Skip to main content

View Diary: Dear Conservative Christian Leaders: Why Are You Silent about Rape? (84 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We have to go back in history, where... (10+ / 0-)

    plantation owners (and those who wanted to be a plantation owner) had the right to rape their female slaves to create more serviceable and marketable slaves. Plus, you couldn't get into trouble doing that.

    So, even 150 years later, not because of that kind of rape, but of the white male supremacy over everything still gives youngsters and their older role models the notion that anyone NOT a white male is OK to rape, so long as ya don't get caught... and that white males are NOT OK to do you-know-what... blah blah blah....

    Why don't our most vocal white male moral role models castigate rape or out-of-wedlock sex? They're saving it for when they get a chance. And look at all the cases where they did get away with it, saying "AH HAVE SINNED....!" (not a crime, just sin, 'cause a crime will cost you money, a sin will eventually get you pity money).

    Religion is an illusion, a delusion, and a scam.

    Ugh. --UB.

    "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of East Somalia!"

    by unclebucky on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 08:07:39 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I am actually (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jan4insight, unclebucky, JBL55, irishwitch

      in strong disagreement with you on religion (though I am an agnostic atheist myself) and find those remarks unhelpful.

      However, with the first three paragraphs of your remark I am in large agreement. I think for these people, it is at least as much about maintaining privilege as it is about any notions of morality.

      We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

      by raptavio on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 08:14:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I love when we agree, mostly. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Carol in San Antonio, LookingUp

        Here is a reference to religion being a delusion:

        DE RERUM NATURA - LUCRETIUS
        (Written 55 BCE, Lost 900's CE, and found 1417 CE)
        Explained in "The Swerve - How the World Became Modern" by Stephen Greenblatt
        About Lucretius:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        Points (1-20) from Greenblatt (2011)
        1. Everything is made of invisible particles.
        2. The elementary particles of matter - "the seeds of the things" - are eternal.
        3. The elementary particles are infinite in number but limited in shape and size.
        4. All particles are in motion in an infinite void.
        5. The universe has no creator or designer.
        6. Everything comes into being as a result of a swerve.
        7. The swerve is the source of free will.
        8. Nature ceaselessly experiments.
        9. The universe was not created for or about humans.
        10. Humans are not unique.
        11. Human society began not in a Golden Age of tranquility and plenty but in a primitive battle for survival.
        12. The soul dies.
        13. There is no afterlife.
        14. Death is nothing to us.
        15. All organized religions are superstitious delusions.
        16. Religions are invariably cruel.
        17. There are no angels, devils or ghosts.
        18. The highest goal of human life is the enhancement of pleasure and the reduction of pain.
        19. The greatest obstacle to pleasure is not pain; it's delusion.
        20. Understanding the nature of things generates deep wonder.

        BTW, I am not related to the authors or their publishers. ;)

        It is not an attack on Christianity, since Jesus hadn't been conceived much less been around. It's a consideration that religion had not even at that time been very helpful. And given that Jesus was enrapt with Paulism, basically a Greco-Roman interpretation of "The Way", I'd say that Lucretius applies to both Jesus (points 18-20) and to Christianity/christianISM (points 1-17).

        And pleasure is not (was not) a hedonistic interpretation, but rather more like "happiness" as in the US Constitution and many other analogs of Jesus, including Buddha, Rumi, Bahaulah (sp?) etc.

        That religion is a delusion IS VERY HELPFUL, even if you then adopt a religion, whether it be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Baha'i and many others. Helpful, because then you are loaded for bear and a lot less likely to be a sheeple.

        --UB.

        "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of East Somalia!"

        by unclebucky on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 09:28:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This makes no sense: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          raptavio, Dogs are fuzzy
          given that Jesus was enrapt with Paulism

          "The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another." ~ George Bancroft (1800-1891)

          by JBL55 on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 09:48:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well known that Saul of Tarsus (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Eyesbright, unclebucky

            hijacked Christianity in the early years and the modern church has little to do with the actual teachings of that long-haired, socialist, peacenik from Nazareth.

          •  Oops. Jesus was enwrapped with Paulism (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JBL55

            As Captain Frogbert says, Paul claimed that Jesus visited him in a vision and then commenced to re-define what Jesus said and meant. = Paulism.

            Lucretius/Epicurus really allows for Jesus.

            Paulism allows for nothing else.

            Ugh. --UB.

            "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of East Somalia!"

            by unclebucky on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 08:34:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for clarifying your meaning. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              unclebucky

              One sure-fire way I have of pissing off certain of my fellow Christians is to say about any number of Paulianisms they are unwittingly spouting in the name of Jesus, "Well, Paul is entitled to his opinion."

              "The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another." ~ George Bancroft (1800-1891)

              by JBL55 on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 12:28:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yep, Paul is a real problem... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JBL55

                He wrote first in an era when there was little difference between opinion, fantasy and of course, "history", as we know it.

                So, Paul's tales of appearances of Jesus to him could be no better than Joseph Smith's tales of appearances of angels and others. Sadly, we know of no way that a dead person can appear again.

                All of this fantasy morphed into theology before even Poor Mark wrote the first gospel (Mark stopped when the tomb was empty and the people ran away). Then a Matthew wrote after the fall of Jerusalem. Some say that the John Gospel was written about 20 years after the fall of Jerusalem and during the reign of the mad Emperor Domitian. It is possible that Luke/Acts might have been written as late as the first part of the 2nd century. Each one of those gospels and others had the chance to absorb Paul's "theology".

                Thus Paulism lives and the Way was placed in the background as those who fervently knew Jesus, passed that Kerygma to their kids, and then died, were unable to write an accurate account OR after the Paulists burned the documents of the Way, only some of them surviving.

                The whole mess is a serious blot on the good name of Jesus.

                Ugh. --UB.

                "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of East Somalia!"

                by unclebucky on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:18:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Which is why ... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  unclebucky

                  ... studying it for oneself is such a good idea.

                  I'll never forget the first time I read about David and Saul as an adult and thought, "Poor Saul."  Then I read further about poor Bathsheba and thought, "David was a real scumbag!" But kids aren't taught about David sending Uriah the honorable and dutiful Hittite to his death, nor do they learn about how Nathan held up the mirror and David's reaction.  And that's just one small part of the Bible.

                  If more Christians read the Sermons on the Mount/Plain more often and were given only occasional doses of Paulian opinions couched as such, Christianity would look very different.

                  "The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another." ~ George Bancroft (1800-1891)

                  by JBL55 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 05:32:50 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Not really interested (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JBL55

          in debating the merits of religion with you.

          Am interested in not being disrespectful to those who disagree with you on the matter.

          We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

          by raptavio on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 09:58:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Stating one's own position (0+ / 0-)

            and saying why is not being disrespectful. Not everyone will always agree with you, and not doing so is not inherently insulting.

            Sometimes I get really annoyed with the "courtesy police" on this site. Sometimes people disagree and do it in ways that are not entirely nice. That's life.

            No one can insult you unless you let them.

            "He called me a motherfucker!"

            "Are you?"

            "No!"

            "Then what's the problem?"

            •  Remember that (0+ / 0-)

              the next time someone uses the N-word at a black person.

              Disrespect is unnecessary.

              We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

              by raptavio on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 09:04:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Disagreement is not disrespect (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                unclebucky

                Calling a black person the N word is light years different from saying someone's idea is ridiculous or that their statement was foolish.

                There is a huge difference between making a counter argument and an ad hominem attack or a racial slur.

                And sometimes, when people say really stupid shit, disrespect is necessary. I have no intention of ever treating, say, Wayne Lapierre with the slightest shred of respect. He deserves none and has earned none.

                •  Calling people deluded (0+ / 0-)

                  for having religious faith is not disagreement, and their faith does not make them comparable to Wayne LaPierre.

                  We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                  by raptavio on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 05:45:02 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If you told me (0+ / 0-)

                    you believe in Bigfoot and Santa Claus as an adult would I be justified in calling you deluded? If you believe that the GOP has your best interests at heart, could I call you deluded? If you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, acting alone, could I call you deluded?

                    If I believe you have been duped or are, in fact, deluded, can I call you deluded?

                    Or must I play the game of, well you can believe what you like, bit I think...

                    You are free to call me deluded because I believe the Earth is billions of years old and the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old. You are free to call me deluded because I believe there is life on other planets, we just haven't found evidence of it, yet. You are free to call me deluded because I believe that all religion is the result of man's foolishness and attempts to co-opt God for their own nefarious purposes.

                    Go ahead, I won't mind.

                    Because I know I'm right and am capable of arguing for my positions from a position of strength.

                    Only people who believe they are owed a free pass and that they have a right never to be questioned or disagreed with play the "how dare you?" card.

                    If you have an argument to make, make it. But don't complain that you should never be questioned.

                    •  I love how you pivot (0+ / 0-)

                      from "It's disrespectful to call someone deluded" to 'Don't complain that you should never be questioned' in a post where you proudly proclaim that you argue from a position of strength.

                      You deceptively shift the goalposts to defend your right to be a dick to other people -- and ironically, are trying to argue that other people have no business telling you that you're being disrespectful when you do it.

                      So you're arguing that you have the right to be jerky to other people, but they shouldn't tell you not to be jerky to other people.

                      Do you see no levels of screaming hypocrisy in this line of thinking?

                      We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                      by raptavio on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 11:48:44 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No. (0+ / 0-)

                        I never said you don't have the right to call me a jerk (who's moving the goal posts again?) I said you can't expect people to always be nice and that disagreement isn't being a jerk.

                        It's not.

                        And even if it is, it's childish to imagine you can courtesy police all people at all times. Sometimes people, in the heat of the moment, don't finesse their arguments (go back and read your own post and tell me that's not true).

                        Be a grown up. Take it in stride. Understand the adult position that when people disagree, they are often less than polite about it. So what? Have a little backbone.

                        Jeez.

                        (See how I didn't whine and blubber about being called a dick and a hypocrite, even though I never once called you anything of the sort? That's called being a grown up. But just to be fair, Hypocrite much?)

                        Like way too many people, you make weak and sophistic arguments -- actually not even arguments, just blanket declarations -- then whinge when people call you on them. You have a right to your own opinions, but you don't have a right to never be called on them. Just because you feel something deeply doesn't make you right.

                        •  Yes, you did (0+ / 0-)

                          whine and blubber -- by loudly announcing you're not whining and blubbering. Which is exactly what I expected you to do.

                          Here's a hint: We all are dicks to people sometimes. We are also all hypocritical sometimes. Get over it.

                          At the core of all your bluster, however, is a fundamental fallacy: That disagreement requires disrespect, or rather, that one can hide disrespect in the cloak of disagreement. That's fundamentally false. One can say "I don't believe in religion and I don't see the value in doing so" without saying "You are religious, therefore you're deluded." The former is making a statement about your beliefs. The latter is insulting someone else for disagreeing.

                          And ya know what? If you want to do either, that's your right. It's also my right to tell you that if you're doing the latter, you're being a dick.

                          Don't like it? Well then, quit whining and blubbering at me for disagreeing with you.

                          We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                          by raptavio on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 08:44:35 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

          •  Let religion defend itself ON ITS MERITS n/t (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Penny GC

            "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of East Somalia!"

            by unclebucky on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 08:32:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Who says that (0+ / 0-)

              religion requires a defense?

              Also, religion cannot defend itself, and neither can science. Both require people to defend them.

              Religion is just a matter of faith. If faith gives someone comfort and encourages one to be a better person, why do you feel the need to insult the faithful? You're not really possessed of such a low self-esteem that you need someone to whom to feel superior are you?

              We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

              by raptavio on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 02:59:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Then what is religion good for? (0+ / 0-)

                Science has a track record, baby, whilst religion only relies on some scant records that were written by men, then edited and edited and translated and translated.

                "just a matter of faith" ? That totally discredits such a religion, then.

                For if you look at the Beatitudes, Parables, Lord's Prayer (up to but not incl. the "Doxology"), related passages and the Letter of James, you see a call to ACTION, not Faith. Or at least, ACTION FIRST, then Faith.

                I have no reason to admit to low-esteem. Those who rely on a sky-god certainly do. For if you, as many thumpers do, pledge to be dependent on "God" (if exist) then you have a very low-esteem or a very false self esteem based on the claim of a ticket to heaven in exchange for said "faith". I don't bribe a sky-god. That puts me on a more honest relationship with the Universe.

                I don't insult the "faithful". I merely point out that selling indulgences and trinkets was spotted many times by more ethical people who were often killed by the RCC or its descendants. Luther could have been boiled in oil like Pomponio Algerio had he ventured back to Rome.

                So, settle down, this is a discussion based in evidence, not faith in someone's fantasies. If the "faithful" want comfort, ask them what happens when the light at the end of the tunnel winks out and NOTHING happens. Ask them what happens when the Sun runs out of hydrogen and expands to singe and then subsume the Earth? The goal is to educated ourselves properly worldwide so that we can develop the means to escape it before thumpers/fundies destroy it and before any celestial disaster ruins the chance of our descendants to get off.

                Meh. christianISTs.

                Ugh. --UB.

                "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of East Somalia!"

                by unclebucky on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 09:29:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You're shifting (0+ / 0-)

                  from "Religion is delusion" to a discussion of the evil actions of the RCC or Christianists.

                  No.

                  The right question is not "What is religion good for?" What is World of Warcraft good for? What is Doctor Who good for? What is The White Album good for? What is The Mona Lisa good for?

                  The question is, "What the fuck business is it of yours what people believe, as long as that belief doesn't translate to any harm to you or yours?"

                  You want to get pissed at the RCC for their efforts to deny equal rights to gays, to deny birth control to regions of the world that desperately need it, to protecting pedophiles in the clergy, then yo man, I'm right there with you. If you want to go after any so-called "Christian" leader in the US who wants to defend and perpetuate rape culture in the US, I'm your staunch ally.

                  But if you want to smugly dismiss everyone from Martin Luther King Jr to Mahatma Gandhi to Paul Wellstone to Barack Obama to Fred Rogers as "deluded" then all you're really declaring is you want to place yourself in judgment of other people who you've got no business judging. And that says something ugly about you, not them.

                  We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                  by raptavio on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 08:51:37 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No. (0+ / 0-)

                    The evil actions of the RCC and other thumper/fundie sects (Mormons incl.) are a detail in the whole argument of "religion is a delusion".

                    In saying that "religion is a delusion", as I posted earlier, it only prepares the postulant to be skeptical with a Martin King, Fred Rogers, and even the "written" words of Jesus (goes without saying Paul is off my list).

                    To be skeptical and to critically examine the claims of religion, literally testing what any minister, pastor, or archbishop of Rome says to see if it holds together against criticism.

                    Nope. I'm right on the path with Epicurus, Lucretius, Buddha, Jesus, Rumi, Francis of Assisi, Gustavo Gutierrez, Jon Sobrino, Pablo Friere, etc.

                    Meh. christianISTs.

                    Ugh. --UB.

                    "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of East Somalia!"

                    by unclebucky on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 09:43:58 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Here's the thing. (0+ / 0-)

                      "Religion is a delusion" is a statement of fact.

                      Agnostic atheists -- and indeed, anyone applying the rules of sound science -- understand that we cannot prove the nonexistence of God(s). We cannot demonstrate the existence of same, obviously, and thus the null hypothesis is in nonexistence. And thus, atheist.

                      To say religion is a delusion, however, is to by implication make a definitive statement -- "God definitely does not exist" -- which you cannot support with evidence. (You cannot prove a negative, as they say.) So you cross the line from rational skepticism to your own brand of faith which you present with all the zeal of the christianISTs you decry.

                      You become your own declared enemy. And all so you can insult people who believe in things which should not matter one whit to you.

                      We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                      by raptavio on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 10:20:55 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  "God definitely does not exist" didn't say that. (0+ / 0-)

                        Remember Gandhi's statement:

                        "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

                        That's the problem, you don't seem to separate the following:

                        1. God (if exist)
                        2. "sky-god" (did NOT exist, created by men)
                        3. Jesus (did exist)
                        4. Paul (unfortunately did exist)
                        5. People of the Way (did exist)
                        6. Catholics/Christians (exist but fading)
                        7. RCC Clergy and murderers from Paul to 19th Century (exist but are increasingly irrelevant)
                        8. ChristianISTs (the danger of the 21st Century)
                        9. Dogma/Faith, the Bible, the Credo, etc.
                        10. Secular Humanity, Science, Lucretius, etc.

                        It is not a zero sum game, pal. Rather, one can have varying feelings for and against any of these topics, and more feeling for one does not necessarily mean less for the others.

                        So, keep in mind, I tease about the "sky-god", but I am serious. If a person defines "God" in a text, image or sculpture, that is a graven image. And if one then worships that man-made (the Bible was written by men...) graven image, it's blasphemy. The Muslims offer the point, don't speculate about God, because this is something ultimately unknowable. Fine with me, so I don't worry about what a God likes or not, since if the Creator is of infinite wisdom, everything is good, but not perfect for a person in a particular time or place.

                        It is RELIGION, the man made description of "God" that is the delusion, but given that a "Creator" of the Universe/Multiverse is unknowable, we cannot say that "God" is a delusion, only the crackpot religions that seek to define "God".

                        IF these religions didn't matter a "whit" to me, I wouldn't bother. Problem is that these religions inveigle and interfere with my life and they at times have tried to control on the pain of death other people's lives. For that reason, I am loaded for bear, and I confront these delusions with sarcasm, mocking, and jokes, if only to wake some people UP!

                        Ugh. --UB.

                        "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of East Somalia!"

                        by unclebucky on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:26:56 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No, you did not say that, (0+ / 0-)

                          but to say "Religion is a delusion" is to proceed from the position that God definitely does not exist. Because religion can only be a delusion if God doesn't exist -- if He exists, then it is not delusional to believe in him.

                          But now you've narrowed your scope (we call this a "backpedal") in that only those religions which try to define God are delusional. (Again, not true if their definitions prove to be correct, which again is an untestable hypothesis, so my point stands: You are asserting fact which is untestable.)

                          And here's point three for you. Religions never inveigle, inveigh or interfere. A religion is an abstract. Only people can interfere in your life. And perhaps you should direct your focus to those practitioners of religion who cause you distress rather than to insult all practitioners of faith, whether they do or they don't.

                          All you do with your mockery is show your own ass, and miss what should properly be your target -- the people who use their faith as an excuse to harangue secular people like us. In your "a pox on all their houses" approach, you alienate potential allies among the faithful and exemplify the very character traits which, when present in the religious, cause you such annoyance.

                          We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                          by raptavio on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:55:06 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  No. Wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                            Religion is what people make "about" God. Religion often makes a "sky-god" which people then think they can worship or praise, or leave fruit in front of. Religion is noxious. As far as God, there is no evidence, and so I leave my text littered with (if exist).

                            God (may exist) ≠ sky-god (does not exist).

                            Religion ≠ Universe, Multiverse & God (if exist).

                            With regard to mockery, if the faithful are so thin-skinned as to see the mockery of an extreme idolatry having anything to do with them, well, tough cheese. If they are truly reflective and moderate, they will see that the barrel misses them by miles.

                            Of course, here, we are talking about one aspect of this problem, the apparent blasphemy of sky-god punishers and Calvinist scolds. But I have more in my toolbox than this.

                            There is a whole bunch of stuff I would rather promote than mocking blockheads who create/worship a graven image they "call" God.

                            1. Lucretius really jibes with Jesus.
                            2. Jesus, while not God, is like us, a Son of the Creator.
                            3. Beatitudes, Parables, Lord's Prayer (up to but not incl. the "Doxology"), related passages, and the Letter of James are the "marching orders" that we should be about to build the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth (not religion, but sweat and aching backs).
                            4. Emmaus Houses in various cities.
                            5. Liberation Theology, by Gustavo Gutierrez
                            6. No Salvation Outside of the Poor, by Jon Sobrino
                            7. When my Great-great-great-grandparents were kids, there was less than 1 billion. When my Grandmother was a kid there was less than 2 billion. When my Mother and Dad were kids, there were 2 billion. When I was a kid, there were only 3 billion. Now there are 7.2 billion, and they think we can use technology to support 9 or even 12+ billion. Nonsense. Soylent Green is our future in that case, depend on it.
                            8. 7 billion can't live like the average person in Arlington Heights, IL, and 12 billion won't. But if we try, we will deface the planet and exterminate everything but what we think is necessary (it turns out to be a monoculture). We must return to overall lower expectations and between 2-3 billion, it seems we can support no more.
                            9. Music. My gosh, I could inundate you with music that is the most beautiful in the world, from all ethnicities.
                            10. Poetry. Likewise.
                            11. Language. We are losing many languages in the search for efficiency. When that happens, there goes the poetry, music, beauty and our souls.

                            Nope. I WON'T give up bashing the stupidities of thumpers and fundies. If reasonable users of religion can't see the difference, I will educate them. But my tolerance of religion is thin, given the vein of death, destruction and sorrow that is caused by religion, on the whole.

                            Believe what you want or nothing at all. I will not pander to "believers" who don't see how their tolerance of crazies like Westboro Baptist Church, Megachurches, and Personality-Based Cults. They need to be woken up.

                            That's it, raptavio. Tolerate your enemy and he will stab you in the neck.

                            Ugh. --UB.

                            "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of East Somalia!"

                            by unclebucky on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 04:53:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Really... (0+ / 0-)

                            So your evidence for this is?

                            God (may exist) ≠ sky-god (does not exist).

                            Religion ≠ Universe, Multiverse & God (if exist).

                            You also try to redefine 'religion' to suit your argument.

                            The remainder of your post is full of nonsequiturs and other fallacies which, frankly, serve only to provide a thin veneer of rationalization for what I have become convinced is nothing more than bigotry on your part.

                            I really tire of arguing this with you... obviously you want to feel that sense of smug superiority about being secular while others believe in a (sky, earth, space, extradimensional, transubstantiated) god(s).

                            Myself, I find people with confidence in their philosophy don't feel the need to put adherents of others down.

                            More's the pity for you, because your claimed goals run counter to your tactics.

                            This will be my last post on this matter.
                            End of line.

                            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                            by raptavio on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 05:12:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I had no inclination to "argue", but you... (0+ / 0-)

                            are simply one of those who are "hair splitters" and not interested in finding ways to communicate.

                            "last post" eh?

                            Hehehe.

                            Ugh. --UB.

                            "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of East Somalia!"

                            by unclebucky on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 02:07:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  What is wrong with out of wedlock sex as long (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      irishwitch

      as all parties (including the husband/wife of the person in question, it's not cheating as long as everyone agrees to the "house rules" in advance) are fully consenting?

      You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Mar 25, 2013 at 10:01:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site