This Comment Made me Cringe

On going through my emails (a task so gargantuan these days, that painting the Severn Bridge might actually take LESS time), I saw I had a comment on quite an old post.  Nevertheless, I thought I would give it a look (probably out of a sick sense of curiosity) and low and behold I’ve now had my first religitard rant.

<sarcasm>Can’t tell you how proud I feel</sarcasm>

From $150 billion shot to hell

Aug 06, 2011 @ 18:37:26 [Edit]

“Navy SEALS helpcopter crash of 8.6.11 was revenge for Osama bin Laden.
One day default will bring insolvency, while the wealthy your bailed out with multi-trillion dollar stimulous package leaves you behind in the ruins.
You fell for it. And now you will pay dearly. The United States is the empire of evil.”

Was it really?  Pilot error combined with technical failures had nothing do with it then?  Newsflash:  Accidents DO happen.  NOTHING is ‘divinely driven’.  By the way, the US and the UK are at war with the Taliban.  Dead soldiers (and others) go hand in hand with war.  Are you so naive to think that the Taliban would just curl up their toes and fall dead just by looking at our troops?

“Even with all the corruption this wasn’t going to happen on W’s watch because the conservatives are the good ones. It is the social decay which was the trademark of The Beast, and what has destroyed our favor with the gods, filthy sodomites.”

What social decay?  The decay that leads people to denigrate and try to deny others needed medical assistance because they don’t earn enough to afford the extortionate insurance premiums charged by US insurance companies?  The same decay that leads people to be fired from their jobs for no other reason than holding a different theological position to their colleagues or employers?  The same social decay that allows whole towns to close ranks against a family and drive them away through bullying and harassment for the apparently heinous crime of not being Christian?  You really need to look further past the end of your own nose if you hope to see what’s actually going on rather than what the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah “Potty” Palin, Michelle Bachmann and the Libertarian lunatic fringe tell you to believe.  Social support programs enrich a nation as a whole by ensuring that nobody starves and nobody suffers unnecessarily.  It has noting to do with divine intervention.  Since no sufficient evidence in favour of the existence of any God(s) has yet emerged, I am happy to call myself an Atheist.

“Your job as a future mother is to learn the god’s ways and to help your child understand despite the negative reinforcement and conditioning of today’s society. Without consciousous parents the child will have no hope, and may even exaserbate their disfavor by becoming corrupted in today’s environment.
Your ultimate goal is to fix your relationship wiith the gods and move on. You don’t want to be comfortable here, and the changes in Western society in the last 100 years has achieved just that.
1000 years with Jesus is the consolation prize. Don’t be deceived into thinking that is the goal.”

Future mother?  I AM the mother of two fine boys who will be lucky not to be brought up under the yolk of religion.  My job is to keep them safe from harm and unhealthy influences (yes, I mean the Church), physically healthy, and teach them right from wrong, and then step back and let them explore their own individuality, whether they be straight, gay, bi or otherwise.  Neither their father I do not want them to become mere replicas of their parents If they choose religion for themselves that is THEIR choice to make, not mine.  We only have one life and I will not have my children waste theirs by waiting for some posthumous reward in the next life in return for being a gullible prat in this one.  In short they will be raised as freethinkers, and equipped with the tools that they need in this (their only) life.

“Much like the other prophets Mohhamed (polygamy/superiority over women/misogyny) and Jesus (forgiveness/savior), the gods use me for temptation as well. In today’s modern society they feel people are most weak for popular culture/sensationalism, and the clues date back to WorldWarII and Unit731:TSUSHOGO, the Chinese Holocaust. They used this Situation to bury Japanese atrocities.
It has been discussed that, similar to the Matrix concept, the gods will offer a REAL “Second Coming of Christ”, while the “fake” Second Coming will come at the end and follow New Testiment scripture and their xtian positioning. I may be that real Second Coming.
What I teach is the god’s true way. It is what is expected of people, and only those who follow this truth will be eligible to ascend into heaven as children in a future life. They offered this event because the masses have just enough time to work on and fix their relationship with the gods and ascend, to move and grow past Planet Earth, before the obligatory xtian “consolation prize” of “1000 years with Jesus on Earth” begins.”

Can I have that again in English please?  I don’t feel weak and I couldn’t really give a toss about modern popular culture.  Or celebrity scandals.  Or anything else you might have imagined me caring about.  Second coming?  Until you can provide proof that Jesus even existed at all (NOT the Bible), let alone divine, I’m going to continue to dismiss all such statements for what they are: UTTER DRIVEL. It’s surprising how “God’s true way” always seems to correspond so neatly with what the people spouting it want to do anyway. You’ve just outed yourself as a mercenary who is only behaving in this manner to gain a reward.   Do you stone your disobedient children?  Would you force a rape victim to marry her rapist because he paid her father compensation?  Following the Bible means actually following what it says without dismissing the parts which are not so palatable to enlightened western society.  If you do not then you are as guilty of playing along with “the changes in Western society in the last 100 years” that you claim to so deplore.  So which is it?  Are you a hypocrite or a liar, M. I-Don’t-Have-The-Stones-to-Leave-A-Real-Name-With-My-Rant?

“The Prince of Darkness, battling the gods over the souls of the Damned.
It is the gods who have created this environment and led people into Damnation with temptation. The god’s positioning proves they work to prevent people’s understanding.
How often is xtian dogma wrong? Expect it is about the Lucifer issue as well.
The fallen god, fighting for justice for the disfavored, banished to Earth as the fallen angel?
I believe much as the Noah’s Flood event, the end of the world will be initiated by revelry among the people. It will be positioned to be sanctioned by the gods and led for “1000 years with Jesus on Earth”.
In light of modern developments this can entail many pleasures:::Medicine “cures” aging, the “manufacture” of incredible beauty via cloning as sex slaves, free (synthetic) cocaine, etc.
Somewhere during the 1000 years the party will start to “die off”, literally. Only those who maintain chaste, pure lifestyles, resisting these temptations, will survive the 1000 years. Condemned to experience another epoch of planet’s history for their ignorant pursuit of xtianity, they will be the candidates used to (re)colonize (the next) Planet Earth, condemned to relive the misery experienced by the peasantry during history due to their failure to ascend into heaven before the Apocalypse.
Never forget:::It is not a house of Jesus.
If this concept of Lucifer is true another role of this individual may be to initiate disfavor and temptation among this new poulation, the proverbial “apple” of this Garden of Eden. A crucial figure in the history of any planet, he begins the process of deterioration and decay that leads civilizations to where Planet Earth remains today.
Which one is it?:
One transitions into the other, allowing the gods to wash their hands of obligation to their Chosen One. My personal “consolation prize”.
And since the gods never committed despite tens of billions in mass media, product development and natural disasters/tragedy they will employ the freedom they positioned into the Situation and CHEAT me out of everything.
For those who would listen I was used to assist people to rapidly increase their understanding of this system. Unfortunate for me, the gods can claim they never intended this, despite being control freaks who guide everything specifically and have the power to force it with AI, and now they are free to fuck my brains out subsequently. Lucky me.”

Seriously?  I’m not going to waste my time ploughing through that load of rubbish.  Just let it be known that I am extremely embarrassed for you.  I really hope you seek some proper help because leaving posts like this on people’s blog comment threads, is NOT healthy behaviour.

“Consistant with “reverse positioning” understand the REAL Second Coming would equate with The Matrix’s Anti-Christ, the fake battle of good and evil which will come at the end.
I have spoken on this issue in years past. Understanding how they use the political encviornment to redefine people’s value system, realize anyone who speaks of the old world and its ways will envoke hatred. So when/if the Anti-Christ comes along speaking of reverting back to what liberalism would consider repressed and immoral it may be the only hope to salvage the god’s favor and keep moving forward rather than begin the 1000 year clock. The fake Second Coming will feed into this political environment.”

I let it go once but, mate, The Matrix is a film.  That makes it fiction.  Though truth be told, if you believe the bible then I am honestly not surprised that you cannot tell fiction from reality.  Again, prove the existence of divinity BEFORE you expect to get the more rationally minded of us debating real or false resurrections or anything else for that matter.

“The gods pimp you all. You think “going along” is going to help you but it only makes your life here on Earth more comfortable, so that is where you will stay:::Prepare for the 1000 year clock.”

All I can do is shake my head at this whole bizarre statement and reiterate my hope that you seek psychiatric help before you hurt yourself or someone else.

What Happens at an Exorcism and Why It Should Worry Us.

“There were only a small number of priests who had any real expertise, and they were getting calls from all over the country.” So many attended the conference, he said – “They must have requests.” Bishop Thomas Paprocki

Bishop Thomas Paprocki - The organiser of this October's Conference on Exocorism 

In October 2010, a Catholic conference was held in Baltimore, Maryland (preceding yet another) attended by 56 US Bishops and 66 Priests.  That Bishops had bothered to attend was indeed a novelty because the annual conference is normally only attended by Priests. What the focus of this conference is certainly surprising considering that it was held in a (theoretically) civilised country.  None the less, these Priests and Bishops find reason to gather every year to discuss exorcism.

While all Catholic priests are permitted by the Vatican to perform these ceremonies, very few American are trained and able to. Though how much training does it take in order to become ‘proficient’ in bullying, manipulating, and terrifying and further brainwashing an already troubled individual into first believing that their troubles are due to a demonic possession and secondly that their lifestyle had allowed the possession to occur in the first place.  The conference was meant to train priests in the ‘art’ of exorcism and was organised by the Bishop Thomas Paprocki who is also the chair of the Bishops’ Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance.

Paprocki is of the view that there is an increasing demand for exorcism in the US despite the lack of data on the subject: But when has real evidence had anything to do with what the Catholic church believes or how they decide to act.  Out of the 68 million Catholics in the US, only an estimated 6 to 14 are ‘trained exorcists‘ though the church seems determined to rectify this issue and plunge America further back toward the Dark Ages of Europe and the reign of tyranny and fear exerted by the Inquisition.  One of those exorcists is the Rev Gary Thomas of Saratoga and the subject of The Rite.  (The book by Matt Baglio and forthcoming film starring Sir Anthony Hopkins)

Paprocki’s feeling is seconded by Rev. Thomas.  Exorcism is being requested by parishioners who have family they believe to be in need of this ‘service’ yet there is no mention of any clerical recommendation.  I am sure these family members are well-meaning but the greatest harm is often caused by the best intentions (Thanks to Terry Goodkind for that one.).  The Rev. believes the cause of this demand is an increase in paganism and ‘idolatrous activity’ by Catholics.   This is, of course, garbage and garbage of the sort spouted by the likes of Michael Voris.  The Church feels threatened by its lack (or loss) of privilege in the developed world and is trying to increase their influence by any means necessary.  When you consider that even the president of the National Federation of Priests, Rev. Richard Vega, has not heard of any requests at all.  He speculated that immigrant Catholics, who were probably more familiar with the practice, may be making requests.  He also reported to the Guardian that it is Canon Law requires every diocese have a trained exorcist.  That many do not, he blames on a post Vatican II church.  In 2005 Pope John Paul II wrote to all US Bishops instructing them to train an exorcist.  Rev Thomas was asked when the initial candidate declined and despite his own reservations that it was not what he had ‘signed up for’, he took the course while in Rome on a sabbatical.

“Some demons are very strong,” he said. “So it needs repeated prayer and fasting and penance.” People breaking up relationships don’t always make a clean break. “The relationship didn’t develop overnight and is not broken overnight.”Paprocki

An exorcism requires discernment to determine whether or not the person ‘brought in’ is really in need of one or if their family just thinks they are.  The ritual is not just performed on demand (apparently) but it seems a rather convenient idea that a person may not realise they are possessed and may be subjected to this treatment against their will by the very people with a vested interest in the belief in the practice.  The initial discernment is carried out by team including a physician, a clinical psychologist and a psychiatrist who (should all know better) are all practising Catholics.  Rev. Thomas claims that only five out of one hundred requests (again gave no real indication of the number of requests) result in an exorcism and that the exorcist is an ‘ultimate sceptic‘ (doubtful) based only on the idea that they do not just assume that all those who ask for the ritual need one.  This is NOT a sceptical outlook because they STILL believe in demonic possession despite the lack of evidence in favour of it and they STILL practice an outdated, unnecessary and harmful (extreme stress) practice.

“The person who is possessed may not even realise it. It’s more frequent that someone would bring a person in,”Paprocki.

The bishop Paprocki strongly believes in the need for exorcism and tried to explain possession it in terms of a relationship between a human and a demon having turned sour.  He states that it may have gone bad due to the human having realised their error.  This idea is highly speculative and even dubious, when accuracy is brought into question.  It is absurd, obtuse and fatuous to contrast an imagined demonic possession (based entirely on superstition and ill-conceived dogma) to real human relationships.  Paprocki is a fool to believe this rubbish and a dangerous fool to be promoting the practice and spreading his belief.  The Rev. Thomas says that he has performed 40 exorcisms over five years on five people.  Two gave up the ‘project’ due to time constraints.

When asked what was involved after the discernment, Thomas told The Guardian that it consists of a set of prayers meant to break up the relationship between the possessed and the demon (so a fake problem is solved with a fake cure.  It sounds about right for the church)  in order to force the demon out.  Even Thomas won’t call the work rewarding, and is reluctant to even go so far as to call it meaningful, he calls the work arduous and time-consuming with little chance of success.  Never thought that it’s because none of it is real and you have based at least the last 15 years on lies and half-truths, good Reverend?

The Exorcism of Emily Rose

The demand for exorcism – as seen in Hollywood films such as The Exorcism of Emily Rose – is growing in the US. Photograph: ScreenGem/Everett / Rex Features

Both the Bishop and the priest have found themselves having to reassure people regarding the nature and risks of possession; correcting mythology with more mythology to the people who have already been misled into believing Christianity at all.

“Possession is not an involuntary thing. It’s not contagious. The person themselves has to open the door,” Paprocki said. To those who come to Thomas asking, “‘How do I protect myself from being inhabited by a demon?’ I say if you have a prayer life, if you have a sacrament life, if you have a faith life – you have nothing to fear.”

This is assuming that those brought in (or anyone) believe in either demons or possession.  The bishop believes that demons must be invited but are always looking for a way in.  80% of those brought to the Bishop have been sexually abused by a family member or ‘someone else’  and this abuse, the Bishop says, leaves the victim vulnerable to the possession of demons.  It just emphasises the church’s tendency to externalise blame, hold the victim responsible for the actions of others, and typical of this barbaric and outdated religion of ridiculous superstition.

Exorcisms which have made the news are those that have ended in tragedy but were dismissed by the Bishop as having been carried out by untrained amateurs who resorted to beatings drownings and asphyxiation in order to ‘drive the demon out’.  Forget the need for training and more of these pointless rituals,  there is a need for a worldwide ban on the practice.  We only hear about the handful that are even reported but how many tragedies go unmentioned?  How many of these people are permanently damaged or injured by this practice?  We don’t hear about them for the same reason we didn’t hear of the widespread (and current) practice of protecting paedophiles for so long: the church do not regard themselves as subject to the man-made laws or morals that contradict their own idiotic philosophy.  It is in the interest of public safety that the practice is halted entirely rather than escalated.  When you consider that there are some who regard the ritual to be dangerous to the exorcist but the danger was also dismissed by the Bishop (who has never performed one) who put the deaths down to the ignorance of the untrained.  He added that the ‘unofficial’ exorcism were merely ‘ineffective’ and that “Jesus is more powerful than the Devil”.  Not the first to close their eyes and mind to reality but his influence on this subject makes him dangerous.

The Bishop’s dismissal make little impact on the Reverend who believes that the danger to exorcists is very real.  They can be attacked emotionally, physically and psychological but added that he had never experienced a physical attack (I wonder why? duh) but his celibacy is often attacked.  Often? 8 a year for 5 years is often?  Heaven for bid he ever quit the church and get a real church: the shock would probably induce a stroke.  Paprocki and Thomas both refer to demons and devils in the plural and the singular but the Bishop seems proud (isn’t pride a sin?) to admit this as if he was showing off some expertise on the matter.

“I use those interchangeably,” Paprocki said. “Sometimes a person can be possessed by more than one devil.”

According to these paranoid papists, a demon is a spiritual being who has rejected God and is being punished eternally for that ‘crime’ and the trick to a successful ritual is to learn the demon/devil’s real name while remaining aware that the Devil is the Prince of lies.  That simple huh?  The knowledge of this grants the exorcist power over the demon and the ability to banish it.  They have both noted that this cannot be done in one session so one wonders how much the church charges for their time.  It also begs the question of why the exorcist would believe a word spoken by/through the possessed?  The rarity of exorcism is, claims Paprocki, due to the rarity of real possession (no shit, Sherlock moment?).  The Bishop went on to say that the Devil’s ‘real’ game is temptation (aside from his earlier claim that demons are always looking for a way in) so it is a mistake to assume that the only danger lies in possession.  The devil is no more real than God, Jesus or any other mythology for that matter and it is foolish to fear mere characters in stories.

Polish exorcists gather in Warsaw

The national congress comes as part of a policy by Poland’s Catholic Church to lift the veil on what was once a secretive practice Photo: CORBIS

Clearly these men (and those who follow his promotion of exorcism) are deranged and should be removed from positions where they can influence the ideas and actions of others (and possibly placed in psychiatric institutions?) so they can do no further harm.  Regardless of the improbability of their claims and ideas, people DO listen to these men and change their minds according to what their local clergy tell them to think so these insane and parasitical ideas of demons, devils and possession are being spread and have more than merely the potential to cause very real and lasting (if not permanent) harm.




The Bible on Homosexuality.

“Homosexuality is an illicit lust forbidden by God. He said to His people Israel, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” (Leviticus 18:22). “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a prime example of sin, a sexual perversion. The Christian can neither alter God’s viewpoint nor depart from it.” Homosexuality: The Christian Perspective –

This is untrue.  Particularly the last statement.  The Christian can decide that the bible is wrong, both morally and factually.  They choose to adhere to the dogma regardless of their own beliefs (if they have even thought about what they claim they believe).  The truth is that those who believe choose to remain ‘faithful’ to it’s content, have been conditioned to believe that these people are unnatural in some respect despite all evidence to the contrary.  There is no failing in falling in love with another individual.  The sexuality of others is none of anybody’s business.   It is NOT a mental illness and therefore no cure is required.  It is normal behaviour for those who are so inclined and it is nothing to be ashamed of.  It is the business of consenting the adults involved.  Unfortunately, there are those who have ignored the facts because they have been programmed to believe what it says in the bible.

13“‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” – Leviticus 20:13

What Does SoulForce Say?

The article from SoulForce, uses weak arguments defending the Bible from blame and criticism and the author goes to great lengths to exhibit their ‘qualifications’ on the subject.  The writer has convinced themselves than the bible does not in fact condemn homosexuality (I will get to why in a moment).  They also makes unsubstantiated claims of the bible condemning private sexual acts that are now considered ‘acceptable’, including the practice of Levirate Marriage (Mark 12:18), while commanding those that have been cast aside.  Aside from the fact that this practice removes female autonomy, and lends yet more weight to my misogyny argument, it is not a generally accepted practice in the UK.  The story in question was more to clear up an issue of who would claim a woman as their wife come judgement day.   DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12, is not a socially ‘accepted’ sexual act and nor are MARK 10:1-12, DEUTERONOMY 22:22, or DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21, which begs the question of exactly where the author got their ‘qualifications’ and why they chose these particular verses to support their ridiculous argument.  It also leads me to question why even bother to defend this hate-filled book to begin with but then, as expected pops up the standard straw-man answer of:

Over the centuries the Holy Spirit has taught us that certain Bible verses should not be understood as God’s law for all time periods. Some verses are specific to the culture and time they were written, and are no longer viewed as appropriate, wise, or just.”

And goes on…

“Often, the Holy Spirit uses science to teach us why those ancient words no longer apply to our modern times. During the last three decades, for example, organizations representing 1.5 million U.S. health professionals (doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, and educators) have stated definitively that homosexual orientation is as natural as heterosexual orientation, that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of yet unknown pre- and post-natal influences, and that it is dangerous and inappropriate to tell a homosexual that he or she could or should attempt to change his or her sexual orientation. (See Recommended Resources, p. 23-24.)”

The article goes on and on and even makes an absurd statement that the Bible and Jesus do not condemn or even mention homosexual activity because it was unknown until the 19th Century (insert comedic ‘wrong’ buzzer).  At this point I decided to abandon the article as a source (it made me too cross).  The writer is clearly in a world of their own and I very much doubt that any amount of debunking would make the slightest bit of difference. What they did say, that I am glad that they acknowledged, is that the interpretation of various passages has enabled people to claim justification for their acts of violence and hatred.  One of the many hundreds of instances of ‘collective misinterpretation’ led to the emergence of the Klu Klux Klan and cowards in disguise terrorising any they believed to be living in ways contrary to those laid down in the bible.  This was not limited to antipathy toward homosexuals, but included race discrimination, misogyny and the persecution of any and all that they even suspected of sympathy or liberal ideology. The article was worth a mention because it illustrates the sheer level of denial we are up against.

This, at least, was honest about what the bible says on the matter and refrains from painting a rosy glow over the issue, but it was no less despicable.  The page is in the form of  questions and answers session and emphasises the wanton lack of respect for those who happen to be  attracted to their own gender.  Their reasons are just as despicable as the questions asked and the whole page was written by a single individual, Lehman Strauss.

Q. How can we help Christians who get involved in the practice of homosexuality?

We can help them by seeking to draw their attention to what God says in His Word. In a kind and loving spirit we can show them that they are wrong. However, the homosexual must admit to the fact that he is living in sin and that he has the desire to be made free from it. Without a genuine conviction of God’s displeasure and a strong desire to do God’s will, there is no hope. A truly born again person cannot continue to practice sin without reaping the results of miserable unhappiness brought on by loss of fellowship with God, the fear of retribution and the anxiety produced by guilt. The homosexual must ask himself, “Is the temporary gratification of the flesh worth all the penalty and losses I must suffer?”

Q. What should be the Christian’s attitude toward the homosexual?

We must always keep before us the fact that homosexuals, like all of us sinners, are the objects of God’s love. The Bible says, “But God commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Jesus Christ “is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (I John 2:2). The Christian who shares God’s love for lost sinners will seek to reach the homosexual with the gospel of Christ, which “is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth” (Romans 1:16). As a Christian I should hate all sin but I can find no justification for hating the sinner. The homosexual is a precious soul for whom Christ died. We Christians can show him the best way of life by pointing him to Christ. Our Lord said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). We are obligated to take the gospel to all.

Hating the sin but not the sinner dehumanises the individual and strips them of part of who they are and allows the believer to expect the same from others.  I have no patience with this argument and it will never be accepted by any rational individual.  If they have no inclination to partake in homosexual ‘activity’ then don’t.  Nobody is expecting them to.  They have no right to pass judgement on guiltless strangers for a lifestyle that harms nobody,  because they have the credulity to believe the contents of ancient propaganda.  The article points to a series of  passages that I will use to compile yet another PDF over tomorrow and Friday.


Passages from the Old Testament have been interpreted to argue that homosexuals should be punished with death, and AIDS has been portrayed by some such as Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell[27] as a punishment by God against homosexuals.[28] In the 20th century, theologians like Karl Barth, Jürgen Moltmann,Hans Kung, John Robinson, Bishop David Jenkins, Don Cupitt, Bishop Jack Spong challenged traditional theological positions and understandings of the Bible; following these developments some have suggested that passages have been mistranslated, are taken out of context, or that they do not refer to what we understand as “homosexuality.”[29][30]

The Wikipedia article shows again that the bible has been open to interpretation for as long as it has existed.  The number of official branches and sects that have sprung up and adhere to various ideologies are innumerable not to mention the cults such as The Watchtower Foundation and Scientology.  Each of them have their own views on homosexual inclination and participation and, while some are more liberal, the majority view it as a sin worthy of punishment in the afterlife, not in this one.  The reams of research and scientific evidence after painstaking investigation invalidate any their claims of unnatural behaviour. It renders all of their quibbling about interpretation and misunderstanding irrelevant.

“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men … For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” (Romans 1:18a, 21–27)[58]

In Conclusion?

Despite the horror and the misery inflicted in the name of religion, and a wave of individuals who are determined to have everybody compelled to follow their own version of morality, there are liberal Christians who defend the Bible against those who express their justified objections.  To back this up, they assert that the bible has been misunderstood by those who are qualified to interpret it correctly.  They know very well that despite their calling for qualification before comment, Christianity is not solely directed at scholars and theologians but ordinary individuals who, for one reason or another, are not holders of Phds in Greek and Hebrew.  This brings us back to the institution’s propensity to discourage followers from questioning what they are expected to believe and this is the problem.  They are preached at and brow-beaten from every direction to believe and conform.  When somebody really does believe the tirades of hatred against strangers to the extent that they act on that belief, rather than admit their own association with those acts and express outrage,  other believers wriggle out with straw-man arguments of ‘having to believe’.

“The Inquisition was not a perversion of Christian doctrine, it was an expression of Christian doctrine.” ~ Dr. Darrell Ray, Author of, “The God Who Wasn’t There.”

Consider that dreadful cliché of ‘Guns don’t kill people, people kill people’ and imagine for one moment that one the perpetrators of a violent crime is a metaphorical gun.  The gun on its own is an inanimate object.  It will always have to potential to kill or harm somebody, but left untouched, unloaded and, to use the scientific sense of the word, not interfered with, that same potential will remain static (we are dangerous animals, with large brains and a lot of aggression).  Add now, the bullets of religious dogma and doctrine that has been loaded into it since before it can remember or had the mental equipment to defend itself from the onslaught.  The preacher picks up this metaphorical gun and aims it with their sermons, backed up by their scriptures.  This, by no means, exonerates the believer from that act, but who loaded that same believer full of their own religious hang-ups and prejudice? If you think this attitude rings any bells then you are not mistaken.  Christianity is no more exempt from accountability than any other world religion which has been used to justify atrocity and conflict and liberal Christians are just as guilty of selective dissociation from the facts as the rest.


The Bible and Misogony. (Part 2)

The bible contains not only instructions on slavery, racism and homophobia,  and not to mention the general attitude against unbelievers and believers of other faiths, but it is also openly misogynistic.  The general attitude toward women and girls within Christianity is, quite frankly, disgusting.  Within the sources at the bottom of this post is another link to the 38 page PDF I compiled yesterday of passages to illustrate this point.  I have also included a link to the Hammurabi code site, this way if readers would like to conduct their own comparative they will see that any and claims that the Bible’s rule are for the protection of women are both incorrect and dishonest and there is nothing original in the Bible.  It has been pieced together from unverified copies of older works and was about two hundred years out of date to begin with.  I do not believe there is anything benevolent within this hate-filled religion that cannot be learned outside it.  A few good deeds and sanctimonious intentions can neither undo nor negate the harm that is caused by this primitive belief system.

Sexism: The Institutional Roots stem from the Tree of Knowledge.

To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Genesis 3:16

Here is where it begins.  Though sexism did not begin here, this is where the tradition of institutional misogyny that has poisoned society against half of its population has set down roots.  Eve, though the likelihood of her existence is between slim and none, has ever been blamed for ‘original-sin’.  It says a lot that she was not only a free-thinker but female, but therein lies the first hurdle.  This is the justification used for the subjugation of women for centuries along with perpetuating the attitude that

  1. Ignorance is a virtue, especially in women.
  2. Women are naturally corrupt and therefore not to be trusted.

This passage has led people to go as far as denying women pain-relief during childbirth  in the belief that women must pay for the ‘sin’ of an ancient mythical ancestor.  What is more disturbing is that otherwise sane women go willingly along with this sickening attitude. Wasn’t Jesus supposed to have died to pay for original sin?  If this were even possible, you would have thought that this ‘merciful deity’ would have lifted the punishment but lets be honest here: it isn’t god that hated women because there is no ‘God’ to do the hating and never was.

14And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result.

15But women will be saved through childbearing assuming they continue to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty. – 1 Timothy 2:14 -15

The people who hated women are those men, so comfortable in their patriarchal privilege, saw fit to preserve this position by making it holy writ.  I doubt very much that those in charge even believed it themselves.  It is not female sin that has been passed on, it is ancient male pomposity that has been handed down through the generations and enforced by both those who chose to waste their lives in the service of the Church and those who saw something to gain from it themselves: John Calvin even claimed that female guilt is insoluble.

“Woman is more guilty than man, because she was seduced by Satan, and so diverted her husband from obedience to God that she was an instrument of death leading to all perdition. It is necessary that woman recognize this, and that she learn to what she is subjected; and not only against her husband. This is reason enough why today she is placed below and that she bears within her ignominy and shame.” – John Calvin

Unequal Chastity.

“Cultures, which demand virginity and chastity in women, have as their bedrock the double standard morality code. If men are encouraged to view women as depreciating chattels they will never regard them as human. And if women are not regarded as human, then all kinds of atrocities and injustices are permissible against them!” – Voula Papas – Atheist Foundation of Australia

It is a general principle within Christianity that the obedient, submissive, chaste and silent figure of Mary is the template of female virtue.  If Mary ever existed, ‘the touch of man’ may well have had an entirely different meaning from the meaning of today.  We must also remember that the idea of who qualified as people was almost exclusively limited to other Jews. The idea of feminine of submission under men is, on its own offensive, and those who hold to this idea fail to realise that the character was a victim of an assault which resulted in an unwanted pregnancy. Could this be the reason why the pro-life movement see fit to declare all fertilised eggs ‘babies’ in some bizarre and convoluted mindset of their own.  In order to reconcile this ridiculous notion with their fallacy of humility and virtue in their poster-girl for innocence, the story, with whatever truth there was in this story, it has obviously been embellished and obfuscated to a point where it is unrecognisable from reality.  Since then and throughout the book, the words whore and harlot are used frequently both in the bible to describe women who deviate from the double standards of sexual moral code set by prudish men.  The name of the murdered Queen Jezebel has been warped into an epithet for women considered wanton and vain by the paradoxical and twisted standards of the bible.

11Women should learn quietly and submissively.

12I do not let women teach men or have authority over them.b Let them listen quietly.

13For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve.”

– 1 Timothy 2:11-13

It is paradoxical because while women are condemned over and over for the crime of daring to be female,  They prostitute their wives to save their own skins, they sell their daughters and treat their wives as property. They keep hoards of Concubines and multiple spouses. So while the ‘preservation of biblical marriage’ people shout about single sex marriage being ‘unnatural’, or ‘sinful’ they really should think again. The Bible permits polygamy, for men, while cast off women are considered unclean and unmarketable as they have been ‘used’ by other men.  The test for fidelity, is not only impossible to pass as it requires the girl to prove a negative, but it is exclusively for women.  The actual biblical definition of ‘adultery is for a to have sexual relations with a man who is not her husband while the marital status of the man is considered irrelevant.

Punish the Victim and Reward the Villain.

14But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the plunder from your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. – Deuteronomy 20:14

We see repeated examples of the male characters being given license and even applauded for their conquests and rewarded with free license, or even instruction, to rape the virgins of the latest conquest.  Deuteronomy specifies that both the victim of rape and the rapist must be stoned to death while other passages of the Bible decree that the rapist must take his victim for a wife and compensate her father. Genesis encourages the rape of women over that of men, on top of the passages that offer women as spoils of war in the name of growing the religion.  It doesn’t even seem that incest is out of the question when Ammon raped his own sister and it took more than 2 years for her brother to exact revenge.  I wonder what slight angered David most; the theft of his daughter’s virginity or the failure to compensate.

14But Amnon wouldn’t listen to her, and since he was stronger than she was, he raped her. 15Then suddenly Amnon’s love turned to hate, and he hated her even more than he had loved her. “Get out of here!” he snarled at her.” – 2 Samuel 13:14-15

Chapter 19 of judges is on of many examples of permission for men to sacrifice the women in their care to save themselves.  One might presumably wonder why the Levite ever bothered to regain his ‘concubine’ from her father’s house when he would so readily give her up to be raped by a drunken gang.  It serves to illustrate the lack of standing that women have in the eyes of Christianity. Women have come a long way but our progress must not be taken for granted when it could be so easily taken from us again.  Western law protects us from religious lore, and thankfully rape is now dealt with by lengthy prison sentences.  The problem is still the burden of proof and the attitude projected by the a Christian owned media that the plaintiff must first prove her own wholesomeness.

“Of course, one would be hard-pressed to find a lot of examples of Christian Honor Killings, and many apologists refute the deaths that result from the severe beatings that some Christian women endure by their husbands who feel they have not been sufficiently compliant in their duty to submit and obey. These men will use biblical Scripture to back up their abuse and many women accept it, as well, choosing to remain in abusive relationships because of the Christian doctrines on divorce, etc.” – Al Stefanelli

The condemnation from a largely Christian western hemisphere, of the honour killings of young women who fall in love with outside their caste or religion, who become westernised and disobedient, is hypocritical to say the least.  These Christians need look only as far as their own holy book to find instructions to the same tune.  Islam is based on old testament Christianity.  The differences are there, for instance, Islam’s prophet is an elderly paedophile. There is the same call to eradicate the unbeliever and the homosexual, the same call to subjugate women, the same call to spread the faith by the sword, and the same call for the ritual murder for rape victims.

Damned Since Conception.

5If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.– Leviticus 12:1-5

And we return to the beginning.  We are, apparently born damned by merit of being born at all.  Aside the fact that the idea of inherited sin is a despicable principle, it is impossible. We inherit our DNA from our parents. We acquire mannerisms from observing them day by day.  We are passed heirlooms and family keepsakes.  If we are incredibly unlucky we end up taking on the debts of our deceased relatives.  What we do not inherit is sin and collective shame.  We can in no reasonable way be held accountable for the actions of either our parents or ancestors who died long before we were born so it begs the question of why some believe we can and should.  It is a fear tactic, designed to bully the conformist to continue in their unquestioned obedience.

“Man born of woman. Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!” Job 14:1-4

By Christian doctrine, we are damned from the moment we are conceived due to the very manner of our conception.  We are damned because we have mothers and that this is one more despicable attitude among hundreds of others.  The Bible holds a myriad of contradictions and nonsensical sexist ideas but I think this has to be one of the worst. Women, are told in the bible that they are saved through pain in childbirth (ritual torture?) for the sin of being women at all, and it then goes on to say that their children take that sin from them. It’s the great catch-all; “HOW DO WE GET THE BELIEVER, WHO STICKS BY ALL OUR RULES WITHOUT EXCEPTION AND HAS NOTHING TO FEEL GUILTY ABOUT?…AHH, THAT’S RIGHT, THEY WERE BORN! AND IT GIVES THEM SOMETHING TO HATE THEIR MOTHERS FOR.’

18Your children and your crops will be cursed. The offspring of your herds and flocks will be cursed. Deuteronomy 28:18

In Conclusion?

In response to this post, I will brook no straw-man arguments that “We might not like it but it’s in the Bible so I must believe it.” That is not an argument.  That is moral and intellectual cowardice.  The Bible is as irrelevant today as any other ancient mythology and it is time that people realised this.  Claiming that 21st century civilised morality is not applicable when considering the scripture is, in itself, erroneous. Christianity is morally bankrupt and has no legitimate claim to the privilege it has achieved through emotional terrorism and force.  It should be brought to account in every criminal trial in determining motive.  It should not be immune to its violent past.  The religious-right may well think they are reclaiming their countries but that will only result in a theocracy that will put us back into the dark ages.  As a word of warning to the women who are desirous of this ‘return to a golden age’, you too will be required to live by these same rules.  Your comfortable and liberated lifestyles will come to an end if the harbingers of the Old Testament, were to get their wishes granted.  I am not prepared to live by Christianity’s vitriol and bigotry and nor should any of the rest of us be.


Required Reading

The Handmaid’s Tale – Margaret Attwood.

Hypocrisy of Disgusting Proportion

The other day I posted an article written by Miss Satterfield, along with my response to her piece and the resulting conversation.  I was hoping for this issue to be resolved but she appears to disagree and has failed to answer.   Her idea of a conversation is therefore to slap down those who disagree with her and dare to question her with falsehoods and delusions and then answer a response with another deluded diatribe.  I was hoping to at least find a blog entry in response to any comments she had received regarding the piece but I was out of luck there too.  What I did find was this; another list of deluded drivel about how Christians in particular are so hard done by.  I will dissect it paragraph by paragraph.

Chrissy Satterfield 0n The Voice X Change.

When an Atheist falls and no one is around to hear it does it still make a noise? Probably not, but when a Christian falls you better believe millions of people will hear about it and make it a point to ridicule them. I am sick to the core that Christianity is frowned upon here in the United States. Don’t try to deny it either…try bringing up your Christian faith around ANYONE and they look at you like you have lobsters crawling out of your ears. “GASP…you believe in something other than yourself?!!!?? You follow a moral compass and try to live by the 10 commandments?!!?!? How do you sleep at night?” Ugh, it’s like you can’t even talk about your faith as a Christian without someone rolling their eyes or doing whatever they can to shake you up or poke holes in your testimony. But as soon as a Muslim or an Atheist or a Jedi begins to open up about their beliefs…everyone perks up their PC ears and listens without interrupting or objecting. They nod their head up and down as if they understand and they are so accepting of everything…Everything BUT Christianity. It’s almost as if people resent us. What is wrong with this scenario?

First point:  ‘It‘? I would previously have thought that this was a mere slip but having read some of her more recent ‘work’, this would be a naive assumption.  She has, in her first sentence, dehumanised the atheist community with a word and goes on to refer to the hypothetical Christian as ‘them’.  Christianity is not frowned upon and she has every right to believe in what she chooses.  What is frowned upon is the non-stop Evangelist proselytism. What is frowned upon is that any objection to this constant attempt to convert any and all non-Christians and other non-believers, is slapped down and decried as un-American, undemocratic oppression and persecution (Hitler used the same tactic against the Jews).  News flash, lovey, it is not un-American or un-patriotic to defend our own beliefs and way of life from an attack by the right.  Shameless attempts to convert others constitute an attack.

Most of us also believe in more than ourselves.  We have a moral compass and know the difference between right and wrong without religion at the core of our motives. She paints us as selfish, immoral, shallow and closed minded.  Asking questions is not evidence of closed mindedness but she obviously feels insecure in her  ‘faith’ to feel so threatened by questions and other statements of fact made by free-thinkers.

I’m not getting onto the whole Jedi thing as it hurts just trying to think down to her level on this point.  The fatuousness of that statement goes beyond stupidity.  I think she might find that people listen to the views of Liberal and rational adults because, for the most part, they are inclusive, not oppressive and do not advocate either forcing or preventing others from participate in activities they disagree with.  The key word there is participate. We do not believe that another person has the right to decide how another person must live their lives so have no intention of banning Christians from their belief in God.  Force and manipulation are NOT our way. What atheists and agnostics want is to be allowed to live our lives without having Christian dogma forced on us and be expected to put up with it and without having the lie ‘Christians are being persecuted’ waved at us every time we object to something.

Oh I know many will have a hundred answers to that question; most of which focus on how wrong I am or how hypocritical I am because I am a Christian. Do me a favor and spare me the “You suck and here’s why” speech. Before those people jump to any conclusions, just know I don’t assume that Christianity is the only religion known to man. I don’t assume that everyone has to follow the Christian faith to a T in order to be saved. If that were true I’d definitely go straight to hell.

She is wrong and hypocritical but this is not BECAUSE she is a Christian.  She has made it very clear that she is unwilling to listen to anything atheists have to say and unfortunately there is no cure for that form of wilful ignorance. I may be mistaken but I am detecting some pride and a suggestion that there is virtue in her blind faith in the absurd. I will not spare her any sympathy because her hate-filled rants deserve no such consideration. Nobody has implied that she is unaware of other faiths and her position on this subject is such that no amount of rationality will ever make her see sense because she is determined to play the victim while turning reality on its head to fit around her delusions.  Had she a reasonable or rational thought in her head she would see how her flimsy argument contradicts itself.  The only way that nobody would ever question her after putting herself forward (as I am sure is the case if the content of her blog is anything to go by)  is if everybody were to just lie down and be converted to her brand of Christianity like good little sheeple. Maybe, if she actually knew when to shut up and  listen to what other people had to say, rather than comparing it with any fantasy she currently has running through her head, she might possibly learn something.  I will also add that her writing style addresses an outside audience of non-believers so as it is clearly directed at me I have no reservation in responding.  I encourage others to do so too.

I believe in forgiveness and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. That He came to this earth to die for MY sins and yours. If you don’t believe that…that is between you and God.  I don’t seek to judge, that’s not my job. I don’t seek out non-believers and scrutinize their way of life. My beliefs have shown me that, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23 Just because I believe I am right, doesn’t make me ignorant or close minded to another person’s point of view. It just means I believe in God. As a Christian, I must have faith that Jesus Christ is the son of God or else I’m going to hell. And Muslims have to believe that they are right. And the Jewish faith must believe they’re right. There are major consequences, for any religion, if you don’t believe you are right. So don’t think for a second that Christians are the only people who think their religion is true. And we definitely are not the alone in speaking our minds. It’s just when we do speak up, some people tend to shut down and refuse to have an open mind.

Good for her.  That belief is her choice. Again she is lying to herself as well as her audience as she DOES seek out non-believers but  instead of preaching what she clearly thinks is profound observations of non-believers to non-believers, she is sharing her ignorance. I wonder where she acquired these misconceived attitudes about non-believers.  I struggle to understand why she thinks a rational and sane individual would even attempt to hold a debate about sin with a being they don’t believe in.  Her statement about scrutinising our way of life is also contradicted later on, but I digress. She states that her beliefs have confirmed that a passage in her committee written, racist, slavery endorsing, misogynistic, bible is true.  Another circular argument of ‘I say such and such is true because I already believe it is and the bible says it is‘  Am I alone in seeing the madness of this precept?

Believing something is real, does not make it real.  I could tell you that the sky is orange and for all that I believe it, will not make it actually true.  The assertion that god and hell must exist because people believe they do is childish at best, and moronic at worst.  It does not change the fact that all religions are one part wishful thinking to two parts ignorance and superstition.  She assures us that they must believe and behave the way they do or they will suffer dire consequences which is why we must just put up with their dictatorial demands.  I will add here, as I have done many times before, that the mercenary attitude of only being moral or good in hope of reward or for fear of punishment is by no means, admirable behaviour.  Of course religious people think they are right.  It is this certainty which has led to so much bloodshed and it would not be religion with out it.  Our willingness to question, examine solid observable and testable evidence, and change our minds when proven wrong is what puts the lie to her accusation of closed mindedness.  What she objects to is that we will not allow ourselves to be indoctrinated on the say-so of another.

Now, I will admit there are Christian extremists out there who blow up abortion buildings and condemn homosexuals…but that same extreme behavior is modeled through some Muslims as well. Except they don’t blow up abortion buildings…they take guns to work at an Army base and murder 14 soldiers, they fly planes into buildings and kill hundreds of thousands of Americans. But, no one today will group them with the entire Muslim faith, as they shouldn’t. I agree that those are extreme situations that may not be directly related to every Muslim’s way of thinking. But why is it that a few Christians step out of line and the nation goes up in arms. I am not diminishing a Christian extremist’s behavior, by all means arrest them and put them behind bars if they break the law. But don’t believe that one bad apple has spoiled the whole basket.

An admission that she promptly steps away from is hardly an admission.  She is very fast to spread the blame about isn’t she.  Such reflexes.  People DO condemn Muslims on the actions of a handful.  The Muslim community are by no means exempt for the collective blame for atrocities in the name of Allah. And the reason they share collective blame for atrocities committed in the name of their faith?  Because the Muslim community only shows collective outrage when they feel that they have been insulted. They are no better than the Christian community but nor are they any worse.  The Christian Community is no less guilty of trying to force their delusions of choice on the rest of us than the Muslim community is of honour killings, stoning rape victims to death and hanging homosexuals.  In the case of Christians forcing their ideals on non believers, I am yet to hear of a right wing Christian actually defend the rights of a liberal non-believer to chose their own way of life.

The extreme behavior is not really what I want to address. I want to focus on the Christian at your work place or at school who loves to talk about God and wants to shine their little light all over. Stop persecuting them!!!!! Not to get all PSA on you, but if you see a Christian in your office, don’t smash their spirit…treat them just as you would treat your friend. They are not your enemy! They aren’t actively seeking you out to criticize you, honest. When I tell people I am a Christian, for the most part people don’t really respond. Which in itself is a disappointment, but every once in a while I’ll get someone who will do anything and everything to make me insecure in my faith. Why is that?! And why is it that some will simply turn their ears off and change the subject? Are they unable to have a conversation about Christianity without yelling and screaming? Or maybe they just don’t care…

NOBODY IS PERSECUTING YOU, YOU STUPID WOMAN!!! The workplace is not the place for religion any more than a school is.  As far as I am concerned you are paid to do a job, not discuss, theology.  If you have the time to talk about your religion at work then you obviously have not got enough work to do and you are talking yourself out of a job.  You have every right to chatter away about what ever you like but you do not have the right to force people to listen (unless you plan on returning the favour, which I very much doubt).  I have religious friends but I respect them so I do not make them listen to me talk about my-lack of faith all the time and they respect me enough NOT to bore me to death with arguments that have been disproved a thousand times and more.  We actually have OTHER things to talk about.

This isn’t just about religion either. Liberals can shout their beliefs from the mountain tops…and rarely someone will challenge them when they talk about a woman’s right to kill…I mean choose. But if a Christian voices their opinion about a fetus’ right to live, all hell comes crashing down on them. I’m sure all of us have had firsthand experience with this, on more than one occasion, and I know people are merciless when it comes to “proving you wrong.” I challenge the readers to find me one media outlet besides the silver FOX news that challenges liberals, environmentalists, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu’s, Atheists or any other belief, the way they challenge Christians. A great example to further my point stems from last week. Televangelist Pat Robertson blamed the Haitians for the deadly earthquake. That was all over the news like white on rice. People were outraged by this, as they should be, but the media turned it into this monster of a deal. None of those networks give a flying squirrel about what Pat says any other day of the week, so why should this be any different. He’s done a lot of great things for people, but he says this one thing and all of a sudden he’s Hitler. People make mistakes. Christians make mistakes. There’s no need to broadcast our every wrong move, unless you are willing to broadcast our every right move. That’s right…we do great things too.

When did you ever hear of a liberal shouting about anything wasn’t defending the rights of another party (or our own) being violated by somebody else.  A woman’s body is their own affair and not every non-believer is pro abortion. It is none of anybody else’s business.  Isn’t the very idea of an aggressive Buddhist a bit of an oxymoron?  (It’s a bit like the vandalism of, or declaring war on against abstract nouns.)  Having never knowingly met a Buddhist, I would say they have less that warrants a challenge than the ever-so-sensitive Christians. I have also never had a member of the Jewish community attempt to convert me.  From what I have learned, it is not something that is easy to do and you have to approach them WITHOUT coercion from another party. When have we ever experienced Hindus or Sikhs publicly trying to ban the sale or production of beef products, or force their world-view into schools?  There has only one Sikh protest that I can remember about objections to a theatrical production and another to petition Downing Street to oppose the death penalty in Dubai. Mr Robertson would have been condemned for his hate filled and unsympathetic assertion that the Haitian earthquake was the fault of the people who lived there no matter what his personal religious beliefs might have been.  What I doubt is that he would have said it at all were it not for his religion.  The reason nobody normally cares about what he says is because he is an aid to the perpetuation of irrelevance.  I wonder what he has really DONE for people that didn’t involve just sitting and wishing that things will get better?  If you remember, the Iranian leader later asserted that immodestly dressed women were the cause of earthquakes.  Again with the self-promotion of ‘great things’, but you have already said you only act to please God so why should we be thankful for, or acknowledging of, mercenary acts?

I’d also like to address the Christians out there who maybe have hurt some people along their journey, and of course I’m talking to myself too. I wouldn’t be a Christian if I didn’t address my own lifestyle. If we are ever going to save people and bring them to the Lord, condemnation and hate isn’t going to help. I heard a joke the other day, “Going to church makes you no more of a Christian than standing in a garage makes you a car.” Meaning going through the motions of a Christian doesn’t necessarily make you a better Christian or a better person. It’s all about how others see your faith. We may be the only bible they ever read. So we need to be more helpful than hurtful, more understanding than unkind. If someone doesn’t do what you think is right, let it be known in a way that is pleasing to the Lord. If people are unresponsive to your efforts, all you do is pray for them. Don’t judge them, pray for them and pray for yourself.

The first person to look at should be herself.  There is no doubt in the matter. At some time in our lives we have all been offended by some one or other over a difference of opinion.  Sometimes the dispute is resolved and other times it is not but we do not often make assumptions about their whole way of life based upon the single issue.  It is not for others to decide who should believe what.  She takes it upon herself here to decide she has not only the right but duty to ‘save’ people.  She has proven here that while she might not show (she makes a poor show of hiding it) her own disdain for the rights of non-believers she certainly feels it.  If I saw that this woman’s faith was truly a private matter and she allowed others their own lives and own decisions, as she so vehemently demands for herself, then she would have nothing to shout about.  However, she does not.  She openly displays her disgust that non-believers share the same rights to express ideas contrary to her own.  She is comfortable with coercion and manipulation and seems completely unaware of how her open statement of aiming to convert as many non-believers as possible, regardless of their own personal ideas, can be at all objectionable to others.  I really hope she finds this and reads how ridiculous she seems to rational adults.

Many have told me that they have been wronged by a Christian, and that is why they disrespect them. If you have been wronged by a Christian, and that has led you to treat them with a negative attitude, I am truly sorry. No Christian should ever make another person feel ashamed. As a Christian, I know that we can be judgmental and rude and downright mean sometimes…but please remember we’re not perfect.

I don’t disrespect Christians on speck.  Those I lack respect for are those like Miss Satterfield and her ilk, who are driven to outright indignation when the rights of others to not have Christianity forced on them, prevent them from acting as they please.  How can she not see why?  I would say that NOBODY should ever make another feel ashamed.  I am lucky that I have nothing to be ashamed of so as to deliver any ammunition.  I have never felt ashamed of my non-belief and I am perfectly happy in my life.  I am married, for the second time, to a wonderful husband who supports and encourages me and we have a beautiful son so what have I to fret about?

That’s my dose of honesty this week, Christians aren’t perfect…no one should expect us to be perfect. And just because we make mistakes, doesn’t make us the enemy, it doesn’t make us crazy, it makes us human. Just like you. The only difference is, we’ve found forgiveness…have you? I want to encourage everyone to investigate Christianity. I’m not talking about Catholics and Protestants…strip all of that away and just read up on the foundations of Christianity and really read the bible. Don’t read it with the intent to prove someone wrong, but read with an open heart. I think you’ll be surprised; there is more peace within those pages than you could ever imagine. For those who are now going to slaughter me in the comment section below, this blog isn’t a judgment…just a suggestion to help us understand each other a little more.

I worry that she really does think that this bile is ‘honesty’.  It’s a sad fact that she will not be the only one who believes that an individual or group, who already have an elevated position in both society and in law, are being ‘oppressed’ by the mere fact that others have differing opinions and wish to be left alone to live their lives without having religion foisted upon us. Even if we only went along (and the very idea is appalling) it would mean sacrificing our integrity by lying to ourselves and others.  That may be satisfactory to Miss Satterfield, but it is not to me and I am sure it is not to others.  I would no sooner teach my son to lie or cheat than I would teach him to fake a belief to suit another’s feelings.

Nobody expects anybody to be perfect. Nobody views Christians as an ‘enemies’ until their lofty (and I use the word in it’s loosest possible sense) attitudes. The views expressed in her blog are but a sample of the couched bigotry exhibited on a daily basis by the religious right-wing.  The same people who add insult to injury when they claim that THEY are being persecuted for not being allowed to run rough-shot over the rest of us or dictate how we live our lives.