Slashdot Mirror

Corinthians 6:9: "Corithians 6:9-10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God"

While your sentiment is commendable, most of the churches officially condemn homosexuality. There are new testament scriptural reasons for this.

I also get annoyed about people citing the first five books of the bible in their comndemnation of homosexuality; eating pork is also an abomination, but I don't see Pat Robertson getting all up in arms about it.

why on earth is Slashdot interviewing such a person without that being the SOLE topic of discussion?

Not that I'm suggesting that should happen; I'm suggesting he doesn't deserve an interview with such an obviously damaged brain. Without going into anything about "God" or the Bible, the Earth is certainly more than 10000 years old; that's just about the stupidest claim I've ever heard (apart from the one that says the Earth is only 5000 years old..)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth.htm

Jonathan: Consider that if this argument were true, and "God" created the universe 10000 years ago to *look* like it were billions of years old, it would be equally valid (and equally provable) to say that he created it 5 minutes ago, with the same intentions. He created the universe with you in your chair and dumped a bunch of false memories in your head. Why do you suppose 10000 years is the "magic" number?

Even accepting that, why in the world would God purposely create things to look so much older? What interest does he have in fooling his own creation? (Yeah, yeah.. mind of God and all that.. fake answers need not apply.)

I'm sorry for the OT question, but it is challenging for people of logic and intellect to take creationists seriously in any reasoned discussion, mostly because they wouldn't know one if it hit them in the face.

I have to say that I object to homosexual behavior because the Bible provides an instruction manual for a successful life, and clearly teaches that this behavior is inconsistent with God's definition of a successful life.

It is important to note that God's guidelines have a lot to say about what will make me successful - and they address many many more issues than sexual expression. See more info in this post.

By way of an analogy: If you suggested that hitting your thumb with a hammer was a great plan for happiness, should I support your right to do it? I suppose. I don't object to what adults choose to do with their thumbs and hammers - or in private with each other. That's their business.

In my opinion, since the Bible says that sexual expression outside of heterosexual marriage is a bad idea, I'm inclined to agree.

I *do* object to essentially providing educational curriculum that indicates that hitting one's thumb with a hammer is an equal choice to not doing the same, and then making it hate speech to indicate that hammering thumbs is a bad idea.

Think I'm being alarmist? That this is a red herring? I think not!
See what has already happened in Sweden

See what has already happened in Canada

Do what you want in your bedroom with other adults. That's your business, and you have the right to engage in activities that are not healthy if you choose. I won't stand in the way of that viewpoint. This is the classical essence of tolerance. I don't have to agree with you, but I do have to respect your right to your point of view.

In the "new tolerance" the only tolerable viewpoint is pro-individual rights. Anything else is intolerable and must be labeled with a pejorative which indicates a character flaw.

I won't let *activists* intolerance of opposing viewpoints interfere with my civil rights. Does that mean that someone should issue a personal atack against me because of my viewpoint? How tolerant is that?

Respectfully,
Anomaly

So what? Christianity has matured - it's a peaceful religion.

Christian extremists still kill here in the U.S. And that's when they don't have the same degree of power in our society as Islamic extremists do in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran and (thanks to us) Iraq. I can only imagine what Christian extremists would be like if they gained that level of power and acceptance in the U.S.

I agree wholeheartedly. What you're describing is called partial birth abortion, and it is supported by the 'pro-choice' crowd. A ban on this procedure was vetoed by then President Clinton.

I warn you that the diagrams and descriptions in the links are pretty gruesome.

Actually, about 45% of Americans believe in creation as-described-by-Biblical literalism, since Christians are only about 77% of Americans, while I am playing a bit fast and loose, it is in fact quote possible that most American Christians are evolution-deniers. If you have facts to support your contention that evolution-denial is a minority of US Christians, I would greatly appreciate a cite.

Check out this definition:
"Any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life." Thus we would include Agnosticism, Atheism, conservative Christianity, Humanism, Islam, Judaism, liberal Christianity, Native American Spirituality, Wicca and other Neopagan traditions as religions.

Just because our belief is based on *gasp* logic, doesn't exclude it from being a belief.

You know its funny ... I used to call myself Christian but I can't anymore becuase it has become a poisoned religion by the likes of the so called "Christian" conservatives, religous right. I think the same thing can be said of the Republican party, it has become poisoned by these same groups, touting "family values" that never used to be family values.

Christian conservatives/Christian fundamentalists are identical in every way to Islamic Fundamentalists except for the suicide bombings. I guess you could say the Christians aren't as dedicated to their cause or have as much an incentive to sacrifice themselves as their Islamic counterparts. Anyone who does not believe this has been brainwashed by these same Christian Conservatives/Fundamentalists into thinking they are mainstream. They are NOT mainstream in any sense of the word. The ultimate goal of many Christian Conservatives is to make the USA a theocracy/ theonomic/ dominionistic nation:

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

http://wlo.org/ccwatch/

http://tfn.org/religiousright/

The most frightening examples of this ultimate ultra-conservative Christianity is Christian Reconstructionism who I like to think more of as Christian Talbian:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstruct ionism

http://www.theocracywatch.org/yurica_weyrich_manua l.htm

Anyone who under-estimates these powerful polictical forces and their re-making of the Republican party is being hoodwinked.

Oops, my mistake - you could actually correct that in two different ways:

Hindu/Muslim conflict in India, or
Hindu/Buddhist conflict in Sri Lanka.

Here's an interesting list of current religious hot spots.

graphicsguy talks sense. If you look at the Biblical account, Adam-Abraham were monotheists, Abraham made a covenant with god, later his descendants entered into the Mosaic (nothing to do with early web-browsers) Law. It is either from the covenant with Abraham (ancestor of the Israelites) or from the Mosiac Law that one can date Judaism. Christianity is based on the belief that a man called Jesus was the Messiach (sp?), the Hebrew term for a saviour prophecied about in the Bible. One can say 'ooo, it most be true, the prophecies were fufilled it says so in the Bible'. One can also say that it is easy for someone to write a story about someone who came and detail how they fufilled the prophecies that made identify them as the Messiah, and for that person to actually not have done any or all of what the story says they did. If one views the simlarities between the Jesus story and the Buddha story, or the Vedic traditons about Krishna, then Jesus actually existing as he is described becomes more doubtful. Buddha was born of a virgin and had 12 disciples, for example. http://www.rastafarispeaks.com/forum/storeroom/con fig.pl?noframes%3Bread=49229 http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr.htm There is a very strong case for Jesus being a wholey or largely mythical person who was deliberatley invented or whose life was elaborated on and fictionalised to form the basis of a religion, blending other stories that were known at the time about various other god-men in other religious traditon. Thus Christianity's claim to pre-date Jesus is as dubious as Islam's claim that Jesus was JUST a prohet and Mohammed was the final messenger, and the similar claims made by Mormon's about Joseph Smith.

Those few cases where they have helped conservatives were motivated by a desire to put up a front of impartiality, by supporting just enough cases to get people to argue that they are impartial.

And you know this, how?

Ahh, yet another rational post derailed by an ad hominem attack.

No, it is an expression of my opinion. Hatch is one of a number of dumbass "conservatives" who try to legislate their religious morals based on some warped interpretation of the Judeo-Christian Bible.

Consider the Equal Access Act of 1984. Hatch and other like-minded religious conservatives crafted legislation that would allow Christain students to have prayer groups on public school property after shool. I personally thought the legislation was an unneccesary intrusion in local politics, but the idea of expanded access to public places is a good idea. What Hatch and his dimwitted supporters *didn't* count on was that gays, lesbians, atheists, satanists, and other groups would use the same law to gain access to these same public buildings.

Hatch said that "groups like that" were not intended to be the beneficiaries of the legislation only proving that dorks like Hatch are incapable of thinking through the consequences of their legislative actions.

Just like the Utah legislature that passed this abortion.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_cf.htm

A link that someone believes they are Christians!

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn.htm

This defines who is a Christian.

They say it all depends on who you ask...:)

Yeah they didn't kick a guy out for being an atheist, not at all.

You just didn't have the courage to stand up and not swear something you don't believe in, or you would have been kicked out.

"Any organization could profit from a 10-year-old member with enough strength of character to refuse to swear falsely."

To start with, here are several other links that support the fact that Christianity is the largest religion in the world by number of adherents.

Next -- do we take dominant to mean most popular?

Since there are 800 million or so more Christians in the world than the second highest religion, (Islam), Christianity is both the most dominant and most popular.

I give you this awesome quote from the bottom of the page were they are backing up their spurious claims: AR [animal rights] is a religion, but for the majority of Animal Rights supporters, AR functions as a movement and/or lifestyle choice, not their primary religion. Emphasis is not my own. This admission leads to double counting.

You're assuming that there are at least 800 million double-counts, all of which list themselves as both Christian and something else. That's a pretty wild assumption. The article in the (grandparent) link gives no indication of anything of that nature or magnitude.

Christianity is obviously the dominant religion in America (as there are more Christians than not). Christianity is not the dominant religion in China (or India, or Iraq, the locale is irrelevant) as there are more non-Christians than not. If one agrees with these two claims, then Christianity is not the Earth's dominant religion.

See all the links at the top of this post, and do your own research. You'll find that it's simply a fact that there are more Christians than any other religion's adherents in the world. However one feels about Christianity, or any other religion, it doesn't change this fact.

Various groups have used this imaginary clause in their personal vendettas against organized religion to wipe it from all public view. I don't think the ACLU and other groups who often invoke "separation of church and state" have much constitutional ground to argue from.

Aparently the U.S. Supreme Court dosn't agree with you.

Bush has aids?

possibly. He certainly doesn't believe in safe sex

However we have fallen by choosing sin, and thus are not perfect.
Ahhh .. but if you believe your own fairy tales, I didnt choose sin and neither did you. Eve and Adam chose sin !! However, the story goes that when they 'chose' it, they were unaware of right and wrong ! How could he know then that disobeying an order was wrong? Would you punish your 18 month child for his FIRST mistake ? Even the judicial courts of your cruel and corrupt man don't punish a child this badly.

I ask you one more thing: Should you be punished for your fathers crimes? Does that make sense to you ? You here in the news about people suffering in the most violent way possible... Thats because Adam made ONE mistake ?

Suppose you create something magnificent. Something truly amazing, remarkable, nothing like it before. Is it egomaniacal to ask people at least acknowledge "hey, bob made this" ?
But you dont know who bob is do you? And who does? Is bob your christian god ? Or the hebrew god who dosent want you to eat pigs? Is it muslim god who says its ok to kill christians you dont like? The hindu elephant headed god with twelve wives? Is it the egyptian sun god? Is it the god of some african tribals or Pacific islanders? Is it the long forgotten Inca god? So Why and How is your bob the One True Bob ? There is only ONE truth. Either the hindus are right or someone else is.

Don't forget, the elephant-god worshipper will have equally 'compelling' argments for his faith as you do. He 'believes' as deeply as you do. Again, he's only a hindu because his parents were hindus. If he was born to your parents, he would have looked down upon idolators. So again, according to most christians(and others), god chose to put this man in a hindu family, but he will go to hell because he's an idolator! In other words god gave this man a 99% chance of turning into an idolator, then condems him to hell for turning into an idolator! Howz that for nature vs nurture?So many christians, muslims and jews belive this (even if you don't, which again poses the question, WHO is correct?) And how is this merciful and benevolent?**

If you still insist the christians are right, well then which ones? Maybe its only the Amish who are on the 'right' path.Nobody even agrees how to go interpret your scripture, leave alone the actual allegory!!

I didnt know this. Dosent it worry you, you follow in the footsteps of these misguided people ?

Suppose you create something magnificent. Something truly amazing, remarkable, nothing like it before. Is it egomaniacal to ask people at least acknowledge "hey, bob made this" ?
You imply that something magnificent, amazing and remarkable HAS to have a maker. Then if you're story checks out, the MOST magnificent, amazing and remarkable entity is god ! So who made him ?

**In your(or others) scripture, how many examples of mercy can you show me? I really like the one where all the gays in town are killed. And the one where the jews take women prisoners as their concubines after god helps kill thousands of their 'enemies'.

If you were god, what do you think would be the mercifull and benevolent thing to do ? Kill the gays? Or would you say "Ok, you people have sinned. But I love you and give you one more chance. You will be born as babies in heaven where I will personally raise you in peace and kindness. I will feed you clothe you and no one will bully you in school. There will be no disease, hunger, theives, rapists or anything bad. I will teach you everything myself. Morality and difference between good and bad. I wil give you free choice. And then, at age 25, if you turn out to be gays or other sinners, you will go to hell. But since, everyone has the potential for good(your words), I'll give you one more chance, then one more, then one more...till that good comes out."

I know I said gays in my example, but change those for any other sinners. Including you since you say you are one.

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

Note that the term "servant" in the King James Version of the Bible refers to slaves, not employees like a butler, cook, or maid.

Yet, slavery was defeated in the USA, or that's what rational Americans think today.

A great reference about this is: What the Bible says about slavery

Makes you wonder what's behind the apparent rise in America of fundamentalism and the belief that the Bible is inerrant. Some people (some, not most) are still trying to fight the civil war, it appears.

Then my I respectfully suggest that you've got your head in the sand. Here's a sample:

"Jerry Fallwell called the founder and revered prophet of Islam, Muhammed, a 'terrorist' on CBS's '60 Minutes' on Sunday, October 6. In so doing, Fallwell set off a firestorm in the American Muslim community to which MPAC responded. Fallwell's comments came on the heels of a slew of other vicious attacks lodged by the radical sector of the Evangelical Christian denomination...The Reverend Franklin Graham called Islam a 'very evil and wicked religion' and said the Qur'an, Islam's revealed text, 'preaches violence.' Pat Robertson said Islam is a 'monumental scam' and claimed the prophet Muhammad was 'an absolute wild-eyed fanatic...a robber and brigand...a killer.'"

Hmmmm. Nothing but tolerance there alright. How many followers do you think Fallwell, Graham and Robertson have? And that doesn't even touch on the crap I've heard directly, in person.

"I think the few responses you've received to your posts should be enough to show you that your stereotype of fundamentalist Christians ISN'T accurate."

To the contrary, the responses have shown me that you, as a community, are ignoring the rotting buffalo carcass in the living room that is the very real hate-mongering within your ranks. My interaction with Christian fundamentalism comes largely from Alabama, Texas and rural California. Lots of racism even without the religious overtones added in. Maybe that's the difference. From where do you hail?

I googled for it. That is a stardard question in the Gallup polls. I found a link showing the evolution (no pun intended) of biases in the case of voting for a president.

(Just in case, sorry for my English, the part of the brain that translates is tired).

Cheers

Hmmm... that's a good question, I didn't make it up on the spot, but it is a quote I've heard second hand - so I did a google search on it. Found this page on divorce statistics that appears to corroborate my statement. According to these stats your theory about the Catholic vs. Protestant divorce rates appears to be correct. As far as birth control... didn't see any stats on that related to divorce.

My original point wasn't to spread FUD. It was to point out that there is a relatively high divorce rate among Christians considering how negatively divorce is viewed by the Church.

A friend of mine in Canada collected over 100k of signatures to partition against China's human rights policy on "Fulan"

I normally don't do the "spelling Nazi" thing, but it's petition and Falun Dafa or Falun Gong you are talking about.

I actually corrected the Falun thing so that way anyone interested in reading about Falun could Google for info.

http://falundafa.org/ and http://www.religioustolerance.org/falungong.htm are starters.

Lets keep prejudice out of this.

Churches, like corporations, are not people - should it be legal to prohibit churches from making statements on political issues?...

Interestingly enough, it IS illegal for churches to make statements endorsing one candidate over another under current laws.

Why? The tax-exempt status granted by the government prevents them from endorsing one candidate over another.

-Grym

Want a primer on the issue of the pledge of allegiance? Read The U.S. Pledge of Allegiance. The "under God" phrase. Note that "Under God" was not added to the pledge until 1954. If you don't believe that phrase endorses Christianity, you don't understand the way the language works. If you don't understand what is wrong with endorsing an individual religion in the national pledge, which schoolchildren have often been forced to recite even in California, then you fail to understand what Thomas Jefferson, himself a religious man, had a firm grasp on. I don't fault you for not being as smart as Jefferson but probably you should read Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists. The following is the meat of the letter:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

This makes it pretty clear what was intended - keep government entirely out of everyone's religious affairs, because if you meddle just a little bit you screw everything up. The government covers actions, so you can believe whatever you want but you still can't, for example, perform human sacrifice because it's illegal to kill people even if they want to die. It recognizes that the human mind is somewhat fragile, and so is the conscience.

My mother and father were both raised Catholic. Both recovered; my mother is now either atheist or agnostic (I'm not sure which) and my father is Lutheran. My mother gave me the option to go to church if I wanted to, and I went to a Christian day care because it was inexpensive. Thus I learned the usual children's bible stories. However, I never developed a belief in God and as it was a day care and not a nursery school no one ever tried to force religion on me. In sixth grade I informed my teacher that I intended not to say the pledge due to its religious content and was informed that I would be saying the pledge. Is that at all appropriate? First of all, it really doesn't accomplish anything to say a pledge, and it means even less when you are forced to do it. However, it is nothing less than the shoving of religion down young throats. If there is no Law that respects an establishment of religion, then you simply cannot be forcing people to perform this public worship.

I would have liked to see it written "any establishment of religion" because then we could take the tax-exempt status away from the religions. Why should they get a break? Because they supposedly help people? Religions are a means of control, you can have spirituality without ever visiting a building with stained glass windows.

Anyway aside from snarkiness, it is clear (and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees) that the phrase "under God" promotes a specific group of religions, essentially those religions attached to the specific meaning of the word "heathen": "One who adheres to the religion of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam."

If you want to smack Newdow around over trying to amend the problem of an unconstitutional change to our pledge of allegiance that occurred in the fifties, then you'll find a whole lot of other people standing in your way.

This may be highly instructive.

>It's the republican Mantra "If you can't hang
>with the big boys, then get out of the way"

Any individual or entity which exists via destroying others eventually destroys itself...it's a mathematical certainty. When they run out of external victims, the chaotic urge to destroy turns inward...which is where it really came from in the first place. It's appropriate that you mention the Republicans being connected with that saying, actually...because over the next few years, they are going to learn about the reality of that particular principle.

...burning building...

If I ran into a burning building and saw a man refusing to be saved, heck yes I'd do everything I could to drag him to safety. But this is an analogy, and it's a poor one. Where is the burning building? Are you suggesting that people who do not share your religious beliefs are going to suffer certain death or damnation by fire? You've got to be kidding me.

While I do not share your religious beliefs about homosexuality...

Presumably, you do share my beliefs about homosexuality (or at least some of them). It's the beliefs I was describing that you don't share.

You are correct, that the laws would only forbid such behaviors and not eliminate them, and I believe all would agree with you on that point. Furthermore, you are also correct that bans on homosexual acts have been deemed unconstitutional - which is exactly why those who would ban homosexual acts believe they need a constitutional amendment. (By definition, a constitutional amendment cannot be unconstitutional. Although I'm sure many of us would believe that it could render the constitution into an inconsistent document.)

I was not away that "polls consistently show that a majority of Americans support the right of civil unions for gays", although I do know that percentage to be higher than those who support marriage rights.

Here are some links that suggest that statement to be not exactly accurate:

• From religioustolerange.org - 49% support and rising (2004)
• From marriageequalityca.org - 54% support (2001)
• Glaad agrees with religioustolerance.org - 49%

So, I wouldn't say it's consistent yet, even if 2005 shows a majority, but it does seem we're headed that way. FWIW, personally, I would not support any ban on gay marriage, even if it allowed for civil unions, as I think that it amounts to government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

P.S. If you re-read my original post, you'll notice that the whole point of my argument was that the reasons why people support FMA have little (or nothing!) to do with their support for government getting more involved in our lives in general.

Actually, god wasn't in the pledge of allegiance untill the 50's with Senator Joe McCarthy.

In the Muslim world, this is the motivation behind the hijab, the bhurka,

.

Sorry, charlie. A benevolent God wouldn't have let 150,000 people die in a tsunami. "understanding god's plan" or not, no greater good can come out of that evil. Or was he just punishing the wicked? You know, the thousands and thousands of poor people? Yeah, real merciful. Have fun not being part of the 144k that get brought up to heaven. I mean, you're probably a great christian, but really, are you in the top 144k? You _do_ have to compete with Mother Theresa (who, in all seriousness, did remarkable things in God's name). What? 144k is just a number mistranslated? Then what else might be mistranslated? THE WHOLE BOOK?!

I think its sad you are spending all your pre-worm food time believing something is waiting for you after you close your eyes that final time. Cheerio!

Well, to begin with I was talking about the world as a whole. Even if only a minority of Americans believe in evolution, Americans only make up 4.6% of the world's population. And indeed the same site that parent cites makes the point that:

Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon.

As to the US, yes, it is true that only a small minority accept a purely materialist view of evolution. However, evolutionists of some sort outnumber evolutionists, 49% to 44%. The question is what to make of the "theistic evolution" category. I would still include these people in the evolutionary camp. Without more detailed data one can't be sure, but this category presumably includes the official Roman Catholic view, on which evolution proceeded in essentially the way that materialist biologists believe it did, but God infused humans with souls at the point at which human beings evolved. So, although creationism is pretty common in the United States, belief in something like biblical creation is less common than belief in evolution.

"cor! they put a ding in our chariot! call AAA!"

I sure hope they did a better job of packing this one.

Tragedies happen, such as the recent tsumani. Any omnipotent being with a shred of decency would prevented them.

The options are: God exists and is cruel (or uncaring, or impotent, or asleep, etc); or God does not exist and it is mere senseless matter that is being cruel. I don't see how the second is any worse -- it removes only a false hope -- and it has the advantage of being true.

I am aware that an enormous number of theologians have tried to dance around the issue. Word games such as your wilful misconstrual of "bastard" are a favourite technique, and do you no credit.

OK, I'll bite. I don't give a shit about my karma, no one here listens to me anyway.

Why does the religion of peace need special instructions on how to act civilized?

Because all religions do.

Why is the religion of peace directly responsible for 28 out of the 30 violent conflicts raging in the world today?

'God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam'
-- George W. Bush

Why is the religion of peace responsible for the vast majority of terrorism in the 20th and 21st Centuries?

Because terrorist groups were funded by western powers such as the CIA, France and Israel.

Why are the practitioners of the religion of peace routinely slaughtering unarmed practitioners of every other religion wherever they can get away with it?

Oh, really?

Why does the religion of peace call for the murder of anyone who converts from the religion of peace to another religion?

Because the religion of peace is slightly less peaceful than other monotheist religions, but not much. And just like not all Muslims are like Mullah Omar, maybe not all Christians are like Pat Robertson, either.

Why do so many of the believers of the religion of peace look forward to the opportunity to rape 72 virgins in heaven if they die while killing innocent women and children of other religions?

Maybe the whole concept of going to heaven for being obedient to some guy in the clouds is fucking retarded in the first place.

Why do the leaders of the religion of peace routinely issue fatwas (death warrants) for anybody who questions their holy book of peace and their holy prophet of peace?

See #6.

Why is the religion of peace responsible for the sexual mutilation of millions of little girls and the savage oppression of women?

No it doesn't.

Why did millions of the practitioners of the religion of peace laugh, cheer and dance in the street because 3,000 innocent men, women and children were murdered by seventeen men who supposedly hijacked the religion of peace?

You must be referring to the other religion of peace.

And why dont the real practitioners of the religion of peace condemn the supposed hijackers of their religion?

Because their websites were shut down by the FBI days before 9/11.

Frankly, I'm an atheist and I don't care about religion, but I'm sick of people being hypocrites. Are we going to use the excuse of the oh so evil Political Correctness to dehumanise the Muslims, as it happened to the Jews in Europe before the Holocaust? History has shown that there is far more to fear from fascism that grows in mass hysteria induced by propaganda than scarecrows used by chickenhawks to justify imperialism.

Some religions prohibit certain medical treatments for one reason or another; this has most certainly led to otherwise-preventable deaths of both adherents and children under their "care".

Notable examples are Christian "Scientists" and Jehovah's Witnesses

How about Scientology?

Or Wicca?

There is also Buddhism and Unitarianism

You limit the meaning of "establishing" a religion to mean sanctioning a named church, and then assert that atheism is established as the official religion...?

By not allowing open public statement of believe in a god, all the while allowing athiest to profess that there is no god, in effect establishes atheism as the "approved believe system".

I had a teacher lecture a class for an hour that religion was the cause of all man's sorrows, made statements such as "more people have died because of christianity than any other cause combined" a statement easily repudiated and was not chastised at all. While a child in that same school was warned against having a bible time during lunch hour. In fact the principle believed the statement was true until it was pointed out that property,jealousy,rage, disease, old age, wars in the name of Karl Marx (communism), Facism and Islam and automobile accidents easily outclassed the crusades.

The Bible says very clearly in several places, both in the New Testament and the Old, that homosexuality is a sin.

I don't see that it is clear at all - there is much disagreement as to what is said, relating to issues such as translation and interpretation. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibi.htm is a good write up of this.

And I don't see how you can say that certain parts of the document that your faith is based on don't matter

True, but I have to ask - do you take every part of the Bible literally, such as owning slaves, not doing anything on the Sabbath (and executing those who do), not eating shellfish, and believing that the story of Genesis is all literally true?

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave previously.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131894&cid=110 30074

I think the working on the Sabbath being a sin is probably a misinterpretation by the original Jewish scholars based upon the fact they didn't have all the facts then. God's rest has a significantly different meaning to christians that to Jews because when God rests it is not so that he can put his feet up, but so that he can do what God wants to do, which is love you and me. It appears as if the Christian sabbath was moved to avoid the anti-semitic trend in about 321 ad, to put distance between Christians and Jews, but I don't think God will mind too much so long as we keep at least one and preferably every day Holy. http://www.religioustolerance.org/sabbath.htm

If you believe in a god, why not the One God, Lord of hosts? Praying to another if you believe in God would be to claim the the Lord was not all powerful and is obviously a sin.

The homosexual thing I am not all that certain about and I have heard many different interpretations. I've only been a Christian for a year and I've not really looked into this issue yet. A basic reading of the recent translations of the Bible seems to be very anti-homosexuality, but I'm not sure that it isn't just in the context of other sexual immorality (like unfaithfulness, incest, pedophilia, etc), which is about self-indulgence. It's possible that the concept of a stable monogamous relationship wasn't intended as the target, but you'd have to read the Hebrew and Greek to know for sure. It's a tough question and one I think that is possibly one for each person to pray about and then deal with. It's worth noting though that Jesus hung out with prostitutes.

Now though all sin is forgiven if you believe in Jesus and follow him. He died so that we didn't have to go to hell. All you have to do is gracefully accept his sacrifice and confess your sins.

Thanks for the correction, it's the Hadith (sayings and teaching of Mohammed), and not the Koran, that seem to mention stoning. However, both comprise Islamic law.

For adultery, the Koran says:
Chapter 24 of Islam's holy book, the Qur'an, explicitly instructs believers to whip those found guilty of adultery.
quoting from here

As for apostacy, here's quoting from Answering Islam website

A. The Proof from the Qur'an for the Commandment to Execute the Apostate

Here I wish briefly to offer proof that will quiet the doubt in the hearts of those who, for lack of sources of information, may think that perhaps the punishment of death did not exist in Islam but was added at a later time by the "mawlawis" (religious leaders) on their own.

God Most High declares in the Qur'an:

But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief -- Lo! they have no binding oaths in order that they may desist. (9:11,12)[1]

The following is the occasion for the revelation of this verse: During the pilgrimage (hajj) in A.H. 9 God Most High ordered a proclamation of an immunity. By virtue of this proclamation all those who, up to that time, were fighting against God and His Apostle and were attempting to obstruct the way of God's religion through all kinds of excesses and false covenants, were granted from that time a maximum respite of four months. During this period they were to ponder their own situation. If they wanted to accept Islam, they could accept it and they would be forgiven. If they wanted to leave the country, they could leave. Within this fixed period nothing would hinder them from leaving. Thereafter those remaining, who would neither accept Islam nor leave the country, would be dealt with by the sword. In this connection it was said: "If they repent and uphold the practice of prayer and almsgiving, then they are your brothers in religion. If after this, however, they break their covenant, then war should be waged against the leaders of kufr (infidelity). Here "covenant breaking" in no way can be construed to mean "breaking of political covenants". Rather, the context clearly determines its meaning to be "confessing Islam and then renouncing it". Thereafter the meaning of "fight the heads of disbelief" (9:11,12) can only mean that war should be waged against the leaders instigating apostasy.[2]

B. Proof from the Hadith (Canonical Tradition) for the Commandment to Execute the Apostate

After the Qur'an we turn to the Hadith. This is the command of the Prophet:

1. Any person (i.e., Muslim) who has changed his religion, kill him.[3]

This tradition has been narrated by Abu Bakr, Uthman, Ali, Muadh ibn Jabal, Abu Musa Ashari, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Khalid ibn Walid and a number of other Companions, and is found in all the authentic Hadith collections.

First of all, you're correct - Jesus wasn't born in winter. Shepherds were out tending their flocks, which they wouldn't be doing in the rainy/snowy winter season.

That goes along with what I've been taught. I'm just not sure what the local climate was/is. I didn't think Israel got much snow, even in December, maybe someone out there can confirm. Would sheperds only be in the field during the summer months?

Jehovah's Witnesses are not freaks any more than anyone else...

Nothing personal, my comment on was more focused toward the perception of Jehovah's Witnesses in my grade school. OTOH not sure I understand the appeal of a religion that is constantly pinpointing the end of the world and are wrong.

Unless you consider Mormonism a cult...
Heh! :)
Actually, they are large enough and been around long enough that they are considered a "denomination".
Here's a good description of the different terms for religious groups.

Uh, huh. That would be why the same book refers to Jews as the sons of pigs and monkeys

Man, I sure wish I could be a dittohead. Then I could go around being all confident in my RIGHTeousness and wouldn't need any supporting proof at all. What the Quran REALLY said is that in a particular story where one group of jews ignored the sabbath, the other group of jews called the first group sons of apes, among other things for disobeying God's will. God eventually came along and punished the first group, eventually wiping them out after warning them a few times first. Big whoop-de-freaking-do! Old testament is full of stuff 100x worse than that.

Also says its cheif prophet married a 7-year-old when he was in his 50s, but he was nice about it and waited 'til she was 9 before he "took her as his bride".

More dittohead nonsense. First, the Quran is NOT ABOUT Mohammed's life. If you knew jackshit about Islam, you would know that. The whole big deal is that it is suppossed to be literally God's word to Mohammed, not some sort of autobiography.

Second, there are a couple of references to Aisha, Mohammed's last wife as being 7/9 in some of the stories about Mohammed, but there are plenty of other references to her being significantly older anywhere from 12 to 20 or more. Here's a good debunker on that whole silliness.

Let me clue you into something - it may be full of guys who fuck their cousins and their sheep (sometimes it's hard to tell the difference), but the KKK isn't within two years of completing a nuclear weapons development programme.

And exactly how does a government program to create nukes have ANYTHING to do with a fringe interpretation of a religion? Really? Could you at least stay on topic instead of resorting to dittohead logic?

Unless you're a moslem, I'd suggest you root for the side that's not trying to kill or force into submission the 4.5 billion of us who haven't drunk its particular brand of theological Kool-Aid.

Hey, big suprise, dittoheads are innumerate too.
1) People who consider themselves Christian number only about 2 billion (33% of the world population) and that is decreasing.
2) People who consider themselves Muslim number about 1.2 billion (20% of the world population) that is increasing.
citation

The Christans figured it out 500 years ago during the Reformation. You're welcome to join us, but you're long overdue, and we're getting really fucking sick of waiting.

Bull-fucking-shit. Heard of the British Empire? European colonialism? Just because they didn't call it the HRE doesn't mean they didn't blame God for their actions. That stuff was going on well into the 20th century and we are still living with the remnants even today.

PS - "moslem" is considered a low-grade insult, equivalent to "xian." But it's clear you have no respect for other people's religion which is probably why you use the term in the first place. Ironic that would be the case in a discussion in which you erroneously make the same essential accusation of about a billion or so muslims.

Christian Reconstructionism

"How many people do you think are going to be able to grasp the arguments and evidence in favor of evolutionary theory if they never see it until college?"

I think that college kids are smarter than kids who attend elementary school. They'll figure it out. Same thing with learning how to properly cite sources, write research papers & understand Plato or Kierkegaard.

"If this were about any other issue, you'd agree with me."

What would I agree about? If an issue was split like this, that I would agree with you that we should arbitrarily pick one side to teach as the absolute truth in elementary schools? Riiiiight. Here in Canada, the population is split 50/50 as to whether gay marriage should be allowed. Right now there's a ban involved in the discussion even of gay marriage in school. Makes perfect sense to me - why teach it if one half of the population is completely opposed to the other? Because it's science? Oh yeah, great reason.

"Incidentally, I submit that while their numbers are nowhere near what you suggest..."

Look it up. I'm not pulling these numbers out of my ass. Several different studies show that the number of protestants in the US is between 50 and 75% of the total population. Number of people who are not affiliated with any religion is somewhere between 10 and 14%.

Bottom line: you might find the creation argument to be uncompelling, but (assuming all protestants are creationists & not even including the number of catholics in this figure) 1 out of every 2 people you'll meet today believe in creation. If your country simply cannot agree, then it shouldn't be using the state to teach a *theory* that half the people in the US don't believe in anyways.

Here's an interesting link for you in regards to this issue.

What you posted is a commonly held myth. The only connection between the pagan rituals of europe and halloween is that christians dressed up as demons, ghosts out of fun and to mock the formerly held superstitions of Europeans. Some neo-pagans might think they are "reviving" old paganism but what they believe in bares little resemblance to old pagan religions.

Stop blaming christians for the invading germanic tribes wiping out the celts.

Samhaim had nothing to do with people dressing up like red devils with pitch forks or as witches or the dead. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hallo_sa.htm Yes, halloween was instituted to make light of various pagan rituals/beliefs.

Bonfires were common among the pagan cultures of northern europe and are not unique to Samhain.

Paranoia? About what? Adulterated candy? People still believe this crap? Hoaxes for the most part, and when true- often it's family members.

But don't take my word for it.

The link on Moore's website is for the book "Culure of Fear- Why Americans are Afraid of the Wrong Things" by Barry Glassner. Highly recommended, and it attacks both the right and left politicians, and the right and left media, for ignoring the real issues facing our country, and whipping up hysteria.

What the Bible says about homosexuality on religioustolerance.org analyses the various texts and tries to show the different points of views.

What the Bible says about homosexuality on religioustolerance.org analyses the various texts and tries to show the different points of views.