Slashdot Mirror

Delusion rules yours. Many unsupported children have had the insight to wish they were never born. And of course 6-month fetuses can't answer questions; they can't even get sense info to their cortexes until they're over 8 months in gestation. But to you, with your baby fetish, they're all talking babies who should be brought to birth, regardless of their viability as people or children of a functional family. Which is why you rely on scary words like "partial birth abortion" and lies about the procedure, while repeatedly invoking empty charges of "rhetoric".

Wise people often say "age before beauty", so now that you've pitched your "Right to Life" propaganda, I'll again mention the actual procedure that your "PBA" doublespeak twists into the wedge between women and their rights to control their own bodies.

"Partial birth abortions" do not refer to an "abortion" just prior to the birth of a fetus. In fact, "abortion" is a medical term that refers only to termination of a pregnancy before a fetus is viable outside the womb. The term was recently invented by anti-abortionists to refer to rare "dilate and extract" terminations, some very few of which are performed in the third trimester, when the mother's health requires it, or the fetus will never gain consciousness. The rhetorical term was invented to taint the rhetoric about actual abortions, a typical rightwing "wedge" technique to create political divisions among otherwise consensus populations. "Partial birth" is the invented term, because the technique includes removing the terminated fetus partially from the birth canal during the procedure.

So you can drop your "sucking the brains out of the baby's skull" horrorshow that so fascinates you. It's not a baby, it's not a birth, it's not an abortion. Why don't you start thinking about the lives of the mothers who can't get a d&x treatment, and die, or are maimed, or can't ever have a healthy child afterwards? Or who get one anyway, in an illegal clinic, without certifications, and suffers that and worse, along with the shame of hiding, in addition to the appropriate traumas they'll have anyway? The "poor mothers", in the appropriate sense of your obnxiously sarcastic words, because the rich mothers will always get the abortions the want. Or think of the deformed children born, or those who maim or kill their mothers in the birth, or all of those? Because that's the alternative that you mock, not just a "traumatic experience" which you trivialize.

Of course, the alternative to the other abortions you hate, but can't malign as easily without the lies, includes adoption. How many unsupportable children have you adopted, out of your moral compulsions? Aren't you just a fearmonger, pitching in to destroy the lives of American women and children?

Those might have been different studies, but the point is that in the United States, creationism remains popular among non-scientists. According to several evolution polls over the last decade, 60-65% of Americans believe that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." About 10% believe that the evolution of species occurred without any divine intervention. The latter figure is higher among the upper class, Internet users and among college graduates, higher still among scientists (about 55% believe that evolution occurred without God over millions of years according to a 1997 Gallup poll), and higher still among biologists and geologists. These data have remained relatively stable over time.

In 1987, Newsweek reported: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly.'" A 2000 poll by People for the American Way examined the question of popular support for evolution and creationism in schools, and showed that a majority of 83% supported the teaching of the theory of evolution.

The United States fundamentalist Christian community has no real parallels (in terms of numbers, prominence, and political influence) elsewhere in the Western world (aside from possibly Canada), and because most vocal creationists are from the United States, it is generally assumed that creationist views are not as common elsewhere. Statistics are not clear on the issue.

According to a PBS documentary on evolution, Australian creationists claimed that "five percent of the Australian population now believe that Earth is thousands, rather than billions, of years old." The documentary further states that "Australia is a particular stronghold of the creationist movement." Taking these claims at face value, "young-earth" creationism is very much a minority position in Western countries other than the USA.

In Europe, creationism is a less well defined phenomenon, and regular polls are not available; however, the option of teaching creationism in school has never been seriously considered in any Western European country. In Roman Catholic-majority countries, papal acceptance of evolution as worthy of study has essentially ended debate on the matter for many people. Nevertheless, creationist groups such as the German Studiengemeinschaft Wort und Wissen are actively lobbying there as well. In the United Kingdom the Emmanuel Schools Foundation (previously the Vardy Foundation), which owns two colleges in the north of England and plans to open several more, teaches that creationism and evolution are equally valid "faith positions."

Of particular note for Eastern Europe, Serbia suspended the teaching of evolution for 2004, under education minister Ljiljana Colic, only allowing schools to reintroduce evolution into the curriculum if they also taught creationism. "After a deluge of protest from scientists, teachers and opposition parties," says the BBC report, Ms. Colic's deputy made the statement, "I have come here to confirm Charles Darwin is still alive," and announced that the decision was reversed. Ms. Colic resigned after the government said that she had caused "problems that had started to reflect on the work of the entire government."

(Fragments taken from Wikipedia licensed under GFDL)

Join the ranks of those who walked before you, Mr Kari.

Back when the D&D-is-evil crap started, I researched news stories about teenagers who committed suicide because they got kicked off the swim team, blew their 4.0 GPA, broke up with girl/boyfriend, parents were assholes, etc. I read that the suicide rate among RPG players was below that of the general population.

That was back in the pre-Internet days when these things took time to find. Here is an article that summarizes some of that info. I used to keep some actual numbers in my head to toss out whenever some cross-waving idiot blamed RPGs for the ills of the world. If the anti-D&D crusaders actually looked up suicide statistics, they would probably be campaigning against report cards, team sports, the senior prom, and a lot of other time-honored institutions. In the real world, fantasy gaming is generally harmless fun.

The $1500 was for an advertisement, not for a letter to the editor, and was not endorsed by any church.

It's important to admit when you're wrong. I made a mistake, and you are correct; it was a paid advertisement that got the guy fined. So "Freedom of Speech" only matters when you express a popular viewpoint? That's not freedom at all.

Cite a major media source or fuck off.

"A British Anglican bishop, for instance, who suggested that homosexuals seek psychological counseling was the target of a police investigation" Oops, that was England, not Canada. Same thing - "hate speech" used to persecute a religious group. The bishop's quote is in the article. You decide if that's "hate speech." At least they dropped the charges. They still accomplished the point of making people worry about being prosecuted for expressing their religious beliefs.

"The first conviction under the Swedish law" at the bottom. While he said some very unkind things about homosexuals, he still did not cross "the line" into advocating violence. Some people like their religion with a little more fire and brimstone than others. Who are you to judge?

"Swedish Pastor Sued For So-Called Hate Speech". A different pastor, same result.

Oh wait, I'm still not coming up with examples in Canada. I think I might not be able to find any. The references I was remembering were in opposition to C-250 which was eventually passed. While it was being debated, people raised their concerns that this law would be used by homosexuals as a weapon against churches. The provisions in the bill to "protect" pastors have all sorts of wiggle-room in them which can allow the crown to threaten pastors all the same.

I could go on, but I'm stopping at the first page of google results for "church hate speech homosexuality."

I don't care whether you are gay or not; leave me alone to live my life, and I'll leave you alone to live yours. Don't flaunt your homosexuality in my face, and I won't tell you to your face that I think it's wrong. But don't ever expect me to actually approve of your choices. I have my standards, and no amount of whining or legislation is going to change my mind.

-paul

The $1500 was for an advertisement, not for a letter to the editor, and was not endorsed by any church.

It's important to admit when you're wrong. I made a mistake, and you are correct; it was a paid advertisement that got the guy fined. So "Freedom of Speech" only matters when you express a popular viewpoint? That's not freedom at all.

Cite a major media source or fuck off.

"A British Anglican bishop, for instance, who suggested that homosexuals seek psychological counseling was the target of a police investigation" Oops, that was England, not Canada. Same thing - "hate speech" used to persecute a religious group. The bishop's quote is in the article. You decide if that's "hate speech." At least they dropped the charges. They still accomplished the point of making people worry about being prosecuted for expressing their religious beliefs.

"The first conviction under the Swedish law" at the bottom. While he said some very unkind things about homosexuals, he still did not cross "the line" into advocating violence. Some people like their religion with a little more fire and brimstone than others. Who are you to judge?

"Swedish Pastor Sued For So-Called Hate Speech". A different pastor, same result.

Oh wait, I'm still not coming up with examples in Canada. I think I might not be able to find any. The references I was remembering were in opposition to C-250 which was eventually passed. While it was being debated, people raised their concerns that this law would be used by homosexuals as a weapon against churches. The provisions in the bill to "protect" pastors have all sorts of wiggle-room in them which can allow the crown to threaten pastors all the same.

I could go on, but I'm stopping at the first page of google results for "church hate speech homosexuality."

I don't care whether you are gay or not; leave me alone to live my life, and I'll leave you alone to live yours. Don't flaunt your homosexuality in my face, and I won't tell you to your face that I think it's wrong. But don't ever expect me to actually approve of your choices. I have my standards, and no amount of whining or legislation is going to change my mind.

-paul

Actually, if you're not Catholic but you are Christian, you're still 'defective' say soeth the pope

I'm saying surely these kids can differientate. They're complaining about 'not being represented' and one of Kerry's points on the abortion issue is
"Oh well I'm Catholic so blah blah blah, but since I'm a Democrat blah blah blah" I'm not arguing that one is not a subset of the other, but I felt that surely they could recognize that he is Catholic. Further more here's a nice quote from the Vatican itself:
"Churches such as the Church of England, where the apostolic succession of bishops from the time of St. Peter is disputed by Rome, and churches without bishops, are not considered 'proper' churches. They suffer from 'defects.'"

So (according to the pope since this was published with his permission) if you're Christian but not Catholic, you're defective.

linkeh

My wife is a doctor, so I have some experience hearing about this sort of thing. You're wrong. This is a similar situation to the whole "Walmart allows their pharmacists to dispense medications based on their personal preference" issue. In short, in rural areas where Walmart is the only relatively nearby pharmacy, Walmart allows their pharmacists to not dispense birth control or the morning after pill if it "disagrees with their morals" or something like that. Given that the doctor writing th prescription is the one with all the medical education, the pharmacist really has no business getting involed.

Now, about the abortion issue. Women will get abortions if they need them. However, often times in many rural areas, it is now well known who the abortion providers are. Therey may be only one or two doctors in an area. If the either or any of the doctors approached is pro-life and refuses to perform an abortion, that doctor probably won't help the patient find someone who does. In addition, due to the current level of violence from supposed pro-life "Christians" leveled against abortion providers, many doctors who are pro-choice either will not perform abortions or won't advertise it widely.

Before it was legalized, women got abortions from unsafe practicioners, and many got sick and died. Once it became legal (Roe v Wade) the number suddenly didn't increase abruptly, but the number of women dying certainly dropped dramatically.

I ecourage you to read more about the abortion issue. There are many different resources available. The previous two should be relatively unbiased, being about.com, and the CDC. If you're interested in some pro-choice information, please go here Pro-Choice America.

An abortion is a health and safety issue, and also very often an economic one, for the woman involved. Many of the women who get abortions are in some of the poorer socio-economic groups. Given that the government does a horrible job in educating people about their safe-sex and birth control options (don't get me started about those issues and religion), would you rather that the woman bears the cost of having the child (that she doesn't want)?

Please read the linked to information. It can be quite eye-opening.

I apologize for the fact that I'm posting this anonomously. Thanks.

Sure. Orthodox Rabbis have a special ability to confer the rights of citizenship and voting to immigrants. Even Rabbis from other traditions don't have that power. This is a serious intermingling of government and religious authority, and a step towards theocracy.

You shouldn't really call it "racist", because it's not so much about biology. But it's still anti-democratic religious discrimination. And race often correlates highly with religion.

Israel has some Christian and Muslim citizens who can vote- but they can't invite their family members to immigrate and vote too, like a Orthodox Jew could. This is for the express purpose of limiting the non-Jewish influence on elections results.

Well, in America they teach that the first Thanksgiving was when the Pilgrims thanked the Indians for sustaining them through the winter. They also turned christmas vacation into "winter" vacation, and take the word christmas out of carols replacing it with "winter" as in "then one foggy winter's eve". So no, they dont have a banner saying "There is NO god" because that would mention god.

Of course, in other countries, indonesia and sudan to name a few they murder christians so I suppose I should count my blessings. Christianity will "get off its cross" when the world stops putting it back up there.

The thing is, there doesn't seem to be a really good reason why the Chinese government is persecuting them so strongly. They claim that it is a subversive and violent cult, but no other country (they have followers around the world) seems to have any problem with them. It really just looks like the Chinese government cracking down on a spiritual movement that preaches anti-materialism -- and, in particular, an organization that was extremely popular, grew very quickly, and existed outside of state control. Quasi-fascist governments such as China's don't have a great deal of tolerance for organizations that do not conform to state ideology. Also, this wouldn't be the first religious group the Chinese government has persecuted for no concrete reason (other than to focus people's loyalty entirely to the State). Here are some quick links:

ob Wikipedia article

Religious Tolerance

Falun Gong's homepage.

Hmmmmm....four-digit UID....couldn't be could it?

People _deserve_ nothing. Sorry, it's Nature's way. If you wish to give them something, that's your prerogative, freedom permits you the freedom to give. However, if you use your guns to take from me in order to satisfy your urge to gain pleasure by giving, then you're stealing from me and I'll use my guns to protect myself.

Why does everything come down to a matter of force when dealing with Americans? "Two words. Nuclear Fuckin' weapons..." The fallacy in this thinking is that you seem to believe it's a zero-sum game. It's not: especially when you have farmers plowing their crops back into the fields to increase their moetary yield.

'random birth' is bullshit quite frankly: my families fled oppression, social theft, and/or poverty in order to come to the USA ... ...That's a self-selecting demographic

You're right, it is a self selecting demogarphic. Frightened people flee, and you still seem to be afraid of enough things to need to keep your guns around. Let's face it - you aren't going to face a military threat (you do have the most effective army), and your personal weapons aren't really going to help you against a terror attack. So tell me again, what are you afraid of? An Afghani coming over to steal your stuff?

Any other race, religion or culture can do the same. All they have to do is:
* respect each other's rights, including those of religion, speech, and property
* have a free and independent press
* have an open, multiparty democratic system with an ironclad separation of religion and state

Respect each other's rights - as long as;

you subscribe to Christianity or the cable broadcast version of it
just like yours
open multiparty democratic process as long as you can fund raise enough cash to actually run.

Smash all non-democratic nations and force them to be democratic or nuke the shit out of them. Who needs six billion people anyway? New Hampshire has it right: Live Free or Die.

And this is the crux...why do you think people hate you? Why do you think people would want to commit terror attacks against you? It's because of exactly this sort of foreign policy thinking. It's about thinking that says it is acceptable to chase profits instead of raising living standards.

The rest if the world hates you like a poor innercity person hates the landlord.

You invest nothing in the third world but expect no jealousy?

Thank God America got the Puritans and Australia got the convicts....

A recent study by California-Berkeley found that there is no connection between the current allowable Arsenic levels

spent promoting something that a majority of Americans abhor.

Please don't visit any state parks, then.

What a whopper! FYI, Bush approved federal funding for stem cell research. He didn't "hobble" it. There was no federal funding for stem cell research before Bush came into office

"Research using stem cells had been authorized in Britain, but was initially halted in the U.S. by President George W. Bush. He decided on 2001-AUG-9 to allow research to resume in government labs, but restricted researchers to use only 72 existing lines of stem cells. By 2003-MAY, most of these lines had become useless; some of the lines are genetically identical to others; only 11 remain available for research. Research continues in U.S. private labs and in both government and private labs in the UK, Japan, France, Australia, and other countries."

....

Following former president Ronald Reagan's death due to Alzheimer's in 2004-JUN -- a slow, lingering death that took a decade to kill him, Nancy Reagan and all of her family, except for Michael Reagan, have mounted a campaign to encourage President Bush to relax restrictions on embryo stem cell research. Fifty-eight senators, almost all Democrats, sent a letter to President Bush, urging the same action.

Sure, some matches up... but it's not like there aren't errors as well...

Matthew claims that the birth of Jesus occurred during the reign of Herod the Great of Judea, a puppet king of the Romans, whom we know died in 4 B.C. Luke also tells us that Jesus' birth happened during Herod's reign. Luke even adds what appears to be detailed and historical evidence of the period. He writes that Jesus was born during a census or registration of the populace ordered by emperor Augustus at the time that Quirinius (Cyrenius) was Roman governor of Syria (Luke 2:1-3). In reality, this has to be a fabrication because Quirinius was not governor of Syria and Judea during Herod's kingship. Direct Roman rule over the province of Judea, where Bethlehem was located, was not established until 6 A.D. In other words, ten years separated the rule of Quirinius from Herod.

Taken from http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_lib.htm Granted, it's a site that would be tough to claim is free from bias, however I went with the first link from google that confirmed what I was taught in college, it is a fact that is agreed on by many historians... this alone of course doesn't make the Bible a fantasy story... just not a completely historically accurate story.

I read about this yesterday, and I was originally troubled. However, I no longer am. More power to the government, I say.

Let me explain.

Another post herein points out, to paraphrase, that being a schmuck isn't right even if it is legal and in support of a cause you think is just. The intent here is undeniably to harrass (and possibly intimidate?) delegates. I think physical harm is a remote possibility, but I grant that it is a possibility.

What the protesters are doing is materially no different than what the Nuremberg Files (more info at religioustolerance.org) did to abortion doctors, judges, politicians, spouses, etc. Was it legal? Sure. Public information. But it still wasn't right, it was meant to enable harrassment, and it's the same thing the protesters are doing.

Whether or not you (or I) agree with the cause is not relevant here. I'm sure some think that it's 100% wrong for the government to investigate, and that's fine. We just need to remember that often such freedom is generally a double-edged sword.

I do have a legitimate question: other than harrassment, what is a legitimate purpose for these postings?

-db

Can you provide examples?

Yes. And here's another.

I don't usually find that my speech is restricted.

That's probably because you're not usually (if ever) trying to speak freely about what a great idea Nazism is, or about how we oughta stick it to the homos. Never mind the fact that if I had to pick an idea to ban, those would be high on my list; the fact remains that I don't have to ban any ideas at all. Banning ideas that "everybody knows" are crazy is just a bad, bad, bad road to go down.

There are cases where this is definitely abused. Prosecuting pro-lifers under RICO laws (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_rico.htm) is one case. I think this is another one. However, I disagree with a bland assertion that laws are only valid if applied in their original context.

so, you're saying that kids of Iran, Iraq (two years ago), Afghanistan (3 years ago) Syria, and the like all have a right to privacy? What color is the sky on your planet earth?

I'm thinking that a lot of those girls would put a right to their genitals way up on their give a shit list over a right to privacy.

Unicef, UN, and Amnisty International can all bite me with their anti-American spew...

Where's the UN on the Sudan? Rwanda?
Where's AI on the mass graves of Iraq and the torture of olympic athletes of Iraq?
Where's Unicef on female genital mutilation?

yeah... their still counting their money in the Food for Oil^h^h^h Palaces(tm) program they had with Saddam to be bothered with problems of the world.

Blame the US for everything and save yourself the trouble of working hard.

Haha... the reference, in case you were wondering.

So, Mr Expert, if your attitudes are the secret to marital stability, how long have you been married?

And how do you account for the fact that the divorce rate is significantly higher for conservative Christians?

I mostly agree with what you said, but I think you've been listening to too much government propoganda when you assert this:

We should be particularly alarmed about about the spread of anti-American hate speech going on in the world... it's perfectly fine to be critcal of what we do here, but there comes a point where "dislike" crosses the line into "hatred", and it's those who have been brainwashed into thinking that free governments need to be banished from the world that we are fighting against as terrorists.

From most of what I've read/heard, terrorists don't hate us because we are "free" or we have a "free government" (although that is what the Adiministration would like you to believe, as that way they can argue "If you do not support the War On Terror, then you must not support Freedom!") -- most terrorists hate the policies of the US. This short essay gives one perspective, and actually provides references instead of the Administration repeating ad nauseum "They Hate Freedom" -- when there is little evidence that is the primary 'cause' of 9/11.

Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'. "
Christians traditionally believed that Canaan had settled in Africa. The dark skin of Africans became associated with this "curse of Ham." Thus slavery of Africans became religiously justifiable.

I meant exclusively homo to exclusively hetero and vice versa.

I figured that, I was just being snarky. However, you might consider reading this if you intend to continue believing that changing sexual orientation is a realistic proposition. If I recall the breakdown of the Spitzer study correctly, there were only seven who self-reported that they'd started exclusively homosexual and become exclusively heterosexual, and all 7 were themselves "reparative therapists" (i.e. paid to say that).

Common usage cetainly seems to lean more toward the first half of the definition rather than the latter.

Similarly, the common usage of "heterosexual" means "a person who has any number of relationships with the opposite sex, preferably at least two (one being with a spouse)".

Nope, he's an atheist. He might be an agnostic too, but that's a separate issue.

Atheism is about not having belief. Being "sure" doesn't come into it - *that's* what agnosticsm is about, knowledge (or lack of).

Have a read of this.

Here and here are a couple of polls with well-documented methodology. Neither covers the "face on Mars" or alien abductions, unfortunately, but they do discuss plenty of equally silly beliefs. Skeptical Inquirer reports on these beliefs fairly often, and discusses the methodology of the polls as well as their results.

I am afraid the satelite photos doesn't do much to convince. And as for the historical background, it just tells us that much of the earlier storys of the bible took place in what is now Iraq. This is not exactly new knowledge.

What the story fails to do is to tell how many similarities there is between the flood myth and earlier myths in that same area (The story in the link only mentions one of several similar myth from that same area). There are differences too of course, but then again, storys do tend to change a bit when they are retold, don't they?

Commie.

Coincidence.

the page in question (5th result on both google and a9) is http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism.htm which includes the text, on both google and a9, "MENU: BUDDHISM. ... You can order these books on Buddhism safely from Amazon.com's online store -- at least, Amazon usually lists books in this spot: ..."

Hundreds of thousands of sites are Amazon affiliates, which is what this is.

The thing that worries me with your post is that you may well be 100% completely right, but what if you are not? Which is the path to God? How to tell?

Inside the Christian faiths there are lots of incompatible variants: Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherians, Southern Baptists & whatnot. What about the Jehovah Withnesses, or the Mormons? Or even the Scientologists? Is it enough to believe that Jesus is the son of God? some say yes, some say no. In past centuries it was common practice to burn at stake all the heretics without a single thought. What do you think of this practice?

What if the Jews are right? What if Islam is the one true religion? What if the Hindus are right?

Admit it is at least a little confusing.

It's worse - most of the Christian story is a rehash of the story of Krishna, which was already 1500 years old at the time. The rest pretty much comes from Mithraism, which was also a couple hundred years old already.

An imitative lack of creativity is not a new thing for humans. ;)

Where are you going to draw the line? Do you really want a bunch of kids being born to parents incapable of raising them?

I am one who believe in the existance of absolutes, and when in doubt about the extent of these limits I would urge caution to be exercised.

So you're suggesting that if a person loses a limb, or becomes paralyzed (eg) then they may be executed as many may be "incapable of raising them"?

Was there anything wrong with the Nazi concentration camps?

If it's permissable to kill a fetus, then why shouldn't I be able to kill a 1-year-old? why not a toddler? A disabled parent, sibling, child, etc.? The mere inability to survive without dependance on the assistance of others doesn't mean that you're deserving of death.

You actually want to increase the amount of suffering in this World? You heartless bastard! Why don't you follow your way of thinking, don't get an abortion, and leave those that don't think like you to do as they please? ... Leave the poor people getting abortions alone, as they are going through enough stress as it is, and worry about your own problems.

Considering, for example, that the very instigator of the Roe vs. Wade court decision has changed her mind, becoming pro-life. There are a number of women who have come to regret their decision, and hence, even if you believe abortion is an acceptable choice, for the emotional well-being of these women shouldn't they be made aware of the full implications of their decision?

killing a fetus whose brain isn't developed enough to know that it's missing out on anything

Consider the following article which deals with the ability of a fetus to feel pain.

I've seen several English newspapers also try to show that Israel may have had advance knowledge of 9/11. There even was an FBI investigation.

Eh, I'm sick of hearing how one side teaches hatred of the other side in schools. I want to see proof. I hear Hindus teach hatred of Muslims, and Muslims teach hatred of Hindus. Nobody can claim the higher moral ground here.

You're incorrect, Islam doesn't say that there will be a wholesale slaughter of Jews, and nothing like that before the return of Jesus(pbuh). They don't call it "resurrection" either. Islam says that when the antichrist (Dajjal) comes, many Jews, Christians, and even some Muslims will follow him. They're not singling out the Jews.

You're distorting what Islam says, and that verse is not talking about the coming of Jesus. You're unevenly comparing Christianity and Islam. Remember, the bible claims Jesus said "I came not to bring peace, but a sword. "

The faiths are NOT diametrically opposed. Come by to my town and say that to the interfaith services here. Yes, Christianity came before Islam as we know it, but Judaism came before Christianity. Your point? One faith is the expected next iteration of the last.

The government hasn't done anything TO me or FOR me.

Then you are much more fortunate than the millions put in cages for exercising private choices about their bodies, or the handful whose religion was not ATF approved, or those denied the right to travel freely for holding politically incorrect views...

The U.S. Government: the people who brought you the Fugitive Slave Act, the Trail of Tears, Prohibition, concentration camps for Americans of Japanese ancestry, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to intimidate the USSR, MK-ULTRA, COINTELPRO, the War on (some) Drugs, and "pre-emptive" war based on lies, among other great hits. So is a high degree of skepticism appropriate when analyzing its actions? You bet your liberty.

Jainism? Sikhism? Shinto? Hinduism? Bhuddism? Taoism? Zoroastrianism?

Four of the above do not formally recognize the existence of One True God, so your question makes no sense.

Speaking as a pantheist and a Universalist Unitarian, your question doesn't work for me either. You may as well ask if my neoteric ether has transflogistanized! (uh, I don't know the answer to that one either, perhaps somebody else does.)

However, if I twist my mind back into the contorted, tiny blinders of my fundamentalist christian childhood, I think I can answer your question from that perspective. I imagine the same answer would work for fundamentalist Judaism or Fundamentalist Islam, which seem to work pretty much the same way. Here goes: "YOU ARE EVIL!!!! YOU HAVE WICKED THOUGHTS!!! YOU MUST BOW DOWN TO THE MAJESTY OF THE ONE TRUE LORD!!! YOUR FLESH MUST BE MORTIFIED!!! KILL THE UNBELIEVERS!! KILL!! KILL!!"

Was that the answer you were looking for?

It doesn't have anything to do with computers, but Bishop Ussher declared the date of creation to be October 22, 4004 BC.

He wasn't correct, in fact he was wrong by 6 orders of magnitude. But hey, A for effort right!

Read and learn

Exactly where do you think the name "Easter" comes from?

Perhaps the pagan goddess "Eostre", goddess of fertility? BTW, easter eggs, bunnies, hot cross buns, and lilies all have ties to this or similar goddesses of fertility.

To be fair, it may also come from the german "ostern" meaning sunrise. There's a fairly decent page about it here. Surf around if you want more info on ties between Easter and pagan rituals.

The fact remains that Easter is celebrated at about the same time as other celebrations in a multitude of other religions -- Passover in Judaism and spring equinox in pagan religions (which, frankly, may also have influenced Passover). Certainly various customs, current rulers, and "heathen" religions influenced both the Old and New Testaments in a direct manner. Anyone who thinks "paganism" is recent is merely showing their lack of knowledge in ancient religions -- Judaism (from which both Christianity and Islam are derived) was a small and relatively new sect 3-4000 years ago and struggled for its existence against a backdrop of much older and more popular religions. A lot of the prohibitions in Judeo-Christianity can be tied directly to festivals and rites from the time; while later on as they became more prevalent they began to co-opt the local festivals and rituals into their belief system.

You seem to have a informed opinions on several issues ... how then would you reconcile your views with this [lifeissues.org]?

Simple. Disinformation.

> No, they just don't have their heads full of so much religious shit that they can't deal with reality.

That's right, every Jew thinks the idea of Israel being for Jews only is immoral, everyone in Israel shall have the same rights, regardless of nationality, religion or sex, etc. Oh wait, something's wrong with these links' titles ...

> "Isreal doesn't even have oil! ... "

" ... , but they do have matches", huh? Oh man, thanks, you just hit the right quote (by Ariel Sharon, I believe).

> So you admit they are stupid.

Yes they are, they didn't had a possibility nor money for a good european college, not even for a good school. The Jews aren't much brighter though.

> You shouldn't kill people because they are stupid.

Yes, you shall exploit them, am I right?

> You kill them because they are trying to kill you.

Do you realize, that this quote justifies Ukrainian nationalists who helped German Army to exterminate some thousands of Jews during Ukraine's occupation in WW2 ? And .. that's right, I wasn't talking about Palestinians, I was talking about millions of people, mostly in Ukraine and Rusiia who were killed, let starve, expelled, put in concentration camps during 20's - 40's, by orders of Jewish Communist Government. And then forgotten. I won't say these people were stupid, even if many of them couldn't read, knew no math and didn't play piano. They just weren't able to understand the principe "kill or be killed", ... before, and many of them also not after.

> The Israelis are very successful in hunting down and removing terrorists,

Which is not that hard, if you have well-trained forces and a couple of Apaches. Just bomb the approximate region and wait until the mob calms down. Dead civilians are not important.

> whereas the only thing mad palestinians is killing children in nightclubs and pizza restaurants.

You see, it's kinda hard to infiltrate a military base if you only have a bicycle, a pack of TNT on yourself and look like retarded arab. Nevertheless, whenever possible, Palestinians also attack military. If Isreal wants them to stop attacks against civilians, then just give the Palestinians enough money for proper weapons and training.

> How does this make Israel more likely to talk and sort out the whole mess, and less likely to kill terrorists (with some collatoral damage along the way)?

What would make Israel want to talk and sort out the whole mess anyway? Too bad they can't just collect them all and put them in a gas chamber - it's kind of 21st century and stuff...

> > will you be able to maintain your pride before God's face?
> No such thing as god. That's retro nonsense. There's just as much proof that the easter bunny exists.

What kind of proof would you require anyway? A big face in the sky? Or maybe a wonder or two? For easter bunny, go to supermarket and buy yourself one. The only evidence of God you can realize in this world is the faith in Him, which creates stable religion, which in turn creates stable moral norms, when it affects people over generations. People who lose the faith, begin to lose their moral and some of them begin to kill each other, because "it's normal".

> Such foul language - as befits one without a logical argument.

You right here - I'm sorry for saying that. As for "without logical argument", I will work o

That's Krisha to you. Philistine.

On a side note, I can't imagine why people feel so threatened by gay marriage.

(Disclaimer: The viewpoint below is not mine. I'm just summing up the POVs of many, many people that I know from growing up in the Bible belt.)

The common saw is that gay marriages are an "affront to the institution of marriage." For most Christian-raised Americans (and those of other religions), marriage is a sacred institute. The keyword there is sacred. It's a religious act, meant to join a man and woman in a relationship sanctioned by God, and the Bible is not particularly supportive of the idea of homosexual relationships. You can find a pro/con analysis of several verses here. To this point of view, sanctifying a homosexual relationship is just as ludicrous and evil as sanctifying a relationship between a man and a goat. For a priest to wed a gay couple is on the same level as the same priest saying that child molestation is okay or that Wiccans will get into Heaven just like good Christians do. It's a prideful declaration that modern man knows more about what God wants from us than the authors of the Bible itself!

That's the most commonly proferred explanation. I find that the most psychologically visceral reason for opposing it is in the sheer disgust that conservatives who oppose homosexuality feel for the act. The reasons why are irrelevant. The fact is that they believe that gay relationships fall somewhere on the spectrum of wrongfulness between lying and murder. As they are motivated to "improve" their surroundings, they cannot abide by someone who willfully and pridefully commits a sin over and over again. They would no more like to see gays sanctioned by the government any more than they'd like to see liars or murderers sanctioned by the government. This akin to the motivation behind pro-life protesters and anti-drug laws. What they see as a heinous act, they don't want supported and legalized by society.

That's what gay marriage is. It's one of the final steps towards full societal acceptance of homosexuality. The 3 most important barriers left for gays are marriage, priesthood, and adoption. If these barriers fall, then all taboos will fall just like they've done for gambling and just like is happening for abortion. They may be faced with the most horrible fate of all for one of their beliefs; their own kids could accept the gay lifestyle. You may scoff at the whole "what about the children" mentality, but that's deep at the core of what anti-gay marriage people fear. What if their own kids follow a path blazed by the non-believers around them. What if their own kids become gay?

That's why some people feel so threatened by gay marriage.

You and I are both talking about a man named Joe. I say that Joe is married and has a kid. You swear up and down that Joe is still a swinging bachelor. Are we talking about the same man?

Arguably, yes. One or the other (or possibly both) of us could be mistaken on the details of his life, but that doesn't mean that since our stories don't match, we aren't discussing the same man.

A quote from ReligiousTolerance.org (an excellent site for information about just about every religion) -
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are three closely related religions. Because they all revere Abraham and certain other patriarchs mentioned in the Bible as their spiritual ancestors, they are called Abramic religions. (The Baha'i world faith is sometimes also included in this grouping.)

You and I are both talking about a man named Joe. I say that Joe is married and has a kid. You swear up and down that Joe is still a swinging bachelor. Are we talking about the same man?

Arguably, yes. One or the other (or possibly both) of us could be mistaken on the details of his life, but that doesn't mean that since our stories don't match, we aren't discussing the same man.

A quote from ReligiousTolerance.org (an excellent site for information about just about every religion) -
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are three closely related religions. Because they all revere Abraham and certain other patriarchs mentioned in the Bible as their spiritual ancestors, they are called Abramic religions. (The Baha'i world faith is sometimes also included in this grouping.)

I found a link to the text of the resolution passed by Southern Baptists about their boycott of all things Disney. I think they are still boycotting.

For those of you interested in this (totally unrelated side topic) you should check out this. This explains where the old 6000 year thing came from. Hey, I'm not saying all Christians are clueless, I was just demonstrating how much brainwashing one Christian organization (and many like it) did to my bro.

BTW... Many millions of dollars have been spent to try to scientifically prove many supernatural phenomenon. Many scientists believe in the positive results of those. We usually call those people crackpots. But we have a name just the same for religious people that have also closed their eyes to the evidence of the world. Fundamentalists.

Try this website for starters. It contains a lot of honest information. Google is your friend, too.

Most of those things are good to do as a hobby, and you can make most of that stuff cheaper than buying it. I think that we need to keep that knowledge in case something happens to the world and we need to start over again. Also it is good to see how things used to be done.