Brazilian Evangelicals Set Up a "Sin Free" Version of Facebook

An anonymous reader writes: With $16,000 and the help of the Mayor of Ferraz de Vasconcelos, the town he lives in, Atilla Barros and three other Evangelical Christians created Facegloria, a "sin-free" version of Facebook. Swearing is banned, along with about 600 other words, as well as any violent or erotic content, and depictions of homosexual activity. 100,000 users have signed up the first month. "In two years we hope to get to 10 million users in Brazil. In a month we have had 100,000 and in two we are expecting a big increase thanks to a mobile phone app," Barros says. Acir dos Santos, the mayor, adds: "Our network is global. We have bought the Faceglory domain in English and in all possible languages. We want to take on Facebook and Twitter here and everywhere."

Comments

All possible languages?

[Radak]

$ whois faceglory.fi
 
Domain not found

To be fair, Finnish is an impossible language.

Re:All possible languages?

[SuricouRaven]

Faceglory.jp also not found. They might want to get that one quickly.

Re:All possible languages?

[Radak]

I would have thought that was already a fetish site.

Re:All possible languages?

[GoddersUK]

They said "all languages" not "in English for all TLDs".

Re:All possible languages?

[Radak]

Fine.

$ whois kasvotkunia.fi
 
Domain not found

Re:All possible languages?

[spiritplumber]

If this catches on it will be.

Re:All possible languages?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm excited for what's on offer at faceglory.cx

Re:All possible languages?

[FatdogHaiku]

I'm excited for what's on offer at faceglory.cx

That could set facial recognition back a ways...

Re: All possible languages?

[John Allsup]

I wonder how much their idea of 'sin' resembles that of those people who wrote the various Bible passages with that word.

I can also imagine it backfiring when someone considers how appropriate faceglory could be as a name for a rather more naughty website.

Re:All possible languages?

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Faceglory.jp also not found. They might want to get that one quickly.

For the sake of the Japanese - I hope not. Looks like the Kiwis will have to put up with them. Australians not so much (we've no shortage of fundamentalist god-botherers anyway).

Re:All possible languages?

[X10]

Wouldn't that be something, if for most top level domains, faceglory is a sex site?

Re:All possible languages?

[Whiteox]

I'll counter that with Hungarian! Oh wait....

Re:All possible languages?

[Attila Dimedici]

You still missed it. They said that they have bought the faceglory domain in "all possible languages", not with all possible TLDs, nor did they say that they have all of those domains active (although I am not sure why they would not have them active...possibly because they do not want people navigating to them until they have a webpage in the appropriate language).

Re:All possible languages?

[Radak]

If you want to be that nickpicky about something that was supposed to be a joke in the first place, I'll note that kasvotkunnia.com does not exist either (Faceglory's primary domain is a .com). And I'll also note that querying TLD registrar databases using the whois tool will return results for all domains that have been registered (i.e. bought), not just those that are, to use your word, "active".

Re: All possible languages?

[jellomizer]

I had to snicker when I saw the domain. I am surprised it isn't used for a Gay porn site.

Re:All possible languages?

[NotDrWho]

I feel so sorry for the poor SOB who has to try to censor the porn from the Japanese site. He'll be encountering shit that will shake his soul to the core.

Re: All possible languages?

[Ol Olsoc]

I wonder how much their idea of 'sin' resembles that of those people who wrote the various Bible passages with that word.

Someone needs to post a story there about a guy who pimps his daughters out for sex, then has drunken sex with both of them and gets them pregnant. Or killing an entire village except the young girls so they can have sex slaves.

Then again, I suspect the harder core evangelicals don't look at that stuff as sin.

'Faceglory'

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds a bit like some sort of sexual activity.

Re:'Faceglory'

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Must be kinda funny when they get up to the pearly gates and St. Peter's all like "you know God's son was gay, right? Where the heck did you get 'we should hate gays' from?"

Re:'Faceglory'

[reboot246]

Ask a Christian, and they will say they hate the sin, not the sinner. Then all you're left with is whose definition of sin do you use? Not exactly the criteria God uses to determine entrance through the gates.

You can continue to vilify and misunderstand Christians til the cows come home, but you won't change them.

Oh, and by the way, God's Son is God.

Re:'Faceglory'

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and by the way, God's Son is God.

Are you saying that Jesus is his own father, as well as his own son?

Is it Gods all the way down? ;-)

Re:'Faceglory'

[jtoj]

faceglory.cu would hardly be sin free for portuguese speakers.
Besides, these so called "evangelicals" are mercenaries, and many priests have gathered HUGE fortunes in the name of the lord.

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
They are very good at sucking money from their audience. It will probably net far more then facebook.

Re:'Faceglory'

[Half-pint HAL]

Ask a Christian, and they will say they hate the sin, not the sinner.

They say that, yes. One of the hardest parts of Christian doctrine is actually living up to that ideal. It's a principle that I've tried to stick to even after I lost my faith - hate the actions, not the actor, or something like that.

Re:'Faceglory'

[John Allsup]

s/will/may

I am, and I almost facepalm every time I hear someone come out with that line. Likewise, when various activities are talked of as 'sinful', or talked about in a way so as to imply that they are wrong, as if they are self-evidently wrong.

Some Christians take simplistic lines, but some do not.

The trouble is the drift in meaning caused by tradition and human nature. That the Gospel accounts illustrate precisely this problem, and yet too many churchgoers seem blissfully unaware of it takes a little effort to get your head around.

Re:'Faceglory'

[towermac]

"Hatred is a core value of conservative Christians."

Wow. You're possibly the meanest poster on /. And that's saying something.

Re:'Faceglory'

[Anonymous Coward]

"CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin."
  - The Devil's Dictionary, by Ambrose Bierce

Re:'Faceglory'

[Ol Olsoc]

"Hatred is a core value of conservative Christians."

Wow. You're possibly the meanest poster on /. And that's saying something.

That meanness has been earned. Strict Catholic parents with even stricter Southern Baptist Grandparents.

Remember, that as Catholics, My Grandparents knew we were going to hell. Ever wake up in the middle of the night with your Grandmother praying in tongues at the foot of your bed? Or spend an entire Sunday being preached at, looking out the window, and getting long winded explanations of just how God was going to punish me forever and ever for not paying rapt attention for my 10 hours of fun? Some times I felt like the character Squee (Jhonen Vasquez cartoon character of an innocent among horrible kooks) while growing up

So I have very little patience for the religious, especially the fundies. If that makes me mean, oh yeah - I'm mean.

Re:'Faceglory'

[cold fjord]

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.

Re:'Faceglory'

[tehcyder]

If the conclusion of a chain of reasoning is that homosexuality (or sex outside marriage) is wrong, then your initial assumptions are incorrect.

In this case, it is the assumption that God exists.

Re:'faceglory'

[tehcyder]

Ironic that they have specific bans on homosexuality, swearing, and erotic content, as hearing the term 'faceglory' just makes me think of 'glory shots' (aka 'money shots')

It's like an initiation test. Anyone who smirks when they're asked to say the name doesn't get to enter.

Re:'Faceglory'

[david_thornley]

The "goals of gay activists" are primarily to be treated as equals. I doubt they generally care if you think homosexuality a sin, much as I don't care if you think premarital sex is a sin, but they could do with not being discriminated against or threatened.

Re:'Faceglory'

[cold fjord]

That meanness has been earned. ....

So I have very little patience for the religious, especially the fundies. If that makes me mean, oh yeah - I'm mean.

I don't know that you are mean so much as you are "damaged goods" that lacks the insight to understand how unusual his experience was, and still overgeneralizes from it. As a result you end up stating nonsense like this: "Hatred is a core value of conservative Christians." Really?

You probably should avoid getting into any auto accidents or you might never travel by car again since they'll probably all become murderous deathtraps to you.

Internet without evangelicals = Win

[morcego]

Oh, I do hope they all move to facegloria, and leave us all alone.
Better yet, they should make an internet of their own.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[spiritplumber]

I'm very much nonreligious but approve of initiatives like the Christian State Project or Free State Project. As long as there's no secession/sedition, if people want to live a certain way, let them live that way. And maybe they'll come up with clever ideas that the rest of us can apply.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Tablizer]

they should make an internet of their own.

RaptureNet

with pop-up ads that say, "Sinned too much? Stay out of Hell for just 7 easy payments of $49.95 a month! And for an extra $10.00 a month, we won't even tell your church! All diddling, screwing, lying, or cheating can be removed from your heavenly record Now Now Now!"

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Tablizer]

Such is already happening with say Fox News, and all media for that matter. Before we only had a few media outlets available who served a kind of generic middle-of-the-road view because they had to cater to a wide audience. Now people can easily choose to see and hear only what they want, and the news media is niche-ifying.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[morcego]

You know what they say: Small churches, big business.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Anonymous Coward]

You're obviously not familiar with the Cult of Reason during the French Revolution or the Cristero War in Mexico or the USSR anti-religious campaign.

Oh, you mean Christians haven't been persecuted here.

Well given the left's history, I'm sure they'll get around to it.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[ldobehardcore]

If I weren't an honest, god-mocking atheist, I'd be really tempted into selling online papal indulgences. But seeing as I'm a much better person without god than I ever was with a god belief, I'll just stick to mocking the religious's absurd assertions directly to their faces.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Zontar The Mindless]

OTOH... A Facebook without my 37-years-old cousin's incessant stream of junior-high-grade nigger and peepee jokes might be a Facebook I wasn't embarrassed to belong to.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Dog-Cow]

No one is immune to the desire to persecute. In the US, today, the "liberal" LGBT crowd are persecuting those who don't wish to do business with them.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Tablizer]

I couldn't find any solid evidence of your Cronkite claims. It appears to be unverified hearsay.

But even if it were true, that's just one news person. There were hundreds of others. One data point does not make a case.

I would note that Cronkite was generally neutral early in the war, but came to the conclusion it was a bad idea after a few years of covering it almost daily, and stated his change of opinion publicly.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[dave420]

Only because they refuse to do business with people based purely on bigotry. Kind of like how racists were hounded out of business when they too refused to do business with certain people. Ignoring that part kind of makes you sound like a vicious old fucker living in the past. That couldn't possibly be the case, right? :)

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Ginger Unicorn]

In the same way that all those black people persecuted the people that didn't want to do business with them in the 50s and 60s

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[goose-incarnated]

they should make an internet of their own.

RaptureNet

with pop-up ads that say, "Sinned too much? Stay out of Hell for just 7 easy payments of $49.95 a month! And for an extra $10.00 a month, we won't even tell your church! All diddling, screwing, lying, or cheating can be removed from your heavenly record Now Now Now!"

You joke, but I (as a long-standing atheist) am quite curious to see how a facebook-for-evangelicals turns out. There are many questions that could be answered by examining faceglory(sp?). For example,

Evangelising, by definition, needs the target party to be a non-believer; what happens when the entire audience are believers? When you are literally preaching the message to the choir?

What happens in an echo chamber of significant size? Is there some madness event horizon that occurs when too many people do more socialising on godnet than on internet?

What would this madness event horizon look like? Does the group fracture? Wage war on another christian group?

For individual participants, does it reinforce the belief, reduce the belief or not affect belief at all?

For group participants, does regular participation reinforce the group structure?

Will it lead to more orthodox religious beliefs of the participants, or will they mostly just be another group with a shared belief.

etc etc etc

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[linuxrocks123]

Not really. Excluding someone from a restaurant they go by every day because of that person's race is a significant inconvenience for that person, yet serving black people isn't against anyone's reasonable interpretation of religious commandments. On the other hand, a baker who refuses to make a cake especially for a gay marriage causes a once-in-a-lifetime minor inconvenience for two people, yet participating in a gay wedding ceremony is very much against many people's reasonable interpretation of religious commandments.

Just because two situations look the same at first glance doesn't mean they are.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[qe2e!]

I just had a friend lose a contract over the fact he worked with gay weddings. He actually made out like a bandit and got to keep a large deposit -- he donated it, posted his story of attempted persecution, and the story went viral and business is BOOMING. If you find a story of fundamental homosexuals beating up christian because he looked too square, I'd love to hear it.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Sique]

You must not pay attention much to the fact that most people they persecute are Muslims to begin with - christians are merely collateral damage.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[AmiMoJo]

The problem is that they tend to ignore the human rights of children in places like that. Cutting parts of their bodies off, refusing to give them a proper education, causing them mental illnesses with horrific stories and threats from X-rated books etc.

Children have rights and are not property. Religious people can do what they like, as long as their children's rights are respected.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[jellomizer]

The problem when you separate these people they will only be more extream, as well your side would get more extreme.
Taking out the invisible men, and magic trick religions are still based on philosophies thousands of years in the making, where there are people who job is to study these philosophies. Vs the non religious folk unless they are a full time philosopher (and we don't have many of those on payroll) most of us have a system of belief based on short term ideas and can change when a political party gets a new funding source.
I am not saying that religions can't get corrupted as I think many of these evangelical religions are. But by isolating a group of people we will in generally miss out overall.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[RabidReindeer]

History says that a code language will emerge that people can use to get around the filters and censoring. People will start using it and in short order, the site will become infamous as a hotbed of sin and vice.

Nathaniel Hawthorne knew what he was talking about when he wrote that the worst sins are the ones committed in the most virtuous communities.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[AmiMoJo]

Making decisions like that on a case-by-case basis is impractical. More over, even if it is only a minor issue for the person buying the cake at that particular moment, it becomes a bigger issue if they find that they can't have their wedding in their home town because no-one will rent them a suit/dress, the local hotels won't rent twin beds to same sex couples, the local caterers won't cater their reception party etc.

That's why anti-discrimination laws are universal. Individual incidents might not be so bad for those affected, but they add up.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[AmiMoJo]

My expectation is that it will be quickly overrun by trolls. Some of them non-Christians, but many of them Christian trolls pushing an extreme view and harassing others with it. The Bible is so contradictory that you can find a way to interpret some bit of it to support pretty much any point of view, and then batter your opponent over the head with it and scream about them burning forever in the fires of hell etc. The best part is that your opponent is full of self doubt and loathing so won't just dismiss you as a troll in most cases.

For evidence, see current Christian groups on Facebook.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[alexgieg]

participating in a gay wedding ceremony is very much against many people's reasonable interpretation of religious commandments.

Not, it's a blatant refusal to obey Jesus' extremely clear commandment:

"(...) whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. (...) Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; (...) And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?" (Matthew 5:39-47)

In other words, for the analogy-impaired, I'll rephrase the above:

"And whosoever shall compel thee to bake a cake, bake him twain."
"And whosoever shall compel thee to arrange them a bouquet, arrange them twain."
"And whosoever shall compel thee to take 100 photos, take 200."

And so on, and so forth.

Pretty clear, eh? Those refusing service to "sinners" aren't only breaking the law, and morals, and ethics, they are also themselves sinning against their God's will.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[spiritplumber]

Yeah, you've got a point there (I went to a fundie school for a semester... sadly it took that long for my folks to arrange a transfer)

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Translation Error]

This friend?

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Half-pint HAL]

I used to be religious (catholic), and it worries me how much of a tendency there is towards fundaMentalism across the board. But I don't blame religious people for this -- I actually blame outspoken atheists who preach that science and rationality are the enemies of religion. It is them, ironically, who turn uninformed religious people into zealots.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[linuxrocks123]

Even if they have to have the marriage in a larger city, that's still a once-in-a-lifetime inconvenience.

Your "case by case" basis statement doesn't really make sense -- a fair set of laws depends on recognizing the differences in different situations. But regardless, there aren't many cases here. The argument is basically whether gays should be a protected class. They're not at the federal level; they are in some states. The most-publicized result with those states' experiments so far is that a family bakery was fined tens of thousands of dollars for not making a cake for a gay marriage. Some people see that as a just result; I don't. I say they could have easily gone somewhere else to get their cake, but the baker can't easily get a different religion, because that's not how religion works.

Hotels not renting to gay couples should maybe be a special case, because that could result in some serious inconveniences, but a gay couple could probably just pretend to be friends renting a room together. I mean theoretically a hotel could refuse to rent a room to an unmarried heterosexual couple, but I've never heard of that being a problem except (somehow, I forgot how...) in an I Love Lucy rerun, so obviously the major hotel chains aren't being run by monks.

And there is no reason a restaurant would ever have to know whether you're gay or tell whether you're gay and anyway I don't think anyone's religion says that gay people can't eat, so the canonical example of discrimination against blacks in the South shouldn't apply to gay couples today.

It's sort of like this ... there are no laws against discriminating against people with red hair, because no one wants to do that anyway. Whether there should be laws against discriminating against gay people should depend on whether people want to do that anyway, and whether we think it's okay to force people who want to do that to not do that. Religious people refusing to be the photographer/caterer/baker for a gay wedding, well, that's really not so bad, in my opinion, because most people get married only once (or maybe twice if things don't work out the first time), and forcing people to violate their religious beliefs is not okay with me.

Now let me describe a situation where I think we might need some sort of anti-gay-discrimination law. Let's say some conservative state decides to respond to the gay marriage ruling by putting the names and genders of every married person's spouse on their driver's licenses and the governor basically says, "hey, if you don't like gay-married-people ... don't serve them!", and people actually do that. Then, we might need some laws.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Half-pint HAL]

Actually, that passage has been presented as being a doctrine for passive-resistance, bolstering the case that the historical Jesus was a sort of Gandhi figure in a country that was constantly bubbling with armed resistance against the Roman occupation. Turning the other cheek challenged the slapper to strike you the other way, and slapping with the front of the hand recognised you as a person of value, whereas the back of the hand was a dismissive gesture, devaluing you. if someone you're close to (eg your dad) slaps you with the palm, then you turn the other cheek, you're effectively saying "hit me again and you're disowning me", whereas if someone hits you with the back of their hand and you turn the other cheek, you're saying "I'm no less than you. Hit me again and prove it." Walking the extra mile was because Roman laws only permitted a legionnary to impune a subject for a mile at a time, and if you carry the pack for two miles, you might get him in trouble with his centurion. The goal was to make them too scared to demand assistance. There is no passive resistance in making two wedding cakes.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[IMightB]

Ummm so what if they refuse service because their bigoted? I still occasionally, see stores with a "we reserve the right to refuse service for any reason". It's their right as a business owner.

If someone doesn't want to take your money in an honest transaction, go to someplace that will. I'm kinda on board with the idea that the LBGT crowd is engaging in a witch hunt with their newfound ascendency.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[dave420]

You are blaming people for espousing science because it makes some weak-minded fucktards abuse kids by filling their heads with nonsense. Why not blame the weak-minded fucktards?

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Half-pint HAL]

And live in separate communities and have separate schools, right?

Oh, how cute. You are trying to imply that evangelicals are like the minorities that were persecuted through history and suffered segregation. Right, those poor Christians. They are so defenseless, so persecuted. How dare other people not let them tell everyone how to live their lives.

Oh, how cute -- you're making patronising statements and assumptions again. It could be that the AC GP is making a comment about integration. After all, isn't it one of the biggest concerns about immigrant communities that they fail to integrate? Perhaps the AC was trying to get the previous poster to think about the fact that segregation is never good for society.

In Scotland, segregation in the school system was sold as a means of protecting the Catholic (ie Irish and Italian immigrant) kids from bullying from the local (low Protestant) kids. In reality, it was a sticking-plaster that maintained a century of sectarianism by skirting around the need to preach tolerance and understanding.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Half-pint HAL]

You souns quite unpleasant. If that's you as a better person, I hate t imagine what you were like before.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[dave420]

They're equally as egregious. If you have a license to do business with the public, you serve all the public. The only limits are those customers who are causing a disturbance to other customers. You can't single out swathes of the population because you don't understand the difference between making a cake for something and condoning that thing. "Participating in a gay wedding ceremony" by being miles away from it and unaware it is going on, save for a cake you cooked and were paid handsomely for? Give me a fucking break. Just because you can crowbar in some weasel words doesn't mean the two things are in any way different.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Half-pint HAL]

The problem when you separate these people they will only be more extream, as well your side would get more extreme.

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Do not underestimate the polarising effects of listening to people attack you. I try t be neutral and reasonable on debates on religion. This leads non-religious people to think I'm a religious person trying to corrupt hem, and it leads religious people to believe I'm an atheist trying to corrupt them. The internet isn't currently a place for reasoned debate as people are just too quick t assume any disgreement is an attack. It is possible (though maybe not likely) that such a site could become a "safe place" for debates. Extremism on either side is usually a result of polarisation, which really affects both sides equally.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[alexgieg]

There is no passive resistance in making two wedding cakes.

Actually, there is. If an abusing couple insists on getting a cake or whatever from a fundamentalist Christian shop just because it's a fundamentalist Christian shop, and they know the owners wouldn't like to do it, and they're doing it precisely because they want to make the owners angry, then receiving two cakes at their wedding would send a very clear message to the couple as well as to the guests: "Here's your cake/whatever. We also feel you're being abusive, so here's another one to commemorate it. Have a nice wedding."

Even though I think it's pure assholery from service providers to be bigots, this would actually be an effective form of passive-aggressive resistance, done in all the right ways and, more importantly, in the spirit of the original.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[ArcadeMan]

Better yet, they should make an internet of their own.

They're going to make their own Internet, with bingo and choir singers.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Half-pint HAL]

You are blaming people for espousing science

I'm not blaming anyone for "espousing" anything -- I'm blaming them for telling religious people "this isn't for you", or even worse -- stating (unscientifically) that science disproves God. I went to a Catholic school. We studied just as much science as the kids in non-denominational schools, because nothing in Catholic dogma says science is bad -- in fact, university study in Europe was founded by the Catholic church to study "the mechanics of God's creation", and science was seen as a holy endeavour, similar to how the medieval Muslim scholars viewed it.

In the last 20 years, things have changed drastically. I no longer mix with as many catholics as I did when I was a believer, but it's clear that far more of them reject parts of science and believe in literal interpretations of the Bible, even though catholic dogma has not accepted biblical literalism for centuries. The influence comes from outside the church. It's also not about being "weak-minded", it's just about being uneducated. Thirty years ago, these people without the educational background to understand science would have just shrugged because science wasn't important to them.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[AmiMoJo]

You are arguing that there is no need for some laws because no-one discriminates on those grounds. That's a bad way to make laws. They should be as broad as possible so that they don't have to figure out every single possible situation. Laws should set out the principals that should apply in all cases.

The principal is that discrimination of things that a person cannot control, such as their sexuality, is not allowed. Rather than coming up with a list of exceptions of inclusions to that rule, it should just be a general rule. Aside from simplifying the situation, it's also the best possible option for society in general, since society generally does not tolerate discrimination of that kind even if there are religious reasons for it. Religion is a choice, it offers no protection.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[geoskd]

Not really. Excluding someone from a restaurant they go by every day because of that person's race is a significant inconvenience for that person, yet serving black people isn't against anyone's reasonable interpretation of religious commandments. On the other hand, a baker who refuses to make a cake especially for a gay marriage causes a once-in-a-lifetime minor inconvenience for two people, yet participating in a gay wedding ceremony is very much against many people's reasonable interpretation of religious commandments.

The problem is that bigotry is enshrined in the religious belief. If ever there was an indication that religion is evil, that's it. A persons religious belief does not entitle them to engage in discrimination as part of their interactions with the world. Those that believe this to be acceptable behaviour need to be corrected. Failure to do so leads to two mutually incompatible religions squaring off and killing millions (That should sound familiar). One of the most fundamental tenets of many religions is exclusion and persecution. This is not always a direct facet of the religion itself, but is a fundamental aspect of human nature, and so many religious leaders use it to keep their flocks in line. The necessary consequence of this is bigotry, exclusion and ultimately war. Religion, as practiced, by the majority of the worlds population is an unconscionable excuse to exclude and discriminate, and should not be tolerated. I don’t give a damn what is written in any book or preached in any school, it doesn't give anyone the authority to deny me my rights.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[CanHasDIY]

People tend to self-segregate into their preferred echo chambers. Hence the reason you can't make a pro-gun comment on HuffPo, or an pro-choice argument on FOX News, without being attacked by the general populations therein.

Humans don't need religion as an excuse to be self-centered assholes.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Grishnakh]

There's a few problems here: when they're integrated into general society, these peoples' ideas tend to spread. Plus, they're highly active voters, so they have a big effect on politics and on the laws the rest of us have to follow. And it doesn't help that they tend to reproduce much more rapidly than the rest of us. If we could isolate them in their own state, we wouldn't have these problems with them. As for their kids, you can't save everyone. What are you doing to save kids in various third-world hellholes? Are you demanding that their parents (who, in many places, are responsible for the bad conditions because of their screwed-up culture, as is the case in the middle east) be given equal voting rights in your country? Of course not. We'll send foreign aid over there, send doctors and such and try to help them from a safe distance, but that's it. That's all we should do with the evangelicals too. Put them in their own sovereign nation and let them do what they want; any of their kids who want to get the hell out we can accept as refugees.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Grishnakh]

In the US, today, the "liberal" LGBT crowd are persecuting those who don't wish to do business with them.

Exactly. It's just like how the pro-integration people got away with persecuting those who didn't want to do business with black people. We conservatives all pine for the days when black people had to sit in the back of the bus and could be beaten to death if they got too uppity.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[jellomizer]

Part of the issue, is that too many people interpret a disagreement as an attack on them.
A lot of the biggest disagreements are over such petty little things.
Here are some Slashdot arguments in no particular order, where I had found some posts to go way whacked out, and take descending views rather personally.
Your preferred diet: Organic vs GMO food or An Omnivorous diet vs vegetarian or vegan
The Computer Operating System you are using
The Preferred default Text editor
Which Open Source License variant
New Slashdot features.
Changes to the Operating systems initialization routine.
Choice of Windows manager.

If these things which have little impact of the general word make so much fuss and anger. Imagine how it feels about something actually important.

There has been this idea that seems to have re-surged. "If everyone thought about x the same way I do, then all the problems would be solved" That is a dangerous approach that leads to tyrannical type of control of the population. We will have descending views, we need to learn to argue our point rationally, and realize we may not win every argument, or sway an opinion. However if in the process of the argument you listen to the other side you just may find a point that you didn't consider. After considering it and researching it, it may change your opinion, or it may be added and weighted to strengthen your own opinion.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Jeremi]

Ummm so what if they refuse service because their bigoted? I still occasionally, see stores with a "we reserve the right to refuse service for any reason". It's their right as a business owner.

I don't know which country you're posting from, but in the USA it is definitely illegal for a business to discriminate -- there are anti-discrimination laws explicitly saying as such. For example, if a black person walks in to your restaurant and you refuse to serve him because he's black, you can expect to get sued, and lose. The only thing new here is that the courts will probably now also side against you for turning away a gay customer as well; however the principle is well established.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[halivar]

These sorts of meta-communities spring up wherever Christians in large enough numbers congregate because they meet a felt need.

See, on Facebook, I have my friends, my coworkers, my relatives, and a lot of random acquaintances that I happened to hit it off with, but may never see again. I value these relationships, but at the same time, there needs to be significant self-monitoring. Sometimes, I would like to discuss politics or religion with my wider group of friends, but I can't on Facebook, because I have a very diverse audience. Once I disclaimed, "For my Christian friends, what are you views on X?" turned into a flame-fest with a number of my atheist acquaintances dropping by to tell me how illogical my faith was. While I'm not afraid of that conversation, it is a long one, and not the one I was looking for at the time. Ever since then, I have had to self-moderate. No politics, no religion, and god help me if I get drawn into a anti-vaxxer post (it's my kryptonite; I must comment, just like my atheist friends and posts about religion). Pretty much the last month has just been me hiding from Facebook and avoiding my feed like the plague.

Now, if I had a post privacy option on FB that said "Public/Friends Only/Political Affinity/Religious Affinity/Retard Shots Are teh Devil" I could more freely express my feelings and views, that'd be perfect. So this site has an actual legitimate purpose. Sifting through hundreds of your friends religious and political posts are not really helpful to you, right? If everyone availed themselves of such an option, I think everyone's feeds would be clearer and less irritating; after all, FB is a terrible place to proselytize, for anything.

That being said, this site looks terrible and I wouldn't use it. But the concept isn't awful, per se.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Mantrid42]

Give it a bit of time, and there will be schisms. Remember, a heretic is just someone who believe almost exactly the same things that you do.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Tablizer]

Regarding that particular war. The real "problem" is that war can be inherently really ugly and dirty. If we really wanted to "play to win", we'd have have to give up the idea of dignity and good public relations. The other side had the advantage of filtering the media for their constituents (at least the constituents they cared about). We didn't really have that option.

If we got down and dirty, we'd end up looking down and dirty to the whole world and ourselves. I won't make a value judgement either way here, only point out the very difficult PR side of choosing that path.

The cold war was as much of a PR game as it was a territory game. Both sides were trying to sell their system to the world. Both factors, territory and PR had to be accounted for, and in this case both factors were in conflict, giving us no easy choice. One or the other would likely have to take a hit.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Darinbob]

Yup. People are bigoted. So just don't do business with them. Eventually they're forced to change just to make a living.

Right now it's just a knee jerk reaction; they're happy to make wedding cakes for straight couples without first giving them a religious questionnaire to be sure they're the correct sorts, they're not verifying that they've never been divorced in the past, they're not even asking to see an application for a marriage license (they could be buying a wedding cake to celebrate a year of living together in sin!). They're just picking and choosing which sin they're going to be offended by this day. It has nothing to do with their own religious liberty either, until they can present some scriptures or doctrine that explains why they can not put two figurines of grooms on the same cake.

Unfortunately, it's going to be a hot button issue for decades to come. Some are happy that "it's finally over" but look at how Roe v Wade decision in no way settled the issue over abortion.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Darinbob]

Baking a cake for a gay couple does not violate any scriptures or doctrines. Attending a gay wedding does not either.

Christian and Jewish scriptures do not define what does or does not constitute a marriage, how the marriage shall be performed, whether it has to be in a church or not, priest versus judge doing the rites, what role the government has in it, etc. Instead the concept of marriage today is a social definition. But too many people confuse their social/ethnic/cultural views with their religion.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Darinbob]

Many religions do not have any requirement to be bigoted. If we're talking Christianity, remember that Christ himself associated with known sinners. Not just any old sinners like those who cheat on their taxes, but the sorts of sinners who were shunned by the rest of society. There's nothing in Christianity that wants bigotry, instead that bigotry comes straight from society and culture.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Darinbob]

And some wingnuts still hate Cronkite's name to this day because of it. The die hards who think we could have won in Vietnam, and the really stupid die hards who think we *should* have won in Vietnam. Remember that anti-communism at the time was essentially a religion of its own.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Half-pint HAL]

He meant to use "dissenting". (which isn't actually the right word either -- read "differing" or "opposing")

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[JThundley]

Wait wait wait! I had never heard of the Cult of Reason, so I clicked the link you provided. So the Cult of Reason went around and took down crosses (some from graveyards) and converted christian churches into something else. Sure, it's in bad taste to mess with someone's gravestone, but as soon as the Christians got back in power they killed by guillotine the leaders of the Cult of Reason.

Who is persecuting who here?

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[linuxrocks123]

It's best to have precise laws -- vague laws are bad for many reasons. So, we really have to list the things you can't discriminate against. Right now, at the federal level, sexuality isn't on that list. And you're wrong about religion; our society makes special exceptions for religion all the time. The Amish, for example, are religiously opposed to insurance. Therefore, they don't participate in Social Security, which is mandatory for everyone else. This exception is part of the First Amendment and therefore can't be overridden by Congress.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[linuxrocks123]

Nice rant. It's fine that you have that sentiment; you're perfectly free to feel that way. I think it's important to respect the rights of those you disagree with, you obviously don't, and you're free to say so.

However, until the Supreme Court rules one way or the other, we have no idea how this religion-versus-14th Amendment issue will come out. It may very well be that it is legal for someone to "deny you your rights" based on religion. Certainly, you won't be able to force a preacher to marry you in his church. Forcing a photographer to take pictures of your ceremony? Unclear. Forcing someone to bake you a cake for a gay wedding? Also unclear; that case hasn't reached the Supreme Court.

And, of course, in states that haven't augmented the federal anti-discrimination laws with sexuality as a protected class, any business that wants to can put up a "No Gays Allowed" sign, for any reason or no reason, and there's not a thing you can do about it. If you don't like that, feel free to try to change the law. And good luck in Alabama.

Now, don't get me wrong. Personally, I think religion is worse than silly, and it would be mean to put up a "No Gays Allowed" sign just to be an asshole. I also think that some people honestly believe religious things that make it against their conscience to participate in any way in a gay marriage ceremony, and that should be respected. In general, you don't have the right to force someone to do business with you -- anti-discrimination laws are the exception, not the rule -- and, since religious freedom is a bedrock principle of this country, I'm reluctant to erode it by expanding anti-discrimination laws without regard to religious freedom.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[linuxrocks123]

It was more than a little sad; it was wrong. Eich probably would have donated anonymously, but California didn't allow him to do so. Some assholes looked up his name on a government-published list and then just persecuted him for no reason other than they disagreed with his political views.

Those assholes are still gleefully twisting the knife. See here: https://twitter.com/hcatlin/st...

If SJW is ever an accurate way to describe a group of people, it is an accurate way to describe the vindictive assholes who went after Brendan Eich.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[linuxrocks123]

Dude, Facebook has had friend lists for years. Look it up; it's a feature to do exactly what you want!

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[mjwx]

Better yet, they should make an internet of their own.

With blackjack and altar boys.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Areyoukiddingme]

The problem is that they tend to ignore the human rights of children in places like that. Cutting parts of their bodies off, refusing to give them a proper education, causing them mental illnesses with horrific stories and threats from X-rated books etc.

How is it that you're at +5 when I got modded down to zero for saying the same damn thing a couple months ago?

Sometimes Slashdot mods are schiziphrenic...

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[cold fjord]

Actually I've never heard that, and it sounds like nonsense. Why do you think that is profound in any way?

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Areyoukiddingme]

On the other hand, a baker who refuses to make a cake especially for a gay marriage causes a once-in-a-lifetime minor inconvenience for two people, yet participating in a gay wedding ceremony is very much against many people's reasonable interpretation of religious commandments.

Why is it persistently and erroneously phrased that way?

No gay couple has ever asked a baker to participate in a professional capacity in a gay wedding ceremony. No straight couple has either. The participants in the ceremony are the betrothed, their seconds, by whatever name (I've attended at least one wedding with a brides-man up at the front), some sort of minister, and possibly a ring bearer and a flower child. Nowhere in that list is there a baker. Nor is there cake involved. Wedding ceremonies are completely cakeless. There is a total and conspicuous lack of cake in the ceremony.

The baker usually doesn't even deliver the cake to the same building in which the ceremony took place. It's delivered somewhere else entirely. The cake is delivered to a party held after the ceremony. A party to which the baker is not invited. The baker is expected to deliver the cake and then leave. At no time is the baker expected to participate. The baker is expected to bake a fucking cake. That's what bakers do.

The fact that a tiny handful of bakers are elevating themselves, without invitation or justification, to the level of participant says to me that they're merely seizing an opportunity to be assholes.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[Areyoukiddingme]

You souns quite unpleasant. If that's you as a better person, I hate t imagine what you were like before.

You don't have to imagine. Just answer the door when the Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[cold fjord]

The problem is that they tend to ignore the human rights of children in places like that.

It is a more common failing than you expect.

Cutting parts of their bodies off,

Like when the bodies of babies are torn apart, literally limb from limb, or are burned with caustic chemicals in abortions? Or doctors killing children they think don't deserve to live as is done in some European countries? (Or what some medical "ethicists" are pushing for - "abortions" up to age 5 or 6?

refusing to give them a proper education, causing them mental illnesses with horrific stories and threats from X-rated books etc.

Like teaching kindergarten children about anal sex and all manner of other depraved things? Teachers that undermine good values? That list could get pretty long.

Yes, there are many things to be concerned about.

Children have rights and are not property. Religious people can do what they like, as long as their children's rights are respected.

A true advance would be to have the secular state, institutions, and people truly subject to that understanding. It seems to be a forlorn hope.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[tehcyder]

if people want to live a certain way, let them live that way.

If they're adults, there is nothing you can do to stop them. That does not mean they should be allowed to brainwash children.

Jesuits and ISIL have a lot in common: they both know that if you get a kid young enough you can make him believe anything.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[halivar]

I'm 36. These newfangled gizmos and widgets the kiddos are using these days confuse and bewilder me. I'll be rocking on my porch with a bag of Werthers Original in case anyone needs me.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[tehcyder]

I actually blame outspoken atheists who preach that science and rationality are the enemies of religion.

Science and rationality are the enemies of religion if religion strays into their territory.

I don't particularly care if someone believes in astrology, but I wouldn't really want them to be teaching astronomy to my kids.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[tehcyder]

(Or what some medical "ethicists" are pushing for - "abortions" up to age 5 or 6?

You are either high on drugs or have a mental illness, and in either case there's not much point in arguing with you.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[tehcyder]

While there were many problems with the French and Russian Revolutions , wanting to destroy the power of the Church wasn't one of them.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[tehcyder]

No one is immune to the desire to persecute. In the US, today, the "liberal" LGBT crowd are persecuting those who don't wish to do business with them.

Persecuting them by pointing out their beliefs to everyone and refusing to use their business?

Funny how free speech becomes evil when it's used by "the left" or women or gays.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[tehcyder]

Not really. Excluding someone from a restaurant they go by every day because of that person's race is a significant inconvenience for that person, yet serving black people isn't against anyone's reasonable interpretation of religious commandments. On the other hand, a baker who refuses to make a cake especially for a gay marriage causes a once-in-a-lifetime minor inconvenience for two people, yet participating in a gay wedding ceremony is very much against many people's reasonable interpretation of religious commandments.

Just because two situations look the same at first glance doesn't mean they are.

There are plenty of racists who find "evicence" for their beliefs in the Bible and can therefore call it a religious commandment.

The main point is that it doesn't matter a flying fuck what people's religious beliefs are, it is what society as a whole decides is acceptable. Your religion might say that anyone with red hair should be killed, that does not give you a right to murder redheads and escape the punishment of the law.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[tehcyder]

It was more than a little sad; it was wrong. Eich probably would have donated anonymously, but California didn't allow him to do so. Some assholes looked up his name on a government-published list and then just persecuted him for no reason other than they disagreed with his political views.

While it is understandable that he might want to hide his repellently reactionary right wing beliefs from decent people, it would also be completely cowardly. If you believe in something enough to doante money to it, you should have the courage of your convictions and stand up and defend those beliefs

Do you really think that if someone had (hypothetically) been exposed as having donated to a "paedophiles for kiddie rape" [*] campaign, then no one would have had the right to criticise him for it?

In fact, a lot of rightwing people don't think being homophobic is wrong, and try to squirrel out of it by introducing issues of anonymity, free speech or whatever.

[*] or whatever seems particularly horrible to you,

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[tehcyder]

And you're wrong about religion; our society makes special exceptions for religion all the time.

Well, it shouldn't.

The Amish, for example, are religiously opposed to insurance. Therefore, they don't participate in Social Security, which is mandatory for everyone else.

I'm not American so I have no idea if that's true, but if it is, then your laws are stupid. Do you let ISIL sympathisers behead passers-by because their religion says it's required?

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[tehcyder]

Baking a cake for a gay couple does not violate any scriptures or doctrines.

But because of the absurd US obsession with freedom of religion, all someone has to do is say "it's against my religion" and suddenly that trumps everything else.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[tehcyder]

The thing about gayness is that just the idea of being in any way associated with it makes you gay too.

There are several known cases of teenagers who suddenly turn gay just by being accidentally exposed to some light musical theatre.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[linuxrocks123]

I'm not American so I have no idea if that's true

It is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Do you let ISIL sympathisers behead passers-by because their religion says it's required?

No, we don't.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[tehcyder]

while we are at it, let's ask the question, is it a good thing for a journalist to cover unspeakable and unambiguous evil and try to pretend being fair is a good thing?

imagine a reporter touring an active, functioning concentration camp, watching forced labor, "medical" experimentation, rape, mass executions, and writing glowingly of the benefit to the nation of all the free labor, recovered dental fillings, and letting sadistic psychopaths work out their villany on a small subset of the population instead of on the entire population, giving those aspects equal time and attention as the horror and injustice of the attrocity that it represents.

now imagine praising such an one as being an unbiased journalist. can you do it?

Being unbiased does not mean giving every conceivable opinion the exact same weight.

If you're reporting a football match, you do not need to include the opinions of people who are indifferent to football or hate football, or those who think that it is a symbolic re-enacting of Christ's life, or those who simply don't understand it, or those who think all life is an illusion, or those who think all life is an illusion except football...

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[tehcyder]

People tend to self-segregate into their preferred echo chambers. Hence the reason you can't make a pro-gun comment on HuffPo, or an pro-choice argument on FOX News, without being attacked by the general populations therein

Whereas on slashdot you can say exactly what you like as long as it's not in favour of Microsoft.

But that's fair enough, you don't expect people to be even-handed about Hitler either.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[david_thornley]

There aren't that many outspoken atheists around (Slashdot is not a typical sample of the population), and there's lots of outspoken Christians around here. I don't think Jesus wanted his disciples to turn irrational at the least criticism.

Besides, the opposition to evolution has historically been heavily driven by religion (not all religions, obviously), and that was well before atheists were normally outspoken.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[david_thornley]

In the first century or two, they were persecuted. Arguably the worst thing to happen to Christianity was to be adopted as the state religion of the Roman Empire.

Re: Internet without evangelicals = Win

[david_thornley]

The fact is that war is inherently brutal and ugly and hurts lots of people, and therefore we should wage war only when not doing so would have dire consequences. It's all too easy to argue in favor of war when one forgets how bad it really is. IIRC, the first war covered extensively by the mass media was the Crimean War of 1854-55, and that caused a lot of controversy in Britain.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[laie_techie]

The problem is that they tend to ignore the human rights of children in places like that. Cutting parts of their bodies off, refusing to give them a proper education, causing them mental illnesses with horrific stories and threats from X-rated books etc.

Children have rights and are not property. Religious people can do what they like, as long as their children's rights are respected.

I do hope you're trolling and not seriously as ignorant as your post suggests. Circumcision (I'm assuming that's the "cutting parts of their body off") was resolved over 1,800 years ago - back in the Apostolic Age. We are told that circumcision of the flesh avails nothing if we aren't circumcised of heart. We are taught that if a Gentile (non-Jew) converts to Christianity, he does not need to be circumcised (indeed, if circumcision is part of the conversion, the convert puts himself under the Law of Moses).

As for the other charges, extremists are dangerous regardless of their creed. My sect teaches that "the glory of God is intelligence" and that our lot in the next life will be all the better the more intelligence we obtain. We invented the modern TV, helped with open heart surgery, etc.

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[cold fjord]

Of course it sounds insane, I'm only reporting the world as it is: fallen, and corrupt.

Now They Want to Euthanize Children

FIRST, Dutch euthanasia advocates said that patient killing will be limited to the competent, terminally ill who ask for it. Then, when doctors began euthanizing patients who clearly were not terminally ill, sweat not, they soothed: medicalized killing will be limited to competent people with incurable illnesses or disabilities. Then, when doctors began killing patients who were depressed but not physically ill, not to worry, they told us: only competent depressed people whose desire to commit suicide is "rational" will have their deaths facilitated. Then, when doctors began killing incompetent people, such as those with Alzheimer's, it's all under control, they crooned: non-voluntary killing will be limited to patients who would have asked for it if they were competent.

And now they want to euthanize children.

In the Netherlands, Groningen University Hospital has decided its doctors will euthanize children under the age of 12, if doctors believe their suffering is intolerable or if they have an incurable illness. But what does that mean? In many cases, as occurs now with adults, it will become an excuse not to provide proper pain control for children who are dying of potentially agonizing maladies such as cancer, and doing away with them instead. As for those deemed "incurable"--this term is merely a euphemism for killing babies and children who are seriously disabled.

For anyone paying attention to the continuing collapse of medical ethics in the Netherlands, this isn't at all shocking. Dutch doctors have been surreptitiously engaging in eugenic euthanasia of disabled babies for years, although it technically is illegal, since infants can't consent to be killed. Indeed, a disturbing 1997 study published in the British medical journal, the Lancet, revealed how deeply pediatric euthanasia has already metastasized into Dutch neo natal medical practice: According to the report, doctors were killing approximately 8 percent of all infants who died each year in the Netherlands. That amounts to approximately 80-90 per year. Of these, one-third would have lived more than a month. At least 10-15 of these killings involved infants who did not require life-sustaining treatment to stay alive. The study found that a shocking 45 percent of neo-natologists and 31 percent of pediatricians who responded to questionnaires had killed infants.

It took the Dutch almost 30 years for their medical practices to fall to the point that Dutch doctors are able to engage in the kind of euthanasia activities that got some German doctors hanged after Nuremberg. ...

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

After-Birth Abortion - The pro-choice case for infanticide.

No, I didn’t make this up. “Partial-birth abortion” is a term invented by pro-lifers. But “after-birth abortion” is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose ....

2. Prior to personhood, human life has no moral claims on us. I’ve seen this position asserted in countless comment threads by supporters of abortion rights. Giubilini and Minerva add only one further premise t

Re:Internet without evangelicals = Win

[digsbo]

This is one of the best collections of hard-hitting factual explications of where this is all going that I've seen. Thanks. It should serve as a warning, but will be ignored by most progressives.

Good luck to them

[greenreaper]

I'm sure Facebook will claims the use of the term "Face" infringes their trademark.

Re:Good luck to them

[Anonymous Coward]

Assglory would be a good second choice.

I can only prey

[thegarbz]

I can only prey that it gets rid of the religious zealots on Facebook.

Re:I can only prey

[SeaFox]

I don't think there's any reason to hunt them down.

Re:I can only prey

[BDeblier]

"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."

Re:I can only prey

[goose-incarnated]

"Inconceivable!"

Oh, wait - the order is wrong, isn't it? Oh well, the reader should read bottom up

Seen this before.

[SuricouRaven]

The 'Christian version' is a pretty common concept.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmw...

It'll fail, I expect, for the same reason that most social networks fail: They depend on users to draw users, so it's very hard to get them established. For every Facebook, there are thousand Orkuts.

Re:Seen this before.

[ldobehardcore]

Ironically enough, Orkut was VERY popular in Brazil for several years with millions of users.

Re:Seen this before.

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll fail for bigger reasons than that.

EVANGELISM means reaching out to others who are not part of your sect. A social circle-jerk with you and fellow evangelists doesn't leave much room for any actual, you know, evangelism. The idea of an evangelists-only social network is completely oxymoronic.

I'm pretty sure this is a false flag operation to try to suck the stupid ones off the other social networks.

Re:Seen this before.

[Half-pint HAL]

Builders don't soend their whole lives building. Painters don't spend their entire day painting. Why shouldn't evangelists get some "down time" too?

Re:Seen this before.

[SuricouRaven]

You've not argued with many religious people, I see. You make a common mistake of assuming they actually do as their religion says, rather than interpreting their religion so say what they want to do.

Brazil is also a heavily-Christian country, so there isn't much evangelizing to do there. The best anyone can aim for locally is poaching some followers from a rival church.

Re:Seen this before.

[tehcyder]

Why shouldn't evangelists get some "down time" too?

I think you'd have to be very careful how you used that phrase on a religious forum.

Re:Seen this before.

[david_thornley]

I've discussed things with several religious people, and I've noticed that some try to do what Jesus would have (which I generally approve of) and some are hateful bastards, with all sorts of variation in between.

Re:Seen this before.

[SuricouRaven]

They all try to do what Jesus would have. They just disagree greatly as to what he would have done.

Some like to look at Jesus urging followers to turn the other cheek. They see a Jesus who strives to be above petty, worldly concerns. Others look at Jesus overturning the money-lenders. They see a Jesus who wasn't afraid to stand up for what is right, even by force and in defiance of the law. Two very different Jesuses, depanding which story you like most.

Re:Seen this before.

[david_thornley]

That's not how it looks to me. There are things Jesus was very clear on, for example that you should pay your taxes and that being rich is a problem. Nor do I remember Jesus actually hating or hurting anybody. We're not talking about overturning the tables in the temple, but preaching hatred and deliberately hurting the helpless.

Another POS website

[Anonymous Coward]

Just registered. No verification whatsoever and it accepted "qwerty" as the password. No https. Not a far fetch to think this site commits other basic security faux pas, too. Easy prey for hackers.

How does shit like this get publicity? It looks like a first project for someone just starting in web development.

Re:Another POS website

[catsRus]

Dont need no stinkin security, jesus is my IT guy, trolls and hackers will burn yada yada.................

Re:Another POS website

[cdrudge]

How does shit like this get publicity?

You must be new here. Welcome to Dice where anything can be peddled for a buck or two.

IMHO, can't hurt to have multiple social networks.

[mlts]

It can't hurt to have multiple social networks. Maybe some agreement can be reached that user@socialnet1 can do messaging and interaction with user@socialnet2 [1]. This way, no cat or food pictures pictures go unmissed.

Even without interaction between them, just having an alternative to what is out there is a good thing.

[1]: Reinventing E-mail, IRC, and NNTP pretty much.

"On Facebook you see a lot of violence and porn"

[Morpeth]

Hmmmm, really? They must be on a different FB, mine is filled with friends on vacation, pics of their kids, and kittens... lot and lots of kittens.

Sounds like they've been making a lot of effort into finding all this sinful porn and violence on FB...

Required link to an old "classic"

[Morpeth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Still makes me laugh...

Can we have one that bans silly bullshit?

[rebelwarlock]

Oh wait, it would be totally empty. Everything I've seen on facebook is usually some form of circle jerk. It's pretty much only useful for tracking my D&D session events at this point.

Re:Can we have one that bans silly bullshit?

[DerekLyons]

Everything I've seen on facebook is usually some form of circle jerk.

That's a problem with your friends, not intrinsic to Facebook.

Re:Blacklist, please!

[bickerdyke]

No matter what language it is in, it is not in "Brazilian"

Re:"On Facebook you see a lot of violence and porn

[Malkin]

Sounds like they've been making a lot of effort into finding all this sinful porn and violence on FB...

Either that, or they have the wrong friends!

I can see that as being every bit as successful

[Chrisq]

I can see that as being every bit as successful as conservapedia

Re:I can see that as being every bit as successful

[Demonoid-Penguin]

I can see that as being every bit as successful as conservapedia

There's an eye-opener (pun on faceglory unintentional). I liked the entry for Evolution - well, I would have if I had a Fffacebook account.

I'm guessing the FaceGlory crowd will have a banner sharing agreement with The Flat Earth Society (when the in-fighting between the various "true" FES groups ends), and Christian Porn (you know - the good stuff).

"These Christian Fundamentalists want to get creationism taught in our science classes. I would have been all for it when I was in high school. - easy credits. “OK class, God created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. See you at the final exam.” ~ Bill Hicks

Re:Brazilian evangelicals are for cows.

[Zontar The Mindless]

Nonononono... Once again you've failed to localise properly. Try this:

Vocês todos são vacas. Vacas dizer mú. MÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ! MÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚÚ! Múúúúú vacas MÚÚÚÚÚ! Múúúú dizer as vacas. VOCÊ VACAS!!

This instalment of I18n For Today's Active Troll presented as a public service of the Slashdot Network and this station.

Evangelicals in a very Christian country

[dbIII]

Evangelicals in a very Christian country are bound to be a bit weird for the sake of product differentiation.
Forgive my cynicism since a founder of one very large group of that type near me has been revealed as being a pedophile on an industrial scale, setting up his group is such a way that he could get away with it on hundreds of occasions, and another group concentrated all of the wealth of it's members into the hands of one of the founders before they ended up in jail for it. Sometimes it's just about money and power with no room for Jesus.

Re:Evangelicals in a very Christian country

[ihtoit]

now you're beginning to understand how con-merchants and paedophiles work. They insinuate themselves into positions of trust with promises of oranges and sunshine (to borrow from the Transported Children scandal). Once there, they operate in plain sight with the full support and blessing of the community who, by now utterly blind to the abuse they're being put through... well, it's like boiling frogs while you empty their wallets and fuck their babies.

Re:Evangelicals in a very Christian country

[dbIII]

The really sad thing is that is both cases, more so with the one that robbed it's flock blind than the other, there was plenty of community opposition but they had friends in high places until the end.
After the fact one was called a "cult". The other still has some sort of functioning assembly of people now the monster than founded it is dead so not yet.

Re:"On Facebook you see a lot of violence and porn

[thegarbz]

You mean pictures of girls in swimwear right? You HEATHEN!

Re:Blacklist, please!

[Sique]

Actually, researchers of the Romance languages make a difference between Portuguese and Brazilian (and yes, there are some differences).

Go freedom ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

... by contrast, in the US they'd be fined $135,000 for refusing to publish "rainbow" posts ...

Re:Go freedom ...

[ihtoit]

touché.

Atwood's Gilead?

[Overzeetop]

I mean, if you're going to go full religious nutjob, might was well make your own country.

I would think it was the gays

[Overzeetop]

What you see on FB reflects the kind of people you hang out with. My feed has been filled with God damned rainbows for two weeks.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

FTFY

[Overzeetop]

That's because they're your friends; it is intrinsic to Facebook.

Re:Blacklist, please!

[trabby]

Same would go for Mexican vs Spanish.

Re:Blacklist, please!

[bickerdyke]

+1 Intresting

but enough of a difference to warrant a whole new language instead of a variant as in "American English" or "Schwyzerdütsch". (While "Plattdeutsch" usually is classified as a language on its own)

You realise that as soon as they have this

[Chrisq]

Brazilian Evangelicals Set Up a "Sin Free" Version of Facebook

You realise that as soon as they have this they will be able to cast the first stone.....

"Sin free" easy to localize

[Roger W Moore]

Once again you've failed to localise properly.

If they really want it entirely sin free it will be easy to localize: a blank page is the same in any language.

Re:"Sin free" easy to localize

[mjwx]

Once again you've failed to localise properly.

If they really want it entirely sin free it will be easy to localize: a blank page is the same in any language.

No, no, no, no, no.

Blank pages promote imagination with leads to all kinds of sinful thoughts and activities like reading books and playing games. Worse than that it encourages children to think for themselves, which is the root of all sins.

Blank pages are the work of the commu-devil, heathen.

oh goody, yet another social networking site

[ihtoit]

for me to avoid.

domains

[lkcl]

i'm surprised it's not called "faithbook.com"

Re:domains

[Bugamn]

That's actually a good name for this idea.

Re:domains

[Tablizer]

i'm surprised it's not called "faithbook.com"

It would get flooded by people with a lisp* looking for Facebook.

* The speech feature, not the language.

lusers

[Mats Svensson]

Religious people have failed at life.

Re:Brazilian evangelicals are for cows.

[TheDarkMaster]

For (useless or funny, your decide) information, never trust the google translator for grammar and spelling. where it says "vocês todos são vacas. vacas dizer mú", the correct form is "Todos vocês são vacas. Vacas dizem mú". The english->portuguese translation from Google is shit.

Re:Blacklist, please!

[TheDarkMaster]

Brazilian portuguese and the (original) portuguese from Portugal are not the same thing. For one example, we Brazilians speak "Diretório" (directory), Portugal speaks "Ficheiro".

Re:Blacklist, please!

[Sique]

Niederdeutsch (Lower German) indeed is a different language than Standard German (not just "usually"). It derives from the same Old Saxon and Old Frisian dialects modern English comes from.

Looking for a "Good Girl"

[radiumburn]

Its like in movies old people telling the single guys that if they want a good woman they have to find one at Church and not a bar/club/back alley. Only this is the internet version of that.. I see a opportunity for a hidden escort service hiding in plain site on this.

Re:Looking for a "Good Girl"

[Neo-Rio-101]

I'll have you know that many "bad" girls like to prey on men in these churches. The men think they can "save" the bad girls and get them to repent, but all the women really want is a man willing to indenture themselves into marriage. Then they abuse their wallet and run them through an expensive divorce and take their 50%

Happened to a fundie acquaintance. We warned him, but "God" had other ideas. *sigh*

Re:Brazilian evangelicals are for cows.

[johanw]

It's probably still better than my own translation...

Re:Let that be a lesson for ALL!!

[johanw]

They have a surplus on their balance sheet WITHOUT the debt payments. So they don't need to borrow if they give the banks the finger. Unformtunately the EU citizens were made to pay for the banks once again.

Re:Blacklist, please!

[ClaraBow]

The distinction is between Brazilian Portuguese and Continental Portuguese. The language is still Portuguese. Just like American English vs. British English.

Re:Blacklist, please!

[TheDarkMaster]

While I agree with you that they are not entirely different languages, I must say that they are different enough to leave a Brazilian very angry if the application he is using presents Portuguese of Portugal rather than Brazilian Portuguese.

Re:"On Facebook you see a lot of violence and porn

[JonWan]

You must not be friends with George Takei.

"Sin free". Sure.

[deadhammer]

As someone who attended a Catholic school, a supposedly more morally safe choice than the public school system, I can assure you: there will be plenty of sinning going on here. Get your repression on enough, and you're going to see some backsliding.

And I mean, you're calling it "faceglory". That's a porn title if I ever saw one.

problem here...

[buddyglass]

...is that the stuff they're filtering doesn't cover the biggest sins stemming from Facebook. Those being pride and envy.

Re:Blacklist, please!

[TheDarkMaster]

For you see how Google translator is bad and what happens when you let something slip. I meant "annoyed" but Google put "angry" in place.

What to do, What to do

[morgauxo]

Grab some popcorn and watch the trolls take this thing over
Or
Actively troll myself

Oh, yah, I don't speak Portuguese. Darn. Oh well!

Feliz Natal my trollish Portuguese speaking friends

Anti-Bender

[meta-monkey]

So they're going to go make their own FaceBook, but without blackjack, and hookers?

Example post on GloryFace

[iTrawl]

"God visited me last night. I worshipped Him and He forgave me all night long. Now I'm pregnant. What did I do wrong?"

Do they sell your information?

[MobyDisk]

If they don't sell your friend list to marketing companies, don't display ads offering hook-ups, and don't send invites to play Cow Clicker and Farmville, then I'll sign-up.

Jokes

[CanHasDIY]

A non-denominational guy dies and goes to heaven. He is greeted by St. Peter, who informs the man that heaven is segregated by faith.

"Since you are a person of no denomination, we'll let you choose which group you want to spend eternity with."

The first area they walk past has one side filled with people drinking and having a good time; the other side was adorned with devices obviously meant for self torment.

"Catholics" the Saint remarked.

Saint Peter and the man continued walking past the different groups of heaven, with the man considering each one. Finally, the pair come to a massive wall, stretching as far as the eye can see in every direction.

"Who lives in there?" Asked the man.

St. Peter replied, "oh, those are the Evangelicals. They think they're the only ones here."

Opportunity

[sycodon]

I believe there is an opportunity for a Facebook like site that didn't operate on the principal of ever expanding features, ads, and the general megalomania of Zukerberg. Something that simple provided actual friends to connect, didn't inundate you with garbage, and actually believed in privacy.

Just need a few million $$ or some gullible "employees" to work for a promise.

Re:Opportunity

[CauseBy]

Diaspora failed, man, give it up.

Brazil is a recognized leader in sin technology

[Applehu Akbar]

If you want to get adherents for a sin-free social site, set one up in Mississippi.

Well why not!

[frank_adrian314159]

What the world needs is another Facebook clone. With hookers and... Oh wait.

Never mind.

fathbookth

[chilenexus]

Without the sin, what would be the point of going on the internet in the first place?

Oh yeah, the only other thing people use the internet for: confirmation bias via disreputable sources.

LOL!

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I'm sure it'll be a huge success with the 20 or 30 people that want that kind of thing.

Re:LOL!

[cold fjord]

I take it you missed the fact that they claim 100,000 people signed up in the first month? You are a few orders of magnitude off.

Re:LOL!

[tehcyder]

I take it you missed the fact that they claim 100,000 people signed up in the first month? You are a few orders of magnitude off.

And how many of those were Portugese atheists loking for some prime trolling?

Re:LOL!

[cold fjord]

Probably very few, if any, and it is doubtful they will either choose or be allowed to remain for long unless they behave.

Interesting that you assume that atheists have both an interest and so much time on their hands that they feel the need to screw with people on that scale. That would seem to speak to a serious character defect on their part.

Brazillian evangelicals ...

[CaptainDork]

... how many is that?

Re:Brazilian evangelicals are for cows.

[Zontar The Mindless]

Yeah, normally I'd've run it by one of my Portuguese or Brazilian colleagues, but strike while the iron is hot and all that.

Re:Blacklist, please!

[tehcyder]

Actually, researchers of the Romance languages make a difference between Portuguese and Brazilian (and yes, there are some differences).

Well yeah "Portuguese" isn't a number like "Brazilian".

Re:Brazilian evangelicals are for cows.

[laie_techie]

For (useless or funny, your decide) information, never trust the google translator for grammar and spelling. where it says "vocês todos são vacas. vacas dizer mú", the correct form is "Todos vocês são vacas. Vacas dizem mú". The english->portuguese translation from Google is shit.

Você acertou! The verb dizer (to speak / say) conjugates to dizem for second person plural. I did not know you needed an accent in mú as a terminal u generally already pulls the stress (unless part of a diphthong).

Re:Brazilian evangelicals are for cows.

[TheDarkMaster]

Uhhh... Português (brasileiro) é a minha lingua nativa. E eu coloquei o acento no "mú" só por diversão. Vai saber se a vaca em questão está mugindo de tédio (sem acento) ou com raiva (com o acento para enfatizar)? hehehe

Re:Brazilian evangelicals are for cows.

[laie_techie]

Uhhh... Português (brasileiro) é a minha lingua nativa. E eu coloquei o acento no "mú" só por diversão. Vai saber se a vaca em questão está mugindo de tédio (sem acento) ou com raiva (com o acento para enfatizar)? hehehe

Legal. Eu servi missão religiosa no estado de São Paulo por dois anos, e minha esposa (odeio que vcs usam "mulher") é cearense.