Slashdot Mirror

I absolutely do not understand this OBSESSION with fetuses, [...]

Sure, let me help you out.

Before the late 1970s, the obsession with fetuses was an entirely Roman Catholic thing. At the time of Roe v Wade, most evangelical Protestants in the US were fine with legal access to abortion at least for health reasons.

In the fallout from Watergate, conservatives got into bed with fundamentalists, taking over both the Republican Party and the evangelical church. The previous wedge issue, segregation, was no longer viable, so to get Catholics onside, abortion was chosen as the new wedge issue.

This is all quite recent history. The "traditional doctrine" that fetuses have the same moral value as a child is younger than the Happy Meal.

If this is news to you, look at what's now happening with contraception. In 20 years time, people may find it hard to believe that most American evangelical Protestants were fine with contraception at the turn of the 21st century.

Since the single largest group of evangelicals (about 16 million), the Southern Baptist Convention, was specifically created because slavery was more important than jesus and only got around to condemning slavery, jim crow, etc just 20 years ago it isn't so crazy to believe that about evangelicals.

Also, they are total hypocrites about abortion. The SBC supported full abortion rights at least until 1976.

Since the single largest group of evangelicals (about 16 million), the Southern Baptist Convention, was specifically created because slavery was more important than jesus and only got around to condemning slavery, jim crow, etc just 20 years ago it isn't so crazy to believe that about evangelicals.

Also, they are total hypocrites about abortion. The SBC supported full abortion rights at least until 1976.

> those texts make no claim of a difference between 'legal' or 'illegal' immigration

Until, very, very recently, like less than a century, there was not even such a thing as "illegal" immigration. It was just immigration.

And that's their escape value to rationalize ignoring the bible.

For kicks, here's something else. Until at least 1976 the southern baptist convention supported abortion rights. For those who don't know, the SBC is, by far, the single largest organization of evangelicals. Their membership is about 15 million people. And that support for abortion was because of Genesis 2:7 saying that god only breathed souls into the bodies of adam and eve after they were fully formed.

Why did they flip to being anti-abortion? Because the religious right got its start fighting desegregation (read up on Bob Jones univerity's fight with the IRS to remain tax-example and segregated) and that was turning into a losing cause so they needed something new. And just to further the riff -- the last time the phrase "religious liberty" was part of public discourse was when they were arguing for the right to stay segregated.

PS, the SBC was founded because the national baptist convention didn't want anything to do with slave-owners. It was just 20 years ago that they finally denounced slavery and segregation. It is really no surprise that white evangelicals voted 81% for Trump. They lose their shit if you accuse them of racism, its like the n-word for white people. But it still warms their bellies.

> those texts make no claim of a difference between 'legal' or 'illegal' immigration

Until, very, very recently, like less than a century, there was not even such a thing as "illegal" immigration. It was just immigration.

And that's their escape value to rationalize ignoring the bible.

For kicks, here's something else. Until at least 1976 the southern baptist convention supported abortion rights. For those who don't know, the SBC is, by far, the single largest organization of evangelicals. Their membership is about 15 million people. And that support for abortion was because of Genesis 2:7 saying that god only breathed souls into the bodies of adam and eve after they were fully formed.

Why did they flip to being anti-abortion? Because the religious right got its start fighting desegregation (read up on Bob Jones univerity's fight with the IRS to remain tax-example and segregated) and that was turning into a losing cause so they needed something new. And just to further the riff -- the last time the phrase "religious liberty" was part of public discourse was when they were arguing for the right to stay segregated.

PS, the SBC was founded because the national baptist convention didn't want anything to do with slave-owners. It was just 20 years ago that they finally denounced slavery and segregation. It is really no surprise that white evangelicals voted 81% for Trump. They lose their shit if you accuse them of racism, its like the n-word for white people. But it still warms their bellies.

> Life begins at conception, anything else is just absurd...

The Bible says otherwise. God only puts the soul into the body once it is fully formed.

Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Which was the official position of the southern baptist convention even after Roe V Wade.

Resolution On Abortion, adopted at the SBC convention, June 1976:

WHEREAS, Southern Baptists have historically held a biblical view of the sanctity of human life, and
WHEREAS, Abortion is a very serious moral and spiritual problem of continuing concern to the American people, and
WHEREAS, Christians have a responsibility to deal with all moral and spiritual issues which affect society, including the problems of abortion, and
WHEREAS, The practice of abortion for selfish non-therapeutic reasons want-only destroys fetal life, dulls our society's moral sensitivity, and leads to a cheapening of all human life, and
WHEREAS, Every decision for an abortion, for whatever reason must necessarily involve the decision to terminate the life of an innocent human being.
Therefore be it RESOLVED, that the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Norfolk in June 1976 reaffirm the biblical sacredness and dignity of all human life, including fetal life, and
Be it further RESOLVED, that we call on Southern Baptists and all citizens of the nation to work to change those attitudes and conditions which encourage many people to turn to abortion as a means of birth control, and
Be it further RESOLVED, that in the best interest of our society, we reject any indiscriminate attitude toward abortion, as contrary to the biblical view, and
Be it further RESOLVED, that we also affirm our conviction about the limited role of government in dealing with matters relating to abortion, and support the right of expectant mothers to the full range of medical services and personal counseling for the preservation of life and health.

Primarily because the Christian Church has never claimed that the Christian Bible was received already written and merely transcribed.

Let's test this statement, with the actual doctrine of the USA's largest Christian demonization, the Southern Baptists, straight from their own website:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.

So according to this, yes The Bible was authored by God, and merely transcribed by a collection of humans.

Of course this is already provably incorrect (or irrelevant, depending on how you look at it), because we don't have originals for any of the books of The Bible, the oldest copies are not entirely consistent with each other, and the books aren't consistent amongst themselves when they refer to the same events (or even try to transcribe the same passages). So its a little hypocritical for folks from countries with a Christian heritage to be pointing at the Koran and yelling "Aha!" over a couple decade discrepancy in the age of some parchment when they have this gigantic log in their own eye...

It's interesting that they claim it will be free from sin, and yet also homophobic. Can't be both, either it treats everyone like a human being or it discriminates and the users are going to hell.

That isn't so much interesting as confused. "Homophobia" is a contemporary political epithet used to attack people that don't accept various claims or goals of gay activists or the gay community whereas sin is violating God's law. Biblical morality considers some sexual conduct as sin, such a fornication (sex outside marriage), adultery (sex by married people with someone that they aren't married to), bestiality (sex with animals), and homosexual activity. God offers forgiveness of sin via the sacrifice made by Jesus to those who will accept it in faith, such as discussed here.

Adultery and homosexual activity are both considered serious sins. How did Jesus deal with an accused adulterer?

John 8

1but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap,in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,”Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

So they do treat people like human beings, but they plan to exclude depictions of openly sinful behavior. Redemption and renewal is available to those engaged in sin if they are open to it.

Yes, not liking a group of people is a perfectly okay position to take. Lots of people who claim to stand up for "equality" themselves dislike lots of other groups (capitalists, conservatives, etc.). Likewise, equality [of outcome] and [positive] human rights are something many people reject, including people ostensibly intended to be "beneficiaries" of such policies. What you are complaining about are valid political positions you simply happen to disagree with.

Being gay isn't an ideology. Disliking homosexuals is completely different from not liking capitalists, conservatives, liberals, etc. Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change. It is not a political opinion, and it is not acceptable.

Furthermore, note that "disliking homosexuals" is marginal, even among evangelical Christian organizations. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention is the largest protestant body in the US, and are evangelical Baptists. Their Resolution on Homosexuality, while harmful and deeply misguided, doesn't go nearly that far. In fact, it contains the language "God loves the homosexual."

Finally, I feel obligated to point out that you seem to be implicitly lumping LGBT rights activists with those seeking "equality of outcome," as though that program is seeking some sort of government handout. The key issue for LGBT rights activists is freedom to marry, which is "equal treatment under the law," not "equality of outcome."

No, I can confirm I've heard similar rationalising.
Everything from getting embarrassed and changing the subject to "That part doesn't apply in today's modern age"

How do you rationalise it to yourself if it isn't the bury your head in the sand technique?

I think that we could agree that it is possible to know the right answer to a question or problem, but not know how it was derived. Some of what you refer to is that simple: right answer, don't know how it was obtained. There is a lot of that in society since few people go to the trouble of deriving all knowledge from first principles themselves.

But lets be a little more specific about some of the factors that would come into play. One of them is the body of law involved. The Bible contains many sets of rules or laws, some of which only apply in specific circumstances. For example, there are rules that apply specifically to worship by priests in the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. As you may well know, the 2nd temple was destroyed nearly 2,000 years ago and hasn't been rebuilt since. If you aren't a Jewish priest conducting worship in the Jewish temple that has yet to be rebuilt in Jerusalem then those laws would never apply to you. I will also note that there is only one place where the temple can be built according to the law, and that place is currently occupied by the Dome of the Rock, the third holiest place in Islam. The bottom line is that the purpose and scope of the law matters. The Ten Commandments are generally applicable, the laws governing Jewish priests conducting worship are very narrow in scope.

Beyond the question of the body of law and the applicability is the earthly ministry of Jesus, the Christ. The purpose of the sacrifices made in the Jewish temple were in essence as payment for breaking God's laws, for sinning. Christians believe that the death of Jesus on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of humanity and whoever believes in Him as savior has their sins forgiven. As a result Christians are not obligated to have sacrifices made to pay for their sins in the temple. Various other laws would also not apply for a similar reason.

You can find explanations of the sacrifice that Jesus made and its meaning here or here.

I hope that helped.

But who on earth is silly enough to take the bible literally? I was brought up a Christian, and not once did anyone tell me that the bible is a literal documentary on events, but rather a collection of stories written after they happened (especially the old testament, which is basically cobbled together from bits of the torah, and some other things). I've also not met a single Christian who takes the bible literally (and I even went to Sunday school).

Allow me to introduce you, then.

Here it is from the official website of the Southern Baptist Convention(in the context of the discussion of a book outlining creation):

Therefore be it RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, June 10-12, 1980 reaffirm our belief in a literal biblical creation and a literal heaven and hell

That's the 2nd largest denomination in the USA. Most of the so called Evangelical churches have also embraced it. If I were to write up a list of the churches in my town alone, I would feel completely comfortable laying money on the fact that a random selection from that list will believe in the literal interpretation of the bible.

And that is just one, albeit large, Protestant group. The Eastern Orthodox and Catholics also have sections of the bible which they believe MUST be interpreted literally, including pieces of the Old Testament. Indeed, the majority of Christians(I'd say 100%, but I'm sure there is some sect out there that says, "yeah, we're christian but we think it's all a metaphor") uphold a literal interpretation in some form. Tenets of the faith like Original Sin and the entire point of the blood sacrifice of Jesus are based on such interpretations.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=religious-experiences-shrink-part-of-brain

Stupid people with small brains. oh ya.

But who on earth is silly enough to take the bible literally? I was brought up a Christian, and not once did anyone tell me that the bible is a literal documentary on events, but rather a collection of stories written after they happened (especially the old testament, which is basically cobbled together from bits of the torah, and some other things). I've also not met a single Christian who takes the bible literally (and I even went to Sunday school).

Allow me to introduce you, then.
Here it is from the official website of the Southern Baptist Convention(in the context of the discussion of a book outlining creation):

Therefore be it RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, June 10-12, 1980 reaffirm our belief in a literal biblical creation and a literal heaven and hell
That's the 2nd largest denomination in the USA. Most of the so called Evangelical churches have also embraced it. If I were to write up a list of the churches in my town alone, I would feel completely comfortable laying money on the fact that a random selection from that list will believe in the literal interpretation of the bible.
And that is just one, albeit large, Protestant group. The Eastern Orthodox and Catholics also have sections of the bible which they believe MUST be interpreted literally, including pieces of the Old Testament. Indeed, the majority of Christians(I'd say 100%, but I'm sure there is some sect out there that says, "yeah, we're christian but we think it's all a metaphor") uphold a literal interpretation in some form. Tenets of the faith like Original Sin and the entire point of the blood sacrifice of Jesus are based on such interpretations.

Some still believe that it's unadulterated truth even though it's obvious that the bible is a book written by "man" for "man" to control "man"..... The whole purpose of the Catholic church is about control of the unwashed masses.

That's probably not the "whole purpose" of the Catholic church. I wouldn't know, I'm not Catholic. Southern Baptists, for example believe that The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man.. Gerald Schroeder has some very interesting books attempting to bridge Science and Genesis together. Schroeder is both a Jewish theologist and teacher and physicist, although his background is a bit more weighted towards science.

Some how, I have a bad feeling I'm about to get both down modded and a bunch of flame responses. But that said, there really are a few educated spiritual people out there, you don't have to be 100% pro-science or 100% pro-religion.

"Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" allows players to run over prostitutes with stolen cars. Research has shown that video game violence leads to long-term aggressive behavior. A video game that combines violence and pornography "threatens to create a generation of young men who are addicted to violence and sexual exploitation of women. Parents should carefully monitor the kinds of videogames they allow in their homes."

The core Southern Baptist belief is that asking praying to God in the name of Jesus Christ and asking him to forgive you for the bad things you've done means that you get to spend eternity in his presence after you die. That is one of the main, unarguable tenets - if you don't believe that, then you can't be a member of a Southern Baptist church.

The Southern Baptist Convention publishes lists of position statements and their basic beliefs. Although they explicitly declare positions in other areas of theological debate, they conspicuously offer no opinion on creation versus evolution.

Many churchmembers share my opinion: God created the Universe and all life in it, with scientific evidence currently supporting the theories (in the scientific sense) of the Big Bang and evolution, respectively. He made a complex and beautiful world for us, and gave us the intelligence and curiosity to learn how he did it.

Although certain individual churches or leaders may have expressed opinions on these subjects, it's important to know that the Southern Baptist Convention is more of a coalition than a hierarchy (as opposed to, say, the Roman Catholic Church). To the best of my knowledge, no broadly recognized authority requires adhering to belief in a 6000-year-old planet or "intelligent design".

I really didn't mean to be so long-winded. In summary, you can be a Southern Baptist in good standing without agreeing with every other Southern Baptist on every single issue. Some shared beliefs are very important to us, but I don't believe that this is one of them.

As far as violent video games, my personal belief is that they're probably not "solid nourishment" for your mind. A mental diet of GTA:SA is probably no better for your inner self than a physical diet of Pixie Stix would be good for your body. On the other hand, the occasional Pixie Stix is yummy and not likely to hurt you, unless you're genetically predisposed to react poorly to that trigger.

The core Southern Baptist belief is that asking praying to God in the name of Jesus Christ and asking him to forgive you for the bad things you've done means that you get to spend eternity in his presence after you die. That is one of the main, unarguable tenets - if you don't believe that, then you can't be a member of a Southern Baptist church.

The Southern Baptist Convention publishes lists of position statements and their basic beliefs. Although they explicitly declare positions in other areas of theological debate, they conspicuously offer no opinion on creation versus evolution.

Many churchmembers share my opinion: God created the Universe and all life in it, with scientific evidence currently supporting the theories (in the scientific sense) of the Big Bang and evolution, respectively. He made a complex and beautiful world for us, and gave us the intelligence and curiosity to learn how he did it.

Although certain individual churches or leaders may have expressed opinions on these subjects, it's important to know that the Southern Baptist Convention is more of a coalition than a hierarchy (as opposed to, say, the Roman Catholic Church). To the best of my knowledge, no broadly recognized authority requires adhering to belief in a 6000-year-old planet or "intelligent design".

I really didn't mean to be so long-winded. In summary, you can be a Southern Baptist in good standing without agreeing with every other Southern Baptist on every single issue. Some shared beliefs are very important to us, but I don't believe that this is one of them.

As far as violent video games, my personal belief is that they're probably not "solid nourishment" for your mind. A mental diet of GTA:SA is probably no better for your inner self than a physical diet of Pixie Stix would be good for your body. On the other hand, the occasional Pixie Stix is yummy and not likely to hurt you, unless you're genetically predisposed to react poorly to that trigger.

WRT the Southern Baptist Convention, the only thing that comes to mind from 2000 that somehow resembles what you're referencing is the 2000 Revision of the Baptist Faith and Message. Looking at the text, I don't see what you're referring to ...

These days, it's fairly rare to find someone that believes the entire bible should be taken literally

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter.

And this from other belief systems differs... how?

Listen, "Fundamentalist Christian" in U.S. English, which is what I was using, has a precise meaning, which is pretty much what you quoted. The major event in the formation of this school of belief was the publishing of a series of articles around 1910 called "The Fundamentals."

One of the basic beliefs of this school, as exemplified by Southern Baptist Convention: The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.

What separates this school particularly from Catholic doctrine is the idea that the lay person is supposed to read and understand the scriptures without the need for an authority to interpret it.

Catholic doctrine basically holds that the Church is the ultimately authoritative interpreter of scripture. Efforts to understand scripture can easily lead to various "heretical" thoughts through misunderstanding. The way to avoid such heresy is to rely on Church doctrine.

To quote the Catechism

As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."..."The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

You haven't met very many Christians. Roman Catholics, the vast majority of the Christians in the world, reject wholeheartedly the belief in sola scriptura that is the heart of Fundamentalism. Orthodoxy, representing another 300 million Christians (and up to 5 million in the U.S.) also do so.

I wasn't arguing that all Christians are Fundamentalists. I was arguing the suggestion that only the Holiness and Pentecostal denominations are Fundamentalist. My point was that I know many Baptists, being from a heavily Baptist area, and that I was pretty sure that Baptists are, generally speaking, Fundamentalists given the definition:

"Fundamentalism" is a belief that every word of the Bible is infallible as it is literally written and that human traditions count for nothing.

This is from the Southern Baptist Convention website:


The Scriptures
The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter.

I think that's a pretty compelling argument that it can be said that Baptists (in general) do believe in the doctrine of inerrancy and can therefore be considered Fundamentalists.

Going back to the original point of discussion... there are a shitload of Baptists in the US, especially in the South. And while I can't name names, I imagine that there are indeed quite a few folks who could be considered Fundamentalists (given the above definition) making up parts of the Bush administration.

"a group that tells its members how to live"

Well I guess by that definition every religion is a cult because they all tell their members how to live. Remember those ten commandment things. Koran tells people in detail how to live, don't eat pork, no alcohol or drugs. Many denominations forbid homosexuality, abortion, divorce, pornogrpahy, etc. Southern Baptist Conference certainly is near forbidding things though they say "oppose". They do have a good antiwar clause though I wonder how many Southern Baptists are in the military, especially officers, and fighting in Iraq with the church's blessing.

Later in your post I think you are branding religions as a cult just because they ban things your denomination doesn't ban. I could easily list the things Southern Baptists seek to ban and say they are cultists for telling their members how to live. Telling people how to live is what most religions do, its how they are defined.

Perhaps you mean instead the lengths to which a denomination seeks to enforce its dictates might indicate a cult.

"I don't think that the Mormon church is a cult"

I assure they exert a massive degree of control over their members. Friends of mine in the Mormon church recount how they seek to know every time they jack off.

"I think they're a cult."

I think you are just setting the standards where you find convenient and where your comfort level is.

My state recently got a lottery for the first time in the history of the state. Now millions of Tennesseeans have poured half a billon dollars into the lottery system. Every eligible high school student was able to recieve a college scholarship. The manager of the lottery is paid $350,000 with another $400,000 in bonuses available.

So millions of people voluntarily pooled a little of their spare money together to provide a great benefit to the citizens of the state. (This is not an endorsement of the lottery. I am morally opposed to it and do not participate in it. I'm just using it as an example) Another example of people voluntarily giving or time or money is churches. The Southern Baptist Convention has a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm sure the Roman Catholic Church has a budget to dwarf that. People voluntarily gave this money.

Why doubt the power of FOSS when examples of people volunarily giving of their spare time/money and accomplishing great things is all around. Not everyone in the world demands monetary reimbursement for every beneficial act they perform. That's quite a sad outlook on life don't you think?

It is obvious that you've never been to a Southern Baptist church or a Southern Baptist home. Since you probably don't live within 300 miles of a community of Southern Baptists, I'll provide you a link.

A religious group that follows a particular theological system. In the context of Christianity it is a group that uses the Bible but distorts the doctrines that affect salvation sufficiently to cause salvation to be unattainable. A few examples of cults are Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Christadelphians, Unity, Religious Science, TheWay International, and the Moonies.

That is the Christian view based on theology, not reality. A cult is a social structure and while some of the above groups are cults, so are fundamentalist Christians. A group that displays three or more of the following traits would be a cult: 1) Claims of being the only "true faith" while attacking all others. 2) Paranoia such as unfounded claims of persecution, conspiracy theories, etc. 3) Attempts to isolate members from mainstream society. 4) When the group focuses on a few main individuals such as a local preacher regardless of theology. 5) The group controls the personal habits of members to the point of regulating what books to read, what to wear, etc. 6) Rejection of reason. Claims such as we never went to moon, the earth is 6000 years old (all science is a satanic/atheist plot, see #2.), Holocaust denial, etc.

However, to stay on thread topic, both of those definitions would classify the Church of JC of LDS as a cult.

According to the many surveys conducted by government and health organizations, only 1-2% of the population admits to being gay.

()Female

()Male
21. Sexual Orientation (check only one)

()Heterosexual

()Homosexual
22. Marital Status....

i hardly think of that as being an accurate description of human behavior.
i'm in my mid-twenties, and of the six people i've slept with since turning 18, three would answer the question by checking "Heterosexual", the other three by checking "Homosexual". it's not a matter of "most of them are too afraid to fill out an anonymous surveys truthfully", but rather that those surveys (and our socially-created notions of identity) are using grossly oversimplified categories. in fact, if we're so concerned with surveys, the statistics on men who have had a same-sex experience ending in orgasm are much higher, ranging from 28-35%.

although, as #300 points out, the peculiarities of adolescence lend themselves to more varied experimentation than is found after 30, by which time most people have a well-established sexual identity.

however, as an addition to the sociological/analytical issues above, let me say that i don't particularly care what the exact number of "homosexuals" is. it's pathetic to see the self-appointed Conservative Moral Authority and the self-appointed Gay Leaders fighting over the numbers, as if that had any relevance to the simple, humanitarian fact that we all are possessors of the same inalienable rights. the religious freedoms of relatively small groups like the followers of Nichiren Daishonin buddhism are of equal importance as the religious freedoms of large, influential, christian denominations.

Statistics are irrelevant, your rights will be protected.

---

You know, I've yet to see any real evangelism going on without a healthy amount of denigration mixed in. I mean, to me, there seems to be two components to any conversion at all:

1. Why your beliefs are damaging, damning, etc.
2. Why my beliefs are productive, healthy, holy, Inspired, etc.

While I can't disagree with your characterization that some agnostics and atheists are extremely disparaging of those with religious views, I know of no atheist or agnostic organizations capable of vitriol on the scale of, say, the Southern Baptist Convention or the Mormons.