Discussion:
Elton John Wants To Ban Religion Completely
(too old to reply)
Sound of Trumpet
2006-11-15 10:04:41 UTC
Permalink
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts


Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)


PoliPundit ^ | 11/102006


Posted on 11/12/2006 6:39:27 AM PST by SirLinksalot


Sir Elton John wants religion banned completely - because he believes
it promotes hatred of gays.

Speaking to the Observer Music Monthly Magazine the singer said
religion lacked compassion and turned people into "hateful lemmings".


The PRESS ASSOCIATION reports: In a candid interview for a dedicated
Gay issue of the magazine he shared his views on topics as varied as
being a pop icon to Tony Blair's stance on the war in Iraq.

He said there was a lack of religious leadership, particularly in world
politics, and complained that people do not take to the streets to
protest any more.

Sir Elton said: "I think religion has always tried to turn hatred
towards gay people. Religion promotes the hatred and spite against
gays.

"But there are so many people I know who are gay and love their
religion. From my point of view I would ban religion completely.

"Organised religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into
really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."

He added: "The world is near escalating to World War Three and where
are the leaders of each religion? Why aren't they having a conclave?
Why aren't they coming together?

"I said this after 9/11 and people thought I was nuts. Instead of
more violence why isn't there a meeting of religious leaders?

"It's like the peace movement in the Sixties. Musicians got through
to people by getting out there and doing peace concerts but we don't
seem to do them any more.

"If John Lennon were alive today he'd be leading it with a
vengeance," he said.

Sir Elton said people were too busy blogging on the internet to go out
onto the streets to stand up for what they believed in.

"They seem to do their protesting online and that's not good
enough. You have to get out there and be seen to be vocal, and you've
got to do it time and time again.

"There was a big march in London when Britain decided to join the war
against Iraq and Tony Blair is on the record as saying 'the people
who march today will have blood on their hands'. That's returned to
bite him on the ass," he said.

Sir Elton compared his place in British culture with that of the Queen
Mother's.

He said: "People come to me and I'm a bit like the Queen Mother. I
never get those problems. I don't know what it is with me, people
treat me very reverently.

Referring to his "wedding" to long-term partner David Furnish, he
said: "It was the same when Dave and I had our civil union - I was
expecting the odd flour bomb and there wasn't.

"Dave and I as a couple seem to be the acceptable face of gayness,
and that's great."

He pledged to continue to campaign for gay rights saying: "I'm
going to fight for them whether I do it silently behind the scenes or
so vocally that I get locked up.

"I can't just sit back; it's not in my nature any more. I'm
nearly 60-years-old after all. I can't sit back and blindly ignore it
and I won't."
p***@hotmail.com
2006-11-15 10:06:38 UTC
Permalink
Sound of Trumpet wrote:

snip

Yeah, we've already talked about that. Please *do* try to keep up,
bigot...

-PF, Atl.
#2015/KoBAAWA!
bobandcarole
2006-11-15 10:29:02 UTC
Permalink
He must be cum drunk again..........
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
PoliPundit ^ | 11/102006
Posted on 11/12/2006 6:39:27 AM PST by SirLinksalot
Sir Elton John wants religion banned completely - because he believes
it promotes hatred of gays.
Speaking to the Observer Music Monthly Magazine the singer said
religion lacked compassion and turned people into "hateful lemmings".
The PRESS ASSOCIATION reports: In a candid interview for a dedicated
Gay issue of the magazine he shared his views on topics as varied as
being a pop icon to Tony Blair's stance on the war in Iraq.
He said there was a lack of religious leadership, particularly in world
politics, and complained that people do not take to the streets to
protest any more.
Sir Elton said: "I think religion has always tried to turn hatred
towards gay people. Religion promotes the hatred and spite against
gays.
"But there are so many people I know who are gay and love their
religion. From my point of view I would ban religion completely.
"Organised religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into
really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."
He added: "The world is near escalating to World War Three and where
are the leaders of each religion? Why aren't they having a conclave?
Why aren't they coming together?
"I said this after 9/11 and people thought I was nuts. Instead of
more violence why isn't there a meeting of religious leaders?
"It's like the peace movement in the Sixties. Musicians got through
to people by getting out there and doing peace concerts but we don't
seem to do them any more.
"If John Lennon were alive today he'd be leading it with a
vengeance," he said.
Sir Elton said people were too busy blogging on the internet to go out
onto the streets to stand up for what they believed in.
"They seem to do their protesting online and that's not good
enough. You have to get out there and be seen to be vocal, and you've
got to do it time and time again.
"There was a big march in London when Britain decided to join the war
against Iraq and Tony Blair is on the record as saying 'the people
who march today will have blood on their hands'. That's returned to
bite him on the ass," he said.
Sir Elton compared his place in British culture with that of the Queen
Mother's.
He said: "People come to me and I'm a bit like the Queen Mother. I
never get those problems. I don't know what it is with me, people
treat me very reverently.
Referring to his "wedding" to long-term partner David Furnish, he
said: "It was the same when Dave and I had our civil union - I was
expecting the odd flour bomb and there wasn't.
"Dave and I as a couple seem to be the acceptable face of gayness,
and that's great."
He pledged to continue to campaign for gay rights saying: "I'm
going to fight for them whether I do it silently behind the scenes or
so vocally that I get locked up.
"I can't just sit back; it's not in my nature any more. I'm
nearly 60-years-old after all. I can't sit back and blindly ignore it
and I won't."
Secular Human
2006-11-15 14:11:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
PoliPundit ^ | 11/102006
Posted on 11/12/2006 6:39:27 AM PST by SirLinksalot
Sir Elton John wants religion banned completely - because he believes
it promotes hatred of gays.
Speaking to the Observer Music Monthly Magazine the singer said
religion lacked compassion and turned people into "hateful lemmings".
The PRESS ASSOCIATION reports: In a candid interview for a dedicated
Gay issue of the magazine he shared his views on topics as varied as
being a pop icon to Tony Blair's stance on the war in Iraq.
He said there was a lack of religious leadership, particularly in world
politics, and complained that people do not take to the streets to
protest any more.
Sir Elton said: "I think religion has always tried to turn hatred
towards gay people. Religion promotes the hatred and spite against
gays.
"But there are so many people I know who are gay and love their
religion. From my point of view I would ban religion completely.
"Organised religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into
really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."
He added: "The world is near escalating to World War Three and where
are the leaders of each religion? Why aren't they having a conclave?
Why aren't they coming together?
"I said this after 9/11 and people thought I was nuts. Instead of
more violence why isn't there a meeting of religious leaders?
"It's like the peace movement in the Sixties. Musicians got through
to people by getting out there and doing peace concerts but we don't
seem to do them any more.
"If John Lennon were alive today he'd be leading it with a
vengeance," he said.
Sir Elton said people were too busy blogging on the internet to go out
onto the streets to stand up for what they believed in.
"They seem to do their protesting online and that's not good
enough. You have to get out there and be seen to be vocal, and you've
got to do it time and time again.
"There was a big march in London when Britain decided to join the war
against Iraq and Tony Blair is on the record as saying 'the people
who march today will have blood on their hands'. That's returned to
bite him on the ass," he said.
Sir Elton compared his place in British culture with that of the Queen
Mother's.
He said: "People come to me and I'm a bit like the Queen Mother. I
never get those problems. I don't know what it is with me, people
treat me very reverently.
Referring to his "wedding" to long-term partner David Furnish, he
said: "It was the same when Dave and I had our civil union - I was
expecting the odd flour bomb and there wasn't.
"Dave and I as a couple seem to be the acceptable face of gayness,
and that's great."
He pledged to continue to campaign for gay rights saying: "I'm
going to fight for them whether I do it silently behind the scenes or
so vocally that I get locked up.
"I can't just sit back; it's not in my nature any more. I'm
nearly 60-years-old after all. I can't sit back and blindly ignore it
and I won't."
Elton has got it wrong. Fundamentalist religion promotes hatred
(period). It promotes hatred of Gays, minorities, women, other
religions and Democrats.
p***@home.com
2006-11-15 14:32:03 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Nov 2006 02:04:41 -0800, "Sound of Trumpet"
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
PoliPundit ^ | 11/102006
Good luck with that one, Elton.
Greywolf
2006-11-15 15:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@home.com
On 15 Nov 2006 02:04:41 -0800, "Sound of Trumpet"
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
PoliPundit ^ | 11/102006
Good luck with that one, Elton.
I'm not Gay but I know hatred and intolerance when I see it. 'Ban' is a
pretty strong word. I'd like to see adults quit teaching our children
nonsense and brazen lies. I'd like to see the 'Church' carry on with noble
ideas and actions but cut the crap start acting responsibly. And I'd also
like the 'Church' to stop being an unscrupulous 'business' and, instead,
start promoting the truth for a change. Keep the 'costumes', keep the
'structure', only fasten it down to the 'real' world instead of the
phony-baloney 'supernatural' one it's mired in now.

Okay. Get rid of the *Pope's* stupid costume. He looks like a guided
missile.

Greywolf
bobandcarole
2006-11-15 17:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greywolf
Post by p***@home.com
On 15 Nov 2006 02:04:41 -0800, "Sound of Trumpet"
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
PoliPundit ^ | 11/102006
Good luck with that one, Elton.
I'm not Gay but I know hatred and intolerance when I see it. 'Ban' is a
pretty strong word. I'd like to see adults quit teaching our children
nonsense and brazen lies. I'd like to see the 'Church' carry on with noble
ideas and actions but cut the crap start acting responsibly. And I'd also
like the 'Church' to stop being an unscrupulous 'business' and, instead,
start promoting the truth for a change. Keep the 'costumes', keep the
'structure', only fasten it down to the 'real' world instead of the
phony-baloney 'supernatural' one it's mired in now.
Okay. Get rid of the *Pope's* stupid costume. He looks like a guided
missile.
Greywolf
As soon as rupaul learns how to dress correctly as a man :-)
ScottyFLL
2006-11-16 16:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by bobandcarole
As soon as rupaul learns how to dress correctly as a man :-)
GOD you're witty!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
r***@googlemail.com
2006-11-16 10:55:34 UTC
Permalink
If Elton isn't struck down by lightning, doesn't that prove that God
doesn't exist?
telenovels
2006-11-16 16:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@googlemail.com
If Elton isn't struck down by lightning, doesn't that prove that God
doesn't exist?
Heh. Not really. The absence of something doesn't prove anything,
other than you can't find evidence at this point in time. (You can't
prove a negative.) For example, the inability of the Greeks/Romans to
find bacteria doesn't mean bacteria did not exist.
.

The bible says homosexuality is a sin. BUT the bible also says God
loves homosexuals despite that sin.

So if a church teaches that we should hate homosexuals, then it is that
*church* that is wrong & mis-interpreting the Bible. Ban the church as
Martin Luther did when he left the Catholics and started Protestantism,
but don't abandon the Bible (or Koran or Torah or whatever you believe).
Sean Carroll
2006-11-16 23:02:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by telenovels
The bible says homosexuality is a sin. BUT the bible also says God
loves homosexuals despite that sin.
Let's see. I can find *plenty* of places where it says homosexuality is
a sin ...

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it
is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 - 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.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not
inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves
with mankind, ... shall inherit the kingdom of God.

... just for starters. But I'm having trouble finding that part where
God says he loves homosexuals anyway. Perhaps you could direct me to
that verse? Because all I can find is hatred and exhortations to kill them.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'You know me, hostility makes me shrink up like a ... I can't think of a
non-sexual metaphor.' --Dr Gregory House
Lookingglass
2006-11-16 23:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by telenovels
The bible says homosexuality is a sin. BUT the bible also says God
loves homosexuals despite that sin.
Let's see. I can find *plenty* of places where it says homosexuality is a
sin ...
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
...god made ME too... Kisses.

;^)

dancin' dave
(...how does it feel to be one of the beautiful people...)
www.Shemakhan.com
Dale Houstman
2006-11-17 04:20:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lookingglass
Post by telenovels
The bible says homosexuality is a sin. BUT the bible also says God
loves homosexuals despite that sin.
Let's see. I can find *plenty* of places where it says homosexuality is a
sin ...
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
...god made ME too... Kisses.
Maybe "He" was drunk that day, and decided to have a lark... But you're
not a lark are you?

dmh
Lookingglass
2006-11-17 09:23:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale Houstman
Post by Lookingglass
...god made ME too... Kisses.
Maybe "He" was drunk that day, and decided to have a lark... But you're
not a lark are you?
dmh
Nah...I'm a put-on... ;^)

dancin' dave (...specially by the children...)
www.Shemakhan.com
Dale Houstman
2006-11-17 11:29:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lookingglass
Post by Dale Houstman
Post by Lookingglass
...god made ME too... Kisses.
Maybe "He" was drunk that day, and decided to have a lark... But you're
not a lark are you?
dmh
Nah...I'm a put-on... ;^)
I would have thought you were m more of a pullover with a Navy neck...

dmh
Lookingglass
2006-11-17 13:23:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale Houstman
I would have thought you were m more of a pullover with a Navy neck...
dmh
Had I been a paratrooper, that would have made me a 'jumper'... now you will
have to excuse me while I go wring my bellbottoms.

//^)

dancin' dave (...there will be a show tonight on trampoline...)
www.Shemakhan.com
Dennis Kemmerer
2006-11-17 17:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale Houstman
Post by Lookingglass
Post by telenovels
The bible says homosexuality is a sin. BUT the bible also says God
loves homosexuals despite that sin.
Let's see. I can find *plenty* of places where it says homosexuality is a
sin ...
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
...god made ME too... Kisses.
Maybe "He" was drunk that day, and decided to have a lark... But you're
not a lark are you?
Too late. Foley and Gibson already tried that excuse. :)
No One
2006-11-17 01:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Carroll
Post by telenovels
The bible says homosexuality is a sin. BUT the bible also says God
loves homosexuals despite that sin.
Let's see. I can find *plenty* of places where it says homosexuality
is a sin ...
Leviticus 18:22 ...
Leviticus 20:13 ...
Read the last couple of sentences in Leviticus - it is a set of rules
for the "people of Israel" at Mount Sinai, i.e., rules for a specific
group of people perhaps at a particular time and place. At that point
in their history, Jews were trying to form a culture distinct from
their neighbors, so they had a series of taboos and hars punishments
for violating those taboos. Those taboos, however, do not apply to
anyone else.
Post by Sean Carroll
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not
inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves
with mankind, ... shall inherit the kingdom of God.
See <http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm>. It simply is
not clear what the passage means, and the web site will give you some
idea as the level of confusion. It hinges on the translation of the
Greek words "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai". Some English translations
of the Bible render arsenokoitai as "homosexual" but, as the web site
points out, "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived,
none of it contains the word aresenokoitai." While "malakoi" is
sometimes rendered as effeminate, it could equally well refer to
people with "loose morals" or who are lazy and shiftless. As the web
site points out, "Our present culture has all sorts of connotations
associated with the word 'effeminate' that simply don't apply to
Paul's era."
Post by Sean Carroll
... just for starters. But I'm having trouble finding that part where
God says he loves homosexuals anyway. Perhaps you could direct me to
that verse? Because all I can find is hatred and exhortations to kill them.
Where in the New Testament is there one word about killing anyone for
being a gay (the part you quoted from the Old Testament applies only
to a "chosen people", not the rest of us)?
BlackMonk
2006-11-17 02:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by Sean Carroll
Post by telenovels
The bible says homosexuality is a sin. BUT the bible also says God
loves homosexuals despite that sin.
Let's see. I can find *plenty* of places where it says homosexuality
is a sin ...
Leviticus 18:22 ...
Leviticus 20:13 ...
Read the last couple of sentences in Leviticus - it is a set of rules
for the "people of Israel" at Mount Sinai, i.e., rules for a specific
group of people perhaps at a particular time and place. At that point
in their history, Jews were trying to form a culture distinct from
their neighbors, so they had a series of taboos and hars punishments
for violating those taboos. Those taboos, however, do not apply to
anyone else.
That's a valid point to some extent, though I don't know if homosexual acts
are permitted to Noachides. As for their being harsh punishements, one thing
to keep in mind is that when the Torah proscribes the death penalty, it's
often a rhetorical device meaning, "you REALLY REALLY shouldn't do this,"
and saying someone is "liable for death" means that the punishement might be
carried out by God, not that a human court is to sentence that person to
death.

As I pointed out before, certain homosexual acts (not all) are prohibited in
Leviticus, not homosexuality itself, and those who commit the proscribed
acts are considered on the level of those who eat treif or wear shatnez.
Does that mean there's also hate speech against shellfish-eaters?
No One
2006-11-17 03:37:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by BlackMonk
Post by No One
Post by Sean Carroll
Post by telenovels
The bible says homosexuality is a sin. BUT the bible also says God
loves homosexuals despite that sin.
Let's see. I can find *plenty* of places where it says homosexuality
is a sin ...
Leviticus 18:22 ...
Leviticus 20:13 ...
Read the last couple of sentences in Leviticus - it is a set of rules
for the "people of Israel" at Mount Sinai, i.e., rules for a specific
group of people perhaps at a particular time and place. At that point
in their history, Jews were trying to form a culture distinct from
their neighbors, so they had a series of taboos and hars punishments
for violating those taboos. Those taboos, however, do not apply to
anyone else.
That's a valid point to some extent, though I don't know if homosexual acts
are permitted to Noachides.
Permitted under the "Gell-Mann Totalitarian Principle" ("What is not
forbidden is compulsary.") That actually refers to particle physics
and the wording is a bit of a joke - if there isn't a conservation law
prohibiting something, it happens although the probability of it
happening may be very low. Seriously though, if it was meant to be
forbidden, wouldn't the prohibition have appeared somewhere else?

I didn't know that the death penalties in the Torah or Old Testament
were simply a rhetorical device, so thanks for pointing that out: most
of us can't read Hebrew to cross check the original material for
ourselves.
Post by BlackMonk
As I pointed out before, certain homosexual acts (not all) are prohibited in
Leviticus, not homosexuality itself, and those who commit the proscribed
acts are considered on the level of those who eat treif or wear shatnez.
Does that mean there's also hate speech against shellfish-eaters?
Well, to answer that question, if certain people treated shellfish-
eaters the way they treat gays and lebians, the answer would be "yes".
In reality, hardly anyone gets bent out of shape over shellfish-
eaters, and anyone who did get bent out of shape would probably end
up in the loony bin. :-)
BlackMonk
2006-11-17 05:01:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by BlackMonk
Post by No One
Post by Sean Carroll
Post by telenovels
The bible says homosexuality is a sin. BUT the bible also says God
loves homosexuals despite that sin.
Let's see. I can find *plenty* of places where it says homosexuality
is a sin ...
Leviticus 18:22 ...
Leviticus 20:13 ...
Read the last couple of sentences in Leviticus - it is a set of rules
for the "people of Israel" at Mount Sinai, i.e., rules for a specific
group of people perhaps at a particular time and place. At that point
in their history, Jews were trying to form a culture distinct from
their neighbors, so they had a series of taboos and hars punishments
for violating those taboos. Those taboos, however, do not apply to
anyone else.
That's a valid point to some extent, though I don't know if homosexual acts
are permitted to Noachides.
Permitted under the "Gell-Mann Totalitarian Principle" ("What is not
forbidden is compulsary.") That actually refers to particle physics
and the wording is a bit of a joke - if there isn't a conservation law
prohibiting something, it happens although the probability of it
happening may be very low. Seriously though, if it was meant to be
forbidden, wouldn't the prohibition have appeared somewhere else?
If it were forbidden for non-Jews, it would have to be somewhere else. The
question is what is permitted or forbidden under the Noachide laws. Note
that even if homosexal acts are forbidden under those laws, that doesn't
mean it's punishable by death.
Post by No One
I didn't know that the death penalties in the Torah or Old Testament
were simply a rhetorical device, so thanks for pointing that out: most
of us can't read Hebrew to cross check the original material for
ourselves.
My Hebrew isn't that good, either, but from everything I've read on the
subject, that's the standard interpretation. That's not to say there aren't
some people on the extreme who think homosexuals should be killed. There are
always people like that, no matter what the group.

You might have read about the recent protests in Jerusalem over a proposed
gay march in the city. There was some violent rioting over the march (which,
it should be noted, was condemned by Orthodox rabbis), but nowhere in any of
the article I saw on the rioting did anyone say "they're homosexuals, so
they should be killed." Personally, I think the rioters were comitting a
major chillul HaShem (roughly speaking, disgracing God), but even they
didn't go that far in their rhetoric.

In support of the idea of the death penalties being a rhetorical device,
there's a famous line in the Talmud that any Sanhedrin that executes more
than one person every seven years should be disbanded as bloodthirsty and a
response to it that says it should be every 70 years. Also the bar for when
the death penalty can be given is set very high. For one thing, there have
to be two witnesses who saw the act being committed, which would let out
most sexual acts.
Post by No One
Post by BlackMonk
As I pointed out before, certain homosexual acts (not all) are prohibited in
Leviticus, not homosexuality itself, and those who commit the proscribed
acts are considered on the level of those who eat treif or wear shatnez.
Does that mean there's also hate speech against shellfish-eaters?
Well, to answer that question, if certain people treated shellfish-
eaters the way they treat gays and lebians, the answer would be "yes".
But the way those people act doesn't change the speech in the Torah. It
calls eating shellfish an abomination, but no one would claim that it
considers people who eat shellfish less than human.
Post by No One
In reality, hardly anyone gets bent out of shape over shellfish-
eaters, and anyone who did get bent out of shape would probably end
up in the loony bin. :-)
Ideally, that's how Jews are supposed to look at people who violate the
prohibition on homosexual acts. As people who've violated one of many laws,
and who may keep other laws perfectly, so it's not our place to pass
judgement on them. I don't understand the attitude that this one thing is
the ultimate criterion for judging people and if they fail this test,
nothing else matters.

(As to what's prohibitted, what's permitted, and why, that's a whole other
discussion, one that I'm not sure I'm qualified to hold. There's probably a
wide range of halachic opinions on the subject.)
No One
2006-11-17 05:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by BlackMonk
If it were forbidden for non-Jews, it would have to be somewhere else. The
question is what is permitted or forbidden under the Noachide laws. Note
that even if homosexal acts are forbidden under those laws, that doesn't
mean it's punishable by death.
Yes, but you always see people quoting Leviticus and assuming it
applies to non-Jews. That's the problem, not what is in the
Noachide Laws, which hardly anyone has even heard of.

If you look them up, the only one that might apply is "Do not be
sexually immoral" (it is the only one mentioning sex), but that
probably means don't cheat on your wife/husband/partner, don't seduce
someone who is already married, don't do anything that harms another
person, etc. That doesn't depend on the sex of the person you are
having sex with.
Lizz Holmans
2006-11-17 08:51:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by No One
Post by BlackMonk
If it were forbidden for non-Jews, it would have to be somewhere else. The
question is what is permitted or forbidden under the Noachide laws. Note
that even if homosexal acts are forbidden under those laws, that doesn't
mean it's punishable by death.
Yes, but you always see people quoting Leviticus and assuming it
applies to non-Jews. That's the problem, not what is in the
Noachide Laws, which hardly anyone has even heard of.
If you look them up, the only one that might apply is "Do not be
sexually immoral" (it is the only one mentioning sex), but that
probably means don't cheat on your wife/husband/partner, don't seduce
someone who is already married, don't do anything that harms another
person, etc. That doesn't depend on the sex of the person you are
having sex with.
Jesus himself gave two commandments: to love God, and to love our
neighbors as we love ourself (crafty old Jesus! He knew humans nearly
always love themselves more than anyone else). His definition of
neighbors included people who were on the fringes of society, the
adulterers, drunkards, and even--suppressing a shudder--tax
collectors. I don't recall him saying a thing about not including gay
people.

Lizz 'and don't give me the 'Adam and Steve' answer cos we don't take
the Bible literally' Holmans
Lookingglass
2006-11-17 09:36:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lizz Holmans
Lizz 'and don't give me the 'Adam and Steve' answer cos we don't take
the Bible literally' Holmans
You mean he/she/it didn't create Adam and Steve? Well, if not...who did?

;^)

dancin' dave (...it is believing...)
www.Shemakhan.com
No One
2006-11-17 18:29:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lookingglass
Post by Lizz Holmans
Lizz 'and don't give me the 'Adam and Steve' answer cos we don't take
the Bible literally' Holmans
You mean he/she/it didn't create Adam and Steve? Well, if not...who did?
The script writer - "Adam and Steve" is a movie. :-)
telenovels
2006-11-17 15:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Carroll
Post by telenovels
The bible says homosexuality is a sin. BUT the bible also says
God loves homosexuals despite that sin.
Let's see. I can find *plenty* of places where it says homosexuality is
a sin ... But I'm having trouble finding that part where
God says he loves homosexuals anyway. ...
.


Have you not read the story about Jesus protecting the Adultress from
stoning? Do you think Jesus would have treated her any differently is
she were a Lesbian? Of course not. God and God's son are
disappointed, but still love sinners.

(Wow. Apparently Sean Carroll's a christian who's never read the new
testament. I never thought I'd see that.)
UsurperTom
2006-11-17 16:33:53 UTC
Permalink
Sean Carroll's a christian who's never read the new testament.
I believe Sean's an atheist because he said in the past that he's a
communist and praised Marx, Lenin and Trotsky.
Sean Carroll
2006-11-17 19:03:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by UsurperTom
Sean Carroll's a christian who's never read the new testament.
I believe Sean's an atheist because he said in the past that he's a
communist and praised Marx, Lenin and Trotsky.
There *have* been Christian Marxists. I knew one once. I'm not one of them.

I am an atheist in that I do not believe in an omnipotent, omniscient,
perfect, all-powerful Supreme Being who created the Universe. I am,
however, deeply spiritual in a non-religious way. I feel a definite
connection to certain belief systems (Pantheism, Buddhism, Taoism,
Neo-Paganism), but I do not belong to any 'religion'. To me, the only
God is the Cosmos itself, and nearly every religion or philosophy has
*some* small part of the truth, though only certain aspects of it from a
limited viewpoint.

The symbols and rituals of Christianity do not strike any deep and
powerful feelings in me, but I've been known from time to time to think
about, for example, Jesus as a metaphor for transcendence over
suffering, as containing deep truths about life. I just don't take it
seriously as literal fact; it's a metaphor, like all the other
religions. Jesus is you and me, subjectively incorporated as a symbol of
part of what is within all of us (and Heaven and Hell are symbols of
what we experience every day in life on Earth, and so on). To me Jesus
is no worse or better a symbol to use than Zeus or Brahma.

I do find the Bible ridiculous, disgusting in much of its morality,
riddled with absurdity and self-contradiction, and not even close to
being 'the sacred word of God'. But as for the real historical Jesus's
teachings, I find many of them wise and good.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'You know me, hostility makes me shrink up like a ... I can't think of a
non-sexual metaphor.' --Dr Gregory House
telenovels
2006-11-17 19:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sean Carroll
I am an atheist in that I do not believe in an omnipotent, omniscient,
perfect, all-powerful Supreme Being who created the Universe.
.

Then my message is not directed at you.

My message was directed at Christians & other religious folk: "If a
church teaches that we should hate homosexuals, then it is that
*church* that is wrong & mis-interpreting the Bible. Ban the church as
Martin Luther did when he left the Catholics and started Protestantism,
but don't abandon the Bible (or Koran or Torah or whatever you
believe)."

Sean Carroll
2006-11-17 18:53:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by telenovels
(Wow. Apparently Sean Carroll's a christian who's never read the new
testament.
That's zero for two. ;p
Post by telenovels
I never thought I'd see that.)
Why not? *Most* Christians haven't read the Bible, outside of the
quotations 'explained' to them at church.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/
'You know me, hostility makes me shrink up like a ... I can't think of a
non-sexual metaphor.' --Dr Gregory House
John Duncan Yoyo
2006-11-16 16:33:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@googlemail.com
If Elton isn't struck down by lightning, doesn't that prove that God
doesn't exist?
No, just the god that fundies are trying to sell us doesn't exist.
--
John Duncan Yoyo
------------------------------o)
Brought to you by the Binks for Senate campaign comittee.
Coruscant is far, far away from wesa on Naboo.
B***@msn.com
2006-11-15 15:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
So does my neighbor. So what?

Pramer
Morton Davis
2006-11-15 15:09:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
Sir Elton should be glad he lives now and not a few centuries back in the
Middle Ages they used a device called the pear on homsexuals. It was a netal
pear 2" in diameter on to and 4" on the bottom. It was hand made to look
like a real pear. The top was inserted into the anus of a homosexual. Then a
wormscrew turned by a crank on the bottom spread the four sections of the
pear like a modern mollibolt. Each section had a sharp claw that dug into
the walls of the rectum, shredding it. Somewhere in the process the victim's
tissues gave up and they bled to death while in great pain.
Brian Westley
2006-11-15 17:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morton Davis
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
Sir Elton should be glad he lives now and not a few centuries back in the
Middle Ages they used a device called the pear on homsexuals.
Used, of course, by church officials.

Nice of you to support Elton John's point.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
No One
2006-11-15 19:01:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Westley
Post by Morton Davis
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
Sir Elton should be glad he lives now and not a few centuries back in the
Middle Ages they used a device called the pear on homsexuals.
Used, of course, by church officials.
Nice of you to support Elton John's point.
I didn't think you had to be gay for them to use this device on you.
It just depended on how your torturer felt that day.

Please don't post all the details. You might give Bush and Cheney
ideas. You know, "we don't torture them - we even give them pears
for breakfast." :-)
bobandcarole
2006-11-15 21:01:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Westley
Post by Morton Davis
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
Sir Elton should be glad he lives now and not a few centuries back in the
Middle Ages they used a device called the pear on homsexuals.
Used, of course, by church officials.
Nice of you to support Elton John's point.
What point?
Burning at the stake was much more effective!!
Post by Brian Westley
---
Merlyn LeRoy
bobandcarole
2006-11-15 21:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Westley
Post by Morton Davis
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
Sir Elton should be glad he lives now and not a few centuries back in the
Middle Ages they used a device called the pear on homsexuals.
Used, of course, by church officials.
Nice of you to support Elton John's point.
What point?
Burning at the stake was much more effective!!
Post by Brian Westley
---
Merlyn LeRoy
RamRod Sword of Baal
2006-11-15 21:59:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by bobandcarole
Post by Brian Westley
Post by Morton Davis
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
Sir Elton should be glad he lives now and not a few centuries back in the
Middle Ages they used a device called the pear on homsexuals.
Used, of course, by church officials.
Nice of you to support Elton John's point.
What point?
Burning at the stake was much more effective!!
http://www.vaginalpear.com/

Often called "The Pope's Pears" because they were used so often to torture
accused witches

They are forced into the mouth, rectum or vagina of the victim and there
expanded by force of the screw to the maximum aperture of the segments. The
inside of the cavity in question is irremediably mutilated, nearly always
fatally so. The pointed prongs at the end of the segments serve better to
rip into the throat, the intestines or the cervix. The oral pear was often
inflicted on heretical preachers, but also on lay persons guilty of
unorthodox tendencies; the rectal pear awaited passive male homosexuals, and
the vaginal one women guilty of sexual union with Satan or his familiars.

-------------------

I think it would be good if children were taught at school all these 'nice'
things that the Church has done over the years, burning at the stake, using
torture to force people to follow its teachings, going to war, wholesale
killing of prisoners of war taken during the Crusades, after all it is
history, and a known fact. Also Popes who were gay, bisexual, heterosexual,
promiscuous, and who waged wars, let us have children told all the truth,
not the make believe truth they are shown now.

Of course they are not taught it, and it is the usual big cover up going on.
Lookingglass
2006-11-16 00:54:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
They are forced into the mouth, rectum or vagina of the victim and there
expanded by force of the screw to the maximum aperture of the segments.
The inside of the cavity in question is irremediably mutilated, nearly
always fatally so. The pointed prongs at the end of the segments serve
better to rip into the throat, the intestines or the cervix. The oral pear
was often inflicted on heretical preachers, but also on lay persons guilty
of unorthodox tendencies; the rectal pear awaited passive male
homosexuals, and the vaginal one women guilty of sexual union with Satan
or his familiars.
-------------------
I think it would be good if children were taught at school all these
'nice' things that the Church has done over the years, burning at the
stake, using torture to force people to follow its teachings, going to
war, wholesale killing of prisoners of war taken during the Crusades,
after all it is history, and a known fact. Also Popes who were gay,
bisexual, heterosexual, promiscuous, and who waged wars, let us have
children told all the truth, not the make believe truth they are shown
now.
Of course they are not taught it, and it is the usual big cover up going on.
I agree with you. The "church" (all religions) claims the moral highground,
and yet it has caused the most psychological damage to the human race.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.


dancin' dave
(...there's people standing 'round who'll screw you in the ground...)
www.Shemakhan.com
bobandcarole
2006-11-16 08:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by bobandcarole
Post by Brian Westley
Post by Morton Davis
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
Sir Elton should be glad he lives now and not a few centuries back in the
Middle Ages they used a device called the pear on homsexuals.
Used, of course, by church officials.
Nice of you to support Elton John's point.
What point?
Burning at the stake was much more effective!!
http://www.vaginalpear.com/
Often called "The Pope's Pears" because they were used so often to torture
accused witches
They are forced into the mouth, rectum or vagina of the victim and there
expanded by force of the screw to the maximum aperture of the segments. The
inside of the cavity in question is irremediably mutilated, nearly always
fatally so. The pointed prongs at the end of the segments serve better to
rip into the throat, the intestines or the cervix. The oral pear was often
inflicted on heretical preachers, but also on lay persons guilty of
unorthodox tendencies; the rectal pear awaited passive male homosexuals, and
the vaginal one women guilty of sexual union with Satan or his familiars.
-------------------
I think it would be good if children were taught at school all these 'nice'
things that the Church has done over the years, burning at the stake, using
torture to force people to follow its teachings, going to war, wholesale
killing of prisoners of war taken during the Crusades, after all it is
history, and a known fact. Also Popes who were gay, bisexual, heterosexual,
promiscuous,
And no sources...........
Lookingglass
2006-11-16 08:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by bobandcarole
And no sources...........
...do a little research yourselves...then and ONLY then you might learn
something about the REAL world. It's all available to you.

dancin' dave (...think for yourself...)
www.Shemakhan.com
bobandcarole
2006-11-15 21:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Westley
Post by Morton Davis
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
Sir Elton should be glad he lives now and not a few centuries back in the
Middle Ages they used a device called the pear on homsexuals.
Used, of course, by church officials.
Nice of you to support Elton John's point.
What point?
Burning at the stake was much more effective!!
Post by Brian Westley
---
Merlyn LeRoy
RamRod Sword of Baal
2006-11-15 22:16:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by bobandcarole
Post by Brian Westley
Post by Morton Davis
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
Sir Elton should be glad he lives now and not a few centuries back in the
Middle Ages they used a device called the pear on homsexuals.
Used, of course, by church officials.
Nice of you to support Elton John's point.
What point?
Burning at the stake was much more effective!!
http://www.vaginalpear.com/

Often called "The Pope's Pears" because they were used so often to torture
accused witches

They are forced into the mouth, rectum or vagina of the victim and there
expanded by force of the screw to the maximum aperture of the segments. The
inside of the cavity in question is irremediably mutilated, nearly always
fatally so. The pointed prongs at the end of the segments serve better to
rip into the throat, the intestines or the cervix. The oral pear was often
inflicted on heretical preachers, but also on lay persons guilty of
unorthodox tendencies; the rectal pear awaited passive male homosexuals, and
the vaginal one women guilty of sexual union with Satan or his familiars.

------------------------

I wish that that all of the truth about the church was taught to children at
school. How torture was used to force people into following the Church's
teachings, and about burning at the stake.

How the Crusaders butchered an entire city of prisoners of war.

About Popes who were gay, bisexual, or Popes that were promiscuious. Popes
who waged war.

Tell them just how and why there was an Holy Inquisistion and what it did.

Tell the children how the Catholic Church does not pemit condoms to be used
although they know sex with a HIV infected person can cause them to become
infected, and condoms help stop that.

No white-washed tales, just the honest truth, in all its bloody horror.
bobandcarole
2006-11-16 08:42:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by bobandcarole
Post by Brian Westley
Post by Morton Davis
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
Sir Elton should be glad he lives now and not a few centuries back in the
Middle Ages they used a device called the pear on homsexuals.
Used, of course, by church officials.
Nice of you to support Elton John's point.
What point?
Burning at the stake was much more effective!!
http://www.vaginalpear.com/
Often called "The Pope's Pears" because they were used so often to torture
accused witches
They are forced into the mouth, rectum or vagina of the victim and there
expanded by force of the screw to the maximum aperture of the segments. The
inside of the cavity in question is irremediably mutilated, nearly always
fatally so. The pointed prongs at the end of the segments serve better to
rip into the throat, the intestines or the cervix. The oral pear was often
inflicted on heretical preachers, but also on lay persons guilty of
unorthodox tendencies; the rectal pear awaited passive male homosexuals, and
the vaginal one women guilty of sexual union with Satan or his familiars.
------------------------
I wish that that all of the truth about the church was taught to children at
school. How torture was used to force people into following the Church's
teachings, and about burning at the stake.
How the Crusaders butchered an entire city of prisoners of war.
About Popes who were gay, bisexual, or Popes that were promiscuious. Popes
who waged war.
And no cites as usual
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Tell them just how and why there was an Holy Inquisistion and what it did.
So they killed a few queers and towelhead moose-lems, show something
that's really wrong.
You don't condemn the exterminator for killing rats and roaches do you?
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Tell the children how the Catholic Church does not pemit condoms to be used
although they know sex with a HIV infected person can cause them to become
infected, and condoms help stop that.
They teach abstinence until marriage, as it should be.
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
No white-washed tales, just the honest truth, in all its bloody horror.
Avenger
2006-11-16 21:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by bobandcarole
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by bobandcarole
Post by Brian Westley
Post by Morton Davis
Post by Sound of Trumpet
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
Elton John is a queer old poofter with one foot in the grave. Why is he so
concerned with this? Isn't it good enough they we allowed him to "marry" his
"wife"
Post by bobandcarole
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by bobandcarole
Post by Brian Westley
Post by Morton Davis
Sir Elton should be glad he lives now and not a few centuries back in the
Middle Ages they used a device called the pear on homsexuals.
The middle ages were not a few centuries back hahahaha But there's no need
to go back that far, you only have to go back a couple of generations when
engaging in queer activity was a criminal offence. Punishment would often be
prison or you would be compelled to take hormone treatment to stifle your
queer impulses. You would often grow breasts from the female hormones given
:o)
Post by bobandcarole
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by bobandcarole
Post by Brian Westley
Used, of course, by church officials.
Nice of you to support Elton John's point.
What point?
Burning at the stake was much more effective!!
http://www.vaginalpear.com/
Often called "The Pope's Pears" because they were used so often to torture
accused witches
They are forced into the mouth, rectum or vagina of the victim and there
expanded by force of the screw to the maximum aperture of the segments. The
inside of the cavity in question is irremediably mutilated, nearly always
fatally so. The pointed prongs at the end of the segments serve better to
rip into the throat, the intestines or the cervix. The oral pear was often
inflicted on heretical preachers, but also on lay persons guilty of
unorthodox tendencies; the rectal pear awaited passive male homosexuals, and
the vaginal one women guilty of sexual union with Satan or his familiars.
I bet that cured them!
Post by bobandcarole
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
------------------------
I wish that that all of the truth about the church was taught to children at
school. How torture was used to force people into following the Church's
teachings, and about burning at the stake.
How the Crusaders butchered an entire city of prisoners of war.
About Popes who were gay, bisexual, or Popes that were promiscuious. Popes
who waged war.
And no cites as usual
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Tell them just how and why there was an Holy Inquisistion and what it did.
So they killed a few queers and towelhead moose-lems, show something
that's really wrong.
You don't condemn the exterminator for killing rats and roaches do you?
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Tell the children how the Catholic Church does not pemit condoms to be used
although they know sex with a HIV infected person can cause them to become
infected, and condoms help stop that.
They teach abstinence until marriage, as it should be.
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
No white-washed tales, just the honest truth, in all its bloody horror.
Jude Alexander
2006-11-16 21:38:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Avenger
Post by Sound of Trumpet
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
Elton John is a queer old poofter with one foot in the grave. Why is he so
concerned with this? Isn't it good enough they we allowed him to "marry"
his "wife"
Now, now, Avenger Texass Ranger Super Poofta, don't be jealous!
Avenger
2006-11-16 22:09:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jude Alexander
Post by Avenger
Post by Sound of Trumpet
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
Elton John is a queer old poofter with one foot in the grave. Why is he
so concerned with this? Isn't it good enough they we allowed him to
"marry" his "wife"
Now, now, Avenger Texass Ranger Super Poofta, don't be jealous!
What's so funny about Elton's "marriage" is that at his age he probably
can't even get it up lol Even with Viagra haha
Robibnikoff
2006-11-17 19:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Avenger
Post by Jude Alexander
Post by Avenger
Post by Sound of Trumpet
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
Elton John is a queer old poofter with one foot in the grave. Why is he
so concerned with this? Isn't it good enough they we allowed him to
"marry" his "wife"
Now, now, Avenger Texass Ranger Super Poofta, don't be jealous!
What's so funny about Elton's "marriage" is that at his age he probably
can't even get it up lol Even with Viagra haha
No plans to grow old, eh?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
William December Starr
2006-11-15 20:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morton Davis
Sir Elton should be glad he lives now and not a few centuries back
in the Middle Ages they used a device called the pear on
homsexuals. It was a netal pear 2" in diameter on to and 4" on
the bottom. It was hand made to look like a real pear. The top
was inserted into the anus of a homosexual. Then a wormscrew
turned by a crank on the bottom spread the four sections of the
pear like a modern mollibolt. Each section had a sharp claw that
dug into the walls of the rectum, shredding it. Somewhere in the
process the victim's tissues gave up and they bled to death while
in great pain.
I have this terrible suspicion, bordering on certainty, that you
typed all of the above one-handed.
--
William December Starr <***@panix.com>
Michael Alan Chary
2006-11-15 21:03:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by William December Starr
Post by Morton Davis
Sir Elton should be glad he lives now and not a few centuries back
in the Middle Ages they used a device called the pear on
homsexuals. It was a netal pear 2" in diameter on to and 4" on
the bottom. It was hand made to look like a real pear. The top
was inserted into the anus of a homosexual. Then a wormscrew
turned by a crank on the bottom spread the four sections of the
pear like a modern mollibolt. Each section had a sharp claw that
dug into the walls of the rectum, shredding it. Somewhere in the
process the victim's tissues gave up and they bled to death while
in great pain.
I have this terrible suspicion, bordering on certainty, that you
typed all of the above one-handed.
I prefer braiding on the wheel, myself.
--
The All-New, All-Different Howling Curmudgeons!
http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons
William December Starr
2006-11-17 16:30:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Alan Chary
I prefer braiding on the wheel, myself.
I must admit, I've never heard of that.
--
William December Starr <***@panix.com>
RamRod Sword of Baal
2006-11-15 20:59:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morton Davis
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
Sir Elton should be glad he lives now and not a few centuries back in the
Middle Ages they used a device called the pear on homsexuals. It was a netal
pear 2" in diameter on to and 4" on the bottom. It was hand made to look
like a real pear. The top was inserted into the anus of a homosexual. Then a
wormscrew turned by a crank on the bottom spread the four sections of the
pear like a modern mollibolt. Each section had a sharp claw that dug into
the walls of the rectum, shredding it. Somewhere in the process the victim's
tissues gave up and they bled to death while in great pain.
As used by the Holy Inquisition, and the churches say that the Gays are
making war against the churches, when it is clearly the other way around.
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
2006-11-15 23:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
or maybe he just wants to ban it because it is a total and complete crock of
shit
Robibnikoff
2006-11-16 15:31:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morton Davis
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
Sir Elton should be glad he lives now and not a few centuries back in the
Middle Ages they used a device called the pear on homsexuals. It was a netal
pear 2" in diameter on to and 4" on the bottom. It was hand made to look
like a real pear. The top was inserted into the anus of a homosexual. Then a
wormscrew turned by a crank on the bottom spread the four sections of the
pear like a modern mollibolt. Each section had a sharp claw that dug into
the walls of the rectum, shredding it. Somewhere in the process the victim's
tissues gave up and they bled to death while in great pain.
And how long, exactly, have you had this sick fantasy?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Lookingglass
2006-11-16 21:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robibnikoff
And how long, exactly, have you had this sick fantasy?
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
...it's NO fantasy...do some research. It seems we as a species get
enjoyment from the torture of our fellow human beings.


dancin' dave (...I read the news today, oh boy...)
www.Shemakhan.com
Robibnikoff
2006-11-16 21:19:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lookingglass
Post by Robibnikoff
And how long, exactly, have you had this sick fantasy?
...it's NO fantasy...do some research. I
Been there, done that - Have more than one book on the subject. You just
seemed like you were enjoying it a liiiiiiitle bit too much.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Lookingglass
2006-11-16 21:22:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robibnikoff
Post by Lookingglass
Post by Robibnikoff
And how long, exactly, have you had this sick fantasy?
...it's NO fantasy...do some research. I
Been there, done that - Have more than one book on the subject. You just
seemed like you were enjoying it a liiiiiiitle bit too much.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
...not me. I derive NO pleasure from the suffering of other sentient beings.

dancin' dave (...what goes on in your heart...)
www.Shemakhan.com
Andrealphus
2006-11-16 23:52:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morton Davis
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
Sir Elton should be glad he lives now and not a few centuries back in
the Middle Ages they used a device called the pear on homsexuals. It
was a netal pear 2" in diameter on to and 4" on the bottom. It was
hand made to look like a real pear. The top was inserted into the
anus of a homosexual. Then a wormscrew turned by a crank on the
bottom spread the four sections of the pear like a modern mollibolt.
Each section had a sharp claw that dug into the walls of the rectum,
shredding it. Somewhere in the process the victim's tissues gave up
and they bled to death while in great pain.
Probably devised by religion.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. – Thomas Jefferson
Lookingglass
2006-11-17 09:10:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrealphus
Post by Morton Davis
Sir Elton should be glad he lives now and not a few centuries back in
the Middle Ages they used a device called the pear on homsexuals. It
was a netal pear 2" in diameter on to and 4" on the bottom. It was
hand made to look like a real pear. The top was inserted into the
anus of a homosexual. Then a wormscrew turned by a crank on the
bottom spread the four sections of the pear like a modern mollibolt.
Each section had a sharp claw that dug into the walls of the rectum,
shredding it. Somewhere in the process the victim's tissues gave up
and they bled to death while in great pain.
Probably devised by religion.
Probably thought up by THE INQUISITION...ordered by the Pope.
Post by Andrealphus
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. - Thomas Jefferson
dancin' dave (...think for yourself...)
www.Shemakhan.com
o***@aol.com
2006-11-15 15:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
Banning Christianity would receive tremendous support from the
hysterical left, but if you dared ban the "religion" that's causing all
the problems (hint: rhymes with Pislam), they'd blow themselves up to
make sure it stayed.
Post by Sound of Trumpet
PoliPundit ^ | 11/102006
Posted on 11/12/2006 6:39:27 AM PST by SirLinksalot
Sir Elton John wants religion banned completely - because he believes
it promotes hatred of gays.
Speaking to the Observer Music Monthly Magazine the singer said
religion lacked compassion and turned people into "hateful lemmings".
The PRESS ASSOCIATION reports: In a candid interview for a dedicated
Gay issue of the magazine he shared his views on topics as varied as
being a pop icon to Tony Blair's stance on the war in Iraq.
He said there was a lack of religious leadership, particularly in world
politics, and complained that people do not take to the streets to
protest any more.
Sir Elton said: "I think religion has always tried to turn hatred
towards gay people. Religion promotes the hatred and spite against
gays.
"But there are so many people I know who are gay and love their
religion. From my point of view I would ban religion completely.
"Organised religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into
really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."
He added: "The world is near escalating to World War Three and where
are the leaders of each religion? Why aren't they having a conclave?
Why aren't they coming together?
"I said this after 9/11 and people thought I was nuts. Instead of
more violence why isn't there a meeting of religious leaders?
"It's like the peace movement in the Sixties. Musicians got through
to people by getting out there and doing peace concerts but we don't
seem to do them any more.
"If John Lennon were alive today he'd be leading it with a
vengeance," he said.
Sir Elton said people were too busy blogging on the internet to go out
onto the streets to stand up for what they believed in.
"They seem to do their protesting online and that's not good
enough. You have to get out there and be seen to be vocal, and you've
got to do it time and time again.
"There was a big march in London when Britain decided to join the war
against Iraq and Tony Blair is on the record as saying 'the people
who march today will have blood on their hands'. That's returned to
bite him on the ass," he said.
Sir Elton compared his place in British culture with that of the Queen
Mother's.
He said: "People come to me and I'm a bit like the Queen Mother. I
never get those problems. I don't know what it is with me, people
treat me very reverently.
Referring to his "wedding" to long-term partner David Furnish, he
said: "It was the same when Dave and I had our civil union - I was
expecting the odd flour bomb and there wasn't.
"Dave and I as a couple seem to be the acceptable face of gayness,
and that's great."
He pledged to continue to campaign for gay rights saying: "I'm
going to fight for them whether I do it silently behind the scenes or
so vocally that I get locked up.
"I can't just sit back; it's not in my nature any more. I'm
nearly 60-years-old after all. I can't sit back and blindly ignore it
and I won't."
Dale Houstman
2006-11-15 17:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@aol.com
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
Banning Christianity would receive tremendous support from the
hysterical left, but if you dared ban the "religion" that's causing all
the problems (hint: rhymes with Pislam), they'd blow themselves up to
make sure it stayed.
I'm an atheist, and I don't support the banning of any religion. I just
want them to erode away in the full light of reality. And your rather
dyspepsic joke about Islam only proves the point that organized religion
is more a baleful influence than otherwise. After all, Christianity has
had its share of violence: and not only in the Middle Ages. Ask the IRA.
There have been Jewish "terrorist" groups, Catholic "terroriat" groups,
Hindu "terrorist" groups, and so on and on. This isn't even taking into
account the ugly machinations and putrid cultural effects of the
religious right here in the good old U.S.A. As far as religions go,
there is plenty of blame to go around. So - no banning, but a nice
gradual evaporation wouldn't bother me much...

dmh
onthemove
2006-11-15 19:17:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale Houstman
I'm an atheist, and I don't support the banning of any religion. I just
want them to erode away in the full light of reality. And your rather
dyspepsic joke about Islam only proves the point that organized religion
is more a baleful influence than otherwise. After all, Christianity has
had its share of violence: and not only in the Middle Ages. Ask the IRA.
There have been Jewish "terrorist" groups, Catholic "terroriat" groups,
Hindu "terrorist" groups, and so on and on. This isn't even taking into
account the ugly machinations and putrid cultural effects of the
religious right here in the good old U.S.A. As far as religions go,
there is plenty of blame to go around. So - no banning, but a nice
gradual evaporation wouldn't bother me much...
dmh
You're a survivor, Dale, that marvels at the wonderment of the
unknown-don't be modest.
Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
2006-11-15 20:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale Houstman
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion
I'm an atheist, and I don't support the banning of any religion.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth...
Post by Dale Houstman
Once our USSC rules in favor of the 29'-tall Mount Soledad
War Memorial (Easter) Latin Cross in San Diego, CA, that's
just one more victory that will serve to further enrage the
Rabidly-insane lunatics of the Anti-Christian Liberal Union,
the A.C.L.U.: the most *dangerous* organization in America!
Until the day when you need it - the day when *your* civil rights are taken
away from you.
Sounds good in theory, but in the real world, especially
since 1947, the leftist Liberal elements of society have
systematically imposed intolerant Anti-Christian Liberal
Atheism as America's official State religion: barring all
other religions--particularly Judeo-Christianity--from all
public schools, courtrooms, and from government in general.

Atheism is the religion that tolerates no other religions.

For further information, see:

http://www.newsmax.com/adv/godless
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/25/135341.shtml?s=im
http://www.boycottliberalism.com/
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=dangerous+OR+liberal+OR+atheist+OR+socialist+OR+communist+OR+%22anti-christian%22+OR+%22anti-christ%22+%22aclu%22+-%22aclu.org%22+-%22mediamatters.org%22&adult_done=

Enjoy Life! (fillet a Liberal for lunch)
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
Dale Houstman
2006-11-15 22:10:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Post by Dale Houstman
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion
I'm an atheist, and I don't support the banning of any religion.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth...
Post by Dale Houstman
Once our USSC rules in favor of the 29'-tall Mount Soledad
War Memorial (Easter) Latin Cross in San Diego, CA, that's
just one more victory that will serve to further enrage the
Rabidly-insane lunatics of the Anti-Christian Liberal Union,
the A.C.L.U.: the most *dangerous* organization in America!
Until the day when you need it - the day when *your* civil rights are taken
away from you.
Sounds good in theory, but in the real world, especially
since 1947, the leftist Liberal elements of society have
systematically imposed intolerant Anti-Christian Liberal
Atheism as America's official State religion: barring all
other religions--particularly Judeo-Christianity--from all
public schools, courtrooms, and from government in general.
Atheism is the religion that tolerates no other religions.
This has NOTHING to do with my statement - which your placement suggests
- because I am making a personal statement: I do not support a ban on
religion. Whatever one or aother branch of organized atheists has to say
is not my business.

But - besides that - your assertion is just plain bullshit. Atheism is
not a religion, and when's the last time you read about some atheist
group pulling the political strings in this country? Please...

The ACLU does not desire a ban on religion, only a clearer demarcation
between religious beliefs and public policy-making. This also serves to
preserve the rights of people to practice their religions. Once the
American government becomes - say - a Christian theocracy, all other
religions had better start worrying.

dmh
Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
2006-11-16 00:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Atheism is not a religion
<snipped for clarity>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know, but Atheism is properly defined as a "belief", e.g.,
quoting from Webster's New World Dictionary & Thesaurus:

"Atheism -
the *belief* that there is no God, or denial that
God or gods exist." [end quote, emphasis added]

Thus Atheism is properly a (ir)religious belief, and so
adherents and proponents of Atheism are equally as much
believers in their godless religion of Atheism as other
believers in other contrastingly less-godless religions
are likewise believers their respective religions; some
devout believers, some less devout in their convictions.

Of course other more Atheist-biased dictionaries define
Atheism as "scientific fact", "intellectual superiority"
and the like. But we non-Atheists know that Atheists are
every bit as religious in their beliefs as anybody else
in the world is religious in his or her (non-Atheistic)
beliefs. By the strict definition, Atheism *is* a belief.
But don't expect Atheists to admit to this any time soon
(i.e. till ID is superimposed over Evolution by our USSC).

For example, Atheists devoutly believe "In the beginning,
Atheists created the heaven and the earth--in a big bang".
Atheists devoutly believe their sacred gospel 'According
to Charles Darwin', etc. They hold these beliefs sacred
(recommended reading http://www.newsmax.com/adv/godless).

It's like the ancient maxim that says "any finite set of
facts can evoke an infinite set of conclusions". But the
Atheists will never admit that their particular brand of
conclusions, theories, beliefs, views, etc., are nothing
more than that. How many Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.,
have you heard declare that theirs is vastly superior to
"mere belief" or "blind faith", but is "based on facts!"

You know, their particular brand of "Christianity" is the
"only true religion". And we hear similar claims from the
various sects of Islam, and from the at least 33 separate
schisms of Judaism (and the purest form of Christianity is
perfected Judaism). Atheism is no different in that regard.

Like all other religions, devout Atheism is also "not based
on superstitious clap-trap", "the mentally-insane delusions
of brain-dead religious morons", etc. Atheism is "far better
than unsupported blind faith alone", but is strictly "based
on facts in evidence" ad nauseam. We hear that all the time,
& not only from Atheists, but from all religious extremists.

The Atheists don't like the idea of losing their monopoly
over America's public schools and government institutions.
Once the theory of 'Intelligent Design' gets superimposed
right over the top of the orthodox theory of 'Evolution',
the proverbial Genie will be out of the bottle...the Cat's
out o' the bag! It's *the* Pandora's Box against Atheism(!)

Once that door gets opened, the floodgates to true freedom
of speech--and true freedom of religion--will be wide open. :-D

Enjoy!
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
F Parella
2006-11-16 00:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Atheism is not a religion
<snipped for clarity>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know, but Atheism is properly defined as a "belief", e.g.,
"Atheism -
the *belief* that there is no God, or denial that
God or gods exist." [end quote, emphasis added]
Thus Atheism is properly a (ir)religious belief, and so
adherents and proponents of Atheism are equally as much
believers in their godless religion of Atheism
Atheism is *not* a religion. It is the absence of theism.
bobandcarole
2006-11-16 00:29:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by F Parella
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Atheism is not a religion
<snipped for clarity>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know, but Atheism is properly defined as a "belief", e.g.,
"Atheism -
the *belief* that there is no God, or denial that
God or gods exist." [end quote, emphasis added]
Thus Atheism is properly a (ir)religious belief, and so
adherents and proponents of Atheism are equally as much
believers in their godless religion of Atheism
Atheism is *not* a religion. It is the absence of theism.
What would a friggin dago know about religion?
Dale Houstman
2006-11-16 00:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Atheism is not a religion
<snipped for clarity>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know, but Atheism is properly defined as a "belief", e.g.,
"Atheism -
the *belief* that there is no God, or denial that
God or gods exist." [end quote, emphasis added]
Thus Atheism is properly a (ir)religious belief,
This might be termed a "logic lacunae" - you left out some steps in your
cognitive process which are essential. To wit: you equate (with no
support) "belief" with "religion" when - in fact - this is absurd. By
this "logic" almost any human idea is a religion: a belief that the
earth ir spherical, the belief that Santa Claus is a cozy fiction, the
belief that adding sugar to coffee makes it sweeter. Obviously atheism
is a belief: the "ism" takes care of that. But a religion is a set of
laws that are understood to be mandated by some divine entity or divine
structure. Obviously atheism is not a set of divine laws. So it isn't a
religion. In fact, there is only one "rule" (more of an primary
attribute) to atheism: that the one who professes to be an atheist
understands that the universe is not divine. Beyond that, no laws, no
rituals, no icons... It is not a religion. The reason there are so many
ritualistic items encrusting religion, so many icons, and laws, and
other detritus - is because - without them - the beliefs would strike
any rational human as patently absurd.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
and so
adherents and proponents of Atheism are equally as much
believers in their godless religion of Atheism as other
believers in other contrastingly less-godless religions
are likewise believers their respective religions; some
devout believers, some less devout in their convictions.
Of course other more Atheist-biased dictionaries define
Atheism as "scientific fact", "intellectual superiority"
No one with a head larger than a earthworm's colon would call atheism a
scientific fact, because science does not accumulate and test hypothese
which address the existence or non-existence of deities, although (by
accumulation over the generarions) a reasonable person might assume that
the facts science does garner cumulatively disprove divine nature. But
that is up to the idividual: it is not really a scientifc venue. For
such discussions one has to look to philosophy.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
and the like. But we non-Atheists know that Atheists are
every bit as religious in their beliefs as anybody else
in the world is religious in his or her (non-Atheistic)
beliefs. By the strict definition, Atheism *is* a belief.
But don't expect Atheists to admit to this any time soon
(i.e. till ID is superimposed over Evolution by our USSC).
But I've already admitted that atheism is a belief, although the
admission is as irrelevant (and fake) as your original proposition.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
For example, Atheists devoutly believe "In the beginning,
Atheists created the heaven and the earth--in a big bang".
You really think atheists believe that other people created the
universe? Wow: that's insane!
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Atheists devoutly believe their sacred gospel 'According
to Charles Darwin', etc. They hold these beliefs sacred
(recommended reading http://www.newsmax.com/adv/godless).
Actually, atheists (like many scientists) still debate the details of
evolution. That's the difference between science and religion: its
structure changes as new facts emerge. I've actually met atheists who
while they (obviously) don't believe in a god, are not that hot on
Darwin either.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
It's like the ancient maxim that says "any finite set of
facts can evoke an infinite set of conclusions". But the
Atheists will never admit that their particular brand of
conclusions, theories, beliefs, views, etc., are nothing
more than that. How many Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.,
have you heard declare that theirs is vastly superior to
"mere belief" or "blind faith", but is "based on facts!"
Well -that's because religious belief is NOT based on facts, but on
faith. It even says so in the Bible.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
You know, their particular brand of "Christianity" is the
"only true religion". And we hear similar claims from the
various sects of Islam, and from the at least 33 separate
schisms of Judaism (and the purest form of Christianity is
perfected Judaism). Atheism is no different in that regard.
Again, this is silly as far as intelligent thought goes. In fact, most
ahteists I've known avoid getting into such discussions, because
(frankly) they are in the minority, and don't need the grief. An atheist
would never say their belief is the "only true religion" because atheims
is not a religion.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Like all other religions, devout Atheism is also "not based
on superstitious clap-trap", "the mentally-insane delusions
of brain-dead religious morons", etc. Atheism is "far better
than unsupported blind faith alone", but is strictly "based
on facts in evidence" ad nauseam. We hear that all the time,
& not only from Atheists, but from all religious extremists.
The Atheists don't like the idea of losing their monopoly
over America's public schools and government institutions.
That's funny...
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Once the theory of 'Intelligent Design' gets superimposed
right over the top of the orthodox theory of 'Evolution',
the proverbial Genie will be out of the bottle...the Cat's
out o' the bag! It's *the* Pandora's Box against Atheism(!)
Intelligent Design will never be "superimposed" over Evolution: the
creationism battle is a purely political and transient one, while
evolution - despite any qualms one might have with it - is an observable
truth, with quite a hefty pile of testable theory behind it.
"Intelligent Design" is one of the silliest attempts to force religion
into the public education system that has come along in a good while.
Kansas might do it for a short time, but that will eventually fail,
either at the polls, or in the Supreme Court, or through several other
processes. Evolution isn't going anywhere.

You're hysterical...

dmh
Lookingglass
2006-11-16 01:04:16 UTC
Permalink
"Dale Houstman" <***@skypoint.com> wrote in message news:***@skypoint.com...

<snip>
Post by Dale Houstman
You're hysterical...
dmh
...there you go again...gettin' all logical on us... ;^)

Long Live the Singularity...

dancin' dave (...it is not dying...)
www.Shemakhan.com
Dale Houstman
2006-11-16 13:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lookingglass
<snip>
Post by Dale Houstman
You're hysterical...
dmh
...there you go again...gettin' all logical on us... ;^)
It's a disease, but one which would improve the world to contract...

dmh
F Parella
2006-11-16 01:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale Houstman
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Atheism is not a religion
<snipped for clarity>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know, but Atheism is properly defined as a "belief", e.g.,
"Atheism -
the *belief* that there is no God, or denial that
God or gods exist." [end quote, emphasis added]
Thus Atheism is properly a (ir)religious belief,
This might be termed a "logic lacunae" - you left out some steps in your
cognitive process which are essential. To wit: you equate (with no
support) "belief" with "religion" when - in fact - this is absurd. By
this "logic" almost any human idea is a religion: a belief that the
earth ir spherical, the belief that Santa Claus is a cozy fiction, the
belief that adding sugar to coffee makes it sweeter. Obviously atheism
is a belief: the "ism" takes care of that. But a religion is a set of
laws that are understood to be mandated by some divine entity or divine
structure. Obviously atheism is not a set of divine laws. So it isn't a
religion. In fact, there is only one "rule" (more of an primary
attribute) to atheism: that the one who professes to be an atheist
understands that the universe is not divine. Beyond that, no laws, no
rituals, no icons... It is not a religion. The reason there are so many
ritualistic items encrusting religion, so many icons, and laws, and
other detritus - is because - without them - the beliefs would strike
any rational human as patently absurd.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
and so
adherents and proponents of Atheism are equally as much
believers in their godless religion of Atheism as other
believers in other contrastingly less-godless religions
are likewise believers their respective religions; some
devout believers, some less devout in their convictions.
Of course other more Atheist-biased dictionaries define
Atheism as "scientific fact", "intellectual superiority"
No one with a head larger than a earthworm's colon would call atheism a
scientific fact, because science does not accumulate and test hypothese
which address the existence or non-existence of deities, although (by
accumulation over the generarions) a reasonable person might assume that
the facts science does garner cumulatively disprove divine nature. But
that is up to the idividual: it is not really a scientifc venue. For
such discussions one has to look to philosophy.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
and the like. But we non-Atheists know that Atheists are
every bit as religious in their beliefs as anybody else
in the world is religious in his or her (non-Atheistic)
beliefs. By the strict definition, Atheism *is* a belief.
But don't expect Atheists to admit to this any time soon
(i.e. till ID is superimposed over Evolution by our USSC).
But I've already admitted that atheism is a belief, although the
admission is as irrelevant (and fake) as your original proposition.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
For example, Atheists devoutly believe "In the beginning,
Atheists created the heaven and the earth--in a big bang".
You really think atheists believe that other people created the
universe? Wow: that's insane!
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Atheists devoutly believe their sacred gospel 'According
to Charles Darwin', etc. They hold these beliefs sacred
(recommended reading http://www.newsmax.com/adv/godless).
Actually, atheists (like many scientists) still debate the details of
evolution. That's the difference between science and religion: its
structure changes as new facts emerge. I've actually met atheists who
while they (obviously) don't believe in a god, are not that hot on
Darwin either.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
It's like the ancient maxim that says "any finite set of
facts can evoke an infinite set of conclusions". But the
Atheists will never admit that their particular brand of
conclusions, theories, beliefs, views, etc., are nothing
more than that. How many Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.,
have you heard declare that theirs is vastly superior to
"mere belief" or "blind faith", but is "based on facts!"
Well -that's because religious belief is NOT based on facts, but on
faith. It even says so in the Bible.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
You know, their particular brand of "Christianity" is the
"only true religion". And we hear similar claims from the
various sects of Islam, and from the at least 33 separate
schisms of Judaism (and the purest form of Christianity is
perfected Judaism). Atheism is no different in that regard.
Again, this is silly as far as intelligent thought goes. In fact, most
ahteists I've known avoid getting into such discussions, because
(frankly) they are in the minority, and don't need the grief. An atheist
would never say their belief is the "only true religion" because atheims
is not a religion.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Like all other religions, devout Atheism is also "not based
on superstitious clap-trap", "the mentally-insane delusions
of brain-dead religious morons", etc. Atheism is "far better
than unsupported blind faith alone", but is strictly "based
on facts in evidence" ad nauseam. We hear that all the time,
& not only from Atheists, but from all religious extremists.
The Atheists don't like the idea of losing their monopoly
over America's public schools and government institutions.
That's funny...
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Once the theory of 'Intelligent Design' gets superimposed
right over the top of the orthodox theory of 'Evolution',
the proverbial Genie will be out of the bottle...the Cat's
out o' the bag! It's *the* Pandora's Box against Atheism(!)
Intelligent Design will never be "superimposed" over Evolution: the
creationism battle is a purely political and transient one, while
evolution - despite any qualms one might have with it - is an observable
truth, with quite a hefty pile of testable theory behind it.
"Intelligent Design" is one of the silliest attempts to force religion
into the public education system that has come along in a good while.
Kansas might do it for a short time, but that will eventually fail,
either at the polls, or in the Supreme Court, or through several other
processes. Evolution isn't going anywhere.
This was a good post. So-called "intelligent design" is extremely
silly; it's just new twist on the sorry old argument from design.
Dale Houstman
2006-11-16 13:13:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by F Parella
Post by Dale Houstman
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Atheism is not a religion
<snipped for clarity>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know, but Atheism is properly defined as a "belief", e.g.,
"Atheism -
the *belief* that there is no God, or denial that
God or gods exist." [end quote, emphasis added]
Thus Atheism is properly a (ir)religious belief,
This might be termed a "logic lacunae" - you left out some steps in your
cognitive process which are essential. To wit: you equate (with no
support) "belief" with "religion" when - in fact - this is absurd. By
this "logic" almost any human idea is a religion: a belief that the
earth ir spherical, the belief that Santa Claus is a cozy fiction, the
belief that adding sugar to coffee makes it sweeter. Obviously atheism
is a belief: the "ism" takes care of that. But a religion is a set of
laws that are understood to be mandated by some divine entity or divine
structure. Obviously atheism is not a set of divine laws. So it isn't a
religion. In fact, there is only one "rule" (more of an primary
attribute) to atheism: that the one who professes to be an atheist
understands that the universe is not divine. Beyond that, no laws, no
rituals, no icons... It is not a religion. The reason there are so many
ritualistic items encrusting religion, so many icons, and laws, and
other detritus - is because - without them - the beliefs would strike
any rational human as patently absurd.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
and so
adherents and proponents of Atheism are equally as much
believers in their godless religion of Atheism as other
believers in other contrastingly less-godless religions
are likewise believers their respective religions; some
devout believers, some less devout in their convictions.
Of course other more Atheist-biased dictionaries define
Atheism as "scientific fact", "intellectual superiority"
No one with a head larger than a earthworm's colon would call atheism a
scientific fact, because science does not accumulate and test hypothese
which address the existence or non-existence of deities, although (by
accumulation over the generarions) a reasonable person might assume that
the facts science does garner cumulatively disprove divine nature. But
that is up to the idividual: it is not really a scientifc venue. For
such discussions one has to look to philosophy.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
and the like. But we non-Atheists know that Atheists are
every bit as religious in their beliefs as anybody else
in the world is religious in his or her (non-Atheistic)
beliefs. By the strict definition, Atheism *is* a belief.
But don't expect Atheists to admit to this any time soon
(i.e. till ID is superimposed over Evolution by our USSC).
But I've already admitted that atheism is a belief, although the
admission is as irrelevant (and fake) as your original proposition.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
For example, Atheists devoutly believe "In the beginning,
Atheists created the heaven and the earth--in a big bang".
You really think atheists believe that other people created the
universe? Wow: that's insane!
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Atheists devoutly believe their sacred gospel 'According
to Charles Darwin', etc. They hold these beliefs sacred
(recommended reading http://www.newsmax.com/adv/godless).
Actually, atheists (like many scientists) still debate the details of
evolution. That's the difference between science and religion: its
structure changes as new facts emerge. I've actually met atheists who
while they (obviously) don't believe in a god, are not that hot on
Darwin either.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
It's like the ancient maxim that says "any finite set of
facts can evoke an infinite set of conclusions". But the
Atheists will never admit that their particular brand of
conclusions, theories, beliefs, views, etc., are nothing
more than that. How many Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.,
have you heard declare that theirs is vastly superior to
"mere belief" or "blind faith", but is "based on facts!"
Well -that's because religious belief is NOT based on facts, but on
faith. It even says so in the Bible.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
You know, their particular brand of "Christianity" is the
"only true religion". And we hear similar claims from the
various sects of Islam, and from the at least 33 separate
schisms of Judaism (and the purest form of Christianity is
perfected Judaism). Atheism is no different in that regard.
Again, this is silly as far as intelligent thought goes. In fact, most
ahteists I've known avoid getting into such discussions, because
(frankly) they are in the minority, and don't need the grief. An atheist
would never say their belief is the "only true religion" because atheims
is not a religion.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Like all other religions, devout Atheism is also "not based
on superstitious clap-trap", "the mentally-insane delusions
of brain-dead religious morons", etc. Atheism is "far better
than unsupported blind faith alone", but is strictly "based
on facts in evidence" ad nauseam. We hear that all the time,
& not only from Atheists, but from all religious extremists.
The Atheists don't like the idea of losing their monopoly
over America's public schools and government institutions.
That's funny...
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Once the theory of 'Intelligent Design' gets superimposed
right over the top of the orthodox theory of 'Evolution',
the proverbial Genie will be out of the bottle...the Cat's
out o' the bag! It's *the* Pandora's Box against Atheism(!)
Intelligent Design will never be "superimposed" over Evolution: the
creationism battle is a purely political and transient one, while
evolution - despite any qualms one might have with it - is an observable
truth, with quite a hefty pile of testable theory behind it.
"Intelligent Design" is one of the silliest attempts to force religion
into the public education system that has come along in a good while.
Kansas might do it for a short time, but that will eventually fail,
either at the polls, or in the Supreme Court, or through several other
processes. Evolution isn't going anywhere.
This was a good post. So-called "intelligent design" is extremely
silly; it's just new twist on the sorry old argument from design.
I suspect many of the public supporters of this "idea" don't really
believe it themselves, and certainly haven't done the research (whatever
that could entail) to undergird its claim to being a parallel science.
It's merely a convenient wedge to get a foot into public policy-making,
and to stem the imagined tide of immortality and bestiality that is just
waiting to sweep us all into Hell and - worse - enlightment.

Evolution is an observable fact of nature. Some of its details may be
debated for many generations, but - unless there's a bizarre collapse of
human cognition and a return to some unimaginable New Dark Ages, the
current "argument" for Intelligent Design is destined to be merely
another failed attempt by certain peripheral religious groups to regain
the upper hand on reality. Bothersome - yes. Ultimately successful - not
in any world I can imagine.

dmh
F Parella
2006-11-16 16:03:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale Houstman
Post by F Parella
Post by Dale Houstman
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Atheism is not a religion
<snipped for clarity>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know, but Atheism is properly defined as a "belief", e.g.,
"Atheism -
the *belief* that there is no God, or denial that
God or gods exist." [end quote, emphasis added]
Thus Atheism is properly a (ir)religious belief,
This might be termed a "logic lacunae" - you left out some steps in your
cognitive process which are essential. To wit: you equate (with no
support) "belief" with "religion" when - in fact - this is absurd. By
this "logic" almost any human idea is a religion: a belief that the
earth ir spherical, the belief that Santa Claus is a cozy fiction, the
belief that adding sugar to coffee makes it sweeter. Obviously atheism
is a belief: the "ism" takes care of that. But a religion is a set of
laws that are understood to be mandated by some divine entity or divine
structure. Obviously atheism is not a set of divine laws. So it isn't a
religion. In fact, there is only one "rule" (more of an primary
attribute) to atheism: that the one who professes to be an atheist
understands that the universe is not divine. Beyond that, no laws, no
rituals, no icons... It is not a religion. The reason there are so many
ritualistic items encrusting religion, so many icons, and laws, and
other detritus - is because - without them - the beliefs would strike
any rational human as patently absurd.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
and so
adherents and proponents of Atheism are equally as much
believers in their godless religion of Atheism as other
believers in other contrastingly less-godless religions
are likewise believers their respective religions; some
devout believers, some less devout in their convictions.
Of course other more Atheist-biased dictionaries define
Atheism as "scientific fact", "intellectual superiority"
No one with a head larger than a earthworm's colon would call atheism a
scientific fact, because science does not accumulate and test hypothese
which address the existence or non-existence of deities, although (by
accumulation over the generarions) a reasonable person might assume that
the facts science does garner cumulatively disprove divine nature. But
that is up to the idividual: it is not really a scientifc venue. For
such discussions one has to look to philosophy.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
and the like. But we non-Atheists know that Atheists are
every bit as religious in their beliefs as anybody else
in the world is religious in his or her (non-Atheistic)
beliefs. By the strict definition, Atheism *is* a belief.
But don't expect Atheists to admit to this any time soon
(i.e. till ID is superimposed over Evolution by our USSC).
But I've already admitted that atheism is a belief, although the
admission is as irrelevant (and fake) as your original proposition.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
For example, Atheists devoutly believe "In the beginning,
Atheists created the heaven and the earth--in a big bang".
You really think atheists believe that other people created the
universe? Wow: that's insane!
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Atheists devoutly believe their sacred gospel 'According
to Charles Darwin', etc. They hold these beliefs sacred
(recommended reading http://www.newsmax.com/adv/godless).
Actually, atheists (like many scientists) still debate the details of
evolution. That's the difference between science and religion: its
structure changes as new facts emerge. I've actually met atheists who
while they (obviously) don't believe in a god, are not that hot on
Darwin either.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
It's like the ancient maxim that says "any finite set of
facts can evoke an infinite set of conclusions". But the
Atheists will never admit that their particular brand of
conclusions, theories, beliefs, views, etc., are nothing
more than that. How many Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.,
have you heard declare that theirs is vastly superior to
"mere belief" or "blind faith", but is "based on facts!"
Well -that's because religious belief is NOT based on facts, but on
faith. It even says so in the Bible.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
You know, their particular brand of "Christianity" is the
"only true religion". And we hear similar claims from the
various sects of Islam, and from the at least 33 separate
schisms of Judaism (and the purest form of Christianity is
perfected Judaism). Atheism is no different in that regard.
Again, this is silly as far as intelligent thought goes. In fact, most
ahteists I've known avoid getting into such discussions, because
(frankly) they are in the minority, and don't need the grief. An atheist
would never say their belief is the "only true religion" because atheims
is not a religion.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Like all other religions, devout Atheism is also "not based
on superstitious clap-trap", "the mentally-insane delusions
of brain-dead religious morons", etc. Atheism is "far better
than unsupported blind faith alone", but is strictly "based
on facts in evidence" ad nauseam. We hear that all the time,
& not only from Atheists, but from all religious extremists.
The Atheists don't like the idea of losing their monopoly
over America's public schools and government institutions.
That's funny...
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Once the theory of 'Intelligent Design' gets superimposed
right over the top of the orthodox theory of 'Evolution',
the proverbial Genie will be out of the bottle...the Cat's
out o' the bag! It's *the* Pandora's Box against Atheism(!)
Intelligent Design will never be "superimposed" over Evolution: the
creationism battle is a purely political and transient one, while
evolution - despite any qualms one might have with it - is an observable
truth, with quite a hefty pile of testable theory behind it.
"Intelligent Design" is one of the silliest attempts to force religion
into the public education system that has come along in a good while.
Kansas might do it for a short time, but that will eventually fail,
either at the polls, or in the Supreme Court, or through several other
processes. Evolution isn't going anywhere.
This was a good post. So-called "intelligent design" is extremely
silly; it's just new twist on the sorry old argument from design.
I suspect many of the public supporters of this "idea" don't really
believe it themselves, and certainly haven't done the research (whatever
that could entail) to undergird its claim to being a parallel science.
It's merely a convenient wedge to get a foot into public policy-making,
and to stem the imagined tide of immortality and bestiality that is just
waiting to sweep us all into Hell and - worse - enlightment.
The religious people I know who support so-called "intelligent design"
definitely have not bothered to read up and figure out how it
supposedly works. It's not a coincidence; once you get into the
details, you see how dumb it is. Religionists sing IDs praises because
they think they're supposed to. It's what God wants.
Post by Dale Houstman
Evolution is an observable fact of nature. Some of its details may be
debated for many generations, but - unless there's a bizarre collapse of
human cognition and a return to some unimaginable New Dark Ages, the
current "argument" for Intelligent Design is destined to be merely
another failed attempt by certain peripheral religious groups to regain
the upper hand on reality. Bothersome - yes. Ultimately successful - not
in any world I can imagine.
I definitely agree about evolution. The ID movement seems to be
crumbling; as a new twist on the argument from design, it's subject to
the same refutations. So I don't see large amounts of people falling
for it either.
Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
2006-11-16 02:21:05 UTC
Permalink
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Obviously atheism is a belief
<snipped for clarity>
Obviously.

Next case, please...
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
The Chief Instigator
2006-11-16 05:41:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Obviously atheism is a belief
<snipped for clarity>
Obviously.
you're not interested in anything outside your hallucinations, Minbot.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Next case, please...
You've already had too many cases dropped on what's left of your head. Why
not give life a chance?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (***@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Milwaukee 2 (November 15)
NEXT GAME: Friday, November 17 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
Al Klein
2006-11-16 03:27:25 UTC
Permalink
On 16 Nov 2006 00:01:28 -0000, Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Atheism is not a religion
<snipped for clarity>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know, but Atheism is properly defined as a "belief", e.g.,
<snipped for accuracy>

The OAD defines it as lack of belief in god(s).

NOT belief in lack of gods.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Never in human history have such genocide and cruelty been
witnessed. Such a genocide was never seen in the time of the pharaohs nor
of Hitler nor of Mussolini."
- Mehmet Elkatmi, head of Turkish parliament's human rights commission
on Bush's genocide in the Iraq war. 11-28-2004
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
Al Klein
2006-11-16 03:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale Houstman
Once the
American government becomes - say - a Christian theocracy, all other
religions had better start worrying.
Not that short-sighted Christians care. They can't understand that
once some other sect of Christianity runs the country, their sect is
threatened.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Never in human history have such genocide and cruelty been
witnessed. Such a genocide was never seen in the time of the pharaohs nor
of Hitler nor of Mussolini."
- Mehmet Elkatmi, head of Turkish parliament's human rights commission
on Bush's genocide in the Iraq war. 11-28-2004
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
mcnews
2006-11-16 13:12:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dale Houstman
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Post by Dale Houstman
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion
I'm an atheist, and I don't support the banning of any religion.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth...
Post by Dale Houstman
Once our USSC rules in favor of the 29'-tall Mount Soledad
War Memorial (Easter) Latin Cross in San Diego, CA, that's
just one more victory that will serve to further enrage the
Rabidly-insane lunatics of the Anti-Christian Liberal Union,
the A.C.L.U.: the most *dangerous* organization in America!
Until the day when you need it - the day when *your* civil rights are taken
away from you.
Sounds good in theory, but in the real world, especially
since 1947, the leftist Liberal elements of society have
systematically imposed intolerant Anti-Christian Liberal
Atheism as America's official State religion: barring all
other religions--particularly Judeo-Christianity--from all
public schools, courtrooms, and from government in general.
Atheism is the religion that tolerates no other religions.
This has NOTHING to do with my statement - which your placement suggests
- because I am making a personal statement: I do not support a ban on
religion. Whatever one or aother branch of organized atheists has to say
is not my business.
But - besides that - your assertion is just plain bullshit. Atheism is
not a religion, and when's the last time you read about some atheist
group pulling the political strings in this country? Please...
The ACLU does not desire a ban on religion, only a clearer demarcation
between religious beliefs and public policy-making. This also serves to
preserve the rights of people to practice their religions. Once the
American government becomes - say - a Christian theocracy, all other
religions had better start worrying.
too many nutters need for *their* sanity for it to ever go away.
Al Klein
2006-11-15 22:21:03 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Nov 2006 20:29:41 -0000, Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Sounds good in theory, but in the real world, especially
since 1947, the leftist Liberal elements of society have
systematically imposed intolerant Anti-Christian Liberal
Atheism as America's official State religion: barring all
other religions--particularly Judeo-Christianity--from all
public schools, courtrooms, and from government in general.
You got the date wrong - it started in the 18th century with some
annoying little thing called the first amendment.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Atheism is the religion that tolerates no other religions.
The United States government is a government that tolerates ALL
religions, but gets involved with NONE.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
Free Lunch
2006-11-15 22:36:22 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Nov 2006 20:29:41 -0000, in alt.atheism
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Post by Dale Houstman
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion
I'm an atheist, and I don't support the banning of any religion.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth...
Post by Dale Houstman
Once our USSC rules in favor of the 29'-tall Mount Soledad
War Memorial (Easter) Latin Cross in San Diego, CA, that's
just one more victory that will serve to further enrage the
Rabidly-insane lunatics of the Anti-Christian Liberal Union,
the A.C.L.U.: the most *dangerous* organization in America!
Until the day when you need it - the day when *your* civil rights are taken
away from you.
Sounds good in theory, but in the real world, especially
since 1947, the leftist Liberal elements of society have
systematically imposed intolerant Anti-Christian Liberal
Atheism as America's official State religion: barring all
other religions--particularly Judeo-Christianity--from all
public schools, courtrooms, and from government in general.
What an incredible collection of lies you spread. Does your religion
really require you to be completely dishonest? Or is this just your
neo-fascism showing?
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
Atheism is the religion that tolerates no other religions.
Of course, as you know, atheism isn't even a religion.
Post by Ivdeo-Xian Star Logician
http://www.newsmax.com/adv/godless
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/25/135341.shtml?s=im
http://www.boycottliberalism.com/
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=dangerous+OR+liberal+OR+atheist+OR+socialist+OR+communist+OR+%22anti-christian%22+OR+%22anti-christ%22+%22aclu%22+-%22aclu.org%22+-%22mediamatters.org%22&adult_done=
Enjoy Life! (fillet a Liberal for lunch)
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
I do enjoy life. I don't enjoy authoritarian/totalitarian liars like
you.
Al Klein
2006-11-15 21:02:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@aol.com
Banning Christianity would receive tremendous support from the
hysterical left, but if you dared ban the "religion" that's causing all
the problems
In the US, that would be most sects of Christianity.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed
to ignore totally all the patient findings of thinking minds through all
the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant
people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking
among us who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all, who
would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us, who would invade
our schools and libraries and homes."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
I Hate America
2006-11-16 03:07:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Klein
In the US, that would be most sects of Christianity.
You kolw the framers had it all wrong. We don't need freedom OF
religion, we need freedom FROM religion.

All religious people on the planet should be slaughtered.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Al Klein
2006-11-16 04:21:10 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:07:14 -0800, I Hate America
Post by I Hate America
Post by Al Klein
In the US, that would be most sects of Christianity.
You kolw the framers had it all wrong. We don't need freedom OF
religion, we need freedom FROM religion.
We do have it. They just won't accept it.
Post by I Hate America
All religious people on the planet should be slaughtered.
That would make us as bad as they are.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
Dale Houstman
2006-11-16 13:14:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by I Hate America
Post by Al Klein
In the US, that would be most sects of Christianity.
You kolw the framers had it all wrong. We don't need freedom OF
religion, we need freedom FROM religion.
All religious people on the planet should be slaughtered.
Actually, I'd elect to detain and question people who "think" like you
do before I'd go after any religious groups.

dmh
Al Klein
2006-11-15 15:41:15 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Nov 2006 02:04:41 -0800, "Sound of Trumpet"
Post by Sound of Trumpet
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
Sir Elton John wants religion banned completely - because he believes
it promotes hatred of gays.
Speaking to the Observer Music Monthly Magazine the singer said
religion lacked compassion and turned people into "hateful lemmings".
So it's Christianity's stance that its loving god wants people to hate
each other? Any religion that promotes hatred SHOULD be not only
banned but totally eliminated.

Promoting hatred should be made a felony, whether it's for religious
reasons or any other reasons. Freedom of religion doesn't mean
license to incite hatred.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but
not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
-A. Einstein (1929 -- Einstein Archive 33-272)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
JEM
2006-11-15 19:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@home.com
On 15 Nov 2006 02:04:41 -0800, "Sound of Trumpet"
Post by Sound of Trumpet
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
Sir Elton John wants religion banned completely - because he believes
it promotes hatred of gays.
Speaking to the Observer Music Monthly Magazine the singer said
religion lacked compassion and turned people into "hateful lemmings".
So it's Christianity's stance that its loving god wants people to hate
each other? Any religion that promotes hatred SHOULD be not only
banned but totally eliminated.
Promoting hatred should be made a felony, whether it's for religious
reasons or any other reasons. Freedom of religion doesn't mean
license to incite hatred.
There are hate crime laws, I know it would not win but that would
really stir up some great public discussion, a class action lawsuit
aimed at rcc might tarnish their battered image some more.
Include all the ted haggard foaming types too, hey, he could be on
both sides of that lawsuit!
Al Klein
2006-11-15 21:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by JEM
Post by Al Klein
Promoting hatred should be made a felony, whether it's for religious
reasons or any other reasons. Freedom of religion doesn't mean
license to incite hatred.
There are hate crime laws, I know it would not win but that would
really stir up some great public discussion, a class action lawsuit
aimed at rcc might tarnish their battered image some more.
Include all the ted haggard foaming types too, hey, he could be on
both sides of that lawsuit!
Hate crime laws usually just push a crime up a notch if it was done as
a hate crime. I mean make inciting to hate (or some such wording) a
crime unto itself.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion."
- Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
2006-11-15 17:34:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Try and keep up, mmmK?
Post by Sound of Trumpet
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
PoliPundit ^ | 11/102006
Posted on 11/12/2006 6:39:27 AM PST by SirLinksalot
Sir Elton John wants religion banned completely - because he believes
it promotes hatred of gays.
Speaking to the Observer Music Monthly Magazine the singer said
religion lacked compassion and turned people into "hateful lemmings".
The PRESS ASSOCIATION reports: In a candid interview for a dedicated
Gay issue of the magazine he shared his views on topics as varied as
being a pop icon to Tony Blair's stance on the war in Iraq.
He said there was a lack of religious leadership, particularly in world
politics, and complained that people do not take to the streets to
protest any more.
Sir Elton said: "I think religion has always tried to turn hatred
towards gay people. Religion promotes the hatred and spite against
gays.
"But there are so many people I know who are gay and love their
religion. From my point of view I would ban religion completely.
"Organised religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into
really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."
He added: "The world is near escalating to World War Three and where
are the leaders of each religion? Why aren't they having a conclave?
Why aren't they coming together?
"I said this after 9/11 and people thought I was nuts. Instead of
more violence why isn't there a meeting of religious leaders?
"It's like the peace movement in the Sixties. Musicians got through
to people by getting out there and doing peace concerts but we don't
seem to do them any more.
"If John Lennon were alive today he'd be leading it with a
vengeance," he said.
Sir Elton said people were too busy blogging on the internet to go out
onto the streets to stand up for what they believed in.
"They seem to do their protesting online and that's not good
enough. You have to get out there and be seen to be vocal, and you've
got to do it time and time again.
"There was a big march in London when Britain decided to join the war
against Iraq and Tony Blair is on the record as saying 'the people
who march today will have blood on their hands'. That's returned to
bite him on the ass," he said.
Sir Elton compared his place in British culture with that of the Queen
Mother's.
He said: "People come to me and I'm a bit like the Queen Mother. I
never get those problems. I don't know what it is with me, people
treat me very reverently.
Referring to his "wedding" to long-term partner David Furnish, he
said: "It was the same when Dave and I had our civil union - I was
expecting the odd flour bomb and there wasn't.
"Dave and I as a couple seem to be the acceptable face of gayness,
and that's great."
He pledged to continue to campaign for gay rights saying: "I'm
going to fight for them whether I do it silently behind the scenes or
so vocally that I get locked up.
"I can't just sit back; it's not in my nature any more. I'm
nearly 60-years-old after all. I can't sit back and blindly ignore it
and I won't."
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
Edvado
2006-11-15 23:04:33 UTC
Permalink
"Imagine no religion"

-Has a nice ring to it.
RamRod Sword of Baal
2006-11-15 23:08:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edvado
"Imagine no religion"
-Has a nice ring to it.
Hey 90% of the wars would go...................
n***@junk.min.net
2006-11-16 22:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edvado
"Imagine no religion"
-Has a nice ring to it.
Religion, like anything else created by man, can be good or evil - all
depends on how it is used. Many people are soothed by the idea of a
loving god they can pray to, especially when they have problems in life.
Many people are inspired by their religion to be charitable, and help the
less fortunate. These are good things. On the other hand, there are the
individuals who are convinced that their religion is the only real truth,
so all who believe differently are below them and must be converted or
killed, and that's what we're seeing with Islamists today (Christianity
has grown out of this phase, but there's a reason there are billions of
Christians in the world, and it's not because all of their ancestors
voluntarily converted. Same is true of today's Muslim population, also in
the billions. "Convert or die" is not a new thing.)

It's like computers - countless people use computers for business,
education, entertainment, etc. A few use them to create viruses and
Trojans, or to spread hate. Should computers be banned because of the
actions of the minority? No, and neither should religion. Just go after
the abusers of technology, and religion, and cars, etc.


Alan
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Please use address alanh77[at]comcast.net to reply via e-mail. **

Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564 and eComStation 1.21

BBS - The Nerve Center Telnet FidoNet 261/1000 tncbbs.no-ip.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ubiquitous
2006-11-15 23:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sound of Trumpet
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
And you are sharing this with us because?
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Deuteros
2006-11-16 03:08:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
If Elton wants to get rid of hatred then I'm sure he would be more than happy
to ban faggotry since it promotes hatred of religion.
Lookingglass
2006-11-16 08:14:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deuteros
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
If Elton wants to get rid of hatred then I'm sure he would be more than happy
to ban faggotry since it promotes hatred of religion.
I know that all the FAGGOTS R US meetings I go to revolve around who we
'hate'...and we also set the age limits as to who we will bring into our
'club' as a new recruit...I think we decided 12 was a good age. If I bring
in a 'babe in the woods', I get a FREE TOASTER. Whooppee!!!

;^)

dancin' dave (...and our friends are all aboard...)
www.Shemakhan.com
RamRod Sword of Baal
2006-11-16 12:04:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deuteros
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
If Elton wants to get rid of hatred then I'm sure he would be more than happy
to ban faggotry since it promotes hatred of religion.
Any Gay person who hate religion, then it is with just cause, and religion
has persecuted Gays through the ages.

Tell me one war Gays have started, whereas just look at all the wars
religion has started.
Deuteros
2006-11-17 14:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by Deuteros
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
If Elton wants to get rid of hatred then I'm sure he would be more than
happy to ban faggotry since it promotes hatred of religion.
Any Gay person who hate religion, then it is with just cause, and
religion has persecuted Gays through the ages.
Tell me one war Gays have started,
The war on AIDS.
Martin Phipps
2006-11-16 09:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1737266/posts
Elton John Wants to Ban Religion (Because It Promotes Hatred of Gays)
PoliPundit ^ | 11/102006
Posted on 11/12/2006 6:39:27 AM PST by SirLinksalot
Sir Elton John wants religion banned completely - because he believes
it promotes hatred of gays.
Not to mention the slaughter of people who disagree with your religion,
including Jews (if you're Christian), Christians (if you're Muslim) and
Muslims (if you're Jewish). No Western religion is without blood on
its hands.

I say the best of luck to him. :)

Martin
UsurperTom
2006-11-16 16:17:30 UTC
Permalink
No Western religion is without blood on its hands.
All three of those religions were founded in the Middle East which
would make them Eastern religions.
Al Smith
2006-11-16 16:52:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Phipps
Post by Sound of Trumpet
Sir Elton John wants religion banned completely - because he believes
Post by Sound of Trumpet
it promotes hatred of gays.
Not to mention the slaughter of people who disagree with your religion,
including Jews (if you're Christian), Christians (if you're Muslim) and
Muslims (if you're Jewish). No Western religion is without blood on
its hands.
I say the best of luck to him. :)
Martin
I say, Let's kill all the atheists! (No, not really, but I had you
going there, didn't I?)
Therion Ware
2006-11-16 17:35:46 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:52:22 GMT, Al Smith wrote in message
Post by Al Smith
Post by Martin Phipps
Post by Sound of Trumpet
Sir Elton John wants religion banned completely - because he believes
Post by Sound of Trumpet
it promotes hatred of gays.
Not to mention the slaughter of people who disagree with your religion,
including Jews (if you're Christian), Christians (if you're Muslim) and
Muslims (if you're Jewish). No Western religion is without blood on
its hands.
I say the best of luck to him. :)
Martin
I say, Let's kill all the atheists! (No, not really, but I had you
going there, didn't I?)
All atheists deserve a slow death, something in the region of 1 - 5
millions years perhaps....


--
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
attrib: Pauline Réage.
-
www.eac-nudis.com = Evil Atheist Conspiracy NNTP / Usenet Distributed Intelligence System...
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...