Vilification of the Victims [Archive]

Roadtoad

29th October 2003, 05:36 PM

After recently leaving the Christian Church, I began to wonder if I had made the right decision. Was I truly making a proper move, both for myself and for my family? Was I being wise in this, or was I setting myself up for further frustration and pain? Was I being selfish? Or was I thinking beyond myself in making this move?

And then I read this news story, and realized, I had no other options left.

For those who have forgotten, permit me to remind you of the story in question: Matthew Shepherd was a young college student in Wyoming who was brutally murdered by a pair of low lifes. As the final insult in this sickening crime, Shepherd was crucified on a barbed wire fence.

And now, we have this sick son of a bitch who says, "God is Happy," that this young man is dead. In fact, not only is God happy, but this SOB wants to plant a memorial plaque making note that Shepherd is "in Hell." He wants to do this in a park where there's already a plaque listing the Ten Commandments, a plaque which will likely be removed in part because of the uproar that this idiot "Pastor" is creating with his self-important posturing and self-aggrandisement.

There's no other way to describe what's happening here: This is just plain evil.

Matthew Shepherd was doing what college students have always done: he went out looking for a little fun at the end of the week. He went out to have a beer, and if things worked out, maybe he'd get lucky. I did it when I was in community college, and I'll bet you did the same thing when you were in school. The fact that he was gay is meaningless here, save for the fact that it became an aggravating circumstance in Shepherd's murder.

Let's remember one thing about this: based upon their own confessions, the two bastards that killed Shepherd were going to kill someone that night. Shepherd just happened to be handy. That he was gay somehow made it all right for those two losers to take his life. (I suppose if the victim had been a young white girl from some small midwestern town, who'd been a churchgoer all her life, this miserable, imbecilic excuse for a human being would be falling all over himself to build a monument to a "good Christian child who'd become a martyr for Christ.") Shepherd was in the wrong place at the wrong time, something which could have happened to just about anyone.

Do not misunderstand me: Shepherd should NOT have been killed. He did not deserve what happened to him. He was an innocent victim who, by all accounts, was an exemplary human being. I would have been proud to know this man, and I'm sorry that I never will. That these two animals were out, preying on innocent people, is something I will not understand. I keep thinking that someone, somewhere, had the means to stop this filth from infesting our nation's streets. That they were able to do this, that anyone would have left in any person's mind that this sort of barbarism against an innocent man was acceptable, either in the eyes of man or God, is beyond me.

But, then, we have this sick SOB who's bound and determined to honor the day an innocent man was "Condemned to Hell."

I remember well when Pope John Paul II condemned this nation as having "A Culture of Death." Those were strong words, but they were ultimately the kindest words the pontiff could use. Consider those word in light of what is being done in Wyoming, in the name of God and Man, and realize that this is being done under the auspices of the First Amendment. In short, we're getting our noses rubbed in this filth, and told too bad if we don't like it. He has a Constitutional Right to further humiliate the Shepherd family, to further their grief, to deepen their misery.

Of course, this is being described for his congregants in the most innocuous of Christian terms. This is a stern mercy, he's no doubt saying to his congregation of brainless dolts, all nodding their heads as this "Pastor" quotes chapter and verse, citing how God Hates Fags. The Lord demands HOLINESS, something Matthew Shepherd lacked, but this "Pastor" has in abundance, (though I would have believed that Mercy would have been a major component of Holiness, and Mercy is something this degenerate lacks). Yes, we must declare the Wonders of the Lord, and His Mercy, and His Wrath. (Wonder if this filth ever thought about the "double edged sword" that's hanging over his head as he spews his venom into the Topeka, KS community.)

This man is displaying the most egregious form of spiritual degeneracy that I've ever seen. He is dumping his filth not on Matt Shepherd, but on the already much abused survivors. That he wants to place a monument which will inflict further pain on the Shepherd Family, and their friends, is inexcuseable. And, frankly, I don't think the First Amendment covers something this evil.

Frankly, if this is what the Church has descended to, I'd sooner spend eternity in the company of Matthew Shepherd and share the man's bondage, rather than endure the misery of "Heaven" in this "Pastor's" neutered neanderthal god. If this is what God has become, then we are far, far better off without one.

Tez

29th October 2003, 05:50 PM

It is a nice and heartfelt post Roadtoad. I would only caution that evaluation of a belief system or philosophy is best not made solely by examination of its supposed proponents' actions. If some twisted person performs heinous acts in the name of atheism it would not alter my perspective on its correctness one whit....

Roadtoad

29th October 2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Tez
It is a nice and heartfelt post Roadtoad. I would only caution that evaluation of a belief system or philosophy is best not made solely by examination of its supposed proponents' actions. If some twisted person performs heinous acts in the name of atheism it would not alter my perspective on its correctness one whit....

Tez, my post is based upon over 20 years as a Christian. Believe me, you'd cringe at some of what I've seen.

jallenecs

29th October 2003, 08:25 PM

I've been Christian my entire life, raised up in the church. I've seen some of the terrible things that are done by people who call themselves Christians.

The question for you I think, is not "What sort of people are these Christians?" We already know what sort they are. The question should be, "What sort of people SHOULD they be?" They're not holding up their end of the deal, you know? Christ promised them eternal salvation, and they're supposed to be good people.

They're not doing that.

For your own crisis of faith -- if that is what you're having -- then I would say, "the idiots notwithstanding, does being a Christian make your life better? Does it make you a better person? Does it give you comfort?"

If it does, then go right ahead and be Christian, and show the people around you how a good Christian acts. Everybody is going to fail now and again (evidence my argument with TBK). Some people, like the man in the article, seem to fail more than they succeed.

But you do YOUR best, you take your comfort in the church that you want, and bear up. Your good example is a counter against the sons of bitches.

Gregor

30th October 2003, 06:35 AM

If it weren't so sociopathic, Phelps could be holding up a mirror to Xianity to show why it's core has some rotten tenets.

What impact would he have on Xianity if he were to hold a press conference next week and proclaim,

"You know, I became a non-christian in 1980, but I'm still a theist. I tried to talk people out of Xianity at that time, but no one would listen. So, I pretended to turn into a pseudo-super literalist to show people the errors in Xian doctrine. They didn't even seem to notice the irony.

Rubes.

I'm done."

Roadtoad

30th October 2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by jallenecs
I've been Christian my entire life, raised up in the church. I've seen some of the terrible things that are done by people who call themselves Christians.

The question for you I think, is not "What sort of people are these Christians?" We already know what sort they are. The question should be, "What sort of people SHOULD they be?" They're not holding up their end of the deal, you know? Christ promised them eternal salvation, and they're supposed to be good people.

They're not doing that.

For your own crisis of faith -- if that is what you're having -- then I would say, "the idiots notwithstanding, does being a Christian make your life better? Does it make you a better person? Does it give you comfort?"

If it does, then go right ahead and be Christian, and show the people around you how a good Christian acts. Everybody is going to fail now and again (evidence my argument with TBK). Some people, like the man in the article, seem to fail more than they succeed.

But you do YOUR best, you take your comfort in the church that you want, and bear up. Your good example is a counter against the sons of bitches.

I tried that. But let me tell you, when I keep hearing time and again that people like Matt Shepherd are damned to an eternity of misery simply because they sleep with people of the same sex, yeah, I have a crisis of faith. If that's the worst thing Shepherd ever did in his life, trust me, he does NOT deserve Hell.

There are far worse things that happen in people's lives than sleeping with "the wrong person." How about gossip, which destroys lives day in, day out. How about theft, which kills slow. (I could tell you tales of missing equipment, and what it's done to me out on the road!) How about even being covetous, which rots the heart and mind.

Sorry, I tried being the Good Christian, and tried being the Good Example. I was damned by my "bretheren" as being a backslider, and a liberal. F*** 'em if they can't take a joke. I'm finished with the bastards.

Roadtoad

30th October 2003, 07:41 PM

...and BTW, Gregor, you're right.

Should have said that earlier.

Cleopatra

31st October 2003, 02:15 AM

Hmmmmm

This post came to my attention because Boo nominated it for the language award.

I understand that your recent decision to leave your church has caused you stress and has put you into thoughts.

As Tez pointed out, you seem to dismiss a whole philosopical movement, a lifestyle that for millions of people in your country and in the world seems right, based on an extreme example and an extreme and offensive reaction.

I avoid the threads of the "new born atheists" but I have read yours. I am happy that you found what you were looking for or that you discovered what wasn't right for you but I have to be honest with you. I found your post utterly offensive.

Starrman

31st October 2003, 05:02 AM

He's putting his monument next to the ten commandments. Isn't one of the commandments 'thou shalt not kill'? Granted, Phelps didn't kill himself (as far as we know), but he is condoning a murder. I've never seen an asterik next to this commandment referencing a footnote that said 'except for homosexuals, killing them actually makes god happy.'

Cleopatra

31st October 2003, 10:05 AM

There is no doubt that what this little man wants to do is repulsive and maybe illegal. In the country I am this would be illegal but this wasn't my point.

My point is that those monsters would kill this young man whether they were Christians or not and the little man that wants to create the monument would be equally stupid and sub-human even if he wasn't a Christian.

It's not Religion that creates monsters, this was my point.

Some Friggin Guy

31st October 2003, 11:42 AM

Cleo, you're right. It is not always the religion that creates the monsters, but it is often the religion that empowers them. The "people" who will hate, will do it regardless, but religion gives them the license and tell them that they should hate.

Like RT, I am a reformed christian.

The fact is that while I have found different levels of the "monstrocity" within those practicing the faith, I found two types:

Those who follow the hate because they are like the others and those who believe in the good things of christianity, but don't follow the literal bible.

My own personal definition is the latter would be following the philosophies of Christ, while the former would be fundies. For that reason, I generally only refer to the latter as christians.

Like, RT, I grew tired of the hate, fear, and control practiced in "christianity". Since then, I have shaken off the faith. It was pretty easy for me, considering the church turned its back on me first, but that's another story.

Now I live in the heart of American fundamentalism. People like Fred Phelps are all to common here. That is a fact which frightens me more than you could probably imagine.

Babylon Sister

31st October 2003, 11:50 AM

The city counsel of Casper, Wyoming has voted unanimously to reject Fred Phelps' offer of a Mathew Shepard monument anywhere on city property.

Ruby

31st October 2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Roadtoad
[B]After recently leaving the Christian Church, I began to wonder if I had made the right decision. Was I truly making a proper move, both for myself and for my family? Was I being wise in this, or was I setting myself up for further frustration and pain? Was I being selfish? Or was I thinking beyond myself in making this move?

And then I read this news story, and realized, I had no other options left.

For those who have forgotten, permit me to remind you of the story in question: Matthew Shepherd was a young college student in Wyoming who was brutally murdered by a pair of low lifes. As the final insult in this sickening crime, Shepherd was crucified on a barbed wire fence.

And now, we have this sick son of a bitch who says, "God is Happy," that this young man is dead. In fact, not only is God happy, but this SOB wants to plant a memorial plaque making note that Shepherd is "in Hell." He wants to do this in a park where there's already a plaque listing the Ten Commandments, a plaque which will likely be removed in part because of the uproar that this idiot "Pastor" is creating with his self-important posturing and self-aggrandisement.

There's no other way to describe what's happening here: This is just plain evil.

I agree with you. It makes me sick to my stomach. I can't imagine someone being sane, let alone a caring and loving person to say "God is happy" that this young man is dead and "in hell". You have to be mentally unstable. He sounds dangerous.

I forgot that you too had left your church recently....more recently than me. It's tough going...but also wonderful. I am enjoying being free from Christianity. I hope you are doing well.

Roadtoad

31st October 2003, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Hmmmmm

This post came to my attention because Boo nominated it for the language award.

I understand that your recent decision to leave your church has caused you stress and has put you into thoughts.

As Tez pointed out, you seem to dismiss a whole philosopical movement, a lifestyle that for millions of people in your country and in the world seems right, based on an extreme example and an extreme and offensive reaction.

I avoid the threads of the "new born atheists" but I have read yours. I am happy that you found what you were looking for or that you discovered what wasn't right for you but I have to be honest with you. I found your post utterly offensive.

I'm sorry you found my post offensive, Cleo. But, let me offer you this to consider:

I have not rejected the genuine compassion of Christians in my community. I do reject, however, that which they try to pass off as compassion, which is nothing more than veiled xenophobia and hatred. I was once a part of that, having once been a lay minister and a Christian broadcaster. Part of my "conversion," if you will, was the contact I had with people that I had hurt. Add to that what I've previously discussed here, and I think you can understand that there were valid reasons for leaving.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but here in America, there's far too many examples of what you dismiss as "extreme." I assure you: Brother Phelps is being cheered in many churches in this nation for his "courage." Frankly, I think he's an offensive slug, and how dare he subject Matthew Shepherd's family to even more misery.

31st October 2003, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I avoid the threads of the "new born atheists" but I have read yours. I am happy that you found what you were looking for or that you discovered what wasn't right for you but I have to be honest with you. I found your post utterly offensive.

The truth often hurts.

Roadtoad

31st October 2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by jj

The truth often hurts.

Sometimes, it simply confuses.

Cleopatra

1st November 2003, 05:11 AM

I envy both jj and Roadtoad that are so positive about what the truth is.

The case of Matthew Shepherd was extensively reported and discussed in Greece.

You see, the local idiots thought that what caused Shepherd's murder wasn't Christianity and it wasn't the fact that he was a gay. The reason why the perpetrators commited such a crime is because they were Americans.

Yes. This was the perception of the local idiots who thought -like Phelps that they could use such a tragic event to promote their hatred. According to their logic American culture promotes and cultivates such crimes and the proof is that our country that resists still to the americanization doesn't experience such crimes and we doesn't have serial killers.

Of course many of us debated like crazy this racist idea, others by trying to ridicule it and others by trying to explain that the psychosythesis of certain killers is beyond cultural stereotypes.

As you see Phelpses exist around the world and they are equally scary.

You are wrong to believe that human cruelty is caused by a belief. Beliefs serve as excuses to the absurdity of crime.It's easier for a society to admit that somebody commits a crime because he is a Christian or a Muslim, it's the easy answer.

It's easier to say that we live in societies of bigot Christians than to admit that we live in societies of two legged animals.

I bet that in the States there are far more examples that belong to the extremes, as Roadtoad suggests for reasons we can discuss if you wish but as Babylon Sister demonstrated the majority of the American people resist to absurdity.

Roadtoad, do you think that the city council of Casper Wyoming is consisted by atheists?

What distinguishes Phelps is not his Faith in God but the distance his has put himself from the human species.

Chaos

1st November 2003, 08:24 AM

Cleopatra

Human cruelty can be caused by a belief. Religion gives people something that atheism cannot give them: the certainty that they are right. God is almighty. They hate homosexuals, so god must have made them hate homosexuals. God made them hate homosexuals, so he himself hates homosexuals. God hates homosexuals, so they are an abomination (sp?) before god. They are abominations, so they must be killed. They must be killed, so we must celebrate when they are killed.

Do you see the line of reasoning? No, I don´t believe this BS, but Phelps and other vermin like him do.

Disclaimer: religion itself does not cause hatred and murder. But it makes it very much easier to incite hatred and to preach murder.

You know history. Look back into time and judge for yourself: how many people would not have died violently if religion had never existed? How many would not have been killed by holy war, or burned at the stake as witches, or murdered by "pro life" terrorists attacking abortion clinics? How many would not have suffered because some priest told them their suffering would be rewarded in afterlife? Religious organizations have always caused death and suffering.

I have decided years ago that I would no longer be associated with any church, and I applaud anyone who has made the same decision.

1st November 2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I envy both jj and Roadtoad that are so positive about what the truth is.

Please be honest about my position in the future.

It's not just this case. You don't see the people on late-night TV, urging their followers to treat different believers as sub-human animals here.

I do.

Now don't do that again, or I will cheerfully expose your misleading rhetoric, and you won't like it.

Cleopatra

1st November 2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by jj

Please be honest about my position in the future.

It's not just this case. You don't see the people on late-night TV, urging their followers to treat different believers as sub-human animals here.

I do.

Now don't do that again, or I will cheerfully expose your misleading rhetoric, and you won't like it.

Is it a threat? Please do what you think you must do otherwise do me the favor to spare me the BS.

Those who watch those people on the night TV have always the option to switch the TV set off.

Yahzi

1st November 2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Of course, this is being described for his congregants in the most innocuous of Christian terms.
Phelps doesn't have congregants. He only has family.

His church consists of his children and their spouses. If you ever get a chance to read the accounts given by his kids that got away, you'd probably explode and die. I've never heard any allegations that he sexually abused his kids, but he did everything else. Physical violence, and emotional terror, were daily occurences. The adults that remain with him literally think he controls whether they go to Heaven or Hell.

This guy is addicted to hate. He is clearly sociopathic, and possibly schizoid. And he is evil.

Even I, the arch-atheist, wouldn't hold him up as an example of Christianity gone wrong. He's just a sicko.

Foodbunny's post was an example of Xians gone wrong. Phelps is just a psychopath. Like the Tony Kohe and the Lord's Resistance Army.

Yahzi

1st November 2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Gregor
They didn't even seem to notice the irony.

One of my favorite quotes: his adult daughter (now a lawyer, they all are), talking about how their hometown doesn't like the way they preach hatred against homosexuals.

"They'll give us the homosexuals: it's that God hates they can't accept."

She was correctly noting that her local fellow Christians weren't actually supporting gays, they simply disagreed about the theological point of God hating.

But of course, Phelps is doing a good job of making fence-sitters think about their attitudes towards gay. Nothing makes people support gay rights faster than an evening with Fred Phelps. A good look at the real implications of their position is always helpful.

Phelps used to demonstrate at gay clubs. He pretty much stopped, because all the gay club owners would start giving away drinks for a donation to gay causes as long as Fred was out there. They raised a lot of money.

Cleopatra

1st November 2003, 02:16 PM

Chaos

The notion that we would have less wars if we didn't have religions is rather simplistic.

As I said to my previous post religion offers a good cover or a good excuse to people that they'd find a way to demonstrate their anger anyway whether religions existed or not.

Also, you probably haven't read enough posts in this forum to notice that atheists have no doubt that they are right.

At the beginning of your post you said:

Disclaimer: religion itself does not cause hatred and murder. But it makes it very much easier to incite hatred and to preach murder.

and then

how many people would not have died violently if religion had never existed?

I think I see I contradiction here

Religious organizations have always caused death and suffering.

Like political organizations they have their share in creating extreme situations this is true but churches have given hope and psychological support to millions of people. Churches unlike the political organizations that don't last more than 100 years ( communism lasted only 50...) exist for more than 2000 years now and let us not get framed in Christianity; the religious phaenomenon goes back in History thousands of years before Christ.

So, don't reject those who chose to believe so easily and don't judge them by types like Phelps. Phelps is the exception and not the rule.

I have decided years ago that I would no longer be associated with any church, and I applaud anyone who has made the same decision.

Good for you, other people have either choose to believe or they haven't arrived yet to the point of maturity to question their beliefs.

Judging them having Phelps as measure is quite unfair.

Cleopatra

1st November 2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Judging them having Phelps as measure is quite unfair.

Just for the record I posted this simultaneously with Yahzi.

I am glad to discover that I was right. No, I didn't know who Phelps is but you don't really need to know info about this man's life in order to realize that he is marginal.

Finella

1st November 2003, 03:23 PM

Phelps is extremely marginal. He is therefore, by nature, going to be vociferous. He will do all he can to be obnoxious and confrontational in order to get his message across.

Therefore, don't mistake this for mainstream Christianity, which, by its nature, is going to be modest and underfunded and perhaps unsure how to respond to this.

I have been a Christian all my life, and remain quite active in my church. I have heard nothing but condemnation for what this man has done and is trying to do. Christian circles are large and varied, and therefore I do think trying to lump all Christianity with Phelps and his ilk is extreme in itself.

---,---'--{@

epepke

1st November 2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
My point is that those monsters would kill this young man whether they were Christians or not and the little man that wants to create the monument would be equally stupid and sub-human even if he wasn't a Christian.

It's not Religion that creates monsters, this was my point.

I would agree that religion doesn't create monsters. Well, maybe it creates some monsters, but maybe it also ameliorates some monsters as well. Hard to tell.

But what religion does do is provide a nice, ready-made framework according to which practically any sort of monstrous behavior can be justified as part of some Greater Morality.

This is not unique to religion; Stalin and Pol Pot managed it as well. But doing this apart from religion at least takes some effort and political power to achieve. With religion, at least the Abrahamic religions and probably some others, all one has to do is look through a book for an afternoon to find some passages.

And a reminder: the monsters at issue here are not the ones who killed Matthew Shepherd but the ones who desecrate anything connected with his memory, all totally convinced that they are doing The Lord's Work.

If this post is offensive to you, so be it.

1st November 2003, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Is it a threat? Please do what you think you must do otherwise do me the favor to spare me the BS.

That is just as offensive, "Cleopatra".

I require that you fully and completely retract your suggestion that my comment was anything other than a statement that you misrepresented my position (you appear to have misrepresented others,) and that I will point out your misleading arguments if you don't stop them. .

Retract!

Characterizing my comment as a "threat" is dishonest and inflamatory, just as your characterization of my statement as knowing "positive ... truth" was misleading, and just as your offense at RoadToad's original statement was uncalled for

Out of curiousity, are you Christian? Your behavior would not seem to reflect that, but you seem offended by honest charaterizations of what many pass off as "Christianity" in the USA at this time. In short, your position is puzzling, appears inconsistant, and is very offensive in itself.

Those who watch those people on the night TV have always the option to switch the TV set off.

This is related to the subject at hand in exactly what fashion? Are you denying the substance of what the VISIBLE "religious" elements in the USA look like? Are you denying their influence? Are you suggesting that they are not responsible for the results of their influence?

Please be specific, so that instead of dealing with misunderstandings, we can approach your issues head-on.

the_ignored

1st November 2003, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

Phelps doesn't have congregants. He only has family.

His church consists of his children and their spouses. If you ever get a chance to read the accounts given by his kids that got away, you'd probably explode and die. I've never heard any allegations that he sexually abused his kids, but he did everything else. Physical violence, and emotional terror, were daily occurences. The adults that remain with him literally think he controls whether they go to Heaven or Hell.

This guy is addicted to hate. He is clearly sociopathic, and possibly schizoid. And he is evil.

Even I, the arch-atheist, wouldn't hold him up as an example of Christianity gone wrong. He's just a sicko.

Foodbunny's post was an example of Xians gone wrong. Phelps is just a psychopath. Like the Tony Kohe and the Lord's Resistance Army.

I posted an aritcle like the one at the start of this thread in the RR board; it had the councilwoman complaining that their having the 10 commandments monument there opened the door for Phelps' monument to be put.

That post seems to be gone now, the bastards!

Roadtoad

1st November 2003, 06:08 PM

You know, it is true that belief systems do not cause genocide, or war. But it is their abuse which does.

I'm sorry if this offends, and that there are Christians who have taken this system of belief and taken it to the extreme end. I'm sorry that in doing so, there are those who have died. Tragically, there have also been millions who have died from the end result of militant atheism as well, as we've seen in China, the USSR, and other Marxist nations. Sadly, this seems to be a major component of human nature.

Recognizing this to be the case, then, (and no, I don't believe for a moment that all the members of the Caspar, Wyoming city council are atheists), why would you allow into your system of governance anything which can skew and subvert civil order in your community? Religion has, tragically, become the tool of choice for the moment among demagogues and whackjobs. (Trust me, there have been other tools used by these in the past.) Why would you allow it to become further perverted? There was a reason that St. Augustine insisted on separation of Church and State. Perhaps we ought to listen to the ancient Bishop of Hippo.

I do not oppose religion. It worked for me for a number of years, until I began to demand deeper answers. When what I got was the same pablum which was given to the newbies, I began to realize that there was a problem, and I needed to go outside the church to find answers. The Bible does not claim to answer all; man is the only one who's that stupid.

Funny thing, though, the more I looked, the more I realized that the Church had no answers at all. Surprise, surprise.

sorgoth

1st November 2003, 08:19 PM

"Never does a man commit evil so thoroughly and cheerfully as when he does it in the name of religion."

Dorian Gray

1st November 2003, 11:32 PM

I avoid the threads of the "new born atheists" but I have read yours. I am happy that you found what you were looking for or that you discovered what wasn't right for you but I have to be honest with you. I found your post utterly offensive. If it was the only example, you'd have a case. But it isn't. Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Jim Jones, Falwell blaming abortionists and gays for 9/11, Robertson calling for nuking the State Department, Holocaust, I mean come on. You live in a bubble.

The notion that we would have less wars if we didn't have religions is rather simplistic. And true. People hide behind religion and use it as an excuse for oppressing another person or group of people. It is often true that religious people meet a person, get along with them and get a friendship going, and then when they find out that person is an atheist or has other beliefs, they are immediately turned off and cease to be friends with them.

Churches unlike the political organizations that don't last more than 100 years ( communism lasted only 50...) exist for more than 2000 years now and let us not get framed in Christianity; the religious phaenomenon goes back in History thousands of years before Christ. Churches lasting 2000 years only means that religions have killed more people than all other institutions combined.

I would now like you to sit back and savor the irony that a simple negative comment has elicited such a knee-jerk reaction in you, Cleopatra, that all your posts have actually proven the point that religion causes conflict.

Cleopatra

2nd November 2003, 12:38 AM

jj

You have to be joking.

Even if I did misinterpret your comment you didn't react by pointing to me when the misinterpretation from my part was BUT you asked me not to repeat it in the future otherwise you will expose my misleading rhetoric and I won't like that.

Here is the exact quote( bold face mine):

Please be honest about my position in the future.

It's not just this case. You don't see the people on late-night TV, urging their followers to treat different believers as sub-human animals here.

I do.

Now don't do that again, or I will cheerfully expose your misleading rhetoric, and you won't like it.

Now, this is a threat and you will have to rephrase it. I am not your student to address to me in that way.

You had the option to show me the misinterpretation but you chose to play the smart instead.

Cleopatra

2nd November 2003, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
If it was the only example, you'd have a case. But it isn't. Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Jim Jones, Falwell blaming abortionists and gays for 9/11, Robertson calling for nuking the State Department, Holocaust, I mean come on. You live in a bubble.

You put it the same bag the Holocaust ( what the Holocaust has to do with religion anyway?), Phelps, the Spanish Inquisition etc etc etc.

Do you seriously think that the attrocities that the Spanish Inquisition performed wouldn't occur if Catholicism didn't exist. Do you seriously believe that the Jews were expelled from Spain because they didn't want to convert? Do you think that the Holocaust wouldn't happen if religion didn't exist?

Do you believe that the Trojan War ( a real historical event) happened because of the Helen of Troy then?

And true. People hide behind religion and use it as an excuse for oppressing another person or group of people. It is often true that religious people meet a person, get along with them and get a friendship going, and then when they find out that person is an atheist or has other beliefs, they are immediately turned off and cease to be friends with them.

I don't see where you disagree with me since you accept that religion is the excuse and not the real cause. Wars and social upheavals are caused by many factors , mainly social and economic ones, wars are not caused by religions, religions might serve as an excuse.

You have to distinguish the excuse and the cause! They are different things.

es lasting 2000 years only means that religions have killed more people than all other institutions combined.

No, it means that for 2000 years religions have something to offer to those they follow them. Name me a religious war that took place in USA the last century. Name one. If you don't find any , you will need another argument to justify the percentage of people that believe in Religions in USA.

I would now like you to sit back and savor the irony that a simple negative comment has elicited such a knee-jerk reaction in you, Cleopatra, that all your posts have actually proven the point that religion causes conflict.

My posts and I was happy to see that you agree with me on that, suggest that religion does not cause conflicts but religion is used as an excuse to maintain hatred and to justify conflicts.

Criticizing types like Phelps is one thing but if you believe that generalizations like that will passed unchallenged you have found the wrong person.

Maybe some of you need to pick up the extremes and project them to the majority, as if religion doesn't offer us many many examples and opportunities to criticize it severely.

In another thread where we were debating whether doctors have the right to have religious beliefs while they exercise their duty none of you jumped in to post your comments against the dangerous nature of Religion, a danger that it is real and not displayed on TV.

You find a guy like Phelps and you see it as an opportunity to criticize the obvious!

Generalizing types like Phelps offers very little.

Oh no! I forgot it can offer you a language award.

Chaos

2nd November 2003, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by Roadtoad
You know, it is true that belief systems do not cause genocide, or war. But it is their abuse which does.

Did it occur to anyone else that this is almost exactly the same argument many people have for gun control?

Cleopatra

Let us take a look at some of the things that were caused by...well, perhaps not by religion in itself, but by religious organizations for (supposedly) religious reasons.

Would the crusades have happened if the person who called for them had only been a minor Italien nobleman? Would the goal of conquering some relatively inhospitable (compared to western Europe), faraway land have rallied so many people?

Would there have been so many witch burnings if there had only been two obscure scholars writing a little-known treatise about witches?

How many people would have been killed by a non-religious Inquisition for contradicting the words of a line of minor Italian nobles?

Would Arab terrorists really be so fierce and stage suicide bombings if they did not think that paradise awaits them? Would people like Osama bin Laden have attracted so many followers by a political agenda alone? Would purely secular "preachers" in Arab nations be able to incite such hatred against the western world?

Would Mr. Phelps have been cut so much slack (i.e. not been imprisoned or at least fined) if his message was "I hate fags!"?

I don´t say all the world´s problems would disappear if there was no religion. But they would definitely be less severe.

2nd November 2003, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You had the option to show me the misinterpretation but you chose to play the smart instead.

Try again. You're not exactly impressing me here.

Your original attack was unjustified, and misrepresented what I said. Your second attack, using the word "threat" was likewise a misrepresentation of what I said.

Do you have anything to say about what my actual position might be?

How about my question regarding responsibility? (Not yours) Is there a reason you won't reply to substance here?

2nd November 2003, 03:57 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Maybe some of you need to pick up the extremes and project them to the majority, as if religion doesn't offer us many many examples and opportunities to criticize it severely.

Really, now. You do, then, watch what the most visible preachers in the USA at present preach, and you know that this guy is that much more extreme?

He is extreme, make no mistake about that, but once again you misrepresent what's actually been said in order to prove your own suborned point.

Why?

Cleopatra

2nd November 2003, 04:54 AM

jj

You must not expect me to take seriously a person like you, especially after I read what you said to Lord Kenneth in this post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870169483)

Are you a preacher or anything?

Did you actually post a position in this thread apart from mentioning what you watch on TV in the late-hours?

Cleopatra

2nd November 2003, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by Chaos

I don´t say all the world´s problems would disappear if there was no religion. But they would definitely be less severe.

The phaenomenon of Religion is really really old Chaos. It's so old that it can makes us believe that up to a point it was inherent to human's nature but even if we don't agree with that, religion is a human's invention.

If Human nature was different then I believe that maybe we would have less problems. If human nature was different then we would have either invented a different religion or we wouldn't have invented religion at all.

Don't judge religion by Phelps and don't try to project Phelps to the majority.

Those who don't believe in Religions don't need Phelps to justify why they don't believe in God and in Religions!!!

tamiO

2nd November 2003, 05:10 AM

Cleopatra

You say you visited New York City? Is that all of the U.S. that you experienced?

My kids tell me that even small towns "up there" are a whole different world from where I am in the States. You really should visit the different regions that are more rural, if you haven't, to get a better feel for the hold Fundamentalist Christians have on those populations.

Excuse me if you have been exposed to the Deep South or the Midwest, etc.

Cleopatra

2nd November 2003, 05:17 AM

Tami I have visited many cities, I know NY though. I have no doubt, no doubt at all that things are the way some people describe them here but it was obvious and I was confirmed by Yahzi that the person in question--Phelps-- is a well known extremist.

My objection to Roadtoad's post was that people like Phelps shouldn't be used to judge the average Christian or to be used as an argument by those that have chosen not to believe.

Do you want me to believe that the smashing majority of Americans that believe in God and in Religions are followers of the extremists? Are the 96 or 98% of the Americans fundamentalists?

tamiO

2nd November 2003, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

My objection to Roadtoad's post was that people like Phelps shouldn't be used to judge the average Christian or to be used as an argument by those that have chosen not to believe.

Do you want me to believe that the smashing majority of Americans that believe in God and in Religions are followers of the extremists? Are the 96 or 98% of the Americans fundamentalists?

I agree, "people like Phelps shouldn't be used to judge the average Christian."

I am just saying that the national ratio averages don't mean that every town in the US reflects the national average in their own local ratios. There are pockets of entire towns here and there in our more rural areas that are silently supportive of Phelps' basic ideas, even if they don't agree with his extremism.

In such places, you will not hear them express these views unless they feel you are one of them. I survive here by keeping my mouth shut and being vague about my own beliefs. I don't speak out, because my silent support allows me to hear the secret hatred they carry for many groups of people.

So the Northeast part of our country is not very evangelistic compared to the Deep South where most everyone is a Baptist.

It makes me sad to watch the channels they watch and hear the messages they preach in our local churches and the way they talk in email. These are decent people with some mixed up beliefs. It's because it is how they were raised and how their grandparents and so on. Religion is very seductive. I even lost my own brother to a Christian church cult. If you knew him, you would never, ever have guessed he would have gone that direction.

The people that tell you about the late night TV have lived what you are trying to understand about Christianity in the U.S.

Those that have "chosen not to believe", use Phelps as an argument because he is an extreme representation of the basic wacky fundamentalist Christian; brainwashed by church services their whole lives and scared for their (and your) very soul to burn in hell for eternity.

Yahzi

2nd November 2003, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by epepke
I would agree that religion doesn't create monsters.
As I've said, Phelps really doesn't discredit religion. He's just a psycho. Religion has plenty of its own actual monsters to condemn it (the RC Church, AIDS, and condoms springs to mind).

However, Epepke has a strong point. Phelp's madness is enabled by religion. And while Finella claims that Christians in general abhor Phelps, it is instructive to note who shows up for counter-demonstrations. It's not Christians. It's homosexuals.

Roadtoad

2nd November 2003, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

As I've said, Phelps really doesn't discredit religion. He's just a psycho. Religion has plenty of its own actual monsters to condemn it (the RC Church, AIDS, and condoms springs to mind).

However, Epepke has a strong point. Phelp's madness is enabled by religion. And while Finella claims that Christians in general abhor Phelps, it is instructive to note who shows up for counter-demonstrations. It's not Christians. It's homosexuals.

I'll add this: Consider that people like Phelps tend to drag the whole of Christianity down towards his level. It will tend to (not always) drag the greater part of the mean to a new low. I don't know if this is because the cretins feel they are now allowed to speak out, or if there are weak-minded individuals who now, somehow, feel that in order to be one of the Chosen, they now must participate in the gay bashing. Neither is good.

This reminds me of that disease, David Duke, and his decision to run for Governor of Louisiana as a Republican. Sickening as it was that he was able to run at all, (and worse, that the election was as close as it was), what made it even worse is that he somehow gave racism a cover, that he somehow made it seem just a little more respectable. That the Republicans sat back and allowed it to happen, with little more than (oddly enough) Rush Limbaugh speaking out against the SOB was even more disgusting.

I'll join Yahzi in asking: when Phelps speaks, where are the Christians? Why, in light of this blatant evil, are they silent? There's not one excuse for it.

Marc

2nd November 2003, 05:58 PM

I'd say there is one good thing about Rev. Phelps. You know where he stands, and his bigotry is right out in the open for everyone to see clearly. It shows it for what it is. Better than the Fallwells or Robersons of the world who probably feel just the same, but keep enough sense to not speak openly about it and damage the good-guy image they try to promote.

The disgustingness of these demonstrations might even go to help more reasonable folks to question the purpose or appropriateness of various anti-gay political stances.

Roadtoad

2nd November 2003, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Marc
I'd say there is one good thing about Rev. Phelps. You know where he stands, and his bigotry is right out in the open for everyone to see clearly. It shows it for what it is. Better than the Fallwells or Robersons of the world who probably feel just the same, but keep enough sense to not speak openly about it and damage the good-guy image they try to promote.

The disgustingness of these demonstrations might even go to help more reasonable folks to question the purpose or appropriateness of various anti-gay political stances.

Sorry, Marc, but the most polite thing I can say is, "Baloney."

Far too many people are unwilling to challenge bastards like Phelps, mainly because they've been brainwashed into believing their word is infallible.

I say, it's about time we changed that.

2nd November 2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
jj

You must not expect me to take seriously a person like you, especially after I read what you said to Lord Kenneth in this post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870169483)

You have two choices. Either explain in detail, expressing your exact and testable evidence, why I might not have the experience to say what I said to Kenneth, which I think is good, sensible, and clear-headed advice, or explain why there is a single, solitary thing wrong with what I said to him.

Are you a preacher or anything?

As you, if you've read anything I've written to speak of here, are quite aware, I'm nothing of the sort. As you are quite able to push the 'www' button at the bottom of my posts with your mouse, you have no excuse, other than negligence, to ask such a question.

In short, your statement is most likely said knowing that I'm not, and further that I dislike such creatures, and is most likely an intentional, deliberate, and telling insult.

I require you to explain if you are guilty here of negligence, or if you intentionally attempted to be insulting. I don't think I'm guilty of the excluded middle here, because if you've done any research on who you're asking, you know that the question is both uncalled for as well as profoundly insulting. If you haven't done any research, you're negligent by definition.

Did you actually post a position in this thread apart from mentioning what you watch on TV in the late-hours?

Again,you show a misleading, judgemental mis-summarization of my words, this time implying something (watching late-night TV, implying that I have "no life" so to speak) that is again deliberately offensive, and further intended to diminish my stature on this board, if not further.

It seems to me that you are clearly an intentionally insulting troll, and a clear, obvious "jerk".

It seems that you at least appear to be conciously insulting, and that furthermore you reliably misrepresent others statements for your own infamous rhetorical ends.

Sorry, Cleo, but you're caught here. Your methods are exposed to the air, and frankly I apologize to others for the stench that's caused.

epepke

2nd November 2003, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Sorry, Marc, but the most polite thing I can say is, "Baloney."

Marc is right. Phelps clarifies the issue. And when a lot more Christians challenge him rather than just saying, "No fair! You can't judge meeeeeeee!" then I'll have more respect for them

Far too many people are unwilling to challenge bastards like Phelps, mainly because they've been brainwashed into believing their word is infallible.

I say, it's about time we changed that.

Go for it, then.

evildave

2nd November 2003, 09:35 PM

I dunno. I think the one granite monument would go perfectly next to the other.

Finella

3rd November 2003, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by Roadtoad

Sorry, Marc, but the most polite thing I can say is, "Baloney."

Far too many people are unwilling to challenge bastards like Phelps, mainly because they've been brainwashed into believing their word is infallible.

I say, it's about time we changed that.

People have been challenging him for years, Roadtoad.

www.godlovesfags.com (http://www.godlovesfags.com)

Fred Phelps expose (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/michael_haggerty/expose3.htm)

That should get you started.
---,---'--{@

Roadtoad

3rd November 2003, 06:55 PM

I'll go with that, Finella, but I'm referring to people within the church, as opposed to outside. Perhaps if those within the church were to challenge this sort of filth, maybe we'd see less of it.

I'm not just referring to Phelps, mind you, but also to average Catholics who saw abuses but kept silent. (Don't want to piss of Jesus, and maybe lose our place in Heaven. Right?) Ditto average Lutherans, Episcopalians, Baptists, etc... Maybe if people would have spoken up, maybe there might have been less reason to challenge the faith. As it is, it seems pretty empty when there's no social justice to go with the holiness demanded.

Loki

4th November 2003, 12:59 PM

RoadToad,

(Nice opening post, by the way)

Maybe if people would have spoken up, maybe there might have been less reason to challenge the faith.
Two problems here :

1. Many churchgoers prefer to be "lead".

For many many people, faith/religion/church is about "being told" rather than "thinking it through". Morality and ethics can be complex subjects, and it's a lot easier to just turn up somewhere and have the answers given to you. Giving yourself to a church means (a) a supply of ready answers and (b) an external (ie, no personal liability) justification for those answers. That's an appealing deal for many people - the hard questions answered, guaranteed correct, and no effort required.

2. Church self preservation

For 2000 years the christian model has been "human questions are here, the answers are there, and the church/priesthood/bible is the courier". In this model, questioning the courier is *not* encouraged. If christians are openly encouraged to question the delivery mechanism, the delivery mechanism essentially becomes optional.

In short, a church structure that demands its members question it will eventually find itself relegated to no more than an advisory role (at best).

Corey

4th November 2003, 01:21 PM

I've heard of this previously (The Herald is a local newspaper in my area actually) and my reaction is still the same. I can't understand why people feel the need to do things like this. I understand the mindset of standing up for your beliefs and trying to spread your moral views to other you think are "wrong", but why anyone chooses to take this approach really baffles me. Skeptics try to bebunk and disuade believers at times and it comes down to the old "does the end justify the means?". I am a "reformed" christian as a lot of other people have stated (more accurately briefly christian in my life, not raised as such and not now) and one of the reasons that prompted my leaving it was the attitude of some of its practitioners and leaders of showing and encouraging malice towards those who aren't in line with their lifestyle or beliefs, as well as to those who leave (not necessarily even the religion as a whole) their church.

Not all christians are like Phelps, I know that. There are many kind, loving christians who try to do what they think is "right" and respect other people even if they are different...there are such people who are muslims, hindus, buddhists, atheists, agnostics. The bottom line is there are leaders and followers and negative and positive varieties of both in ALL types of people.

I say all that to soften the blow to other christians and theists when I say Fred Phelps is a real waste of skin and I think the world would be that much better off if he dropped of the face of the planet. I don't hate every christian, I try to judge people on their merit...and Phelps rates about a -10.

Finella

4th November 2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I'll go with that, Finella, but I'm referring to people within the church, as opposed to outside. Perhaps if those within the church were to challenge this sort of filth, maybe we'd see less of it.

I'm not just referring to Phelps, mind you, but also to average Catholics who saw abuses but kept silent. (Don't want to piss of Jesus, and maybe lose our place in Heaven. Right?) Ditto average Lutherans, Episcopalians, Baptists, etc... Maybe if people would have spoken up, maybe there might have been less reason to challenge the faith. As it is, it seems pretty empty when there's no social justice to go with the holiness demanded.

And you think those sites are from people outside the church? Not one of those people are from within?

Look, again, Phelps is so Christian fringe. When you say "church", I'm not sure if you mean Christianity on the whole, within Phelps' particular denomination (that is, if he's even a member of one), or just his particular congregation. Christianity on the whole would not at all identify with Phelps and would rather puke him up onto a back alley where drunkards can piss on him at night. As to those on his end of the fringe, hey, they're gonna do what they want to do with him. To equate him Phelps with all Christianity is just like the Chick tract describing how little Muslim boys are all being brought up to "Light up the Sky" with their holy bombs strapped to them. The faith is far too broad to be labeled in such a way.

As to your second paragraph, this is an issue far too big for this thread. You're accusing four major denominations in their entirety of willful neglect of traumatized congregants, a pretty massive statement. I suggest you back that up with some hard data (remember, you're saying "average" members of entire denominations here willfully covered this up). I find that such a statement is terribly unfounded.

---,---'--{@

Finella

4th November 2003, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Loki
RoadToad,

(Nice opening post, by the way)

Two problems here :

1. Many churchgoers prefer to be "lead".

For many many people, faith/religion/church is about "being told" rather than "thinking it through". Morality and ethics can be complex subjects, and it's a lot easier to just turn up somewhere and have the answers given to you. Giving yourself to a church means (a) a supply of ready answers and (b) an external (ie, no personal liability) justification for those answers. That's an appealing deal for many people - the hard questions answered, guaranteed correct, and no effort required.

Keep that statement open, there, Loki. I would not attend a church that did not allow me to ask these tough questions. Many churches actively encourage it. I don't deny many Christians like being led down life's path, but I believe that is a very basic stage of spiritual development (obviously a child-like one, and naturally appropriate for children) but it is not an adult stage.

In short, a church structure that demands its members question it will eventually find itself relegated to no more than an advisory role (at best).
Those churces bent on control will of course adopt this approach, just as parents who want ultimate control of their children will insist on unquestioning obedience. Some churches foster spiritual development beyond pure obedience. Which makes me wonder if this is where the Anglican/Episcopal church is today -- as you say, it does not at all see itself as the source of all dogma (it never had one), but has always welcomed a diversity of opinion -- therefore its theology and morality have been more "advisory" than Law. Those who would rather see a church with more "parental controls" are the ones forcing a schism.

---,---'--{@

Loki

4th November 2003, 06:50 PM

Finella,

NIce to see you again!
I would not attend a church that did not allow me to ask these tough questions.
Not surprised to hear you say this, and I'm sure it's a view held by millions of christians like yourself.

...but I believe that is a very basic stage of spiritual development (obviously a child-like one, and naturally appropriate for children) but it is not an adult stage.
Would you agree that 900 million Catholics are in this "child like" state? 700 million Muslims?

Those who would rather see a church with more "parental controls" are the ones forcing a schism.

And once you are a 'adult' (not requiring "parental controls") what purpose does the chruch orbanisatoin serve other than as a "coordinating body" for local meetings?

Dancing David

4th November 2003, 06:50 PM

This is sad, that the name ofJeshua the Nazarene should be dragged in the mud by this high level kook.

It is not a religous monument that comapres to the Ten Comandments it is a personal condemnation of a single individuals life style and praise for the killers.

Phelps is a kook, and I am sorry for all the christians who get mired by him, because that is the face of the church people are going to remember.

I hope that at his next rally the counter protestors are joined by the right thinking christiosn.

Lets us remeber Neimurs warning,

"and when they came for me , there was no one left to speak for me."

We must all condemn this kook loudly and repeatedly.

Roadtoad

4th November 2003, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by Finella

And you think those sites are from people outside the church? Not one of those people are from within?

Look, again, Phelps is so Christian fringe. When you say "church", I'm not sure if you mean Christianity on the whole, within Phelps' particular denomination (that is, if he's even a member of one), or just his particular congregation. Christianity on the whole would not at all identify with Phelps and would rather puke him up onto a back alley where drunkards can piss on him at night. As to those on his end of the fringe, hey, they're gonna do what they want to do with him. To equate him Phelps with all Christianity is just like the Chick tract describing how little Muslim boys are all being brought up to "Light up the Sky" with their holy bombs strapped to them. The faith is far too broad to be labeled in such a way.

As to your second paragraph, this is an issue far too big for this thread. You're accusing four major denominations in their entirety of willful neglect of traumatized congregants, a pretty massive statement. I suggest you back that up with some hard data (remember, you're saying "average" members of entire denominations here willfully covered this up). I find that such a statement is terribly unfounded.

---,---'--{@

Okay, one at a time:

(1.) Yes, there are some from within the church who are part of those sites. What I'm referring to is that the Churches in this nation are relatively silent (yes, I know this is a modification) when it comes to guys like Phelps. But bear in mind my own background on this, too: I worked in Christian radio for several years. If anything, these sites are going to be attacked by evangelicals (note the lower case), and they'll defend Phelps because "he's one of ours." Sorry, I would tend to disagree, but then, that was one of the things that got me FIRED from my job in Christian radio.

(2.) I could tell incredible stories about people like Phelps. And these are not what you would expect: these are from Baptist churches, these are from Nazarene churches, these are from a whole host of mainline, Christian churches within this nation.

Here's one this discussion brought to mind: We used to have a "Bible Answer" type session with a local church and its pastor. Ordinarily, these are people you would expect to keep fairly straight. Ask a question, get an answer, next caller, please.

Not this one night. (I think it was around 1986.) One of the answer panel, Bernard was his name, declared that he had received a prophecy from GOD!!! And right there, on the air, he declared that God was taking babies via SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, for those of you fortunate enough never to have encountered it), because those babies were not loved by their mothers.

The Pastor actually DEFENDED this idiot. (First of all, I defy you to show me in the Bible where that holds water, and second, I'll be damned, even if it were true, if I'll ever allow that sort of filth to be heard by women and men who have lost children in any way shape or form.)

I could tell you about the calls that came in afterwards. But I think you can figure out what it was like from there. You don't need me to tell you, Finella, about the egregious pain that Bernard caused in the Sacramento area that night.

(3.) You're right. My final graf was probably overreaching. I stand corrected.

Yahzi

4th November 2003, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Consider that people like Phelps tend to drag the whole of Christianity down towards his level.
One of the most interesting things I have ever read was an account of the Bosnian war by a journalist. He spent some time on the front line with the soldiers. He noted that most of the men were happy to just sit in their bunkers and smoke cigarettes, but there were always one or two who would creep out and shoot at the enemy for fun, thus causing the enemy to shoot back, thus causing everyone to have to leave the bunker and start fighting. The officers loved these few troublemakers; the troops hated them.

The ultimate point was that even a bunch of hardened genocidal rapist soldiers would probably never actually do anything without the leadership and example of a tiny handful.

Makes you think about Phelps in a new light, eh?

athon

4th November 2003, 11:22 PM

I often wonder where I should stand up, and where I should shut up. Such decisions are never easy to make on the best of times, let alone on the spot.

When I was doing my pre-service teaching in a small country town called 'Laidley', I happened to be placed with a maths teacher who was a fundemental Christian. I found this out day one, when I happened to make a remark about a question on evolution.

I dealt with her anti-science teaching by biting my tongue (afterall, I wanted to pass my practicum). Her ignorance was ignored, her hypocracy I turned a blind eye to. However the last week of the pre-service was the worst.

A student confided in her that her brother's chemotherapy wasn't going so well. This teacher said she would prayer harder for the boy, but he would do better to leave hospital, for only believing in God would cure him. 'God only allows heathens to suffer,' she said.

I still remember that phrase and the look on the poor girl's face. I felt like crying for her. I so wanted to run after her when she walked home and tell her how wrong the teacher was. I didn't, and while I know why I didn't, I still regret the fact. I was livid, and I said as much that afternoon.

The bitch had the gall to follow her wisdom up with such trite as 'AIDS was God's answer to homosexuals.'

'Babies can get AIDS too, as can heterosexuals who get bad blood transfusions. Does God want that too?'

'If only gays got AIDS, then nobody would care,' she said.

So God kills babies to bring our attention to the fact He hates poofters???

I told her if this was God, if He was a vindictive, arrogant deity who damned His own creations for choices He allowed them to make, then I'm glad I'm going to Hell, for I would sooner exist in eternal torture than spend five seconds before a monster like that!'

I actually said that, expecting to speak with my placement officer that afternoon and get a new school, in spite of it meaning I would have to redo the entire five weeks elsewhere. I never did - all the arrogant woman said in reply was 'I hope it doesn't take you forty years to allow Jesus into you heart, Michael.'

I passed my practicum, and now I'm a teacher. And I'm now bent on making up for that one time I didn't support that poor girl who felt her brother was not only going to die of cancer, but would be sent to Hell as a heathen also.

Athon

Finella

5th November 2003, 03:21 PM

Roadtoad,

I have a confession to make (bless me, friend..., etc.). When I'm driving late at night, trying to stay awake, I tune into the most obnoxious Christian radio station I can. I've listened to the most unbelievable drivel, some of it exploitative and some the most unethical, immoral stuff just like you describe. I absolutely believe you and I'm sure I cannot begin to understand all the crap that gets sent out on the airwaves. I've often wondered why there wasn't a more liberal or even more moderate Christian media outlet to compete with this crap. The only conclusion I can think of is that Christians with less conservative, less nasty convictions are too nice to make a radio show proclaiming their more tolerant belief systems. I mean, by even creating such a thing they might be implying that their way is actually the only way to salvation, so they'd rather not go there. Maybe this is the whole problem with the lack of massive, organized Christian rejection of Phelps that you're looking for.

Oh, and Nazarenes are whacked. I have heard some bizarre stories about that denomination.

Originally posted by Roadtoad

(3.) You're right. My final graf was probably overreaching. I stand corrected.

::nods::

---,---'--{@

Finella

6th November 2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Loki
Finella,

NIce to see you again! And you, too!

Would you agree that 900 million Catholics are in this "child like" state? 700 million Muslims?
If those numbers are the total number of people who say they are members of those faiths, then of course not. First, you are comparing apples and oranges; Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity. Islam is an entirely different faith system, an umbrella under which there are many different denominations of its core tenets. Secondly, again, as these particular faiths are quite large, there is going to be an enormous amount of diversity within them. Some Catholics, sure, want religion to be their "parental control." Same goes for any denomination, for that matter -- even in the Episcopal church or the Quaker church, or any nonchristian faith as well. I would tend to say that, generally, the more "fundamentalist" the church, the earlier the stage of spiritual development, the more need for hard and fast, black and white rules. But some Catholics are far beyond that stage, as are some Muslims. One cannot generalize about such large groups like that.
And once you are a 'adult' (not requiring "parental controls") what purpose does the chruch orbanisatoin serve other than as a "coordinating body" for local meetings?
A difficult and good question, and we may be skipping some stages here. The next stage would likely be the testing the limits of the faith time, questioning and allowing congregants to explore other faiths, or argue against a faith. As they do so, the church demonstrates its presence without imposition, allowing exploration without judgment. For those who remain after this period, the church is a place that welcomes continued exploration with perhaps a deeper, less literal, expression of that faith. It continues to serve as a container for faith expression, so it's more meaningful than just being a "coordinating body". It's also a place to seek support and acceptance, as well as to be yourself. Now, I'm speaking of the role of the church, not so much what exactly it teaches as this stage -- that's something I'm not to decide, naturally.
But this is based on my own experience, mostly. :)
---,---'--{@

ASRomatifoso

6th November 2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
There is no doubt that what this little man wants to do is repulsive and maybe illegal. In the country I am this would be illegal but this wasn't my point.

My point is that those monsters would kill this young man whether they were Christians or not and the little man that wants to create the monument would be equally stupid and sub-human even if he wasn't a Christian.

It's not Religion that creates monsters, this was my point.

I guess I could agree that religion doesn't create monsters; however many monsters seem to gravitate towards it. For all the good religion has done, it has done an equal amount of bad, in my opinion. Science, while certainly the root of some evil, mostly through incomprehension of other factors or misuse has given us far more concrete and better things than religion. Of course, science has given us nuclear weapons, poisoning of the planet, and pretty soon, maybe the ability to clone people, so I cannot endorse it unequivocally:D