If you’re a child in New Zealand, start running because Family Integrity is after your little behind. Fed up with the government intervening in a parent’s right to beat smack their children, Family Integrity, a Christian organization, has taken the offensive. Their goal is to put child abuse smacking in a positive light and clear up any misconceptions that one may have.
You see, spanking is not some hateful, archaic form of discipline to make up for a parent’s lack of parental skills. No, actually quite the opposite is true. Family Integrity see’s spanking as something quite different.
Spanking is an expression of love, commitment and responsible parenting toward the child’s best interests.
Family Integrity has even put together a nice little guide to smacking your evil little heathen. It’s in a nice compact wallet-size so you can take it anywhere! All this talk about smacking is getting me excited. Time to go find my oldest and put this to the test. I think it’s time to go ‘express my love’ for a good 10 to 15 minutes! Praise be to God!
Related posts:
And here I was, as an Australian – thinking we only had complete freaks amongst us, and to our North (Indonesia).
Seems they are to our East as well!
That is most disturbing — beating your child with the Lord’s Love!
I am quite disturbed by the title of this web page. It give the idea that you have a pre-formed idea and are just looking for examples that “prove’ you correct instead of sampling overall data and making unbiased comparisons.
One thing you have to understand is that religions are only a belief structure. We ALL have belief structures about everything in our dialy life. Belief sructures rarely define our actions, rather we fall into belief structures based on our prefered activities.
In theory I believe in spanking, but have a hard time practicing it. I have a three year old here and believe me, she takes much more punishment when we play than she ever has by punishment. She can shrug off falling off the mokkey bars, but a smack to her ass and you would think WWII has insued. It is mostly just emotional expression on the childs part.
Actually I gues have lost focus here. I am realizing tat your are probably not interested in hearing another opinion. But extremely rarely does a religion make people do bad things, it is just that bad people tend to flock to other like thmselves and use religion as an excuse for behaviors. Much like your site will attract Anti-religious zealots. Same difference, just opposite extremist views. Both are immature.
Remember, Religion is a personal belief, laws (even those said to come from God) are written by Man.
“But extremely rarely does a religion make people do bad things”
Ummmmmmmmm
* The Crusades
* Terrorist Suicide Bombers
* Abortion Doctor killers/clinic bombers
* The people who drove out the jeweish family from their neighborhood recently out east
I could go on and on but I’ll refrain. As for the title of this site, it’s not ALl Religious People Are Freaks. I think this site tends to specifically focus onthose that ARE freaks.
Also, with your use of the words “Anti-religious zealots” I find that most religious people tend to view ANY ATheist or Agnostic as a zealot no matter what. To many of the religious, the non-religious should be seen and not heard. As soon as an Atheist speaks his or her mind, they are branded anti-religion. They are branded as opposed to other opinions. Which is the very close minded zealotry that they accuse the non-religious of practicing.
“But extremely rarely does a religion make people do bad things, it is just that bad people tend to flock to other like themselves and use religion as an excuse for behaviors.”
That might just be the most sensible thing i’ve heared this month
Anyway, i’m all in favor for an educational tap, as in:
“don’t do that please. Don’t. DON’T! *small smack on hand* “I said don’t!”
But a 15 minute beating?!! that’s insane. any parent that gives his kid a 15 minute beating without him having stolen a car or something should have one themselves!
My personal favorite tip is ‘If the child is angry after the smack, you have not smack hard enough.’
What? Do they need to be frightened instead? How about unconscious?
The kid with the black eye is a nice touch. Look, there is a difference between spanking and abuse. Spanking can be used appropriately and should stop happening/be replaced with other means of discipline by the age of 8-10 years old. By that time a child can understand things like longer term consequences. You don’t like spanmking? Fine, don’t spank your kids, but painting these people as child abusers is stupid.
Alrighty, good to see this one sparked some emotions :) Look, I don’t have a problem with spanking per say, however, when a group (whether religious or not) takes it to this level, it is obscene. I’m not trying to paint Christians as child abusers, so just relax. Many people from all faiths give their kids a crack on the ass once in a while.
If you think my articles are a little to edgy and one-sided, then please step up and write your own. If anyone has a topic to write about, please contact me and we can arrange something. If it’s good, I’ll post it on the front page for everyone to criticize :)
gasmonso
“Spanking is an expression of love”
That can be true, but not in any context involving kids.
PS. In Soviet Russia, child smacks YOU!
This is an incredible discussion to read for me. Here in Sweden a church would be illegal if they advocated this. Here smacking a child is considered worse than beating a full grown person, and it is more heavily punished.
I have read that the english speaking world has a greater acceptance for violence against children then we do here, but I think you are just making excuses when you say there is a difference between smacking and abuse. It does not matter how little, all corporal punishment of a child is abuse. It is not a question of degrees. Or how would you define the border between abuse and good parenting?
Personally I don’t think the spanking debate should be tied up with religion. I am a New Zealander, I am an Atheist, and I am pro-spanking.
These guys may be going a little far but they are trying to stand up for the right of a parent to be able to discipline their child. I would hate to see spanking criminalised as I see it as a valid form of punishment, if done correctly and with discipline yourself. We got the strap at school and I don’t believe I am any worse off for it.
This is just crazy!
I thought that teaching with violence (in any form) was gone…
With fear and pain people deson’t learn why they should not do certain things, at most they will hate you. Or else why doesn’t teacher spank everyone to teach lessons?? that’s a nice idea!
My parents never spanked me, and I will never spank my childrens.
Spanking is for Fascists!
“Pro-spanking”, that is almost as disgusting as the “pro-life” religious freaks, I guess being an atheist does not inheritly make you better then a religious person.
Even worse if done in school. I am a teacher, and if I smacked a child i would go to prison – and rightly so. Being a child does not exclude you from being a human. Why should there be any difference between the rights of a child and the rights of a human? Or would you support the taleban religious watchmen in Afghanistan who walked around in the streets with lashes, beating on anyone whom they thought was not living up to moral standards? If you are not in favor of beating people in general (to extort confessions, perhaps, or as punishment for crimes), please tell me the difference between a child and a person who you would not want beaten.
“I would hate to see spanking criminalised as I see it as a valid form of punishment, if done correctly and with discipline yourself. We got the strap at school and I don’t believe I am any worse off for it.”
So, it would be ok if a teacher spanked your kid with a strap for picking on another kid? you would actaully say that was a good thing? please tell me where you live so I can avoid it like the plague.
Beating, spanking or whatever is indeed an effective form of punishment, and would probably work with adults. How can you seriously say a small child deserves to be spanked, for doing anything? Children should be corrected, not punished. Punishment is for people who know that they’re doing wrong. I don’t mind if we replaced most short prison sentences with, say, 15 to 30 lashes of a whip. But little kids should be sent to the corner, given a time-out in their room or whatever.
I was spanked as a child. Not very often, but rarely when I was realyl being a little bastard. I’m not worse for the wear at all. In fact, it taught me awfully quickly what to do and what not to do. Now I don’t believe teachers or others should have that right. Onyl parents. And even then only rarely in certain circumstances. And nothing overly violent. A few swats to my clothed ass was usually enough. And as someone said above, after a certain age it should stop as well.
It’s wishful thinking to say that a “time-out” will correct all problems in a child.
i have to agree with Jason, same all around
many kids have ADD too as i did or worse, so its not without its use for punishment.
“Punishment is for people who know that they’re doing wrong.”
So, are you saying that if you don’t know the rules, you don’t have to live by them? That if someone tells you “Don’t do ____”, you have no ability to choose to not do ____?
I find that a little ignorant of free will. If we have free will, we make decisions about our actions. If we act, there is a consequence. We must then live with the result of that consequence.
If we do not have free will, we don’t make decisions about our actions. If we don’t act, there is no consequence. We must then live without consequence.
That being said, personal understanding of consequences does not change the fact they are there and happen. Just because as a child you do not understand gravity does not mean you are any less accountable to it than an adult. If you jump, you fall.
Parents are to teach what to or not to do, and to punish wrong decisions, until the individual can understand either through maturity, or “the hard way”, consequences and properly adjust their own decision making process.
Without proper parenting, no amount of punishment is going to help steer the child because there is no constant, no guide by which the child can live. Spanking, when used in tandem with proper consistent parenting, is successfull. Spanking alone is damaging and useless.
I know when my parents used corporal punishment on me, it just taught me that they could get what they wanted in a direct fight and so I ended up just becoming extremely passive-agressive. Instead of refusing to do homework, I would just pretend to do it, and waste my own time just to spite my parents. It took me a lot of time and self-discipline to work off the ill-effects I had learned and I’m probably still affected. Luckily though, it did have a very positive effect on me. I was originally always very complacent and listened to any authority figures, the type of kid who would get permission to go to the bathroom. But then when the corporal punishment started, I gradually became much less complacent and much more anti-authority.
The funny thing is that the one good part about abusing your children (showing them what is wrong with having an overly strong atuhority figure) is likely something that the religious nuts DON’T want their children learning.
Hey some kids deserve to get beat. You know you’ve been at the mall and seen some little shit screaming its head off and thought “Damn, I wish somebody would put a bullet between that little monster’s eyes.”
Good point grif… I know I’ve seen that kid :) But usually that’s a direct result of the parenting. Maybe we should smack the parents!
gasmonso
“Pro-spanking” is not about wanting to beat your kid. Its about allowing parents to have an effective tool to discipline. You need to encourage good behavoir and idscourage bad. The sooner a punishment is performed after the bad behaviour, the more it is accociated with that behaviour. This is basic psychology. Being able to spank a child when other punishment means are not available at the time is better than letting the behaviour go unpunished.
And yes I would be all for bringing back the whip as effective punishment, it would probably be more effective than clogging up jails.
The key with this, as in everything in life, is moderation. Just like alcohol, chocolate, and almost everything else, if done with care and in small doses, spanking does indeed have its place. Used too much, and it becomes abuse and is detrimental.
Inkognito,
The right to CHOICE is one of the very definitions of freedom. To remove a parent’s choice to discipline their child in the manner they believe is in the best interests of their child, you should have very clear evidence that that choice is detrimental to the child, something that is lacking in the spanking debate (which is why it is still a debate). Therefore, I support the right to choose.
You make two comparisions in your post, the comparison to the “pro-life” debate, and Afgan religious watchmen imposing their moral standards on others. What I find interesting is that in both these comparisons, you appear to be standing on the side of choice, as I am standing on the side of choice in this argument. What is different in this argument for you?
You decry the imposition of ones moral standards on anothers, yet here you are calling me “disgusting” and “no better” than someone else (simple moral judgements). Clearly you are attempting to impose your moral standards on me. I belive you are Swedish so your moral standards on this issue have probably been developed due to the laws in your country. However, without clear evidence against spanking, what right do you have to impose those standards on others?
youmakemesick: “I know when my parents used corporal punishment on me, it just taught me that they could get what they wanted in a direct fight and so I ended up just becoming extremely passive-agressive.”
but just because it had that effect on you doesn’t mean that’s what it does to 100% of children. That’s where it is up to effective parents to know how to most efficiently discipline their children.
I gotta side with Nico here. it’s abotu choice. CLEARLY if a parent is goign to far they should be punished. There can be (and are) guidelines for what is abuse.
As Nico said, to impose one set of moral standards on others is bad no matter who is doing the imposing – Christians, Atheists or Pastafarians.
So, now it is a “freedom-of-choice”-right to beat up on other people? I am indeed from Sweden, and I am glad that I don’t have that choice and that neither my parents nor teachers had that choice when I was a kid.
You speak of freedom for the parents, but how about the freedom of choice for the child? They cannor choose their parents, and they cannot choose to force their parents to comply with their choices. I am always pro-choice for the weak side, and always pro-responsibility for the strong side.
I’m just saying it’s a FAR oversimplistic view to say t hat any parent who spanks is a horribly abusive person who beat up on their children, and it’s oversimplistic to say that any child that is spanked turns out badly.
I was spanked. My brother was spanked. My sister was spanked. not often, and not so hard as to be really hurtful. We all turned out pretty damn well.
It’s insulting to parents to walk that line and do it right and turn out respectful well behaved children who respect both authority and the ability to challenge authority. it’s insulting to people like me who’s parents rarely spanked, but did so when necessary, to say their parents just “beat up” on them.
A black and white view of teh world is just as ignorant no matter what side of an issue you are looking from.
Ok Inkognito, lets sum up your position:
1. You have a strong moral belief regarding a certain action.
2. You have simplified the issue into “good” vs “evil”.
3. You have provided no evidence that your moral belief is more correct than others.
4. You want to force others to adhere to your moral belief.
Do you know what that sort of position yours is starting to sound like? Thats right, its the religious freaks that this website is designed to highlight.
As Jason said, this is not a black or white issue. Here are the facts as I see it:
1. The vast majority of parents who spank their children do so because they beleive it is in the best interests of their child, and get no gratification out of spanking their child. In fact most hate it when they have to.
2. I have found no conclusive evidence that spanking a child is harmful to them. Studies have tended to be devided on the issue with some showing negative impact, and others showing positive effects.
3. Those people that support the right to spank a child, still abhor child abuse.
4. Most countries have assault and abuse laws that will already deal with the small percentage of cases that include excess violence and abuse.
5. Since abuse is covered by other laws, and their is no definative evidence that spanking is “bad”, the is no need for further laws, and those laws would just be restricting a parents right to chose what is best for their child.
I consider myself a rational and intelligent person, so I put this challenge to you; prove convincingly that mild spanking in a controlled manner, done periodically as a backup for other discipline techniques, produces negative effects on children under 10, and I will change my position and agree that spanking should be outlawed.
I cannot believe some of the arguments…..
It is very simple: in most developed countries it is illegal to beat people up. Why would be ok to hurt a child that cannot defend itselve. Violence is allways wrong, a society cannot tolerate “some” violence: where do you draw the line? Exactly: no violence, beating and spanking. Some parents are bound to go over the line.
Don.
As a victim of child abuse I can’t believe people from my own religion are doing this. Wait…I can.
Neither of my parents are Christians, just child abusers. I wouldn’t say so much now, but then again I’m in my 20s now and I no longer live with them.
No, there’s nothing wrong with spanking, but what this group is talking about IS child abuse. Spanking for that long? You haven’t spanked HARD enough? Absolutely sick.
Plus, the whole point of discipline is to explain to the child what they have done wrong. Not smacking them around and then sending them away.
“So, are you saying that if you don’t know the rules, you don’t have to live by them?”
No, you’re not taking it out of proportion at all….
some quotes from people who are apearently not getting the point, or who I’m not understanding.
“I was spanked. My brother was spanked. My sister was spanked. not often, and not so hard as to be really hurtful. We all turned out pretty damn well.”
“prove convincingly that mild spanking in a controlled manner, done periodically as a backup for other discipline techniques.”
We’re you ever:
1 – spanked for 10 minutes straight?
2 – Spanked harder if you got angry?
3 – Spanked as a first punishment?
The point is not about mild spanking, or spanking in severe cases. please, go read the article and come back.
A little spanking is no problem with anyone I think. for the rest of my argument, please read Amber’s and Don Stenk’s post above.
I still think, Outlaw spanking, but condone it in most cases, that way, you’ve got your legal AND social bases covered.
Alcari,
I agree with you mostly. I am not arguing for the statements in the article, they are well over the top. What I am arguing about are the people posting who do have a problem with a little spanking. You also contradict yourself by saying you agree with Don Stenk’s post, who is saying that there should be absolutely no spanking whatsoever.
I also think that outlawing something and then relying on the police to show discretion and not to charge people is the wrong way to go about making laws. This puts too much power in the hands of the police, and removes personal freedoms. The police should not be tasked with deciding which behaviours are wrong (although in reality they do have that role), they should merely be enforcing what is already decided.
[...] Sources: ReligiousFreaks.com, IOL, Wrathchild, stuff.co.nz. [...]
Point 1) For all the posters who have been whining about freedom of choice for a child – grow up. Being a parent is about making the decisions for your child, because he/she is not at an age at which he/she can make an informed decision. Point 2) Re: the “little monster in a mall” I’m guessing (or hoping) you don’t have kids. Every parent who has a child experiences a temper tantrum in the mall, grocery store, in front of company, etc., despite their child’s normally quiet demeanor. It often has less to do with poor parenting, and more with a myriad of little events leading up to the main attraction. The best that a parent can hope for is a little understanding from the people in the audience, and to get the kid out of the situation without losing their cool. Point 3) Spanking – when used as a last resort method of discipline (i.e. the child is running into the road, or something to that effect), and is administered with an even, calm hand, rather than one with no control or restraint, than I believe it is a legitimate method. My father spanked me, rarely, and then, there was a three swat rule. As he explained later to me, the rule was always for him, to make sure that he kept himself in check, rather than for me. And the swats were _always_ on the bottom. I never was clipped in the back of the head, or face or anywhere else. It really all boils down, in my opinion, to the manner in which the punishment is applied.
“I still think, Outlaw spanking, but condone it in most cases, that way, you’ve got your legal AND social bases covered.”
Um…put a law on the books that there would be no intention of enforcing…what a colossal waste of time, money and effort. And what a prime opportunity to open the legal system to abuse by vindictive individuals. There are already enough defunct and inoperative laws on the books…why add to the trouble?
This entry has little or no connection to religion, as a few other I’ve read here.
Yes, you’re going to find people from different religions who will spank their children. You will find people from the same religions, not spanking their children.
You’ll find people without any religion on both sides as well.
So what’s the message here? If you’re looking to prove some kind of point about religious people, you’re not going to have any problems. With billions of people practising some kind of religion, you’re going to find all sorts.
With a bit of research, you’re even going to find that a lot of religious people will share a lot of your values (not the ones brough up here, of course).
So again, what’s the message? You’ve managed to find people who advocate spanking your children more than what’s “normal” and you’ve even added a bit to make it look like they were abusing the children.
There are nuts everywhere, but if this is the worst you can dig up about religous people, then they seem to be one of the least harmless groups.
As for spanking children, my views are pretty simple. In adult life, you’re going to get in trouble if you don’t follow the rules of the society you live in. Prepare you child for that. You’re going to have to punish your child for some thing eventually. Spanking isn’t necessarily the punishment that leaves the biggest scars on a child.
I don’t think the point is to show that *all* religious people are “child abusers” or whatever. I think point is to single out specific religious people/groups who are… freaks. Get it? ReligiousFreaks.com? ;-)
That said, if you can find atheist groups putting out literature teaching people how to “smack” children for 10+ minutes at a go, by all means, bring it on.
-matthew
Bingo Matthew! You win the grand prize :) I’m not trying to declare all Christians child abusers… just a few :)
gasmonso
This article has made me pertty mad. I once wrote an anti-abuse essay. It was more emotion than fact (the assignment was a rant) The baisic pointis , we need to see the light nd use the power of the law to break the viscious cycle of abuse. For great justice!
“Bingo Matthew! You win the grand prize :) I’m not trying to declare all Christians child abusers… just a few”
No, what you’re trying to do is to make some kind of connection between the child abusers and the Christians. The domain name kind of gives away your intentions.
Like I wrote before, you’re going to find this kind of behaviour everywhere. You’ve managed to find a group of people that very few others agree with. Very few Christians (or people from any major religion) will probably think that spanking your kid for 10-15 minutes is a good idea.
You chose to focus on the religion of these people. Why not instead declare people from New Zealand child abusers? Because it wouldn’t prove the point you’ve set out to prove.
There’s no argument that these people have taken a wrong turn somewhere, but you’ve got to work harder if you want to prove anything more than that there are freaks among the religious, just like in any other group of people.
Thanks Matt for letting me know what my intentions are. What would I do without you? The people in the article are religious freaks…PERIOD… that’s why I chose to write about them…PERIOD…stop being so defensive…PERIOD.
If you would like to express an opinion, then please contact me and I’ll put it up on the main page.
gasmonso
Ok, now you’ve got me confused. So you just want to write about freaks, but limit yourself to the ones that have a connection to religion?
Why would you want to do that?
Is it just a way of putting the articles into categories? Because I couldn’t find the nonreligiousfreaks.com site.
The “about” section of this site says “The goal of ReligiousFreaks is not to incite hatred towards people of faith, but rather to expose the hypocrisy in their chosen religion.”
Which religion and what hipocrisy is this directed against? Christians? A very large majority of the Christians will proably agree with you that the people in the article indeed are freaks.
Try to differentiate between stupid things that people do because of religion and stupid things that people do while trying to let their religion justify it.
While pointing out the narrow-minded, illogical, generalising people of the world, watch out so that you don’t become one of them.
The reason I wrote my first comment is because I see this a lot. Some people feel the need to point out religion as the cause of most of the worlds problems, and I don’t see things that way.
As a non-religious person, living in one of the worlds most secular countries, my experiences might be different from yours, but I’ve found that religious people here are the least of my worries.
They’re not the ones I have to worry about when walking home late at night. They’re not the ones trying to steal my stuff or trick me into buying junk. They’re more concerned about doing The Right Thing than average people.
In a country where being religious is the norm, you’re going to end up with people being religious because they’re supposed to. That’s when you’ll have the hypocrisy you’re looking for. From people who wouldn’t care much about religion if it wasn’t expected of them.
Religion becomes a problem when used to control people or as a means to gain more power or to force your own ideas on others. That’s a problem with people more than it is a problem with religion.
So, if you think I’m being defensive, it might just be that I’ve finally felt the need to argue a bit about this. Nothing personal, but I simply think that a lot of people mix up cause and effect and that you’re probably one of them.
I’d like to hear from all the rabid anti-smacking people how exactly you teach a 2 or 3 year old child not to play with knives on top of the stove without smacking them?
I believe that a quick smack is a better way to teach a child that age of the consequences of their actions than 3rd degree burns with a knife stuck through the throat (which would be the eventual outcome if the child was left to their own devices!).
Or perhaps my next door neighbour was out of line when she smacked her 3yo for putting forks in the power outlet! Better that little Harry got a taste of 240 volt – that would teach him not to do such things.
For the record, I’m Christian, have 5 kids, and none of them are afraid of me. All the kids have been smacked in the past when that was the best way for them to learn the consequences of their actions rather than them getting blown up or dismembered by their childish high-spirits and curiosity.
This sort of reminds of the debate between Liberals and Conservatives in regards to the war on terror. Liberals think war against the terrorists will only cause them to lash out and hate us more. Conservatives correctly see the naivety in this and instinctively want to beat the terrorists back into the holes they came from. This is very comparable to spanking. It is the way of the world and terrorists of all ages must learn it.
Hello Conservative American,
We can’t ‘beat the terrorists back into the holes they came from.’ Terrorists spontaneously emerge from any sufficiently large population that contains a disenfranchised segment, including our own (Timothy McVeigh, anyone?). The larger the disenfranchised segment, the more of a problem terrorism will be. If we could beat back terrorists, I would be all for it, but identifying terrorists is much more complicated than your comment would have us believe.
Now back on topic. The point of the post is not an anti-spanking agenda, it points out excessive pro-spanking program organized by a religious group. The job of any society is to find the line between corporal punishment and abuse. I personally feel that, in America, there is too much of an anti-spanking attitude.
Oh, by the way, I don’t believe in a god, but I do believe in spanking. I guess you will have to create spankingnonreligiousfreaks.com for people like me. The people that run this site are the real freaks. They clearly have deep hatred and phobia for those that follow a religion. What ever happened to Liberals encouraging diversity and tolerance? (rhetorical question)
Hey Captain Conservative, I take offense to that statement! There\’s no people running this site, it\’s just me!
Now go beat your kids like a good conservative, they deserve it :)
gasmonso
sidfaiwu,
My point was that the stance Conservatives and Liberals have on spanking and the war on terror are very similar and comparable due to the principles that both groups have as it relates to both subjects. Since this is obviously a politically oriented web site, I found the comparison on-topic and relevant.
In regards to the war on terror, terrorists can be identified. And as long as we can identify them, we can hunt them down and kill them. No, it won’t be easy, but the alternative is much worse. Would you have us declare defeat and let the murderous terrorists create a single totalitarian Islamo-government where everyone in the world is bowing to the great Ala? No thanks.
Hey gasmonso,
Well, I don’t have kids either. If I did, I’d apply a suitable punishment, including physical punishment, where necessary. As other posters have pointed out, different types of punishment is necessary for different circumstances and maturity levels. I know it’s hard for Liberals like yourself to understand this, but sometimes violence is the answer.
Capt Conservative, what makes you so sure I’m a liberal? What makes you so sure I don’t approve of violence in the proper context?
gasmonso
I think it should be legal and encouraged to beat ANYONE if you think that the other person is wrong, or in need of moral correction.
Because as Gasmonso points out, “Sometimes trying to use reason and logic in a conversation, is not as effective against people who don’t have the capacity for it.” In other words, beat everyone until they understand you…
Hello Conservative American,
I did not mean to imply that your post was off-topic. On the contrary, the comparison you made was on-topic and interesting. When I wrote “now back on topic”, I was referring to my own post that, up to that point, was not on topic. Sorry about the confusion.
Like gasmonso, I wonder why you make the assumption that we are all liberal. Also, your comment about encourage diversity and tolerance misses the point. This site is not an anti-religion site, it is an anti-fundamentalist site. The reason being is that fundamentalist are not willing to tolerate the non-religious (or other religions, for that matter). Remember that for every non-religious person there are about nine religious people in this country; a growing proportion of which want to take away our freedoms through the legislation of their ‘morality’.
Now it is quite clear that you have some sort of grudge against or at least mistrust for liberals. I’m afraid this may have closed your mind. Are you now rejecting all things liberal simply because they are liberal or do you actually evaluate all ideas based on their rational merit?
Now for the terrorist comment. It’s rife with fear-based opinion. Like the rhetoric spewing forth from the White House, you leave no room for middle ground in you mind. Everyone must either give up certain liberties and spend a bunch of taxes to fund a ‘war’ on terrorism, or we must admit defeat and wait for the Islamic fundies to come kill us all. This is a common tactic used by apologists who seek to deny truth to promote an agenda. I refuse to buy into it. There is middle ground and it is a rational approach to terrorism control.