Slashdot Mirror

the unmarried Teenage pregnancy rate is well above the nation average. BTW so are the divorce rate, teenage suicide rates ,and incidences of domestic violence.

WRONG!

Check your facts before you spread bigoted, inaccurate and made up 'statistics'.

Since I doubt many will read the entire thing,


A number of anti-Mormon and ex-Mormon sources have indicated that the Church's strong belief in chastity before marriage and in the importance of close family ties are a failure. One reference stated:
"...a review of social statistics in the State of Utah, which is at least 70% Mormon, shows the rates of divorce, child abuse and teenage pregnancy and suicide are above the national average and climbing"

This information is unreliable. It is typical of the sort of disinformation spread by some anti-Mormon groups. In reality:

The divorce rate in Utah, in which about 70% of the citizens are Mormon, is slightly lower than for the nation generally;
Births to unmarried women is less than half the national average;
Births to teenage mothers is only about three quarters of the rate nationwide. (This includes both unwed mothers and married women)
Rates of mental and addictive disorders are lower than US averages.

We have been unable to check rates of child abuse. However, the Mormon Church's disapproval of corporal punishment of children would probably make those data lower than the national average as well. The rate of successful suicides in Utah is 140 per million (1993 data). This is higher than the national figure of 121 per million. However, this is a deceptive statistic. Suicide rates increase from East to West across the United States and is heavily influenced by the degree of access to firearms. The suicide rate in Utah is slightly less than the average of the Rocky Mountain states.

Like this page?

Yes, it's spot-on. (The site in general is spot-on, aside from the usage of "Pagan" both as the modern religion and as ancient non-Judeo-Christian religions) In particular:

Modern-day Easter is derived from two ancient traditions: one Judeo-Christian and the other Pagan. Both Christians and Pagans have celebrated death and resurrection themes following the Spring Equinox for millennia. Most religious historians believe that many elements of the Christian observance of Easter were derived from earlier Pagan celebrations.

Us Christians borrowed many secondary & decorative parts of Easter from the pagans, who had a holiday at the same time. This does not mean that we stole the holiday from them. :)

Maybe a site like this could provide some more useful and referanced links/data.

Well, at the very least atheism is a belief structure. If someone doesn't give religion a second thought, you call them agnostic.

It takes faith to be an atheist.

Not true, at least probably for most people who call themselves atheists (myself included). This page explains fairly well the confusion and misconceptions over the term "atheism".

exactly - and there are a number of companies chomping at the bit to publish this stuff just to throw some egg on disney's face.
Hell, I know some church groups that would do it just to see the evil, "pro-homo" disney corp. choke on it.
Whatever their reason, I hope they succeed.

I wouldn't presume anything; as a scientific type I am obsessed with fact.

I'm not sure whether you think the % of creationists is high or low, and I don't have time to research the web. There are however various surveys out there; the question has been studied extensively because of the evolution v. creationism debate for public school classrooms.

I should add that by Creationist I intend the fundamentalists who insist on a literal interpretation of Bible (if such a thing is possible given its complexities, various translations, and internal contradictions -- this is not a criticism but an acknowledgement I hope most of us can make) that leads to the 6,000-year figure and so on. These are the most conservatives.

As with most things, Americans cover the spectrum from Creationist to evolutionary-ist (?) with most kind trying to be accommodating. I don't count these accommodating Christians among the ones who claim their reading of the Bible is the end of all debate, and so the % who think maybe creationism should be discussed in school are not the hard-liners most folks think of when they hear "creationist." I personally think many of those who vote for creationism never had evolution properly explained to them -- note the correlation with less education. A poll may thus unfairly suggest their minds are closed to alternatives, as with the creationists. Better PR for evolution is part of why we've seen an upsurge of "intelligent design," a kind of soft-sell creationism.

Evolution is just a theory.

I do not think that means what you think that means. For an explaination visit here or here.

Is that the same thing American doctors do to make a quick $150 bucks from suckers... err American parents?

I think what he ment was, indeed, female circumcision . Far from being a laughing matter, it is a horrible mutilation.

Altough male circumcision is medically debateable, female circumcision is not, and it is a MUCH more destructive mutilation.

I wouldn't be so quick to pin resistance to nanotech on those who are religious.

That may be the case in the area where you live, but worldwide, we see that the least religious folk (Europeans, in a somewhat recent worldwide survey) are also the most stringent about genetically modified organisms.

So, the moral of the story is: just because you might happen to know (alright, we might all happen to know) some religious folk who are not willing to listen to a single new idea, don't blame all religious folk (or even the majority) for resisting technology. The evidence shows that religiosity is not at all correlated to technological resistance.

To go a step further in your thinking, don't just assume that all technology is good. Don't assume it's bad either. Rather, think intelligently about the pros and cons, and based on those make a decision.

Tony

Therefore, isn't the fact that Microsoft's closed source policies stand in the way of China's attempts at fullscale net censorship, a good thing?

That's not the issue, MS's policy wouldn't stand in the way, and doing the right thing for the wrong reason shouldn't buy one any moral credit.

Actualy, Samhain is one of 8 pegan sabbat days. There are both major and minor sabbats. The major sabbats are Samhain (Oct. 31), Imbolc (Feb. 2), Beltane (Apr. 30), and Lammas (Aug. 1). The minor sabbats are the two equinoxes of March 21 and September 21st and the two solstices on December 21, (the longest night of the year) and June 21 (the shortest night of the year. The celtic people devided the year into two parts, summer and winter. Samhain is the end of the summer half of the year and is also considered to be the first of the new year. Samhain meens 'Summers End'. Samhain is a day to honor the dead, not worship evil. For more information you can search for Samhain on google or go to religioustolerance.org

There is no confirmation that Jesus even existed from the time he would have lived

Have you heard of the "Anti-Stratfordians"? They believe that Shakespeare did not exist. You'll always find doubt about great historical figures. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. Most historians believe that both Shakespeare and Jesus were real people.

outside the New Testament except for Josephus' writings

There's two independent sources. Furthermore, what you're saying here is completely false. There are documents from outside the Christian Scriptures that talk about Jesus; many of them have been translated into English by the Jesus Seminar. Do a Google search for the "Gospel of Thomas", which wasn't included in the New Testament, and is believed to be independent of the canonical gospels, and contain authentic material (since it tells some of Jesus' parables in slightly different forms).

which have been embellished by monks.

That doesn't change the fact that they must have had something to start with. Since Josephus was a Jew, he probably wrote the part about Jesus being a rabble rousing prophet and his brother James being killed, while the Christian monks likely added the part about the miracles (presumably, if Josephus believed that Jesus performed miracles, then he would have been a Christian, not a Jew).

A paper putting forth the theory that Josephus made Jesus up, and wrote the gospels was published by a group called the Society of Josephus. It is frequently suppressed.

A paper saying that something is true doesn't make it true. And who are the "Society of Josephus"? Google doesn't offer any information on them. And their name hardly makes them sound reputable. Are they attached to any university?

Furthermore, this theory seems very unlikely, especially in light of the fact that there are many Gospels not in the New Testament. Furthermore, there are also Gospels written by the Jewish Christians; wouldn't it be more likely that Josephus would have written such as Gospel as these?

If Jesus really existed, and lived in the time of Herod, than our calendar system should be radically revised, as Herod was dead by 30 BC.

Please check your history. According to this source, Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. (There were many rulers named Herod, however; perhaps you have them mixed up.) And we already know that Jesus wasn't born in 0 B.C., this isn't news. Keep in mind that the Gregorian calendar was created in the middle ages, so we can't expect them to have pin-point accuracy.

And no, the calendar isn't going to change. The terms "BC" and "AD" are being switched in many places to "BCE" (Before Common Era) and "CE" (Common Era) in order to secularize the Gregorian calendar.

This site presents the evidence for and against Jesus' existence, without taking sides. If you look at the "against" information, it mostly comes down to lack of documentation by Roman historians of the time. But this should not be a surprise, because Judea (that's what Israel was called at the time) was merely an impoverished occupied territory. Many Judeans were crucified by the Romans. To the Romans, Jesus was just one more rabble-rousing Judean prophet better left forgotten.

1. The Washington Times is not a real newspaper. It is a publication of the Rev. Sun Moon's Unification Church that was founded in the 1980s to advance church interests by influencing people who would mistake the publication for the Washington equivalent of The New York Times.

   You should see the stories they ran during the Clinton administration... one front page I remember staring out of the newsbox at me as I walked up the Metro steps one day featured a giant photo of kids dancing around a bonfire at a rave. The headline on that story criticized Clinton for not supporting an "anti-drug" bill, but the article said nothing about the fact that he was opposed to the non-drug-related things that were tacked onto the bill.

   The publication survives for two reasons:

   1. Church funding
   2. A decent sports section (not news)
   
   
2. The Washington Times did not obtain these documents from the government; EPIC did.

   The organization [the Electronic Privacy Information Center] obtained documents July 31, the product of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Transportation Security Administration, and offered the documents to this newspaper.

   The EPIC story plays down the brain-reading aspect by devoting only one sentence to it:

   NASA has even suggested developing "non-invasive neuro-electric sensors" or brain scans at the security gate to see if people are having suspicious thoughts.

3. Neither organization which claims to have these documents provides them or quotes more than one out-of-context sentence fragment from them. Normally when an organization obtains government documents through FOIA, it provides the focuments themselves as proof. Anything obtained through FOIA is public record. If EPIC took the trouble to show us its FOIA request in PDF format, why isn't it showing us the documents it claims were obtained?

1. Washington Times readers are by nature a paranoid, ultra-conservative group that likes to feel informed of the stories the real media "conveniently ignores." (Aside from the people who pick up the paper and throw out everything but the sports sections... and I've seen people do this on the Metro)
2. Any Washington Times story should be carefully scrutinized before treated as news.

Its members live in society along with the rest of us.

It does not require money from it's adherants. In fact, neither payment nor donations are accepted.

Its teachings are freely avaliable to anyone who wants to read them or hear them. (not copyrighted like Scientology)

The philosophy/religion's founder is neither an object of devotion nor a political figure.

A friend of mine is a practicioner of Falun Gong, and I can testify that he is not a cult member. He is a very spiritual man, but by no stretch of the imagination a cult member. He performs the meditations in the quad of our college and offers information or instruction to anyone who wants it.

Alright, don't believe me? Visit religioustolerance.org and take a look at their page on Falun Gong, the cult question comes up near the bottom of the page.

If it were the "preferred" method a country like the US would probably be currently involved in a bloody civil war.

And if you were to take the statistics on this page, http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm, to be even close to the truth there would probably be few humans left alive.

While religion has occasionally been used as an excuse for horrible acts, it is much more often provides hope, stability and ethical values to work from (I think many of these values from major religions would be considered a good thing by most people).

You really have to look at individuals, communities and people (small things - often hard to see) to see where religions really works well.

Hrmm... have I just been trolled?

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the US has had a "state religion" for some time now. It is called secular humanism. It is a religion according to the Supreme Court. It is taught exclusively in government schools. A priesthood of humanists has been created and is funded from public monies. And, guess what, the religion of secular humanism supports stem-cell research. Imagine that! Seriously, if the humanists would do what they say they do and question the existing moral authority, they would have to stop believing their own hype.

Yeah, it's an Atheist resource site.

Did you expect to find a link to this quote on a pro-religion site?

The fetus is dead.

The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.

The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.

The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed hydrocephalus.

In addition, some physicians violate their state Medical Association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed.

If you read the article you'll see that in cases of fetuses with hydrocephalus "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." The passage of the fetus through the vagina would be extremely traumatic unless D&X is done, no?

make those arguments..out of desperation to have...murder ended

How desparate would you feel, knowing that the fetus you are carrying suffers from hydrocephalus, has no chance of survival after birth, and you will need to push an object 20 inches in diameter through your vagina because the procedure that would have removed it safely was outlawed by morality-driven religious zealots in Congress?

I hope that I have opened your eyes a little, especially regarding the issue of partial birth abortion. The women who are forced to remove a dead or unviable fetus via late-term D&X are usually EXTREMELY traumatized by the process; they wanted a child and things went horribly wrong towards the end of the pregnancy. Political grandstanding, complete with graphic depictions, rubs a lot of salt into those wounds.

I also found this link (refreshingly free of banner ads depicting a partial birth aborion) Late Term Abortions: Legal Considerations which is worth a read.

I think of myself as a pretty tolerant person, and you seem quite rational. Unfortunately not everyone is capable of recognizing that, "freedom of choice" aside, there are legitimate medical reasons when abortion is warranted to protect the woman. Consider this statement by the National Council of Catholic Bishops, "We have received inquiries whether the National Conference of Catholic Bishops would lend support to a ban on partial-birth abortion that would include an exception for the health of the mother. We want to state again that such an exception is too broad. We look for the elimination of abortion, beginning with the banning of partial birth abortion, without reservation or exception."

Yeah, the D & D suicide attacks are specious, and we know it. Lawyers fight for their clients, not for the truth.

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

• The claims by conservative Christian groups that gamers commit suicide or engage in criminal acts do not appear to hold water:

• Michael Stackpole calculated expected suicide rates by gamers during the early years of Dungeons and Dragons. He used B.A.D.D.'s estimate of 4 million gamers worldwide. Assuming that fantasy role game playing had no effect on youth suicide rate, one would have expected about 500 gamers would have committed suicide each year. As of 1987, B.A.D.D. had documented an average of 7 per year. It would appear that playing D & D could be promoted as a public health measure, because it would seem to drastically lower the suicide rate among youth.

Emphasis mine.

A social game means you're dealing with people. Sometimes that means you despair over a bad relationship, but despairing over loneliness is a far greater risk.

Come on... This is like saying D&D leads to increased suicide rates, wheras studies like this seem to indicate that people playing D&D have a lesser chance of commiting suicide.

It's all nonsense, but in the sensationalist american life, anything you can blame for your troubles is a great target for a lawsuit.

Maybe he's talking about religioustolerance.org. Not sure, but this is the first thing I came across.

Here. Read and be enlightened.

Your wife pees standing up? You do know same sex marriages are illegal, don't you? Even in Vermont.

Nope. You've described agnosticism. Look it up.

Atheism is disbelief. Not lack of belief. Disbelief.

Agnosticism is the belief that God's existence is not known.

People who are agnostic but call themselves atheist ('cause agnostic sounds too wishy washy) have been trying to redefine the term by introduction notions of "weak" atheism (really agnosticism) and "strong" atheism (real atheism).

Just because some people want to redefine a word doesn't mean I have to buy into their "claptrap".

A Brief History of the Evolution and Creation Science Conflict
Many claims of evidence against evolution are in reality pseudo-science, and are easily refuted.
Six Flood Arguments Creationists Can't Answer
Is Creationism a viable scientific hypothesis ?

A Brief History of the Evolution and Creation Science Conflict
Many claims of evidence against evolution are in reality pseudo-science, and are easily refuted.
Six Flood Arguments Creationists Can't Answer
Is Creationism a viable scientific hypothesis ?

I honestly don't think that users are going to stop pirating music when those 3 things are allowed.

I agree with you, in spite of the hard numbers that I've seen (I can't find them at the moment, sorry). People who pirate mp3s say that they would like to give money to the artists, something like 60% of them (us).

However, while 44% of americans say they go to church regularly, about 20% actually do.

Why? Because they think people should go to church. Likewise, people who download mp3s, at least in a large part and I think in a majority, think that people who listen to music ought to support artists. That does NOT translate into action on their part; especially if you make it inconvenient, laborious or bothersome.

If it ever becomes really easy for me to give Eddie Vedder five bucks, I will; in fact, I think enough people, even though it would be a fraction of those who download his music, would do it for Eddie Vedder to live handomely, pay his recording fees, do publicity and support a small staff. However, even if it becomes really easy to do, it is never going to be anything like the racket that the RIAA is running now, and at least some industry people know it. The RIAA's only hope of survival is to destroy online music distribution entirely, which is what these insults.. I mean services, are a movement towards.

Without going on too much of a tangent, people asked by pollsters say they go to church every week but actually they don't.

Likewise, of course if you ask somebody, "would you pay 3c a page for good content?" They say "well, of course, I support artists, I'd pay that even if I didn't have to bleah bleah fair use bleah bleah." It's practically a religious thing for people, like myself and, lets be frank, everyone else on Slashdot, who download gigs of Mp3s.

However, when you actually look at the numbers for this - Penny Arcade doesn't get a tenth of a cent in micropayments per pagehit. Now, maybe some people are making that up in buying coffee mugs, whatever, the point is, when you look at how people actually behave, they don't pay the three cents per page when you demand it, they go read something else.

Is this because PayPal is too bulky? I'm sure that that is part of it, and that if it were easier to make micropayments than half of the people who say they'd make them really would.

Just my 0.02$ per page.

Firstly, Religious Tolerance online does not recognise/list Linux distros, or the open source software movement, as ethical systems. Send e-mail to ocrt@religioustolerance.org to get this corrected. Seriously, I bet we can get them to include it as a religion. They include Scientology, after all.

Secondly, it is important that we tip off "investigators" from the counter-cult movement about this new, occult Linux distribution (former Linux programmer, now saved, reveals Satan's plan for open source software!). Nothing drums up good PR like being an instrument of the great beast. Religious Tolerance keeps a list of these fruitcakes. These people have suffered fundamental damage to the credulity centers of their brains and will believe anything packaged as evidence of Satan's machinations.

Firstly, Religious Tolerance online does not recognise/list Linux distros, or the open source software movement, as ethical systems. Send e-mail to ocrt@religioustolerance.org to get this corrected. Seriously, I bet we can get them to include it as a religion. They include Scientology, after all.

Secondly, it is important that we tip off "investigators" from the counter-cult movement about this new, occult Linux distribution (former Linux programmer, now saved, reveals Satan's plan for open source software!). Nothing drums up good PR like being an instrument of the great beast. Religious Tolerance keeps a list of these fruitcakes. These people have suffered fundamental damage to the credulity centers of their brains and will believe anything packaged as evidence of Satan's machinations.

Maybe Edgar Cayce was right when he spoke of Atlantis and the use of crystals: "...Rays of various kinds were controlled, including the death ray. Fluxes of metals unknown today were used in the various types of air and water craft which were constructed by the Atlanteans. The forces used to propel these crafts were first gas and electricity, but later, forces from the sun's rays - caught and reflected by crystals."

Maybe there is some truth to what the whackos say about crystal power.

Or maybe not.

-- anthony /p>

Putative source is listed at top of article. It looks like an About.Com entry, until you realize that's an About.Com banner ad. The second link below came from a Google search, is dated 10/19, and shows the article is meming itself around the net.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter17.htm
http://minjungkim.homestead.com/101901psa.html

The question is, which carefully formatted version is the original? Is either of them?

--Blair

Essentially every major world religion and culture advocates or prescribes chastity: no sexual partners until marriage, and only one after that with the intent to produce children.

While I disagree with your argument, in general, you weren't doing too bad until you hit this statement which is blatantly factually wrong. Other people have commented as to why, but as a amatuer student of religions I thought I would add a few comments.

The view you portray is the dominant view in the Christian world, but using a liberal definition of Christianity, it still encompasses only about 33% of the world.

The next largest group, Islam, is generally interpreted as allowing up to four wives and marriages are comparatively easily dissolvable. Admittedly though there is a good case here for banning pre- and extra-marital sex, as well as some arguments against sex purely for pleasure.

After that we arrive at Hindus. There is considerable variation among groups, but the prevaling view is that sex is a holy act to be enjoyed for its own sake. They gave us the Karmasutra which is a religious text as well as the world's first and most widely read sex manual. Prohibitions against extra-marital sex do exist in some places, but they are often weak, especially when compared to the strong taboo against intercaste marriage. Pre-marital sex is rare because marriage are often arranged at a young age and last for life. One group, the Vaishnavas, are even historically known as an "orgy cult", though they are not a small group.

Buddhists, like Hindus, view marriage as a sacred act in itself and take fulfillment in the pleasure of it aside from any reproductive purpose. Buddhism also preaches that in the later part of life you should renounce your wife and leave your family for the life of a monk. I won't touch extramarital sex cause I don't actually have a good grip on their stance regarding this.

These three groups compose 39% of the world, the non-religious/atheists make up another 19%. Thus 58% of the world does not hold religious views that agree with you, and that's without getting into any of the small religions. There are afterall a number of small but nontrivial groups that hold that sex with a holy man or woman erases sin.

Illicit sex.

Homosexual sex

Viewing pornography.

Using mind-altering drugs.

Hypnosis.

Listening to rock music, particularly if the musicians are themselves involved with demons.

Certain professions, roles and tasks that frequently cause demon possessed:

Leaders of religious cults.

All Satan worshipers will eventually be demon possessed.

Astrologists.

Psychics, including psychic hotlines, and psychics that aid in police investigations.

He states that if an individual opens their mind "to powers which are not clearly Holy", then their mind may be filled with a demon.

Read more here!

Here are yet more links, regarding the terrorist attack. Only, these links are in response to a question I have ... are we actually dealing with a radical sucide cult here ?

Yeah, I know, sounds wacky. However, considering the planning and fanaticism behind last tuesday's acts ... and considering that the Teliban has about as much in common with Islam, as Heaven's Gate did with Christianity. Are we actually up against a group that preaches taking their lives, along with others, is a path to paradise ?

Here are some links on the subject. Decide for yourself.

Chronology of Suicide Cults
Doomsday, Destructive Religious Cults
Suicide Makes Ten Deaths Among Guru's Followers
More Than 200 Die in Uganda Cult Mass Suicide
Aum and Terrorism
Suicide Cults The End Of The Century
AUM SUPREME TRUTH
A party, prayers, then mass suicide
Lessons to be Learned: Heaven's Gate Tragedy
Cults

Excuse me, but you are wrong.
See this

Isn't this a little like comparing the jesus myth to that of Mithra and the rest of the godmen?

Through denial or ignorance, people just don't care that it's the same thing rehashed.

"Hey, it's a good story!"

-- but is it really?

...the Pope has come out against masturbation.

I love this non-news. Craig Mundi says that Open Source is bad (oh my!) And Richard Stallman follows up saying it is good (egads!)

At least it makes for good spectator sport.

Invisible Agent

Actually, it all depends on which definition you use of the word cult. If we were using the traditional, theological definition, a cult is a reference to the external rituals of a particular sect of a religion. So a cultish sect, such as the Cult of Mary in the Roman Catholic Church, have open rituals to their worship. The Church of Scientology, if they actually have internal, secret rites would not fall under this definition of cult.

Now, the sociological definition of the term is a religious movement that has a particular tension with society, such as the Branch Davidians who had automatic weapons and stuff. In this case, the Church of Scientology as a cult would not hold because there is not a lot of public tension between regular people and say, Tom Cruise or John Travolta.

Now, other social definitions of cult would fit the Church of Scientology. They are a small religion, they have non-standard practices, and they are not Christians, which is a definition for many Christians.

I prefer to use the first definition because it doesn't single out just non-popular, evil religions. It also has uses regarding people in the RC Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. A much better label for the Church of Scientology is an occultish sect.

For more information on this, try here.

As to the source of Wicca, it is derived from the tribal Earth religions of pre-christian Europe, well before Crowley's time.

For a better understanding of what wicca is really about, read a list of faq's

According to adherents.com , in 1990 self-identified UUs counted for 0.3% of the population, Buddhists for 0.4%, and Hindus for 0.2%. I suspect those numbers are higher now, but can't find more recent numbers.

Numbers for neo-paganism are much harder to find, because a lot of pagans are still "in the broom closet." However, the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance estimate that there are currently roughly 750,000 practicing neo-pagans in the US, which makes up about 0.2 to 0.3% of the US population as well.

So, we're over your 1% of religious people already, without considering a number of the other minority religions. But also, a number of studies such as a recent one done by the Covenant of the Goddess have found that members of these minority religions are more active voters. 86% of those who took CoG's poll had registered to vote - against 50% in the normal population, making them an even more significant voting block.

So, in short - "minority" religions are here, and we care about people who are going to try to infringe on our freedom to worship the Gods. Deal with it.

ian.

I don't think this is any big deal, as those interested in computers come from a wide range of religions.

I'd be interested in seeing statistics on how many neo-pagans/heathens are interested in computers, and what percentage of those geeks study or follow neo-pagan religions. It'd certainly be interesting to find out.

I personally think computer's are Loki's domain because they are so tempermental. :)

Fialar
Vingolf Fellowship

I don't think this is any big deal, as those interested in computers come from a wide range of religions.

I'd be interested in seeing statistics on how many neo-pagans/heathens are interested in computers, and what percentage of those geeks study or follow neo-pagan religions. It'd certainly be interesting to find out.

I personally think computer's are Loki's domain because they are so tempermental. :)

Fialar
Vingolf Fellowship

(Score: -1, Statuephile)

as you continue your little cleansing tirade against us peoples of a differing opinion on sexuality. I tell you, it's sexaulist discrimination.

Or possibly flamebate, or insiteful.

______

There's a really interesting website that aims to give an objective, unbiased-as-possible description of all sorts of different religions, including history and beliefs.

Some particularly interesting interpretations and descriptions are:

• Wicca
• Satanism
• Scientology

There are lots and lots of others. Personally I found the whole site really interesting when I first came accross it, because it's so objective.

The satanism essay is especially interesting since it argues about how there are lots of different forms of satanism, not all negative.

There's also a section in the scientology essay, about 2/3 of the way down, talking about attacks from Internet free speech advocates. (This essay also has a disclaimer pointing out that with so much controversy, truth is often difficult to separate from propaganda.)

There's a really interesting website that aims to give an objective, unbiased-as-possible description of all sorts of different religions, including history and beliefs.

Some particularly interesting interpretations and descriptions are:

• Wicca
• Satanism
• Scientology

There are lots and lots of others. Personally I found the whole site really interesting when I first came accross it, because it's so objective.

The satanism essay is especially interesting since it argues about how there are lots of different forms of satanism, not all negative.

There's also a section in the scientology essay, about 2/3 of the way down, talking about attacks from Internet free speech advocates. (This essay also has a disclaimer pointing out that with so much controversy, truth is often difficult to separate from propaganda.)

There's a really interesting website that aims to give an objective, unbiased-as-possible description of all sorts of different religions, including history and beliefs.

Some particularly interesting interpretations and descriptions are:

• Wicca
• Satanism
• Scientology

There are lots and lots of others. Personally I found the whole site really interesting when I first came accross it, because it's so objective.

The satanism essay is especially interesting since it argues about how there are lots of different forms of satanism, not all negative.

There's also a section in the scientology essay, about 2/3 of the way down, talking about attacks from Internet free speech advocates. (This essay also has a disclaimer pointing out that with so much controversy, truth is often difficult to separate from propaganda.)

There's a really interesting website that aims to give an objective, unbiased-as-possible description of all sorts of different religions, including history and beliefs.

Some particularly interesting interpretations and descriptions are:

• Wicca
• Satanism
• Scientology

There are lots and lots of others. Personally I found the whole site really interesting when I first came accross it, because it's so objective.

The satanism essay is especially interesting since it argues about how there are lots of different forms of satanism, not all negative.

There's also a section in the scientology essay, about 2/3 of the way down, talking about attacks from Internet free speech advocates. (This essay also has a disclaimer pointing out that with so much controversy, truth is often difficult to separate from propaganda.)

There's a really interesting website that aims to give an objective, unbiased-as-possible description of all sorts of different religions, including history and beliefs.

Some particularly interesting interpretations and descriptions are:

• Wicca
• Satanism
• Scientology

There are lots and lots of others. Personally I found the whole site really interesting when I first came accross it, because it's so objective.

The satanism essay is especially interesting since it argues about how there are lots of different forms of satanism, not all negative.

There's also a section in the scientology essay, about 2/3 of the way down, talking about attacks from Internet free speech advocates. (This essay also has a disclaimer pointing out that with so much controversy, truth is often difficult to separate from propaganda.)

There's a really interesting website that aims to give an objective, unbiased-as-possible description of all sorts of different religions, including history and beliefs.

Some particularly interesting interpretations and descriptions are:

• Wicca
• Satanism
• Scientology

There are lots and lots of others. Personally I found the whole site really interesting when I first came accross it, because it's so objective.

The satanism essay is especially interesting since it argues about how there are lots of different forms of satanism, not all negative.

There's also a section in the scientology essay, about 2/3 of the way down, talking about attacks from Internet free speech advocates. (This essay also has a disclaimer pointing out that with so much controversy, truth is often difficult to separate from propaganda.)