<p>Logosprincipal, it was enough of a chore to wade through the intellectually dishonest and poorly written “study” of the FRC. I don’t see why I should devote any more time to discussing it with someone who has no interest in doing anything but finding justifications for his own prejudice. None of the things you have projected on to me in your last post reflects my actual statements or opinions, and I can only conclude that you have no interest in an honorable discussion of conflicting viewpoints.</p>
<p>songman,</p>
<p>I just read the article you posted about domestic violence among gays/lesbians couples. Actually nothing surprises me there–that their incidence rate is comparable to heterosexual ones’ since there’s no reason to assume otherwise. But what I was trying to lead you was that many gays/lesbians, on top of whatever their straight counterparts deal with, have do struggle with external discrimination/homophobia and/or internal homophobia. That’s why I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s higher rate of incidence of self-destructive behaviors, suicides, and clinical depression among them.</p>
<p>Humanists are secular, religious, atheist, all realms, the idea is thinking about people in the here and now</p>
<p>here are some links if you want to learn</p>
<p>I read lots of things, and study</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.jcn.com/humanism.php4[/url]”>http://www.jcn.com/humanism.php4</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.americanhumanist.org/index.html[/url]”>http://www.americanhumanist.org/index.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ROTFLMAO!</p>
<p>Bias?! </p>
<p>No surprise here; the usual suspects. Never a bad time for the zealous to spew their secular-fundamentalist hatred of religion tradition daddy. Its visceral.</p>
<p>Soon to be seen dabbing their eyes and whining on an intelligent design, parochial college, faithbashing (feel-my-pain) thread near you because they care [you know, about their pain, and by extension and transference, the hurt feelings of just about anyone].</p>
<p>The greatest threat to the world:</p>
<p>Chemical biological weapons?
Nuclear outbreaks?
Environmental devastation?
College athletics? [maybe
but]</p>
<p>No, its people of faith who are so bold as to mention it in conversation (egads: even on a university campus devoted to the edification and exchange of ideas!).</p>
<p>FountainSiren,</p>
<p>True that “people of faith” CAN be the most dangerous. As I pointed out in a previous post, there is no war as hard to win as one against religious zealots, as their very reason for living is at stake – a powerful incentive indeed! Humanism/freedom is no match one-on-one to an absolute religionist, so we better fight them with overwhelmingly superior weaponry (yes, nukes!) and be prepared (if that is possible) to deal with the aftermath (provided a third world war, resulting in near total annihilation of mankind is not touched off). We must find a way out before it becomes inevitable…</p>
<p>We are supposedly the most intelligent creatures on Earth. What are the odds that we will allow our also considerable stupidity to do us all in by refusing to respect deeply held religious cultures of other civilizations, besides Israel?</p>
<p>FS- your crassness and flippant attitude is sad</p>
<p>I said those things because a poster was saying that those without RELIGIOUS faith, most of them are bad people and do not have a basis to be good without religion…and that for the masses they need to be afraid in order to act right</p>
<p>My point was that with religion, it can be used as an excuse by people who are god-fearing to hurt others, but guess that subtley slipped right past you</p>
<p>Your acronym was pathetic, by the way…but if that is what you need to do, to try and denigrate someone, yes, guess that is what people of faith do, hate on others</p>
<p>I don’t hate you, i don’t hate religion, i hate hypocracy, and I see supposedly religious people wanting to destroy other people in order to “protect” themselves, I get disgusted</p>
<p>People of “faith” are not a threat, people of “fake” faith, people who use their own faith to discriminate against others, people who use their dogma to claim superiority, people who use faith to justify wrong actions</p>
<p>To envoke the Bible and the Word of God to justifiy visceral hatred to people who are different, that is really not what faith is to me.</p>
<p>Jesus loved everyone, he welcomed everyone, he is supposed to be a model of love and kindness.</p>
<p>I don’t see kindness in many people who claim to be Christians, whom I would expect to want to emmulate Jesus. But guess that is asking to much.</p>
<p>CMG- you said: I don’t hate you, i don’t hate religion, I hate hypocracy, and I see supposedly religious people wanting to destroy other people in order to “protect” themselves, I get disgusted.
People of “faith” are not a threat, people of “fake” faith, people who use their own faith to discriminate against others, people who use their dogma to claim superiority, people who use faith to justify wrong actions"</p>
<p>some good points there, but there are plenty of christians that detest war- there are plenty of christians that walk ,talk and live in the way Jesus wanted- like supposedly he said “he who is without sin cast the first stone” and all that…what I have found interesting here is that I have not read a post where someone will admit that the yin yang exists in the homosexual or gay world… Don’t you find it interesting that the posts that are in opposition to the pro-religion posts attempt to rationalize that in no way has the gay world replicated any of the behaviors of the straight world. To me that is clearly defending a position without being realistic- IMHO in the end gays will and have behaved just like all human beings behave…they will posess greed,jealousy,addictions,and nasty habits as well as empathy, love and understanding. Maybe we do not hear about it and maybe there is an intentional force out there that keeps it out of the news?..but sooner or later all humans live in the yin yang world IMHO! All that is good contains some eveil and all that is evil contains some good!</p>
<p>Hey Happy Easter,Passover ,Buddha’s Birthday and happy weekend to all!</p>
<p>I was involved in a discussion about the ban on ordination of homosexuals in our denomination. I asked a simple question, “Why do we not allow homosexuals to be ordained to be deacons, elders and ministers in our denomination?”</p>
<p>Of course the answer was exactly as I expected, “Because the Bible tells us that homosexuality is a sin.” To which I replied, “Then what you are saying is that to be a candidate for ordination, you must be sinless.”</p>
<p>Oops!</p>
<p>Even if most Christians consider homosexual acts to be sinful, my response is okay, and how about all those other sinful acts that the Bible tells us about. Are they any worse? Not according to the Bible! In fact the two great commandments according to Jesus were based on the concept of love. Harrassing, hating and discrimination gays and lesbians is condemned by the one great commandment.</p>
<p>We need to love and respect all people and leave the judging to God. To act any other way is sheer hypocracy in my opinion.</p>
<p>CGM,</p>
<p>If I had the time or inclination, I would go through your posting history and find at least a dozen times you have spewed this hateful little tirade of yours: crusades, witch trials, KKK, ad nauseum, oy vey. Surprisingly, in your latest broadside you left out the Inquisition: Shame, shame you must have been in a hurry: sometimes, I suppose, the angry little fingers out-pace even the most self-righteous indignation.</p>
<p>Dont act so coy:
It is just too hypocritical to condemn a perceived hatred with hatred
or hypocrisy with hypocrisy. Certainly youve heard the one about wrestling with a pig: Its a dirty business
mud and filth everywhere and to be clear, in this instance, the pig in question is hypocrisy and hatred, writ large. </p>
<p>As to the op’s presumed bloviating condemnations of homosexuality on campus; I havent come across any but I would find anyone engaged in such condemnation a self-righteous bore. Still, I would not proscribe their natural propensity or inclination to bore us into submission; I feel the same way about the self-righteous do-gooder crowds on campus (nothing personal)now, Ive encountered quite a few of those parsimonious blow-hards…I just nod politely and walk on by.</p>
<p>Its like the soot calling the chimney black.</p>
<p>The liberal blowhards are stingy with their money? Who knew?</p>
<p>Yes, TD. </p>
<p>But this may only be true at such well-healed campuses as Dartmouth, Swarthmore, Duke Smith (Pell-grants aside). Worse, perhaps parsimonious may not work outside any direct reference to giving away green-backs, i.e. elbow-grease and real-world effort are no-currency (intended to use niggardly, but the word is just so awful). </p>
<p>To that effect the following was anonymously penned by yours truly:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.dartreview.com/archives/2005/11/22/sleep_out_4_awareness.php[/url]”>http://www.dartreview.com/archives/2005/11/22/sleep_out_4_awareness.php</a></p>
<p>Well, it’s good to know that those parsimonious spirits are at least in good health, being well-healed and all.</p>
<p>ha ha, dumb me, I thought you meant ‘sanctimonious’.</p>
<p>TD,</p>
<p>I taker your belated interest in my grammar as a threadbare attempt at keeping your over-due literary-interest down on an overdrawn promissory-note: keeping the bill-collector away from the door who wouldnt at least try.</p>
<p>Ipso facto, on a personal level, yes, liberals are clearly parsimonious when it comes to putting their money, or dogged-efforts, where there mouth, ideals, or pens should–ideally–be. The liberal mouth is too often bigger than the conservative stomach. </p>
<p>Wouldnt you say, TD? ;)</p>
<p>Dont sweat it; I only took it seriously for about a week anyhow. Ive torn up the note and tossed it into the wind outside my dorm window your money is no-good here, daddyo. Gone with the wind.</p>
<p>[Edit: sorry all, no one but TD will likely get the sillyness above.]</p>