The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Can’t We All Get Along

February 19, 2006 | 157 Comments

Look what you’ve done:

For the last few weeks or so I have been talking/posting/arguing or whatever you want to call it over at a site called The Raving Atheist. I originally liked the site a lot (and I still really do) but I’ve been spending way too much time over there and haven’t been focusing on reading my books as much as I’ve wanted to lately.

* * *

My time over at the Raving Atheist has taught me a few things. One of those things is that there are many depressing people out in the world that would like nothing better than to make you just as depressed as they are. Misery truly does love company. Another thing is that there are many people that think they are highly intelligent and are really just full of bullsh*t. They get away with thinking of themselves as intellectuals because they surround themselves with other people who are just as limited in their thinking as they are and the people all support each other in their stupidity. We all see this on a smaller level everyday in the form of cliques and in high school where the jocks hung out with the jocks, everyone in the popular group dates someone else from the popular group, and the band kids hang out with other band members. Sometimes these groups are just people who are innocently affirming each other and other times its more vicious in the form of attacking everyone else that is not a member of their clique so that they can feel better about themselves. We see these people on the internet in the form of people who have nothing positive to say to or about anyone (the trolls) and the anonymous posters that occasionally show up at your site and post negativity for no other reason than the fact that they are negative people and want to share it with the world.

Tying all of this together I want to say that I have learned by being over at the Raving Atheist that negative people (even those online) will suck the life out of you and have you spinning your wheels dealing with their nonsense instead of moving forward full speed. These people are unhappy and they would like nothing better than to make you unhappy because other people’s unhappiness is the only thing that makes them happy. They are also usually attention whores and think that any attention is better than no attention and will take every opportunity to spout vile things to another person in an attempt to have people look at them and get a reaction.

People of this nature will drain the very life force out of you. They are so effective at doing this that you normally don’t even notice what they have done to you until you look around and realize that these people have infected you with their unhappiness and that you are not accomplishing things that you should be accomplishing.

I have allowed myself to become so absorbed by the sadness, stupidity, and unhappiness of others that I find that I am becoming like them, slowly but surely. Remember how your mom wouldn’t ever allow you to hang around a certain group of girls because of how they acted? Well, this is like that. The more you hang around people the more that you will find yourself becoming like the company you keep. Attitude is contagious.

From here on out I am only going to keep the company of positive individuals that affirm my choices, represent what I aspire to be, or are trying to become a better person like I am.

I am no longer going to allow myself to become infected by the unhappiness of others. The next time that you are feeling sad,lonely, depressed, or like things are not progressing in your life the way that they should take the time to look at the situation and ask yourself is it you or is it the company that you’ve been keeping.

Ouch. Does this ever happen at theistic sites, where the atheists are driven away by the nastiness of religious commenters? Just wondering.

Comments

157 Responses to “Can’t We All Get Along”

  1. Dustin
    February 19th, 2006 @ 1:55 am

    By it’s very nature atheism is the domain of the strong-willed. We don’t rely on the crutch of a loving God for emotional support and we’re all the stronger because of it. I don’t think an atheist would be driven away so much as disgustedly amused.

  2. SBW
    February 19th, 2006 @ 2:02 am

    I’m still here RA.

    A little battle hardened but none the worse for wear. I think that atheists may be harsh by their very nature. Perhaps they are so accustomed to being attacked by others that they end up constantly being in an adversarial mode.

  3. Stew
    February 19th, 2006 @ 7:21 am

    A good post and I agree.

    The only sentiment I didn’t like was “that affirm my choices”. You have to be open to dissenting views (although obviously we don’t waste time with the same old re-hashed woo-woo).

    Stew

  4. Anonymous
    February 19th, 2006 @ 9:17 am

    I showed up at an atheist site and started blowing my religious nonsense into everyone’s face and they didn’t see it my way so I’m taking my ball and going home.

  5. Dada Saves
    February 19th, 2006 @ 9:30 am

    “From here on out I am only going to keep the company of positive individuals that affirm my choices, represent what I aspire to be, or are trying to become a better person like I am.”

    Grammar is not this pathetic soul’s forte, but that’s besides the bigger point: Which four-legged ruminant does she sound like here, pining for her own kind. Clearly she needs a Shepherd …

    I think this site is fun and often funny, at least in the Forum.

  6. PHLAF
    February 19th, 2006 @ 10:15 am

    You know, this could have been written by anyone about anything, and especially about interent communication and blogs and such.

    The internet is full of people who just can’t hack dealing with people face to face. They want an environment they can control, “friends” who have been hand-picked for their willingness to yes them to death and kiss their butts 24/7 and ooze cutsey, precious internet luuvvvv all over them.

    It has nothing to do with atheist v. religious people. This kind of bratty, whiny nonsense goes on in every little corner of the ‘net.

    The really hypocritical thing about this post is that I’m willing to bet my beach house in South Carolina that this ejit has posted his/her share of sneering, mocking, nasty, closed-minded posts about atheists and agnostics and Wiccans and anyone else who doesn’t parrot his/her beliefs down to the last letter.

    Um, so they’re taking their ball and going home? Is the RA supposed to cry into his pillow all night long now, or something? And why the big public announcement? Are people supposed to beg her not to go, or something?

  7. a different tim
    February 19th, 2006 @ 11:13 am

    We had a poll on this in the forums. It turns out that most of us are, in fact, pretty happy.

    http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewpoll.php?id=2991

  8. a different tim
    February 19th, 2006 @ 11:18 am

    Sorry, I’ve just remembered that most people will probably only see the “vote” buttons”.
    As I post this, we are 80% happy :)

  9. Thinking Freely
    February 19th, 2006 @ 11:38 am

    I think it important to remember that the internet is a medium which propogates a special kind of wave quite well–ideas. It is also a medium which does not propogate another kind of wave at all (like a sound wave in a vacuum)–emotional appeals.

    Even arguments which attempt to present an emotional appeal do not find the sort of resonance that *personal* emotional appeals find (eg face-to-face). That is one interesting thing I’ve noted about theist versus atheist websites, and the apparently disproportionate representation of atheism on the web in general. I am not claiming that the speaker’s emotions do not come through in their writing. What I am claiming is that the power of eliciting an emotional response in your reader is rendered virtually null via writing compared to personal proselytizing, sermons, and evangelism in general.

    That is, the amount of intellectual material on *individual* websites (versus orgs and groups) representing atheism seems overrepresented in proportion to the % of people who espouse atheism. Conversely, the amount of intellectual (versus evangelizing, emotional appeals, etc) material on Christianity (again, among individual sites) is underrepresented by stats.

    You’ll find all kinds of Xian “apologists” (yes those are sneer quotes), but you’ll also find that they are nearly all united in “defending the faith” from skeptics and the arguments of atheism *to minister to other Xians!* Nearly all the articles on sites that address creationism, atheist logic, etc., are explicitly addressing an audience of Xians.

    Admittedly, a few amateur Xian apologists have taken their best arguments to the WWW for the purpose of evangelism, but I would put forth my observation that they are beset on all sides by the ideas of the godless, a chorus composed of ever more voices. I think the web has helped more atheists to “come out” and to realize they *are* atheists than *anything* positive it has done for religion, because religions are stripped of their most powerful tool–the emotional, personal appeal to repent and join the fold. The web helped me to address the things that kept me quagmired in liberal Xianity for years, and then deism, and then agnosticism. I could’ve gone to libraries, sure, and still could, to find books and arguments (i have a bookshelf that is now stocked with and growing with atheist literature). But the WWW has provided a “crystallization” effect for atheists–with a seeded center like the RA site, more and more doubters and freethinkers find what they need: not companionship and comfort, but food for thought.

    People who are critical of *any* ideas may come across as unhappy…but I would rather be *perceived* as unhappy than *be* gullible.

  10. Crosius
    February 19th, 2006 @ 11:41 am

    “I am no longer going to allow myself to become infected by the unhappiness of others. The next time that you are feeling sad,lonely, depressed, or like things are not progressing in your life the way that they should take the time to look at the situation and ask yourself is it you or is it the company that you’ve been keeping.”

    That last paragraph just about exactly sums up why I (long ago) stopped going to church. Also, the bits about cliques, the section on insularity, and the entire theme of “negative people infecting others with their negativity.”

    Church is all about negativity. They just call it penitence.

  11. PHLAF
    February 19th, 2006 @ 11:49 am

    Or persecution – if you disagree with a Christian or call them on some particularly asshole-y behavior (which may have nothing to do with religion – like kicking a dog, or something), then you’re “persecuting” them, therefore they must be right because the Bible says they’ll be persecuted for being Christians (and around and around and around we go).

  12. ocmpoma
    February 19th, 2006 @ 12:33 pm

    “Another thing is that there are many people that think they are highly intelligent and are really just full of bullsh*t. They get away with thinking of themselves as intellectuals because they surround themselves with other people who are just as limited in their thinking as they are and the people all support each other in their stupidity.”

    “From here on out I am only going to keep the company of positive individuals that affirm my choices, represent what I aspire to be, or are trying to become a better person like I am.”

  13. happyAtheist
    February 19th, 2006 @ 1:54 pm

    Is it too much to ask that it was Lucy Muff that wrote this?

  14. SBW
    February 19th, 2006 @ 2:23 pm

    ///Dada Saves said: I think this site is fun and often funny, at least in the Forum.///

    I think that the people here are the most hilarious part of the site.

    ///PHLAF said: The really hypocritical thing about this post is that I’m willing to bet my beach house in South Carolina that this ejit has posted his/her share of sneering, mocking, nasty, closed-minded posts about atheists and agnostics and Wiccans and anyone else who doesn’t parrot his/her beliefs down to the last letter. ///

    This is another thing that I have noticed about many atheists. They like to dish out all sorts of vile absurdities about people of faith but when you return the favor they act as if you have no right to do so.

    ///happyAtheist said: Is it too much to ask that it was Lucy Muff that wrote this?///

    I wrote it.

  15. HappyAtheist
    February 19th, 2006 @ 2:33 pm

    What vile absurdities have the atheists dished out. Could you be more specific/scientific.

  16. Lily
    February 19th, 2006 @ 2:58 pm

    Goodness, HappyA:

    Just look at any response on this blog that a Theist gets from an Atheist. To save time, look at what Choobus writes. You will never find anything that obscene and perverted in something a theist writes. Nor will you find anything to match such idiotic neologisms as “Godidiot”.

    Will you find theists claiming that all believers are stupid and psychotic, even those with Ph.Ds, MDs, etc? Nope. But you will here.

    Look in your own backyard, sweetie. You will find plenty to keep you busy.

  17. PHLAF
    February 19th, 2006 @ 3:08 pm

    Look, I’ve been to TONS of religious blogs and websites with forums, and the Christians there are horrible towards and about atheists and agnostics and people of various alternate belief systems. They’re condescending and rude and they call them stupid and ignorant, and then, when they’re done with that, it’s the Catholics beating up on the Protestants and the Protestants beating up on the Catholics and the fundamentalists on the liberals and the traditionalists on the progressives, and on and on…

    The religious types on the web are just as bad as anyone else when it comes to abusive, rude, horrible behavior.

    This has NOTHING to do with religious v. non-religious. I’ve seen anime geeks start this crap and Tolkien fans and I’ve even seen this kind of garbage going on at buffettnews over who’s the best Buffett fan and which of his music is “legitimate” and all kinds of unfreakin’believabely stupid crap.

    This is a personality issue, not a theist v. atheist issue.

    Someone came to a website, everyone didn’t fall all over her immediately, she had a hissyfit and posted some incredibly childish and self-involved diatribe about it on her blog, and that’s it. Oh, and after she stomped off, she comes back a few times. Par for the course.

  18. HappyAtheist
    February 19th, 2006 @ 3:33 pm

    Oh so you’re not including those that burn down embassies, that call for death the homosexuals, that want to take away citizenship of athesits. Those tolerant sane fuckheads.

  19. probligo
    February 19th, 2006 @ 3:43 pm

    I can sum my own feelings about The Raving Atheists far more succinctly…

    The simple fact is that this site reads like one of the more militant religions rather than being for free thought and openness.

    There is as much “religion” here as there is in any of the right whinger bible bashing political blogs that I also visit.

    Oh, and if there is no God, how come people use the word “soul” instead of “person”?

  20. Mookie
    February 19th, 2006 @ 4:04 pm

    It is hard to take mature adults seriously when they believe in bizarre fairytales like Santa, the Tooth Fairy and god(s).

    probligo,

    Religion involves the belief in supernatural beings. As atheists, we reject any such notions on the grounds that they are absurd, amongst other things. While it is fun to redefine words, it is also far more practical to agree upon a definition to facilitate understanding.

  21. MH
    February 19th, 2006 @ 5:22 pm

    //Oh, and if there is no God, how come people use the word “soul” instead of “person”?//

    How come we have the word “draconian” if there were no dragons? Because we made them up.

    What a silly response. Is this the reasoning they teach in Sunday School?

  22. Andrew
    February 19th, 2006 @ 5:28 pm

    Two things amuse me about the quoted post.

    First, this site is called the Raving Atheist. I don’t know what theists expect to find when they come here. It’s not the Friendly Atheist Who Is Respectful And Nice About Everyone’s Religious Views. I’m sure there are plenty of sites around that promote nice-nice, all-views-are-equally-valid, can’t-we-all-just-get-along “discussion” about atheism.

    PHLAF is exactly right. Go to any website for fans/adherents of any sports team, television show, belief system, or political party/ideology, and you’re going to find some degree of factions and flamewars. I’ll bet you could find a discussion board for pacifists, post some troll-like comments about pacifists being pussies, and then “wonder” that pacifists are such angry people when they respond in kind.

    Second, why would anyone assume that people are angry and/or depressed based on a few posts here. I like to come here and spend a few minutes reading TRA and commenters saying the things that I never get to hear during the other 23 h 55 m of my day. Maybe there are frequent commenters and forum posters who consider this a big part of their life, but for most of us I suspect it’s a small diversion.

  23. Lily
    February 19th, 2006 @ 5:52 pm

    Happy A:

    Which Christians burn down embassies? Which Christians call for death to homosexuals (except for Phelps and he is his own religion), which want to take away atheists’ citizenship? You’d be hardpressed to find any. Now is you are talking about Islam, that is a different kettle of fish.

    I probably should have been a little more specific in that I have heard that there are some forums (supposedly Christian) that are pretty harsh in the way they treat anyone who disagrees. I dunno, there is something about the Internet that does not bring out the best in young males. The blogs that I frequent are never rude toward or dismissive of any reasonably polite atheist. I wouldn’t frequent them otherwise. I get enough crap here to satisfy any need I have for it.

  24. Oz
    February 19th, 2006 @ 6:12 pm

    Lily:

    Re #16: Theists need no insulting neologism for athesits since ‘atheist’ is still very much an insult in modern usage. You could look up “atheism” in the dictionary and come up with “immorality.” So, unless you can cite a mainstream dictionary that defines “religion” as “backward, hateful superstition,” I wouldn’t complain too much about “godidiot,” especially since it’s mostly used in a very targeted manner to label specific kinds of religious people.

  25. Andrew
    February 19th, 2006 @ 6:41 pm

    “Which Christians . . . want to take away atheists’ citizenship?” — Lily

    “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God. ”
    George H. W. Bush

    And that was the “less” conservative President Bush.

  26. benjamin
    February 19th, 2006 @ 10:19 pm

    Boo Fucking Hoo! You searched out a site where you knew most people would disagree with you and you couldn’t take it and now you want to surround yourself with people who make you feel better about yourself, you stupid fucking hypocrite! Go cry yourself a river and drown yourself in it.

  27. noah nywno
    February 19th, 2006 @ 10:31 pm

    Most of the Christian sites I’ve been to can be just as insulting as atheist sites, but they tend to be insulting in a more subtle way.

    Here, one may be called a bad name or asked an inappropriate quetion about his/her opinion on anal. But on Christian sites, assumptions are immediately made as to the nature of ones atheism.

    I, for one, did not come to atheism easily. It was a long road of study and, ahem, “soul searching.” I still remember the day I finaly accepted that I didn’t believe and the pain I felt at having finaly lost my faith (don’t read too much into that; it was a long time ago and now I can definitly say that I’m much happier as an atheist than I ever was as a Christian.)

    So I find it particularly insulting to have someone say to me that the only reason I don’t belive is because I’m in rebelion against God. Especially when that person doesn’t know me or what I’ve been through.

    Now granted, some atheists use the same kind of reasoning against Christians. I’m just think Christians do it much, much more.

    Personally, I rather be called a bad name.

    Noah

  28. Choobus
    February 20th, 2006 @ 12:01 am

    Lily lily, why wold you go and single out poor old Choobus? I am honoured that you appreciate my great wisdom, but I am also sad that you fail to show the proper respect when mentioning my name, you fisting slut.

    You know I love you and enjoy masturbating to your movies. Don’t ruin our special relationship you vile fiend.
    As for this cryinggodidiot, your tears are vindication . Cry on assclown, it is a pleasure to hear your pathetic cheebus loving whinging you fucking moron.

  29. Sir Robin Goodfellow
    February 20th, 2006 @ 12:08 am

    MH- not to nitpick, as I do agree with your sentiment, but the dictionary shows “draconian” to come from the name Draco, an Athenian legislator known for extremely harsh punishments. I’m surprised no one’s jumped on this already.

  30. SBW
    February 20th, 2006 @ 12:13 am

    //benjamin said: Boo Fucking Hoo! You searched out a site where you knew most people would disagree with you and you couldn’t take it and now you want to surround yourself with people who make you feel better about yourself, you stupid fucking hypocrite! Go cry yourself a river and drown yourself in it.///

    Awwwwwww bengie I’m not gone yet so don’t get too excited. Would you mind crying me that river to sail away on?

  31. Pascal's Wager
    February 20th, 2006 @ 12:13 am

    Bitter, Bitter, Bitter. But, like many have mentioned, that’s each individuals right. Regardless of how bitter this site is or the posts on it, I still find it entertaining to read, discuss, and debate on it. But if one who believed in God or more so Jesus, were to write in the same grammatical tone that some on this blog write, it would give one even more reason to not want to be a Christian. One couldn’t help but say, why would I want to believe in what they do? They are miserable!! Regardless of what a person believes, no one wants to be miserable or “mad at the world” unless, they most likely have a mental disorder. Think about what this person is saying and take a minute to be introspective regarding yourself. Are you as happy as you could be, or are you fooling yourself into thinking you are. If not, the grass may be greener on the other side.

  32. SBW
    February 20th, 2006 @ 12:24 am

    ///Pascal’s Wager said: But if one who believed in God or more so Jesus, were to write in the same grammatical tone that some on this blog write, it would give one even more reason to not want to be a Christian. One couldn’t help but say, why would I want to believe in what they do?///

    Bingo. Bill Maher ( another avowed atheist) is one of my favorite HBO personalities. I watched his show one time when he had another guest on that was an atheist and another guest that was a Christian minister. Bill Maher said, and I am seriously paraphrasing, that all people of faith need to take the blinders off and that they are idiots. I wish that I could have asked the man did he really think that he was going to convince anyone of the superiority of atheism with that kind of attitude toward theists? People are deeply invested in their beliefs and they feel that when you attack that belief you are really attacking them personally. It’s like they put a wall up and everything that you say after that point, no matter how intelligent or persuasive it may be, will fall on deaf ears. However, if your whole point is just to be disparaging of people of faith because you have other issues with them and are not trying to persuade them that atheism is more logical than theism then I guess your words don’t really matter.

  33. Lucy Muff
    February 20th, 2006 @ 1:17 am

    sbw is rite again, atheist like to big up themself by trying to call believers idiot and say they are fools but they are ones what is fools. they is all the same: crybaby what can’t stand the fact that we is close with god and has eternal life in His glory to look forward to while they be getting ready tp burnings in hell. Atheist be sucker.

  34. Lily
    February 20th, 2006 @ 8:20 am

    Oz– your remark has me wondering again, as I did when I first got here to what extent all the huffing and puffing that goes on here is defensiveness. I didn’t find any definitions of “atheist” online that were negative (I looked at Merrian-Webster, American Heritage and Cambridge). I can imagine that that has not always been the case.

    Andrew: If the first GWB really said that, I would be shocked and dismayed. I am not certain how much credence I can give to that quote. I found a gazillion references to it online but they were all quoting the original source, an atheist who says it happened but has no documentation. I read that he thinks he may have located some in the Bush presidential library and has asked for it under FOIA, so we will see.

    Nevertheless, this supposedly happened in 1988. No bills have been introduced to take away the citizenship of atheists. It is so unlikely to happen, as to amount to a statistical certainty.

  35. Jody Tresidder
    February 20th, 2006 @ 8:59 am

    SBW – you were RA’s Pia Zadora.

    Failing to cope with the argy bargy of an atheist site was inevitable.

    You were thrust – eager and quivering with your guest posts – into the spotlight, pretending you were only just groping towards full throttle Christiantity and you were – as far as I recall – treated with enormous initial indulgence.

    It was only when your artlessly girlish performance wore thin – and you were debated on the merits of your own godidiot assertions, without RA’s special pleadings – that your whining began.

    Furthermore – and funny this – once you abandoned any pretence about trying to educate yourself about your faith (didn’t take long, did it?), you became the WORST sort of pipsqueak, po-faced, prescriptive moralist – not to mention a “picker up of learning’s crumbs” when it came to history, ethics and reasoning.

    You’ve got your own blog, where you can burble on about “sssseeeeexxxxy” men on the phone (to cite a recent entry) and the personal stuff that most interests you, so air your opinions over there.

  36. Oz
    February 20th, 2006 @ 9:01 am

    http://www.onelook.com/?w=atheism&ls=a

    #3, 6, 13, and 16 include negative definitions.

  37. hermesten
    February 20th, 2006 @ 10:05 am

    “The religious types on the web are just as bad as anyone else when it comes to abusive, rude, horrible behavior.”

    They’re even worse in hotels. Try staying in a hotel hosting some kind of Christian youth group. Don’t expect to get much sleep.

    After being plagued at hotels by two different Christian youth groups, we thought we were really in for it when one night we ended up in a hotel hosting the teams from a girl’s high school swim meet. However, it turned out that they were the best disciplined group of young people we’ve ever run into.

  38. hermesten
    February 20th, 2006 @ 10:12 am

    “Bingo. Bill Maher ( another avowed atheist) is one of my favorite HBO personalities.”

    Wrong again. Bill is not an atheist, and has said so on more than one occassion. Bill just doesn’t like organized religion and theists.

    From the 09-Oct-2002 Onion AV Club [1]

    Until this summer, Bill Maher was host of the ABC late-night talk show Politically Incorrect.

    The Onion: Is there a God?

    Bill Maher: I think there is. We did a show last night about God and religion with Dave Foley, who I love, and we were arguing against this one woman who had a book called I Like Being Catholic. Someone said, “Oh, boy, a lot of atheists on this panel.” I said, “I’m not an atheist. There’s a really big difference between an atheist and someone who just doesn’t believe in religion. Religion to me is a bureaucracy between man and God that I don’t need. But I’m not an atheist, no.”

  39. PHLAF
    February 20th, 2006 @ 10:21 am

    Christian youth groups, at least of the fundamentalist Bible-belt type, are freaky scary, IMO. There’s something really frightening on a very real level about people that young who are so completely certain they’re right and everyone else is wrong, and who are so completely and thoughtlessly willing to condemn people with three and four times the life experience they have based on a set of beliefs that has been beaten into them from birth. This is not the usual teenage/twentysomething know-it-all-ness. This is a kind of certaintude that, well, grows up to be George W. Bush and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. There’s something so dead and cold and unfeeling in those kids – you can see it in their eyes. Scary.

  40. Peter Sattler
    February 20th, 2006 @ 10:23 am

    Dear Ravers:

    My suggestion to the commenters who seem so willing to brush-off SBW’s brush-off: find the section of the post that makes the most sense, that strikes closest to home, and take that section as seriously as possible.

    My suggestion: think a bit more about SBW’s accusation that this site has become predictable in its style of argument, in its self-congratulatory tendencies, and in its repetitive groupthink. (If her part about negativity and self-affirmation seems weak, then ignore that part.)

    Now look at those ideas in reference to the reactions that we have seen thus far — reactions that were nothing if not personally (as opposed to intellectually) aggressive, rhetorically predictable, and ethically self-congratulatory.

    Is there a reason why a site devoted to atheism would lean in this direction? Some have suggested that this is a natural reaction to the role atheists are asked to play in society at large (i.e., a variation of “sit down and shut up”). But is even a plausible genetic explanation a good enough reason to continue in that vein.

    Personally, I would only add this. I am not an atheist because I am more strong-willed than other people. I am not an atheist because of the quality of my character. I am not an atheist because churchgoers were generally bad or because I was braver than the people who still attend and believe. (The saintly or satanic actions of theists do not add or detract one whit from my atheism.)

    I am an atheist only because I believe it. I believe supernatural entities — including God — do not exist. I am an atheist because atheism is true, and because theism is false. It’s as simple as that.

    And this mean, I think, that I have not “chosen” to be an atheist any more than I have chosen to believe that the earth revolves around the sun, or that democracy is better than fascism, or that 2 + 2 = 4. I could not choose to believe otherwise; this is just the way that belief works.

    Do I deserve moral credit for my beliefs? I think not. I am no better/stronger/braver of a person for holding these beliefs, even if the beliefs themselves are better and more accurate. It is the beliefs that are better, not me. And the only thing that makes my beliefs better is that they happen to be true — to hold up to rational and scientific and open-minded scrutiny.

    Now whether I am a better person for choosing to investigate my own beliefs and to engage and test them rationally is another matter. But that is separable from the content of my beliefs themselves.

    It’s nice to be right – and we are – but let’s be clear exactly where the credit lies, and adjust our rhetoric accordingly.

    Best, Peter

  41. hermesten
    February 20th, 2006 @ 10:43 am

    “This is a kind of certaintude that, well, grows up to be George W. Bush and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.”

    Well, sort of. Certainly the kind of self-absorption necessary to hold these kinds of beliefs contributes far more to arrogance than humility. However, I think Bush, Falwell, and Robertson are more opportunists than true believers. The Chimp was a draft-doging, drug-dealing, skirt chasing drunk, and didn’t find “religion” until it was useful politically. Roberston was a Wall Street swindler who discovered that there was more money to be made in the God business. I don’t know Falwell’s background, but I’d be surprised if it wasn’t something similiar.

  42. Tenspace
    February 20th, 2006 @ 10:47 am

    Lily said, “Just look at any response on this blog that a Theist gets from an Atheist. To save time, look at what Choobus writes. You will never find anything that obscene and perverted in something a theist writes. Nor will you find anything to match such idiotic neologisms as “Godidiot”. ”

    Excellent idea. Take the most extreme position possible and apply it to everyone. The tell others that this is what all atheists are like. :(

    Godidiot is an offensive term to some, yes; but it’s also a defensive term for many atheists, who find their moniker equated with satanist by the average theist.

  43. Viole
    February 20th, 2006 @ 11:10 am

    There’s nothing quite like having your entire personality defined by how you act online. Sure, you can get a good idea as to whether they’re intelligent and independent, or just another mindless sheep looking for an echo chamber, but beyond that.

    I don’t claim to know you, Jamila, and you don’t know me. That said, your best chance at really making me angry and depressed is to ignore me.

  44. hermesten
    February 20th, 2006 @ 11:19 am

    In all fairness, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Choobus takes the most “extreme position possible.” In fact, his positions aren’t extreme at all, just his rhetoric.

    Furthermore, the claim that what Choobus says is “obscene” and “perverted” is downright ludicrous. Choobus is merely insulting. He doesn’t advocate anything obscene or perverted, and to suggest that he does is absurd. His remarks are obviously intended to get to people like Lily, who are offended by certain words as if words had some kind of magical power.

    The idea that a mere word, or thought, is “obscene,” is ridiculous and dangerous nonsense. Once you cede this notion to someone like Lily, you’ve allowed them to frame the terms of a discussion by how they choose what is, and is not, “appropriate” language.

    Futhermore, people like Lily seem to think not using certain words gives them some kind of superior “moral” authority, a notion absurd on its face. This is especially true when one considers how often people who pretend to have such delicate sensibilities about language are indifferent or hostile to the lives of those they define as the “other.”

    Lily, for instance, whines about Choobus being “obscene,” but she is a fervent supporter of a man who claims the legal right to torture children in order to extract information from their parents. Nowhere in anything Choobus has ever posted can you find him lending support to the kinds of monsters, or monsterous behavior, that are cherished by the likes of the world’s Lily’s.

  45. Lily
    February 20th, 2006 @ 12:00 pm

    Now, now, Tenspace. I didn’t say that Choobus was typical– I was making the point that he can’t be beaten in utter obscenity by anyone, much less dreaded theists. And he can’t. He is the master. Just look at how the big H fawns over him.

    PHLAF Ridiculous. Plain ridiculous. Virtually all groups of youngsters are alike. To claim that a Christian youth group is qualitatively different in its zeal and certainties from a youth chess club or a high school choral group is prejudice, mean and simple. Honestly, you should be ashamed of making so asinine a statement as :There’s something so dead and cold and unfeeling in those kids – you can see it in their eyes. Scary. The only thing scary is you making such a claim. That and claiming that their religion has been beaten into them. That is shameful, as well.

  46. Lily
    February 20th, 2006 @ 12:15 pm

    Oz:
    #3 is not negative, per se. It tags the negative definition as “archaic”. Some, of course, would dispute that. #13 is factual, not negative, though it includes the same quotation (to illustrate the word) as #16 (the 1828 version!) does. Yet the definition given is not negative, which surprised me, given how old the work is.

    Now I don’t dispute that “atheist” has negative connotations but how could it be otherwise?

  47. Jody Tresidder
    February 20th, 2006 @ 12:44 pm

    Lily wrote: “Virtually all groups of youngsters are alike. To claim that a Christian youth group is qualitatively different in its zeal and certainties from a youth chess club or a high school choral group is prejudice, mean and simple. ”

    There is a crucial difference between (vocal, pack-travelling) Christian youth groups and other youth groups. The chess players or choral members (or more likely school band members) have a talent – or at least the impression they have a talent! – in common. The point of being in a youth group is to do with a special, adult-approved skill over and above idealogical convictions. Not so a fundie adolescent group.

    En masse and fired up with their own worthiness, they are creepy indeed. Their only “skill” is precocious piety untested by experience.

    Boy, did a large lot of them wreck a cross country flight for me.

  48. Jody Tresidder
    February 20th, 2006 @ 12:45 pm

    Eeek – typos. Sorry.

  49. Lily
    February 20th, 2006 @ 1:02 pm

    How did they wreck it for you, Jody? I really am interested to know. I suspect it is their beliefs that wrecked it for you and not their actions. I have never seen a youth group of any sort that wasn’t too exuberant, loud and energetic for my taste. I simply do not see how the Christian youth groups you have run into can be different.

  50. snap crafter
    February 20th, 2006 @ 1:30 pm

    Given that I’m in the bible belt, and such youth groups are around me constantly, I can tell you that they are indeed more rude and often times more vulgar than the band, which I am also in. The band tries to mantain an image. The youth group are the kinda people who get drunk on weekends and are only christian if you bring up the fact that you are not. They they’re the kinds that will threaten to put a burning cross in my yard. Oh yeah, they’re the nicest people ever.

    What I think is happening, lily, is that you have a bias that the youth group isn’t that bad simply because it is religious, and that we are only claiming it because we don’t like christians, and we are trying to demonize it.

  51. jahrta
    February 20th, 2006 @ 1:39 pm

    Snap – who has to try to demonize them? they seem perfectly capable of demonizing themselves.

  52. Lily
    February 20th, 2006 @ 2:12 pm

    Again, I would like some nouns, so to speak, not adjectives. You are speaking in the crudest generalities. I am in the Bible belt too. As someone who has been in the Church for 30 years now (and thoroughly familiar with youth groups of various ages) and, as someone who has travelled extensively, often putting up in hotels hosting youth groups of one sort or another, I simply do not recognize this caricature you claim is the “truth”.

    If I had to wager, I would bet that you have never actually encountered a Christian youth group, simply because in my extensive experience the only rude groups I have ever encountered were athletes, usually football players.

  53. choobus
    February 20th, 2006 @ 3:10 pm

    Lily is right. Christian youths are thoughtful, kind, polite and decent. People who like sport (espceially football) are evil baby raping scum who are going to burn in hell where they belong.

    This is just obviously true.

  54. hermesten
    February 20th, 2006 @ 3:21 pm

    “The chess players or choral members (or more likely school band members) have a talent – or at least the impression they have a talent! – in common.”

    There’s another crucial difference as well. Chess and football players don’t make claims to moral superiority based on their game skills . Quite the opposite. Athletes, in particular, often feel entitled to special treatment and feel exempt from rules of social conduct that apply to everyone else.

    Church youth groups, on the other hand, are presumably filled with youngsters from good “Christian” families who have been brought up with good Christian values. You’d think, from all the rhetoric on the right, that they’d be examples of personal responsibility by comparison with other teens (although I grant, there has never been a group in power less likely to take personal responsibilty for their actions than the current group of right-wing thugs). They are, furthermore, supervised by good Christian adults who are responsible for teaching them how to behave.

    The problem some of us atheists have is that the Christian religion seems to have little or no positive impact on these people. It isn’t so much that they’re worse than other youth groups, but that given all their pretensions to superiority, they’re not any better. Personally, I don’t blame this behavior on the kids. The true failures in these circumstances are the supposedly responsible good Christian adults who have so miserably failed to instruct them.

    I don’t doubt that Snap’s observations are correct. Certainly, as my son who attended a “conservative” college can tell you, the good Christian girls were typically the most promiscuous girls in college –not that there’s anything wrong with that. It’s just not what the people like Lily would have you believe.

  55. Ethan
    February 20th, 2006 @ 3:55 pm

    I thought Lily was leaving to go play in her neighborhood so she could be reinforced by her peer group that she is right and and “O.K.” person. Me? I think it is Reaction Formation at it’s best..

  56. snap crafter
    February 20th, 2006 @ 4:07 pm

    Maybe it’s different in your part of the belt Lilly, or maybe because you are entrenched in it you can not see it. But down here in kentucky they are rather rude and vulgar. You want nouns? Fine: The FFA, the FCA, and (to pick from the horde of church groups out there) The group down at Higher Praise. All them don’t take too kindly too me. and all of them have the kinda A’holes that would make a night at a hotel annoying.

  57. Lily
    February 20th, 2006 @ 4:20 pm

    snap crafter:

    Well, I doubt if I am entrenched in it. I have only been in Dixie now for 2.25 years after spending 13 years in New England and another portion of my life in the mid-west, etc. Nevertheless, while my experience is extensive, yours appears to be limited to a specific small region. I dunno, I always thought generalizing from a small specific group to all everywhere was the text book definition of prejudice.

    Choobus, learn to read buddy. Not people who like sports; young men who play sports. There is a difference.

  58. choobus
    February 20th, 2006 @ 4:48 pm

    Lily, beloved cunt,

    I would have thought that those who play sport are evil, and also those who glory in this satanic endeavor are also going to hell and should therefore be villified. It’s interesting that you single out young men. What about young women who play sports? I know that they are probably filthy lesbians and hateful to the Lord, but curiously you seem to be ok with them. Are you a carpet muncher lily? Isn’t that against the jesus rules? For the record Lily, what is your position on homo gaylords in the church? Not just bummers but dykes as well?

  59. snap crafter
    February 20th, 2006 @ 11:49 pm

    I’m so sorry, lilly, that I’m not omnipresent and know only what I have experienced. I know you were expecting me to have an extensive knowledge on every christian group out there, otherwise why would I say anything?

    It remind me of Ray Comforts theory that since no man knows everything, therefore there are no atheists.

  60. SBW
    February 21st, 2006 @ 12:00 am

    ///Jody Tresidder said: Failing to cope with the argy bargy of an atheist site was inevitable.///

    It’s the proud ignorance and blatant stupidity I’ve been having trouble coping with.

    ///Judy said: It was only when your artlessly girlish performance wore thin – and you were debated on the merits of your own godidiot assertions, without RA’s special pleadings – that your whining began.///

    Judy I’m trying to have patience with your idiocy, but I swear it’s wearing really thin. Everytime you speak to me here it is to spout contrived, illogical, nonsense that you can’t prove. You have been so used to talking crap and no one here has called you on it that now you are gullible enough to believe it’s the truth. When I ask you to prove your complete bullshit you want to talk about CONTEXT and ask stupid rhetorical questions. When someone buys you a clue, can you start talking to me then? Right now you bore me, and I hate being bored.

    ///Judy said: You’ve got your own blog, where you can burble on about “sssseeeeexxxxy” men on the phone (to cite a recent entry) and the personal stuff that most interests you, so air your opinions over there.////

    I’m such an idiot that you are now reading my blog on the regular and quoting it like it’s the atheist bible. From the level of sophistication that you show in your arguments on this site I’m starting to believe that random blogs are the only thing you read, particularly regarding feminism.

    ///hermesten said: Wrong again. Bill is not an atheist, and has said so on more than one occassion. Bill just doesn’t like organized religion and theists.///

    He must have changed his mind since then because he clearly called himself an atheist on his show.

    ////Viole said: I don’t claim to know you, Jamila, and you don’t know me. That said, your best chance at really making me angry and depressed is to ignore me.////

    Awwwww….you still mad about that last intellectual ass kicking? Oh well, another one bites the dust.

  61. allonym
    February 21st, 2006 @ 12:38 am

    Ethan said: “I thought Lily was leaving to go play in her neighborhood so she could be reinforced by her peer group that she is right and and “O.K.” person.”

    SBW was the author of the original text quoted by RA, not Lily. It is embarassing when those (presumably) in agreement with the atheist viewpoint fail to express themselves intelligently in these fora.

    Lily said: ” I dunno, I always thought generalizing from a small specific group to all everywhere was the text book definition of prejudice.”

    Not precisely. It comes much closer to the “textbook” definition of stereotyping. Prejudice has more to do with preconceived ideas about a group or subject. Notions which, granted, are commonly the result of stereotypes

    Lily also said: “Choobus, learn to read buddy. Not people who like sports; young men who play sports. There is a difference.”

    Some might say there is a difference between “people who like sport” (quote from choobus) and your “people who like sports”. It’s simple to accuse choobus of misreading you, but did you consider that you might have misread him? Or that that he was framing his argument in the context you provided, which was clearly to do with youths who play sports?

    SBW said: a bunch of stuff that adds nothing to the argument and even less to her credibility.

  62. SBW
    February 21st, 2006 @ 12:41 am

    ///hermesten said: Wrong again. Bill is not an atheist, and has said so on more than one occassion. Bill just doesn’t like organized religion and theists.///

    ///I said:He must have changed his mind since then because he clearly called himself an atheist on his show.//

    Upon doing more research, I was wrong. You’re right. He apparently just hates everything about religion and especially followers of organized religion. He believes in some sort of force in the universe.

  63. PHLAF
    February 21st, 2006 @ 6:05 am

    Lily, I have lived on both coasts, in the midwest for a brief period (shudder), in Paris and in Ireland. I’m also the parent of two college students. I’ve encountered more than my fair share of Christian youth groups over the decades.

    Funadmentalist Christian youth groups are the high school version of their parents, and this has been universally true in my experience. They are the ones who are prejudiced against everyone who isn’t them. They are judgemental and bigoted and full of hate for anyone the Bible gives them a license to hate – in other words, all non-white, non-straight, non-Christians. For a lot of them, you can add “non-American” to that list.

    There is something chilling about people so young and so inexperienced who can write off millions of other human beings, many of whom are infinitely better people than they will ever grow up to be, most of whom have been tested by tragedy and loss and hardship, and most of whom they do not and never will know.

    There is something different about Christian youth groups as opposed to athletic teams and artistic/creative clubs. The athletes and the musicians and actors and artists are united in an effort to produce something positive. The Christians are united in their effort to condemn other people.

    SBW, still here, eh? All this negativity must be doin’ something for ya. Or are you just getting more attention here than from all these supposedly supportive and uplifting people you were going to surround yourself with.

  64. Lily
    February 21st, 2006 @ 7:53 am

    Phlaf: Now that was a very interesting post, particularly this:

    There is something chilling about people so young and so inexperienced who can write off millions of other human beings, many of whom are infinitely better people than they will ever grow up to be, most of whom have been tested by tragedy and loss and hardship, and most of whom they do not and never will know.

    Movingly written and so true! And every word applies, unchanged, to this blog. The thread in the forum on the age demographic here shows very well how young a substantial (and mouthy) portion of the readership is.

    Do you think maybe there is something about being young and full of oneself that is universally applicable?

    Apart from that, I simply don’t recognize the people you are describing. The Bible gives no license to hate anyone. There may be Christian groups of kids (and adults) who are as prejudiced and closed minded as you describe. But I have never met any and I have been in a position to. You are painting with a very broad brush, indeed.

  65. Jody Tresidder
    February 21st, 2006 @ 8:02 am

    SBW:
    You write: “When I ask you to prove your complete bullshit you want to talk about CONTEXT and ask stupid rhetorical questions.”

    This is the stuff of the sandpit.

    You asserted early 20th century feminists were racist.

    I provided the historical context to your selective quotes showing the racisim you complained of was a specific political manoeuvre and an abrupt reversal of the feminists campaign for universal suffrage.

    Now, in petulant response, you capitalize “context” as though it’s a bad, bad word.

    You accuse me of reading your own blog as though it’s “the atheist bible”.
    Delusions of grandeur, SBW?

    In fact, checking your own words was a swift way of confirming a niggling suspicion that far from being someone searching for intellectual foundations for their faith, you were already a loyal sheep. Not only that, but a loyal sheep who personally received tip-offs from God.

    I notice your big, shiny new idea is that everyone here strokes and flatters each other. It’s just poor ickle sheep-like “ewe” who gets flayed.

    If you take off your ego goggles when reading this blog, you might find your martyr complex is misplaced.

  66. PHLAF
    February 21st, 2006 @ 8:57 am

    Of course there’s a tendancy to think one knows it all during one’s youth – I already addressed that in a previous post.

    The kind of smug, arrogant ignorance I have personally witnessed among teenage youth groups is something else again.

    It’s cold and hard and dangerous.

    The reason you can’t see it is because you’re one of them.

  67. Jahrta
    February 21st, 2006 @ 9:53 am

    “Apart from that, I simply don’t recognize the people you are describing. The Bible gives no license to hate anyone. There may be Christian groups of kids (and adults) who are as prejudiced and closed minded as you describe. But I have never met any and I have been in a position to. You are painting with a very broad brush, indeed.”

    Lily, I feel the need to ask…have you ever actually READ the bible, or did you swallow its nutty goodness too quickly to process what it actually said?

  68. Lily
    February 21st, 2006 @ 10:56 am

    Y’all never disappoint me. I wondered how long it would be before you weighed in, Jahrta. Let me try to explain for the x millionth time that the Old Testament reflects a very ancient warrior culture and tells the story of the founding of Israel. It records the way God dealt with real men and women throughout a number of centuries. God’s creative acts, his dealings with his chosen people and his intention to redeem Israel are revealed in the OT and the story culminates in the NT with the teachings of Jesus. Christians are bound to act in accordance with the NT and with only those OT principles which are consistent with it.

    Now, try to find me a place in the NT that licenses hatred towards any group.

    PHLAF: The reason you see it is because you want to see it; it confirms your prejudices, which is always comforting, nicht wahr?

  69. Viole
    February 21st, 2006 @ 11:48 am

    Whatever gives you pleasure to think, Jamila.

    I should mention, I hate long goodbyes. If you’re going to leave, leave. Otherwise, stop pretending.

  70. PHLAF
    February 21st, 2006 @ 12:25 pm

    Lily, I see Christians and Christianity for what they are, and I see it that way based on my experiences, not prejudices.

    You can see things your way, too, based on yours.

    Ain’t freedom grand?

    But if you Christians want us to see what you really are all about, I suggest you start acting in a way that doesn’t support what I’ve seen and supports what you claim to be true. It would be a good start. Until then, you have no one to blame but yourselves for the fact that people see you as hypocritical, hate-filled idiots.

  71. jahrta
    February 21st, 2006 @ 12:25 pm

    My bad, Lily – I keep forgetting which parts of god’s so-called “immutable truth” you moral relativists like to view as true. That other stuff that all other religious people take as absolute truth is just historical ramblings and doesn’t show what god REALLY said or did. Got it.

    Luckily for me, the book of Choobus contains the REAL and TRULY true word of dog, and that’s the one I read every day.

  72. PHLAF
    February 21st, 2006 @ 12:32 pm

    BTW, Lily, I said Christians have been using their religion and the Bible as a license to hate – not that Christianity or the Bible license people to hate.

    When people are being beaten to death because they’re gay and their murderers justify their crimes with Christianity and the Bible, you’ve got people out there using the Bible as a license to hate.

    Biblical passages, including NT Biblical passages, have been used to virtually enslave women for centuries – still goes on today, AAMOF. Biblical passages are still being used to justify denying a segment of the populations rights and priviledges based on their sexual preference. That’s hate. You can call it anything else you want to justify it in your head, but actively fighting to deny other citizens rights merely because of some fantasy you’ve cooked up and choose to surrender your life to is hate. It’s not anything else, no matter what kind of claptrap and ridiculous nonsense you come up with to make it look like anything else.

    Christians use their religion to justify their appalling behavior towards others every minute of every day and have done so for over two millenia now. That’s a fact. Now, if your little religion says they ought not be doing that, then you need to spend your time and energy telling them to get their shit together, not picking on the people who see this hypocrisy and refuse to buy into your ridiculous little fantasy because of it.

  73. Lily
    February 21st, 2006 @ 1:00 pm

    In other words, PHLAF, people are weak, as well as strong, evil as well as good; a mix of all sorts of things, in other words. What a surprise. Was there a golden age before Christianity? Are there better societies without it? Do people live in total peace and love somewhere on this planet? If not, why not?

    There is a time to put away childish things, as St. Paul writes, and you and your fellow atheists would do well to heed his words. People are not all one thing or the other. Finding some sort of comfort and superiority in atheism is plain fatuous. The problem inherent in humanity cannot be identified, much less overcome that way.

  74. PHLAF
    February 21st, 2006 @ 1:31 pm

    No, Lily. It’s time to put away the fantasies and stop justifying your crapass behavior by stringing a piece of jewelry around your neck or slapping a bumper sticker on your car.

    People are capable of good and bad. The difference between religious people and non-religious people is that the religious people refuse to take responsibility for their bad behavior and shrug it off by saying ridiculous things like “oh, Jesus loves me anyway”, or “God forgives me” or “Jesus already died for my sins, so it’s okay”, and non-religious people admit that the error was theirs and that they and they alone are responsible for making amends or fixing whatever problems they’ve created.

    Also, Christians repeatedly and without fail use Bible passages to JUSTIFY their bad behavior. That’s the problem.

    It most certainly is time to put away childish things — nonsensical fantasies being one of the first that should go.

    I don’t find “comfort or superiority” in atheism. I merely refuse to be harrassed and threatened into finding comfort and superiority in some religion.

    And, of course, you can’t even deny the shit that has gone down for centuries at the hands of Christians and has been justified in the name of Christ.

    Christians do bad things because of their Christianity, not in spite of it. When an atheist does something wrong, he does something wrong because of a choice he made, and he doesn’t go blaming it on some directive from some kind of fantasy figure.

  75. Viole
    February 21st, 2006 @ 1:31 pm

    For once I agree with Lily on something. Atheism isn’t going to solve the worlds problems. However, Christianity has had two thousand years to attempt to solve those problems, and it appears to have failed miserably.

    Oh, and finding comfort and superiority in Christianity is right and proper.

  76. jahrta
    February 21st, 2006 @ 1:40 pm

    Just out of curiosity, Lily, what are your thoughts on the jewish people as a whole?

    Are they all horribly misguided fools who will burn in hell (it should be noted jews do not believe in hell) unless they accept your saviour figure?

    Do you believe they killed your saviour? (the romans were responsible for crucifying him if there is any truth to be found in the bible, and even JPII came out and publicly denounced the concept that “the jews killed christ” so I was wondering if that was good enough for you).

    The only reason I bring all of this up (I do not recall having seen anything you wrote previously that smacks of antisemitism) is that you basically denounce the OT and choose instead to follow the NT (because that’s probably what your folks drove into your skull from an early age like a red-hot poker).

  77. Choobus
    February 21st, 2006 @ 2:07 pm

    Lily is very quiet on the gay issue. Could it be that even she knows her homophobic views are indefinsible? Sad, given that she is apparantly into minge herself.

  78. Lily
    February 21st, 2006 @ 2:11 pm

    Hmmm. I didn’t make myself clear then, Viole. Christianity is the answer to the world’s problems. Just not the caricature that you all believe is Christianity and not the caricature some well-meaning and not so well meaning groups have made of it, from time to time.

    PHLAF: Your last post was one hate-filled diatribe with no discernible connection to reality. It does you no credit as a sentient, much less, thinking adult.

    Take a couple of Tums and read some history.

  79. Thorngod
    February 21st, 2006 @ 2:26 pm

    Lily- It’s been my experience that most Christians are guided more by the Old Test than by the New. I’ve heard a thousand calls for “an eye for an eye” and only rarely since matriculating from Sunday School have I heard one quote J’s explicit reversal of that rule. But unlike many hereon, I do not hurl invective at believers. The vast majority of American believers are American first and Christian only when they can correlate the two loyalties. But contrary to what most people seem to think, no one can help what he or she believes. Has anyone here ever heard someone say, “I’m going to change my belief on that”? (Their belief and their religion are not equatable; many are capable of changing denominationns or religions with ease–for sex or marriage, change of neighborhood, whatever.) As for your God in his “warrior culture” days, I’ve always wondered why he was so limited in his powers back then–couldn’t even see through a mountain, let alone into the hearts and minds of his creatures (Have you ever really read Genesis 13 – 15–I mean, really thought about what you were reading?

  80. Lily
    February 21st, 2006 @ 2:35 pm

    My last post just got swallowed so I am going to repeat myself and respond to the big C at the same time:

    Viole: You have misunderstood me. Christianity is the answer to the world’s problems. Just not the caricature that you all flail away at.

    PHLAF: your post was one hate-filled diatribe. It was not worthy of a sentient, much less, thinking adult. Take 2 Tums and read some history.

    Choobus:
    I am silent on the gay issue for one reason and one reason only. I have nothing new to add. My views are those espoused by the Catholic Church. This is why the current homosexual crisis in the Church is so horrific to all of us inside and outside the Church– it was a betrayal of trust so huge, on the part of the errant priests, that it is hard for most of us to find words with which to express our revulsion.

    And let me forestall the next round of posts– spare me the crap about this being a pedophilia crisis. It is not. The overwhelming majority of victims were teenagers. You know, the kids’ whose rights to “explore their sexuality” and have LBGT clubs in high schools most of you defend.

    Thorngood:

    You make a common mistake. The God of the OT and the God of the New Testament are one and the same. Unless you hold to the belief that God dictated the Bible, it ought to be very easy to understand why someone writing in 800 BC would interpret things much more crudely than someone writing in AD 40.

  81. jahrta
    February 21st, 2006 @ 2:43 pm

    Lily

    Are you trying to imply that the kids raped by priests were “asking for it” or that they were gay and were able to seduce the priests? I’d also like to see your carefully-conducted research which states the age of the violated children at the time of the alleged acts in question.

    And why are your viewpoints on gays and lesbians “those espoused by the Catholic Church.” ? Are you incapable of making up your own mind?

    And would you care to answer my questions about the jewish people?

  82. PHLAF
    February 21st, 2006 @ 2:51 pm

    You’re Catholic? That explains a lot. That means you’ve agreed to turn off your mind. Catholics are mindless sheep. You’re not allowed to think for yourselves.

    And, yeah, I guess it was because of homosexuality that girls got molested in the Catholic sex scandal and cover-up scandal (not the “homosexual crisis”).

    But of course, mindless sheep that you are, you’ll blame men who rape children on homosexuality because that’s what they told you to do.

  83. Lily
    February 21st, 2006 @ 2:58 pm

    I cannot believe it. First, the post that disappeared into cyber limbo, actually appears within minutes. Then, more comments appear… ye gads!

    Jahrta: I do not denounce the Old Testament! Good grief, I love much of it (as literature and revelation). It records, as I stated earlier, God’s creative acts and purposes in human history from the beginning.

    As to the Jews. They are and always will be God’s Chosen people. The gentiles, to use a biblical metaphor, were grafted in. God’s promises cannot be revoked– So no, I do not think they will be in hell but I cannot say how the end will be worked out. God has not confided in me lately.

    Since Christ died for the sins of mankind and the Jews are God’s firstborn and chosen people, he died first and foremost for the Jews. Of course the Sanhedrin “killed” him by turning him over to the Romans, as someone who claimed to be a king, thus ensuring that he would be executed since the Romans tolerated no threats to their sovereignty.

    But that was God’s plan from the beginning. His mother, his early followers and the founders of his Church were all Jews and the idea of persecuting his countrymen for being “Christ Killers” is so bizarre that those who hold it are, I think, insane.

    I am an adult convert. My folks were rather cheerful agnostics, so no, they drove nothing into my brain (with or without a red hot poker) besides a true hatred for eggplant.

  84. Choobus
    February 21st, 2006 @ 3:33 pm

    Lily,

    I am afraid I don’t know exactly what the catholic church says about gays. I am curious about one thing: did god make them gay or did they chgoose to be gay? If the former, isn’t it a bit unfair that they will burn in hell for their gayness? If the latter, I wonder at the church policy that you can be gay as long as you don’t engage in gay sex. I may be wrong about this, but isn’t there a bit in the bible about he what thinks of adultery in his mind is as he who has comitted it with his body, or somehting like that? Does this principle not apply to gays?

  85. Thorngod
    February 21st, 2006 @ 3:50 pm

    Dear Lily– It wasn’t “Thorngood” who was mistaken. I always knew it was men (of whatever year or era) who were inventing the gods, not the other way around.

  86. Lily
    February 21st, 2006 @ 7:40 pm

    Jahrta:
    As requested, I answered your question about my understanding of the place of the Jews in the economy of salvation, earlier this afternoon. It promptly disappeared into cyberhell. On the assumption that it will show up eventually, I will defer rewriting it for now.

    I can hardly keep up with all else that I have been asked in the meantime but since most of it has to do with homosexuality, let’s start that war all over again.

    Jahrta you said: I’d also like to see your carefully-conducted research which states the age of the violated children at the time of the alleged acts in question.

    The information can be found in the survey conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice for the National Review Board. Some highlights:

    At the news conference, Gerald Lynch, president of John Jay College, said the study was “accurate and comprehensive” regarding child sex abuse in the church. “This was not a sampling. We had an entire population,” said Lynch. Karen Terry, John Jay principal investigator for the study, said that “it is possible the bishops are not giving us everything.” But based on the data and church requests for help in getting information to researchers, “this was a good faith effort to provide information,” she said.

    The study listed the main characteristics of the sex abuse incidents reported. These included:

    – An overwhelming majority of the victims, 81 percent, were males. The most vulnerable were boys aged 11 to 14, representing more than 40 percent of the victims. This goes against the trend in the general U.S. society where the main problem is men abusing girls.
    — A majority of the victims were post-pubescent adolescents with a small percentage of the priests accused of abusing children who had not reached puberty.

    More than you will ever want to know about this study can be found at: (www.catholicnews.com//data/abuse/abuse.htm)

    Regarding homosexuality, in general, I said that I hold the view espoused by the Catholic Church. I do not hold it because I am Catholic, which I am not … yet, but because it seems to me to say all that needs to be said in the most respectful way that it can be said: This is from the Catechism:

    The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

  87. Viole
    February 21st, 2006 @ 7:50 pm

    “Condition”. Lovely. You know, Lily, it’s always a comfort to know that you and the Catholic church love me, despite the fact that I’m diseased.

    Actually, no it isn’t. It’s pathetic and disgusting to see that the open bigotry common in earlier years hasn’t disappeared, it’s merely gone underground. Forgotten, but not gone.

  88. Lily
    February 21st, 2006 @ 9:01 pm

    Viole:

    You are reading too much into the word condition. It is not used to describe a disease but a state of being. Just as disordered is not to be understood as disorderly but in its original meaning of “directed wrongly”.

    And yes, we do love you *but* this love is not a fuzzy emotion that says “go on, do what you want, who cares?” but “agape” which is an act of the will and would be more properly understood to mean active benevolence. So, when we say that we hate the sin but love the sinner, we mean that we want and hope for what is best for him. What is best for any sinner is to stop sinning and turn to God.

    Sorry, I know you don’t want to hear that and despise it but there it is.

  89. Choobus
    February 21st, 2006 @ 9:05 pm

    Lily, you did not answer my question: if homosexuality is a trial that must be endured by those afflicted with gayness how is their longing to get jiggy in the manhole (or chomp on a fish sandwich) any different from the desire to commit adultery, which is also a sin (just the desire)?
    Isn’t it the case that god has made the gays with the deck stacked against them, and the only way they can avoid eternal hellfire is to never even think about doing it the roman way?

    Seems to me that the catlickers are caught with their pants down on this topic, if you know what I mean.

  90. Lily
    February 21st, 2006 @ 9:34 pm

    How would I know whether gays are born and not made? I devoutly hope there is no gay gene or we will never get rid of abortion.

    We all are tried in one way or another. There is no sin in temptation. The sin comes from dwelling on it, loving it, imagining just how it might play out…

    Generations of Sunday School teachers have explained it to kids this way: it is not your fault, if a bird flying by decides to land on your head. It is your fault, if he stays there and builds a nest.

    What you are really asking is how the great god of copulation can possibly be resisted. Well lots of us resist him. It is not always easy. There are days when any Tom, Dick or Harry would do just fine. Not to mention Joey, Rick, Jason, Mike, Paul or fat Albert.

    Homosexuals are no worse off than any unmarried heterosexual, although I recognize that heteros can marry. Still, for some of us heteros, that is purely theoretical. We are all called to *gasp* chastity. When you recover from your faint, I will explain, if you like, why that is not a fate worse than death…

  91. Lily
    February 21st, 2006 @ 9:52 pm

    Choobus, I just wrote you a fine answer. Unfortunately, it got swallowed again. So, you will just have to wait for further enlightenment from me.

  92. snap crafter
    February 21st, 2006 @ 10:48 pm

    No, ‘fraid you didn’t Lilly, what you did write was a long paragraph full of nothing. You made no claim, presented no real answer but the one that choobus inferred.

  93. Viole
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 12:29 am

    Bloody hell, Lily, that’s the biggest load of dung I’ve seen you heap in one of these threads yet. Choobus must be proud, and I’m sure he’s about to say something complimentary as hell. Hey, he might even beat me to it.

    How would I know whether gays are born and not made? I devoutly hope there is no gay gene or we will never get rid of abortion.

    This is really my favorite. Yes, my homosexuality makes me have an abortion every year! It’s great fun. Of course, if you’re suggesting we should abort the homosexual children, all I can say is, go fuck yourself.

    Homosexuals are no worse off than any unmarried heterosexual, although I recognize that heteros can marry.

    Except for the fact that ninety percent of the religious gits think their evil, and need to deny themselves for some spiteful, pathetic coward of god. You know, that’s really good for the average person’s self-esteem, and while I don’t give a damn, I know a lot of people who do and just pretend not to. It’s horrific to watch them struggle to please you arrogant bigots.

    You are reading too much into the word condition. It is not used to describe a disease but a state of being. Just as disordered is not to be understood as disorderly but in its original meaning of “directed wrongly”.

    Only in whatever fantasy land you inhabit. In reality, whatever way you interpret it, it’s still bigoted, derogatory, and worthy of the dark age mentality you claim never existed. There is nothing quite so insulting, I assure you, as a self-respecting person being told they need your ‘respect, compassion, and sensitivity’, which is to say pity. I’ll be damned before I accept the pity of some self-righteous, hypocritical prat such as yourself.

    And yes, we do love you *but* this love is not a fuzzy emotion that says “go on, do what you want, who cares?” but “agape” which is an act of the will and would be more properly understood to mean active benevolence. So, when we say that we hate the sin but love the sinner, we mean that we want and hope for what is best for him. What is best for any sinner is to stop sinning and turn to God.

    In my experience, dear Lily, this shows a fundamental misunderstanding as to what love is. Love is not some vague emotional connection you feel toward an imaginary friend named Yahweh or Yeshua. Hell, if Jesus had actually lived, he might have learned a thing or two about human nature, and the blind ignorance shown in the New Testament is the surest proof that a bunch of secluded, rich white men made the whole damned thing up.

    Sorry, I know you don’t want to hear that and despise it but there it is.

    Despite it? No, I don’t particularly care. Right after I finish posting this, I’m going to go do something terribly sinful, and I’m going to enjoy every minute of it. There’s one more thing that needs to be said, though, and I’m afraid it’s starting to become typical of me and losing it’s impact. Cheney would be proud.

    Go fuck yourself. And fuck YHVH, and Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, while you’re at it.

  94. allonym
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 12:53 am

    Lily said: “I devoutly hope there is no gay gene or we will never get rid of abortion.”

    I struggle to understand what this sentiment could possibly mean, so I ask you to explain it before I leap to conclusions. Will you do me the favor?

  95. allonym
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 12:58 am

    Lily said: “I devoutly hope there is no gay gene or we will never get rid of abortion.”

    I struggle to understand what this sentiment could possibly mean, so I ask you to explain it before I leap to conclusions. Will you do me the favor?

  96. allonym
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 12:59 am

    Oops! Forgive the double-post – don’t know what happened there…

  97. PHLAF
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 6:22 am

    >> I devoutly hope there is no gay gene or we will never get rid of abortion.

  98. Lily
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 6:25 am

    Sorry, allonym . I though I was very clear. It is my belief that there is a subset of people, including those who say they are “gay friendly”, who would abort a child they knew would be gay. Since homosexuals have exactly the same right to life as every other human being and since I want abortion to end, except to save the live of the mother, I do not want a “gay gene” found.

  99. Lily
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 6:29 am

    Feel better PHLAF?

  100. Lily
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 7:09 am

    Viole:
    We can be very certain that Choobus will be expressing himself with his usual sensitivity and wit.

    However, for someone who doesn’t care, you have written quite an emotional post. Because you have reacted, rather than thought about what I wrote, you have misunderstood a few things.

    Let us leap over the abortion comment which I explained above and go to this:

    Except for the fact that ninety percent of the religious gits think their evil, and need to deny themselves for some spiteful, pathetic coward of god

    People both religious and non religious have a variety of reactions to homosexuality. The visceral horror exhibited by many heterosexual men is quite well attested. Let us be frank up front. Most people don’t (or didn’t) give a damn about lesbians. Until fairly recently, historically speaking, most assumed that they didn’t actually do anything. It is male sodomy that so many find so repulsive.

    Because the Church understands love in all of its dimensions better than anyone else, it understands very well indeed that the love two people have for each other is not just physical. That is why the catechism states: They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. If homosexuality were merely a physical phenomenon it would be rightly regarded with the same contempt with which most people regard deviant sexual behavior (promiscuity, etc.).

    Neither I nor the Church take the struggle you allude to lightly. But let us be very clear– nobody is saying that love or friendship is wrong. They never are. But misusing one’s sexuality is. It is equally wrong in heterosexuals.

    I dunno. Is your inability to understand (not accept, just understand) the cause of or the result of your Bush Derangement Syndrome? How you could drag Mr. Cheney into this, amazes me. Would he be proud? Of what? But as the father of a lesbian, his views on the subject would be interesting.

  101. allonym
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 7:46 am

    Thanks for the clarification, but what a strange position to take. I believe there’s likely a subset of people who would abort a child they knew would be female. Should I hope science is also wrong about the X chromosome, and that all females are actually only female by choice, or by some “objectively disordered” inclination? You know — so that those people won’t have such a reason to want to abort their female children? Seems to follow the same logic, doesn’t it?

  102. Lily
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 7:59 am

    I can’t see the strangeness of my position. Even if the science (i.e. our understanding of why there is male and female) were wrong, babies are still male or female (yeah, yeah, I know about the less common intersexed, etc.) And gender abortion is a well-known phenomenon. I want no non-life saving abortion for any reason, whether the reason is founded in “science” or not.

  103. PHLAF
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 8:28 am

    Lily, it’s interesting that you have such a need to dismiss me. But it’s par for the course with you people.

    Truly. It’s what you religious types always do. You get someone who sees you for what you are, and you dehumanize them instantly so you don’t have to recognize them or their arguments.

    It’s not about feelings. It’s about the very real damage people like you do to other very real – whether you consider them “disordered” or not – people. You deny this damage, you deny recognition to the people who take you to task for the damage you do, and then you are the one who gets to “feel” good about yourself.

    Says a lot more about you than it does about me.

    As do these phrase you use: my belief…I want…

    Because you’re the center of the universe and what you believe and what you want ought to be the law for everyone else.

    If you don’t understand where homosexuality comes from, then you can’t accuse a homosexual of “misusing” his or her sexuality – not that anyone else’s sexuality or sex lives are ever any of your business. Ever. You don’t know what lies between two people, and, even assuming that this silly little god you’ve created in your own image exists, according to your very own rules, you don’t know what this god would say about anyone else’s relationship. As a matter of fact, according to your own rules, this very same god you want to shove down everyone else’s throat pretty much tells you that other people just ain’t your business, and that you are guilty of “sin”, too, so to condemn anyone else for what you perceive to be “sin” is wrong.

    But that’s not a lot of fun, is it? It’s so much more fun to have an entire class of people you can automatically be better than just because of they way they were born.

    Look at the way you and your church talk about “them” (homosexuals). You speak of them like they’re dogs and the directive to be kind and compassionate to “them” is coming from the ASPCA. It’s disgusting.

    There’s no “them” and “us”. Again, even according to the rules you made up, this god of yours loves everyone EQUALLY. But, no, according to you, the homosexuals are “them”, and the rest of “us” have to treat “them” nicely.

    How patronizing can you get? Who the hell do you think you are? What an arrogant, mindless prig you are.

  104. allonym
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 8:31 am

    I’ll try to explain the strangeness (to me) of your position by contrast:

    You hope a “gay gene” doesn’t exist so that people will not choose to abort based on genetically predetermined gay-ness, whereas I simply hope that genetically predetermined gay-ness, if found to be true, is never allowed to be used as justification for abortion.

    It’s a nuanced difference, maybe, but significant I think.

  105. allonym
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 8:57 am

    Lily – I just found words for something that’s been swimming around in my head since your last reply.

    You seem to imply that gender-based (sex-based) abortion is a phenomenon because sex is easily determined without reference to genetics. So why fret the “gay gene” – nobody would know it was present without some sort of genetic test of the foetus, as homosexuality doesn’t manifest itself physically in the way sex does. And if you’re anticipating genetic testing of foetuses as common practice, you may as well also worry about the myriad other genetic traits that may give rise to, or reason for, pregnancy termination in the esteem of one or another segment of the population.

    I guess I just find your ideas about a potential homosexuality gene a little misplaced.

  106. jahrta
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 10:22 am

    Lily said: “Because the Church understands love in all of its dimensions better than anyone else, it understands very well indeed that the love two people have for each other is not just physical.”

    I can only guess as to the level of indoctrination in your church you must have endured in order to bring about such a complete and total suspension of your thought processes, allowing you to spew such utter bullshit.

    What the hell makes you think that your church “understands love in all its dimensions” better than anyone else, especially when it spends a great deal of its time and resources DEMONIZING the love that homosexuals and lesbians have for one another? What a sanctimonious pile of shit.

    Oh, and here’s another thought for you to chew on. Why would a church that “understands love in all its dimensions” allow or actively support such a thing as the Inquisition? And don’t give me the standard bullshit that Torqemada was only trying to “save their souls.”

    Religion is about CONTROL in all its dimensions, not love.

    Simpering git

  107. Viole
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 10:32 am

    Bush Derangement Syndrome? You actually tried to use that in rational conversation? Herm, are you getting this? This is awesome. Bush Derangement Syndrome. No one not out of the Free Republic is stupid or deranged enough to think that any criticism of Bush must come from mental illness. Yes, I hate Bush SOOOOOO much that I once spent millions of dollars investigating a blow job he got in the oval office. Not only that, he and his wife have murdered four different people, and the corrupt political establishment keeps ignoring it. Damned liberal media!

    Oh, wait, was I accidentally talking about the Clinton Derangement Syndrome that Lily, and those like her, obviously suffer from. I should know–I took a psychology class when I was sixteen.

    I really can’t believe you said that. You’re like a trained ape, aren’t you?

    Neither I nor the Church take the struggle you allude to lightly. But let us be very clear– nobody is saying that love or friendship is wrong. They never are. But misusing one’s sexuality is. It is equally wrong in heterosexuals.

    Wow, you almost make the church sound reasonable. Except, the misuse you’re talking about in this case is having sex. Sex between loving heterosexual couples would never be considered misuse, unless of course they aren’t married. Oh–did I forget? Homosexuals can’t marry.

    People both religious and non religious have a variety of reactions to homosexuality. The visceral horror exhibited by many heterosexual men is quite well attested. Let us be frank up front. Most people don’t (or didn’t) give a damn about lesbians. Until fairly recently, historically speaking, most assumed that they didn’t actually do anything. It is male sodomy that so many find so repulsive.

    You’ve managed, again, to say something both obvious and pointless. We’re talking about bigoted religious gits like yourself, here, not bigoted secular gits. I’m sure you’ll deny it if I point out that the Church is guilty of pushing the female-orgasm-as-myth thing nearly from its conception, simply because they didn’t run around screaming “Women don’t like sex!” No, they were much more subtle, and I know that’s beyond you.

    As for homosexuality in men, I suspect the reaction has something to do with base human nature, much like racism does. I shan’t attempt to explain why, because I’m not entirely sure myself. I always wanted to see more men kissing each other in public.

    Bush Derangement Syndrome. Snicker. You ignorant prat.

  108. PHLAF
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 10:48 am

    How in hell does a church that is run by all celibate men, many of whom are homosexual themselves, many of whom were child molestors, and many of whom willingly turned a blind eye to known child molestors and aided and abetted those men in continuing their abuse “understand love in all of its dimensions better than anyone else”…?

    You’ve got to be kidding. Yeah, we get that they understand that man-boy love thing more than just about anyone else, but what could they possibly know about a deep, meaningful, sustained love over the duration of a permanent relationship? That, actually, is the one thing they couldn’t possibly know a single thing about.

    This church of yours has demeaned women, has relegated them to second-class citizen status for centuries, and has not allowed them a voice at all, and you seriously think this church could possibly have a clue as to what a whole, fulfilling human relationship consists of?

  109. Lily
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 12:10 pm

    allonym, I am not sure why we are talking past each other. Of course no one needs to do genetic testing for gender. They would for homosexuality. And if it could be tested for, it would be. And yes, I do worry very much about tests for other genetic conditions. There are virtually no Downs syndrome babies being born any more. They have been aborted out of existence.

    You say you hope that a gay gene would not be allowed to be used as a justification for abortion. I have a newsflash for you. As things currently are, absolutely no “justification” for abortion is needed. We can and do abort for any reason at all, no questions asked.

  110. hermesten
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 12:39 pm

    Well, Viole, to be honest, I skipped over most of Lily’s postings. I would have assumed Bush Derangement Syndrome to be something affecting Bush supporters, since to support this amoral boy King you’d have to be either stupid or deranged. However, I’m not suprised by anything people like Lily say. Accusing someone of being crazy or evil is part of the standard demonization process the Bible Beaters know so well.

    I did enjoy this Lily comment: “In other words, PHLAF, people are weak, as well as strong, evil as well as good; a mix of all sorts of things, in other words. What a surprise. Was there a golden age before Christianity?”

    This is essentially a variation on the Bush “Clinton did it too” and “Saddam was worse” defense. As Lily has demonstrated again and again, there is no greater moral relativist than a Christian.

    Lily is really pretty funny. When confronted with practice she defends with theory. The fact that Christian practice doesn’t match Christian theory (or does, depending on how you look at it) is irrelevant because in the history of the world there have been worse people than Christians. And anyway, all those unChristian Christians aren’t REAL Christians, like Lily, who is so Christian that she supports a man who asserts a legal right to torture little children.

    But really, as PHLAF points out, for pure absurdity, how can you top Lily’s claim that a Church that prohibits male-female unions, marriage, and child bearing for itself, “understands love in all its dimensions, better than anyone else?” This is the kind of unadultered absurdity that comedy writers labor over, and Lily just spits it out without trying.

  111. jahrta
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 1:34 pm

    should we be paying Lily for giving so freely of her comedic talents?

    I feel like I should be doing something for her. She sure spends a lot of time here entertaining us

    Isn’t there an award we could give her?

    Tenspace?

  112. skinnydwarf
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 2:05 pm

    I like how the poster said “I think it is bad when people get together and just affirm each other.”…..”So from now on I’m just going to stay with people who affirm my beliefs.”

  113. Oz
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 3:06 pm

    I’m afraid Lily may have you there, Viole. Aren’t you a supporter of abortion on demand? If not, aren’t you at least of the opinion that the fetus is not worthy of any protection on the grounds that it’s not human? Why should a gay potential human have protection that a straight potential human would not? Can you commit a hate crime against something that’s not human?

  114. SBW
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 5:30 pm

    ///Viole said: I should mention, I hate long goodbyes. If you’re going to leave, leave. Otherwise, stop pretending.///

    I suppose your one of those people that stands in their windows waiving goodbye to their guests until they see them fade into the distance? Whatever the case may be, why don’t you just pretend I’m not here starting N-O-W.

    I promise that this will be the last post where I ever acknowledge your existence. Cross my heart.

    ///Jody Tresidder said:

    You asserted early 20th century feminists were racist.

    I provided the historical context to your selective quotes showing the racisim you complained of was a specific political manoeuvre and an abrupt reversal of the feminists campaign for universal suffrage.////

    Judy, I think you are trying to rewrite history in your mind. You don’t recall that post correctly and you’re not recalling history correctly. It was not an abrupt reversal of the feminist campaign for universal suffrage. The early white feminists did not advocate for suffrage for all people. They advocated for universal suffrage for white people. If you read their writings closely, “universal” was referring to white people.

    ///Now, in petulant response, you capitalize “context” as though it’s a bad, bad word.////

    I capitalized it because if you go back and see where you originally wrote the word, you capitalized it. I only wanted to put as much emphasis on the word as you originally did.

    ///You accuse me of reading your own blog as though it’s “the atheist bible”.
    Delusions of grandeur, SBW?///

    Delusions of grandeur, maybe. Statement of fact, most likely.

    ///In fact, checking your own words was a swift way of confirming a niggling suspicion that far from being someone searching for intellectual foundations for their faith, you were already a loyal sheep. Not only that, but a loyal sheep who personally received tip-offs from God.///

    You were not seeking to check my words. You were looking for something negative to say about me because you can’t support your arguments on their merits alone. Attempt to discredit the person when you can’t discredit their argument. The technique is nothing new Judy. It’s as stale as your logic.

  115. SBW
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 5:35 pm

    ///skinnydwarf said: I like how the poster said “I think it is bad when people get together and just affirm each other.”…..”So from now on I’m just going to stay with people who affirm my beliefs.”///

    My word usage could have been much better. I should have said that self-congratulation doesn’t stands on its own merits.

    Using the word “affirm” in both places was inaccurate.

  116. Viole
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 5:39 pm

    Oz,

    That point was not addressed to me. Still, I’ll answer it for you.

    A fetus is, at the very least, a potential human. I see no point in debating this. I merely state that the rights of the mother overrides the rights of the fetus.

    However, genetic testing is another matter. I would be in favor of laws restricting the abortion of a fetus for anything less than serious genetic flaws, and even then I have reservations if the technology is not available to everyone. I’ve no desire to create an accidental master race. At this point in history, I suspect you’d have a hard time defining a potential gay gene as a serious genetic flaw.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’ve no intention of abridging choice in normal cases. Merely in cases where the obvious purpose is disappointment in some genetic feature. I don’t know precisely how to make this distinction, but it’s something we’ll have to figure out.

    Personally, I think we should figure out a way to make unwanted pregnancies impossible, through advanced contraception. Once pregnancy is entirely a choice, there’s no need for abortion with the exception of medical emergencies.

    Then everyone can be happy, and stop with this pathetic debate.

  117. Oz
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 5:50 pm

    Sorry about the misdirection. Got a little mixed up. As long as I’ve got you, though, would you mind clarifying what you mean by “health of the mother?” Does that include mental health, or just life-threatening pregnancies?

  118. Viole
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 6:46 pm

    Oz,

    To be fully accurate, I didn’t say health of the mother at all, I said life threatening emergency. However, if those involved agree that the fetus is a serious threat to the mental health of the mother, I would have to leave that option open. It is hardly worth preserving life, if one is only going to live locked in a asylum.

    If one wishes, one could make an argument that the distress of bearing an imperfect baby could pose a serious threat to mental health. I have trouble accepting that. In almost all cases, it would be entirely a lie.

    I would suggest that the best possible solution is only to screen embryos for known potential genetic defects, especially major ones, and not for non-defective physical attributes, sexual orientation, or other such items.

    Again, however, I must stress universal availability. We’ve already got more than enough people thinking they’re better than everyone else.

  119. Oz
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 7:05 pm

    I should just quit while I’m behind. That or learn to read.

  120. Choobus
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 7:21 pm

    SBW, Lily, which of you has swallowed the most sperm over the years would you say?

    I’m just curious how many potential chrisatians you whores have gargled straight to hell .

  121. Jody Tresidder
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 8:45 pm

    SBW – the David Irving of Feminism – writes: “Judy, I think you are trying to rewrite history in your mind. You don’t recall that post correctly and you’re not recalling history correctly. It was not an abrupt reversal of the feminist campaign for universal suffrage. The early white feminists did not advocate for suffrage for all people. They advocated for universal suffrage for white people. If you read their writings closely, “universal” was referring to white people.”

    Some “context” for you, SBW?

    “After the end of Reconstruction [Susan B. Anthony] protested the violence inflicted on blacks and was one of the few to urge full participation of blacks in the woman suffrage movement.”

    “1866: Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony form the American Equal Rights Association, an organization for white and black women and men dedicated to the goal of universal suffrage. ”
    “In 1866 Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony and Lucy Stone helped establish the American Equal Rights Association. The following year, the organisation became active in Kansas where Negro suffrage and woman suffrage were to be decided by popular vote. However, both ideas were rejected at the polls. ”

    “The American Equal Rights Association (AERA), dedicated to human rights, black suffrage, and woman suffrage, was formed in 1866.”

  122. allonym
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 8:55 pm

    “Of course no one needs to do genetic testing for gender. They would for homosexuality.”

    After re-reading my post I can admit it wasn’t perfectly clear, but this was precisely my point.

    “And if it could be tested for, it would be.”

    Probably true, and not at all exclusive of my argument.

    “I do worry very much about tests for other genetic conditions. There are virtually no Downs syndrome babies being born any more. They have been aborted out of existence.”

    I don’t know enough to disagree, but will you prefer to go on record as being regretful that Downs syndrome is detectable genetically, allowing it to be used as a pretext for abortion? Or would you instead go on record as simply being against the fact of genetically detected Downs syndrome as a pretext for abortion? You see, it’s a subtle but important distinction.

    “I have a newsflash for you. As things currently are, absolutely no ‘justification’ for abortion is needed. We can and do abort for any reason at all, no questions asked.”

    This agrees with the argument I’m making, even though what you are implying by it doesn’t fully agree with my stance on abortion. If ‘arbitrary’ or ‘unjustified’ abortion is what you are against, that at least makes sense to me. That you don’t want a “gay gene” discovered because of a predicted impact on the abortion rate just doesn’t make sense to me. Are you against abortion, or against people having reasons for abortion?

  123. allonym
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 9:00 pm

    I said “After re-reading my post I can admit it wasn’t perfectly clear, but this was precisely my point.”

    That was incorrect. It was not precisely my point, but rather an important part of my point.

  124. Lily
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 9:18 pm

    allonym, lol! I am getting really confused! So let me state my position apart from trying to answer your question, specifically.

    I am against all abortions for any reason, unless the mother’s physical life is at stake.

    I hope that clears things up.

  125. Choobus
    February 22nd, 2006 @ 11:26 pm

    what about bukkake lily? Are you against that as well?

  126. SBW
    February 23rd, 2006 @ 4:29 pm

    ///Lily said: How would I know whether gays are born and not made? I devoutly hope there is no gay gene or we will never get rid of abortion.////

    I’ve never met a person that didn’t know their entire lives that they were gay. I believe that most people are gay for genetic reasons.

    Also, 80% of babies diagnosed with down syndrome are aborted. Anyone that doesn’t think that if there is found to be a genetic basis for homosexuality that we can test for, that those children won’t be the next in line to be aborted after those children with genetic defects, are fooling themselves. The more we know about genetics the more children that will be aborted because there is something about them that there parents don’t want to deal with.

    ///Jody Tresidder said: Some “context” for you, SBW?

    “After the end of Reconstruction [Susan B. Anthony] protested the violence inflicted on blacks and was one of the few to urge full participation of blacks in the woman suffrage movement.”////

    Emphasis mine. Did you even notice the phrase “one of the few” in that statement?

    ///”1866: Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony form the American Equal Rights Association, an organization for white and black women and men dedicated to the goal of universal suffrage. ”
    “In 1866 Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony and Lucy Stone helped establish the American Equal Rights Association. The following year, the organisation became active in Kansas where Negro suffrage and woman suffrage were to be decided by popular vote. However, both ideas were rejected at the polls. ”
    “The American Equal Rights Association (AERA), dedicated to human rights, black suffrage, and woman suffrage, was formed in 1866.” ///

    1. The AERA was disbanded in 1869.

    2. “In 1869 Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony formed a new organisation, the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA). The organisation condemned the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments as blatant injustices to women. The NWSA also advocated easier divorce and an end to discrimination in employment and pay.”

    3. Another group, the American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA) was formed in the same year in Boston. Leading members of the AWSA included Lucy Stone and Julia Ward Howe. Less militant that the National Woman Suffrage Association, the AWSA was only concerned with obtaining the vote and did not campaign on other issues.

    4. After several years of negotiations, the AWSA and the NWSA merged in 1890 to form the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). The leaders of this new organisation include Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Mary Livermore, Carrie Chapman Catt, Olympia Brown, Amelia Bloomer, Frances Willard, Matilda Joslyn Gage and Anna Howard Shaw. Ironically the broadening of the movement for women’s suffrage was accompanied by a growing insensitivity to the rights of black women.

    5. However, black women were not shown the respect they deserved and although they had freedom of press and speech, they did not have the rights that white women had. Black women were poorly received in the suffrage movement. They shared much of the same plights as white women, but they were still not included in the arguments for suffrage. Because of this, black women had to create their own suffrage organizations, such as the National Association of Colored Women (NACW). This gave black women the opportunity to join together for reaching the goal of equal suffrage. Although these women were excluded out of the suffrage movement conducted by white women, they still took part in the effort to give women equal rights as men..

  127. snap crafter
    February 23rd, 2006 @ 4:33 pm

    What about homosexuality? If it was testable at birth would that be a reason for abortion?

  128. Lily
    February 23rd, 2006 @ 4:54 pm

    Snap: If that question was aimed at me, please see #98 and #124.

  129. SBW
    February 23rd, 2006 @ 5:34 pm

    ///snap crafter said: What about homosexuality? If it was testable at birth would that be a reason for abortion?///

    If this question is aimed at me then here is my answer: I am anti-abortion and I am against aborting babies that may be gay.

    However if a person is pro-choice and abortion is not illegal then a woman has every right to abort a baby that will be gay just like she can abort a child that will be shorter than she wants, or won’t have the right hair color, or because it will be the summertime in a few months and she doesn’t want to be fat in a swimsuit.

    As more information is found out about genetics, and if a gay gene is found, and if abortion is still legal, then aborting a child because you don’t want a gay kid would be a perfectly legitimate to abort under the current laws. Under current law, all reasons are legitimate and there are plenty of parents that would abort a child they knew would be gay.

  130. hermesten
    February 24th, 2006 @ 10:01 am

    Lily’s and SBW’s avowals that they would not support aborting genetically determined homosexual fetuses may both be true, though I suspect in Lily’s case, if someone like the Chimp told her it was a good thing because homosexuals are a threat to national security, she’d be all for it. But it doesn’t matter. The current crop of Christian leadership that counts politically are all firm advocates of the notion that the ends justify the means. If it becomes possible to test fetuses for homosexuality, this bunch will very rapidly develop a rationalization for why aborting such fetuses is not really abortion. Sort of like how killing native Americans was ok because unless they accepted Jesus Christ, they weren’t really people.

    If that happens, Lily, and people like her, will all be telling us that aborting a homosexual fetus is doing God’s work, and that since God condemned homosexuality in the Bible, He clearly did not intend for there to be homosexuals, and therefore, aborting one is not really abortion. If atheism was genetically determined, they’d take the same position on aborting atheists.

  131. Lily
    February 24th, 2006 @ 10:22 am

    A one note song is a tremedous bore. And so are you, hermesten.

  132. Viole
    February 24th, 2006 @ 11:09 am

    You’ll find, Lily, that one song can be just as boring.

    You’ll also find that deaf can hear neither, and find both pretty dull.

    I’d suggest you learn a new song, and have your hearing checked while you’re at it.

  133. hermesten
    February 24th, 2006 @ 11:23 am

    Lily: “A one note song is a tremedous bore. And so are you, hermesten.”

    Apparently that note really struck a chord.

  134. Lily
    February 24th, 2006 @ 11:56 am

    No chord was struck, it was merely plucked to death. A good thing you have Viole in your cheering section because nobody else responds to your boring diatribes. I waited as long as I could before bringing it to your attention. But, then, I have such nice manners.

  135. hermesten
    February 24th, 2006 @ 12:11 pm

    “A good thing you have Viole in your cheering section because nobody else responds to your boring diatribes.”

    It’s funny how you good Christians choose to insult other people when trying to insult your target. I guess that’s some good Christian collateral damage. But, in any case, your statement is clearly false, unless you consider yourself a “nobody,” since you were the first to respond to my first post on this thread.

    Methinks thou doth protesteth too much. Your actions belie your words. But since I’m not a Christian, and not a conservative, I don’t revel in the pain of others, and I can assure you that I take not the slightest satisfaction in your torment.

  136. Lily
    February 24th, 2006 @ 12:54 pm

    And now you are incoherent. I haven’t responded to any of your threads, since I drummed you out of the corps of interesting people, despite your many pleas for my attention. I haven’t responded to you on this thread either. I merely pointed out that you are a bore with your idiotic ramblings about bush/hitler aka “one note song”.

    You really are deranged. I bet you even check under the bed each night to see if Rove or Falwell might be hiding there. There isn’t enough tin foil on the planet to protect you from our machinations.

    You are doomed.

  137. Alfredo
    February 24th, 2006 @ 2:06 pm

    The classic response of the Christian right-wing twit who has no ability to repute an argument: attack the presenter.

    Thanks for staying true to form, Lily/Daphne’s Mom.

  138. hermesten
    February 24th, 2006 @ 3:22 pm

    “I haven’t responded to you on this thread either. ”

    Says Lily, as she addresses me directly Ha ha ha ha ha. Not as good as your unintentionally funny claim that the Catholic Church understands love “in all it’s dimensions” better than anyone else in the world, but funny nonetheless. Doesn’t mean much though, since it can be applied equally to every post you’ve made on every thread.

    Perhaps you should pray to Jesus for more self-discipline and self-restraint. That way, the next time something I say gets to you, you’ll be able to keep your mouth shut instead of advertising your torment. It will help you keep the refrigerator door closed too.

  139. Lily
    February 24th, 2006 @ 3:38 pm

    Ok, I was wrong. You aren’t a bore 100% of the time; you are a bore 99% of the time. 1% of the time you are hilarious. As in supposing that I responded to your comments which I ignored. There is no discussing (“responding” to) anything with you. You just go into full moonbat mode. That is a bore, as I pointed out.

    Too bad too. I remember when you were a person.

    Jim!! My one and only cyber love (Choobus was just a silly distraction. You understand, don’t you?) They finally let you out of the asylum after your relapse! I knew they couldn’t keep a spirit like yours under wraps.

    More’s the pity.

  140. PHLAF
    February 24th, 2006 @ 4:33 pm

    There would be no question at all about homosexuality if it weren’t for Christians. That it is absolutely likely that people would abort if a gay gene was discovered and could be tested for is the direct result of Christian and Catholic teaching on homosexuality.

    No matter how many times they try to make themselves sound like loving and concerned fellow human beings, the reality is that Christians and Catholics act as if homosexuals are something less than heterosexuals. The latest teaching out of Rome on homosexual candidates states as much – men who identify as gay are, in the Catholic church’s eyes, not capable of ministering to others, and are not capable of receiving “God’s grace” as much as their heterosexual counterparts.

    Not that the grace’o’god seems to do people much good when they supposedly do get some FedExed on over, or pick some up during the “sacraments”, but that’s another topic.

    Open your eyes and look around – actions always speak louder than words. Christians hate gays and Catholics would make aborting gay-gene-carrying fetuses the eight sacrament.

  141. Alfredo
    February 24th, 2006 @ 5:38 pm

    Lily:

    If herm’s such a moonbat, his positions should be easy to refute, no? Of course, you’re taking the same “less vicious, but no smarter, than Ann Coulter” tack you take whenever confronted with these arguments: the ad hominem argument. Of course, logic was never your strong suit.

    I’ve shared more than one slag with Choobus, darling, so I’m not offended in the least. My offer’s still open to see if you’ll tie me up and spray more of your rapier invective my way — the idea makes me rather hot.

  142. Lily
    February 24th, 2006 @ 6:02 pm

    You have been away too long, Alfredim. You missed the part where the big H stopped being interesting and started singing the same song over and over and over and over….

    I have no intention of discussing anything, debating anything or refuting him. I only pointed out what a bore he had become out of pity and, frankly, because he has continued to beg for my attention. I had to cast him off 2 months ago? 6 weeks ago? but he nevertheless continues to address me or talk about me.

    It is pathetic. He alienated the only person who actually talked to him (besides his echo chamber, Viole) and now there is no one who takes enough interest in his views to argue with him and get his blood flowing through his veins.

    Maybe you can play with him.

  143. Lily
    February 24th, 2006 @ 6:10 pm

    PHLAF: Have you considered consulting a doctor about your anger problem? It is leading you into saying the stupidest things– when they are not just plain barmy.

    Or maybe you just need to read a little history. But whatever it takes, chill. Your understanding of reality is really off-kilter.

  144. PHLAF
    February 25th, 2006 @ 7:41 am

    Lily….I was Catholic for over forty years…

    I’ve read PLENTY of history, both Catholic and secular….

    Since you’ve thrown that same statement in my face now (and have countered my comments with nothing but personal attacks), why don’t YOU point out where I’m historically wrong.

    Anger? I’m hardly angry. Hardly. Why do you people assume that anyone who doesn’t kiss your ass is angry? Is that the only way you can handle someone who has seen what your beliefs really boil down to and who now sees them as the pile of horse manure they are?

    Now, let’s see if you can come up with something besides a cheap personal attack, ‘k? Because every time you do that – every time you merely call names and act like a sixth grader instead of using facts to show where I’m wrong, you really sort of just prove all over again just how stupid, immature, arrogant and nasty religion makes people.

    If you don’t think the first people on the line to the abortion clinic would be Christians and Catholics were they to discover they were carrying a fetus “infected” with the gay gene, you’re brain dead.

    As it is, Christians and Catholics are aborting at the same rate as everyone else for things like societal pressure (brought about by, hello, CHRISTIANS!), financial problems and personal lifestyle choices. You don’t think that number wouldn’t double if they could find a Biblical reason to call their fetuses “disordered”?

    And I highly suggest you read up on the documents coming out of the Vatican in past months. You obviously haven’t. So don’t dare to tell me to “read some history”. How about you, Miss Catholic, reading up on what your church is telling you you’re supposed to believe whether you agree or not.

    Now you can tell me “I’m angry” and blow me off yet again, or you can put some actual information where that unattractive little mouth of yours is, missy. Ball’s in your court. Let’s see what you’re really made of.

  145. Lily
    February 25th, 2006 @ 10:03 am

    Gee, where could I have gotten the notion that you are angry from? Let’s see:

    1. Why do you people assume that anyone who doesn’t kiss your ass is angry? Is that the only way you can handle someone who has seen what your beliefs really boil down to and who now sees them as the pile of horse manure they are?

    Nope, no anger there. Now let’s see what information I can put there to refute this:

    I can’t think of anyone in the last 40 years who has kissed my ass. Yet I don’t think any one of them was particularly angry. I realize my proof is anecdotal, but it is hard to prove a negative.

    2. Because every time you do that – every time you merely call names and act like a sixth grader instead of using facts to show where I’m wrong, you really sort of just prove all over again just how stupid, immature, arrogant and nasty religion makes people.

    Hmmm. You have called me a lot of names but you haven’t shown me where I am wrong. I guess that proves how stupid, immature, arrogant and nasty atheism makes people.

    3. If you don’t think the first people on the line to the abortion clinic would be Christians and Catholics were they to discover they were carrying a fetus “infected” with the gay gene, you’re brain dead.

    Now this one is easier to refute. I don’t think Christians and Catholics would be ithe first in line to abort a gay child. I clearly can’t be brain dead because I can turn on my computer, find this website, read and respond to your calm, measured arguments. Do you accept that as sufficient proof? Or do I need to find more?

    4. I am not Catholic yet. But I think it is easy to see that I have read more Catholic documents in the last week than you have in your entire life. Unfortunately, since I will not put my resume on line, you will have to accept for the sake of argument that I am a medievalist by training, so I have a a serious background in the medieval theologians/philosophers and in the development of the Church through 1517.

    Let’s see. This week I reread the Cathecism. I read Deus est Caritas, I reread Fides et ratio.

    5. Christians and Catholics are aborting at the same rate as everyone else for things like societal pressure (brought about by, hello, CHRISTIANS!),

    Nonsense. No stats I have ever seen suggest that we abort at the same rate as everyone else. What is your source for this claim? What societal pressure is brought about by, hello, Christians? The pressure that comes from us is not to abort.

    Thus I conclude that you are angry and very careless with your facts.

    Gee, this was fun. Shall I parse another one of your gems?

  146. PHLAF
    February 25th, 2006 @ 10:28 am

    Lol!

    Wow. You sure are one unhappy little girl, aren’t you?

    I suggest you go to priestsforlife or afterabortion, two Catholic anti-abortion groups and ask them where Catholic/Christian women fall into the demographic of women who abort.

    You still haven’t given me a specific, documentable example refuting anything specific I’ve said.

    You’ve just called more names, acted like a pouty little brat again, and claimed you’re all kinds of things you can’t prove.

    Let’s start with this latest pathetic little claim of yours:

    >>it is easy to see that I have read more Catholic documents in the last week than you have in your entire life

  147. PHLAF
    February 25th, 2006 @ 10:31 am

    The pressure to abort comes from Christian and Catholic parents who drive their daughters to the abortion clinics themselves – with their prolife bumper stickers pasted on the backs of their cars, no less. The pressure comes from Christian and Catholic parents who say all sorts of horrible things about girls who get pregnant in front of their daughters so that when their daughters are in trouble, the last people they feel they can go to are their own Christian and Catholic parents. The pressure comes from Christian and Catholic parents who throw their daughters out of their houses – you know – because they’re emulating Christ, and all…. /rolleyes.

    You are one ignorant little girl, dear.

  148. Jody Tresidder
    February 25th, 2006 @ 12:06 pm

    SBW,
    Jeepers – can’t you just admit a simple error of fact?

    You wrote: “The early white feminists did not advocate for suffrage for all people.”

    This is not accurate. As I have shown.

    The moment you try to justify it, you wander off into general, defensive statements about the “respect” people “deserved”.

    No matter how strong your opinions are, you cannot airbrush away the documented facts that some early white feminists did indeed campaign for universal suffrage – white AND black.

  149. Lily
    February 25th, 2006 @ 1:50 pm

    PHLAF: You are still deluding yourself. You have made wild and quite mad generalizations and demanded that I refute them. Just exactly what would constitute proof? THis one makes me giggle:

    You’ve just called more names, acted like a pouty little brat again, and claimed you’re all kinds of things you can’t prove.

    Shall I post a picture of myself that shows me not pouting?

    This one shows that you are too emotional to actually read what I write:

    You’ve just called more names, acted like a pouty little brat again, and claimed you’re all kinds of things you can’t prove.

    This is in response to this statement:

    Unfortunately, since I will not put my resume on line, you will have to accept for the sake of argument that I am a medievalist by training, so I have a a serious background in the medieval theologians/philosophers and in the development of the Church through 1517.

    No proof other than that is possible. I am not going to open myself up to hate mail to gratify your wish to believe what you want.

    You are one ignorant little girl, dear.

    And you are one angry old woman. I am sorry your parents gave you a hard time when you came home pregnant. But you cannot generalize from your experience to a universal norm. You still have not cited one shred of evidence to show that Christians and Catholics girls are forced by their parents to abort as frequently as the rest of the population.

    And then tell me how the way you’ve treated me in this thread is showing me how I’m wrong about religion and the way Christians act.

    That is not my aim. My aim is to bring you to view your messages through the eyes of the reader who comes to them cold. They are angry, crass, full of wild overgeneralizations and unworthy of the bandwidth you wasted posting them. They are also unworthy of the amount of time I have wasted trying to bring your hysteria to your attention. I have failed and I accept that.

  150. PHLAF
    February 25th, 2006 @ 4:46 pm

    Umm…

    My parents what….??

    I got pregnant with my oldest child after I was married dear. Talk about making wild accusations!

    Gee, you get to state absolutely that you know for a fact that I got pregnant as a teen and that my parents gave me a hard time for it when nothing could be further from the truth, and then if I respond, I’m angry and crass….?

    You’re just nuts, honey. You’re completely looney.

    Bye!!!!!

    And this, folks, is what religious people do – they tell lies about other people and think it’s okay…uh-huh. Never mind that bit about bearing false witness in their bible…that doesn’t really count when they’re the ones doing the lying.

  151. PHLAF
    February 25th, 2006 @ 4:47 pm

    Lily, you are now telling out and out lies about me.

    I was never pregnant as an unmarried teen. I got married in my twenties and got pregnant with my first child then.

    That was a foul, disgusting thing to say.

    But then…you’re a Christian. What a surprise.

    You’re just crazy and sad, sweetie. Crazy and sad.

  152. SBW
    February 26th, 2006 @ 1:34 am

    Jody Tresidder said: SBW,
    Jeepers – can’t you just admit a simple error of fact?////

    Jody, when I am wrong then I readily admit it. In this case I have not been wrong and provided you with numerous quotes and books that prove what I have been saying.

    ////No matter how strong your opinions are, you cannot airbrush away the documented facts that some early white feminists did indeed campaign for universal suffrage – white AND black.////

    I love how you continue to make absolute claims {white women advocated for equality for all women} and then you make statements to qualify your position {note your use of the word “some” in the sentence above}. That “some” was not the majority. The majority was just as racist as their white male counterparts. When aligning themselves with black women suited them then that is what they did. When their interests were better advanced by disavowing any association with black women they took that course of action just as easily as any other. I’ve pointed out to you that even Stanton, who wasn’t as racist as Catt, was not above playing on the hatred of blacks when it suited her and the white womens suffrage movement. She sometimes encouraged black women but signed petitions publicly against black feminists. If you choose to gloss over the duplicitousness of women like Stanton and make excuses for the racist actions of other white women during that time then so be it.

  153. PHLAF
    February 26th, 2006 @ 7:32 am

    Lily,

    You dare to accuse me of making wild accusations when you lie and say I got pregnant when I was a teen and my parents gave me a hard time?

    I never got pregnant as a teen. I got pregnant for the first time when I was married.

    But I guess it’s okay to make up things about people, eh? Especially if you’re a “Christian”.

    You’re pretty damned sad.

    Why am I not surprised that you have to stoop that low? You’re a Christian, after all.

  154. Jody Tresidder
    February 26th, 2006 @ 4:45 pm

    SWB,
    It took you this long to throw the race card at me?

    Now I’m an apologist for racism?

    Okay, have it your way. Sure, the early white feminists were little more than a lynch mob in petticoats. Any quotes that appear to prove otherwise were just a self-serving smokescreen…etc etc. Satisfied?

    Frankly, it’s high school level separatist agit prop, SBW.

  155. Lily
    February 27th, 2006 @ 2:26 pm

    I shouldn’t bother to respond to PHLAF but an emotionally healthy person would have seen what I wrote for what it was–a challenge to be more rational. I gave a possible reason for the wild accusations such as

    The pressure comes from Christian and Catholic parents who say all sorts of horrible things about girls who get pregnant in front of their daughters so that when their daughters are in trouble, the last people they feel they can go to are their own Christian and Catholic parents. The pressure comes from Christian and Catholic parents who throw their daughters out of their houses – you know – because they’re because they’re emulating Christ, and all…. /rolleyes.

    Anyone who claims to know this as absolutely true and universally so is either delusional or speaking from her own experience. So, since PHLAF doesn’t have any experience of being forced to abort or thrown out of the house by her Christian parents, we are left to conclude that she is delusional.

    She needs to be talking to a psychiatrist not to a bunch of anonymous people on a blog.

  156. PHLAF
    February 28th, 2006 @ 6:12 am

    Lily, this is documented fact. Again, this is something discussed at AfterAbortion – a Christian prolife site, and one you should be familiar with if you are what you claim to be. Rational people do not assume that I speak from personal experience, especially people who claim to be educated. To then go on and accuse me of being delusional because your false assumptions about me didn’t turn out to be true is really quite unwell, dear. Quite unwell indeed.

    I’m not the one who needs to talk to a shrink. Your presence here speaks of your deeply unhealthy need to hammer away at people who don’t agree with you and never will.

    Every single word and action of yours here merely shows just how right I am that religious people are nuts. You claim to believe in this God and to believe that your actions and words here in this life determine your status in the next life, yet you continually act in a manner that flies in the face of the things you say you believe.

    Lily, all your “arguments” boil down to personal attacks. You’ve been given ample opportunity to quote from the massive amount of Catholic doctrine you claim to be familiar with, or the history you claim to hold a degree in.

    Yet you can only come back with cheap personal attacks and false assumptions.

    Now, you can take your claims that I’m crazy, your dishonest and completely unfounded claims about my life, and your sick need to argue for the sake of arguing and shove it.

    Nobody wants to play your nasty, ugly, cheap little game anymore, lady.

    And shouldn’t you be getting ready for Lent, you being so holy and all? Shouldn’t you be preparing to sacrifice and practice Christian charity and work on drawing closer to God and becoming more like Christ? Is this your example to the world? You say this isn’t your intent – that your intent is to show the world what an asshole I am, but I thought the duty of every Christian was to show the world the face of Christ not go around making him look like an asshole to everyone you meet…

    Whatever, girlie. I’m done with you. You’re dishonest and neither pleasant or interesting.

    Good luck with that Catholic thing – you’re gonna fit in just fine – there’s more than enough hate for you to revel in with that crowd – and they’ll actually like you for it. Why not hang with them for a while, eh?

  157. Lily
    February 28th, 2006 @ 7:18 am

    What on earth are you talking about, PHLAF? I can’t make my way through that hysterical rant and actually come up with something solid. I think you are claiming yet again that all Catholics/Christians are forced by their parents to abort at the same rate as the rest of Americans do which is as absurd as it is untrue. That some Catholics/Christians abort is, of course, true. Some do so under pressure from friends and families. Just as other girls do. If this is your point, after all that ranting and raving, all I can say is: So what?

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links