Reverend Ken Hutcherson will make a formal declaration of war this Thursday on a Focus on the Family radio broadcast. This Seattle-area bigot pastor is calling for a national boycott of Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Nike and other companies that support a gay civil rights bill in Washington state.
I took a look at the Focus on the Family website and I couldn’t help but laugh. Right on the front page was a picture of a happy black family. I wonder how happy they would have been 75 years ago when Christians wearing white sheets would decorate their front yards with burning crosses.
Discriminating against homosexuals is no different than discriminating against blacks, Jews, Christians, Muslims, or any other defined group of people. It’s rooted in ignorance and has no place in a civilized society. Whether or not the bible says its wrong is of no concern to those who don’t subscribe to the Christian doctrine.
Related posts:
- Christian Hypocrites Attack Ford
- Common Sense And Christianity
- Common Sense And Courtesy Absent In Islam
- Muslim Cabbies Ditch Common Sense In Favor Of Islam
- Jews And Muslims Have One Thing In Common
January 18th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Yeah, Linux.
But on a more serious note. How would you manage to do anything if Microsoft got boycotted. I don’t really like it, but about every business in America relies on it. I’m talking dirrectly too, not that they indirrectly rely on it. This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Aside from a few Bush quotes.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:18 pm
Well, it doesn’t seem right to force a person to spend his money following your beliefs, even if he his a bigot. A man should be able to do what he wants with his money, hire who he wants, etc. Discrimination is crappy, but anti-discrimination law is despicable in a free country.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
I love how people are extremely liberal with what passes for “christian” these days. Those same people with hoods and burning crosses were, of course, not christian. But to the moronic masses who wish to condemn all religion because of their simple minds, those hooded people serve as a nice way to dig at a group of harmless and good people.
I am sure you feel powerful, but you just show your weakness.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
A few points:
1. Disdain for the Homosexual Agenda is not bigotry. Just because I don’t think the government should endorse a lifestyle I believe to be immoral does not mean I hate gay people.
2. Your race and your sexual orrentation are not equivilant things to compare. No one has ever been able to willfully change their race. People have chosen to change their sexual orientation.
3. Get your history straight. The black couple on the Focus page should be happy for Christians. It was Christians, led by William Wilberforce, who led the movement to end the slave trade. And again, it was Christians, such as the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. himself who led the movement for civil rights. The KKK is a bunch of hate mongers - they aren’t Christians.
January 19th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
That’s exactly the way I see it. Discriminating against homosexuals is not much different from discriminating against people of other beliefs/backgrounds. It reminds me of an event several years ago when the mother of the homosexual boy that was killed (can’t remember any of the specifics :( ) came to our university to speak about what happened. She was not promoting homosexuality at all, but rather was promoting tolerance and understanding. But low and behold there was a preacher from Kentucky (I think ?) following her and protesting every where she went. In fact, I think she never actually made it here because of him.
To me this is nothing more than pure hatred. If anything I would think he was promoting what happened to her son. It just disgusts me. Christians today are focused to much on the social reform that they forget about the reformation of the heart which is where they’re supposed to be focused.
I also agree with phil though. Discrimination is something that should never happen (especially from Christians) but I think anti-discrimination is utter crap. I live in the southeast and I know several people who could not get jobs in this area because the government says that 30% of your area is made up of this race so 30% of your employees should be of this race. Nevermind the fact that there are not even 10% of that race in the particular profession. It’s to the point that you’re not hired based on qualification any more, its about demographics first, then qualification.
January 19th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
“To me this is nothing more than pure hatred. If anything I would think he was promoting what happened to her son. It just disgusts me. ”
Then this just shows that you do not know what hatred is and what it means.
If a christian group protests disney because they put out porn, does that mean those christians “hate” disney, “hate” the actors or “hate” the porn. Obviously it would be “hate” the porn. It is to easy to degrade the conversation to attack the groups and people. Please do not do that. Talk about the subject matter.
As for the word hate. This word is thrown around so casually tha it has lost meaning. To “hate” something used to mean you reviled the subject with such vigor and passion that it would consume you. Now it seems to mean a passing dislike but a general malaisic attitude. We should really use better words
“Christians today are focused to much on the social reform that they forget about the reformation of the heart which is where they’re supposed to be focused.”
Christians are tasked with helping the world AS WELL as bringing themselves closer to perfection.
January 19th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
“Christians are tasked with helping the world AS WELL as bringing themselves closer to perfection.”
I don’t see how protesting against a mother who is trying to prevent similar acts happening to other people is helping anyone or bringing anyone closer to perfection.
January 19th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
“Christians are tasked with helping the world AS WELL as bringing themselves closer to perfection.â€
I guess we all just need to try harder so we can meet the perception of Christian perfection!
Religion is is the greatest marketing and sales tool the world has ever known. A lot of people subscribe to it because they have faith (for lack of a better answer). At least it gives them something to believe in and to feel good about.
January 20th, 2006 at 8:20 am
//
// Disclamer: I’m from sweden(where polar bears roam free in the streets eating children :O )
//
1:First off I must say that I consider religion to be on old obsolete phenomenon that are off no father use for mankind. Much like the human appendix, it’s has no function but it’s still there (unfortunaliy it’s far more easy to remove an appendix then a religion).
2: Why do you weak-minded Christians care so much about what’s going on in people’s homes.? I don’t get it!
3:”government should endorse a lifestyle” The government have no business in endorsing any lifestyle of any kind. People are free to do as they please whitin the constraints of the law. So if peopel wanna be muslim homosexual transvestites let them. We only have 1 life why not enyoy it?
4:Religion is evil!
January 20th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
#9:
ummm…I want to move to Sweden, i only hear good things…except for the polar bear thing.
January 20th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
This is interesting. I’m from Denmark (small country next to Sweden) and the only reply to this thread that I can fully agree with is #9. Maybe that’s just something from “atheistic Scandinavia”.
@#10:
Denmark is better. Not as cold and beer is cheaper :D
January 20th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Response to #9.
2. It doesn’t seem that they care about what you do in your home, they are concerned that they will be required to support it. Making someone pay for something they disagree with is usually wrong. If I am legally required to hire someone or, even if I feel that I will be supporting his ’sinful’ lifestyle, that isn’t right. If I have to pay them special tax benefits to reward behavior I think is sinful, this is wrong as well.
3. I agree, but here they are talking about giving tax breaks to homosexual couples, which is endorsement. Same with anti-discrimination laws. Don’t give ANYONE special benefits and we solve the problem.
4. This is a very blanket statement, and doesn’t bode well for your argument.
January 20th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
They give tax breaks to regular couples. So it’s really not that big of a deal, so quit your senseless belly-aching, and go back to your nice secure job, where nobody bothers you.
But I would agree afirmative action needs to be fixed, but not done away with.
January 21st, 2006 at 6:35 am
Response to #12.
2:†If I have to pay them special tax benefits to reward behavior I think is sinful, this is wrong as well.“ (From Wikipedia)†Sin has been a term most usually used in a religious context, and today describes any lack of conformity to the will of God; especially, any willful disregard for the norms revealed by God is a sin.â€
As seen above the concept of sin is a purely religious idea. And religion is something that you have at home. When you leave your house you are to leave your religious ideals at the door. If you choose not to by a product/service for reasons that have to do with you “morals†you are free do so at the personal level. But say for example you are the supply manager at a cooperation and decides that you will not do business whit X company based on you personal beliefs you are in my opinion doing something wrong. Mixing in religion in any kind of way not personal is dangerous and wrong. Furthermore religion and governments shall not mix under any circumstance, and that’s why my neck hair stands up due to fear every time I hear Bush say. â€God bless America.â€
4: Let me elaborate. I can’t think of a phenomenon that has caused more suffering then religion. Hundreds of thousands of wars, Countless billon dead can all be credited to some kind of religion. Christianity for example is responsible for the middle ages when science was banned for 700 years who can say where we may have been today without Christianity to hold us back.
And remember we are all humans, we are born equal and we shall treat everyone whit the respect they deserves. This tiny detail is what separates us from the animals.
January 22nd, 2006 at 6:43 pm
I’m agreeing with you here for the most part. All that I’m suggesting is that rather than piss a lot of people off by having the government give rewards for doing the “good” thing and getting married (straight or gay), don’t do anything. This certainly isn’t an essential government service, so why even have the problem to begin with? In business, a person should be able to spend his money as he chooses. If stockholders urge a company to avoid dealings with another, then the company should do as the stockholders urge. This is an example of property rights, plain and simple. If your company goes ahead and does business with the snubbed one, you will probably end up at an advantage for your lack of bigotry (you get better prices, can hire better workers, etc.), no government intervention necessary.
4. I can’t agree that science was “banned” for 700 years. Some Christians did take on an anti-science additude, but there were always exceptions. Atheists cause suffering as well. Mankind as a whole does it, but up until recently, everyone had gods of some kind. Throughout the middle ages, people (who probably didn’t believe to begin with)used the idea of God to make the people obey, much like Caesar made himself one. Similar things are used today, leaders will always use something to force obedience, be it religion, nationalism, terrorism, or something else. People want power, religion has just been used as a tool by them. That doesn’t mean that groups such as the Salvation Army are evil. They don’t try to get power or be subversive, they are driven by a belief that God wants them to be helpful. Religion can be good or evil, but unfortunately, evil people often use it to justify their actions. They would probably just find another tool if you eliminate religion. You are treating the symptom, not the disease.
5. We should treat people with respect, but legislating anything but negative rights is tyranny, plain and simple.
January 23rd, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Wait, they are hypocrites because they dislike homosexuality but like black people?
Am I the only one that doesn’t catch how the one follows from the other?
January 23rd, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Jesus was accepting of everyone and preached tolerance and forgiveness. What modern day Christians have shown through their hatred towards homosexuals is just the opposite. Instead of reaching out to homosexuals and offering their compassion and guidance, Christians try to pass legislation to remove basic human civil rights. That is the very definition of hypocrite.
Practice what Jesus preached or find another religion.
January 23rd, 2006 at 4:26 pm
In response to #14
>>As seen above the concept of sin is a
>>purely religious idea. And religion is
>>something that you have at home.
>>When you leave your house you are to
>>leave your religious ideals at the door.
This is one of the primary flaws of Atheist thought. Freedom of Religion does not mean Freedom From Religion. Freedom of Religion means that people can believe whatever the hell they feel like, and the government shouldn’t/won’t give preference to one or another. It does not mean that people should check their religious beliefs at the door when the leave for work; on the contrary, they can believe whatever they feel like at school or work. For example, if a kid wants to form a Jewish youth group at their high school, by all means go ahead. All the school can’t do is give preference to one religious denomination over another on the campus.
When it comes to democracy, we can divide our laws into two sets: normal crimes, and victimless crimes. Victimless crimes are things such as adultery (which is against the law if you are a member of the military), prostitution (assuming the prostitute is not being coerced), etc. It’s obvious that normal crimes are necessary for a functioning country, but why the laws against victimless crimes? Because the popular majority doesn’t want to see their neighborhood become, for example, Amsterdam.
A majority in a region has the right to establish laws governing the commission of these victimless crimes. It is well within their right to say that prostitution cannot be committed within the county, EVEN THOUGH THE CRIME HURTS NO ONE.
To come to my point, the basis for the prohibition of these victimless crimes may very well come from religious beliefs. As long as the laws themselves are religion-neutral, it is valid and correct for these sorts of laws to exist.
This must be balanced against personal rights, and freedom from government intrusion into the personal space. For example, sodomy laws should be repealed.
>>But say for example you are the supply
>>manager at a cooperation and decides that
>> you will not do business whit X company
>>based on you personal beliefs you are in
>>my opinion doing something wrong.
Supply managers shouldn’t have that kind of control over who the company deals with. But if the president of Focus on the Family does not want to buy it’s stationary from the Purple Lambda Paper Co. in San Francisco, that’s his own damn business. It’s called freedom, FFS.
>>Mixing in religion in any kind of way not
>> personal is dangerous and wrong.
Incorrect. All ethical beliefs eventually devolve into something resembling religion, regardless of if there is a God or other supernatural entity involved. Atheists have been trying to push for the last 20 years the stance that only ethical beliefs which are not based on any religion can be valid in the public sphere (for example, an atheist would often say it is perfectly fine for a company to not deal business with another company that is opposed to homosexuality). I call this the black hole of atheism — they attempt to “win” the age old debates in philosophy by not even allowing those which have derived from thousands of year old traditions to be considered in the public sphere.
But ultimately, all people have a code of conduct. The prima facie evidence clearly shows that ethical codes derived from religious thought lead to superior outcomes, so the atheist contention that all ethical beliefs stemming from religion should be banned from consideration is clearly flawed, and should be discarded.
>>Furthermore religion and governments
>> shall not mix under any circumstance,
>>and that’s why my neck hair stands up due
>> to fear every time I hear Bush say. â€God
>> bless America.â€
Incorrect. Governments should not give preference to one religion over another. They are not prohibited from having intercourse with religions. For example, if a city is selling off land, it is not forbidden to sell it to a Buddhist group that wants to build a church there (disregarding zoning issues, etc.). At high schools, if students want to form religious clubs, they are free to do so. If they school gives classroom space to any clubs, they have to give it to religious clubs, and if they give it to religious clubs, they have to give it all all religious clubs.
Politicians are not required to become atheists when they assume office. If so, this leads directly back to the atheist black hole problem, where they expect all people to scrub their minds of any ethical beliefs that do not derive from the atheist tradition. I would much rather prefer politicians follow their core ethical beliefs while in office (such as they are, they are politicians after all), than requiring them to stop considering the issues of right and wrong as they have been their entire life. Doing so would be a disaster for the country, and the world.
>>4: Let me elaborate. I can’t think of a
>>phenomenon that has caused more suffering
>> then religion.
I can’t think of a phenomenon that has done more good for the world than religion.
I would recommend by setting aside your atheistic beliefs for a second, and doing research into the history of the world. I’ve found that most incorrect atheist beliefs stem from ignorance, and not from actual hatred towards religion. (For example, one atheist I talked to hated christianity because “the crusaders killed the druids”, which was amazing because it was the romans who destroyed the celtic empire, several hundred years before Christ. I was curious how someone who “lived by the laws of science” could explain to me how christians could have wiped out a nation before the religion had even started. Perhaps they time travelled.)
>> Hundreds of thousands of wars, Countless
>> billon dead can all be credited to some
>> kind of religion.
Again, if you’re going to pretend to be an atheist, you should at least make some nod to rationality and fact.
You know what the top killer of all time was? Communism. From the table of civilians killed by governments:
Soviet Union: 61.9 million dead
Communist China: 49.1 million dead (counting Mao, communist guerrillas and the revolution)
Then you have the Axis in WWII:
WWII Germany: 20.9 million dead
Japan: 6 million dead
Then back to mainly communists:
Cambodia (communists): 2 million dead
Armenian Genocide by Turkey: 1.9 million dead
Vietnam (communists): 1.7 million dead
North Korea (communists): 1.7 million dead
Poland (communists): 1.6 million dead
This is the leader board for genocide in the 20th century. Genocide accounts for about 150 MILLION deaths, which is about 4x the number of people killed in all the wars in the 20th century, which outstrips all the world’s previous wars. In the historic past, you have the mongols, who killed between 10 and 60 million people across Ghengis and Tamerlane.
The closest genocide to this with mainly religious reasons was the Albigensian crusade which killed between 200,000-1 million Albis.
The rest of the wars so casually attributed to Christianity more used religion as a premise rather than a reason. The hundred years’ war is commonly referred to as a religious war because Catholics and Protestants squared off against each other. And if you believe that’s the real reason, I’d suggest studying your history a little more.
On a side note, I’m curious where the whole meme about christianity being the greatest killer of people the world has ever seen has come from, when it’s so blatantly wrong.
>>Christianity for example is responsible
>>for the middle ages when science was
>>banned for 700 years who can say where we
>> may have been today without Christianity
>> to hold us back.
Science was banned? How fascinating.
If you’re going to play at being a rationalist, you should at least try reading something, some time.
>>And remember we are all humans, we are
>>born equal and we shall treat everyone
>>whit the respect they deserves. This tiny
>> detail is what separates us from the
>>animals.
Sure!
January 24th, 2006 at 1:27 am
I’m actually an Anton LaVeyan satanist, and personally don’t really care what you are attracted to. However:
Discriminating based on sexual preference IS very different to discriminating based on race.
You can change what / who you are attracted to (yes, there will be people who say “Homosexuality is no choice”, however, what about people who change back to heterosexuality?). Your race is with you forever.
January 26th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
When asking if homosexuality is a choice, why not ask the inverse?
Is your heterosexuality a choice? Could you become gay just by deciding it like that? Do you feel aroused or full of desire and ‘terderness’ on command? Decision-based my ass.
And as always, it’s the example of the guy/girl who gone back, be it religion/atheism, hetero/homo or sweet/salty. What about the other 99% that did NOT go back on their so-called decision?
January 27th, 2006 at 9:16 am
I agree with you Vincent. A gay man has about as much of a choice to be straight as a straight man has to become gay. It’s just not going to happen. Sure a few have switched, but eventually they’ll give in to their true desires.
As for sexual “preference” being way different than race…I disagree. You are what you are. Race is more obvious visually, but like race, your sexuality is decided in the womb. It’s who you are. Do people honestly believe that homosexuals would choose that path given the amount of hatred towards them? Many homosexuals living in rural areas have risked their lives being homosexual. Many have been abandoned by their families and communities. I seriously doubt they “chose” to do that anymore than I “chose” to be straight. I have no interest in men and homosexuals have no interest in the opposite sex.
It really is that simple.
As for Sam being a LaVeyan satanist, please use the contact page to email me. I would like to ask you a few question about that. Sounds interesting to say the least.
January 28th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Blaming racist hate crimes on Christians is like blaming slavery on the cotton farmers.
January 31st, 2006 at 6:22 pm
In response to 18: "All ethical beliefs eventually devolve into something resembling religion, regardless of if there is a God or other supernatural entity involved. " This is absolute bs. Ethical beliefs do NOT have to come from god at all, go read some Kant. He realized that saying "believe this because God says so" is logically equivalent to saying "believe this because Zeus says so" and thus set about creating an ethical framework completely separate from the idea of "god." Source if you don’t believe me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant#Kant.27s_moral_philosophy "The prima facie evidence clearly shows that ethical codes derived from religious thought lead to superior outcomes" I want a source for this article/study. "My ass" does not count as a source. You claim to have evidence, so present it. "I can’t think of a phenomenon that has done more good for the world than religion." Yes, teaching people that they have to obey a set of laws during this life in exchange for an eternal reward in the next is a "good" thing (sarcasm++). Instilling those beliefs into people makes the short time we have in this universe an insanely pointless "test," and ultimately people are just waiting around to die so they can have a reward in heaven. If you throw out religion, all of the sudden life is an incredible gift (think of all the causal relationships that had to occur in just the right way for you and I to be sitting here) which is to be cherished and made the most of while we’re here. You really need to read this book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/087975124X/002-0554713-0958404?v=glance&n=283155 If you still believe in god and religion after that, then you, sir, are not a man of logic and reason but rather a man of blind obedience.
February 7th, 2006 at 8:55 am
In Re: to #23.
“This is absolute bs. Ethical beliefs do NOT have to come from god at all, go read some Kant.”
Lol.
It’s funny you should mention Kant, as I just finished reading another book on his ethics.
I find it particularly amusing that many Atheists embrace Kant because the Categorical Imperative gives them an alternative to God as a ground for morality. It’s amusing because any philosophy student within 5 minutes of reflection can start finding problems with the theory, and realize that it’s complete tripe within 10. And if you actually read Kant’s writings, you realize that his discourses on various topics more or less contradict all of his beautifully stated principles.
The strength of a philosophy is not that it can explain one thing really well, but rather that it does a decent job on a wide variety of issues.
Take the issue of suicide. It’s used as a classic example in introductory philosophy classes for explaining the categorical imperative. In short, “Suicide is wrong because if everyone did it, then the world would end.” So don’t kill yourself. All well and good.
But when you actually read Kant’s musings on the subject, he says that suicide is “sometimes” okay. Sometimes. In other words, even thought the whole point of the Categorical Imperative is to eliminate exceptions for the individual (i.e. all thieves justify an exception for themselves stealing — but they personally don’t want to be stolen from), Kant in fact repeatedly makes exceptions from the universal law for individuals in his casuistry, so as to avoid completely ridiculous extrapolations from his philosophy. But that just means his philosophy is irrational, which isn’t much better for a philosophy supposedly founded on rationality and a priori reasoning.
Likewise, in some cases he holds one’s moral principles and individual decisions as the most important thing in the world, which is completely at odds against a universal categorical imperative where all men share the same moral duties.
Essentially, I think Kant might be useful in considering issues from a certain light, especially when formulating laws, as one of his primary interests was in creating a just society for people to live in (he lived in Prussa). But it’s hideous and irrational as a ground for personal ethics.
Case in point, if you’re feeling especially mean, ask a Kantian Atheist to try to consider the issue of homosexuality under a strict reading of the Categorical Imperative. The reaction is often laugh-out-loud funny.
And Kant (and Neo-Kantians) are about the best Atheists have got going for them in terms of alternative groundings for ethics besides religion. We’ve given you hundreds of years, why can’t you come up with something better? Hume? There is no right and wrong; I only shouldn’t kill someone because society holds it as a convention that murder is bad. Bentham? Because profitable torture is a moral good? James? Truth is whatever helps me? Marxism? Lol.
Right, get back to me on that one.
The single most amusing thing about Atheists is that they generally claim to be governed solely by rationality, logic, and scientific thought.
February 7th, 2006 at 11:55 pm
I haven’t studied Kant in depth so I can’t comment on his musings. I am not really an atheist, more an agnostic. I’d believe in god if there was good solid objective evidence, but I haven’t seen any. So if there is no ethics without god and there is no good reason to believe in god, can there be no basis for an ethical life?
The answer is there can be ethics without god. In reason and in practice there is no connection between ethics and religiosity.
February 8th, 2006 at 2:59 am
>>The answer is there can be ethics without
>>god. In reason and in practice there is no
>>connection between ethics and religiosity.
It depends by what you mean by ethics. I can have a personal “ethic” whereby I murder and rape anyone I can find and get away with. Works perfectly well without God.
And this is more or less the product of Emotivism (one of the most commonly held beliefs in Athiests besides neo-Kantians). There is no right and wrong, no good and evil, only grey. I only don’t murder and rape because I was brainwashed that way by society; there is nothing inherently evil about murdering and raping people because there is no such thing as evil.
This is, of course, in direct contrast to the contention that “there can be ethics without God”.
It’s easy to write random laws that sound nice. The hard part is finding your ground so that people can’t just come by and disagree with your premises because they feel that murder is right.
December 12th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
“eternity is a long time to be wrong”
December 12th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
So wait… Kant’s work is invalid because you disagree with some of his beliefs? Wow, how do you guys do that?
…
?
December 13th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Still no answer, huh? Hmm.
Foobear, please stop using cliche schoolyard non-retorts. That sort of thing works on a impressionable naive kid but not on any reasonable critical adult.
“I can have a personal ‘ethic’ whereby I murder and rape anyone I can find and get away with. Works perfectly well without God.”
That’s nice. We’re talking about beneficial ethics, as in beneficial to individuals and society as a whole, not the kind of thing that gets you thrown into a state prison for the rest of your life. Please stick to the issues.
“There is no right and wrong, no good and evil, only grey.”
Nice job incorrectly paraphrasing some complex things in an overly simplistic way. The “no right and wrong” part referrs to right and wrong being outmoded concepts invented by man to describe positive and negative results. This doesn’t invalidate what those concepts are describing. In fact, we can all agree that having a certain degree positive moral ethical values is integral to the long term survival of any civilization.
The “grey” part is only to state that there are no absolutely black and white issues, since that sort of good vs. evil dichotomy doesn’t actually exist outside of simplistic religiously colored world views.
Please, try to think like an adult.
December 15th, 2006 at 11:55 am
God is imaginary: I contend we are all atheists. When you understand why you dismiss all other gods, then you will understand why I dismiss your god.
February 11th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
“Judge not, lest ye be judged” … Fundamentalist Christians never think of that one, do they? They never lose arguments (in their own minds) because they believe that they are always right, because they are speaking for God, while their opponent is inspired be the Devil. How much more arrogant can you get? Added to this, they can behave as badly as they want, so long as they apologise to God afterwards.
They don’t think like adults, or even reasonably intelligent children, because they have chosen to abdicate any responsibility for their actions
I heard a long time ago - “people who can’t cope with life turn to drugs, and people who can’t cope with drugs become born again Christians” - and thought that was cynical until I actually got to know a few!
October 26th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Neither science nor logic will ever be able to prove that being a homosexual is the same as being a member of an ethnic group.
October 29th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Chuck, why waste any of your time and worry on something as stupid as who SOMEONE ELSE likes to have sex with as long as it’s between consenting adults.
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Here’s another bible quote the christians never seem to remember: If you hate your brother then you hate God, because God loves all things.
and yo yo foobear. what the shit is that shit about the most “commonly” held beliefs of atheists? Just because I don’t believe in your god doesn’t mean I don’t believe in good or evil !! I belive I live my life more “christianly” than most I meet who claim to be christians. I read that stuff!! I am kind and generous, I am helpful and do not judge, I disavow the money changer, i don’t blame others, and would help even an enemy in times of need if I were able. HOWEVER, I’m not christian and don’t subscribe to any belief of structured religion. Most of the christians I know seem to embrace most of the 7 deadly sins, pride greed glutton envy sloth lust anger (is that them? can’t remember) most christian churches i see only want money and don’t help anyone but themselves. How dare you make those statements about athiests?
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Rebecca, you say some interesting things. Your loose Bible quote seems to come from the first letter of John:
“If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For the person who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen,” and “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer.” This seems to imply that those people who call themselves “Christian” but behave hypocritically, as you describe, are liars and hypocrites. This probably is a fair call.
If you behave the way you describe of yourself, well, this is commendable. But you seem to be saying that if a person claims to be a Christian (a follower of Christ), then it would be proper for him to behave in a virtuous manner and that maybe you would approve of this.
However, if I read foobear right (and I can’t guarantee that), he seems to be saying that the moral expectations proper to Christians are not the same as for Atheists, because Atheism can provide no foundations for virtuous behaviour even if, as in your case, virtuous behaviour is preferred or idealized.
I can’t think of any basis to call an Atheist a hypocrite in the same sense as religious hypocrites. A religious hypocrite is such because his behaviour is condemned by the religion he professes which prescribes it. Atheism provides no basis for moral prescription despite protests to the contrary. The best atheistic thinkers have acknowledge this. Much of the morality of Western atheism can be attributed to a distorted hang-over influence of Judeo-Christian culture.
November 5th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
And I liked, will be looking at your site.
December 18th, 2008 at 8:10 am
“Those same people with hoods and burning crosses were, of course, not christian”
Very low intelligence indeed, that you can’t see the very simple fact that they THOUGHT THEY WERE CHRISTIANS just like the prejudice-defending posters on this page THINK THEY ARE CHRISTIANS.
December 18th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
*yawn* Dr Skaggs, say’s that a 10-20min nap is good for you. i love naps and i agree we need naps and it helps you be more productive in everything you do.
*yawn* i love naps because it’s good for you and i love shopping online and reading your comments. yes, you…
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:42 am
“Those same people with hoods and burning crosses were, of course, not christian”
Just like the morons defending christianity on this site are not christians, though they think they are. And just like the hooded people, they would be very indignant to hear that reality told to them.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:47 am
John,hey like you would be very indignant to hear that reality told to them. it’s like calling the kettle black. take off the hood John-i say.
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:48 pm
See what a “FORMER” Gay man says on these topics at:-
http://www.victorjadamson.com
April 2nd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Ally,
I’ll reply to your link with this revealing analysis of sexual preference conversions from UC Davis.
The chestnut of the conversion to heterosexuality of Victor J. Adamson (a pseudonym) gets trotted out often by Christian extremists. However, there are many, many problems with Adamson’s story, and some of them are related to what is presented in the above link. One of the key points is that sexual preference is never completely polar at an extreme of hetero, and this is not something that most people are comfortable with yet. It is a complex set of attractions and feelings that constitute sexual orientation. Those facts alone subjugate the validity of Adamson’s conversion. Recent articles on RF such as this one are pretty amusing in exposing just how uncomfortable Christians are on the subject of sex generally. Christianity really struggles with sex, as the Pope clearly demonstrates in his idiotic opposition to condom use in Africa.
Fortunately, again despite the efforts of the ever-more-mariginal Christian extremists, homosexuality is generally increasingly accepted by progressive societies. For example, recently socially progressive states like California have moved towards allowing gay marriage. In other countries, societies have moved forward to the point that homosexuality no longer raises eyebrows. Hopefully, the rest of the US will eventually follow California’s lead. Religions such as Christianity, being malleable and man-made rather than divine, will eventually follow suit; gay Christian ministers have already been ordained (showing also that religious idiocy is not just the domain of heterosexuals).
I have to add that religious discrimination against homosexuals,and the idiocy of forced “conversions” from homosexuality led directly to the death of one of the great computing pioneers of our time, Alan Turing. That is yet another religion-supported tragedy, of many.
Religion is ridiculous.
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Ally - sorry to break it to you, but there is no such thing as an ex-gay person. Just gay people pretending to be straight, that’s all.
November 22nd, 2009 at 10:51 pm
I’ve been included in taxes for longer then I care to admit, both on the personal side (all my employed life!!) and from a legal stand since passing the bar and following tax law. I’ve provided a lot of advice and corrected a lot of wrongs, and I must say that what you’ve posted makes perfect sense. Please carry on the good work - the more individuals know the better they’ll be armed to handle with the tax man, and that’s what it’s all about.
August 14th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Living in Florida which is a “base” for many Christian conservatives as a moderate Catholic who left organized religion .I call them organized hate.
Not all but from my experience PLENTY and the politicians they support and elect as a whole make my point..
It is not who do they hate which would take to long to list but who is it they do not hate?
Which seems to be other WHITE Christian conservative fanatic hypocrites just like them.
It does seem that many are a hair away from screaming “White power”
they do not want separation of church and state and in truth are a political disaster who support any politician who “loves God” and claims to have “family values” .
Keep in mind if not for who they call “Godless” liberals they would not enjoy the consumer protection ,civil rights,etc they enjoy because their bible thumping politicians do NOTHING at all for them .