Stick that Bible up your ass!

[Satan]

So I am seemingly innundated with people who are attempting to legislate morality and spirituality. Even on this board, I have been emotionally drained while reading:

* The link to that enlightened Sherriff's manifesto which degraded anyone who didn't think like he.

* ARG's willful ignorance and rank ability to ignore facts while using the book he thumps to answer every question. Meanwhile, he claimed people who belong to the "Church of Christ Latter Day Saints" are noe believers in Christ.

* Guiliani telling an art museum that they will get their funding pulled unless the art is up to his moral standards.

You know what? I pass churches every day. I have no reason to think THEY shouldn't exist and that we should burn the Bible. But that's how they think anyone who is different from them should be handled, right?

You cannot legislate morality in a free country. You cannot force your ideology upon others in a free country.

So shut the fuck up and try and do something good on this world, something I think God would want. A few suggestions:

Quit whining about abortion rights and help educate those about their choices BEFORE the unwanted pregnancy occurs. Take in someone who needs help. Show some charity.

Don't complain about religion in public schools, make your own Sunday school and summer programs at your church better.

Shut the hell up about gays. Unless one of them tries to fuck you up the ass, let them do what they want. I don't know of any gay people who say that streigh, God-fearing Christians are somehow living in the "wrong, unnatural" manner, so why do you care what someone does in the privacy of their own homes?

I am so SICK of all of this...

More people have died in the name of "religion" than all other causes, wars, famines and plagues in the history of mankind COMBINED! This would give a logical reason to say that religion should be outlawed, right?

Well, I don't want it outlawed. That would make me worse than you assholes. Just shut the hell up and leave me alone, you bunch of fucking hypocrites!

Okay, I don't know how much sense the above makes. It was stream-of-thought-stuff and I'm not proof-reading it. I don't intend on this coming off as a bashing of everyone who has spiritual beliefs. Hell, even I do. It's the way an overwhelming percentage of these "enlightened" folks (hey - They call themselves a "majority"!) go about their business that I cannot stand.

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan

[kellibelli]

I am 100% in accord with the dark one.
Frightening.

I would remind you satan that most of the spiritual stuff on the board seems to be restricted to properly labeled threads, making them easier to ignore.(I do).

I like the point you made about prayer in schools....talk about a captive audience, kids in school. We had a couple of kids in my early grades who were some different religion (it was never explained to us kids) and they were put out in the hall like freaks every time we did religous shit in class...even in the very early grades I thought this was cruel, and it helped to turn me off the catholic garbage they were desperate to fill me with at church and chatechism.
( it was not a religous school, just a public one)

I still cant force myself to begin the religous indoctrination of my boys that everyone seems to expect.

[Mr Thin Skin]

Man Satan, if that was stream-of-though you have some damn good typing, spelling and grammar skills.

What you said makes perfect sense to me. These people and their G.O.D. (Group of Dogmatics) really wear on society. Their belief system insists on witnessing and conversion to their church.

My cynical belief is that these poor bastards proselytize for the following reasons:

1 - Cause the bible told them so
2 - In increase church attendance, thus more tithing.
3 - To shore up their uncertain beliefs. It doesn't take guts to say Jesus. That's singing to the choir. It takes guts to say Darwin.

The last two, of course, aren't very christian (or whatever), and makes them feel unworthy. As is their nature, they need to seek out others to "lord over." Their proselytizing is nothing more than chest beating in an attempt to be your "superior."

So, when some witnesses to you, just imagine them a gorilla hooting and beating its chest.

[Mr Thin Skin]

Why do I always follow kelli, who follows Satan?

[kellibelli]

As much as I dislike Satan on a personal level, he often makes excellent points, and I believe he is very intelligent, *twitch* and I dont follow him!

Ack!*twitch*, I agree with people when they are right, I dont let my personal *twitch* feelings affect who I agree with...*twitch*
must go get medication again!

And you follow me 'cuz I am sooooo cool!

[Globe-trotter]

Amen, Satan.

Hmmm. Wouldn't that send ARG into a frenzy?

------------------
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
- Bertrand Russel

[BoBettie]

Satan,
I normally don't get into religious conversations, but on this one I must say that I agree.
Let God (or whoever) be the judge of who is right and who is wrong. If gays/athiests/whoever are going straight to hell for their beliefs or behavior, what's it to (collective) you? MYOB, is my opinion. It is not any of our jobs to judge the morality of others. Try helping instead.


------------------
Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the leather straps.
Emo Philips (stolen from matt's webpage)

[Mojo]

Aren't most laws an attempt to "legislate morality?" I.e. murder laws (Thou shalt not kill), larceny (thou shalt not steal), etc...

I think you should make the distinction about legislating personal morality- things that have nothing to do with you (homosexuality, abortion, porn). I'm just playing devil's advocat.... well, maybe not in this case

[kellibelli]

Pickman, I dont think it is appropriate to compare NAMBLA to regular homosexuals. Pedophilia and homosexuality are not the same thing, and it is that type of hysterical comparison by fanatics that ends up with dead teenage homosexuals beaten to death by rednecks.

you are obviously well read and articulate, and I am assuming you used NAMBLA to make a point.

It's about militant groups like ACT-UP and Queer Nation who have rallying crys like "We're here, we're queer, we're going to corrupt your children", or whatever it is. People with small children who do not endorse the homosexual lifestyle aren't supposed to feel threatened by that? A tad unrealistic, I think. Should we legitimize groups like NAMBLA, and let them do whatever they want with whomever they want?

Now we both know that the groups saying "we're here..." mean they want to change the perception of gays, not rape children.

[Satan]

Pickman's Model:

Your NAMBLA reference, your quote already referenced above, and trying to pawn off religious deaths as political casualties (Sure they're political deaths, since they involved a church or orgnized religion getting political!) doesn't dissuade me one iota that you're not one of THEM.

[pldennison]

(Besides, the worst wild-eyed drooling fanatics are not religious people, they're members on the Montana Militia who rant and rave on and on about "black helicopters", and that kind of crap.)

And of course, those people are rarely Christians.

Personally, I don't think ANY museum should be getting ANY public funding. If a museum is good enough to get support by the paying public, it'll stay open. If it isn't, it'll close. It's called, "letting the people vote with their pocketbooks."

Huh. I don't think any CHURCHES should be getting public support. But they do, in the form of no property taxes and no sales taxes. Whether they do any charitable works or not. That's right, the looniest New Age church gets the same tax breaks as the Episcopals. I say, if you can't support your church from the offering, close down. It's called "Soak your own fucking congregation and leave me out of it." P.S.--In some states, consumers don't have to pay sales taxes when they buy Bibles, too. But only Christian Bibles. Not the Koran or any heathen writings.

Not all of them. Thou dost generalize, my son.

Well, at least he isn't confusing NAMBLA with gay-rights organizations or something egregious like that. Whoops!

Really, most of them are just trying to keep their own members from what they believe to be wrong behavior,

Well, no, a great many of them are trying to make it illegal to be homosexual or use birth control.

As a result, they're trying, however feebly, to control what they believe to be overwhelming waves of bad influence from pulling them under.

Why is it that so many areas with high crime rates and high rates of teenage pregnancy correlate strongly with areas with a lot of fundmentalist Christians? What's up with that?

In their eyes, it's not so much that they're trying to control what everybody else does, it's that they feel threatened by what the dominant secular culture is forcing them to partake in.

Nobody is forcing any of them to be gay or have abortions. They, on the other hand, are trying to prevent everyone else from doing just that. Oh, and trying to force them to be Christian, also.

Better yet, do like many members of evangelical churches are doing, and pull your kids out of public schools entirely.

Yes, that's what this country needs is more stupid people.

Don't try to change public schools. Simply send your kids to your own church schools, and let public schools wither on the vine. They're not worth saving, anyway. They don't work.

Oh, clearly.

Most of the brouhaha about gays is not about average gays who mind their own business and live their lives.

Sure it is. Every time a homosexual or gay couple dares to ask, "Um, can we have the same rights as everyone else and not get beat up when we hold hands on the street and stuff?" the outcry arises.

It's about militant groups like ACT-UP and Queer Nation who have rallying crys like "We're here, we're queer, we're going to corrupt your children", or whatever it is.

My bullshit detector just exploded. You are a lot smarter than this. Or so I thought.

People with small children who do not endorse the homosexual lifestyle aren't supposed to feel threatened by that?

Well, since it doesn't exist, clearly not. However, where do you think all the homosexuals we have now come from?

Should we legitimize groups like NAMBLA, and let them do whatever they want with whomever they want?

Boy, I wish my bullshit detector hadn't just broken. I could really use it here.

but the proponents of that activity are telling them they WILL accept it in all areas of life (schools, marriages, adoption of children etc.) whether they like it on not, and trying to force such acceptance through through by legislation and other means.

People are going to be homosexuals whether the Christians like it or not, and they are free to move to Iran at their earliest fucking convenience. You do understand the difference between doing something yourself and allowing others to do it, right?

but it's guaranteed that religion won't be the cause of, or the reason behind, said war.

No, because religion certainly isn't a ready-made tool for causing divisiveness and strife.

In most cases, Brian, this is exactly what the religious people are asking of the militant gays, the secular humanists, the NEA, and various city, local, state, and federal governments.

If they want to be left alone by the governments, they can bloody well pay their taxes like good citizens. In fact, to complain about NEA endowments when not paying taxes strike me as the height of hypocrisy. As far as the other things, if they would stop trying to prevent others from being homosexual, atheistic or otherwise, maybe they'd have an easier time. I don't care who wants to be Christian; I do care when they try to force others to be.

[Big Iron]

[[Most of the brouhaha about gays is not about average gays who mind their own business and live their lives. It's about militant groups like ACT-UP and Queer Nation who have rallying crys like "We're here, we're queer, we're going to corrupt your children", or whatever it is. People with small children who do not endorse the homosexual lifestyle aren't supposed to feel threatened by that? A tad unrealistic, I think. Should we legitimize groups like NAMBLA, and let them do whatever they want with whomever they want?]] Pickman's Model


Phil has already satisfactorily addressed my many objections to the Pickman post (which post, frankly, took me by surprise in its lack of wisdom), but I did want to emphasize how distressingly unfortunate this passage is. Conflating gay rights groups with pedophiles is pandering ignorantly to the basest kind of anit-gay sentiments.


[[ But the simple fact of the matter is, as I've said before, religion has replaced Communism as the all-encompassing evil bugaboo in this country.]]


Perhaps you dwell in a specialized world (academia, for instance), but out in the real world this is simply nonsense. When was the last time you saw a politician claiming to be an atheist?

[Mojo]

Actually I thought the "bugaboo" comment was fairly accurate- for popular culture. I can't think of the last time I saw a videogame, movie, or TV show where a main character was a positively portrayed religious person of any denomination. At least not a good show/movie/game- crappy TV shows or anything on PAX doesn't count.

Well, maybe Ned Flanders.

[ChiefScott]

Back on topic...

Satan said, "Stick that Bible up your ass!"

"I can't," retorted the chief. "Palidors needs it to reach his keyboard!"

[tracer]

Satan wrote, re Pickman's Model:

Your NAMBLA reference, your quote already referenced above, and trying to pawn off religious deaths as political casualties (Sure they're political deaths, since they involved a church or orgnized religion getting political!) doesn't dissuade me one iota that you're not one of THEM.

Much as I hate to admit it, I ... *cringe* ... I have to agree with Pickman's Model on religion not being the cause of most wars. While religious excuses were given for many wars, and religious fervor has certainly been played upon by those in power to rally their troops, the root causes of nearly all wars have been gambits for land, resources, or political power on the part of their perpetrators.

That, plus the fact that we chimp-relatives have a mean streak in us.

------------------
Visit the Internet Stellar Database at www.stellar-database.com

[TVeblen]

Sorry, Pickman et al, but on this one I come down on Satan's side.

The underlying justification for Christian activism and claims to persecution is their discontent with "dominant secular culture".
It is *prevailing culture* with "secular" thrown in a an attempt to justify imposing a particular religion's views onto everyone else.

Many people, of varying faiths and beliefs, are disgusted with the violence, crudity and superficiality of contemporary culture. To assume less is a towering insult to those of other beliefs. Have any Islamic, Jewish or Hindu etc. friends? Bet they aren't any happier with some of comtemporay life.

BUT they aren't trying to impose their beliefs onto others through the political and legal system. They are not trying to force your children to pray in public schools to your God, or force their religious beliefs into laws you will have live under.

BTW, as I recall the cry from watching a gay rights parade, it was "We're queer, we're here and we aren't going away."

They shouldn't have to. They are human beings, they are citizens and anyone who has a religious problem with them...well, in view of my friends who are gay, they aren't losing anything of value by being shunned by bigots. And the bigots should have no legal power over them.

I genuinely respect and admire Christians who live their faith. In the words of a Buddhist friend, "you treat other people well and try to live a good life."

Freedom of religion is precious, and I will strongly resist any efforts to impose a rule of Christian ayatollahs on this country. (Yes, extremism happens in all faiths. I don't want this government run that way.)

Veb

[Lynn Bodoni]

"But the simple fact of the matter is, as I've said before, religion has replaced Communism as the all-encompassing evil bugaboo in this country. If the average agnostic or atheist person with a liberal bent endorses gay rights or extremely avant-garde art or assisted suicide or partial-birth abortion or whatever, and at the same time opposes having restrictive religious views shoved down his throat, that person is seen as enlightened and progressive. But if a religious person opposes any or all of the above and resents having it shoved down his throat, then he is viewed as a regressive, a fanatic, a dangerous wacko, somebody who wants to take away everyone else's rights, somebody who ought to just shut up and go away and never open his mouth again about anything, whether it affects him personally or not. "

Depends on the community. I'm an atheist, and I'm generally told that I'm an assistant to murder (I've been a clinic escort) and that I should just shut up and not listen to any religious expressions if I don't believe, but that it would do me good if I listened.

Excuse me, I've got to take my green marker to the new bills I got today...I'm going to mark a line through "In God We Trust".

{Note: I'm speaking ONLY as a poster, not as moderator, here.)


------------------
Lynn the Packrat

[Lissa]

Don't try to change public schools. Simply send your kids to your own church schools . . .

As a graduate of one of these "schools," I want to point out that sending your child to one of them is the worst thing a parent can do. The schools are generally unacreditted, and no real college will accept a student without a GED or other standardized test. From what I've seen, very few graduates could pass a GED.

On the other hand, you can rest assured that your child will most likely turn out to be firmly, stubbornly, ignorantly indoctrinated. They won't be taught real science or history, and they will be carefully trained to abhor and reject any school of thought or logic other than the one they've been shown, and ignore any information that might contradict their religious training. Then they graduate, and are thrust into the real world with no preparation, no education, and no skills. Ths shock is immense.

But don't fool yourself into thinking that all of the children are indocrinated completely. The ones that manage to escape it, generally are worse than those heathen public school kids. There are drugs, wild parties, and all sorts of unsavory activities stewing under a veneer of holiness.

I've been to the living hell that is Christian School, and returned to tell the tale. If you love your children, let them be decently educated, for God's sake! This world is tough as it is, and you don't need to add undue burden to a child's life.

[Pickman's Model]

It would appear that I have touched a few nerves. I apologize if anyone got upset, but I do not apologize for what I said. As I have said before, nobody has to agree with me. Clearly many of you don't. That's fine. If you have staunch opinions, hold to them....as will I. One of the most important things you can do in this life is to think for yourself. Do not swallow anybody's party line, no matter how expedient it may be. Do your own thinking, and hold to your opinions; and if those opinions happen to be unpopular or at variance with those of the majority, you can fully expect to take some flak over it, as I did. That's fine. I have big shoulders. And I will continue to follow my own course and to do my own thinking, guided by the set of values that I believe to be right. As should every one of you.

The NAMBLA reference I made that everybody seized on, I used as an example, nothing more. Go back and re-read my post, this time without the accompanying sirens and red lights. Do I, anywhere, advocate violence or harm to gays? I don't believe that I did. What I did do was to attempt to explain the opposition that various Christian groups have towards the gay lifestyle. Kelli opined that I was comparing NAMBLA to ordinary gays, when in fact my first sentence in that point clearly states the exact opposite. I said that the controversy has nothing to do with average gays who were minding their business and living their lives; the controversy is about militant groups like ACT-UP and Queer Nation, who, IMHO, are just as obnoxious in their own way as Jews For Jesus or any other loud, pushy, militant group. I don't place any blame on Kelli or anyone else in this particular rhubarb, however, because these are obviously hot-button issues and the appearance of certain words and/or phrases often cause the alarms to go off, the blinders to come down, the body armor to go on, and suddenly people are mounted up, fully charged, locked, loaded, and halfway to their target before they get a chance to fully reflect on what was actually being said. I am just as guilty of this as anyone else, although I do try to understand what the poster in question means before I take aim. Let us, by all means, figure out what the other person is actually trying to get across before we deliver the entire payload in our inventory, shall we?

Big Iron and Phil questioned my intelligence. That's fine, too. You have my full permission to dismiss me as a total and complete moron, if you so choose; the sun will still rise tomorrow morning. Personally, I don't think that adhering to a dissident opinion renders someone an imbecile, but that's just me; others may have a different viewpoint. I will stick by my views, as I believe them to be right. Again, your views may be, and quite probably are, quite different.

The only other comment I will make is to disagree with Lissa's viewpoint that Christian schools are substandard. Some of them may be; certainly not all of them are. I attended nine years of Catholic parochial school, K-8, and four years of public high school. My first two years in high school were a waste of my time; I didn't learn a thing, because we'd already covered that material in grades 7-8 in parochial school. It was review for me. Do I think that my parochial school was superior to the public high school? You bet your sweet bippie I do.

For the benefit of Big Iron, re: the specialized world of academia----for what it may be worth, I happen to be a police officer.

[Pickman's Model]

It would appear that I have touched a few nerves. I apologize if anyone got upset, but I do not apologize for what I said. As I have said before, nobody has to agree with me. Clearly many of you don't. That's fine. If you have staunch opinions, hold to them....as will I. One of the most important things you can do in this life is to think for yourself. Do not swallow anybody's party line, no matter how expedient it may be. Do your own thinking, and hold to your opinions; and if those opinions happen to be unpopular or at variance with those of the majority, you can fully expect to take some flak over it, as I did. That's fine. I have big shoulders. And I will continue to follow my own course and to do my own thinking, guided by the set of values that I believe to be right. As should every one of you.

The NAMBLA reference I made that everybody seized on, I used as an example, nothing more. Go back and re-read my post, this time without the accompanying sirens and red lights. Do I, anywhere, advocate violence or harm to gays? I don't believe that I did. What I did do was to attempt to explain the opposition that various Christian groups have towards the gay lifestyle. Kelli opined that I was comparing NAMBLA to ordinary gays, when in fact my first sentence in that point clearly states the exact opposite. I said that the controversy has nothing to do with average gays who were minding their business and living their lives; the controversy is about militant groups like ACT-UP and Queer Nation, who, IMHO, are just as obnoxious in their own way as Jews For Jesus or any other loud, pushy, militant group. I don't place any blame on Kelli or anyone else in this particular rhubarb, however, because these are obviously hot-button issues and the appearance of certain words and/or phrases often cause the alarms to go off, the blinders to come down, the body armor to go on, and suddenly people are mounted up, fully charged, locked, loaded, and halfway to their target before they get a chance to fully reflect on what was actually being said. I am just as guilty of this as anyone else, although I do try to understand what the poster in question means before I take aim. Let us, by all means, figure out what the other person is actually trying to get across before we deliver the entire payload in our inventory, shall we?

Big Iron and Phil questioned my intelligence. That's fine, too. You have my full permission to dismiss me as a total and complete moron, if you so choose; the sun will still rise tomorrow morning. Personally, I don't think that adhering to a dissident opinion renders someone an imbecile, but that's just me; others may have a different viewpoint. I will stick by my views, as I believe them to be right. Again, your views may be, and quite probably are, quite different.

The only other comment I will make is to disagree with Lissa's viewpoint that Christian schools are substandard. Some of them may be; certainly not all of them are. I attended nine years of Catholic parochial school, K-8, and four years of public high school. My first two years in high school were a waste of my time; I didn't learn a thing, because we'd already covered that material in grades 7-8 in parochial school. It was review for me. Do I think that my parochial school was superior to the public high school? You bet your sweet bippie I do.

For the benefit of Big Iron, re: the specialized world of academia----for what it may be worth, I happen to be a police officer.

[Persephone]

Man Satan, if that was stream-of-though you have some damn good typing, spelling and grammar skills.

My thoughts exactly.

Hear hear, Satan. Well said, and very, very true.

[Fretful Porpentine]

This just in ...

The first-ever college for home-schooled Christian students is scheduled to open in fall 2000. According to the founder, Mike Farris (a complete ASSHOLE who was mercifully defeated when he ran for lieutenant governor of VA a few years ago), the school will "transform America" by filling "the highest offices in the land" with its graduates. All students will therefore be government majors, although they will receive a general Bible-centered education in other subjects, including evolutionary theory -- which they will study, in Farris' words, so that they can "explain why it's wrong."

The name of this fine institution of higher education? Patrick Henry College. Something tells me the founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves just now ...

Hey, now, Prince of Evil, don't go painting us all with one big tarbrush! We ain't ALL wild-eyed drooling fanatics, ya know! (Besides, the worst wild-eyed drooling fanatics are not religious people, they're members on the Montana Militia who rant and rave on and on about "black helicopters", and that kind of crap.) My thoughts concerning your post:

So I am seemingly innundated with people who are attempting to legislate morality and spirituality. Even on this board, I have been emotionally drained

Skip over it. I skip over reams of stuff that doesn't interest me every day. Unless you're a moderator, you don't have to read everything.

* ARG's willful ignorance and rank ability to ignore facts while using the book he thumps to answer every question. Meanwhile, he claimed people who belong to the "Church of Christ Latter Day Saints" are noe believers in Christ.

This has been done to death, and the kid ain't even here any more. Drive on.

* Guiliani telling an art museum that they will get their funding pulled unless the art is up to his moral standards.

Personally, I don't think ANY museum should be getting ANY public funding. If a museum is good enough to get support by the paying public, it'll stay open. If it isn't, it'll close. It's called, "letting the people vote with their pocketbooks."

You know what? I pass churches every day. I have no reason to think THEY shouldn't exist and that we should burn the Bible. But that's how they think anyone who is different from them should be handled, right?

Not all of them. Thou dost generalize, my son. Really, most of them are just trying to keep their own members from what they believe to be wrong behavior, and it's increasingly difficult to do this in an age where the dominant secular (and many times, anti-religious) culture permeates literally everything. Unless they choose to go to the middle of Outer Mongolia and completely disconnect from the modern world (don't say "amen" too loudly, Satan!) it's impossible to get away from the corrosive environment we wade through every day. As a result, they're trying, however feebly, to control what they believe to be overwhelming waves of bad influence from pulling them under. In their eyes, it's not so much that they're trying to control what everybody else does, it's that they feel threatened by what the dominant secular culture is forcing them to partake in.

You cannot legislate morality in a free country. You cannot force your ideology upon others in a free country.

True. But doesn't that work both ways? If we have a truly "diverse" and "multicultural" society (two ideas that are total baloney from the get-go) then everybody, religious people and secular atheists both, ought to have a share in what goes on. The problem is, both sides spend 90% of their time trying to exclude the other side from having it's say.

So shut the fuck up and try and do something good on this world, something I think God would want.

Join in and help, Brian. Open a soup kitchen with your extra buckage. Spend some time with developmentally-disabled children. Volunteer at a shelter for battered women. Do something good for your fellow man instead of bitching about what other people are supposed to be doing and aren't. Set an example. Be an inspiration.

Quit whining about abortion rights and help educate those about their choices BEFORE the unwanted pregnancy occurs.

I agree. Better yet, use the birth control available to prevent pregnancy before you go engaging in casual sex. However, since we all know that people engage in sex all the time who are A) Stupid; B) Uncaring; C) Drunk; D) High; E) Mentally immature; F) A Host Of Other Variables, that's going to be extremely difficult to enforce. It's a fact of life that there will always be people out there breeding who have no business doing so. Sad, but true.

Take in someone who needs help. Show some charity.

Refer to the point preceeding the previous one above.

Don't complain about religion in public schools, make your own Sunday school and summer programs at your church better.

Better yet, do like many members of evangelical churches are doing, and pull your kids out of public schools entirely. Don't try to change public schools. Simply send your kids to your own church schools, and let public schools wither on the vine. They're not worth saving, anyway. They don't work.

Shut the hell up about gays. Unless one of them tries to fuck you up the ass, let them do what they want. I don't know of any gay people who say that streigh, God-fearing Christians are somehow living in the "wrong, unnatural" manner, so why do you care what someone does in the privacy of their own homes?

Most of the brouhaha about gays is not about average gays who mind their own business and live their lives. It's about militant groups like ACT-UP and Queer Nation who have rallying crys like "We're here, we're queer, we're going to corrupt your children", or whatever it is. People with small children who do not endorse the homosexual lifestyle aren't supposed to feel threatened by that? A tad unrealistic, I think. Should we legitimize groups like NAMBLA, and let them do whatever they want with whomever they want? Once again, it's a case of some people saying they want nothing to do with this type of influence or activity; but the proponents of that activity are telling them they WILL accept it in all areas of life (schools, marriages, adoption of children etc.) whether they like it on not, and trying to force such acceptance through through by legislation and other means. I think it was Satan who said,

You cannot force your ideology upon others in a free country.

But that works both ways, doesn't it? So how do we solve this? Maybe we should divide the country in half, with Them What Does Accept All This on one side, and Them What Doesn't on the other. Impractical, but boy it would sure solve a lot of problems, wouldn't it?

I am so SICK of all of this...

Join the club.

More people have died in the name of "religion" than all other causes, wars, famines and plagues in the history of mankind COMBINED!

Incorrect. More people have died in the name of politics than all other causes combined. Even in the case of so-called "religious" wars like the Crusades or the Spanish conquest of America, or even the Jewish wars in the Old Testament, may have begun or continued under a guise of religion, but scratch them a little, and you'll find good old politics right underneath the surface. Wars are fought because some king wants what some other king has, or because my capitalist leaders don't agree with your Communist leaders, or because we don't want you in here, so go back to Germany or England or Russia, or whatever. Granted, a slick leader like a king or pope or president can appeal to religious sensitivities to help support a war---but it's guaranteed that religion won't be the cause of, or the reason behi

[okatym]

Just a thought:
If we stuck a bible up Satan's ass, would that be an insult to God or to Satan? I mean in theory, Satan shouldn't want a BIBLE up his ass, right? But knowing that it would piss off God, wouldn't Satan eagerly bend over? But then on the other hand, if God saw the irony of it, (you know: cramming a BIBLE up SATAN's ass) she may do the cramming...

hear hear satan! I am a christian, and I've never "witnessed" to anyone. If people ask me questions, I'll tell them. I think christians should live their lives so people see that they're trying to be like Jesus (and would He come on here and mention someone's yeast problem? . Let your life be a witness. Those that can't do, talk about it! Amen

[Mojo]

"We're here, we're queer, we're going to corrupt your children"

Do you really believe that anyone has said this?

[Big Iron]

[[Big Iron and Phil questioned my intelligence. ]] Pickman'sModel


Actually, I had thought you had a bit on the ball (and I still do, generally), which was the reason for my shock at reading your words I this case.

BTW, the NAMBLA reference may have been not intended too harshly (although it sure looked funny), but the prior crack about "we're here we're queer, we want to corrupt your children" is not so readily explained away.


[[For the benefit of Big Iron, re: the specialized world of academia----for what it may be worth, I happen to be a police officer. ]]


And your experience has been that it's tougher to say, "I believe in God" that it is to say "I don't believe in God?"

[Temujin]

So I am seemingly innundated with people who are attempting to legislate morality and spirituality. (from Satan)

Are we to infer that these people are in hell?

[Polycarp]

Oh, groan.

Lemme suppose a supposition for you, and derive the logical consequences.

Two thousand years from now, after the Y2K bug has destroyed civilization and it has been rebuilt, there exists a substantial minority of people who claim to honor and respect the wisdom of Cecil Adams. These people are called Cecilites by themselves and everyone else.

The problem is, many of these, being a good cross section of humanity, have not learned to think for themselves. As a result, they are seeking out proofs for their pet prejudices, and finding them in the words of Cecil. Many of them have evolved spiritual disciplines including bowing towards the Chicago Reader building, making a yak-back pilgrimage to Lake Louise, MN, etc. The name of Marilyn Vos Savant is vilified; in fact, a freethinking woman who posts to a forum of thinkers has adopted that name as a parody on "those who speak as though they were Cecil." Many of these Cecilites have attempted to modify the laws of the land to better approach what they understand Cecil to have said in his Sacred Writings. They reject the findings of the science of the time because it contradicts the Words of Cecil. And they are requiring, when they get power to, that others follow what they consider the Right Path to the Wisdom of Cecil.

Now, a few people have read Cecil's work and extracted from it a devotion to finding out the truth and making it available to the Teeming Millions, and claim that that is what he stood for. The non-Cecilite public is saying, "No, that can't be valid. Look what all these meddling busybodies are doing. Cecilitism is an evil blot on the body public."

Well, yes, people who call themselves Cecilites are doing some things that would cause the Master of All Wisdom to roll over in his grave. And the people who try to use their head for something besides a reverberation chamber for their mouths are offended at this misuse of his name, and also at being tarred with the same brush as the "we know the Will of Cecil" Cecilites.

That is in essence what I understood Pickman's Model to be saying. Us Christians who do maintain an open mind and try to follow Jesus's teachings ("Judge not, lest you be judged"; "Love your neighbor as yourself"; "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free") are as repelled as the rest of you, if not more so, by what the idiots who use the Bible as a geology textbook/source of legislation for running a nation/you name it are doing in Jesus's name. I could work into a really good rant on the subject, but it's my hope to do a oil-on-the-waters post here. Satan is right on target on what they are doing, and it pisses me off no less than it does him. Pickman's Model is more or less on target as well, since, as I said, those of us who try to use our brains and also follow Jesus are repelled as hell by what they are doing with our beliefs.

That said, I have one cavil with Pickman's Model's post, and I want to do a misquotation, with one word and two phrases changed:

Most of the brouhaha about blacks is not about average blacks who mind their own business and live their lives. It's about militant groups like the Black Panthers and SCLC.

Sounds pretty racist, right? All I did was substitute "blacks" for "gays" and two black activist groups for two gay activist groups. Pickman, you blew it on this one. Also, to the best of my knowledge, no "reputable" gay organization (as opposed to NAMBLA and other fringe groups) suggests anything about youth other than that, if your kid turns out to be gay (13.9% chance for boys, 7.4% for girls, according to the latest analysis of the Kinsey figures; I don't have stats. from Masters & Johnson or any other more recent source), they should be encouraged to accept who they are, not be put on a guilt trip, and not be driven to suicide by being rejected. Certainly sounds like something we should condemn them for, doesn't it?

Temujin had a very witty post just before this one making a play on someone with username Satan claiming to be "innundated with people who are attempting to legislate morality and spirituality" and deriving from this that they are in Hell. I did laugh at it, but on sober analysis, probably some of them are. From what I found in the Gospels, the only people Jesus got pissed off at were (1) people making money off other people's beliefs and (2) people who attempted to legislate how other people behaved on the basis of their own religion. I'd say to the average "conservative Christian" that he might sit down and read his Holy Book before he starts making pronouncements about others.

And I'd ask the rest of you to back off. ARG is gone. PM, Tom, Jodi, Jeffery, and I (and there are a few others, I believe) are interested in having a good time exploring reasoned thought with you, and unearthing the Straight Dope about whatever people are interested in. If somebody starts a religion thread, we'll chime in with what we think. At least, I don't believe that is prohibited by the TOS. We'll respect your views; we ask you respect ours. And maybe together we can make a dent in that self-righteous unthinking #####$#@$#@$@$@ ....

Well, you get the picture.

[pldennison]

Polycarp, maybe if the mainstream moderate religious leaders and adherents spent more time vocally and demonstratively opposing yahoos like the sherriff in question and less time gathering the ecumenical wagons anytime they perceive religion itself to be under attack, there wouldn't exist problems like this. I'm not a member of your religion, so don't expect me to rescue it from the assholes. That's your job.

[pldennison]

Oh, and I almost forgot: It's disingenuous, Pickman's Model, to claim that the problem is not with "ordinary gays who are living their lives and minding their business," because people like Sherriff McDickless are always making it their business.

I mean, nobody is out passing laws against your garden variety penile/vaginal intercourse, right? Nope, they're making oral and anal intercourse illegal, the types that homosexuals are likely to engage in. What kind of consenting adults are forbidden from marrying? Close relatives, and same-sex partners. Who has difficulty adopting children, and have in same cases have their birth children removed from their care? Homosexuals. (One judge had the audacity to claim that being a lesbian in and of itself made a woman a bad parent.)

So, in many cases, these people are actively prevented from living their lives and minding their business. Then, when they dare to question why this is so, and speak up, and try to change things, they are accused of being militant and told to get back in their closets. By people who think just like you. What are they supposed to do, roll over and take it? Decide that the Christians know what's best for everyone?

NAMBLA, as you well know, is a separate issue altogether; they want to lower the age of consent so they can molest children with impunity. It has nothing to do with gay-rights issues whatsoever, except peripherally. (There are young gay men who seek out older, more experienced men as their first partners, for which there can be legal consequences, but that is another issue.)

Polycarp, if Christianity is such a great think, and is supposed to do so much positive for the human race, and supposed to bring so much joy and so much good to people, and the problem is that, heck, it just keeps getting stolen by bad people, then maybe you and PM and jodih and Jeffery should spend a little less time defending it to me and David and others and spend a little more time defending it from Sherriff McDickless and others like him. If you don't, you are giving tacit approval to their interpretation of and use of your religion.

[Polycarp]

Phil, heard and understood, and thank you. When and where possible, I will proceed to do so. (No sarcasm is intended; you make a valid point.)

[kellibelli]

It is so nice to see everyone getting along.

[Doctor Jackson]

Since this tangent has been broached:

Phil re: religious schooling -
Yes, that's what this country needs is more stupid people.

Lissa re: same -
I want to point out that sending your child to one of them is the worst thing a parent can do. The schools are generally unacreditted, and no real college will accept a student without a GED or other standardized test. From what I've seen, very few graduates could pass a GED.

Well, we've generalized on everything else in this thread, why not education?

My kids attend a church sponsored, Christian school. It is accredited. As a matter of fact, a great deal of this school's curriculum has been adopted by the accreditation board as the model for all schools. GED upon graduation is not necessary. Standardized testing is used annually. The average student at this school scores in the 85th percentile on the Iowa Basic Skills test. This in a state where public education ranks in the bottom 5th of the nation. The kids learn "real" science. Evolution is taught, but from the standpoint that the world, including the evolutionary process was created by God.

Before choosing a school for our kids my wife and I got a copy of the curriculum and textbooks from the public school system and several private schools. Trust me, I would rather be able to avoid the private school expense and send my kids to public school, but a quality education is the main objective. After looking at the curriculum and talking to teachers and administrators the choice was obvious.

Is it accurate to say public schools don't work? Obviously, no. It is just as wrong to paint all religious schools with the same brush. There are good ones, and bad ones, on both sides.

This whole thread has been argued from the extremes. The OP brings up the deluded Sherrif and ARG, PM throws in NAMBLA. There are extremist nuts in all walks of life. To argue based on what extremist do is just a smokescreen. Polycarp is the only one who has posted here without red herrings and retoric. Thanks, Polycarp.

Oh, and one more thing -

Phil says:
Polycarp, if Christianity is such a great think, and is supposed to do so much positive for the human race, and supposed to bring so much joy and so much good to people, and the problem is that, heck, it just keeps getting stolen by bad people, then maybe you and PM and jodih and Jeffery should spend a little less time defending it to me and David and others and spend a little more time defending it from Sherriff McDickless and others like him. If you don't, you are giving tacit approval to their interpretation of and use of your religion

So Christians are to rebuke and censor the Sheriff for his religious beliefs because we consider them wrong, but leave the atheists and practitioners of other religions alone because that's being preachy. Swell, Phil, that makes it all so clear.




------------------
The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs. -- E. Grebenik

[Pickman's Model]

Polycarp: Thank you for saying what I could have, but didn't bother to since it would be fruitless, redundant, and depressing. The better part of the second half of Matthew Chapter 10 comes into play here, I believe.

Phil: I could pursue this subject further, but as I said, it would be fruitless, redundant, and depressing. I have my opinions and viewpoints on this and other subjects, but to attempt to explain them in a rational manner would get us nowhere due to the polarization and politically-charged nature of the debate. Ergo, I won't attempt to try.
Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"What I have written, I have written." ----Pontius Pilate.

[Lissa]

Do I think that my parochial school was superior to the public high school? You bet your sweet bippie I do.

Maybe I should have been more clear. You're completely right about the parochial schools. I've seen some really outstanding Catholic schools. What I was referring to are Protestant the-schoolroom-is-in-the-utility-room-in-the-church-basement type of places. Specifically, schools using the Accelerated Christian Education cirriculum. They're one of the largest church-school franchises.

I stand by this, however: a lot of the schools are unaccredited, and some are not exactly forthcoming about that fact.

Before choosing a school for our kids my wife and I got a copy of the curriculum and textbooks from the public school system and several private schools.

I'm glad to hear this. I wish that all parents would do the same, and I wish there were more schools like that. I have no problem with a private, religious accademy, as long as the educational standards are up to par. The ones I despise wrap children up in a thick layer of blnd ignorance, and thrust them out into the world with a fifth grade education, content in the knowledge that the child can recite Matthew, chapter seven, by heart.

[pldennison]

So Christians are to rebuke and censor the Sheriff for his religious beliefs because we
consider them wrong, but leave the atheists and practitioners of other religions alone
because that's being preachy. Swell, Phil, that makes it all so clear.

Well, do you want people like me to think Christianity produces and is represented by people like Sheriff Hitler, or by people like Polycarp? (This was the very essence of the entire argument I had with Jodi, where she basically accused me of tilting at windmills.) If it makes you happy to see your religion corrupted by people like that, more power to you.

I'm curious as to how many of the people Sheriff Hitler arrests each year would self-identify as Christian, and how many would self-identify as atheists, homosexuals or abortionists. That would go a long way towards revealing just how misplaced his fury is.

PM, I'm sure people here are more than willing to discuss the issue rationally, but I think you'd have a hard time defending a proposition like "Homosexuals should be legally prohibited from having sex, and longtime gay couples should not have the same inheritance rights as straight couples." If that isn't your premise, then I apologize, but it seems to me you're defending that sort of treatment.

[Doctor Jackson]

If it makes you happy to see your religion corrupted by people like that, more power to you.

But you do see the quandry this puts religious folk in, don't you? Even if I could confronted the good Sheriff on national TV and show him how corrupted his interpretations are, it would do no good. I would have to use religious texts to refute his claims. Since no athiest, agnostic, or adherants to other religions would accept my religious texts as a valid reference point I would be "preaching to the choir". The most I could hope for is to change his mind. Wanna lay odds on that?


------------------
The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs. -- E. Grebenik

[pldennison]

Well, I'm genuinely sorry it puts you and other nice Christians in a quandary, Dr. J., but I don't know what to tell you. Guys like this are only going to make it worse.

For the most part, this is the face Christianity presents to the public. Not you, not Polycarp, but Sheriff Hitler, and Jesse Helms, and Fred Phelps, and even Cardinal O'Connor (who wants to ban sports on Sundays so little kids will go to church and not soccer). What are non-Christians to think when the mass of well-meaning Christians don't vocally denounce yahoos like this? These are the people who have empowered themselves to speak for the Christian religion.

[Danny]

***Since no athiest, agnostic, or adherants to other religions would accept my religious texts as a valid reference point I would be "preaching to the choir".***

Not at all! Others of the main-stream are at least tolerant enough to accept that your reference points does not in any way SUPPORT your own fringe elements! If you do not vocally demonstrate it, then only the fringe will fill the airwaves to represent you! You want THAT to happen?

[Polycarp]

Danny is right...those of us who believe that Christian should not be a swearword for everyone who isn't one need to speak up. But I suspect it will do little or no good. Most of the posters on this board saw how little we convinced ARG220 of. And we were "playing on his court" using the same Rulebook.

"The only person you'll ever get to agree with you is someone who already agrees with you." - Frank Zappa

On the other hand, consider Bonhoeffer's epitaph: "First, they came for the Jews. And I didn't protest, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the homosexuals. And I didn't protest, because I wasn't homosexual. .... Then they came for me. And there was nobody left to protest."

[Doctor Jackson]

Guys like this are only going to make it worse.

Amen, brother.

What are non-Christians to think when the mass of well-meaning Christians don't vocally denounce yahoos like this?

Well, we do. You don't hear it because:

These are the people who have empowered themselves to speak for the Christian religion.

Yes, they have. But they are only successful because the media carries their words and pictures to the broader audience. Mainstream Christian teaching doesn't sell advertising. Rabble rousing does. Media execs know this type of retoric is good for ratings. It pisses people off and gets them interested. I present the OP as evidence. I could list many examples of good teachers/preachers/scholars who consistantly rebuke these types of folks. I hear them because I seek them out. Most folks don't, though, and the "mainstream" media ain't gonna bring them to you.

Put another way, I don't believe that Rev. Al Sharpton represents the views of the majority of the NAACP or Christianity, but wherever he goes he gets plenty of air time.

------------------
The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs. -- E. Grebenik

[Danny]

I would hope that before any of us try to convince others outside of our own group (if indeed our beliefs somehow compel us to go out and try to get converts), we would first try to put our own house in order. And THAT, can be a full-time, life-time job already! How can we defend our own beliefs against others if we cannot even defend it against our own?

For what its worth, I think that the fringe will always serve to point out the absurdity of one's sometimes misguided believes, and teach the valuable lessons necessary put one back on track. There will always be the vocal fringe, but we should never let that deter us from what's right. In the end, the fringe is more like entertainment or noise in the background. In the US, in particular, we should not be afraid of words, ever! I fundamentally belief that the majority is not as dumb as these fringe elements make us out to be.

[pldennison]

OK, in the interest of fairness, here's some ammo for the other side:

ST. PAUL, Sept. 30 -- In an interview with Playboy magazine, Gov. Jesse Ventura of Minnesota has said religion is for the ''weak-minded,'' the Tailhook scandal was overblown and the military-industrial complex was to blame for the killing of President John F. Kennedy.

The Associated Press obtained an advance copy of the interview , which appears in the November issue, which will go on sale on Monday.

In the interview , he blamed organized religion for the unpopularity of legalized prostitution, which he has said should be considered. ''Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers,'' he said. ''It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business.''

Anyway . . .

I see your point, Doc. I do. But I don't think it can be blamed completely on the media. In my opinion, and this is only my opinion, it points out the failure of organized religion in general and Christianity in particular to accomplish what it says it can and will. Again, this is only my opinion. (And, FWIW, it would make no nevermind to me if the Christian religion or any other destroyed itself from the inside out.)

Here's another minor and anecdotal example. There's a woman who often shares the bus with me. She is about 75, diabetic, with a bad foot. She goes to the library and gets a lot of books that she totes around in a metal shopping cart. I often help her on and off the bus with it, but I am still on crutches right now.

The other day, I get on the bus and she is already on with her cart. There are two other men sitting at the front of the bus. One has obviously helped her on the bus with it, and is conversing with her and keeping her company (she loves to chat). The other is chatting with the driver. All I hear him talking about is church this, and church that, and our men's group dinner and the Christian bachelor party for his friend and our choir this and on and on and on.

So we get to the woman's stop. The man who had been talking with her helps her get her cart off the bus. Mr. Church simply sits there gabbing. Then, when the door closes, the driver starts complaining about her, and she had the wrong kind of transfer, etc. And Mr. Church joins with the driver in making fun of this old woman.

Now, for all I know, the other guy was Christian too. Maybe, maybe not. But Mr. Church was doing what I see far too many people doing--engaging in what I call Conspicuous Christianity. "Oh, look at me, I love Jesus and I do everything for my church!" But can they be bothered to actually do or say anything nice? Nope, sorry too busy chatting and mocking the elderly and the handicapped.

Is it my business to say something to him? Not AFAIC--I'm not a member of his religion. Obviously this guy is a doofus and religion has done nothing to change that. I've seen it going on for years, in every church I ever belonged to.



------------------
"I love God! He's so deliciously evil!" - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy

[Pickman's Model]

I'm extremely curious........have any of you ever met a religious person---let's say an adherent of a mainstream religious body, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, what have you---who was a real, live good person? I mean somebody who actually had a great love for both God and their fellow man, who did nice things for people, who actually tried to live their faith and not just talk about it? Or have you only met people who were losers, wastrels, hypocrites, liars, lunatics, fanatics, pushy proselytizers, inconsiderate slobs, and assholes?

This must be somebody that you personally know and are acquainted with......Mother Theresa doesn't count, unless you actually knew her.

Is there any such thing as a good religious person? Or are all Christians liars and lunatics, all Muslims fanatical terrorists, all Hindus wild-eyed mystics, all Jews repressed legalists, all Buddhists hollow-minded monks who meditate on riddles, etc.? Is there anybody out there who doesn't fit these molds, who is a religious person worthy of admiration in some way?

For some odd reason, I'm thinking there can't be very many.....if any at all.........

[pldennison]

Oh, sure there have been a few I've known. Just like there have been a few nonreligious people of the same stripe. But people aren't good because they're religious; they're good because they want to be. I mean, don't use me as a representative sample; it's my considered opinion that most people are relatively selfish and shortsighted, albeit benign. Good people are good people whether religious or not.

Too many people (in fact, I'd say a staggering majority in the U.S.A.) think they are accomplishing good just through the act of going to church or believing in God. They think it's an end, when it should be a means.

Besides, finding a truly good religious person doesn't validate the religion any more than finding a truly bad one condemns it. But if the scales tilt heavily in one direction or the other, one has to question the usefulness of the institution.

Christianity is going on its 2000th-odd birthday. Has it made the world demonstrably better? I say "No." It's my feeling, experience and opinion that most people are adherents to make themselves feel better, to reassure themselves in a life after death, and to perform a few perfunctory duties a few times a year and on Sundays to make someone they think exists favor them. They are not adherents in order to make the world better; they are in it for themselves.

[Mojo]

My friend's father is a real-life version of Ned Flanders. I get along with him fine. No "you don't believe what I believe so you're going to burn in hell" messages- more of a "to each their own" mentality.

And I've met many others (hindu, jewish, muslim) who are basically the same way. You just don't hear about them because they're not the in-your-face assholes that get the publicity (Falwell, Oral Roberts, et. al.).

[Gaudere]

In all honesty, the only "conspicuously religious" people I have met who I have considered genuinely good people who practice what they preach have been on this message board. I am pleased to meet *any* person who has a strong, well-reasoned moral code and a compassionate heart. However, in real life, the most religious people I have met have been the most unpleasant, from a preacher who stole and deceived and was one of the most outwardly charming and inwardly unpleasant people I have ever met, to a devout family member who accused (with NO good reason) my recently-deceased father to my and my mother's face of being a thief (and made my mother cry). Most very religious people I know think that God has personally endorsed their predjudices agaist homosexuals, Jews, Mexicans, what-have-you. So while I would like to believe that all the good things that religions espouse would have some affect on those who follow it, from what I have seen its net effect has seemed to me to produce more hypocrites, rather than more good people.

I don't automatically think all religious people are bad, as you seem to be implying. I would *like* to think that all the love is preached is reflected in people's lives. But I fear immoral religous people more than I would immoral atheists, because religious sorts can tell themselves that they have been ordered to do whatever they're doing by God, and then no one can convince them otherwise. Not that atheists can rationalize as well, but fanaticsm is easy to come by when you think the Almighty agrees with you.

Too many people (in fact, I'd say a staggering majority in the U.S.A.) think they are accomplishing good just through the act of going to church or believing in God.

True, this always makes me cringe. I know people who cheerfully flout the commandments, then tell me "We go to church every Sunday; we're good people."

------------------
"Eppur, si muove!" - Galileo Galilei

Chorus of an actual song, c1910:

"He goes to church on Sunday;
He passes 'round the contribution box!
But meet him in the office on a Monday--
He's as cunning and as crooked as a fox!
On Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday,
He's robbing everybody that he can--
But he goes to church on Sunday,
So they say that he's an honest man!"