Slashdot Mirror

Your post brings up several issues that face the Church today.

You say that you trust science over the "rantings of Jewish nomads". The term "science" is used in a couple of different ways in modern language. First we have the "scientific method" of hypothesis, testing, and observation. To my knowledge, this kind of science does not contradict the Bible. The other understanding of science is the great realm of theory that cannot be proved or disproved. For example, the theory of evolution has been circulated for over 100 years; however we have yet to find an example of one species evolving into another unique and separate species. (I am assuming the definition of species as a group of animals whose members can interbreed.) We have yet to uncover an in-between animal form in our various diggings around the world. And, yes, this means that Creation is on equally theoretical footing due to the fact that it also cannot be observed or recorded by modern man. I am not saying that science is a bad guide; indeed, science properly understood is a great boon to our lives. However, science improperly understood or misused can result in a very narrow understanding of the world, no matter which side you choose to follow.

Your statements on the values of the modern Church is unfortunately accurate for far too many congregations. However, there are churches that have large congregations because of the message that they preach. One example is Mars Hill in Michigan. Yes, there are pastors and churches that focus on Christianity as some kind of "good life" ticket. They need to remember that Jesus himself said that in this world, those who follow Him would have trouble. Christianity is about relationship with God, not about getting the best stuff and having the best life. Too many people forget that, and it turns people off.

I will not excuse the behavior of the youth pastors that you described. The first two, who betrayed the trust of their congregation, are especially without defense. And without knowing the full context of the situation involving the third one, I cannot comment on the appropriateness of the action taken. However, your point about the Christian prohibition on sex and cohabitation outside of marriage is contradicted by studies in this area. I recommend the following study: http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000629.cfm As far as knowing if a person is right for you, that is what Courtship/Dating and prayer are for.

Finally, I would like to point out that Christianity doesn't make people perfect overnight. We spend years, in some cases, destroying our lives. Why should we expect to fix years of destruction in a matter of days? Yes, there are hypocrites. Yes, there are people who fall and make mistakes or choose to do wrong. But the difference is that the average church-goer sitting in the pew recognizes that he did wrong and asks God for the strength and guidance to do better. Just like parents are pleased when their young child attempts to walk even though he falls down, so too is God pleased with our faltering attempts to follow His way. However, the parents expect the child to grow up and walk on his own at the appropriate time; God also expects us to grow in our maturity and our ability to follow His commands.

My question: Where do I sign up to become an expert witness on web porn? I'm darn near sure I've got at LEAST 4 hours total in....

You can sign up for that Here

There are numerous studies, that show married people are generally happier and live longer.

I screwed up the URL's sorry.....here they are corrected

http://www.family.org/cforum/briefs/a0041644.cfm
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Depression/story?id=2 298049
http://www.apa.org/releases/married_happy.html
http://pewresearch.org/social/pack.php?PackID=1

There are numerous studies, that show married people are generally happier and live longer.
http://www.family.org/cforum/briefs/a0041644.cfm/
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Depression/story?id=2 298049/
http://www.apa.org/releases/married_happy.html/
http://pewresearch.org/social/pack.php?PackID=1/

http://www.family.org/docstudy/newsletters/a003533 9.cfm

Dr. Dobson's Newsletter: February, 2005
Setting the Record Straight

Dear Friends:

If you had told me a month ago that Id be devoting my February letter to a cartoon character named SpongeBob SquarePants, Id have said you were crazy. Nevertheless, by now you probably know that I have been linked to that famous talking sponge by hundreds of media outlets, from the New York Times to "MSNBC" to "Saturday Night Live." The story of how this situation unfolded is somewhat complicated, but it must be told.

In truth, this tale has very little to do with SpongeBob himself, and everything to do with the medias ability to obscure the facts and to direct lies and scorn toward those of us who care about defending children. It all began on an evening in late January, during Inaugural Week in Washington, D.C. At that time, I spoke briefly to 350 guests attending a banquet hosted by Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and Gary Bauers American Values. I concluded by sharing a word of concern about a video that will be distributed to 61,000 public and private elementary schools across the nation, for use on the proposed "We Are Family Day," March 11.

The video, which millions of children will soon see, features nearly 100 favorite cartoon characters that kids will instantly recognize, including not only SpongeBob, but also Barney the Dinosaur, the Muppets, Dora the Explorer, Bob the Builder, Winnie the Pooh, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Jimmy Neutron and Big Bird.1 The video itself is innocent enough and does not mention anything overtly sexual. Rather, it features the childrens cartoon characters singing and dancing along to the popular disco hit "We Are Family."

But while the video is harmless on its own, I believe the agenda behind it is sinister. My brief comments at the FRC gathering were intended to express concern not about SpongeBob or Big Bird or any of their other cartoon friends, but about the way in which those childhood symbols are apparently being hijacked to promote an agenda that involves teaching homosexual propaganda to children. Nevertheless, the media jumped on the story by claiming that I had accused SpongeBob of being "gay."2 Some suggested that I had confused the organization that had created the video with a similarly named gay-rights group.3 In both cases, the press was dead wrong, and I welcome this opportunity to help them get their facts straight.

I want to be clear: the We Are Family Foundation the organization that sponsored the video featuring SpongeBob and the other characters was, until this flap occurred, making available a variety of explicitly pro-homosexual materials on its Web site. It has since endeavored to hide that fact (more on this later), but my concerns are as legitimate today as they were when I first expressed them in January.

So let us consider the evidence. One of the first resources to catch our attention on the foundations Web site was a booklet4 that lists a number of organizational "allies," including five of the largest pro-homosexual organizations in the nation: the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce, and Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). Also, the Web site made available school lesson plans that suggested teachers ask these questions of students:
"How are you affected by homophobia?"
"How would you be affected by your sexual orientation were it different than it is now?"
"How will understanding these definitions change your thinking about compulsory heterosexuality and homophobia?
"How will it change any of your behaviors?"5

From a handout entitled, "Talking About Being Out" there was this:
"Do you know of any people in your school whose sexual orientation differs f

"...Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, two socially conservative lobbying organizations."

FYI, both organizations are founded/run by James Dobson. I would not necessarily refer to them as seperate entities rather than appendages of the same one. James Dobson, you know, the guy of Spongebob Squarepants is a conspiracy to turn kids gay fame.

Why do you (slashdot reader) attack article by Preston, who claims: "the author of Linux was not Linus Torvalds, but me." http://www.madpenguin.org/cms/?m=show&id=1800

And at the same time you make fun of us, when we disagree with opinions like those: "the Da Vinci Code is absorbing -- perfect for history buffs (New York Times Book Review Fall 2003)" and "readers have finally found a book that combines historic fact with a contemporary story line (New York Times Book Review Fall 2003)." Even Brown claims in the introduction to the novel that "all descriptions of documents and secret rituals are accurate (Brown, Dan The Da Vinci Code., Acknowledgements)."

You are so smart! Wow! And do you actualy believe in every shit someone write without any respect to facts? Have you ever read any of the articles criticizing the book? Such as:
'The Da Vinci Code': Exciting New Novel, Tired Old Conspiracy Theories.

Things have changed since you had to walk into a public store and purchase a mag, and not for the better. Internet porn is really an epidemic on a more quiet level, I believe. I like what J.G. Ballard had to say about pornography: "a widespread taste for pornography means that nature is alerting us to some threat of extinction."

More than 25 years ago, Dr. Victor Cline identified the progressive nature of pornography addiction. Once addicted, a person's need for pornography escalates both in frequency and in deviancy. The person then grows desensitized to the material, no longer getting a thrill from what was once exciting. Finally, this escalation and desensitization drives many addicts to act out their fantasies on others.
At a Senate hearing last fall, medical experts corroborated Cline's early breakthroughs. New technology is allowing doctors to look inside addicts' brains to determine just how damaging pornography is. The witnesses described research showing the similarity of porn addiction to cocaine addiction. Further, because images are stored in the brain and can be recalled at any moment, these experts believe that a porn addiction may be harder to break than a heroin addiction.

Two-thirds of the divorce lawyers attending a 2002 meeting of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers said excessive interest in online porn contributed to more than half of the divorces they handled that year. They also said pornography had an almost non-existent role in divorce just seven or eight years earlier.

"I am pro-life," Frist maintained. "I believe life begins at conception. It is at this moment that the organism is complete -- yes, immature -- but complete. An embryo is nascent human life." But in spite of that, he went on: "I also believe that embryonic stem-cell research should be encouraged and supported."

They are preventing themselves from marrying, legally or otherwise, by choosing partners who, by nature of their sex, have made their relationships incapable of constituting marriages. No, they have to find somebody of the opposite sex, just like everybody else does.

I know I didn't address your question in the way you had expected, so see argument 1 here.

For the record, I reject your premise that a couple who embraces and encourages each other's degeneracy is demonstrating love. Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness. Love rejoices in truth. (1 Corinthians 13)

Microsfot was asked to. "The effort began when an exasperated Toronto police detective made a shot-in-the-dark e-mail plea to Microsoft founder Bill Gates. Last year, the Toronto Police Department seized more than two million child pornography images, according to Paula Knight, a spokeswoman for Microsoft Canada." full article : http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0028602.cf m

Well, there you go. You're wrong. If you want an expert opinion, see pediatric psychologist Dr. James C. Dobson. Nearly all families do spank, though most people keep quiet to avoid troubles from people like you.

"the basics of nutrition"

Would that be the food pyramid, strongly influenced by lobbyists for the grain, mean, and dairy industries? Would that be the vegan diet, strongly advocated by PETA as the only ethical diet?

"it's vital children have the opportunity to learn to be independent"

Independent about what? Does it involve teenage use of condoms and abortion?

Apparenly you missed the news about Spongebob Squarepants being gay...

It's funny. Laugh!

Well, actually it's quite sad...

In truth, this tale has very little to do with SpongeBob himself, and everything to do with the media's ability to obscure the facts and to direct lies and scorn toward those of us who care about defending children.

Why the obvious choices are Dan Glickmanfor the former, and a very special joint collaboration of James Dobson and Pat Robertson for the latter!

NO ONE (credible) even among the religious community is pushing against abortions for the life of the mother. Even before Roe Vs. Wade that was legal.

Talk about intellectually dishonest! The bill passed by the House and the Senate, then signed by Bush, made no mention of the health of the mother - that's why it was struck down. So, are you saying that none of these people are credible?

Politicians and religious leaders get around your little conundrum by insisting "partial birth" (or even abortion itself) is never necessary to save the life of the mother!

Does the "gag rule" that bans charities from talking about abortions have an exception for the health of the mother?

Heck, the so-called "partial birth" abortion ban doesn't even have an exception if the fetus is dead. That's one of the reasons the fetus is brought out intact, so the doctor can check for birth defects and tell the grieving parents how likely it is that their next child will die in utero.

Nobody's using "abortion as birth control" in the third freaking trimester!

Even your history is misleading - if you check a Catholic chronology of abortion in the US (not a particularly pro-choice outfit), you'll see that it wasn't until 1967 that the AMA endorsed exceptions in abortion law for the health of the mother, rape, incest, etc. Before 1967 still counts as "pre-Roe".

Porn is harmless. Sex is harmless. Repression is harmful.

Porn is far from harmless. It ranks right up there with adultery. Do you really think that women don't mind if their husband/boyfriend enjoys looking at other naked women? It is unfaithfulness just as much as actually sleeping with another woman. It creates doubt in her mind: is he thinking of another woman as he is making love to me? Porn is the great enemy of faithful marriages, and studies show how valuable marriages in are in the lives of children as well as adults.

In regards to children, porn and illicit sex introduce them to activities and lifestyles that fly in the face of what true love and faithful relationships mean. Sex is not a one-night stand with a pretty woman; sex is the expression of deep, committed love between a man and woman dedicate to spending the rest of their lives together. To teach anything more is to degrade sex to just another physical urge and destroys all of the true pleasure and lasting joy that can result from it.

Sex misused has destroyed more of our society and families than possibly any other thing in life. Furthermore, if I "repress" my child's urge to fling themselves off a cliff to their death, is that wrong?

Porn is harmless. Sex is harmless. Repression is harmful.

Porn is far from harmless. It ranks right up there with adultery. Do you really think that women don't mind if their husband/boyfriend enjoys looking at other naked women? It is unfaithfulness just as much as actually sleeping with another woman. It creates doubt in her mind: is he thinking of another woman as he is making love to me? Porn is the great enemy of faithful marriages, and studies show how valuable marriages in are in the lives of children as well as adults.

In regards to children, porn and illicit sex introduce them to activities and lifestyles that fly in the face of what true love and faithful relationships mean. Sex is not a one-night stand with a pretty woman; sex is the expression of deep, committed love between a man and woman dedicate to spending the rest of their lives together. To teach anything more is to degrade sex to just another physical urge and destroys all of the true pleasure and lasting joy that can result from it.

Sex misused has destroyed more of our society and families than possibly any other thing in life. Furthermore, if I "repress" my child's urge to fling themselves off a cliff to their death, is that wrong?

This is definitely why censorware is bad. But Symantec isn't the bad guy here, the people who got laws passed to require censorware are. The fact is, that if "big brother" or parents don't want their users/children to read about things that go against their fundamentalist beliefs, such as sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll, and in this case, guns, then that's what the filters will filter. Anti-gun sites do not feature any material worth filtering (unless there were a filter category called "Political Discussion"). As such, they should not be blocked just to "balance out" the political scale. If for every blocked site, an opposing one were blocked "just to be fair," you'd essentially double the number of blocked sites, thereby greatly increasing the already too-severe censorship.

Filters cut across political boundaries, all the time. It's impossible not to. On the other end of the spectrum from the gun debate, they block sites about safe sex and discussion about sex but wouldn't block a site about abstinence from, say, Focus on the Family. (I just confirmed this is the case with N2H2's Bess.) This is because there is not a category for "Christian Conservative Rhetoric." Probably very few parents and other users of this type of software have requested to have their users "protected" from the latter. This behavior favors conservatives, just like the gun behavior favors liberals. Big deal. Filtering software always favors the more puritanical on any issue. Usually that is conservatives in Internet filtering issues, so the NRA racket should shut up.

To conclude, just like this gun story pisses off conservatives (who were the ones to get this bad-idea software installed in the first place), it pisses off liberals that you can't get information about safe sex through these filters, but you can get an admonition from Pat Robertson about how you should wait until marriage. Both of these debates get a one-sided treatment when passed through a filter. This is by design, is a side-effect of overprotecting "our children," and is not cause for singling out Symantec. Do you really think Symantec is some sort of evil liberal-agenda-pushing corporation? Liberal corporation is an oxymoron. Symantec's users, probably the paranoid overprotective parents who love this software so much, probably made a case for why they wanted this site blocked, and Symantec went along with them, in an attempt to keep its customers happy.

don't click here: [goatse.cx]

Does anyone else thinks it's hilarious that Peapod argues "I do not read propaganda anymore than you do." yet also states "I got all of my information from here ?

One more thing I forgot: my sources.
I got all of my information from here.

My apologies.

Because so many "experts" keep perpetuating the myth that homosexuality is not changeable, despite thousands of living testimonies who prove otherwise. Most doctors and academics would never use terms such as "treat" or "prevent" when discussing homosexuality. They say it's just another lifestyle and that there's nothing wrong with it, not a psychological malady to be healed from. And if doctors say it's okay, the normally logical conclusion would be that there's no need to get treated. Gays and lesbians don't seek treatment because they've been told over and over that they're stuck with their anatomically-incompatible sexual [dis]orientation. Most physicians possess neither the will nor the knowledge to treat and prevent homosexuality anyway.

Do you also have a link for skin pigment treatments to turn black people white?

Skin color is a physical attribute. It's not an issue of right or wrong.

If you think a man will burn in hell because he's gay, you have a major screw loose. Would women burn in hell for sleeping with other women?

Any kind of sexual thought (prolonged) or sexual behavior could be wrong, male or female, hetero- or homosexual, depending on the relationship between the participants. However, homosexuality has the distinction of being biblically immoral in every possible relationship and situation. It is an unhealthy fixation with the same sex.

I sin in some capacity probably everyday. It is just as wrong as a homosexual act or any other sin. But the response of me and many other sinners is completely different from that of homosexuals. After my sin, I (1) freely acknowledge before man and God that my sin was wrong, (2) seek God's forgiveness with a humble and contrite heart, and (3) repent (regret and turn away, disavow, resolve to cease) of it.

Unfortunately, homosexuality isn't just a single sinful act. Homosexuality is a continual state of unrepentant sin. It's a life-long stance of rebellion against God. No one can authoritatively judge a person's soul, especially based on just one facet, but IMHO the probability is that any given homosexual will spend eternity in hell unless they repent of all sin and follow Christ before they die.

Holy shit. You are an idiot. Homosexuality is not a preventable and treatable, as your link states. I'm not gay, so I don't have first hand experience, but the standard response to that is if is it preventable and treatable, why aren't homosexuals going to doctors and getting treated so they don't suffer from discrimination and hate crimes? Do you also have a link for skin pigment treatments to turn black people white? If you think a man will burn in hell because he's gay, you have a major screw loose. Would women burn in hell for sleeping with other women? Or is that just hot...

Watch out for professors who teach otherwise. Many will proactively seek to destroy your faith. The Apostle Peter warns us: "Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour." (1 Peter 5:8) But sometimes the attacks are subtle. You'll be tempted to put a question mark where God put a period (or an exclamation point!). Know what you believe! Prepare yourself for defense. If you don't know what doctrines you're standing up for, you'll fall for anything - for whatever is dispensed to you by some cunning and clever professors who have no personal relationship with the Author of Truth. Know and believe that the Bible is true, and you will never go wrong. (Caution: Test answer keys in academia may be wrong. ;-) Learn the lies (Darwin, Freud, Marx, etc.) for exams; know the truth for life.)

Postpone sexual activity until marriage; sexual intimacy is a gift that is reserved for your future wife (or preserved untouched in celibacy). The Apostle Paul gives some great advice, which is very applicable to the college life: "Run from anything that stimulates youthful lust. Follow anything that makes you want to do right. Pursue faith and love and peace, and enjoy the companionship of those who call on the Lord with pure hearts." (2 Timothy 2:22 NLT)

Try to pick a fellow Christian for a roommate. Choose friends who will support you and encourage you to do what is right; people who won't pressure you to do things that are immoral, foolish, and dangerous (e.g. so-called "safe sex"). Get involved in on-campus Christian ministries, fellowships, and Bible studies. The education you get will be far more valuable than anything taught in your classes. We have no greater need than to know Christ better. To live without Christ is not life, but a breathing death.

Now, here is a simple, yet, profound piece of practical advice. Write it down, or print it out. Tape it on your bathroom mirror. Stick it on your monitor. Frame it and put it on the wall. Memorize it.

Sow an act, reap a habit,
Sow a habit, reap a character,
Sow a character, reap a destiny.
- Reade

Not according to a study done by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (PDF format). Scientific Evidence on Condom [ In ]Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention

The important facts are that there is NO proof that condoms provide any protection from gonorrhea, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, chancroid, syphilis, genital herpes, or human papillomavirus. Here's a simple chart with important details. 10,000 physicians agree. Read more.

Condoms protect against HIV/AIDS only 85% of the time.

In contrast, abstinence has a 100% success rate in preventing every STD that exists. It works every time it's applied! (I no more need a "study" to prove this figure than I need a "study" to prove that unplugging my CAT 5 cable/phone line prevents my computer from acquiring viruses via the Internet.) Abstinence is totally free and available to all, regardless of socio-economic status.

Abstinence is "self denial" in the same way that seat belts, traffic lights, guard rails, and stop signs are forms of self denial. They are there to give you guidance; they exist to benefit you, not to oppress you. If you "liberate" yourself from wisdom and sage advice, you are running full speed over a cliff. Your pride tells you that you are being suppressed and limited from things that are good. In reality, you are being liberated from destructive acts so that you will be free to live to your full potential with prosperity and sound mind and body.

Not according to a study done by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (PDF format). Scientific Evidence on Condom [ In ]Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention

The important facts are that there is NO proof that condoms provide any protection from gonorrhea, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, chancroid, syphilis, genital herpes, or human papillomavirus. Here's a simple chart with important details. 10,000 physicians agree. Read more.

Condoms protect against HIV/AIDS only 85% of the time.

In contrast, abstinence has a 100% success rate in preventing every STD that exists. It works every time it's applied! (I no more need a "study" to prove this figure than I need a "study" to prove that unplugging my CAT 5 cable/phone line prevents my computer from acquiring viruses via the Internet.) Abstinence is totally free and available to all, regardless of socio-economic status.

Abstinence is "self denial" in the same way that seat belts, traffic lights, guard rails, and stop signs are forms of self denial. They are there to give you guidance; they exist to benefit you, not to oppress you. If you "liberate" yourself from wisdom and sage advice, you are running full speed over a cliff. Your pride tells you that you are being suppressed and limited from things that are good. In reality, you are being liberated from destructive acts so that you will be free to live to your full potential with prosperity and sound mind and body.

You maintain your right not to reproduce by maintaining your responsibility to keep your pants up. It's an issue of self-control. To women: don't get drunk and go to wild parties where sexual predators are waiting to impregnate you at your most vulnerable moment. Sexual intercourse sets in motion the process of reproduction. (duh) You choose not to reproduce by choosing not to fornicate. When you choose to have sex, you are choosing to be a mother for the rest of your life -- to carry out the responsibilities, duties, and sacrifices of motherhood and possibly grandmotherhood. You may or may not conceive, but you are fully aware that the likelihood exists.

Condoms don't work all the time, and only stop about 98% of sexually transmitted diseases

98%? Where do you get that figure?

That's not a good enough reason to demonize contraceptives

I got your reason to demonize right here! It's a study done by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (PDF format). Scientific Evidence on Condom [ In ]Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention

The important facts are that there is no proof that condoms provide any protection from gonorrhea, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, chancroid, syphilis, genital herpes, or human papillomavirus. Here's a simple chart with important details. 10,000 physicians agree. Read more.

Condoms protect against HIV/AIDS only 85% of the time. If you knew that you had 15% chance of winning the lottery, wouldn't you enter every time? If you have 15% chance of dying, why do you play the game? It's funny how optimism is oblivious to statistics.

You maintain your right not to reproduce by maintaining your responsibility to keep your pants up. It's an issue of self-control. To women: don't get drunk and go to wild parties where sexual predators are waiting to impregnate you at your most vulnerable moment. Sexual intercourse sets in motion the process of reproduction. (duh) You choose not to reproduce by choosing not to fornicate. When you choose to have sex, you are choosing to be a mother for the rest of your life -- to carry out the responsibilities, duties, and sacrifices of motherhood and possibly grandmotherhood. You may or may not conceive, but you are fully aware that the likelihood exists.

Condoms don't work all the time, and only stop about 98% of sexually transmitted diseases

98%? Where do you get that figure?

That's not a good enough reason to demonize contraceptives

I got your reason to demonize right here! It's a study done by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (PDF format). Scientific Evidence on Condom [ In ]Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention

The important facts are that there is no proof that condoms provide any protection from gonorrhea, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, chancroid, syphilis, genital herpes, or human papillomavirus. Here's a simple chart with important details. 10,000 physicians agree. Read more.

Condoms protect against HIV/AIDS only 85% of the time. If you knew that you had 15% chance of winning the lottery, wouldn't you enter every time? If you have 15% chance of dying, why do you play the game? It's funny how optimism is oblivious to statistics.

I've been a conservative Christian in the South (churches on every street corner) all my life, and I don't know any Christians who think like that. To be sure, there are crackpots in every niche of humanity, though.

This web site is embarrassing whether it's a hoax or not, because it fits with one of the stereotypes that non-believers have of Christians. The media loves to report quotes, dutifully taken out of context, that have been spouted by some knee-jerk, shoot-from-the-hip, camera-happy televangelist.

What if the media consistently (or even once) projected Dr. "Death" Kevorkian as a typical doctor in the medical community, or v1urU$ h4X0r$ as typical IT professionals? You'd never see that, because they are not widely respected among their peers. (This is why "peer review" is so important in the scientific community; it helps to weed out crackpots.)

But for believers in "Jeebus" -- they're fair game for mockery and wild distortions (actually, the Simpsons is pretty fair in this respect). Unfortunately, you'll never see prominent articles in the mainstream/secular news media quoting truly great pastors and evangelists who are widely respected in the Christian community, such as Ravi Zacharias, Adrian Rogers, Charles Stanley, James Dobson, and Ken Ham.

What I like to do is if someone states something such as what Mr. Singer has stated, I try to read as much as possible about the issue, then form my own opinion. I try not to form an opinion based on what a single group says, until I've heard both sides of the issue.

What scares me is when governments refuse to listen to both sides of an issue, or atleast acknowledge the other side of the issue.

An example of this can be found in a blurb in Focus on the Family which it appears as though the government is ignoring a study done by the American Psychological Association simply because what the APA is saying does not fit politically with what the government has been saying since the 1970's. At the time of this writing, the Focus on the Family web server is down, and I don't want to make a statement regarding the contents of the blurb because I can't quote it exactly. However, there are several good articles on the APA where if you just search on APA, you will find them.

Another example of this would be government funded studies which say that marijuana is not any worse then cigarettes or alcohol. Because the government has been saying for years that marijuana is bad for you, they refuse to acknowledge their own studies. The information regarding marijuana can be found on the ACLU website in their drugs section.

In both of these cases, I have not made a decision as to what I think about them, but I try to get further information in hopes of making a better decision.

Generally, even if I don't agree with what a person is saying, I will not try to stop them from saying it. They have that right to say what they think regardless of whether or not I agree with it.