Religious TV Host Convicted Of Soliciting Teen Sex

[shemp]

Jury Finds Man Guilty Of Using Internet To Entice Minors (http://www.thewmurchannel.com/news/2063077/detail.html)

A New Hampshire man who once hosted a Christian television program was convicted Tuesday of using the Internet to try to arrange sexual encounters with four Maine teenagers.

[neutrino_cannon]

http://www.thewmurchannel.com/news/1434768/detail.html


Earlier details from the begining of the saga. Interesting that they described him as fringe.

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/crime/2002/new_gravenhorst_arrest_2002.shtml

Gah! Nevermind, it's not an earlier story from the same saga, this guy is a repeat sicko!

[fishbob]

Religious TV Host Convicted Of Soliciting Teen Sex Correct me if I am wrong, but don't RTV Hosts always eventually wind up soliciting teen sex?

[evildave]

Nah. Some of them are caught embezzling the money that "Jee-zuss" wanted, or raiding their charities, or general fraud and stealing of other sorts.

O' course, there's all the fun of Jimmy Swaggart, Jimmy Bakker, and the pedophile priests.

Naturally, they're not "real" Christians.

"Real Christians" apparently don't get caught.

[Crossbow]

It figures!

Even the exposed Peter Popoff and his wife (bonus points if you know Pete and his wife were exposed!) have doing religious infomercials for months which shows that they are getting at least some public support.

Ugh! Where is Marvin the Martian and his PU-238 Explosive Space Modulator when you need him?

[Dub]

People who still believe in Popoff prove how desperate some people are to believe.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Crossbow
It figures!

Even the exposed Peter Popoff and his wife (bonus points if you know Pete and his wife were exposed!) have doing religious infomercials for months which shows that they are getting at least some public support.

Ugh! Where is Marvin the Martian and his PU-238 Explosive Space Modulator when you need him?

Bob Tilton exposed him as a fraud right!!!!

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Crossbow
It figures!

Even the exposed Peter Popoff and his wife (bonus points if you know Pete and his wife were exposed!) have doing religious infomercials for months which shows that they are getting at least some public support.

Ugh! Where is Marvin the Martian and his PU-238 Explosive Space Modulator when you need him?

Being disintegrated makes me very angry.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


Bob Tilton exposed him as a fraud right!!!!

Sorry US, no ice cream for you.

Take a gander at the below when you get a chance.

http://www.randi.org/jr/03-30-2001.html

A reader sends in a response that he received from Peter Popoff, the televangelist I [James Randi] exposed as a faker rather thoroughly on TV some years back. As usual, PP is avoiding the tough answers and inventing facts to try explaining his tumble that resulted from my exposure of his high-tech tricks. ...

[Christian]

Evildave wrote:
Naturally, they're not "real" Christians.

"Real Christians" apparently don't get caught.

I am offended by your remarks. I am a real Christian and I'm just posting to let you know in no uncertain terms that your remark is irresponsible and dangerous.

[Loki]

Christian,

I am a real Christian ...
Sorry, but apparently you areen't a real Christian (hate to break the news to you so suddenly).

Check ]here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11756)

THe rapture has been and gone, and you're still here. Guess you just *thought* you were following the rules.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Christian
Evildave wrote:
Naturally, they're not "real" Christians.

"Real Christians" apparently don't get caught.

I am offended by your remarks. I am a real Christian and I'm just posting to let you know in no uncertain terms that your remark is irresponsible and dangerous.

Damned if I can think of what is "dangerous" about it? Can you elaborate....

And while we're at it I find your sig personally offensive.

[Christian]

The Fool wrote:
Damned if I can think of what is "dangerous" about it? Can you elaborate....

Pedophilia is a crimminal offense. Saying the real Christians are pedophiles smart enough not to get caught is dangerous because you equating the criminal behaviour with the person who propheses (spelling???) that regilion.

And while we're at it I find your sig personally offensive.

You can find many things offensive, even my presence on this board. My comment is a direct attention to Evildave that he stop comments like these.

[kittynh]

well chris, just like you have the right to post whatever you want, and no one should tell you not to...
so can the others post what they want.
If you are going to appoint yourself the person who makes sure you warn people about their anti jesus postings, boy have you given yourself a BIG job! Plus, which group are you representing? Catholics? Evangelical? Swedenborgian? (I love the Swedanborgians...no seriously, they are cool and I will call them Christian with a big C)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Christian
The Fool wrote:
Damned if I can think of what is "dangerous" about it? Can you elaborate....

Pedophilia is a crimminal offense. Saying the real Christians are pedophiles smart enough not to get caught is dangerous because you equating the criminal behaviour with the person who propheses (spelling???) that regilion.

And while we're at it I find your sig personally offensive.

You can find many things offensive, even my presence on this board. My comment is a direct attention to Evildave that he stop comments like these.
well thats honestly not how I read Evildaves comment. The Fact is these people use thier "Christianity" as some sort of moral medal, as if they are immune from the behaviours of "ordinary" people....when thier criminal activities are shown to be no different from any one else the suddenly become "not true christians" Christian churches have used this time and again to shirk thier responsibilities. When child abuse is found to be endemic in certain Christian institutions it IS a problem that the church needs to accept responsibility for....not something they can just blame transfer onto "non true christian" individuals...

and I still can't figure what is "dangerous" about Evildaves statement.

[Christian]

Kittynh wrote:
well chris, just like you have the right to post whatever you want, and no one should tell you not to...so can the others post what they want.

I don't have the right to post whatever I want, nor does Evildave.

If you are going to appoint yourself the person who makes sure you warn people about their anti jesus postings, boy have you given yourself a BIG job!

I'm warning him that it is improper to call me a pedophile and that this board is moderated.

Plus, which group are you representing? Catholics? Evangelical? Swedenborgian? (I love the Swedanborgians...no seriously, they are cool and I will call them Christian with a big C)

It is irrelevant what kind of Christian I am, if someone hypothetically said all US citizens are murderers, it is irrelevant if some of them are African Americans.

The Fool wrote:
well thats honestly not how I read Evildaves comment. The Fact is these people use thier "Christianity" as some sort of moral medal, as if they are immune from the behaviours of "ordinary" people....when thier criminal activities are shown to be no different from any one else the suddenly become "not true christians" Christian churches have used this time and again to shirk thier responsibilities.When child abuse is found to be endemic in certain Christian institutions it IS a problem that the church needs to accept responsibility for....not something they can just blame transfer onto "non true christian" individuals...


Point well taken, that in no way excuses generalisations.

and I still can't figure what is "dangerous" about Evildaves statement.

It is a trend. First a joke here and there about Christian. Then that escalates until one poster decides that he can come out and state that Christians are pedophiles. (this is exactly what has happened in the JREF. Lately, the complete lack of respect for other's beliefs is evident, (particularly Christian's)

Where does it stop? I have been a regular poster here for some time now, I find that comment to be way out of line. If I don't object, and call to a stop to that sort of comment, the danger is that others will perceive this to be true (just like your broad generalisation)

And please follow the reasoning. all Christians are pedophiles, let's be mindful of them or let's report those on the internet (we might prevent them from targeting children there)

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Christian
The Fool wrote:

And while we're at it I find your sig personally offensive.

You can find many things offensive, even my presence on this board. My comment is a direct attention to Evildave that he stop comments like these.

Christian, the Fool was making a joke about this. Look at your sig and look at his User ID.

[Christian]

Ipecac wrote:
Christian, the Fool was making a joke about this. Look at your sig and look at his User ID.

Yes, I understand that. Please note that I'm trying to make a strong point here. I'm sorry if at this particular moment I have lost my sense of humor.


But, I appreciate your observation not to take things so seriously.

[evildave]

Cry me a river, Christian.

All statements are potentially "irresponsible" since there is always someone who is foolhardy enough to misinterpret them badly enough as Christian does, and then go so far as to act on their presumptions.

"It's a nice day out.", when interpreted through the offend-o-matic: "Christian must pop a fuse!"

But hey! Zero in on the pedophiles, and disregard the charity robbing and skirt chasing of the guys who preach "abstinance" and pretend to live according to the highest of moral standards. Way to defend the bad televangelists by making it "all about the catholics" again. Good diversion.

[Christian]

Evildave wrote:
Cry me a river, Christian.

All statements are potentially "irresponsible" since there is always someone who is foolhardy enough to misinterpret them badly enough as Christian does, and then go so far as to act on their presumptions.

"It's a nice day out.", when interpreted through the offend-o-matic: "Christian must pop a fuse!"

But hey! Zero in on the pedophiles, and disregard the charity robbing and skirt chasing of the guys who preach "abstinance" and pretend to live according to the highest of moral standards. Way to defend the bad televangelists by making it "all about the catholics" again. Good diversion.

Retraction accepted.

[evildave]

With logical thinking like that, is it any wonder when believers believe, even after the tenth "doomsday" prediction comes and goes?

Is it any wonder the televangelists who get caught literally with their pants down AND their hands in the till at the same time still have followers?

[Smalso]

by christian:
I am a real Christian

Prove it.

[neutrino_cannon]

I suppose it's unfair to treat christians as one homogenous group. That does seem to bring up the issue of finger pointing (only Catholics are pedophiles) among the various sects.

[evildave]

Well, except for the pedophiles who beling to other sects. Perhaps it's just a kind of "safe sects" that some of them desire.

Either Christians are homogenous (i.e. "Christianity is the #1 religion!"), or we treat it as many discreet faiths, then the Catholic Church is still #1, followed up by other stuff, and we find that most of the other Christian faiths fall well below the Jehova's Witnesses in numbers!

http://www.adherents.com/adh_rb.html#International

Catholic Church** 1,050,000,000
Sunni Islam* 900,000,000
Eastern Orthodox Church* 225,000,000
Jinja Honcho* 83,000,000
Anglican Communion* 73,000,000
Ethiopian Orthodox Church 35,000,000
Assemblies of God* 32,000,000
Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (EKD)* 27,400,000
Sikhism 23,000,000
Juche (North Korea) 19,000,000
Jehovah's Witnesses** 15,374,986
Southern Baptist Convention* 15,000,000
United Methodist Church* 11,708,887
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 11,394,522
Seventh-day Adventist Church 11,300,000
Soka Gakkai 11,000,000
New Apostolic Church 10,260,000
Veerashaivas (Lingayats) 10,000,000
Coptic Orthodox 10,000,000
Ahmadiyya 10,000,000

So, keep dividing yourselves up. Get those Catholic numbers down and soon we'll have Islam as the #1 faith!

[Smalso]

Interesting numbers. I notice that the Methodists, Mormons and SDA are pretty much equal in numbers as are the Southern Baptists and Jehovah's Witlesses. I wouldn't have thunk it.

[Christian]

Evildave wrote:
With logical thinking like that, is it any wonder when believers believe, even after the tenth "doomsday" prediction comes and goes?

Is it any wonder the televangelists who get caught literally with their pants down AND their hands in the till at the same time still have followers?

Now I understand, this is how you pump up your self-esteem. I can only imagine the resentment and hate you must feel. Hey, if this is the only place you can vent, be my guest.

Nonetheless, even if you don't like it, calling all Christians pedophiles is irresponsible and dangerous. So again, I ask you not to do it.

Smalso wrote:
Prove it.

You mean a birth certificate or membership card? :D

[evildave]

No, Christian. It's simply the truth, and it's fun, and if it hurts you, that's only too bad, but perhaps you should reconsider your positions on the matter of blindly defending every rascal in the world, only because they're "A Christian".

Or do the "faithful" thing and stop your ears and shout bible quotes to drown it out.

There are plenty of good people in the world who are not Christians. There are plenty of bad people who are very Christian. The inverse in both cases is also true.

The hypocrisy of those who claim to be the highest representatives of morality (to the point that NONE OTHER could be) who get caught doing ugly, secret things is lots of fun.

[Christian]

Evildave wrote:
No, Christian. It's simply the truth, and it's fun, and if it hurts you, that's only too bad, but perhaps you should reconsider your positions on the matter of blindly defending every rascal in the world, only because they're "A Christian".

Your smoke screen is evident. Grasping at straws here does not fix anything.

No sir, Christians are not pedophiles. And it is not fun. If you find it fun to insult this way, this is your shortcoming.

There are plenty of good people in the world who are not Christians. There are plenty of bad people who are very Christian. The inverse in both cases is also true.

I agree. What I don't agree is your generalisation of Christians. You have insulted me personally and undeservingly so. Now, have the decency to admit you misspoke, instead of giving all this nonsense arguments.

The hypocrisy of those who claim to be the highest representatives of morality (to the point that NONE OTHER could be) who get caught doing ugly, secret things is lots of fun.

As I've said, stop erecting strawmen.

[tamiO]

No sir, Christians are not pedophiles.

Can a pedophile be Christian?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Even the exposed Peter Popoff and his wife (bonus points if you know Pete and his wife were exposed!) have doing religious infomercials for months which shows that they are getting at least some public support.
The Popoff exposure was magnificent. The BBC even did a short piece on it at the time, with Randi and Co. featuring prominently. Magnificent stuff!

[evildave]

Originally posted by Christian

Your smoke screen is evident. Grasping at straws here does not fix anything.

No sir, Christians are not pedophiles. And it is not fun. If you find it fun to insult this way, this is your shortcoming.

I agree. What I don't agree is your generalisation of Christians. You have insulted me personally and undeservingly so. Now, have the decency to admit you misspoke, instead of giving all this nonsense arguments.

As I've said, stop erecting strawmen.

Bah. Please explain why you believe I have claimed that all Christians are pedophiles. Talk about "constructing strawmen".

You do strengthen a Christian stereotype by being a hypocrite.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by tamiO
Can a pedophile be Christian?
Yes. But watch the theists on the board use the "No true Scotman" logical fallacy to try weaselling out of their "superior morality" ethical conundrum...

[Smalso]

You mean a birth certificate or membership card?

How about by obeying the precepts of the one who supposedly founded your sect and humbly and meekly apologizing to those in this Forum you have offended by your mean and contentious spirit? I'll go out on a limb and predict that, should you do so, most of the atheists here will do the "Christian" thing and accept your apology and forgive you.

[Christian]

TamiO wrote:
Can a pedophile be Christian?

Yes.

Evidave wrote:
Bah. Please explain why you believe I have claimed that all Christians are pedophiles. Talk about "constructing strawmen".

Fishbob:
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't RTV Hosts always eventually wind up soliciting teen sex?

You:
Nah. Some of them are caught embezzling the money that "Jee-zuss" wanted, or raiding their charities, or general fraud and stealing of other sorts.

O' course, there's all the fun of Jimmy Swaggart, Jimmy Bakker, and the pedophile priests.

Naturally, they're not "real" Christians.

"Real Christians" apparently don't get caught.

Can you offer an alternate explanation to my understanding that there are only two types of Christians those that get caught and those that don't.

Kimpatsu wrote:
Yes. But watch the theists on the board use the "No true Scotman" logical fallacy to try weaselling out of their "superior morality" ethical conundrum...

It amazes me that to claim one is not a pedophile constitutes "superior morality". That is scary.

Smalso wrote:
How about by obeying the precepts of the one who supposedly founded your sect and humbly and meekly apologizing to those in this Forum you have offended by your mean and contentious spirit?

My mean an contentious spirit? So, I suppose you rather have me be silent and let the party of insults continue. I should say "Yes, all the church authorities are either thieves and/or pedophiles."

I will not back down from this offenses.

I'll go out on a limb and predict that, should you do so, most of the atheists here will do the "Christian" thing and accept your apology and forgive you.

I will not apologize to you or anybody else for defending or holding my beliefs.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Not to falsely align myself with the Christians, but it's a damn shame to see a nice focused theist bashing thread degenerate into a generalized theist bashing thread. :(

[tamiO]

"Real Christians" apparently don't get caught.

Hi Christian,

If I may, I would like to explain something about what EvilDave was getting at. I cannot be sure this is what he meant (I am relying on my psychic powers here:))

It has been common that every time a prominent Christian has been caught doing anything very immoral, the Christians I know personally explain to me that "he (the person caught) wasn't a true Christian, because true Christians don't do that sort of thing.

So it seems that you are a Christian first, but if you backslide and get caught doing something immoral, the masses claim you are not a Christian.

You can see where I am going here.

Sometimes I wonder if the Christian faith's prediction that they will be persecuted in the end times doesn't tend to make Christians see persecution where it is not; jumping at shadows, if you will.

To me you are making a mountain out of a molehill. There are far too many sites that make this board look like a tea party. I think you would be far more effective in your cause to concentrate on them with your libelous claims.

Hope this helps!:)

[Christian]

TamiO wrote:
Hi Christian,

If I may, I would like to explain something about what EvilDave was getting at. I cannot be sure this is what he meant (I am relying on my psychic powers here)

It has been common that every time a prominent Christian has been caught doing anything very immoral, the Christians I know personally explain to me that "he (the person caught) wasn't a true Christian, because true Christians don't do that sort of thing.

So it seems that you are a Christian first, but if you backslide and get caught doing something immoral, the masses claim you are not a Christian.

You can see where I am going here.

I know exactly what you are saying. And that is the problem, your anecdotal evidence make generalizations and conclusions that are incorrect.

It is interesting that only focus on one part of the comment and not the one I'm aluding to.

Sometimes I wonder if the Christian faith's prediction that they will be persecuted in the end times doesn't tend to make Christians see persecution where it is not; jumping at shadows, if you will.

Oh, I'm paranoid to interpret those remarks as insults to a community which I'm a member. I see.

To me you are making a mountain out of a molehill. There are far too many sites that make this board look like a tea party. I think you would be far more effective in your cause to concentrate on them with your libelous claims.

Hope this helps!

You are missing the point. This is a site that promotes critical thinking and that embraces people of all creeds. My speaking out is necessary to maintain that level.

And I assure you, I'm being quite effective at it.

[Smalso]

Smalso wrote:
How about by obeying the precepts of the one who supposedly founded your sect and humbly and meekly apologizing to those in this Forum you have offended by your mean and contentious spirit?

My mean an contentious spirit? So, I suppose you rather have me be silent and let the party of insults continue. I should say "Yes, all the church authorities are either thieves and/or pedophiles."

I will not back down from this offenses.

I'll go out on a limb and predict that, should you do so, most of the atheists here will do the "Christian" thing and accept your apology and forgive you.

I will not apologize to you or anybody else for defending or holding my beliefs.

That's about what I figured. I guess the meek inheriting the earth thing has been repealed.

[Mercutio]

In my neck of the woods, every few years some hunter mistakenly shoots a cow, a swan, or a woman wearing white mittens that look like a deer's tail. When the papers report this, there is an inevitable backlash by hunters claiming that "this was not a hunter--hunters make sure of their targets, this was some yahoo with a gun." Seems to me very similar to this thread. If I bend over backwards not to tar all the hunters with the same brush (and admittedly the vast majority of hunters are much more safety-conscious than these yahoos), I run the risk of trivializing the actions of those very dangerous few. The hunters around here have taken the position that it is in their best interest to educate their number, to reduce the number of cows, swans, and women who get shot. Not because all hunters do it, but because it is a real problem, and because they can help their own reputations.

Should Xians complain about false stereotypes, or work to make it crystal clear that these incidents are less likely to happen in the future?

[Christian]

Mercutio wrote:
In my neck of the woods, every few years some hunter mistakenly shoots a cow, a swan, or a woman wearing white mittens that look like a deer's tail. When the papers report this, there is an inevitable backlash by hunters claiming that "this was not a hunter--hunters make sure of their targets, this was some yahoo with a gun." Seems to me very similar to this thread. If I bend over backwards not to tar all the hunters with the same brush (and admittedly the vast majority of hunters are much more safety-conscious than these yahoos), I run the risk of trivializing the actions of those very dangerous few. The hunters around here have taken the position that it is in their best interest to educate their number, to reduce the number of cows, swans, and women who get shot. Not because all hunters do it, but because it is a real problem, and because they can help their own reputations.

Following your analogy, it is the position of many in here that, based on this incident, hunting should be banned altogether.

Should Xians complain about false stereotypes, or work to make it crystal clear that these incidents are less likely to happen in the future?

Should someone who has never beaten his wife respond to "do you still beat your wife"?

You demonstrate a clear example why this type of attacks is irresponsible and dangerous. Pedophilia has nothing to do with whether you are a Christian or not. They are not linked in any way.

These people are winning the battle if, by pointing out notorious Christian people and their deviations, they can equate their behavior with the religion. This is clearly the attempt.

It is a phallacy and the most dangeous kind, precisely because, we find ourselves defending absurd positions we don't hold in the first place.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Christian
…snip…

These people are winning the battle if, by pointing out notorious Christian people and their deviations, they can equate their behavior with the religion. This is clearly the attempt.

It is a phallacy and the most dangeous kind, precisely because, we find ourselves defending absurd positions we don't hold in the first place.


Christian I agree the equating of a whole group by the action of some of that group can be inappropriate. We know there is no or I should say, as far as I am aware, group that claims to be “Christian” that supports paedophilia.

It appears some words were said that you consider an insult to “your” group, and I agree I wouldn’t like someone to say “He was an atheist and a paedophile so all atheists are paedophiles”. (Although I have to say I didn't interpret the "insult" the same way as you did.)

Perhaps a direct question to the non-Christian posters here will help clear the air? I.e.

"Do you believe all Christians are paedophiles?"

If this is answered (as I believe it will be) will that be the end of the matter for you?

[Christian]

Darat wrote:
Christian I agree the equating of a whole group by the action of some of that group can be inappropriate. We know there is no or I should say, as far as I am aware, group that claims to be “Christian” that supports paedophilia.

I'm glad we can agree on this.

It appears some words were said that you consider an insult to “your” group, and I agree I wouldn’t like someone to say “He was an atheist and a paedophile so all atheists are paedophiles”. (Although I have to say I didn't interpret the "insult" the same way as you did.)

At least you can understand the insult could be interpreted how I did and this is also good.

If this is answered (as I believe it will be) will that be the end of the matter for you?

If what you mean to say is that, the poster will say he didn't mean that but simply meant to point out particular individual who happened to be Christians are pedophiles, sure.

Sadly, I think that wont happen. To my understanding, the theme is that because people who are Christians, because they are Christian, are prone to be or are active pedophiles.

[Loki]

Christian,

Given the fact that you've started an entire thread in Banter dedicated to just this issue, I doubt there's much I can say that will clear the air - but here goes anyway.

It was a joke, throw-away one liner by EvilDave. As Darat says, it's *possible* to read the comment as saying "all christians are paedophiles". Yet, when you put this, EvilDave himself asks "how did you come to that conclusion?" This seems to indicate that :

(a) Everyone except you read it the way EvilDave meant it - as a 'poke in the ribs', not as a intellectual discussion of christian sexual behaviour
(b) The author, EvilDave, has clearly indicated he meant nothing serious by it.

Why persist with this? You've simply misunderstood the nature and intention of a comment, and have created something which just doesn't exist.

I *know* you think this is just one small part of a bigger issue - that Christians are stereotyped negatively on the JREF. You'd be right, I think. Can I just say that dogmatically insisting on finding "libel/insults" where none were intended, then requesting an apology, then asking for legal advice on how to deal with this does nothing to improve the christian stereotype.

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
Why persist with this? You've simply misunderstood the nature and intention of a comment, and have created something which simpy doesn't exist.

I have not persisted, I have clearly pointed out my objection to his comment and have answered question or comments directed at me. As I am doing right now with you.

I *know* you think this is just one small part of a bigger issue - that Christians are stereotyped negatively on the JREF. You'd be right, I think.

Evidently.

Can I just say that dogmatically insisting on finding "libel/insults" where none were intended, then requesting an apology, then asking for legal advice on how to deal with this does nothing to improve the christian stereotype.

Well, this is the problem Loki, you are very effective in understanding exactly what a poster meant with dubious comments but, you completely missinterprete me even though I make myself absolutely clear.

And this is exactly the bias I also point out.

1) I did not ask for legal advice
2) I did not consider his insults to be libel.

I asked two distinct questions and had a hard time getting straight answers. Once I did get them from Denise, I expressed my satisfaction on the matter.

Then come the posters and begin to do exactly what you are doing. Mixing my words and making me the bad guy.

It is frustrating that even when I make myself perfectly clear, I'm misinterpreted.

And the icing on the cake, my posts don't help with the Christian stereotype. And what would that one be, Loki? Please tell me, straight out so that my paranoic self doesn't misinterprete exactly what you mean.

And when you do tell, explain to me why in this particular instance am I being representative of Christians.

Should I take you and your words in this forum to be representative of what Australians think. Don't bother to answer that.

[Loki]

Christian,

Well, this is the problem Loki, you are very effective in understanding exactly what a poster meant with dubious comments but, you completely missinterprete me even though I make myself absolutely clear.
Perhaps surprisingly, I understand what you are saying here! All I can say is that, just maybe, you need to look around you a little. In this thread, eveyone else seems to be saying "what's the problem?" - except you. In the Banter thread, as you say, you had "a hard time getting straight answers". Doesn't this suggest that at least one possible explanation for this apparent 'understanding gap' between you and everyone else is that *you* are failing to understand, or be understood? You are convinced that the *real reason* is because you're a christian. I suspect that we'll just have to disagree on that - I don't actually think that's what is happening here.

Mixing my words and making me the bad guy
Apologies if I have not captured the truth as you see it. I was summarising, and there's always the danger of misplacing the emphasis.

And the icing on the cake, my posts don't help with the Christian stereotype. And what would that one be, Loki
Gee, there are so many to choose from! For starters, a stereotype that "fundamental Christians" are humourless, and intolerant of criticism. Now, I don't actually think that's all that true of either you, or Fundies - hell, that's why it's a stereotype, and like most stereotypes it will often fail the reality test. But you behaviour on this issue certainly seems to be showing an intense overreaction to a minor point. Again, I *know* you disagree that it's 'minor', but there's the catch 22 for you! The stereotype is "will overreact, and treat minor points as major ones". "Not true", you cry, "the sterepotype is false and it's not a minor point!". I understand the frustration of being caught in a catch 22, but it happens! Sorry...

And when you do tell, explain to me why in this particular instance am I being representative of Christians.
Well, this one's pretty easy, Christian - it's because you have clearly defined your objection as being "because I *am* a christian, and I don't like being treated like this".

Should I take you and your words in this forum to be representative of what Australians think. Don't bother to answer that.
I'll answer it anyway - you should take my words as being representative of what *I* think Australians think if I preface a comment with a statement like "I'm a REAL Australian, and we resent being treated like 'X'". Of course, you might think I'm wrong!

[Mercutio]

Should Xians complain about false stereotypes, or work to make it crystal clear that these incidents are less likely to happen in the future?
Should someone who has never beaten his wife respond to "do you still beat your wife"?

"someone who has never beaten his wife..." are you suggesting that there are no Xian pedophiles? My point was that the kernel of truth to the unfair stereotype is being denied (by hunters or by Xians), and that denial gives ammunition to their detractors. The hunters who chose to address the stereotype rather than simply deny it were doing the right thing.

That said, I gotta side with those who saw this as a harmless joke.

[neutrino_cannon]

Do jails in the U.S. take down the religions of those incarcerated? Do any other countries? And if so can we take those numbers to be accurate?

Without that information, I am going to assume that pedophilia is evenly distributed throughout the worlds religions. This means that the majority of pedophiles in the world are christians... but only by virtue of the fact that most of the people in the world are christians.

I think the real problem here is not just ministers, priests and televangelists who are pedophiles, but people with power who are sex abusers in general.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon

Without that information, I am going to assume that pedophilia is evenly distributed throughout the worlds religions. This means that the majority of pedophiles in the world are christians... but only by virtue of the fact that most of the people in the world are christians.



Your joking, right?:confused:

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Your joking, right?:confused:

I'm pretty sure that I'm not kidding, why?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon


I'm pretty sure that I'm not kidding, why?

I think you might do well to do a ' google ' using: " religious demographics "

This assignment will be due no later than tomorrow, noon, EST...

Thank you.

[evildave]

Well, either Christian is having a game of "Be terribly upset by everything anyone says", or he has some terrible cognitive disorder.

I'll bet the former... though it has been claimed that religion is a cognitive disorder that can be caught.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by evildave
Well, either Christian is having a game of "Be terribly upset by everything anyone says", or he has some terrible cognitive disorder.

I'll bet the former... though it has been claimed that religion is a cognitive disorder that can be caught.

You have no idea. Look at American in the porno thread (banter) and Interesting Ian in the... anyway, there's one where he's being really bad (walks away muttering about losing memory).

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
Perhaps surprisingly, I understand what you are saying here! All I can say is that, just maybe, you need to look around you a little. In this thread, eveyone else seems to be saying "what's the problem?" - except you.

I try to order my thoughts here, things keep getting more tangled with each response. I won't go in any particular order other than what comes to mind first.

1) When you say "everyone else" you are talking about very few people. Most have decided not to get into it. A couple have sided with me.

2) Again you are mixing (confusing) the issues here. When I said you as others are missinterpreting me, I was not talking about my strong objection to Evildave's remarks but, to the intent and to my statements in the Banter section.

You said:Can I just say that dogmatically insisting on finding "libel/insults" where none were intended, then requesting an apology, then asking for legal advice on how to deal with this does nothing to improve the christian stereotype.

I don't want to offend you in any way, but clearly you have made this conclusion out of thin air. I have no idea where you got it. (or maybe I do, the Fool alluded to me having luck in suing someone in this forum. I replied his statement was silly.)

And now that I think about, it is not a missinterpretation, it is a fabrication. I did not ask for legal advice and I did not equate libel with insults.

Maybe you can explain to me how did you arrive at this conclusion.

3) Evildave has not up to this instance clarified what he meant. Asking me where I got that idea is not a clarification. When I understood the answer to be a retraction, he responded with another insult. Please, also consider that Darat asked for a clarification and I predicted he would get none, and he did not.

Tell me exactly where am not understanding things correctly.

Maybe this can helpI'll bet the former... though it has been claimed that religion is a cognitive disorder that can be caught.

Guess who wrote that, and please tell what other interpretation I should give. And tell me, I should lighten up and get a sense of humor.

As long as been here, I have not paid attention to the constant, relentless mockery, insults, and the like about people who hold religious beliefs, it comes with the territorry. This is the first time I have objected (and strongly) about one of them. Loki, the first time in almost two years.

You should wonder why, why is this so important? I have stated why.

In the Banter thread, as you say, you had "a hard time getting straight answers". Doesn't this suggest that at least one possible explanation for this apparent 'understanding gap' between you and everyone else is that *you* are failing to understand, or be understood?

No it does not. My questions were directed at moderators/administrators in an open forum. Girl 6 had a hard time answering my questions because (I can only speculate here) first, she was a bit defensive because I had quoted her as the source of my questions. (The questions were straight forward, clear and concise). Second because, I believe, she did not have the answers clear in her mind (probably no one had ever asked them)

A second moderator (Denise) in her first response, answered both questions in a clear and simple manner. I accepted her answers and was done with the issue.

Of course until other came along to mock me and portray me as (oh yes, I'm paranoid again) as an irrational person, attributing words and intent I did not say or intend. And please remember my question on why you assumed I equated libel to insult and why you thought I wanted legal advice.

My question were:
1. If someone insults me (later I added, unwarrantly), what recourse do I have?

Denise's answer (paraphrased): If you feel someone is harrassing you or is insulting you. Report it directly to Hal.

2. How does the forum deal with libel issues?
(By the way, I made this question because a poster wrote that Randi was a pedophile, that seem to me libellios material. If anyone had cared to look at the thread where I quoted Girl 6, this would have been evident. A poster there warned the poster about those types of statements.)

Denise's answer (paraphrased): We have a lawyer that counsel's us about these matters and have on one occasion deleted a post that contained possibly libellious content.



As you can see, you are mixing (yet again) and contributing to the missinterpretations . You are bundle(ing) my objection to Evildave's insult and my questions on another thread.

You are convinced that the *real reason* is because you're a christian. I suspect that we'll just have to disagree on that - I don't actually think that's what is happening here.

The real reason is because some people in this forum have absolutely no respect for people who hold religious beliefs (including Christians) and see no limit in showing this hatred and contempt.

I say there is a limit.

Apologies if I have not captured the truth as you see it. I was summarising, and there's always the danger of misplacing the emphasis.

You were fabricating.


Gee, there are so many to choose from! For starters, a stereotype that "fundamental Christians" are humourless, and intolerant of criticism.

I see, so I should grin and smile with comments like the one's above or the ones that say all church leaders eventually solicit teen sex, and let's not forget that all they are also thieves and cons.

I'm sorry if I don't agree with your definition of criticism.

But you behaviour on this issue certainly seems to be showing an intense overreaction to a minor point.

I can see that from your side of the fence, it is a minor point. But, to all atheists, religion is a minor point. (if you know what I mean).

This is exactly why a person cannot understand why it is possible for an African American calling his peer ****** is perfectly normal, while it is a grave insult coming from a white person.

Again, I *know* you disagree that it's 'minor', but there's the catch 22 for you! The stereotype is "will overreact, and treat minor points as major ones". "Not true", you cry, "the sterepotype is false and it's not a minor point!". I understand the frustration of being caught in a catch 22, but it happens! Sorry...

Only if one is ignorant of the other person's culture, belief system, human nature, etc. would one consider this a minor point.

If calling Christians pedophiles is insignificant to you, fine. It is not to me.

If I have missunderstood what Evildave meant to say. He has had ample opportunity to clarify, he has not.

Well, this one's pretty easy, Christian - it's because you have clearly defined your objection as being "because I *am* a christian, and I don't like being treated like this".

This is not what I mean. I mean, why would my particular sense of humor (as you put as example) be representative of Christians sense of humor.

Stereotypes are wrong and you know it. So, saying, your actions don't help much how Christians are perceived, is wrong. As in falty logic.

I'll answer it anyway - you should take my words as being representative of what *I* think Australians think if I preface a comment with a statement like "I'm a REAL Australian, and we resent being treated like 'X'". Of course, you might think I'm wrong!

You are mixing again. I asked why should my response to you in this particular incident be indicative of how Christians as a whole react.

What I know for a fact is that calling all Christian pedophile is an insult to me and all who proffess Christianity.

It is the type of insult I will always object to.

"someone who has never beaten his wife..." are you suggesting that there are no Xian pedophiles?

I am saying pedophilia and Christianity are not related in any way as to make a correlation of any kind.

Mercutio wrote:
My point was that the kernel of truth to the unfair stereotype is being denied (by hunters or by Xians), and that denial gives ammunition to their detractors. The hunters who chose to address the stereotype rather than simply deny it were doing the right thing.

This is exactly what I'm doing, and you are making my point. By keeping silent, I allow the stereotype to go on and grow. By objecting to it strongly I am addressing it effectively.

Denying those times of insults is the best way to address them.

That said, I gotta side with those who saw this as a harmless joke.

And I have been effective and successful at diminishing Evildave's remarks as mere harmless jokes not to be taken in any way, shape of form seriously.

[Loki]

Christian,

I'm not (deliberately) trying to add to the communication problems. I can see that you want to create a clear distinction in the two issues here (the "EvilDave insult" and the "moderator questions"). Any confusion I have created I apologise for.

Second, I see no point in responding, point by point, to your last post - this is just getting (typically) out of control. No one here thinks all, most, or even 'disporportianately large numbers' of christians are paedophiles. This is clear to me, but not to you. I think I have to leave this with you.

You raise so many issues in your last post that this could become a discussion lasting weeks. But two quick comments...

I see, so I should grin and smile with comments like the one's above or the ones that say all church leaders eventually solicit teen sex, and let's not forget that all they are also thieves and cons.
This is simply creating a false dichotomy. Your options to respond to EvilDave are not and have never been, limited to "grin and smile" and "object in the strongest possible terms". One has to ask why you seek to portray your choices as such?

The real reason is because some people in this forum have absolutely no respect for people who hold religious beliefs (including Christians) and see no limit in showing this hatred and contempt.

I say there is a limit.
Hey, tell me about it! You should have seen the abuse I had to put up with from the christians on another board! Every internet board I've been to has "lunatics" who abuse, and "reasonable" posters who try to keep things fairly sane - and evrything inbetween. I see no way of 'proving' this, and I'm well aware that I may simply be finding what I want to find, but my personal opinion is that the JREF has a much better ratio of "reasonable to lunatic".

[billiefan2000]

Originally posted by Dub
People who still believe in Popoff prove how desperate some people are to believe.

Maybe Popoff could work for the Blasphemy Club I mean PROPHECY CLUB 'S Stan "Tilton" Johnson as a liason.

[Mercutio]

This is exactly what I'm doing, and you are making my point. By keeping silent, I allow the stereotype to go on and grow. By objecting to it strongly I am addressing it effectively.

Point taken. I understand where you are coming from now.

Just curious--since here in New England we see fights over out-of-court settlements by the church, and accusations by former clergy of a climate of coverup by church hierarchy (sorry--church = catholic church in this case), do you [christian] feel it would have been a better tactic for them to show the statistics and deny the stereotype, or to carefully word apologies and work on strategies to address what is only a "perceived" problem?

[evildave]

Originally posted by Christian

And I have been effective and successful at diminishing Evildave's remarks as mere harmless jokes not to be taken in any way, shape of form seriously.

How is finally comming around to the correct conclusion after flaming for several days "effective and successful"?

I mean, gosh! You're really that far behind the curve?

Most remarks made by anyone here aren't to be taken seriously enough to get all upset over.

I mean, sure I can say gods don't exist, and that the various religious texts so often quoted are just a bunch of words, but would that really be a reason to get upset?

I can make some off-color comments about televangelists who haven't been caught yet.

Of course, joke about God the wrong way, and that's still a capital crime in some places. I guess the supreme being (JHVH/ALLAH/etc.) who allegedly made everything (and his various progeny and prophets) must be a bunch of insecure little pussies.

Now then, do remember to take my trivial little heresies with a grain of salt. It's a free country (for now), and I can believe and say what I like.

Ha-ha, only serious.

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
I'm not (deliberately) trying to add to the communication problems. I can see that you want to create a clear distinction in the two issues here (the "EvilDave insult" and the "moderator questions"). Any confusion I have created I apologise for.

Ok, thanks.

Second, I see no point in responding, point by point, to your last post - this is just getting (typically) out of control. No one here thinks all, most, or even 'disporportianately large numbers' of christians are paedophiles. This is clear to me, but not to you. I think I have to leave this with you.

That is clear to me. It is also clear to me that paedophilia (hate to stop using my spelling in favor of correct spelling) is not related in any way to being a Christian.

This is simply creating a false dichotomy. Your options to respond to EvilDave are not and have never been, limited to "grin and smile" and "object in the strongest possible terms". One has to ask why you seek to portray your choices as such?

Yes, Loki it is it false dichotomy. My point is insults like these don't elicit a sense of humor.

Hey, tell me about it! You should have seen the abuse I had to put up with from the christians on another board! Every internet board I've been to has "lunatics" who abuse, and "reasonable" posters who try to keep things fairly sane - and evrything inbetween. I see no way of 'proving' this, and I'm well aware that I may simply be finding what I want to find, but my personal opinion is that the JREF has a much better ratio of "reasonable to lunatic".

I agree with you.

Mercutio wrote:
Just curious--since here in New England we see fights over out-of-court settlements by the church, and accusations by former clergy of a climate of coverup by church hierarchy (sorry--church = catholic church in this case), do you [christian] feel it would have been a better tactic for them to show the statistics and deny the stereotype, or to carefully word apologies and work on strategies to address what is only a "perceived" problem?

Apples and oranges here. Evidently not a better tactic.

To conclude clergy men are paedophiles because they are Christian is clearly wrong.

This is just my opinion, but the problem is these people hold political power without a system of checks and balances and they are not accountable to "common law" in certain areas.

To solve the problem, all clergy should be accountable for criminal action, just as anybody else. And there should be external supervision of the power structure (just like private schools are supervised).

Evildave wrote:
How is finally comming around to the correct conclusion after flaming for several days "effective and successful"?

You are smart enough, you will figure it out.

I mean, gosh! You're really that far behind the curve?

Yes, Evildave I understand one of your banners is elitism.

Now then, do remember to take my trivial little heresies with a grain of salt. It's a free country (for now), and I can believe and say what I like.

Yes, keep believing this. Next time you're at the airport don't forget to joke with your friends you have a bomb in you suitcase.

Ha-ha, only serious.

Ha-ha, only joking.

[Mercutio]

christian wrote:
To conclude clergy men are paedophiles because they are Christian is clearly wrong.

This is just my opinion, but the problem is these people hold political power without a system of checks
and balances and they are not accountable to "common law" in certain areas.

To solve the problem, all clergy should be accountable for criminal action, just as anybody else. And
there should be external supervision of the power structure (just like private schools are supervised).



pedophiles because they are christian? I would never suggest that.

Your other two paragraphs, unless I misread them, suggest that the customs, status, and structure of the catholic church do contribute to the problem. Not the crime, but the coverup, and that is where the publicity comes in. This is not because they are christian, but because of the structure of the group (or any group so organized).

Just from your stated opinion, though, one could make an argument that there is more good to be done by addressing the root of the problem (the coverup problem, not a causal link between Xianity and pedophilia) than by denying it.

again, unless I am misreading your opinion...

[Christian]

Mercutio wrote:
pedophiles because they are christian? I would never suggest that.

Ok.

Your other two paragraphs, unless I misread them, suggest that the customs, status, and structure of the catholic church do contribute to the problem.

Again, this is jus my opinion, I would zero in on the political structure of the Catholic church and on the ability to avoid prosecution as the culprits.

Just from your stated opinion, though, one could make an argument that there is more good to be done by addressing the root of the problem (the coverup problem, not a causal link between Xianity and pedophilia) than by denying it.

As I said, I agree that denying a problem exist is not an option here (to me at least). To me, the root of the problem is not the cover up. See above.

[evildave]

Yes, keep believing this. Next time you're at the airport don't forget to joke with your friends you have a bomb in you suitcase.

So, now you're equating not believing in your gods with making terrorist threats?

Or is this just more of that spew about "irresponsible" talk?

Look, if the Jehova's Witlesses, Mor<s>m</s>ons, and miscellaneous fundies can beat on my door demanding I come listen to their fantasy spiel about "salvation" and dispose of their pamphlets for them, and if joe "Born Again" can corner me in any public place and wave a bible at my face, then I can certainly tell you that religion is a bunch of hooey right here and right now on this forum.

At least you don't have to put up with it. You've chosen to continue to visit this topic and address me, so you'll just have to keep taking it.

Of course, not all televangelists are "bad". Most of them just behave that way.

[Christian]

Evildave wrote:
So, now you're equating not believing in your gods with making terrorist threats?

No I'm not. Please read it again. The point is *free speech* does not equal to *I can say whatever I want*.

Or is this just more of that spew about "irresponsible" talk?

Exactly.

Look, if the Jehova's Witlesses, Mormons, and miscellaneous fundies can beat on my door demanding I come listen to their fantasy spiel about "salvation" and dispose of their pamphlets for them, and if joe "Born Again" can corner me in any public place and wave a bible at my face, then I can certainly tell you that religion is a bunch of hooey right here and right now on this forum.

Yes, I totally agree with you. You have that right.

At least you don't have to put up with it. You've chosen to continue to visit this topic and address me, so you'll just have to keep taking it.

You know, this later kind of exchanges, to me, are healthy and I enjoy them. Addressing each other this way is what the forum is all about (I think).

You might not believe it, but I think I am in basic agreement with what you are saying and where you come from.

Of course, not all televangelists are "bad". Most of them just behave that way.

And if you enjoy remarks like this, I promise I wont try to spoil your fun anymore.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Christian
The point is *free speech* does not equal to *I can say whatever I want*.
Yes it does. People should exercise more self-restraint, but the moment you legislate, it's no longer free speech.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Diogenes


I think you might do well to do a ' google ' using: " religious demographics "

This assignment will be due no later than tomorrow, noon, EST...

Thank you.

My assignment is a bit late, and perhaps undergunned, but please refer to the breakdown of the xian denominations on the first page of this thread. As you can see, the largest religion in the world in christianity. So it's not the majority, as in >50%, but in terms of being the largest, it is certainly the majority, and I think that's a legitimate use of the word.

So, you were saying?

[evildave]

Originally posted by Christian

You might not believe it, but I think I am in basic agreement with what you are saying and where you come from.

...

And if you enjoy remarks like this, I promise I wont try to spoil your fun anymore.

Actually, I've commonly found this to be the case.

But to support my claims of "bad" behavior, here are some examples of fundies not only speaking "irresponsibly", but behaving badly.

Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you, [while Islam is] a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him.
-- John Ashcroft, in January, 2002, quoted from Rob Morse, "The gospel according to John (Ashcroft)"

Everybody hates death, fears death, but only those, the believers who know the life after death and the reward after death, would be the ones who will be seeking death.
-- Mohamed Atta (attributed), in a five-page hand-written document found in luggage belonging to Atta which had been placed on the wrong plane, in a section of the document titled "The Last Night," quoted from Bob Woodward, "Hijacker Leaves Behind Sheaf Of Prayers And Instructions," Washington Post (September 28, 2001)

Oh, God, open all doors for me. Oh God who answers prayers and answers those who ask you, I am asking you for your help. I am asking you for forgiveness. I am asking you to lighten my way. I am asking you to lift the burden I feel.
Oh God, you who open all doors, please open all doors for me, open all venues for me, open all avenues for me.
God, I trust in you. God, I lay myself in your hands....
There is no God but God, I being a sinner. We are of God, and to God we return.
-- Mohamed Atta (attributed), in a five-page hand-written document found in luggage belonging to Atta which had been placed on the wrong plane, in a section of the document titled "When you enter the plane," quoted from Bob Woodward, "Hijacker Leaves Behind Sheaf Of Prayers And Instructions," Washington Post (September 28, 2001)

I started out by believing God for a newer car than the one I was driving. I started out believing God for a nicer apartment than I had. Then I moved up.
-- Jim Bakker

sorrowfully acknowledge that seven years ago.... I was wickedly manipulated by treacherous former friends and colleagues who victimized me with the aid of a female confederate. They conspired to betray me into a sexual encounter at a time of great stress in my marital life.... I was set up as part of a scheme to co-opt me and obtain some advantage for themselves over me in connection with their hope for position in the ministry.
-- Jim Bakker, I Was Wrong

I studied the book of Revelation, one word at a time. I had time. They don't call it doing time for nothing. I had time. I took every word in the book of Revelation and run it through the Greek, and studied the meaning.... I think that's why I had to go to prison, so I could tell you, when things start falling apart, I've been there, I've done that. Don't jump out a window. My God will go with you. He will never, never, never leave you. He will never, never, never forsake you. When the world starts falling apart, it's when the Church is gonna come together! It's how the bride's gonna be purified!
-- Jim Bakker, in a tape titled "Cleansing the Chamber" from Morningstar Prophetic tape of the Month. Actually, Bakker went to prison because he stole millions of dollars from his trusting supporters.

I can assure you that Father Shanley has no problem that would be a concern to your diocese.
-- Bishop Banks, in a 1990 letter to the San Bernandino diocese recommending serial child-molesting priest Paul Shanley; Father Shanley was an activist in NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association), in The New York Times, April 10, 2002, quoted from Robert E. Nordlander, in a letter to Cliff Walker (May 02, 2002)

Washington and Lincoln were un-Christian and their names are unworthy of being brought before the public.
-- Rev. Romaine F. Bateman, New York Herald Tribune, Feb. 18, 1932, on the occasion of his refusal to permit citizens of the community to hold a celebration in honor of George Washington. Mr. Bateman also remarked that Washington's service to his country was "merely incidental compared with his un-Christianity." Quoted by Joseph Lewis in The Ten Commandments p. 563.

Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free.
-- Pat Buchanan, speaking before the Christian Coalition in 1993, quoted from Political Amazon's "Quotes from Hell"

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 Bush, to a reporter in 1988, while serving as vice-president and running for President


Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?
-- John Calvin, pointing to Psalm 93:1 in his Commentary on Genesis

[Those who assert that] the earth moves and turns ... [are motivated by] a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding; [possessed by the devil, they aimed] to pervert the order of nature.
-- John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, cited in William J. Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait (1988), quoted from The Talk Origins Archive, "Cretinism or Evilution?: The Evils of Copernicanism" (we are on the lookout for a complete, intact version of this quip)

We're out to tell them [addicts] what we feel is correct as far as we understand Christianity, and that Christianity is a big part of our therapy.
-- John Castellani, explaining to a panel of the House Government Reform subcommittee precisely what our tax dollars will be funding should Bush's "faith-based" schemes become law, on May 23, 2001, quoted from AANEWS (May 25, 2001) from American Atheists

"...completed Jews..."
-- John Castellani, describing Jewish clients of the Teen Challenge program after the program has enticed them to convert to the Fundamentalist Christian religion, and suggesting that Jews are "incomplete" unless they believe in the divinity of Jesus, to a panel of the House Government Reform subcommittee, on May 23, 2001, quoted from Americans United, "Faith-Based Group Draws Criticism for Telling House Congressional Committee About 'Completed Jews'" (May 25, 2001)


Christianity offers the only viable, reasonable, definitive answer to the questions of "Where did I come from?" "Why am I here?" "Where am I going?" "Does life have any meaningful purpose?"
-- Tom DeLay, speaking to 300 people at the First Baptist Church of Pearland, Texas (April 12, 2002), quoted from Alan Cooperman, "House GOP whip delivers fervent paean to Christianity" (Washington Post, April 21, 2002); a recording of the speech was released by Americans United for Separation of Church and State

I believe that feminists of the more aggressive persuasion are frustrated women unable to find the proper male leadership. If a woman were receiving the right kind of love and attention and leadership, she would not want to be liberated from that.
-- Tony Evans, quoted from the National Organization for Women, Promise Keepers Mobilization Project

The demise of our community and culture is the fault of sissified men who have been overly influenced by women.
-- Tony Evans, quoted from the National Organization for Women, Promise Keepers Mobilization Project

Don't you understand, mister, you are royalty and God has chosen you to be priest of your home?
-- Tony Evans, mixing church and state in the home (as well as mixing metaphors!) by pronouncing the male member both priest and royalty, quoted from the National Organization for Women, Promise Keepers Mobilization Project

We're fighting against humanism, we're fighting against liberalism ... we are fighting against all the systems of Satan that are destroying our nation today ... our battle is with Satan himself.
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell (source unknown)

The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country.
-- Rev. Jerry Falwell, Sermon, July 4, 1976

If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth.
-- Jerry Falwell, "Moral Majority Report" for September, 1984

The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.
-- Jerry Falwell, Finding Inner Peace and Strength

AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.
-- Jerry Falwell (source unknown)

The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief. They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of their Messiah and Savior.
-- Jerry Falwell, Listen, America!

Those who are quick to feel disrespected often have a spiritual vacuum in their lives, because they feel disconnected to the love of their Father in Heaven.
-- Al Gore, January 19, 1998, speech in Atlanta, blaming atheism for the troubles of the nation's African-American youth: the rate of atheism in America is rarely lower than it is among America's African-Americans! quoted from AANEWS #808 by American Atheists, August 28, 2000

I strongly believe in the separation of church and state. But freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion, there is a better way.
-- Al Gore, speech at a Salvation Army drug rehabilitation center in Atlanta, Georgia, May, 1999, quoted from AANEWS #808 by American Atheists, August 28, 2000

I go and I keep friends with [Abe] Rosenthal at the New York Times and people of that sort, you know. And all -- I mean, not all the Jews, but a lot of the Jews are great friends of mine, they swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I'm friendly with Israel. But they don't know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country. And I have no power, no way to handle them, but I would stand up if under proper circumstances.
-- Billy Graham, in a transcript of an Oval Office conversation with Richard Nixon from 1972, recently made public in March, 2002, by the National Archives, quoted by David Firestone in the New York Times (March 17, 2002), quoted from Chris Basten, letter to Cliff Walker (March 22, 2002)

This is another step towards the secularization of the United States.... The frammers of our Constitution meant we were to have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
-- Billy Graham, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's verdict in Engle v. Vitale (barring school-sponsored prayer), quoted from Robert E. Nordlander, "Madalyn Murray O'Hair: The Making of a Modern Myth" (Freethought Today, November, 1988)

Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work.
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.... We need believing people.
-- Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933, quoted from the Freedom From Religion Foundation quiz, "What Do You Know About The Separation of State and Church?"

The Constitution promises freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. We are, after all not just another nation, but "one nation under God."
-- Joseph Lieberman, campaign speech at Notre Dame University on October 24, 2000, quoted from American Atheists, "Lieberman Again Claims 'No Freedom from Religion' in Notre Dame Address: Cites Judeo-Christian Roots of America"

We know that the Constitution wisely separates church from state, but remember: the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
-- Joseph Lieberman, campaign speech at Fellowship Chapel, Detroit, August 27, 2000, quoted from AANEWS #808 by American Atheists, August 28, 2000

Mrs. O'Hair died horribly, a victim of the world she helped to shape. Without the Deity she fought so hard against, there is no right and wrong, increasingly people are ruled by their passions and humanity is a tragedy waiting to happen.
-- Bill Murray, statement on his website, exploiting even the deaths of his own mother, brother, and daughter, in his zeal to discredit atheists

For the first time ever, everything is in place for the Battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ.
-- Ronald Reagan, to James Mills, in 1971, regarding events in Libya, quoted from "A Brief History of the Apocalypse"

We may be the generation that sees Armageddon.
-- Ronald Reagan, in a 1980 interview with criminal televangelist Jim Bakker, quoted from "A Brief History of the Apocalypse"

"We want ... as soon as possible to see a majority of the Republican Party in the hands of pro-family Christians by 1996."
-- Pat Robertson, Denver Post, October 26, 1992

We have enough votes to run the country. And when the people say, "We've had enough," we are going to take over.
-- Pat Robertson, speech given to the April, 1980 "Washington for Jesus" rally

There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore.
-- Pat Robertson, address to his American Center for Law and Justice, November, 1993.

You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 14, 1991

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
-- Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992

Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history.
-- Pat Robertson, interview with Molly Ivins, 1993. Yeah, right! Robertson here sounds remarkably like a certain political leader of yore who once bemoaned that "the Jews" were oppreseing his Aryan people.

The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith.
-- Roman Catholic Church, in the Holy Inquisition's decision against Galileo

Evolution is a bankrupt speculative philosophy, not a scientific fact. Only a spiritually bankrupt society could ever believe it.... Only atheists could accept this Satanic theory.
-- Rev. Jimmy Swaggart (source unknown)

The Media is ruled by Satan. But yet I wonder if many Christians fully understand that. Also, will they believe what the Media says, considering that its aim is to steal, kill, and destroy?
-- Rev. Jimmy Swaggart, The Evangelist, January 1988

Sex education classes in our public schools are promoting incest.
-- Rev. Jimmy Swaggart, quoted from http://i.am/not_a_crook

If I do not return to the pulpit this weekend, millions of people will go to hell.
-- Rev. Jimmy Swaggart, 20 May 1988


We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand.
-- James Watt, (source unknown)

I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent.
-- James Watt, describing his staff to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on September 21, 1983; this comment led directly to his forced resignation; quoted from Bartlett's Online

[Christian]

Yes it does. People should exercise more self-restraint, but the moment you legislate, it's no longer free speech.

I don't about where you live, but in the US and in my country speech is very much legislated. Most people still consider that there is free speech in both.