease, is this the best you got?
How
> many times is religion used as a criterion in child custody cases?
Uh, from what I have seen and witnessed it's not an issue.
Why
> must I pay property taxes, but a church does not?
Fine, then start putting out your home for the homeless during disasters and
emergencies.
>
>> > 2)Nobody passes laws based on what they perceive as the wants of said
>> > mythical creatures
>>
>> Give some examples of laws being passed on what they perceive as the
>> wants
>> of God.
>
> Lets see "One nation uder god" added to the pledge, Anti-prostituion
> laws, Gay marriage bans, anti-sodomy laws, blue laws.....really the
> list is quite long.
So you are for prostitution, which demeans women and helps spread disease.
The Gay marriage bans, I beleive many on all sides are willing to
compramise.
Anti-Sodomy laws? puh-lease..this is all you got?
>
>> > 3)Nobody is out on Street corners proclaiming doom and gloom if you
>> > don't believe
>>
>> I don't care for those people myself, I just walk away though.
>>
> That's not the point. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed,
> I'm just saying if they weren't doing it, I wouldn't be vocal in
> saying they are deluded jerks
So you're against their freedom of speech.
>
>> > 4)There aren't loads of adults running around saying what they believe
>> > to be quotes of said mythical beings
>>
>> So you don't approve of a persons freedom of speech?
>
> That's not the point. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed,
> I'm just saying if they weren't doing it, I wouldn't be vocal in
> saying they are deluded jerks
As I said, you'are against freedom of speech...1st Amendment.
>
>>
>> > 5)There aren't loads of organizations based on their belief in said
>> > mythical beings
>>
>> These organizations have a right to exist, just as an atheist
>> organization
>> has a right to exist.
>
> Bing! There you go. You were asking WHY atheists have to come out and
> say they object to the insanity that is God belief rather than these
> other insane ideas, I was giving you why
They have a right to exist; however, you have already demonstrated you're
against one of our basic amendments.
>
>> > 6)There aren't otherwise good social contacts that will exclude you
>> > because of disbelief
>>
>> Give some examples of "good social contacts" that exclude you. Also give
>> me
>> a good reason as to why an atheist group can't form their own
>> organization?
>
> KOC, Boy Scouts, YMCA You asked why atheist have to single out
> religous beliefs over other beliefs, I gave you why.
The Boy Scouts, yes...and they have that right to be exclusive, just as the
NAACP does, RAINBOW, and many other organizations who are exclusive in their
membership. Don't like it? Tough, go form your own organization and be
exclusive if you want.
The YMCA, I have NEVER seen them exclude anyone based on religious belief.
I don't object to
> the rights of these organizations to exist.
Obviously you do.
But if comething as big as
> the BoyScouts was espousing that Invisible Gnomes are the source of
> wisdom....I'd be pointing out how that is wrong as well
>
>> > 7)Politicians don't have to loudly proclaim there allegiance to The
>> > Easter Bunny in order to get elected
>>
>> Where is it written that a politician has to loucly proclaim their belief
>> in
>> God?
>>
> The election polls
You're going to have to do better than this.
>
>> > 8)Wars are not started over whether the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus
>> > has the best holiday
>>
>> What the Vietnam War started over the belief in God? WWI or WWII?
>>
> I'll do that right after you show me a war started over Easter bunny
> beliefs. Now, I can tell you several Wars that were started over
> religous reasons or supported over religous excuses.
>
>> Granted many wars in our history have religious beginnings; however, not
>> all
>> wars and in fact the biggest of the wars were not fought over religion.
>>
> Note I didn't say "ALL" wars.
>
>> > 9)People don't solicit donations EVERYWHERE to support institutions to
>> > further Leprachaun belief
>>
>> People have a right to solicit donations to whom ever they wish.
>>
> Yes and once again, if it is for stupid reasons...I will tell you they
> are stupid.
Fine, you can say they are stupid but that's just your opinion.
>> > 10) In Santa we trust does not appear on money
>>
>> Do you spend money with "In God We Trust"? Can't you rely on checks,
>> credit
>> cards, or debit cards?
>
> No.
>
>> If you truly were to able to stand by your ideals and/or beliefs you can
>> do
>> without currency and/or coin.
>
> No I can't. lets see, yard sales, parking meters, bodegas, yada yada.
> You are lying.
lying? How am I lying? You obviously object to our currency having In God We
Trust and I'm simply pointing out to you that if you were true to your
"belief" that God doesn't exist you would make a statement and object to
using currency and/or coin.
Nobody said you had to go to yard sales, and as far as parking meters go you
can start walking, taking public transportation where you can pay monthly
with check...there are many other ways around things.
You just simply want things your way and your way only.
>
>> I bet you have cash on you right now. Why? Stand up for what you
>> believe.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Basicly you only see atheists complain because of THE DEAFING NOISE of
>> > the mythological beliefs of theists everywhere.
>>
>> I think you're trying to just justify it and you're going to deny it
>> regardless.
>
>
> Listen up, you ask why, I gave you why.
Very weak I might add.
ScottyFLL
> No different than the atheist nuts who are trying to push for laws
> that outlaw any type of religion.
Do you have any cites for that?
Atheists don't believe in a god or gods. That's not the same as
saying they want to outlaw religion. They just don't want to have to
be subjected to religion-based laws. Plenty of BELIEVERS don't want
to be subjected to them, either.
ScottyFLL
> On Oct 12, 10:30 am, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
>
> >news:13guvbk...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > >> Yes, it is absolutely it. You can deny it all you wish. Atheist make no
> > >> noise over Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, Fairies, ect..
>
> > > Because there aren't a pack of religious zealots trying to push a belief
> > > in in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny,
>
> > Every year, millions of parents tell their childrens stories about these
> > mystical myths.
>
> True. But, these parents tell their children this because we remember
> that wonderful, magical feeling we had as children believing in those
> things. Eventually, though, all parents tell their children the truth
> about these myths.
My mom still hides an Easter basket for me :-)
But she never made me go to church.
Osprey
"ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1192224041.6...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Elton John for one has stated he favors a ban on all organized religion.
Geoff and Atillia both in this newsgroup have stated they favor outlawing
religion.
You believe what you what, atheism is in fact a belief.
And yes, I do agree that a lot of people on all sides don't want to be
subjected to religion-based laws.
Free Lunch
"Osprey" <NoNeed...@mail.com> wrote in
<VvqdnayFw-NLe5La...@comcast.com>:
>
>"ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>news:1192224041.6...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 12, 5:27 am, osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No different than the atheist nuts who are trying to push for laws
>>> that outlaw any type of religion.
>>
>> Do you have any cites for that?
>>
>> Atheists don't believe in a god or gods. That's not the same as
>> saying they want to outlaw religion. They just don't want to have to
>> be subjected to religion-based laws. Plenty of BELIEVERS don't want
>> to be subjected to them, either.
>
>
>Elton John for one has stated he favors a ban on all organized religion.
>Geoff and Atillia both in this newsgroup have stated they favor outlawing
>religion.
I have no idea how you could outlaw private beliefs, but I can see how
some people might come to the conclusion that religious organizations
are nothing but organized con games designed to steal money from the
gullible.
>You believe what you what, atheism is in fact a belief.
It's a lack of belief.
>And yes, I do agree that a lot of people on all sides don't want to be
>subjected to religion-based laws.
Do you?
james g. keegan jr.
osprey <noneed...@mail.com> wrote:
> > read more ?
>
> There is a reason why atheist, like Fischer, worry about
> Christianity.
can you point to where exactly he said he was worried?
"If you are going to make the claim, prove it. "
coward bobby heishman posting as osprey
news:8912d58d.03070...@posting.google.com:
"Your statement is to be considered a lie until you
can prove it to be true."
"osprey" in <1161104485.981302.246...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA...@comcast.com
Osprey
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:n3qvg3hoiievn4d77...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:27:48 -0400, in alt.atheism
> "Osprey" <NoNeed...@mail.com> wrote in
> <VvqdnayFw-NLe5La...@comcast.com>:
>>
>>"ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>>news:1192224041.6...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Oct 12, 5:27 am, osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No different than the atheist nuts who are trying to push for laws
>>>> that outlaw any type of religion.
>>>
>>> Do you have any cites for that?
>>>
>>> Atheists don't believe in a god or gods. That's not the same as
>>> saying they want to outlaw religion. They just don't want to have to
>>> be subjected to religion-based laws. Plenty of BELIEVERS don't want
>>> to be subjected to them, either.
>>
>>
>>Elton John for one has stated he favors a ban on all organized religion.
>>Geoff and Atillia both in this newsgroup have stated they favor outlawing
>>religion.
>
> I have no idea how you could outlaw private beliefs, but I can see how
> some people might come to the conclusion that religious organizations
> are nothing but organized con games designed to steal money from the
> gullible.
Some are, yes I agree. But not all are, many are very honest and reputable
organizations doing a lot of good for society.
>
>>You believe what you what, atheism is in fact a belief.
>
> It's a lack of belief.
Hey, you can justify it how ever you wish if it makes you feel better.
>
>>And yes, I do agree that a lot of people on all sides don't want to be
>>subjected to religion-based laws.
>
> Do you?
I do support and believe in separation in church and state.
Osprey
"Attila" <<proc...@here.now> wrote in message
news:v0rvg3tskk3ff8fbs...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 02:27:28 -0700, osprey <noneed...@mail.com> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> <1192181248.1...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 12, 4:16 am, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:45:37 -0700, osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> in
>>> alt.abortion with message-id
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <1192171537.920262.245...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >There is a reason why atheist, like Fischer, worry about
>>> >Christianity. That reason is due solely to the fact that they are
>>> >unsure whether they are right or wrong about the existence of God.
>>> >Atheist who make noise about religion, the existence of God, ect...
>>> >are concerned.
>>>
>>> >Do you see people making noise about the existence of Santa Claus?
>>> >No, you don't.
>>> >Do you see people making noise about Unicorns, as to whether they
>>> >exist or not?
>>> >No, you don't.
>>> >How about the Easter Bunny or little Leprechauns?
>>> >No, you see nodoby making noise as to whether they exist or not.
>>>
>>> >But you do see Atheist making noise about the existence of God and
>>> >they try very hard to argue this.
>>>
>>> >Why?
>>>
>>> Because only the religious nuts are trying to push laws that support
>>> their myths.
>>
>>No different than the atheist nuts who are trying to push for laws
>>that outlaw any type of religion.
>
> protected, and all others bared.
>
>
>> Seems to me I have read postings by
>>you, in which you stated you supported the outlawing of any religion,
>
>
>
>>including parents teaching their own children at home anything about
>>God.
>
You will never find one reputable expert in child psychology to agree with
you.
That's crazy talk coming from you.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I fear no god,
>>
>>Bull, you are in denial. You're one of the ones who makes the most
>>noise about Gods existence.
>
> What existence?
>>
>>>but I do fear my god-fearing neighbors.
>>
>>I think many should fear you, you're the one who wants to change our
>>constitution.
>
> But how many of them consider it their duty to stop me? in any way
> necessary?
ScottyFLL
> "ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1192224041.6...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 12, 5:27 am, osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >> No different than the atheist nuts who are trying to push for laws
> >> that outlaw any type of religion.
>
> > Do you have any cites for that?
>
> > Atheists don't believe in a god or gods. That's not the same as
> > saying they want to outlaw religion. They just don't want to have to
> > be subjected to religion-based laws. Plenty of BELIEVERS don't want
> > to be subjected to them, either.
>
> Elton John for one has stated he favors a ban on all organized religion.
> Geoff and Atillia both in this newsgroup have stated they favor outlawing
> religion.
You understand that you're presenting a fallacious argument here,
right?
> You believe what you what, atheism is in fact a belief.
Sure. I have no problem with that. Like a decision NOT to act is
itself an ACTION. Got it.
> And yes, I do agree that a lot of people on all sides don't want to be
> subjected to religion-based laws.
See? And you've now confessed the problem. It is religion, and the
powers that be behind religion. It isn't the atheists.
Death
>
Lord, I hope it isn't fried chicken from potato salad.
If you mean a separation of church and state, I agree.
If the church wants to teach faggotry is wrong the
state should butt* out.
Free Lunch
"Osprey" <NoNeed...@mail.com> wrote in
<Db-dnUhXav-Sb5La...@comcast.com>:
>
>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>news:n3qvg3hoiievn4d77...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:27:48 -0400, in alt.atheism
>> "Osprey" <NoNeed...@mail.com> wrote in
>> <VvqdnayFw-NLe5La...@comcast.com>:
>>>
>>>"ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1192224041.6...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Oct 12, 5:27 am, osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No different than the atheist nuts who are trying to push for laws
>>>>> that outlaw any type of religion.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any cites for that?
>>>>
>>>> Atheists don't believe in a god or gods. That's not the same as
>>>> saying they want to outlaw religion. They just don't want to have to
>>>> be subjected to religion-based laws. Plenty of BELIEVERS don't want
>>>> to be subjected to them, either.
>>>
>>>
>>>Elton John for one has stated he favors a ban on all organized religion.
>>>Geoff and Atillia both in this newsgroup have stated they favor outlawing
>>>religion.
>>
>> I have no idea how you could outlaw private beliefs, but I can see how
>> some people might come to the conclusion that religious organizations
>> are nothing but organized con games designed to steal money from the
>> gullible.
>
>Some are, yes I agree. But not all are, many are very honest and reputable
>organizations doing a lot of good for society.
I cheerfully donate to the Salvation Army, even though it is a religion,
because our government fails to do its job properly and the Salvation
Army tries to do its best, even though the good work is painted with
religiosity. Even more good work could be done if money weren't wasted
on religious nonsense, a big cost in most religious groups.
>>>You believe what you what, atheism is in fact a belief.
>>
>> It's a lack of belief.
>
>Hey, you can justify it how ever you wish if it makes you feel better.
Words have meaning, you need to learn to use them properly.
>>>And yes, I do agree that a lot of people on all sides don't want to be
>>>subjected to religion-based laws.
>>
>> Do you?
>
>I do support and believe in separation in church and state.
Good.
Osprey
> On Oct 12, 5:27 pm, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>> "ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1192224041.6...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Oct 12, 5:27 am, osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> No different than the atheist nuts who are trying to push for laws
>> >> that outlaw any type of religion.
>>
>> > Do you have any cites for that?
>>
>> > Atheists don't believe in a god or gods. That's not the same as
>> > saying they want to outlaw religion. They just don't want to have to
>> > be subjected to religion-based laws. Plenty of BELIEVERS don't want
>> > to be subjected to them, either.
>>
>> Elton John for one has stated he favors a ban on all organized religion.
>> Geoff and Atillia both in this newsgroup have stated they favor outlawing
>> religion.
>
> You understand that you're presenting a fallacious argument here,
> right?
You understand that you asked for cites and I have provided three people who
are trying to exactly what I said that the "atheist nuts" are trying to do.
I call them atheist nuts because they are no different than those you might
consider "religious nuts" in trying to change the laws.
>
>> You believe what you what, atheism is in fact a belief.
>
> Sure. I have no problem with that. Like a decision NOT to act is
> itself an ACTION. Got it.
>
>> And yes, I do agree that a lot of people on all sides don't want to be
>> subjected to religion-based laws.
>
> See? And you've now confessed the problem. It is religion, and the
> powers that be behind religion. It isn't the atheists.
I totally agree that there are religions who are doing things in the wrong
manner. That's why I don't subscribe to any religion. I believe in God, and
I don't have to have religion in order to believe in God.
Osprey
The Salvation Army is a wonderful organization, and there are MANY other
religious organizations who do great things for people. You will find
mostly your small churches in local communities who are not so wrapped up in
financial gain, that do wonderful things for people.
Even more good work could be done if money weren't wasted
> on religious nonsense, a big cost in most religious groups.
>
>>>>You believe what you what, atheism is in fact a belief.
>>>
>>> It's a lack of belief.
>>
>>Hey, you can justify it how ever you wish if it makes you feel better.
>
> Words have meaning, you need to learn to use them properly.
>
>>>>And yes, I do agree that a lot of people on all sides don't want to be
>>>>subjected to religion-based laws.
>>>
>>> Do you?
>>
>>I do support and believe in separation in church and state.
>
> Good.
I didn't need your approval.
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>
> news:n3qvg3hoiievn4d77...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:27:48 -0400, in alt.atheism
> > <VvqdnayFw-NLe5LanZ2dnUVZ_r-vn...@comcast.com>:
>
> >>"ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1192224041.6...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Oct 12, 5:27 am, osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> No different than the atheist nuts who are trying to push for laws
> >>>> that outlaw any type of religion.
>
> >>> Do you have any cites for that?
>
> >>> Atheists don't believe in a god or gods. That's not the same as
> >>> saying they want to outlaw religion. They just don't want to have to
> >>> be subjected to religion-based laws. Plenty of BELIEVERS don't want
> >>> to be subjected to them, either.
>
> >>Elton John for one has stated he favors a ban on all organized religion.
> >>Geoff and Atillia both in this newsgroup have stated they favor outlawing
> >>religion.
>
> > I have no idea how you could outlaw private beliefs, but I can see how
> > some people might come to the conclusion that religious organizations
> > are nothing but organized con games designed to steal money from the
> > gullible.
>
> Some are, yes I agree. But not all are, many are very honest and reputable
> organizations doing a lot of good for society.
>
> >>You believe what you what, atheism is in fact a belief.
>
> > It's a lack of belief.
>
> Hey, you can justify it how ever you wish if it makes you feel better.
In order for your deity to exist, you must have belief in it.
> >>And yes, I do agree that a lot of people on all sides don't want to be
> >>subjected to religion-based laws.
>
> > Do you?
>
> I do support and believe in separation in church and state.
That's a blatant lie.
Dionisio
Picture the following: A pollster asks "What turns you on?"
And the pollee says, "Christianity."
Kinky. Disturbing. Probably even blasphemous.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
It is with a great sense of sadness that I note that while Jesus strove for greater civil
rights for others (women, slaves, "sinners") his followers now use him primarily to usurp
civil rights from others.
-- Dionisio, July 25, 1996
(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
Free Lunch
"Osprey" <NoNeed...@mail.com> wrote in
<Maedneb-BMdQlo3a...@comcast.com>:
by so-called Christians against the First Amendment.
Ray Fischer
>
>There is a reason why atheist, like Fischer, worry about
>Christianity. That reason is due solely to the fact that they are
There's a reason why satanist perverts like heishman are always trying
to stick their noses into women's pants.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
The Chief Instigator
[...]
>I do support and believe in separation in church and state.
You'd do better to support separation *of* church and state.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Iowa 4, Houston 3 (OT) (October 12)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 13 vs. Peoria, 7:35
osprey
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:05:29 -0400, in alt.atheism
> <Maedneb-BMdQlo3anZ2dnUVZ_gedn...@comcast.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> >news:v6vvg3hfsv78fgckj...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:15:40 -0400, in alt.atheism
> >> <Db-dnUhXav-Sb5LanZ2dnUVZ_qWtn...@comcast.com>:
>
> >>>"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> >>>news:n3qvg3hoiievn4d77...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:27:48 -0400, in alt.atheism
> >>>> <VvqdnayFw-NLe5LanZ2dnUVZ_r-vn...@comcast.com>:
My apology to you if I seemed to be rude towards you.
osprey
> "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> >I do support and believe in separation in church and state.
>
> You'd do better to support separation *of* church and state.
O.k., correction noted and accepted.
Michael Gray
>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:14:33 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bibon" <bibob@râlant.org> wrote in message
>>news:i4ktg359p3r2dj506...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:27:21 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:470d9bd9$0$14059$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>>>> http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/robinson/64873/*
>>>>>
>>>>> /This post, written by Sara Robinson, originally appeared on Orcinus
>>>>> /
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been saying for a while now that the religious right in America
>>>>> finally and firmly jumped the shark over
>>>>> the past few years. But now that that big ol' shark's behind them,
>>>>> there's another bunch of critters looming ahead that may prove to be
>>>>> even more damning. It's that whole big flock of chickens that are
>>>>> finally coming home to roost.
>>>>
>>>>Well, this has my mouth watering, but I've been disappointed before.
>>>>
>>>>I hope this plays out as the article suggests.
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems that atheists and homosexuals and atheist homosexuals are the
>>> only people worried about the out come. Why is that?
>>
>>Well, we know what happened to us during the dark ages when religion was in
>>charge.
>
>Then you really shouldn't be concerned about the alleged demise of
>religion. Of course you have no idea what you're talking about so your
>thoughts on the matter mean nothing anyway.
Fuck off, you cretin.
A Concerned Citizen@concernedcitizen.com
points to how good heterosexual life is. Anything in any language.
It doesn't exist.
The occasional pastor may say something positive but only in very
general vague statements.
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
Got in trouble, lately? <smirk>
The Chief Instigator
>> [...]
The longest journey starts with a single step. Now, move on to putting some
credibility behind your claims.
Dionisio
> Point to anything writing since the beginning of civilization that
> points to how good heterosexual life is. Anything in any language.
> It doesn't exist.
Well, it was good -- for a rather short period of time. Genesis records how the first
heterosexuals ran around nekkid and knew nothing of morals. Then they partook of the fruit
of the Tree... Things have been fucked up ever since.
;-)
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
Just imagine: If half of all men were gay then all straight men could have two wives. And
if all women were bi then they wouldn't complain about there being another woman in bed.
I think I've just defined straight-man paradise. :-)
--Martin Phipps 2007-05-03
A Concerned Citizen@concernedcitizen.com
But wait, most of his followers are heterosexuals. Most Christian
heterosexuals take a wife. The wife
takes his name and for the most part does as he says. Most Christians
pay money to follow the Bible.
Most Christians donate time in addition to the money they give to the
church. It is all voluntary.
Christians have lots of problems, lots of kids, not necessarily lots of
money. Being a Christian is a very
difficult and to some extent a very unhappy life. Christians need all
the support and help they can get.
Amos Nandy
Cit...@concernedcitizen.com" <"A Concerned
Citizen"@concernedcitizen.com> wrote:
Look, boy, it's a thing evaluated by every individual according to
his/her experiences. There can be no all encompassing grade of good or
bad placed on heterosexual life. On the other hand, there are endless
reasons for a general evaluation of "bad" being placed on
homosexuality.
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
[...]
> I totally agree that there are religions who are doing things in the wrong
> manner.
But you defend the people in it who do the wrong. Like your beloved
prezzie.
> That's why I don't subscribe to any religion. I believe in God,
...only when it's convenient for you, Robert John Heishman. Having
faith requires a huge amount of dedication and work for which you're
not prepared to do. You're still a lying huckster whose sole mission
in life is to soak its fellow Delawareans out of as much money as
possible.
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
[...]
> I totally agree that there are religions who are doing things in the wrong
> manner. That's why I don't subscribe to any religion.
I forgot this one:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!sn-
xit-01!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!small1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!
news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 19:48:11 -0500
From: "Osprey" <noneedstok...@mail.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.talk.creationism,alt.abortion,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian-
teen,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,alt.religion.christianity
References: <bb7uok$dnv$1...@bolt.sonic.net> <asmdb0$ss24f
$0...@news.tssrnet.com> <fd6fdvs1q6r6i9mhd...@4ax.com>
<3ed7...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>
Subject: Re: Core Logic
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 20:48:00 -0400
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: <-MOdndqR1b5...@comcast.com>
Lines: 60
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.34.52.108
X-Trace: sv3-
rcFcqs0apXWefOQO1kgVUqTdtcWy9thdECVnSYYsRc7aXgqKbE7wUtVMLqLsPupC4Uz8auOKsLI5uUC!
jGckfNYFBwCHoS3LPa5amH41YxhgTmQ0M7b1RDXtaWlww3GQt/v6YfywVAij
X-Complaints-To: ab...@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: d...@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1
"Mark and Bev Tindall" <m_b_tind...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ed7...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Adam H." wrote:
>
> > For some reason, whenever someone is asked to provide evidence for the
> > existence of *any* deity after he/she has proclaimed that such a thing
> > must exist, he/she always fails to do so.
> > Now, here's your chance to change that. Just one piece of evidence
> > that shows that a creator god exists. But let's not have any 'wishful
> > thinking' evidence, or 'evidence' that is actually merely a statement
> > of opinion.
>
>
> None of the proofs of God's existence works logically and philosophically.
> However, if God is the Ground and Source of all being then the problem is
> not in proving the existence of Being but in describing Being.
>
>
> Mark Tindall.
>
>
Mark,
I am interested in hearing more of your opinion on this.
I do believe God is the beginning. The source, that started our
existence.
I think that a description of God goes far too deep for anyone to
truly
understand or appreciate.
The bible is complex, with out a doubt. It takes years of study.
However, I believe that the best reason that no one can prove God's
existence is described in the book of John. I believe that it is
meant to
be this way because in the bible we are told to rely on faith.
If all the stories in the bible are accurate, then it is plain to see
that
God made his presence well known plenty of times only for it to be
ignored
and for man to continue doing the things that we are not supposed to
be
doing.
I firmly believe that Jesus Christ was basically the last attempt God
made
and after Jesus Christ was crucified we were given his word on how we
too
can go to heaven, but we must have faith.
I believe that when Jesus Christ made himself present to Thomas he
provided
the answer.
>From the book of John Chapter 20
27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands;
and put
out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but
believing."
28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus said to him,
"Have
you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not
seen
and yet believe." 30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of
the
disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are
written that
you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that
believing
you may have life in his name.
parsi...@gmail.com
> "ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1192224041.6...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 12, 5:27 am, osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >> No different than the atheist nuts who are trying to push for laws
> >> that outlaw any type of religion.
>
> > Do you have any cites for that?
>
> > Atheists don't believe in a god or gods. That's not the same as
> > saying they want to outlaw religion. They just don't want to have to
> > be subjected to religion-based laws. Plenty of BELIEVERS don't want
> > to be subjected to them, either.
>
> Elton John for one has stated he favors a ban on all organized religion.
> Geoff and Atillia both in this newsgroup have stated they favor outlawing
> religion.
>
*sigh*... here we go again...
Is "not collecting stamps" a hobby?
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
>
> - Show quoted text -
He's such an idiot! LOL...
Scruffy McScruffovitch
Cit...@concernedcitizen.com" <"A Concerned Citizen at "A Concerned
Citizen"@concernedcitizen.com, typed this:
> Dionisio wrote:
>>
>> Just a comment on the subject: Has anyone considered the opposite?
>>
>> Picture the following: A pollster asks "What turns you on?"
>>
>> And the pollee says, "Christianity."
>>
>> Kinky. Disturbing. Probably even blasphemous.
>>
>> --
>> And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
>>
>> It is with a great sense of sadness that I note that while Jesus
>> strove for greater civil rights for others (women, slaves,
>> "sinners") his followers now use him primarily to usurp civil rights
>> from others. -- Dionisio, July 25, 1996
>>
>> (Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
>
> But wait, most of his followers are heterosexuals. Most Christian
> heterosexuals take a wife. The wife
> takes his name and for the most part does as he says. Most Christians
> pay money to follow the Bible.
> Most Christians donate time in addition to the money they give to the
> church. It is all voluntary.
?!? Most Christians don't even regularly go to Church. A recent survey
showed that only 46% of those that identify as Christian in the U.S., only
attend church sporatically.
>
> Christians have lots of problems, lots of kids, not necessarily lots
> of money. Being a Christian is a very
> difficult and to some extent a very unhappy life. Christians need all
> the support and help they can get.
Wah, wah, wah!!!
--
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong
enough to take away everything you have."
Thomas Jefferson
Hatter
any less of you.
Hatter
bobandcarole
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> On Oct 14, 5:18?pm, bobandcarole <bobandcarole...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 7:38?pm, ScottyFLL <Scotty...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 9, 7:19 pm, bobandcarole <bobandcarol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > What do you call an uneducated faggot that leaves
> > > > his personal information unprotected?
> > > > Scott Allen Salberg...LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > >http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/s/a/l/Scott-A-Salberg/
> > > Good of Fart Bubbles to put it on a portal that's in Spanish, eh,
> > > Blobby?
> > Mi espanol es mejor de lo que usted piensa.
> > LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > >http://es.tilllate.com/ES/picpage.php?gid=24495&fid=61455032&tim_uid=...
> > Another dead link.....
> > > What a pretty girl! And Carol, too!
> > > Oh, BTW: you're both FAT PIGS!!!!!
> > Here's Scotty's mom, Sharon Scharf, usenet whorehttp://img411.imageshack.us/img411/5505/0006photoxw7.jpg- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
On Oct 9, 7:38?pm, ScottyFLL <Scotty...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 9, 7:19 pm, bobandcarole <bobandcarol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > What do you call an uneducated faggot that leaves
> > his personal information unprotected?
> > Scott Allen Salberg...LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/s/a/l/Scott-A-Salberg/
> Good of Fart Bubbles to put it on a portal that's in Spanish, eh,
> Blobby?
Mi espanol es mejor de lo que usted piensa.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> http://es.tilllate.com/ES/picpage.php?gid=24495&fid=61455032&tim_uid=...
Another dead link.....
> What a pretty girl! And Carol, too!
> Oh, BTW: you're both FAT PIGS!!!!!
Here's Scotty's mom, Sharon Scharf, usenet whore
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/5505/0006photoxw7.jpg
Denis Loubet
> providing it anyway.
Odd, his comment seemed completely accurate.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
patrick...@standardregister.com
> On Oct 12, 12:07 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>
>
> > <patrick.bar...@standardregister.com> wrote:
> > >On Oct 10, 11:43 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> > >> /This post, written by Sara Robinson, originally appeared on Orcinus
> > >> /
>
> > >> I've been saying for a while now that the religious right in America
> > >> finally and firmly jumped the shark over
> > >> the past few years. But now that that big ol' shark's behind them,
> > >> there's another bunch of critters looming ahead that may prove to be
> > >> even more damning. It's that whole big flock of chickens that are
> > >> finally coming home to roost.
>
> > >make. She starts out talking about the "religious right" but later on
> > >simply uses the term "Christians", then Evangelical Christians, then
> > >religious right again, etc. She needs to make up her mind who she is
> > >speaking about.
>
> > cavil: make petty or unnecessary objections
>
> > >> I don't know how long they thought they were going to go on that way,
> > >> all self-righteous and judgmental, blaming homosexuals and feminists
> > >> for everything from 9/11 to the price of gas, ignoring the interests of
> > >> the poor in favor of those of big business, and dismissing any kind of
> > >> environmental stewardship as nothing more than a way to waste time
> > >> until the Rapture comes.
>
>
> > You have nothing but whining.
>
> Hey, be fair! He also has lying, bad logic, dogma, insults, and fairy
> tales. There is is lot more than just whining.
>
> Hatter-
Funny how you respond to a lot of other people about my so-called bad
logic and insults, but when it comes to actually responding to me and
providing something other than empty insults, you don't have jack.
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 02:27:28 -0700, osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
>
>
>
>
>
> <1192181248.134391.190...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 12, 4:16 am, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:45:37 -0700, osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> in
> >> alt.abortion with message-id
>
> >> <1192171537.920262.245...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >> >There is a reason why atheist, like Fischer, worry about
> >> >Christianity. That reason is due solely to the fact that they are
> >> >unsure whether they are right or wrong about the existence of God.
> >> >Atheist who make noise about religion, the existence of God, ect...
> >> >are concerned.
>
> >> >Do you see people making noise about the existence of Santa Claus?
> >> >No, you don't.
> >> >Do you see people making noise about Unicorns, as to whether they
> >> >exist or not?
> >> >No, you don't.
> >> >How about the Easter Bunny or little Leprechauns?
> >> >No, you see nodoby making noise as to whether they exist or not.
>
> >> >But you do see Atheist making noise about the existence of God and
> >> >they try very hard to argue this.
>
> >> >Why?
>
> >> Because only the religious nuts are trying to push laws that support
> >> their myths.
>
> >No different than the atheist nuts who are trying to push for laws
> >that outlaw any type of religion.
>
> protected, and all others bared.
>
> > Seems to me I have read postings by
> >you, in which you stated you supported the outlawing of any religion,
>
> Yes.
So are you going to round up these people and execute them?
> >including parents teaching their own children at home anything about
> >God.
>
> That is child abuse.
Ideally it should be the child's choice - at least until s/he is
mature enough to make that decision.
> >> I fear no god,
>
> >Bull, you are in denial. You're one of the ones who makes the most
> >noise about Gods existence.
>
> What existence?
What he means is his belief, a belief that guarantees existence only
in the eys of the believer. He forgets to clearly discern between the
two.
> >>but I do fear my god-fearing neighbors.
>
> >I think many should fear you, you're the one who wants to change our
> >constitution.
>
> But how many of them consider it their duty to stop me? in any way
> necessary?
But you want to outlaw religion completely, right? I'm confused as to
what your aiming for, total abolishment or just absolishment of public
practice. Are you now going to support an invasion of privacy for
people who do respectfully confine their religion in their privacy of
their respective homes (where it belongs ideally)?
> --
> Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
>
> Every illegal alien is a criminal.
> No amnesty under any name or for any reason.
> Deportation upon identification, not work permit or citizenship.- Hide quoted text -
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
> "Attila" <<procho...@here.now> wrote in message
>
> news:v0rvg3tskk3ff8fbs...@4ax.com...
> >>God.
>
> > That is child abuse.
>
> you.
So posts the disreputable cop fraud.
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:16:33 -0400, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com>
> in alt.abortion with message-id
It is my opinion that any parent cruel enough to abuseively compel a
child fear an imgainary omnipotent boogeyman should be convicted and
imprisoned, and have their parental rights revoked. But that's me.
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
> "IAAH" <i...@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
>
> news:CcmdnZjekrFZ85La...@giganews.com...
>
> > osprey wrote:
> >> On Oct 10, 11:43 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >>>http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/robinson/64873/*
>
> >>> /This post, written by Sara Robinson, originally appeared on Orcinus
> >>> /
>
> >>> I've been saying for a while now that the religious right in America
> >>> finally and firmly jumped the shark over
> >>> the past few years. But now that that big ol' shark's behind them,
> >>> there's another bunch of critters looming ahead that may prove to be
> >>> even more damning. It's that whole big flock of chickens that are
> >>> finally coming home to roost.
>
> >>> all self-righteous and judgmental, blaming homosexuals and feminists
> >>> for everything from 9/11 to the price of gas, ignoring the interests of
> >>> the poor in favor of those of big business, and dismissing any kind of
> >>> environmental stewardship as nothing more than a way to waste time
> >>> with
> >>> elevating the most spiteful and amoral among them as their national
> >>> spokespeople, and rewarding them in direct proportion to the heat of
> >>> their rhetoric. No, these folks were on fire (we're still not sure if it
> >>> was Jesus or heartburn), and they weren't afraid to let their bilious
> >>> light shine on the TV, in the streets, all the way to the White House.
> >>> They did their best to set it high above the rest of the culture,
> >>> where none of the rest of us could miss it if we wanted to.
>
> >>> And now, a new study reveals that young Americans, both inside and
> >>> outside
> >>> Christianity, have indeed taken note of this righteous spectacle-- and a
> >>> large and growing majority of them are absolutely revolted by what
> >>> they've
> >>> seen.
>
> >>> A study released last week by the Barna Group, a reputable Evangelical
> >>> research and polling firm, found that under-30s -- both Christian and
> >>> non-Christian -- are strikingly more critical of Christianity than their
> >>> peers were just a decade ago. According to the summary report, Barna
> >>> pollster David Kinnaman found that the opinions of non-Christians, in
> >>> particular, had slid like a rock in that time frame. Ten years ago, "the
> >>> vast majority" of non-Christians had generally favorable views of
> >>> Christianity. Now, that number stands at just 16%. When asked
> >>> specifically about Evangelicals, the number are even worse: only 3% of
> >>> non-Christian Millennials have positive associations with Evangelicals.
> >>> Among the Boomers, it's eight times higher.
>
> >>> When Kinnaman asked senior pastors if they were seeing this too, half of
> >>> them told him that, yes, they are finding their work to be an uphill
> >>> battle -- "because people are increasingly hostile and negative toward
> >>> Christianity." And his research bore this out. When he ranked young
> >>> non-Christians' most common perceptions of Christianity, nine of the 12
> >>> most common attributes they named were negative ones. According to the
> >>> study, "Common negative perceptions include that present-day
> >>> Christianity is judgmental (87%), hypocritical (85%), old-fashioned
> >>> (78%), and too involved in politics (75%)."
>
> >>> And this wasn't just ignorance talking. The people interviewed had an
> >>> average of five Christian friends. Eighty percent of them had spent at
> >>> least six months attending church themselves in the past; and half of
> >>> them had considered becoming Christian, but rejected it. Familiarity
> >>> with the faith, it appears, has bred quite a bit of contempt:
>
> >>> "As we probed why young people had come to such conclusions, I was
> >>> surprised how much their perceptions were rooted in specific stories
> >>> and personal interactions with Christians and in churches. When they
> >>> labeled Christians as judgmental this was not merely spiritual
> >>> defensiveness. It was frequently the result of truly 'unChristian'
> >>> experiences. We discovered that the descriptions that young people
> >>> offered of Christianity were more thoughtful, nuanced, and
> >>> experiential than expected."
>
> >>> Some of the young adults' disdain for Christianity is the result of
> >>> another new wrinkle that was nowhere on the scene a decade ago. The
> >>> study found that 91% of non-Christians in America -- joined by 80% of
> >>> the their peers in the pews -- now believe that Christianity is
> >>> "anti-homosexual." (Gee. I can't imagine where they got that idea.)
> >>> And no, they don't mean that in a good, God-fearing,
> >>> General-JC-Christian
> >>> sort of way. In the Barna summary, Kinnaman says, "Non-Christians and
> >>> Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians
> >>> oppose
> >>> homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and
> >>> unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent
> >>> criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made
> >>> homosexuality a "bigger sin" than anything else. Moreover, they claim
> >>> that
> >>> the church has not helped them apply the biblical teaching on
> >>> homosexuality
> >>> to their friendships with gays and lesbians."
>
> >>> Yeah, well, it's hard to find a practical way to apply a contradiction
> >>> like "hate the sin, love the sinner" -- especially when everybody who
> >>> isn't an ideologue knows that the "sin" is a pre-determined biological
> >>> trait.
>
> >>> Roughly a quarter of both the Christians and non-Christians in the
> >>> under-30 group also mentioned -- without being prompted -- that
> >>> "Christianity has changed from what it used to be," and that it "no
> >>> longer looks like Jesus." Their sheer frustration level over how far
> >>> the modern Christianity had deviated from its roots took Kinnaman by
> >>> surprise:
>
> >>> In our interviews, we kept encountering young people - both those
> >>> inside the church and outside of it - who said that something was
> >>> broken in the present-day expression of Christianity. Their
> >>> perceptions about Christianity were not always accurate, but what
> >>> surprised me was not only the severity of their frustration with
> >>> Christians, but also how frequently young born again Christians
> >>> expressed some of the very same comments as young non-Christians."
>
> >>> And, to top it all off, Kinnaman found that the American population as
> >>> a whole is on a long-term trendline that's moving the country away from
> >>> Christianity. "This is not a passing fad wherein young people will
> >>> become 'more Christian' as they grow up," the Barna report states.
> >>> "While Christianity remains the typical experience and most common
> >>> faith in America, a fundamental recalibration is occurring within the
> >>> spiritual allegiance of America's upcoming generations." This trendline
> >>> points to a far more diverse -- and possibly more secular -- nation in
> >>> the decades ahead:
>
> >>> This study is prompting quite a bit of soul-searching among
> >>> Evangelicals. Some feel this study verifies things they've long
> >>> suspected; others are just stunned. Maybe it's the way everybody's
> >>> always ignored their persistent conversion efforts -- they just got so
> >>> used to being tuned out by the mainstream culture that it never occurred
> >>> to them that anyone might ever take anything they said seriously. And
> >>> now, they're genuinely surprised to find out that yes, we were
> >>> listening -- and yes, we did take it all very much to heart. And,
> >>> furthermore,
> >>> what we've heard has deeply damaged our opinion of them.
>
> >>> It seems likely that this study will trigger the persecution reflex
> >>> among the more reactionary and defensive factions of the religious
> >>> right. They've always felt like an embattled minority; and this report
> >>> just proves what they've always intuited, which is that they're living
> >>> amid a dominant culture that's increasingly hostile to their beliefs.
> >>> (Some groups seem poised to honestly examine their own role in fostering
> >>> that hostility; however, the more radical a group is, the less likely
> >>> they are to bother with this.)
>
> >>> But at least it will be harder now for them to delude themselves that
> >>> their efforts to drag us into theocracy are succeeding. The Barna
> >>> numbers clearly show that the goal of making America a Christian nation
> >>> is actually receding into the distance as successive generations turn
> >>> away from the faith -- in no small part because they're gagging on the
> >>> overwhelming authoritarian stench that's seeped in from the extremist
> >>> edges toward the great middle.
>
> >>> But the study also opens the way for new developments that may prove
> >>> to be very positive -- both for Christians, and for secular America.
>
> >>> -- There's a surprisingly unified sense between young adults, both
> >>> inside and outside the faith, that the divisive, judgmental
> >>> authoritarianism that's dominated Evangelical Christianity for the past
> >>> 30 years has run its course. Furthermore: the "insiders" (as Barna terms
> >>> Christians) see the same issues and agree with many of the criticisms as
> >>> those on the outside -- and are openly talking about taking their
> >>> theology in some new directions. There's an emerging sense that it's
> >>> time to let go of the harsh legalism that's defined American
> >>> Protestantism for the past three decades, and return to something more
> >>> like the Social Gospel that demanded more of Christians than merely
> >>> passing judgment on the details of other people's lives.
>
> >>> -- With the publication of this study, homosexuality's long, mean run
> >>> as the hot-button issue that reliably rallies the faithful is probably
> >>> finished. When even the next generation of Christians thinks their
> >>> elders' behavior on this issue is useless and shameful, even the most
> >>> die-hard culture warriors will be forced to admit that this battle is
> >>> finally over -- and they lost.
>
> >>> As more and more Evangelical groups read the writing on the wall and
> >>> back away from the issue, it may mean that full equality for gays comes
> >>> considerably faster and with far less resistance than it has in the
> >>> past.
>
> >>> -- This study gives lots of ammunition to would-be reformers within the
> >>> Christian movement, and will thus hasten the demise of the old-guard
> >>> leaders who built vast empires on gay-hating and abortion-baiting. Last
> >>> year, Rev. Joel Hunter
>
> >>> resigned as the head of the Christian Coalition after just three weeks
> >>> after being hired because the board refused to let him back away from
> >>> abortion and homosexuality as their key issues, and re-orient the group
> >>> toward issues like social justice and the ...
>
> >>> read more »
>
> >> There is a reason why atheist, like Fischer, worry about
> >> Christianity. That reason is due solely to the fact that they are
> >> unsure whether they are right or wrong about the existence of God.
> >> Atheist who make noise about religion, the existence of God, ect...
> >> are concerned.
>
> >> Do you see people making noise about the existence of Santa Claus?
> >> No, you don't.
> >> Do you see people making noise about Unicorns, as to whether they
> >> exist or not?
> >> No, you don't.
> >> How about the Easter Bunny or little Leprechauns?
> >> No, you see nodoby making noise as to whether they exist or not.
>
> >> But you do see Atheist making noise about the existence of God and
> >> they try very hard to argue this.
>
> >> Why?
>
> >> about the existence of God, and whether God really exist or not.
>
> > No, that's not it.
>
> Yes, it is absolutely it. You can deny it all you wish. Atheist make no
> noise over Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, Fairies, ect..
My family and I celebrate the holidays happily without Christ and the
fairytales.
> But you all make a LOT of noise over the existence of God.
The existent of God only lies within your beliefs. It's your belief
that makes Him exist in your mind.
> It's simple..you
> don't know and you're trying to convince yourselves more than anyone else.
I know that whatever beliefs I have are mine.
> > It's because so-called "Christians" try to force their beliefs on others
> > in the name of religion to the point of denying rights. You don't see
> > people using Santa Claus for that.
>
> I see some atheist who want to change the constitution and outlaw freedom of
> religion, your buddy Attila is one of them Geoff is another.
I don't want your freedom of religion to override my right to be from
it (which is what it is).
>
> > I only speak for myself, of course. Next time you should try the same
> > thing instead of trying to speak for an entire group and making an ass of
> > yourself.
>
> Oh yea..I forgot to tell you..FOAD.
How very "godly" of you.
> Seems you have a hard time with reality, but I already knew that.
You don't know as much as you think you do.
bobandcarole
On Oct 14, 5:57?pm, bobandcarole <bobandcarole...@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> On Oct 14, 5:18?pm, bobandcarole <bobandcarole...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 7:38?pm, ScottyFLL <Scotty...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 9, 7:19 pm, bobandcarole <bobandcarol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > What do you call an uneducated faggot that leaves
> > > > his personal information unprotected?
> > > > Scott Allen Salberg...LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > >http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/s/a/l/Scott-A-Salberg/
> > > Good of Fart Bubbles to put it on a portal that's in Spanish, eh,
> > > Blobby?
> > Mi espanol es mejor de lo que usted piensa.
> > LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > >http://es.tilllate.com/ES/picpage.php?gid=24495&fid=61455032&tim_uid=...
> > Another dead link.....
> > > What a pretty girl! And Carol, too!
> > > Oh, BTW: you're both FAT PIGS!!!!!
> > Here's Scotty's mom, Sharon Scharf, usenet whorehttp://img411.imageshack.us/img411/5505/0006photoxw7.jpg- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
On Oct 9, 7:38?pm, ScottyFLL <Scotty...@gmail.com> wrote:
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
> On Oct 13, 3:12 am, Attila <<procho...@here.now> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:16:33 -0400, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com>
> > in alt.abortion with message-id
>
> > <kNqdnRsqA6Deb5LanZ2dnUVZ_ruqn...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
> > >"Attila" <<procho...@here.now> wrote in message
> > >news:v0rvg3tskk3ff8fbs...@4ax.com...
>
> > >You will never find one reputable expert in child psychology to agree with
> > >you.
>
> > Probably not. Yet.
>
> It is my opinion that any parent cruel enough to abuseively compel a
> child fear an imgainary omnipotent boogeyman should be convicted and
> imprisoned, and have their parental rights revoked. But that's me.
Who would have thought that you hate freedom?
Michael
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
What are you talking about? Since when is nearly every American
religiously abusing their children? I don't side with Attila's
extremism, you should undertsand.
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:56:32 -0000, Gwyneð Bennetdottir
> <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
>
> I don't round up bank robbers and execute them either.'
You would if they were illegal citizens.
> >> >including parents teaching their own children at home anything about
> >> >God.
>
> >> That is child abuse.
>
> >Ideally it should be the child's choice - at least until s/he is
> >mature enough to make that decision.
>
> If the child is not mature enough to make such a decision what choice
> does it have?
None if the parents aren't respectful of them.
> >> >> I fear no god,
>
> >> >Bull, you are in denial. You're one of the ones who makes the most
> >> >noise about Gods existence.
>
> >> What existence?
>
> >What he means is his belief, a belief that guarantees existence only
> >in the eys of the believer. He forgets to clearly discern between the
> >two.
>
> To most 'believers' there is no difference. Or none they will admit.
That's true.
>
> >> >>but I do fear my god-fearing neighbors.
>
> >> >I think many should fear you, you're the one who wants to change our
> >> >constitution.
>
> >> But how many of them consider it their duty to stop me? in any way
> >> necessary?
>
> >But you want to outlaw religion completely, right?
>
> Publicly, yes.
Completely in every way is what *I* meant.
But you already answered it, below - thanks.
> > I'm confused as to
> >what your aiming for, total abolishment or just absolishment of public
> >practice. Are you now going to support an invasion of privacy for
> >people who do respectfully confine their religion in their privacy of
> >their respective homes (where it belongs ideally)?
>
> No. As long as it stays completely at home who cares what people do?
Indeed.
> But they won't do that.
O.K.
Ray Fischer
>Funny how you respond to a lot of other people about my so-called bad
>logic and insults, but when it comes to actually responding to me and
>providing something other than empty insults, you don't have jack.
I can say the same thing about you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Neil Kelsey
So you support child abuse.
I'm not the least bit surprised.
It's also interesting that you just said, in a roundabout way, that
nearly every American abuses their children.
Dubh Ghall
<mike...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:13:33 GMT, Bibon <bibob@râlant.org> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:14:33 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Bibon" <bibob@râlant.org> wrote in message
>>>news:i4ktg359p3r2dj506...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:27:21 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:470d9bd9$0$14059$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>>>>>> http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/robinson/64873/*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /This post, written by Sara Robinson, originally appeared on Orcinus
>>>>>> /
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been saying for a while now that the religious right in America
>>>>>> finally and firmly jumped the shark over
>>>>>> the past few years. But now that that big ol' shark's behind them,
>>>>>> there's another bunch of critters looming ahead that may prove to be
>>>>>> even more damning. It's that whole big flock of chickens that are
>>>>>> finally coming home to roost.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, this has my mouth watering, but I've been disappointed before.
>>>>>
>>>>>I hope this plays out as the article suggests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems that atheists and homosexuals and atheist homosexuals are the
>>>> only people worried about the out come. Why is that?
>>>
>>>Well, we know what happened to us during the dark ages when religion was in
>>>charge.
>>
>>Then you really shouldn't be concerned about the alleged demise of
>>religion. Of course you have no idea what you're talking about so your
>>thoughts on the matter mean nothing anyway.
>Fuck off, you cretin.
I don't think it qualifies as a cretin.
--
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
>There is a reason why atheist, like Fischer, worry about
>Christianity.
Indeed there is.
It is because we remember the past, and we know that just as the
Leopard does not change his spots, so the theist does not change his
blood lust.
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
>
>"ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>news:1192224041.6...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 12, 5:27 am, osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No different than the atheist nuts who are trying to push for laws
>>> that outlaw any type of religion.
>>
>> Do you have any cites for that?
>>
>> Atheists don't believe in a god or gods. That's not the same as
>> saying they want to outlaw religion. They just don't want to have to
>> be subjected to religion-based laws. Plenty of BELIEVERS don't want
>> to be subjected to them, either.
>
>
>Elton John for one has stated he favors a ban on all organized religion.
Note the word, "organised", there.
Keep it private, and you will never hear from us.
>Geoff and Atillia both in this newsgroup have stated they favor outlawing
>religion.
Yes, in ALL public places, and with any sort of public funding.
>
>You believe what you what, atheism is in fact a belief.
Irrelevant
>
>And yes, I do agree that a lot of people on all sides don't want to be
>subjected to religion-based laws.
>
Nor do they want public displays of religion.
Keep it to your selves, keep it private.
Keep it out of government, law, the courts, schools, the work place,
and sport.
Keep it off bill boards, radio, and tv.
Keep superstition in the home, where it belongs.
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
>I cheerfully donate to the Salvation Army, even though it is a religion,
>because our government fails to do its job properly and the Salvation
>Army tries to do its best, even though the good work is painted with
>religiosity. Even more good work could be done if money weren't wasted
>on religious nonsense, a big cost in most religious groups.
At least the Sally Army fills your belly, and finds you a bed,
*before* they sermonize you.
Dubh Ghall
Cit...@concernedcitizen.com" <"A Concerned
Citizen"@concernedcitizen.com> wrote:
>Dionisio wrote:
>>
>> Just a comment on the subject: Has anyone considered the opposite?
>>
>> Picture the following: A pollster asks "What turns you on?"
>>
>> And the pollee says, "Christianity."
>>
>> Kinky. Disturbing. Probably even blasphemous.
>>
>> --
>> And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
>>
>> It is with a great sense of sadness that I note that while Jesus strove for greater civil
>> rights for others (women, slaves, "sinners") his followers now use him primarily to usurp
>> civil rights from others.
>> -- Dionisio, July 25, 1996
>>
>> (Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
>
>But wait, most of his followers are heterosexuals.
How exactly, do we know that?
The bible certainly doesn't state it, nor even infer it.
A bunch of men in their twenties and thirties, and the only women we
see referred to, are their mothers?
No wives or children mentioned, but naked youths running away, are.
>Most Christian heterosexuals take a wife.
So also with Jews, and at that time, marriages were "arranged" at a
much earlier age.
I suppose it is possible that they were so
stupid/overtly-gay/incompetant/lowlife/whatever/, that no parent would
even consider them as husband material, and the whole religious bit
was just a variant on, "Your only jealous cos we're better than you,
we're speshul".
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
>
>"ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>news:1192228632.3...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 12, 5:27 pm, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>>> "ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:1192224041.6...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> > On Oct 12, 5:27 am, osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> No different than the atheist nuts who are trying to push for laws
>>> >> that outlaw any type of religion.
>>>
>>> > Do you have any cites for that?
>>>
>>> > Atheists don't believe in a god or gods. That's not the same as
>>> > saying they want to outlaw religion. They just don't want to have to
>>> > be subjected to religion-based laws. Plenty of BELIEVERS don't want
>>> > to be subjected to them, either.
>>>
>>> Elton John for one has stated he favors a ban on all organized religion.
>>> Geoff and Atillia both in this newsgroup have stated they favor outlawing
>>> religion.
>>
>> You understand that you're presenting a fallacious argument here,
>> right?
>
>You understand that you asked for cites and I have provided three people who
>are trying to exactly what I said that the "atheist nuts" are trying to do.
But they are not cites; are they.
You give no reference that we can use to check their words, and
context, for our selves, so they are just assertions.
>I call them atheist nuts because they are no different than those you might
>consider "religious nuts" in trying to change the laws.
>
>>
>>> You believe what you what, atheism is in fact a belief.
>>
>> Sure. I have no problem with that. Like a decision NOT to act is
>> itself an ACTION. Got it.
>>
>>> And yes, I do agree that a lot of people on all sides don't want to be
>>> subjected to religion-based laws.
>>
>> See? And you've now confessed the problem. It is religion, and the
>> powers that be behind religion. It isn't the atheists.
>
>I totally agree that there are religions who are doing things in the wrong
>manner.
The followers of the Abrahamic god being the prime offenders.
>That's why I don't subscribe to any religion. I believe in God, and
>I don't have to have religion in order to believe in God.
Belief in a god, IS religion.
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
>>>including parents teaching their own children at home anything about
>>>God.
>>
>> That is child abuse.
>
>You will never find one reputable expert in child psychology to agree with
>you.
Give it time.
Dubh Ghall
<bennetw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Seems to me I have read postings by
>> >> >you, in which you stated you supported the outlawing of any religion,
>>
>> >> Yes.
>>
>> >So are you going to round up these people and execute them?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> I don't round up bank robbers and execute them either.'
>
>You would if they were illegal citizens.
Why?
You sound like a xtian.
What you are suggesting is the reaction of followers of the Abrahamic
god, for whom death is the only satisfactory solution.
BTW; What is an "illegal citizen"?
>
>> >> >including parents teaching their own children at home anything about
>> >> >God.
>>
>> >> That is child abuse.
>>
>> >Ideally it should be the child's choice - at least until s/he is
>> >mature enough to make that decision.
>>
>> If the child is not mature enough to make such a decision what choice
>> does it have?
>
>None if the parents aren't respectful of them.
Which fanatical parents rarely, if ever, are.
>
snip
>>
>> >But you want to outlaw religion completely, right?
>>
>> Publicly, yes.
>
>Completely in every way is what *I* meant.
And once it is removed from public display, it will soon wither and
die.
Two or three generations is all it will need.
>But you already answered it, below - thanks.
>
>> > I'm confused as to
>> >what your aiming for, total abolishment or just absolishment of public
>> >practice.
This has been stated times beyond counting.
Only the abolition of public display/practice, including politicians
using it as a short cut to election, is necessary.
Dubh Ghall
>> There is a reason why atheist, like Fischer, worry about
>> Christianity. That reason is due solely to the fact that they are
>> unsure whether they are right or wrong about the existence of God.
>> Atheist who make noise about religion, the existence of God, ect...
>> are concerned.
>>
>> Do you see people making noise about the existence of Santa Claus?
>> No, you don't.
>> Do you see people making noise about Unicorns, as to whether they
>> exist or not?
>> No, you don't.
>> How about the Easter Bunny or little Leprechauns?
>> No, you see nodoby making noise as to whether they exist or not.
>>
>> But you do see Atheist making noise about the existence of God and
>> they try very hard to argue this.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Because they are unsure and concerned about this. There is something
>> about the existence of God, and whether God really exist or not.
>
>No, that's not it.
>It's because so-called "Christians" try to force
>their beliefs on others in the name of religion to
>the point of denying rights. You don't see people
>using Santa Claus for that.
>
>I only speak for myself, of course. Next time you
>should try the same thing instead of trying to
>speak for an entire group and making an ass of
>yourself.
It matters little, whom he speaks for, or claims to speak for, he will
manage to make an ass of him self.
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
>
>"IAAH" <ia...@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
>news:CcmdnZjekrFZ85La...@giganews.com...
>> osprey wrote:
>>> On Oct 10, 11:43 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>> http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/robinson/64873/*
>>>>
snip
>>> There is a reason why atheist, like Fischer, worry about
>>> Christianity. That reason is due solely to the fact that they are
>>> unsure whether they are right or wrong about the existence of God.
>>> Atheist who make noise about religion, the existence of God, ect...
>>> are concerned.
>>>
>>> Do you see people making noise about the existence of Santa Claus?
>>> No, you don't.
>>> Do you see people making noise about Unicorns, as to whether they
>>> exist or not?
>>> No, you don't.
>>> How about the Easter Bunny or little Leprechauns?
>>> No, you see nodoby making noise as to whether they exist or not.
>>>
>>> But you do see Atheist making noise about the existence of God and
>>> they try very hard to argue this.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Because they are unsure and concerned about this. There is something
>>> about the existence of God, and whether God really exist or not.
>>
>> No, that's not it.
>
>Yes, it is absolutely it.
No, it is not...
>You can deny it all you wish.
...And no matter how hard you wish it, it will never be so.
>Atheist make no noise over Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, Fairies, ect..
True, but then no one has ever been tortured, burned at the stake,
hung, ostracized, etc, etc, for being a-santaist, a-faeriest,
a-easter-bunniest: Have they.
No politician has ever declared that a-santaists, a-faeriests,
a-easter-bunniests, are just criminals-in-waiting, and should be
stripped of citizenship, and imprisoned: Have they?
>
>But you all make a LOT of noise over the existence of God.
You lie again.
We "make a lot of noise", about religious fuckwits like your self, who
cannot take NO, for an answer, and who persist in lying about us, and
trying to force your sick, blood thirsty, superstition, onto us.
Sick fuckwits like your self, who need to lie about us, in order to
avoid seeing the simple realities of their superstition.
>It's simple..you don't know
Perhaps, but very few of us actually claim to know.
You, OTOH, have no evidence, and without evidence, there is nothing to
know about.
>and you're trying to convince yourselves more than anyone else.
You project well.
>
>> It's because so-called "Christians" try to force their beliefs on others
>> in the name of religion to the point of denying rights. You don't see
>> people using Santa Claus for that.
>
>I see some atheist who want to change the constitution and outlaw freedom of
>religion, your buddy Attila is one of them Geoff is another.
Now, are you a liar again, or are you genuinely ignorant of the
meaning of your constitution?
The "Freedom of religion" clause in the constitution, gives you the
right to hold any religious beliefs that you have, and to practice any
religious rites, provided they do not conflict with the law of the
land.
It is also supposed to prevent government from interfering,
establishing, suppressing, or supporting religious belief.
It does NOT give you the right to try and force your superstitious
beliefs onto others, by weight of law.
Preventing the public display of religion, other than small personal
items like crucifix, star of David, etc, would not, in any way, be a
contravention of the constitution.
However, some states have Public Nuisance laws, and Privacy laws,
which can curtail certain religious practices, like evangelizing.
>
>>
>> I only speak for myself, of course. Next time you should try the same
>> thing instead of trying to speak for an entire group and making an ass of
>> yourself.
>
>Oh yea..I forgot to tell you..FOAD.
>
>Seems you have a hard time with reality, but I already knew that.
I'm glad I never replaced my Irony-O-Meter, the old broken one, buried
at the bottom of the garden, has just caused a level two, tremor.
Dubh Ghall
wrote:
>> Because there aren't a pack of religious zealots trying to push a belief
>> in in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny,
>
>Every year, millions of parents tell their childrens stories about these
>mystical myths.
>
>You don't hear Atheist making noise.
>
>But if a parent tells a child about God, the atheist is in an uproar
>demanding proof.
The difference of course, is that you wean your children off all other
such fantasies, but encourage/enforce, belief in the "God" fantasy.
Scruffy McScruffovitch
"Dubh Ghall" <pu...@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:1rl9h3p3r81rbtp0p...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:30:59 -0400, "Osprey" <NoNeed...@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Because there aren't a pack of religious zealots trying to push a belief
>>> in in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny,
>>
>>Every year, millions of parents tell their childrens stories about these
>>mystical myths.
>>
>>You don't hear Atheist making noise.
>>
>>But if a parent tells a child about God, the atheist is in an uproar
>>demanding proof.
>
>
> The difference of course, is that you wean your children off all other
> such fantasies, but encourage/enforce, belief in the "God" fantasy.
>
Exactly, and while I have no problem with a parent brainwashing their own
children about their God or Gods, I wholly resist the belief that they have
some right to spread that bullshit to my children.
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:36:51 -0000, Gwyneð Bennetdottir
>
> >> >> > Seems to me I have read postings by
> >> >> >you, in which you stated you supported the outlawing of any religion,
>
> >> >> Yes.
>
> >> >So are you going to round up these people and execute them?
>
> >> No.
>
> >> I don't round up bank robbers and execute them either.'
>
> >You would if they were illegal citizens.
>
Oops - illegal alien.
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:36:51 -0000, Gwyneð Bennetdottir
>
> >> >> > Seems to me I have read postings by
> >> >> >you, in which you stated you supported the outlawing of any religion,
>
> >> >> Yes.
>
> >> >So are you going to round up these people and execute them?
>
> >> No.
>
> >> I don't round up bank robbers and execute them either.'
>
> >You would if they were illegal citizens.
>
> Why?
>
> You sound like a xtian.
No - I'm not a follower of _any_ organized religion.
> What you are suggesting is the reaction of followers of the Abrahamic
> god, for whom death is the only satisfactory solution.
NO!!!
> BTW; What is an "illegal citizen"?
I meant "illegal aliens."
I'm sorry for the confusion.
>
>
> >> >> >including parents teaching their own children at home anything about
> >> >> >God.
>
> >> >> That is child abuse.
>
> >> >Ideally it should be the child's choice - at least until s/he is
> >> >mature enough to make that decision.
>
> >> If the child is not mature enough to make such a decision what choice
> >> does it have?
>
> >None if the parents aren't respectful of them.
>
> Which fanatical parents rarely, if ever, are.
>
> snip
>
> >> >But you want to outlaw religion completely, right?
>
> >> Publicly, yes.
>
> >Completely in every way is what *I* meant.
>
> And once it is removed from public display, it will soon wither and
> die.
>
> Two or three generations is all it will need.
And then somebody else will find a way to control the minds of weak-
minded people. If it's not religion, it'll be something else,
unfortunately.
> >But you already answered it, below - thanks.
>
> >> > I'm confused as to
> >> >what your aiming for, total abolishment or just absolishment of public
> >> >practice.
>
> This has been stated times beyond counting.
Some people want it totally gone and other publicly. I was confused as
to what Attile aimed for in stating this.