Mormon meddlers


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as they insist on being called, has earned another reason to be regarded with a sneer of contempt: they sent a letter to all of their churches in California urging their adherents to vote for Proposition 8. It’s bizarre that a religion known for being out of step with the rest of the country on the issue of marriage, a place populated with polygamists and young girls treated as chattel and coaxed into child marriages, now wants to “preserve the sacred institution of marriage”. They sunk tens of millions of dollars into the campaign.

Californians are rightly demonstrating against the Mormon church—I’d be more than a little pissed off myself. After Enron enriched itself by bilking Californians, now you’ve got Salt Lake City trying to turn you into a little Utah. You’ve got cause to be annoyed at the way you’re being targeted.

People are trying to do something, and one thought is to try and revoke the Mormon church’s tax exempt status. Ah, sweet dream. I’d dearly love to see Obama repair the damage to our economy by revoking religious tax exemptions across the board, and refill our treasury with loot from the theological con artists. Alas, I’m at an Americans United meeting, and the place is crawling with lawyers and experts on separation of church and state issues, and I asked Barry Lynn directly what kind of legal recourse we had, and he regretfully pointed out that what the Mormon church did was entirely legal. It was ethically repugnant, of course, but complaining to the IRS is likely to net you doodly-squat in this case.

We may have to settle for escalating our mockery of mormonism. It’s not hard, after all: it is one of the most palpably ridiculous, unethical, dumb-ass religions flourishing in our unfortunate nation of theological dumb-asses. Did you know that being excommunicated from the Mormon church can get you expelled from BYU? Don’t go to BYU (not that there’s much chance many of my readers would do so), and feel free to sneer a little bit at the poor BYU graduates. Forget that ski vacation in Park City; Colorado has great snow, too. Be even ruder to the next pair of white-shirted Mormon missionaries who come to your door. Hey, does anyone know what a Mormon would find heretical? Send me something they find sacred.

Otherwise, we’re just stuck with this ugly outcome. All we can do is be more aware of the flock of smug, sanctimonious, hypocritical holy meddlers in our midst.

Remember, though, that all they were doing is trying to keep the definition of marriage as it has been since the beginning of time. Dumb-asses.

Comments

  1. Peregrinus says

    A cleric, no doubt.

    Yes. When I am not swinging my cudgel, healing, or sermonizing, I am bickering with the party’s wizard, an obdurate atheist.

  2. John Morales says

    When I am not swinging my cudgel, healing, or sermonizing, I am bickering with the party’s wizard, an obdurate atheist.

    Yeah, right, like any player is gonna be an atheist in D&D, where Gods actually manifest themselves and clerics have actual divine power which only an idiot (i.e. not a Wizard, since they have a minimum Int requirement) would deny.

    What a stupid, barefaced lie.

  3. Owlmirror says

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

    Hm.

    There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.
    The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.
    There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.
    Religions are, for the most part, bad — but religion is not.

    Given that he never published any of this, I find myself wondering how firmly he believed it.

    If the religious were generally as tentative, uncertain, undogmatic, and noncommittal as Gödel, atheists would have nothing to complain about.

    “There are several reasons Gödel’s axioms may not be realistic”…

    Well, duh.

    The problem with all of this high-flown logic-chopping is that the result has no empirical demonstration.

    You can talk about moral aesthetic positive God-like properties from now until the sun blows up, but the proof is useless if God doesn’t do anything.

    And if God does nothing, and cannot be detected, God is indistinguishable from nothing; which is to say, from not existing.

  4. says

    sing it, Pops!

    As I said before, I’ll be glad when you’re dead, you
    rascal,you!
    Hmm, yea-ee-yea, you rascal, you!
    Boy, when you’re laying six feet deep,
    No more fried chicken will you eat;
    Aw, you dog, I know that’ll break your heart, ha, ha, ha, ha!

    Boy! Boy, what is it that you’ve got
    That makes my wife think you’re hot?
    Oh, you dog, you ain’t no good. Naw!

    You bought my wife a bottle of Coca Cola,
    So you could play on her victrola;
    Ha, you dog! Yes, sir!

  5. Peregrinus says

    Yeah, right, like any player is gonna be an atheist in D&D, where Gods actually manifest themselves and clerics have actual divine power which only an idiot (i.e. not a Wizard, since they have a minimum Int requirement) would deny.

    What a stupid, barefaced lie.

    Oh, he just thinks I am a different kind of wizard called “cleric.” He cites this Chick Tract as proof.

  6. Patricia says

    OK PZ. I went through my stuff from my trips to the genealogy library in Salt Lake City, have I got some goodies for you to desecrate. Expect a package from me.

    Tee Hee, cackle! I’m such a naughty Patricia. *snort*

  7. Brownian, OM says

    I remember Peregrinus’ from his previous incarnation (‘vapid atheists’ is his signature comment), though nothing he said was ever significant enough to warrant remembering his name.

    If the waste of time was actually interested in discourse, he’d post more than one-liners and zingers calculated to evoke a response. He doesn’t, because he’s too busy clapping his hands with glee whenever he hits the ‘Enter’ key. It’s his way of getting a massive ‘net-job. (Witness how long it took to eke the ontological argument from him. That’s just a teeny glimpse into just how long and hard he is willing to waste your time.) A friend of mine used to manage a call centre for a major department store mail-order catalog. They had a shoe-fetishist who would call in on a weekly basis to basically do the same thing to any poor girl unlucky enough to get his call.

    Feel free to indulge the obscurantist fuck, but kindly wash your hands after.

  8. John Morales says

    Well, I’m blushing. P says stupid things, and laughs at the responses.

    I got sucked into feeding the troll. Bah.

  9. E.V. says

    Sorry Patricia, I thought you had invoked the Unholy Trinity upthread. Rev BDC OM;KoT alluded to it.

  10. says

    If the waste of time was actually interested in discourse, he’d post more than one-liners and zingers calculated to evoke a response.

    That’s where I’m getting frustrated. Just as it seemed to be getting somewhere, suddenly that line of discussion ceased.

  11. Timothy Wood says

    i couldn’t believe this thread was still happening…

    then i realized the topic had changed to D&D

  12. nanu nanu says

    (‘vapid atheists’ is his signature comment)

    Kind of like that idiot a while back that would post under a bunch of different names going on about how we were all socially autistic?

    You’d think they’d have the decency to not make it OBVIOUS it’s them but NOOO. Where are the high quality trolls, damnit?

    :[

  13. Ryan says

    I suspect that taking away tax exemption would be a long step towards getting Palin elected in 2012. I’m not sure it would be worth it.

  14. Diego says

    Longish story hopefully shortened enough: I have a Mormon friend who is mostly sane about the vast majority of things. In fact, most people assume she is a Buddhist. But she goes fanatically reactionary when anything touches on her. I once touched her off by blogging about a bogus human genetics study that the LDS Church sponsored to add support to their pet notions. I was critical yet highly diplomatic, but she read my blog and immediately accused me of personally attacking her and her family by saying something negative about the Church. She got very nasty very quickly, and it took a long, long time before relations were normalized between us again. Now I just read another friend’s blog and he is griping about the Church’s involvement (he is gay and lives in California), and of course this friend has popped out of the Mormon, who is a mutual friend, has popped out of the woodwork again attacking him. It’s amazing how a person who seems quite sweet, peaceable, and rational most of the time can have such a hair-trigger about religions.

  15. Timothy Wood says

    See… if you’re all thinking in the box… like… you’d be like: why don’t we just kill all the mormons? psh. but if u weren’t like not thinking inside the box… you’d be like: why don’t we just kill EVERYBODY? if you kill indiscriminately it’s not genocide.

  16. Timothy Wood says

    @529 or anyone

    are there any numbers out there regarding how what kind of revenue that might generate?

  17. Corey PS says

    The most frustrating aspect of the anti-gay-marriage movement has to be their tendency to invoke the well being of the children in their arguments. I think that were they have succeded, it has been this aspect of their arguments that has allowed them to do so. As the daughter of a lesbian single-mother, I feel that the best possible thing that could have been done for my well being would have been for my society to recognize my family as legitimate. If other parents could have stopped telling my classmates that I and my mother were going to burn in hell, that would have been nice also.

  18. Wowbagger says

    #520:

    OMG, I’m surrounded by…NERDS and GEEKS!

    Don’t forget the dweebs, wonks and spazzes.

  19. Brownian, OM says

    They all adore him; they think he’s a righteous dude.–A reading from the Gospel according to Hughes.

  20. Timothy Wood says

    @ Corey

    It is all kindof based on the idea that gay is contagious. There’s this underlying fear that if you legitimize it, a whole generation will be devoid of heterosexuality. Which, as it just so happens, is the real cause of gayity. I mean, it’s strait couples having all these gay babies right? …and the fundies are the ones trying to outlaw birth control!

  21. says

    Speaking of musical interlewds and Magic Mormon Underpants–
    Po-Jama People:
    Some people’s hot
    Some people’s cold
    Some people’s not very
    Swift to behold
    Some people do it
    Some see right through it
    Some wear pyjamas
    If only they knew it

    The pyjama people are boring me to pieces
    Feel like I am wasting my time
    They all got flannel up ‘n down ’em
    A little trap-door back aroun’ ’em
    An’ some cozy little footies on their mind

    Po-jama people!
    Po-jama people, people!
    They sure do make you sleepy
    With the things they might say
    Po-jama people!
    Po-jama people, people!
    Mother Mary ‘n Jozuf, I wish they’d all go away!

  22. Wowbagger says

    Millhouse: I didn’t know your dad was so interested in science.
    Homer: Science!?!
    Bart: He didn’t say science, he said…pie-pants.
    Homer: Mmmmm, pie-pants.

  23. Patricia says

    Perhaps some of you would get a kick out of discussing religion with the mormons the way I do when they come to my door.

    I tell them how happy I am to see them and that I believe in polyagamy too. Then when they say oh no! I tell them some of the joys of having six husbands – they run like hell.

  24. Feynmaniac says

    Owlmirror #505,
    “Given that he never published any of this, I find myself wondering how firmly he believed it.”

    He actually published the idea of time travel in a rotating, non-expanding universe. Apparently this idea was worthy to publish yet the proof of God wasn’t.

    While undoubtedly a genius Gödel had some very unusual ideas. He thought he was being poisoned so he starved himself to death.

  25. Feynmaniac says

    #536 should read :

    He thought his food was being poisoned so he starved himself to death.

    Still bad reasoning, IMO.

  26. Patricia says

    I beg your pardon E.V. – I am as dense as granite tonight, that flew even higher over my head.

    Must be the lack of alcohol.

  27. Timothy Wood says

    sorry, I’ve been typing grad application essays all day. My mind is bereft of anything useful or meaningful.

    It does amaze me how opponents of GLBT rights really think that it’s something they can deny indefinitely. It’s as if they are completely oblivious of the last century of social change in the west. Maybe I’m just overestimating them.

  28. Brownian, OM says

    While undoubtedly a genius Gödel had some very unusual ideas. He thought he was being poisoned so he starved himself to death.

    Nothing unusual about it: I was poisoning him.

    By the way, he was off on the details of time travel as well.

  29. Malcolm says

    The mormons don’t come to my door any more. Its a real shame, as I used to enjoy inviting them in for a coffee and a chat. It was always fun asking them questions about their book, like why these Jewish people didn’t use the wheel any more, where their horses came from, etc. I miss the mormons. They were fun.

  30. Nerd of Redhead says

    Patricia, if you had six husbands it would be called polyandry (or maybe some real fun).;)

    If you really wanted to freak them out, try one of the marriages in Heinlein’s books where there are half a dozen each of men and women.

  31. Brownian, OM says

    Patricia, if you had six husbands it would be called polyandry (or maybe some real fun).;)

    Damn, I’m rusty on my Greek and Latin: what would it be called if Patricia only had five?

    Seriously though, even an introductory Anthropology course in marriage and kinship should be enough to disabuse anyone of the notion that Christianity (or any religion, for that matter) holds any claim to ‘traditional’ marriage.

  32. E.V. says

    Patricia: you remarked about Walton, Eric A and JCR not pulling their usual shenanagans which was a clear invitation for them to Libertarianize the thread.

    Ken Cope: You are blissing tonight!

    TWood: It’s okay. Those people aren’t over the miscengenation claptrap. We’ve had the arguments before but sexual orientation is rarely a a complete dichotomy – few people are completely homosexual, which is proportionate to the people who are completely heterosexual, most people fall somewhere in between in a vast spectrum on the Kinsey Scale. (Which doesn’t necessarily mean they would be “bi-sexual” . Oops, opened up a huge can o’ worms.

  33. Peregrinus says

    While undoubtedly a genius Gödel had some very unusual ideas was as crazy as a rat in a tin shithouse.

    No, Goonter from da’ backwoods, Kurt Gödel suffered from some paranoid delusions at the end of his life that were only exacerbated by the death of his wife. That does not make him “as crazy as a rat in a tin shithouse.”

    And Dana Scott, Gödel’s student and a famous logician in his own right, pronounced his mentor’s argument logically sound.

  34. Mike says

    Ken,

    Even though most communist countries don’t support religious institutions financially, China, even though it is in many ways communist in name only, does support government sponsored religious organization that regulate and staff the 5 major state sanctioned religions, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Protestantism, and Catholicism.

  35. Peregrinus says

    what would it be called if Patricia only had five [husbands instead of six]?

    Damn lucky for the sixth potential husband who dodged the bullet.

  36. says

    Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 9, 2008 10:09 PM

    I remember Peregrinus’ from his previous incarnation (‘vapid atheists’ is his signature comment), though nothing he said was ever significant enough to warrant remembering his name.

    lol

    One day he unloaded on me in one of his newer, pre-Peregrinus incarnations. I’m like “WTF, I’ve never talked to this douche in my life” but if that’s the way it’s going to be, then that’s the way it’s going to be…

    Somewhat later in the thread there was one of his tired “vapid atheists” cliches…

    I got a laugh. I’m… Hmmmm… Which nut-ball was this again? I don’t even remember who he was pretending to be, but I think he was one of the cracker fetish guys… I seem to have made much more of an impression on him, than he did on me…

    Whoever he is, he’s no Larry Farfarman or David Heddle. Or that weird guy (John Davidson) who keeps making blogs and talking to himself on them…

    Anyway, he’s a silly boy. He tries to get rises… But, really, he’s like a knock-knock joke. Funny at 6, dull by 8.

    Oh, and speaking of jokes dull by 8, the kindergarten girl across the street caught me with a Laffy-Taffy riddle today. One I’ve heard about a zillion times (well, probably 8 or 9, but bad jokes multiply bad-joke-pain exponentially):

    What kind of pants do clouds where?
    THUNDERWEAR!!!

    I stopped buying Laffy-Taffy when the monkey hit six or so. It was in self-defense, I just couldn’t handle the corny…

  37. says

    As per Heinlein, Brownian, it might be a Line marriage. Call me old-fashioned, but I’d leave the cloned twins alone, but then, I’d never conceive myself while watching from the rumble seat, either.

  38. Peregrinus says

    One day he unloaded on me in one of his newer, pre-Peregrinus incarnations. I’m like “WTF, I’ve never talked to this douche in my life” but if that’s the way it’s going to be, then that’s the way it’s going to be…

    I remember your bs from Panda’s Thumb, originally.

  39. says

    Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 9, 2008 10:59 PM

    Patricia, if you had six husbands it would be called polyandry (or maybe some real fun).;)

    If you really wanted to freak them out, try one of the marriages in Heinlein’s books where there are half a dozen each of men and women.

    Now there was a writer who had some interesting, if left-field ideas. He was very libertarian and I got the impression that he thought that was the kind of wonderful marriages people could have if libertarian rules/ideals were followed.

    And as he got older, the ideas got crazier and more obsessive.

    Personally, I think his little communal marriages would be unstable as hell and most would end up with a shot-gun divorce. And a lengthy murder trial thereafter.

    But in fiction, you can “make them work” and I’ve certainly read worse…

    Anyway, time to put the monkey to bed.

  40. says

    That does not make him “as crazy as a rat in a tin shithouse.”

    No, that would make him yet another FCCing Platonist asshole who died as crazy as a rat in a tin shithouse, merely one in a long list of crazy as a rat in a tin shithouse Platonists, which is as of yet an incomplete list. If only you would complete the set, P-man!

  41. says

    Well, as Dryden said, “Great wits are sure to madness near allied, And thin partitions do their bounds divide”. Gödel was very eccentric, something of a recluse and a hypochondriac, paranoid about germs, even before his final paranoia about being poisoned that led him to starve himself to death. Characterising him as having “some unusual ideas” is something of an understatement. The smiley might have clued you in to the fact that I was being facetious.

    And Dana Scott, Gödel’s student and a famous logician in his own right, pronounced his mentor’s argument logically sound.

    So what.

  42. 'Tis Himself says

    OMG, I’m surrounded by…NERDS and GEEKS!

    Don’t forget the dweebs, wonks and spazzes.

    Us weenies always get forgotten. :^(

  43. Jeanette says

    I thought it was weird a while back when everyone was arguing about whether it was okay to be rude to people who come knocking at the door trying to convert you to their religion. Here in Denver, we realize that it’s the door-knockers who are being rude, and that type of behavior is uncommon. I had Mormons come to the door one time in my life, last summer. I slammed the door in their faces, which was not rude of me; it was rude of them to be ringing the doorbell during the day, when I was trying to sleep. (Not everyone is on a 9-5 schedule, by the way.)

    (Back in the 80’s our family lived a block away from the Hare Krishna temple, and they used to come to the door once in a while. Back in those days they were having parades in the streets and stalking every airport. I think they eventually figured out that they were just pissing people off.)

    Anyway, people mostly don’t do that here, and that’s because it’s weird and creepy and socially unacceptable. Under most circumstances, people need an appointment to knock on your door. (Some exceptions might include established service-provider contacts and neighborly contacts, which would not include proselytizing.)

    I spent a little time making phone calls for the Obama campaign, but I wasn’t willing to knock on doors. That’s because an appointment is normally required to knock on someone’s door.

    Not only are Mormons brain-washed, but people who have come to accept proselytizing door-knockers are a bit brain-washed as well. You may live somewhere where it commonly occurs, but that doesn’t make it acceptable. And people who do it need to have that explained to them, too.

  44. says

    That argument doesn’t prove the existence of God though, unless you take God as the unknown. It offers nothing in the way of what God actually means and it has nothing at all that supports the notions of the Judao-Christian God. Being logically sound doesn’t make the Judao-Christian God any more real, in the end it needs to be supported with evidence…

    …and when it came to talking about evidence Peregrinus went silent.

  45. Feynmaniac says

    Oh here’s another amusing anecdote of Gödel, but this one with a happy ending.

    Gödel left Europe during WWII to the US. Einstein helped coach him for his citizenship exam and acted as a character witness. Apparently,during his preparation Gödel found a way in the Constitution to make the US a dictatorship. During his citizenship exam he mentioned this to the judge, much to Einstein’s annoyance. Luckily, the judge was a patient man and ignored it. He eventually got his citizenship.

  46. says

    And Dana Scott, Gödel’s student and a famous logician in his own right, pronounced his mentor’s argument logically sound.

    Dana Scott’s thesis supervisor was Alonzo Church (himself, of course, a famous logician). Scott and Gödel don’t seem to have ever published anything together. By the time Gödel gave Scott his ontological proof in 1970, Scott was already a well-established logician. On what basis do you maintain that Dana Scott was “Gödel’s student” and Gödel was Scott’s “mentor”?

  47. Nerd of Redhead says

    ..and when it came to talking about evidence Peregrinus went silent.

    I’ve noticed most of them do. Must be a character defect.

  48. Jeanette says

    Re: #565: Yeah, those John Saffran videos are classic. I like the one where they knock on Mormons’ doors and preach the “gospel” of atheism and Darwin’s Theory (of Intelligent Design by Natural Selection). That would serve them right, I think.

  49. Feynmaniac says

    Characterising him as having “some unusual ideas” is something of an understatement.

    True. I kinda understated it to make the whole starving-himself-to-death-to-avoid-being-poisoned part have greater effect. I thought after telling that people would see quite clearly it was an understatement.

    Besides, I’m not creative enough to come up with a phrase like “as crazy as a rat in a tin shithouse”.

  50. Quiet Desperation says

    According to the literal interpretation, Kolob is an actual star in this universe that is near to, or perhaps the sun of, the physical throne of God.

    Meh. The Cylons sacked Kolob long ago. It’s irrelevant now.

  51. gypsytag says

    Jeanette,

    I hope you also slammed the door in the face of the boy scouts who go around collecting food.
    Those little 8-10 years old brats are just going to grow up to be atheist haters too, so we need to teach them a lesson.

    Perhaps someone could find it in their hearts to throw bags of shit at them as well. That seems to be the accepted practice now as per the posts above.

    Hey i just thought I’d liven things up, it was getting boring with the ontological argument stuff.

  52. Feynmaniac says

    I find Battlestar Galactica, which was influenced greatly on Mormonism, more believable than Mormonism. Also more entertaining.

    Perhaps is Joseph Smith were declared a Cylon I might change my mind….

  53. says

    I got the chance to visit SLC this summer and surprisingly the Mormons aren’t trying to shove it down your throat, the laymen at least. The church was another story though I did manage to be allowed on temple grounds long enough to get a picture with White Jesus.

  54. says

    pcarini (#268):

    Somehow the stories of armies riding into battle on battle-tapirs or Moroni fleeing the Lamanites on his trusty tapir don’t have quite the same ring to them.

    I dunno, an army of battle-tapirs sounds this close to being a great scene in a Miyazaki movie.

  55. says

    Yeah, those John Saffran videos are classic.

    My favourite Saffran clip was his rant on atheists. It was just beautiful.

  56. Peregrinus says

    On what basis do you maintain that Dana Scott was “Gödel’s student”

    I’ll concede that one to you, Goonter, but Dana Scott most certainly judged the underlying logic of the argument sound.

    “Given a sufficiently generous conception of properties, and granted the acceptability of the underlying modal logic, the theorems listed do follow from the axioms. (So say Godel, Dana Scott, Sobel, Anderson, and Adams. Who am I to disagree?)” (Graham Oppy, Gödelian Ontological Arguments)

  57. PK says

    I lived in Salt Lake City for a year and learned a lot about LDS while there. (Trust me; the place is beautiful but wasted on the natives.) When Salt Lake County elected its first open lesbian to the state house, the state Eagle Forum led by Gayle Ruzicka threatened to have her impeached for violating the state constitution (anti-sodomy and all that).

    Some little things I picked up:
    *To Mormons, the ends justify the means. That holds for baptism after death, bribing the Olympic Committee in order to host the Olympics, and to donate funds to Prop 8.

    *They may seem like hicks, esp since they were founded by an illiterate con man, but don’t underestimate them. They are experts at circular logic – any attempt to sway a Mormon missionary will just swing them back to proselytizing.

    *If memory serves, Utah has the highest pro-capita consumption of Prozac and Jell-O. (Why Jell-O? Because they can’t drink alcohol. But, if you consume Jell-O made with alcohol, you’re eating, not drinking, it.)

    *In my first trip to Utah I was hit on by a married man at a gay bar. I told him I appreciated the compliment, but next time he tans he should remove his wedding ring to hide the tan line.

    *Similarly, on weekends all the “closeted” gay boys head north from BYU in Provo to SLC to dance and get bjs in parked cars. But then it’s back to that ol’ time religin’.

    *Finally, if you’ve ever tried to look up your family tree on ancestry.com, be forewarned…it has Mormon ties. And the LDS maintain the world’s largest database, buried safely in the mountains of the Wasatch Front.

    Sorry for the long post, but the Mormons are all business – their headquarters is more like an office tower than a religious structure. To fight Prop 8 we need to fight them on their own turf, and call them out for using the pulpit to influence policy, and for being hypocrites – the only reason they live in Salt Lake is because they were once persecuted and driven into exile. Now they are the persecutors. (Not counting that little “Mountain Meadows Massacre.” Look it up for fun reading, especially the part where the Mormons tried to blame it on a tribe of Paiute Indians.)

  58. Owlmirror says

    Given a sufficiently generous conception of properties, and granted the acceptability of the underlying modal logic, the theorems listed do follow from the axioms.

    Ah, lovely philosophical weasel-words.

    And granted the postulation that there exists an equality of desires with equines, it would logically follow that we would all have ponies.

  59. John Morales says

    Given a sufficiently generous conception of properties

    Hee hee hee… That’s polite-speak.

  60. Brownian, OM says

    Give it a rest, gypsytag.

    The guy who advocated tossing bags of shit was reacting to attempts by the Mormon Church to systematically deprive him of the same basic civil rights they themselves enjoy.

  61. Wowbagger says

    And granted the postulation that there exists an equality of desires with equines, it would logically follow that we would all have ponies.

    Or tapirs.

  62. Peregrinus says

    Ah, lovely philosophical weasel-words.

    That’s Graham Oppy’s way of stating it, and he is an atheist. The important thing here is that he acknowledges Dana Scott, C. Anthony Anderson, and others in a position to know have judged the logic sound.

  63. gypsytag says

    brownian.

    oh that’s totally different cause the boy scouts only discriminate against atheists.

    my mistake.

    its really hard to tell what we’re supposed to be outraged about. I’ll take throwing shit at people off the list.

  64. Wowbagger says

    oh that’s totally different cause the boy scouts only discriminate against atheists.

    An organisation discriminating against people is one thing; that organisation actively seeking to create further discrimination in areas unrelated to that organisation is another.

    Are the Boy Scouts donating money to political movements to prevent people from having the basic human rights available to other people? No? Then the comparison is pointless.

  65. says

    That’s Graham Oppy’s way of stating it, and he is an atheist. The important thing here is that he acknowledges Dana Scott, C. Anthony Anderson, and others in a position to know have judged the logic sound.

    But the question of God isn’t a question of logic, it’s a question of evidence. How that argument uses the word God could apply to anything, it does not in the slightest give any more validity to the existence of the Judao-Christian God – that question like any question of the nature of reality will be decided by evidence.

  66. Brownian, OM says

    its really hard to tell what we’re supposed to be outraged about.

    Well, be outraged then. But you brought up the issue; some disagreed, some concurred. What more do you want?

  67. Jeanette says

    #571:

    Yeah, because:

    1.) I never said that, and

    2.) Those who did say that are presumably being facetious. Or is it feces-ious?

    And the Mormon kids who came to my door were above Boy Scout age, and were accompanied by an adult male. (Who was teaching the young ‘uns to be rude by proselytizing at people’s doors.)

  68. Owlmirror says

    That’s Graham Oppy’s way of stating it, and he is an atheist. The important thing here is that he acknowledges Dana Scott, C. Anthony Anderson, and others in a position to know have judged the logic sound.

    If he is still an atheist, then he does not find the “logic” convincing, now does he?

    And granted the postulation that there exists an equality of desires with equines, it would logically follow that we would all have ponies.¹

    Which is just as sound as Gödel’s ontological proof. I’m sure it could be phrased in modal logic form.

    _____________________________________
    OK, or tapirs. Why not?

  69. Cthulance says

    I am surprised at the Mormon church’s insistence that marriage be defined as a union between one man and one woman given their own history, as well as their current belief and practice.

    They didn’t stop practicing polygamy, they just did so in the face of the law. They still practice it in their own rites and hold to it as the ideal state of marriage in their own beliefs.

    They practiced polygamy until they were forced to stop, yet they still create polygamous unions in their temples. They even continue to believe that polygamy is the ideal state of marriage and that righteous men will have many wives in the afterlife with whom they will have sex and breed spirit children to populate their many worlds throughout all eternity. What hypocrisy.

    I think it’s just a gay thing. They don’t want men marrying men or women marrying women. They do want their men to have as many wives as possible though, if only via their theological rites and fantasies.

    Their own sacred institution of marriage is one in opposition to current United States law, yet they have the gall to push through an effort to define marriage legally as something which they don’t even practice themselves in their own temples, and which they don’t really consider to be ideal or the true order of marriage.

    The hypocrisy of it! The deception! I guess it’s nothing new to Mormons, they will always simply take off their thinking caps and just do whatever their leaders tell them to do.

  70. Peregrinus says

    But the question of God isn’t a question of logic, it’s a question of evidence. How that argument uses the word God could apply to anything, it does not in the slightest give any more validity to the existence of the Judao-Christian God – that question like any question of the nature of reality will be decided by evidence.

    No, the argument does not apply to any old thing. And while it does not establish the Judeo-Christian God, it establishes the “God of the philosophers,” which is a good enough basis for me.

  71. Nibien says

    No, the argument does not apply to any old thing. And while it does not establish the Judeo-Christian God, it establishes the “God of the philosophers,” which is a good enough basis for me.

    So, you admit your conclusion is illogical, irrational and, well, vapid?

    Quite Interesting indeed; nothing like religion to ruin a mind.

  72. says

    No, the argument does not apply to any old thing.

    Replace the word God with Thor, Apollo, Ra, FSM, Rainbow Serpent, Ziltoid The Omniscient and you have exactly the same outcome of logic. And even if the logic were sound, it doesn’t matter. The question of God’s existence is as much evidential as the question of Ziltoid’s existence. There’s nothing in that argument that makes any higher power any more real.

  73. Owlmirror says

    it establishes the “God of the philosophers,”

    Exactly as I have established omni-pony-ness.

  74. John Morales says

    P’s conclusions aren’t vapid; they’re inane (fatuous).
    Which is to say, not just bland, but outright silly.

  75. Jeanette says

    ~~~ Jeanette’s Ontological Proofs for the Existence of God ~~~

    ~ God is green. Greenness exists. Therefore, God exists. ~

    ~ God is salty. Saltiness exists. Therefore, God exists. ~

    ~ God is pickle-ness. Pickle-ness exists. Therefore, God exists. ~

    One thing I learned recently: You can “prove” or “disprove” anything using ontological proofs, because ontological proofs are bullshit.

  76. says

    God is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent yet the best believers can do to justify such an existence is use ontology? God really does go to great lengths to hide Her own existence.

  77. Peregrinus says

    Exactly as I have established omni-pony-ness.

    Wrong. Your “argument” is even more low-rent and trifling than Gaunilo’s “Perfect Island” counterargument, and that was dispatched by Anselm and later by William E. Mann in 1976 (See Mind, Vol. 85, No. 339)

  78. George Atkinson says

    Don’t Panic @ #461
    “Godly scoutmasters, like godly priests, need no vetting, or supervision” is, I agree, a bit harsh, for the BSA leadership has indeed been making earnest effort to address the problem.

    But even the best policies will sometimes be unenforced in church-sponsored units, especially when co-religionists are accepted as intrinsically moral simply because they claim to be co-religionists. This attitude, the same that gives pedophile priests free rein, leads directly to superficial vetting (no criminal record, believes in god, must be all right) and, ultimately, lax supervision.

  79. gypsytag says

    Jeanette,

    sorry for implying that you did. I was more upset by the fact that no one reacted to the shit flinging. Perhaps it was a joke that i didn’t get.

    but I love your Ontological Proofs. Mind if i steal them?

  80. Patricia says

    Sigh, *yawn* – Peregrinus @549 – Fuck you with Piltdown Man’s dick.

    Tis Himself – Us weenies always get forgotten. Oh no honey. I always stop and gaze at every weenie that gets trotted out before me. In fact, if you would like to lead the parade, I’ll watch you twirl. And if you bounce your boobies, I’ll toss confetti!

  81. Peregrinus says

    One thing I learned recently: You can “prove” or “disprove” anything using ontological proofs, because ontological proofs are bullshit.

    The only thing you’ve proved is that you are full of ****. Why is it that any clown who has read an Internet Infidels blurb on the original ontological argument (let alone the modal arguments of Kurt Gödel and others) fancies himself or herself an expert?

  82. Owlmirror says

    Your “argument” is even more low-rent and trifling than Gaunilo’s “Perfect Island” counterargument, and that was dispatched by Anselm

    Piffle. Anselm thus refuted himself, just as you refute yourself: If you can’t wish ponies (nor perfect islands) out of thin air, then neither can you wish God out of thin logic.

  83. Peregrinus says

    Piffle. Anselm thus refuted himself, just as you refute yourself: If you can’t wish ponies (nor perfect islands) out of thin air, then neither can you wish God out of thin logic.

    Your inability to apprehend the argument is not my problem. In mathematics (and statistics), we routinely define objects and then seek to prove their existence based on a set of axioms. There is nothing controversial about that. Kant is quite dead, and so is his objection.

  84. cyan says

    Tangential regarding forcing personal religious views on others:

    My job email just included one from a fellow staffer; its subject matter was a non-identifying descriptor.

    When I clicked on it, I was forwarded twice, and wound up watching and listening to a country song which entangled and lauded the combination of “God and the USA”

    I don’t care if job email includes email that reflects personal ideologies if the subject heading indicates such: then I can either ignore it or click on it.

    But if the subject heading is ambiguous or lacking altogether, its an abuse to the other staff to have to wade through garbage, thus wasting their time, to discern whether the content is necessary to the exemplary completion of the job.

    Am really pissed off at this waste of my time in having to be proselytized to in order to fulfill one of my job duties.

  85. John Morales says

    Why is it that any clown who has read an Internet Infidels blurb on the original ontological argument (let alone the modal arguments of Kurt Gödel and others) fancies himself or herself an expert?

    You merely perceive it so, because even on that flimsy basis they’re still more “expert” than you and demolish your foolish contentions effortlessly.

    Hint: quoting titles and authorities means nothing more than that you can search. Put forth an actual argument if you wish to make some sort of impression.

  86. Nibien says

    Come again?

    Once upon a time, there was this nifty guy named Hume, who did the same thing to design arguments that applies to your absurd “proof” of god.

    I don’t know about you, but being smacked down by a guy that’s been dead for quite some time would be rather embarrassing.

    But, I would indeed like to hear the argument for “Something exists, therefore that something is my asinine God that was made up by a bunch of bronze age dolts”

    I know it may be surprising to you, but just because (even if it is the case) the universe came into being by the hand of a creator, it by no mean implies in any way, that it’s your absurd notion of God. In fact, the inept content and writing of the Bible (or any other “holy” book I’ve read)would only imply that such a powerful being would not have inspired it.

  87. says

    Why is it you are spending so much time arguing over the logic of God as opposed to providing any evidential basis to support Her existence? Can you show anything that distinguishes the Judao-Christian God from the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

  88. Wowbagger says

    The argument (as I see it) so far:

    Peregrinus: I can discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
    Owlmirror & Co: So? That’s no more valid than discussing how many leprechauns can dance on the head of a pin.
    Peregrinus: Ignorant fool. Everyone knows there’s no such thing as leprechauns.

  89. Peregrinus says

    Hume’s ideas are as passe as powdered wigs and waistcoats. Please step into the 20th century, if not the 21st.

  90. Owlmirror says

    In mathematics (and statistics), we routinely define objects and then seek to prove their existence based on a set of axioms.

    *snort* And then you screw up and perform the logical equivalent of dividing by zero. And if division by zero is permitted granted, why then, you can prove that 1=2, or anything else you like.

    There is nothing controversial about that.

    Then there is “nothing controversial” about omni-pony-ness, either. It’s simply empirically false.

    Just like the ontological proof of God.

  91. Nibien says

    Hume’s ideas are as passe as powdered wigs and waistcoats. Please step into the 20th century, if not the 21st.

    A number of them, but obviously not the objection that merely the existence a creator does not imply any specific entity that your bias wishes it to be.

    The very fact you’re too stupid to realize that is rather depressing. It’s a rather big shame that a human mind has been so utterly destroyed by his religious indoctrination.

    I’ll pray for you.

  92. Peregrinus says

    Why is it you are spending so much time arguing over the logic of God as opposed to providing any evidential basis to support Her[sic] existence?

    You can’t do better than mathematical argumentation.

  93. Brownian, OM says

    Why is it that any clown who has read an Internet Infidels blurb on the original ontological argument (let alone the modal arguments of Kurt Gödel and others) fancies himself or herself an expert?

    Describe the nature of the god that the ontological argument entails, how/why that god interacts with the universe in any detectable way, and perhaps people might care about expertise in the ontological argument.

    We know why you waltz out the ontological argument and harp on its strength; it’s because you know your leap from the Philosopher’s God to your Christian version isn’t even close to being as rigorous as the argument you love to cut and paste from Gödel. Keep hiding that elephant.

    We also noticed you dropped your little one-liner game as soon as you were called on it.

    Dance, puppet, dance.

  94. Peregrinus says

    The truth hurts, don’t it, motherfucker?

    Apparently not, since you choose to remain in your deception and ignorance.

  95. Patricia says

    Yep, polyandry – but the mormons have no word for that.

    The thought that a man can be screwing six women is fine with them, but you trot out the idea that a woman could be screwing six men and it makes them freak out.

    Men could so use this. It would be terribly funny to answer the door to your local morman as the 4th husband.

  96. foxfire says

    Geez PZ, this is the biggest turnout you’ve had since crackergate.

    Create a new blog entry for more comments lest you bring ScienceBlogs to a grinding halt…again.

    ;-)

  97. Owlmirror says

    Hume’s ideas are as passe as powdered wigs and waistcoats. Please step into the 20th century, if not the 21st.

    And Anselm’s ideas are as passé as Old English.

  98. Jeanette says

    Your granny is lame, Peregrinus.

    I’ve got to crash for a bit.

    Thank you, PZ. See, if you get a really hot thread started, you can go off and do other things, and we’ll be fine bickering amongst ourselves and slashing at the trolls.

    (And the trolls help to unify us. Religion’s bigotry is a source of unity in our community; everyone realize that.)

    Good night, atheists and other heathens.
    ~Jeanette

  99. Peregrinus says

    …merely the existence a creator does not imply any specific entity that your bias wishes it to be.

    No **** sherlock. The ontological argument only gets one so far.

  100. Peregrinus says

    *snort* And then you screw up and perform the logical equivalent of dividing by zero. And if division by zero is permitted granted, why then, you can prove that 1=2, or anything else you like.

    You have yet to demonstrate a logical flaw in Gödel’s argument.

  101. Owlmirror says

    You have yet to demonstrate a logical flaw in Gödel’s argument.

    And you have yet to demonstrate a logical flaw in omni-pony-ness.

  102. Peregrinus says

    Peregrinus – go fuck yourself, troll.

    You might want to scale back on the nightcap, Crazy Patty. You don’t have much to work with and pickling it so thoroughly is probably a bad idea.

  103. mandrake says

    Patricia, you have five husbands? Can you spare one or two for a while? I’m single at the moment… and bored…

  104. Peregrinus says

    And you have yet to demonstrate a logical flaw in omni-pony-ness.

    You haven’t even provided the beginning of a argument; what little you have posted is as malformed as Crazy Patty’s frontal lobe.

  105. seamaiden75 says

    Just thought that I would let you guys know that my husband who is a Mormon was against Prop.8 passing. I think mostly in part that his mother’s best friend is a lesbian. However my brother who’s mind has been derailed by the fundy Christians would have voted for it. Thank goodness he doesn’t live in Cali.
    By the way here’s a Animated Mormon gem on youtube that you should all get a kick out of.

  106. Feynmaniac says

    People please, we have have gotten so focused on the stupidity of the ontological argument that we’ve forgotten the original purpose of this thread: to viciously mock Mormonism.

    I’ll get the ball rolling,

    Why do Mormon women stop having babies at thirty-five?
    Because thirty-six is just too many.

  107. Owlmirror says

    You haven’t even provided the beginning of a argument;

    Just as you have not provided even the beginning of an argument that Gödel’s conception of properties is correct and the underlying modal logic is valid.

  108. Peregrinus says

    By the way here’s a Animated Mormon gem on youtube that you should all get a kick out of.

    Star base Kolob. LOL.

    Yes, that is a classic. It raises the choler of Mormons but it is essential true. Each one of the whackaloon doctrines therein has been taught at one time or another by Mormon “apostles” and “prophets.”

  109. Feynmaniac says

    Moses # 373,

    And say what you will, I know your religion is nothing but a 19th Century Scientology

    LMAO!!! Best description of Mormonism I’ve ever heard.

  110. mandrake says

    Waaaaaay back at #290 gypsytag said:

    “its like saying well george bush started the war in iraq and therefore all americans are responsible, even the ones who said they didn’t vote for him”

    Actually, I was just talking about this to one of my friends. I *am* an American that didn’t vote for George Bush, and I *do* feel that I have some ethical responsibility for the war in Iraq. Whether or not I voted for him, he is my president, it is my country, and I paid for the bullets with my tax dollars. Therefore, I have the responsibility to try to change the policies of the US government… even though it does feel like banging my head against a wall.

  111. Wowbagger says

    Hume’s ideas are as passe as powdered wigs and waistcoats. Please step into the 20th century, if not the 21st.

    Oh, he‘s the one living in the past? Says the man for whom the most significant events in history took place circa CE 32.

  112. John Morales says

    You have yet to demonstrate a logical flaw in Gödel’s argument.

    Well, you have yet to tell us what this purported argument is, in your own words.

    That, clearly, is because you don’t even know how to paraphrase it. I doubt you even know what it entails.

  113. Marzipan says

    As someone who lives in Utah, I can assure you that I’ve encountered plenty of hateful, racist, homophobic, bigoted Mormons. A lot of them happen to be otherwise very nice people, though. Especially when they’re hoping to convert you. I suggest those of you who have Mormon friends ask their opinion about those issues, you may be surprised with the amount of hate and fear-mongering you may uncover. There are some non-hateful Mormons who protest against those things, but as long as they really believe the church is “true”, they continue to fund Mormon Corp through tithing and fast offerings (which are supposed to be used strictly for humanitarian purposes, but as a fairly recent incident in Britain demonstrates, can go to purposes other than specified).

    I wouldn’t advocate treating missionaries like crap, though. They are young people who face enormous pressure to do this shit. Well, the guys do, the girls are expected to get married ans start breeding as young as possible, so for women the mission is more of a personal choice. But if a man doesn’t serve a mission, he may face social ostracism and be looked down upon by others. Also, it diminishes the mating pool greatly, as some girls simply refuse to marry anyone who hasn’t served a mission. Not that any of it is an excuse to spread bullshit and hatred, but I do feel bad for them sometimes. They get harassed enough as it is. My husband almost got abducted once when he was a missionary.

  114. Peregrinus says

    Holy Joe identified figure 7 in Facsimile 2 of the Book of Abraham as:

    “God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove.”

    But the figure in question is sporting a boner. (Although, if you think about it, a perpetually erect god is the sort of god one might expect for Holy Joe.)

  115. seamaiden75 says

    Aha I just thought of a good one. A few months ago when I was trying really hard to convert to my husbands religion. Yes yes I know but I was trying really hard to be a good supportive wife, then I came to my senses! I was reading their books and came across the little gem of plural marriage and I was told that even though they don’t do that anymore, the men will have more than one wife in heaven because get this THERE WOULDN’T BE ENOUGH MEN TO GO AROUND! I think my jaw hit the ground on that one!

  116. John Morales says

    seamaiden75, interesting. The only interpretation that makes sense to me is that fewer men than women get to heaven, implying that women are more worthy than men. Heh.
    To be consistent, therefore, men should be guided by women in that weird religion.

  117. Peregrinus says

    Ether 2

    16 And the Lord said: Go to work and build, after the manner of barges which ye have hitherto built. And it came to pass that the brother of Jared did go to work, and also his brethren, and built barges after the manner which they had built, according to the instructions of the Lord. And they were small, and they were light upon the water, even like unto the lightness of a fowl upon the water.
    17 And they were built after a manner that they were exceedingly tight, even that they would hold water like unto a dish; and the bottom thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the sides thereof were tight like unto a dish; and the ends thereof were peaked; and the top thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the length thereof was the length of a tree; and the door thereof, when it was shut, was tight like unto a dish.
    18 And it came to pass that the brother of Jared cried unto the Lord, saying: O Lord, I have performed the work which thou hast commanded me, and I have made the barges according as thou hast directed me.
    19 And behold, O Lord, in them there is no light; whither shall we steer? And also we shall perish, for in them we cannot breathe, save it is the air which is in them; therefore we shall perish.
    20 And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: Behold, thou shalt make a hole in the top, and also in the bottom; and when thou shalt suffer for air thou shalt unstop the hole and receive air. And if it be so that the water come in upon thee, behold, ye shall stop the hole, that ye may not perish in the flood.
    21 And it came to pass that the brother of Jared did so, according as the Lord had commanded.
    22 And he cried again unto the Lord saying: O Lord, behold I have done even as thou hast commanded me; and I have prepared the vessels for my people, and behold there is no light in them. Behold, O Lord, wilt thou suffer that we shall cross this great water in darkness?
    23 And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels? For behold, ye cannot have windows, for they will be dashed in pieces; neither shall ye take fire with you, for ye shall not go by the light of fire.
    24 For behold, ye shall be as a whale in the midst of the sea; for the mountain waves shall dash upon you. Nevertheless, I will bring you up again out of the depths of the sea; for the winds have gone forth out of my mouth, and also the drains and the floods have I sent forth.

    From this we learn that the Mormon god’s idea of good ship design is to have a “stopped” holes in the top and the bottom. Also, you can dispense with the sails because the Mormon god is, quite literally, a blowhard.

  118. says

    Just as you have not provided even the beginning of an argument that Gödel’s conception of properties is correct and the underlying modal logic is valid.

    Love it how fundies work in logic because when it comes to demonstrating what they believe in, God lets them down.

  119. Rickr0ll says

    So, because Gödel is insane does that mean i can’t take Douglas Hofstadter seroously either? *Sigh*
    Well, Albert Einstien married his cousin, and Socrates was a pedophile, Heiddeger was a nazi (insanity doesn’t have too many increments beyond that), must i go on…
    DO NOT UTTER THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT!! Stop discussing it, it’s complete shit, the structure is such that merely taking the opposite assumption (that God is the worst thing in existance) leads to the conclusion thast God is evil. it makes no sense. And before the cosmological argument pops up, causality only applies to events in time, thus before spacetime existed no cause can be inferred. in addition, we can’t even say that anything outside the universe exists, and if it did, why not simply add it to the universe anyway? we can continue “going past” the boundaries of spacetime to an arbitrary place, and we would merely be annexing new space, not leaving the universe as it were. 11 dimentional universe people.

  120. JonathanL says

    I wouldn’t advocate treating missionaries like crap, though. They are young people who face enormous pressure to do this shit. Well, the guys do, the girls are expected to get married ans start breeding as young as possible, so for women the mission is more of a personal choice. But if a man doesn’t serve a mission, he may face social ostracism and be looked down upon by others.

    I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting assault against them. However if one has strong feelings about the actions of their church in this case I think one is well within their rights to state that when they show up at your door.

  121. Owlmirror says

    The only interpretation that makes sense to me is that fewer men than women get to heaven, implying that women are more worthy than men.

    I thought it might be because the gender ratio of spirit children would be heavily skewed to females.

    But why am I trying to make sense of an obvious male sex/power fantasy?

  122. Peregrinus says

    Love it how fundies work in logic because when it comes to demonstrating what they believe in, God lets them down.

    It’s my policy not to waste much effort on opponents who are unwilling or unable to engage what I have already provided them. (Especially since I expect PZ to sweep it all away soon enough.)

  123. Peregrinus says

    I thought it might be because the gender ratio of spirit children would be heavily skewed to females.

    But why am I trying to make sense of an obvious male sex/power fantasy?

    In a related vein, how is it that the glorified, flesh-and-bone bodies of Mormon gods and goddess are able to give “birth” to spirit children in the eternities?

  124. Eric Paulsen says

    If the church (any of them) can’t survive without tax exemptions then do they really deserve to? I mean the conservatives are always waxing poetic about the marketplace of ideas and stating that winning in that marketplace is what makes you a viable entity. If the church can’t survive on the donations it gets from the parishoners then just how important is what it sells?

    Why are we subsidizing this industry when the product it produces isn’t important enough to the people who consume it that they are willing to pay for it themselves? It’s time for these churches to stand or fall on their own.

  125. Michelle says

    I am stunned. What a collection of hatred, sarcasm, hatred, sarcasm…. I am a Catholic who hit a link to this blog to see why an intelligent, caring professor would attack the holiest of Catholic teachings: that a simple little host becomes JESUS HIMSELF at the words of a Catholic priest. What do I find but hundreds of comments from unhappy people. Listen, ladies and gentlemen: we Catholics are not perfect; in fact, we admit most readily that we are a “church for sinners”, but we try. We try to be kind, to do right, do whatever it takes to please God. Few of us have yet hit upon the right way to do it ALL the time, and that’s why you snicker and mock. But I guarantee: Put away your mockery for just a bit, then read up on our holy faith and what Jesus wants of us… and I guarantee you will find peace, real meaning in life, and will do wonders for yourselves, and for those around you.
    Of course, some of you will probably mock this, but do you REALLY want to remain of pre-adolescent mentality all your lives? Cut out the LDS bashing and the Catholic bashing, and try to lead sincere and kind lives. What a difference it would make in our country!

  126. John Morales says

    P troll:

    It’s my policy not to waste much effort on opponents who are unwilling or unable to engage what I have already provided them.

    Just who do you think you’re fooling?

    You’ve provided a link to something you clearly have no understanding of, since that’s the extent of your knowledge.
    If you actually had an argument, it would be addressed.

    Your policy seems to be to post in the hope someone (anyone!) responds, and that you’re excoriated in the process is less important than the gratification you receive from the putdowns. Had you enough understanding to realise how you’re being shamed, you’d retreat – as it is, you’re a convenient source of amusement.

  127. says

    It’s my policy not to waste much effort on opponents who are unwilling or unable to engage what I have already provided them.

    Ontological argument != proof of Judao-Christian God. You’ve even admitted it yourself. Are you going to provide evidence or simply work with the definition of God as a theoretical construct?

  128. Peregrinus says

    You’ve provided a link to something you clearly have no understanding of, since that’s the extent of your knowledge.

    You can add that delusion to your stockpile.

  129. Andrew says

    Michelle 654,
    I think you’d find a whole lot less Catholic bashing/ LDS bashing if there weren’t so many Catholics/Mormons trying to prevent gay people from having the same rights as everyone else.

  130. Peregrinus says

    Ontological argument != proof of Judao-Christian God. You’ve even admitted it yourself. Are you going to provide evidence or simply work with the definition of God as a theoretical construct?

    A being who possesses all positive properties (and perhaps some neutral ones) comes pretty close to the Judeo-Christian God AFAIC. As for the rest, you either find the accounts in the NT credible or you do not, and I accept them as credible, on the whole.

  131. Nemo says

    Put away your mockery for just a bit, then read up on our holy faith and what Jesus wants of us… and I guarantee you will find peace, real meaning in life, and will do wonders for yourselves, and for those around you.

    Speaking as an ex-Catholic, I guarantee you I won’t.

    Seriously, what is with you Christians who think we’ve never heard of Jesus? Our culture is drowning in him. Many if not most of us were raised Christian ourselves, and have taken a closer look at the faith than most of those who remain Christians.

  132. says

    A being who possesses all positive properties (and perhaps some neutral ones)

    And what evidence do you have that such a being exists? Oh yeah, NONE! All you have is logic that could apply to anything. Show me what line in there necessitates God to be all positive. Show me how such a perfect being could exist outside our imaginations. Remember that EVERYTHING we have observed in nature shows that complexity is emergent and complexity only comes from a chain of simple reactions. That’s what we observe in the real world.

    As for the rest, you either find the accounts in the NT credible or you do not, and I accept them as credible, on the whole.

    Why do you accept them as credible? What is credible about any of it?

  133. Wowbagger says

    Michelle, #654, wrote:

    We try to be kind, to do right, do whatever it takes to please God.

    The problem is that what you’ve been told ‘pleases god’ makes other people (real people, not imaginary people) very, very unhappy. But because you believe it comes from god, you choose not to accept that as a valid reason to stop doing it.

    …and try to lead sincere and kind lives.

    Do you not realise how ironic it is that someone who subscribes to a religion of guilt, hate, intolerance and persecution is telling us how to live a sincere and kind life?

    Tell me, Michelle, how do you feel about your church’s protecting from prosecution priests who repeatedly raped young parishioners? Honestly, how you can bear to remain affiliated with such evil is beyond my understanding. And you dare lecture us on sincerity and kindness?

  134. says

    I am stunned. What a collection of hatred, sarcasm, hatred, sarcasm…. I am a Catholic who hit a link to this blog to see why an intelligent, caring professor would attack the holiest of Catholic teachings: that a simple little host becomes JESUS HIMSELF at the words of a Catholic priest.

    And the pope labelling homosexuality and abortion as deadly sins is being tolerant of others?

  135. Feynmaniac says

    Michelle #654,

    But I guarantee: Put away your mockery for just a bit, then read up on our holy faith and what Jesus wants of us… and I guarantee you will find peace, real meaning in life, and will do wonders for yourselves, and for those around you.

    You think the problem is we haven’t read about your “holy faith”? Many of us actually have probably read more of the bible than most Catholics. Many of us were raised Catholics and went to Catholic schools. We are well aware of what it is and that is why we don’t believe it.

    Cut out the LDS bashing and the Catholic bashing, and try to lead sincere and kind lives. What a difference it would make in our country!

    I can lead a sincere and kind life AND bash religions.

    It’s funny that you get so offended that we mock, but we haven’t taken anyone’s rights away. The LDS and the Catholics have by helping pass Proposition 8.

  136. Owlmirror says

    It’s my policy not to waste much effort on opponents who are unwilling or unable to engage what I have already provided them.

    And yet, you are not God. And Gödel was not God.

    A being who possesses all positive properties (and perhaps some neutral ones) comes pretty close to the Judeo-Christian God AFAIC.

    False. The Judeo-Christian God, as described in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, demonstrates many negative properties, including deceptiveness and massive cruelty, repeated many times.

    The Judeo-Christian God is provably evil.

    And as for the philosopher’s God… neither you nor Gödel have defined what “all positive properties” are, nor even what a single “positive property” is.

    And God for some strange reason stubbornly refuses to demonstrate any of these putative properties, let alone all of them.

  137. Rey Fox says

    “I am a Catholic who hit a link to this blog to see why an intelligent, caring professor would attack the holiest of Catholic teachings: that a simple little host becomes JESUS HIMSELF at the words of a Catholic priest.”

    Well…because it’s a ridiculous notion. I mean, from the way you capitalized “JESUS HIMSELF”, it would almost seem as if you really do see how absurd it is. Oh, and because a gang of Catholic nutcases tried to get a kid expelled from his secular school for not being respectful enough to the cracker, but hey, why let relevant facts get in the way of righteous indignation?

  138. Peregrinus says

    Show me what line in there necessitates God to be all positive.

    It is Gödel’s original definition of an individual who is said to be God-like.

  139. says

    It is Gödel’s original definition of an individual who is said to be God-like.

    And what necessity does such a perfect being exist?

  140. Peregrinus says

    False. The Judeo-Christian God, as described in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, demonstrates many negative properties, including deceptiveness and massive cruelty, repeated many times.

    The Judeo-Christian God is provably evil.

    Or, rather, that’s how the Jews/Israelites/Hebrews before Jesus conceived of God. I don’t expect them to get it right.

  141. says

    I’ll concede that one to you, Goonter,

    So you were bullshitting, then. Surprise, surprise.

    but Dana Scott most certainly judged the underlying logic of the argument sound.

    You can’t do better than mathematical argumentation.

    OK. Fine. I’m prepared to stipulate that the proof is correct. That merely establishes the proof-theoretical result that the conclusion follows from the premises according to the inference rules of the modal calculus used. If we further stipulate that the modal logic is complete, then there is a model in which the proof is true. But, that does not establish that such a model bears any resemblance to reality.

    So, either God is purely a mathematical structure or evidence is required to establish the correspondence between such a model and reality.

    By poo-pooing the requirement for evidence, you’re only left with God as a mathematical structure.

    Interesting position for a theist.

  142. says

    Or, rather, that’s how the Jews/Israelites/Hebrews before Jesus conceived of God. I don’t expect them to get it right.

    Yeah, the whole non-believer burning in hell thing of the new testament is much more a sign of a loving God…

  143. Feynmaniac says

    There’s a famous anecdote (which is almost certainly false) that Euler and the French philosopher Diderot had a debate about the existence of God.

    Euler started: “Sir, (a+b^n)/z = x, hence God exist-reply”

    Diderot could not reply. Of course the formula doesn’t prove God’s existence. It was merely ‘proof by intimidation’.

    This is pretty much what Peregrinus is doing, but instead of reciting a formula he links a paper. In fact, he links to a paper he doesn’t understand. If he did he would have been able to summarize the argument for us.

  144. says

    It was merely ‘proof by intimidation’.

    Funny that in the end, his belief in God (the Judao-Christian one) is nothing more than an appeal to scripture. Why does God exist? The bible says so. He’s just hiding behind the ontological argument as a justification.

  145. Owlmirror says

    Or, rather, that’s how the Jews/Israelites/Hebrews before Jesus conceived of God.

    And that’s how Jesus conceived of God, and that’s how Paul conceived of God.

    I don’t expect them to get it right.

    Since God does not speak, it is not possible for anyone to get it right. Or rather, anyone might be right, and everyone might be wrong, and no-one has any way of knowing.

    Just as from a contradiction, it is possible to prove anything at all.

  146. andyo says

    Michelle #654

    I’m also a catholic (not ex-comm’d yet), and I have to stress and echo Wowbagger’s post (#662). Please answer his questions. They are simple and right to the point.

    What we have seen here from believers is largely they just do a troll post, and when pressed with simple questions, either they just go away (as I hope you won’t), or just go off incoherent and purposefully dense but irrelevant tangents (as it is also happening here with another religious person).

  147. raven says

    Michelle the retarded troll:

    I am a Catholic who hit a link to this blog to see why an intelligent, caring professor

    Ummm, Michelle the Mormons hate the Catholics. Not sure why but they are rival religions, both with Popes. Each Pope claims the other one is an imposter.

    The Catholics consider Mormons heretics, polytheists who deny the trinity and think a cracker is just a cracker among many other heresys.

    Not sure why you are even bothering to defend Catholicism. You clearly don’t even understand the basics of the sect. Or why you criticize this thread and blog. You obviously are incapable of reading and thinking.

  148. bastion says

    At #234 E.V. wrote:

    This sect hates that sect, this demonination refutes that denomination; teach as irrational and delusional as the other; but they all pretend to be in harmony against anyone who points out that religion is irrational and the existence of an intervening God is highly improbable.

    Religion does not appear to be intelligently designed.

    After all, it’s (often) the very same one, all-knowing god who gives each of these religions and sects contradictory, yet still “the” one true proclamation of his word and the god-approved rules they need to follow.

    Ah, god. You’re so good at making man- and womankind crazy with your mysterious ways and “gotcha” tricks.

  149. Michelle says

    I pity you fallen-away Catholics, and I pray for you. You see, you are livid about “rights” being taken away from you, but the truth is that you want the “right” to do all the things you know in your hearts that God does not want us to do. You don’t see the beauty of the free will God has given us — the choice we always have to pick the right thing — and like little kids and pre-teens, you WANT IT NOW, you want to please all the little parts of your body that want pleasure, and don’t want to believe that God has a great reward waiting for those who used their free will wisely. Don’t talk to me about “rights”, when the homo culture (I refuse to use the joyful word “gay” in referring to their way of life) is bent upon destroying marriages, family life, pushing my kids into their filth via “enlightened” teachers, and so on and so on. Again, I say with joy and emphasis, the holy Catholic Faith indeed has all the answers, but those who don’t want to grow up, refuse to see the answers, nor study and implement the ways to attain true happiness.
    Going back to Professor Myers, what part of the 10 Commandments was it that you decided at one point in your life was “not for you”? Was it adultery? a “second wife”? not wanting to get up for church on Sundays? petty theft? For it was from that point on that you decided to hate the faith, as it wouldn’t give you what you wanted. Sure hope you and the other livid people posting comments on this blog look into your hearts, and realize that rejecting God will get you precisely nowhere. Oh my… worse. Might earn you a place you really don’t want to go.

  150. Peregrinus says

    And what necessity does such a perfect being exist?

    Your question makes no sense as stated.

  151. Owlmirror says

    You see, you are livid about “rights” being taken away from you, but the truth is that you want the “right” to do all the things you know in your hearts that God does not want us to do.

    Liar.

    Don’t talk to me about “rights”, when the homo culture (I refuse to use the joyful word “gay” in referring to their way of life) is bent upon destroying marriages, family life, pushing my kids into their filth via “enlightened” teachers, and so on and so on.

    Liar.

    the holy Catholic Faith indeed has all the answers

    Liar.

    not wanting to get up for church on Sundays

    The Ten Commandments say clearly that Saturday is God’s holy day, not Sunday, you Sabbath-breaker.

    They also say not to bear false witness, you perjurer and liar.

    We may go to hell, if there is one. But you’ll be there as well.

  152. says

    but the truth is that you want the “right” to do all the things you know in your hearts that God does not want us to do.

    So those who feel that strong desire to marry a same sex partner can do it? If they know they want to marry that person, why shouldn’t they?

  153. Peregrinus says

    And that’s how Jesus conceived of God, and that’s how Paul conceived of God.

    Is that why Jesus said:

    All who came before me are thieves and bandits; but the sheep did not listen to them. (John 10:8)

    Or why he repudiated various elements of Mosaic law in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere?

  154. Michelle says

    I forgot one of the main reasons Catholic-bashers (“Catholics” among them) hate the Church: they feel guilty using contraception! Oh, yes — and there might be an abortion or two in past history. So sad that instead of straightening out their lives, which the Church makes it so simple to do via a heart-felt confession, they decide to speak out in an “enlightened” way — supporting so many things the Church as a gentle mother reminds us is not healthy for soul or body.
    Oh, and to the person who thinks we should despise the Church because of the recent priest/abuse cover-up: These horrible sins of cover-up (never mind the actual sins against the 6th commandment) were huge mistakes (and sins!) in administrative decision-making. It has nothing to do with the Faith, given us by Jesus through His Church. Instead, these were multiple, horrible, INDIVIDUAL sins, but you cannot ridicule a religion that holds the truth high, for us all to follow. We have to pray for those (and punish, as required by law, in certain instances) who do not live by the Faith, but there is absolutely no reason to deride that Faith for the sins of individuals.

  155. Feynmaniac says

    You don’t see the beauty of the free will God has given us

    Nope. I do however see the free will you wish to take away from others.

    Don’t talk to me about “rights”, when the homo culture (I refuse to use the joyful word “gay” in referring to their way of life) is bent upon destroying marriages, family life, pushing my kids into their filth via “enlightened” teachers, and so on and so on

    I can see how successful Catholicism in getting rid of your hatred.

  156. says

    I forgot one of the main reasons Catholic-bashers (“Catholics” among them) hate the Church: they feel guilty using contraception! Oh, yes — and there might be an abortion or two in past history.

    This has got to be a poe!

  157. Feynmaniac says

    I forgot one of the main reasons Catholic-bashers (“Catholics” among them) hate the Church: they feel guilty using contraception!

    Not so much that as we feel angry that the Church has discouraged condom use in Africa while AIDS has been spreading.

  158. Peregrinus says

    Yeah, the whole non-believer burning in hell thing of the new testament is much more a sign of a loving God…

    “By these words it seems to be indicated that every sinner kindles for himself the flame of his own fire, and is not plunged into some fire which has been already kindled by another, or was in existence before himself.”

    –Origen, De Principiis (as translated by Rev. Frederick Crombie, D.D.)

  159. Owlmirror says

    I forgot one of the main reasons Catholic-bashers (“Catholics” among them) hate the Church: they feel guilty using contraception!

    Liar.

    These horrible sins of cover-up (never mind the actual sins against the 6th commandment) were huge mistakes (and sins!) in administrative decision-making.

    If the administration of an organization is making huge mistakes, then obviously that organization is rightly condemned.

    but you cannot ridicule a religion that holds the truth high

    True.

    Since the Catholic Church holds falsehoods high, we therefore can indeed ridicule it.

  160. Walton says

    Wow, this thread has really exploded with posts. And for once I can’t be blamed, having only commented a couple of times.

  161. Owlmirror says

    Is that why Jesus said:

    All who came before me are thieves and bandits; but the sheep did not listen to them. (John 10:8)

    Or why he repudiated various elements of Mosaic law in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere?

    For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.

    Of course, that’s one of the many contradictions that the bible is rife with, so of course, anyone can derive anything they want from it.

  162. andyo says

    Uh, Michelle, I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

    But now I have no doubt you are a perturbed individual. Just why do you think we need you to “pray for us”? And the “homo” culture? Yeah, you’re all about compassion and forgiveness (not that they need forgiving for anything).

    Have you actually thought how many of your assertions actually have a base on reality?

  163. raven says

    Michelle the mentally ill moron:

    forgot one of the main reasons Catholic-bashers (“Catholics” among them) hate the Church: they feel guilty using contraception!

    MIchelle is just mentally ill, crazy. The birth rate of US Catholics is identical to the general population. We are talking 63 million people here.

    The vast majority of Catholics long ago decided the church had no business telling them how many children they should have. The priests damn well know this and most of them quietly agree and never say a word. If they made an issue of it, they would lose almost all of their members in a heartbeat. No members, no money and no religion.

    Some of my relatives didn’t agree with many of the Catholic church’s doctrines. They never said a word or felt guilty. They either dropped out calling it superstitious rubbish or joined Protestant churches. Oddly enough, the only one who still goes to Mass is a lesbian married to another woman. Don’t ask me to explain that one.

    Michelle is undoubtedly a seriously mentally disturbed fruitbat. We see that a lot with the rabid religious fanatics of any sect.

  164. Owlmirror says

    “By these words it seems to be indicated that every sinner kindles for himself the flame of his own fire, and is not plunged into some fire which has been already kindled by another, or was in existence before himself.”

    –Origen, De Principiis

    Origen was an early proponent of apokatastasis, which later theologians condemned as heretical. Not that you would care about that, I suppose.

  165. says

    Wow, this thread has really exploded with posts. And for once I can’t be blamed, having only commented a couple of times.

    You were even commended for your post!

  166. Walton says

    Michelle:

    I forgot one of the main reasons Catholic-bashers (“Catholics” among them) hate the Church: they feel guilty using contraception! Oh, yes — and there might be an abortion or two in past history.

    I don’t think this is necessarily the reality of it. Plenty of practising Catholics actually use contraception; no doubt they feel guilty and go to confession, but it doesn’t turn them away from the Church.

    Rather, I think what turns people away from the Catholic Church is some of its more fossilised and judgmental doctrine. For instance, there have been many Catholics – including a close friend of my family – whose baby sons or daughters have died in infancy and have not been buried in sacred ground, on the basis that they haven’t been baptised and therefore were not “saved” at the time of their death. I recognise that this largely depends on the priest, but this idea certainly does have a basis in Catholic teaching (that a person is not “saved” until they undergo the sacrament of baptism, regardless of their innocence).

    Not to mention the fact that the prohibition against contraceptives, while largely ignored in the West, is taken seriously in the Third World – with the result that HIV spreads, and many people have more children than they can afford to support, with predictably bad consequences. I understand the Catholic teaching that sex is not for pleasure but for the creation of life, and that’s fair enough; but one has to realise that human beings are fallible, and many will inevitably have sex when the Church teaches that they should not – with negative results for society as a whole.

    Coming from a liberal Protestant background, I’ve never been a fan of the “top-down” structure of Catholicism (or, for that matter, of the LDS Church, which is organised in much the same way). Religious beliefs are by their nature individual; it’s about having a personal relationship with one’s God, not about accepting dogma handed down from a higher authority. It shouldn’t be an “all-or-nothing” package.

  167. negentropyeater says

    This has got to be a poe!

    No,no,no, didn’t you know, babies are born with an innate sense of feeling guilty for using contraception. It’s got nothing at all to do with religious brainwashing.

    Seems obvious that if God had wanted us not to feel guilty for using contraception, he would have created males with a detachable condom on their penises.

  168. andyo says

    Walton:

    Religious beliefs are by their nature individual; it’s about having a personal relationship with one’s God, not about accepting dogma handed down from a higher authority. It shouldn’t be an “all-or-nothing” package.

    Religious beliefs can be either. The former largely we don’t object to (unless you’ve a very loony individual religion).

  169. says

    No,no,no, didn’t you know, babies are born with an innate sense of feeling guilty for using contraception. It’s got nothing at all to do with religious brainwashing.

    Then why do I feel guilt only when not using contraception? Is it because of my secular background?

  170. Michelle says

    >>Michelle is undoubtedly a seriously mentally disturbed fruitbat. We see that a lot with the rabid religious fanatics of any sect.

    My goodness, have I hit a nerve? a very raw nerve? I said nothing another law-abiding sincere Catholic wouldn’t say. How did you get from my few comments, to that amazing psychoanalysis of me?

    Our America has been a great country because of her Judeo-Christian principles. Now, she is in a tail-spin because of those who attack these principles. Why am I supposed to sit back and be all kind and gooey and understanding when organizations of anti-J-C-principles want to destroy my children’s understanding of God and family, when I know (and anyone who understands history knows) that this tailspin is leading to disaster?

    Again, please get this straight — I and others like me who speak out cannot be labeled as “haters” when what we want is simply for our country to be set back on its feet again, with God at the helm. Tell me why YOU are so full of hate. Please help me to understand where this livid hatred comes from. I do not label you. I do not call you names. So… help me to understand your thought processes.

  171. negentropyeater says

    Michelle is undoubtedly a seriously mentally disturbed fruitbat.

    I found this incessant fruitbatism rather disturbing. There’s no evidence that fruitbats eat pieces of bread thinking they are eating pieces of the creator of the universe. Cathos are way more loony than fruitbats.

  172. says

    Tell me why YOU are so full of hate.

    I’m not full of hate, I don’t hate you at all. Tell me why you don’t think homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals? Tell me why you think that the precepts of Catholicism should dominate a secular society?

  173. seamaiden75 says

    Michelle you claim that we don’t know what’s in the bible but I say it’s you who doesn’t know what’s in your bible or you are flatly ignoring what is in there.
    Moses who is supposed to be a holy man did this:
    Exodus 32:28
    And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men
    Does that sound like a good and loving thing to do to your fellow man?
    or how about this:
    Hmm let’s see what your great savior has to say:
    St. Matthew
    34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword
    35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter inlaw against her mother in law.
    36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
    37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not
    worthy of me and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me

    Sounds like a very loving savior to me… NOT
    Go read your bible!

  174. says

    @Walton

    Coming from a liberal Protestant background, I’ve never been a fan of the “top-down” structure of Catholicism (or, for that matter, of the LDS Church, which is organised in much the same way).

    To play Devil’s advocate, if it weren’t for top-down structured religions, how would you have otherwise come to have your relationship with God and Jesus? The only reason Christianity persists as an idea today is that it has ~1700 years of top-down structures to propagate the meme. How do you resolve those two positions?

  175. negentropyeater says

    Then why do I feel guilt only when not using contraception?

    That’s an easy one, duh ! Because you’ve rejected the love of God.

    When you reject it, your soul gets destroyed, which causes your brain to feal guilty for the wrong things, this can even lead to you becoming a socialist or a baby killer.

  176. Tristan says

    Peregrinus quoted:

    Ether 2
    16 And the Lord said: Go to work and build, after the manner of barges which ye have hitherto built. And it came to pass that the brother of Jared did go to work, and also his brethren, and built barges after the manner which they had built, according to the instructions of the Lord. And they were small, and they were light upon the water, even like unto the lightness of a fowl upon the water.
    17 And they were built after a manner that they were exceedingly tight, even that they would hold water like unto a dish; and the bottom thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the sides thereof were tight like unto a dish; and the ends thereof were peaked; and the top thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the length thereof was the length of a tree; and the door thereof, when it was shut, was tight like unto a dish

    Man, whoever wrote that seriously missed their calling as a patent attorney.

  177. says

    That’s an easy one, duh ! Because you’ve rejected the love of God.

    When you reject it, your soul gets destroyed, which causes your brain to feal guilty for the wrong things, this can even lead to you becoming a socialist

    So that explains why I feel compassion towards my fellow man and my desire to live in a harmonious society…

  178. Feynmaniac says

    Our America has been a great country because of her Judeo-Christian principles.

    Nope. America was founded as a secular country. Secondly, it turned out to be so “great” because of the Natives’ lack of immunity to European diseases. Finally, if it was a Christian country it definitely wouldn’t be a Catholic one.

    Why am I supposed to sit back and be all kind and gooey and understanding

    The only person who has suggested anyone to “sit back” was you:

    “Cut out the LDS bashing and the Catholic bashing, and try to lead sincere and kind lives. What a difference it would make in our country!”

    I and others like me who speak out cannot be labeled as “haters” when what we want is simply for our country to be set back on its feet again, with God at the helm

    We did not refer to you as a hater because you want to do (scary as it is). We referred to you as a hater because of this you
    1) Used the term “homo”
    2) Refused to use the term ‘gay’ because it was a “joyful word”
    3) Referred to their life style as “filth”

    Apparently in you mind hating homosexuals doesn’t qualify as hate. In ours it does.

  179. Walton says

    Again, please get this straight — I and others like me who speak out cannot be labeled as “haters” when what we want is simply for our country to be set back on its feet again, with God at the helm. Tell me why YOU are so full of hate. Please help me to understand where this livid hatred comes from. I do not label you. I do not call you names. So… help me to understand your thought processes.

    I don’t hate Catholicism. I have Catholic friends and relatives. But I do disagree with some of the more dogmatic parts of Catholic doctrine, and I’m uncomfortable with the idea of a monolithic, top-down, centrally-controlled religion. As I said, I think religion should be about finding one’s personal beliefs and personal relationship with God, not about blind and unquestioning obedience to a central authority.

    when what we want is simply for our country to be set back on its feet again, with God at the helm. – Which God? America is a religiously-diverse country, and different religions have different perspectives on God and different moral and ethical teachings. The point of the much-maligned “separation of church and state” is to ensure that people retain their freedom of conscience, and that no one sectarian viewpoint dominates public policy. America is not a Catholic nation, or a Protestant nation, or a Jewish nation, or a Mormon nation, or a humanist nation. It’s a nation for everyone; and so public policy needs to be justified on objective, secular grounds, not simply on the grounds of one particular religious belief.

    For instance, to justify banning same-sex marriage, it isn’t sufficient to point out that Catholics, Mormons and evangelicals are against it on moral grounds. This is true; and no one is asking Catholic priests or Baptist pastors to bless same-sex weddings. But to justify actually making it illegal – considering that some religious groups, such as the Episcopalians, United Church of Christ and Unitarians, are in favour of gay marriage – you have to show why it’s harmful to all Americans, not just those who are opposed to it on religious grounds, for same-sex marriage to be allowed.

    As Jefferson wrote in the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom: Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; … that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry…

    God, if He exists, did not choose to impose one religious belief on all His people and force them to follow it via coercion. Neither should the Church, or the temporal powers. Religion should be a personal and free choice; that’s the only way it’s truly honest. And if someone genuinely doesn’t and can’t believe in a particular doctrine, no one should force or pressure them to do so. This is the problem I have with the authoritarian structure of Catholicism.

  180. says

    Apparently in you mind hating homosexuals doesn’t qualify as hate. In ours it does.

    Got to love believers. “You are persecuting us because you are stopping us from persecuting others!”, the call of oblivious hypocrite.

  181. says

    I forgot one of the main reasons Catholic-bashers (“Catholics” among them) hate the Church: they feel guilty using contraception!

    Quite the opposite. I feel guilty is I don’t use contraception when I’m fornicating.

    I do quite a lot of fornicating. It’s harmless and fun.

    Oh, yes — and there might be an abortion or two in past history.

    And if there were, that would be none of your business.

    So sad that instead of straightening out their lives, which the Church makes it so simple to do via a heart-felt confession,

    Confession propagates two immoral premises: 1) that one can be absolved of responsibility for ones wrongdoing vicariously, and 2) that such vicarious redemption is achieved by the torture and murder of another person.

    they decide to speak out in an “enlightened” way — supporting so many things the Church as a gentle mother reminds us is not healthy for soul or body.

    Vapid blather.

    Oh, and to the person who thinks we should despise the Church because of the recent priest/abuse cover-up: These horrible sins of cover-up (never mind the actual sins against the 6th commandment) were huge mistakes (and sins!) in administrative decision-making.

    No, it’s a criminal conspiracy, coordinated at the highest level within the Vatican, which continues to this very day.

    It has nothing to do with the Faith, given us by Jesus through His Church.

    There is no more connection between the Jesus and the Roman Catholic Church than there is between Rembrandt and Microsoft.

    Instead, these were multiple, horrible, INDIVIDUAL sins,

    No, multiple, horrible, individual crimes, enabled by a 150-year cover-up, most recently orchestrated by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, a criminal conspiracy aiding and abetting child-rapists before, after, and during the fact.

    but you cannot ridicule a religion that holds the truth high, for us all to follow.

    The Catholic Church has no regard for truth. If it had, it wouldn’t continue to shield child-rapists from the law while pretending to the gullible rubes on their pews that these are “sins of the past”. They are crimes, both past and present, and the Church continues to be a vile child-rape enablement mafia.

    We have to pray for those (and punish, as required by law, in certain instances) who do not live by the Faith,

    False. You have no right to mete out punishment of any kind to those who do not live by the insane delusion you call “the Faith”. Thankfully, that ended with the last poor bastard you nutters boiled in oil. Priests who rape children, and bishops who conspire to enable those crimes, must be handed over to the civil authorities for prosecution, not whisked away to the Vatican beyond justice.

    but there is absolutely no reason to deride that Faith for the sins of individuals.

    I deride the institution of the Roman Catholic Church for its institutional failings, and any individuals who support such a blatantly evil, depraved, and immoral institution.

  182. seamaiden75 says

    Again, please get this straight — I and others like me who speak out cannot be labeled as “haters” when what we want is simply for our country to be set back on its feet again, with God at the helm. Tell me why YOU are so full of hate.

    Well let’s see Michelle maybe it’s because God’s law says to put to death the following:
    adulterers, gays, lesbian, and bisexuals, blasphamy oh this one is especially good it says Leviticus 24:
    And he that blasphermeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

  183. Walton says

    To play Devil’s advocate, if it weren’t for top-down structured religions, how would you have otherwise come to have your relationship with God and Jesus? The only reason Christianity persists as an idea today is that it has ~1700 years of top-down structures to propagate the meme. How do you resolve those two positions?

    Firstly, I don’t really have a personal relationship with God; I no longer go to church regularly and I have serious doubts about all aspects of the faith. But if one must have any religion, I’m arguing that it should be a personal religion, and that each person should independently choose which doctrines they believe, rather than subordinating their mind to a (fallible, human) central authority. This seems to me to be sheer common sense. That’s why I prefer the Protestant concept of the “priesthood of all believers” – each person having a direct line to God, rather than having to rely on what the Church (which at many times in history has been, indisputably, a corrupt institution) tells them. Both Catholicism and the LDS have suffered, at times, from the inevitable disease of an organised institutional religion: it becomes the institution, not the belief, which is important. (Like in Terry Pratchett’s Small Gods, where only one of the millions of adherents of the Omnian faith actually believes in Om; all the rest are simply out to retain their own position in the social hierarchy.)

    The only reason Christianity persists as an idea today is that it has ~1700 years of top-down structures to propagate the meme. – While it’s undoubtedly true that Christianity is strong today in the West because of the Roman Church, and Constantine, and the church’s history of temporal power and influence, I don’t think it would be a dead religion without that privileged political position. Non-centralised churches do survive and thrive in the “marketplace of ideas”; and there are other religious traditions in the world which have survived without a centralised structure. And, of course, in a country like America with no state religion, the major churches retain their power and influence because they have so many adherents who voluntarily donate their money and time.

  184. negentropyeater says

    So that explains why I feel compassion towards my fellow man and my desire to live in a harmonious society…

    Well, it must be that those things aren’t controlled by the soul. It doesn’t control everything, but it’s supposed to give you this innate feeling of guilt when using contraception or masturbating yourself or any kind of sexual perversion, or when you don’t go to Church and feed on the love of God every Sunday.

  185. Wowbagger says

    Michelle, the hate-filled (and in denial about it) troll, much of what needed to be pointed out to you has been done so by the other posters.

    However, I have one question: if you were asked to sit in a room full of the children repeatedly raped by the priests who were protected from prosecution by the church hierarchy and explain to them how it is possible for what happened to them if there is a god and he is kind and loving, what would you say to them to reassure them to your god does exist and he loves them and cares for them?

    You can defend your church here to us, who already see it for what it is – an evil, bloated, obsolete, corrupt, archaic monstrosity – but what would you say to the people who god’s own agents on earth, priests, repeatedly raped and were not punished because they were protected by the church hierarchy?

    What would your exact words be?

  186. scooter says

    Emmet at 714: I feel guilty is I don’t use contraception when I’m fornicating.
    I do quite a lot of fornicating. It’s harmless and fun.

    That’s how I ended up married with two kids. Careful with that sperm, Eugene.

    It ended well, so not complaining.

  187. Arnosium Upinarum says

    Michelle #678 says, “…Might earn you a place you really don’t want to go.”

    Is that as bad as being trapped on a planet swarming with superstitious lunatics who keep threatening each other with it?

  188. seamaiden75 says

    #718 Wowbagger-Bravo please take a bow! Brilliant! I wish I’d said that!
    As for the two trolls on here go look up the word Dominionism – it’s scary!
    and one more thing you claim that you don’t want homosexual views pushed on your children well we don’t want your hate filled bible pushed on ours!

  189. says

    Well, it must be that those things aren’t controlled by the soul. It doesn’t control everything, but it’s supposed to give you this innate feeling of guilt when using contraception or masturbating yourself or any kind of sexual perversion, or when you don’t go to Church and feed on the love of God every Sunday.

    Well I don’t feel guilty about any of those. Sweet, my soul is dead yet I still feel compassion for my fellow man. That that those who attribute goodness to the soul!

  190. says

    You don’t see the beauty of the free will God has given us — the choice we always have to pick the right thing

    I’ve never been able to understand this Christian notion of “free will.” So, this God person gives us the choice to either do exactly what he says or be tortured forever? What kind of free will is that?

    Oh, well. I have already ranted about it, so I’ll stop here.

  191. Rick R says

    Michelle @ #654- “Of course, some of you will probably mock this, but do you REALLY want to remain of pre-adolescent mentality all your lives? Cut out the LDS bashing and the Catholic bashing, and try to lead sincere and kind lives. What a difference it would make in our country!”

    Of course, some of you will probably mock this, but do you REALLY want to remain of pre-adolescent mentality all your lives? Cut out the FAG bashing and the LYING FOR JESUS, and try to lead sincere and kind lives. What a difference it would make in our country!

  192. Stephen Wells says

    The ontological proof fails because it’s based on equivocation. The argument boils down to: perfect thing X exists in my imagination; existence must be an attribute of perfect things X; therefore perfect thing X exists. The failure occurs in the premise; it is simply not true that perfect thing X exists in your imagination. The idea of perfect thing X exists in your imagination, but that is not the same thing. No force of logic can equate “the idea of X exists” with “X exists anywhere other than the world of ideas”.

  193. Arnosium Upinarum says

    Michelle #701 says, “Again, please get this straight — I and others like me who speak out cannot be labeled as “haters” when what we want is simply for our country to be set back on its feet again, with God at the helm.”

    I’m so very sorry to bring you the bad news, sweatheart, but our country does not have that provision in it’s constitution.

    Let me repeat that, since it may look horrendously sacrilegious to your eyes: there is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution of the United States of America that demands, requires or in any way suggests that God must be placed at the helm. There isn’t even any mention of a “helm”.

    Unfortunately, the reason the country is flat on its back in the first place is due in large measure to the veneration of irrational notions and superstitious nonsense by an alarming proportion of its citizens, who are as a result readily manipulated by people who lust for power. Putting “God at the helm” would be equivalent to putting nothing there at all, except that you and I both know who would really be in charge, and it sure wouldn’t be your idea of “God”. I don’t want my country to be consumed by an ignorant and superstitious mob controlled by a power-hungry elite who uses their gullibility to potent advantage. That way ends in disaster for all.

    While it’s understandable that you may be unable to understand the reaction of those who have respect for the document upon which their country is founded and guided, you can’t expect them to be thrilled over the idea that your religion wishes to take over their country. Yes. It’s THEIR country too. The folks who want THEIR country to be of the people, by the people and for the people. That, believe it or not, means ALL of them, not just a part of them who think they are special or divinely graced.

    It does NOT belong to your idea of “God”.

    If you would like to see the country get back on its feet, if you sincerely mean that, I suggest you support the proper education and informing of its people and its children. You can start yourself by reading about the history and constitution of your own country. Go and see what the founding fathers had to say. Go to school, or visit a library. Introduce yourself to nature through science. There are vastly more Good Books than you may ever have imagined.

    Trust me. It’s really and truly a wonderful world out there. All you have to do is seize it for yourself.

    As for the “hatred”? Learn to distinguish between “hatred” and “outrage” by looking them up in a dictionary. But when the word “hatred” is leveled against adherents to your precious faith, please understand that there is every historical justification for it. You can read all about it. It’s your choice.

    That’s what is so great about this country: you still have the freedom to form and shape your own mind, despite all of those who would shape it for you. Go ahead, give it a whirl. It’s okay to seek honest answers and seek them in earnest. Your idea of God wouldn’t object…would He?

  194. seamaiden75 says

    I think we’ve scared Michelle away but if we haven’t I have a question for you.
    What would you do if one of your children came up and told you that they were a homosexual or gay or horror of horrors a gay atheist?
    Just asking.

  195. Michelle says

    Oh my goodness, I am beginning to feel as if some of the posters here might not like me! :-) Listen, I can’t scroll up and find and answer every question or comment that was posted regarding my own comments, but one poster’s question stands out: What would I say to a room of abused children…etc. etc. My dear sir, without a moment’s hesitation I would say exactly what I would say to a roomful of relatives of those murdered in the Holocaust, or to, say, a roomful of children tortured by Commies as happened in the pre-50s: I AM SO SORRY! I AM SO SORRY that evil people did this to you, but let me help you now in whatever way I can, and let’s ask God to stay with us and keep us in His grace, AND ask Him to forgive and change the hearts of those who did this to you.” I believe in the power of God, I believe that He sent his Son Jesus to show us what to do, and I believe that His church is the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church.

    Those who keep bringing up Old Testament directions from God, out of context, also choose to ignore the fact that Jesus came to “make all things new”, and has fine-tuned His Father’s requirements of us. Those of sincere heart, led by the Catholic Church who has never been wrong in 2000 yrs. of her history IN ALL THINGS PERTAINING TO THE FAITH, know what God wants of them. (My caps are to warn off all those who start bringing in the Galileo history again, for instance. ) Oh yes, and to the one who gave me a “slap” about the Church having no right to punish — you misunderstood, I WAS referring to abusers, whose sin is publicly outed, having to be turned over to civil authorities. I was not referring to the tragedy of, say, the infamous witch-burnings. (These, again, were big administrative mistakes — sins — but they never were dogma of the church.)

  196. says

    What would you do if one of your children came up and told you that they were a homosexual or gay or horror of horrors a gay atheist?

    Hopefully she’ll be better than this mother. (The boy eventually killed himself)

  197. negentropyeater says

    Michelle,

    as long as you continue to base your ideas on the notion that homosexuality is a choice, a lifestyle, a view, without substantiating any of it, there cannot be any discussion here, you might as well move on.

    You are simply refusing to accept all the scientific evidence, purely based on primitive semi-intuitive notions that were deeply implanted in your brain at a young age, notions such as homosexuality goes aganst nature when we clearly know that homosexual behaviour is frequent in nature and beneficial to many species.

    So unless you’re willing to show some scientific evidence that homosexuality is a choice (and No, sorry, “that’s what I’ve been told and that’s what’s written in the Bible” does not constitute scientific evidence), there is no basis for any sort of discussion.

  198. Ian Gould says

    “Be even ruder to the next pair of white-shirted Mormon missionaries who come to your door. Hey, does anyone know what a Mormon would find heretical? Send me something they find sacred.”

    Encourage gay ex-mormons to attend a gay Mardi Gris clad only in their magic underwear?

  199. seamaiden75 says

    Can anyone tell me how I brought up things out of context when I typed them straight out of the book?
    Please examples?

  200. says

    Can you answer why you don’t think that homosexuals should have equal rights in a secular society? Why do you think it’s okay to persecute homosexuals for simply wanting dignity?

  201. says

    I and others like me who speak out cannot be labeled as “haters” when what we want is simply for our country to be set back on its feet again, with God at the helm.

    That is called a theocracy. Its results are usually not nice, to put it mildly.

  202. Pimientita says

    I forgot one of the main reasons Catholic-bashers (“Catholics” among them) hate the Church: they feel guilty using contraception!

    Not me! I’m a lesbian. Using contraception would just be silly.

  203. Wowbagger says

    What would I say to a room of abused children…etc. etc. My dear sir, without a moment’s hesitation I would say exactly what I would say to a roomful of relatives of those murdered in the Holocaust, or to, say, a roomful of children tortured by Commies as happened in the pre-50s: I AM SO SORRY! I AM SO SORRY that evil people did this to you, but let me help you now in whatever way I can, and let’s ask God to stay with us and keep us in His grace, AND ask Him to forgive and change the hearts of those who did this to you.

    But god didn’t protect them from the priests, his agents on earth, in the first place; why would he start caring now? If he didn’t see fit to ‘stay with’ them and ‘keep them in his grace’ when they were being sexually abused, what’s changed? Did they deserve what happened to them? Do you think they needed to learn a lesson?

    And, more importantly, when they realise that the institution of the church not only didn’t stop the priests from doing what they were doing but moved them to other areas so they could keep on doing it and avoid prosecution and justice, what if they ask you what you did?

    What did you do, Michelle? Did you write to the head of the church in your area, demanding that he intercede to see justice done? Did you write to the Pope and ask him to ensure these evil people were stopped and punished?

    If you’ve read through this post you’ll see there are Mormons who are leaving the church because it fostered hatred of gays. They are worthwhile people who stand up for what they believe in. You aren’t fit to lick their boots.

    If you were even a tenth of a decent human being you’d have stood up and walked out of the church and not returned until they’d found every kid-raping priest and handed him over to the authorities.

    But you didn’t did you? You proudly admit to being a catholic, and are, as a result, worthless scum who stood by an organisation that not only protected rapists after they acted the first time, but allowed them to go on destroying the lives of children.

    You’re sorry? Not good enough. Not even close.

  204. John Morales says

    Michelle: Those of sincere heart, led by the Catholic Church who has never been wrong in 2000 yrs. of her history IN ALL THINGS PERTAINING TO THE FAITH, know what God wants of them. Oh yeah, Catholics know what God wants.

    The crusader army came under the command, both spiritual and military, of the papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Cîteaux. In the first significant engagement of the war, the town of Béziers was besieged on 22 July 1209. The Catholic inhabitants of the city were granted the freedom to leave unharmed, but many refused and opted to stay and fight alongside the Cathars
    The Béziers army attempted a sortie but was quickly defeated, then pursued by the crusaders back through the gates and into the city. Arnaud, the Cistercian abbot-commander, is supposed to have been asked how to tell Cathars from Catholics. His alleged reply, recalled by a fellow Cistercian, was “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.” — “Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own.”[4] The doors of the church of St Mary Magdalene were broken down and the refugees dragged out and slaughtered. Reportedly, 7,000 people died there including many women and children. Elsewhere in the town many more thousands were mutilated and killed. Prisoners were blinded, dragged behind horses, and used for target practice.[citation needed] What remained of the city was razed by fire. Arnaud wrote to Pope Innocent III, “Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex.”[5] The permanent population of Béziers at that time was then probably no more than 5,000, but local refugees seeking shelter within the city walls could conceivably have increased the number to 20,000.

    When you’ve digested that one, there’s many, many other instances of doing God’s work that I’ll be happy to point you to in the long and glorious history of the Church. Can’t wait to get to the Spanish Inquisition, me being born in Spain and all.

  205. Malcolm says

    Some godbot blathering about ontological arguments,

    You can’t do better than mathematical argumentation.

    No, I think that the point here is that you can’t do better than mathematical argumentation.

  206. Wowbagger says

    John Morales,

    But Michelle’s already explained away all of that – the Albigensians, the Spanish Inquisition, the kid-raping priests etc. – they were all just administrative mistakes. Not really the church’s fault at all. Somebody probably just signed the wrong form, or forgot to mail the letter that said ‘don’t kill all those people’ and ‘we’d really rather you didn’t rape the kids’.

    Could happen to anyone. It’s in no way an indication that the church is a vile cancer on humanity and living proof that god is either non-existent, incompetent or evil.

  207. Malcolm says

    Michelle is obviously mentally challenged, but at least she advocates prosecuting the pope.

    Oh, and to the person who thinks we should despise the Church because of the recent priest/abuse cover-up: These horrible sins of cover-up (never mind the actual sins against the 6th commandment) were huge mistakes (and sins!) in administrative decision-making. It has nothing to do with the Faith, given us by Jesus through His Church. Instead, these were multiple, horrible, INDIVIDUAL sins, but you cannot ridicule a religion that holds the truth high, for us all to follow. We have to pray for those (and punish, as required by law, in certain instances) who do not live by the Faith, but there is absolutely no reason to deride that Faith for the sins of individuals.

  208. Malcolm says

    Wowbagger,
    You have to remember that child-raping priests is all part of the sky fairy’s plan.
    The sky fairy moves in mysterious ways, and all that.

  209. Escuerd says

    I suggest everyone who wants a laugh (or to take a small amount of money and time from the Mormon cult) request a free copy of the Book of Mormon and/or the “Finding Faith in Christ” DVD from this website: http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/heavenly-father-s-plan-of-salvation/request-a-free-copy-of-the-book-of-mormon?src=tv#d

    NOTE: If you give them your phone number, they WILL call you for a while, and if you give them your home address, missionaries will stop by. Consider this before ordering.

    Yes, you too can guarantee yourself hours of fun with Mormons by ordering your free copy of the Book of Mormon today.

  210. Wowbagger says

    Michelle is obviously mentally challenged, but at least she advocates prosecuting the pope.

    Now there’s a headline I’d love to see: ‘Pope indicted’. Still, I imagine that wily old bastard has more layers of plausible deniability between him and the actual kid-rapers than tons of gold bullion stashed in the Vatican cellars – for god, of course. Because, you know, he needs it.

  211. Moses says

    750 comments. Wow. The Mormons are as bad as the Catholics. And there’s a lot less of them… ;)

  212. Wowbagger says

    750 comments. Wow. The Mormons are as bad as the Catholics. And there’s a lot less of them… ;)

    Yeah, and in this thread we’ve heard that there are Mormons who’ve quit the church because of its support of Prop H8 – I don’t recall hearing from any papists who’ve left the catholic church for similar reasons. Says a lot, doesn’t it?

    Anyway, I’m off to bed. Keep up the good work!

  213. John Morales says

    Wowbagger, yeah. Sigh.

    No matter how bad Mormons are, they’re wusses when it comes to doing God’s work.

    Still, it’s informational to compare historical accounts (don’t take my word for it, any decent history book will cover it) with this version:
    —-
    [LETTER OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE MASTER GENERAL OF THE ORDER OF PREACHERS]

    […]

    From the outset, one of the first tasks assigned to your Order was the proclamation of the truth of Christ in response to the Albigensian heresy, a new form of the recurrent Manichaean heresy with which Christianity has had to contend from the beginning. At its core there lay the denial of the Incarnation, a refusal to accept that “the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us, full of grace and truth” (Jn 1:14). To respond to this new form of the old heresy, the Holy Spirit raised up the Order of Preachers, men who would be pre-eminent for their poverty and mobility in the service of the Gospel, who would unceasingly contemplate the truth of the Incarnate Word in prayer and study, and through their preaching and teaching would pass on to others the fruits of that contemplation.

    […]
    —–

    Or this one:

    —-
    [ENCYCLICAL OF POPE BENEDICT XV ON ST. DOMINIC]

    The value of this knowledge of Divine things not long after was to be seen in his disputations against the heretics. They were armed with all arts and fallacies to attack the dogmas of Faith; yet with wonderful success he confounded and refuted them. This appeared especially at Toulouse, the head and center of the heresies, where the most learned of the adversaries had come together. It is recorded that he, with his first companions, powerful in word and work, invincibly withstood the insolence of the heretics. Indeed, not only did he withstand their strength, but he so softened their spirits by his eloquence and charity that he recalled an immense number to the bosom of the Church. God Himself was ever at hand to aid him in his battle for the Faith. Thus, having accepted the challenge of the heretics that each should consign his book to the flames, his book alone remained untouched by the fire. Thus by the valor of Dominic Europe was freed from the danger of the Albigensian heresy.
    —-

    (Both links from the Vatican library)

  214. Ian Gould says

    “You should all read this, if you’re currently convinced that black turnout is responsible for the prop 8 win for the bigots.

    Quick version: exit polls statistically very screwed up; not enough blacks in Cali anyway; easy racist answer to complex question.” – Cath

    apparently the total sample for that poll was around 1,000 voters.

    That’s plenty for getting a headline statewide percentage for Obama Vs. McCain.

    But the black subsample that was used to arrive at the “70% of blacks voted for Prop 8” was only around 100 people.

    With that small a sample your error bars get REAL wide.,

  215. says

    But the black subsample that was used to arrive at the “70% of blacks voted for Prop 8” was only around 100 people.

    With that small a sample your error bars get REAL wide.,

    Do you have a link for this?

  216. says

    Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 12:48 AM

    No, the argument does not apply to any old thing. And while it does not establish the Judeo-Christian God, it establishes the “God of the philosophers,” which is a good enough basis for me.

    You’re just refusing to take a stand so you can, dishonestly, try to weasel out of your position by “being above it.” I say this, because like it or not, when you aren’t too chicken-shit to engage honestly, good old monotheistic Jehovah comes clearly through in your arguments and positions. In short, you’re really talking about what sort of Abrahamic-cult doctrine you believe in and not existence of the Abrahamic God.

    Even though you pretend to be open minded. A very cowardly position and a version of Pascal’s wager.

    Not that I would expect different from you. You just God-bot with a refreshing level of dishonesty that even the fundies don’t possess. And, man, do they possess a lot.

  217. Escuerd says

    Catholics can leave the church more quietly than most Mormons. While the Catholics are certainly goofy in their superstitions, they’re less cult-like than the Mormons in that they do less to foster dependence on the church. If a Mormon leaves the church, they’re often leaving their whole lives behind. If a Catholic leaves the church, it’s usually not as big of a deal.

    Also, plenty of Catholics disagree with their church on various issues, but still consider themselves Catholic. Mormons are more likely to be excommunicated if they dissent on anything their church considers important.

  218. says

    Posted by: Peregrinus | November 10, 2008 1:10 AM

    Your inability to apprehend the argument is not my problem. In mathematics (and statistics), we routinely define objects and then seek to prove their existence based on a set of axioms. There is nothing controversial about that. Kant is quite dead, and so is his objection.

    You think we haven’t seen cut-and-paste warriors before? People, like you, with shallow and self-serving arguments pretending to be above it all while citing philosopher/mathematician arguments that aren’t their own? And doing it while you’re all ate up with yourself? Seriously, “philosopher kings” like you come and go, a dime a dozen.

    So, no matter how much you cut-and-paste and jump the thesaurus (Apprehend? please, antique word usages scream thesaurus) you still don’t have an argument. You still don’t have proof. You still haven’t carried the argument because you have yet to start from zero and put on proof necessary for anyone not already predisposed to being religious (and believing your arguments because they’ve been brainwashed or lack critical reasoning skills) to get to God.

    No matter how clever you think you are by plagiarizing some dead white man blinded by his cultural beliefs and assumptions.

    So, take your argument from GROUND ZERO – No God – And build it. And the first problem you need to overcome in your philosophy is the infinite regression first discovered in kindergarten: Who made God? Where did God come from?

  219. Nick Gotts says

    we Catholics are not perfect; in fact, we admit most readily that we are a “church for sinners”, but we try. We try to be kind, to do right – Michelle

    Well you’re not very good at it. Widespread collaboration with fascism, systematic cover-ups of child rape; homophobic bigotry; and causing millions of deaths from AIDS through barefaced lies about condoms letting the virus through.

  220. Michelle says

    Hi again.

    (Phelps? who is that?)

    Listen, it was fun for a while, as I thought I had some genuine truth-seekers on this site, but it feels like being lowered into a pit of snakes right now. Is no one genuine? Do you not hear what I’m saying? Those who know our holy Church, have lived within her gentle constraints, are truly looking for God — they know in which direction to go. They know when evil, masquerading as “demanding rights”, is on the doorstep. They know what innocence is, and where twisted logic lies.

    Why do some of you keep harping about me and those “like” me, bashing those who just want equal rights? You have got to be kidding. These “rights seekers” are just like an avowed murderer who decides to gather other murderers around him and demand to be treated by the rest of the world with compassion, understanding, love, marriage rights just because he and the bunch of murderers decided they should be lifted up in the eyes of others. (Don’t like my word “murderer”? Feel free to substitute adulterer…. rapist… robber.) Those who have homosexual tendencies — male or female — have no need to make this public in any way to others, but should recognize this as some cross, some test allowed by God, and strive all their lives to remain pure. Those who want to ACT on homosexual tendencies do not have my approval, and never will, but I am willing to help them to find new situations — jobs, apartments, other support — to help them stay away from temptation.

    I laughed when one poster taunted me to learn more about science, and about educating children. I have degrees in both, and I am so grateful to God that He gives me daily opportunities to learn so much more. Speaking of degrees, again, I encourage Professor Myers to use his God-given talents to spread goodness, rather than insult God in His Eucharistic presence.

    Yes, it’s late. Sleep well, young men and women, but I hope you awaken with a fresh resolve to look into bettering your lives and those of others. Again, God is Truth, and His truth is outlined very well by the Church founded by His Son, Jesus.

  221. says

    Posted by: Escuerd | November 10, 2008 8:12 AM

    Catholics can leave the church more quietly than most Mormons. While the Catholics are certainly goofy in their superstitions, they’re less cult-like than the Mormons in that they do less to foster dependence on the church. If a Mormon leaves the church, they’re often leaving their whole lives behind.

    Yes. Pretty much. I went to “jack Mormon” status. Because of this I rarely talk to my Dad as he’s got the Mormon-Death-Cult stick pretty far up his ass. Same with my brother, which surprises me considering the way he lived his life until he had kids…

    I have good relationship with my mother. Mostly because she’s pretty much gone to jack Mormon status too. OTOH, her support for Bush and the War and the quasi-fascist/theocratic Republican party is a bit of a strain. I just put it down to she’s old and she got sucked into Fox News plus 9/11 further messed up her head because, before that, she was (literally) much more moderate and open-minded.

    As for all my Mormon “bosom friends.” Damn, when I left the Church and the shunning started, all of them but Glen were gone in weeks. The only reason Glen stuck by me is I was his sparring partner. When I dropped Karate, our relationship hit the skids, too.

    BTW, evangelicals behave like Mormons, too. They aren’t quite as bad. But there’s a lot of those cult-like behaviors, too. Which makes me laugh when I hear one of them call Mormon’s cultists as I’m thinking “So are you.”

    Now, if I took myself off the roles… Then the pressure would really start. Mostly now they leave me alone save the occasional Missionaries showing up to re-church me.

  222. Jaketoadie says

    Just thought I would preface this comment with the fact that I am a resident of Utah, and a member of the minority of non mor(m)ons.

    I notice that you mentioned BYU. Not only is it sad that you can get expelled for being excommunicated, but I think you have to be a tithe paying mormon to even enroll.

    Also, forgoing that bit it apparently isn’t that good of a school. A friend of mine has a sister in a local nursing program. She is working with a lady who did all of her pre-med stuff at BYU, including anatomy. It would seem that in BYU you can opt out of the objectionable parts of the anatomy class that involves the genitals if you feel that this will compromise your chastity, or something like that. So this lady in the nursing program was so ill versed in the human anatomy that there has apparently been a number of catheter related problems. Such as: pulling out a tube on one poor guy with it still inflated, another being missing the urethra on one lady by 2 holes, feeding it into the anus instead.

  223. Ian Gould says

    re #758 – apparently the sample size was 2,000 or so.

    http://www.edrants.com/is-the-african-americanprop-8-exit-poll-connection-viable/

    “Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International were the team behind the 2004 polling botch, and this dynamic duo also spearheaded this week’s California exit polling. The hard data is not yet available at the Edison/Mitofsky site. But the Associated Press has reported that 2,240 California voters (of these, 765 were absentees interviewed by landline telephone), interviewed in 30 precincts, represented the total number of people that Edison/Mitofsky interviewed. Which means that some percentage of these voters were African-American. Let’s give Edison/Mitofsky 50%. That leaves us with a mere 1,120 voters.

    A quick jaunt to the California Secretary of State’s website reveals that there are 25,423 precincts in California and that 10.5 million people turned out on Tuesday. In other words, Edison/Mitofsky is making a major claim based on 0.11% (a little more than one-tenth of 1%) of the total precincts, and a sample of voters smaller than a crab louse dancing in a thorny thatch of hair. Is this really large enough? Exit polls have proved somewhat accurate in relation to simple binary choices, but I’m wondering if it all turns to bunk when it comes to correlation. Perhaps a legion of statistics experts can help explain why Edison/Mitofsky can get away with this. Because I’m tempted to view this as a strange offshoot of the Bradley effect.”

    SFgate gives the same figure:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/05/politics/p000704S36.DTL&type=health

    Supposedly the poll had a 10% African-American representation – which is a worry in itself because Census stats say California is only 6% black.

    A sample size of 230-odd is still going to be pretty unrelibable.

  224. andyo says

    Michelle,

    I don’t think someone with any degree in science would think of homosexuality the way you do. I think you have a “degree” in “science”. There. Now, what “science” is that?

    Also, someone with a science degree wouldn’t be so stupid as to come here where many if not most have not only actual degrees in various scientific disciplines, but also do actual research, read papers, and most of all, are not stupid.

  225. Nick Gotts says

    the Catholic Church who has never been wrong in 2000 yrs. of her history – Michelle

    So you approve of the genocide of the Cathars and the burning alive of “heretics”, Michelle. You sick fuck.

  226. ffrancis says

    Wowbagger (way back at #613): so is all this really an argument about pinheads? Or between pinheads?

  227. says

    I laughed when one poster taunted me to learn more about science, and about educating children. I have degrees in both, and I am so grateful to God that He gives me daily opportunities to learn so much more. Speaking of degrees, again, I encourage Professor Myers to use his God-given talents to spread goodness, rather than insult God in His Eucharistic presence.

    Degree in “science”

    Oh really? What science?

  228. says

    Yes, it’s late. Sleep well, young men and women, but I hope you awaken with a fresh resolve to look into bettering your lives and those of others. Again, God is Truth, and His truth is outlined very well by the Church founded by His Son, Jesus.

    Wait! Jesus in accounting?

    He’s the son of god? I thought his dad’s name was Pedro.

    Learn something new every day.

    But seriously. Answer my question in #742

  229. says

    … the Catholic Church who has never been wrong in 2000 yrs. of her history IN ALL THINGS PERTAINING TO THE FAITH…

    Except when it taught that it was only right to address God in Latin. And when it taught that he would forgive your sins if you gave the church money. And when…

    Oh. Perhaps those things don’t pertain to faith.

  230. negentropyeater says

    Bad News for Mormons : they’re losing followers in the USA !

    Oh, their offical numbers still show 6.7 million members in the US (2.3% of the pop.) and positive growth rates.

    But Pew research’ latest report on the US religious landscape shows that the number of self identified Mormons is much smaller than this, at only 1.7%, and that the number of people entering the faith (0.4% of the pop.) is smaller than the number of people leaving it (0.5% of the pop.).
    Source:http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-chapter-2.pdf

    And this is of course a complete reversal of the past growth trend of most of the 20th century.

    Could it be that the LDS church is tricking the data (by keeping ex-members in their statistics) because admitting that they are losing followers would be the absolute worst heresy for them ?

    In 1984, University of Washington sociologist Rodney Stark was astonished to discover that the LDS Church’s growth rate from 1940 through 1980 was 53 percent. He estimated that if it continued to grow at a more modest 30 percent, there would be 60 million Mormons by the year 2080.

    Well, looks like they’re in for some surprise !

    Bet you this slow death of the Mormon faith in the US will only accelerate itself in the future.
    Sooner rather than later, they’ll have reduced to less than 1% of the population, en route towards insignificance.

  231. Stephen Wells says

    Michele, _why_ should homosexuals not act on their sexual desires. If two consenting adults want to engage in any private act, and it’s no skin off anyone else’s nose, what is the _problem_ and why is it relevant what their genders are? Why can two men play basketball but not Hide the Salami? Why can two women share an icecream but not I-Lick-You-Scream?

    Does it make you uncomfortably warm and itchy in the bad place to visualise that? Is that part of your problem? I’m straight, happily married, and I simply Do. Not. Care. how other people choose to have harmless fun. What’s so twisted in your head that you can’t do the same?

  232. negentropyeater says

    Michelle,

    Those who want to ACT on homosexual tendencies do not have my approval, and never will, but I am willing to help them to find new situations — jobs, apartments, other support — to help them stay away from temptation.

    Hi, I’m a gay man. Still wondering how you helping me to find a job or an apartment might help me not to feel sexually attracted to men, and to start liking pussies more than cocks ?
    Maybe you can explain how it works, I’m really interested to learn more about this program.

  233. Walton says

    Why can two men play basketball but not Hide the Salami? Why can two women share an icecream but not I-Lick-You-Scream?

    Ewww. While I understand the point, did you have to put it in such graphic terms?

    (This isn’t a remark regarding homosexuality itself; a graphic depiction of straight sexual activities would be equally inappropriate for this forum.)

  234. says

    What Michelle (and others) clearly fails to understand is that people has no obligation to follow the precepts of her church by virtue of the very legal provisions that allow her to practice those precepts, and that also protect her from being compelled to, say, pray towards Mecca five times a day.

  235. Nick Gotts says

    The first obvious flaw in the paper PerigrANUS links to (I’m not saying there are none earlier) is at this point:

    A prime number between 100 and 105 is a Platonic object, while
    the Statue of Liberty – American sentiment notwithstanding – is not. Proposition (H2)
    makes a claim for the nature of God’s ontological status that is similar to saying that
    numbers are Platonic objects… Hartshorne’s argument makes a similar claim for God and there is no
    obvious reason to deny such an ontological status to God.

    Even if there were “no obvious reason to deny such an ontological status to God”, this would be a hole in the argument, since to be convincing it would require proof that God does indeed have the same “ontological status” as the prime between 100 and 105. However, there is an obvious reason, which stems from the use of “possible worlds” ideas. A “possible world”, in the only interpretation of that term that will suffice here, a logically possible world, is simply one that can be described without self-contradiction. It is clear that a “world” in which there is no prime number between 100 and 105 cannot be so described. However, no reason whatever has been proposed to believe that a “world without God” cannot be so described. Indeed, many such possible worlds have been described, and the descriptions have not been shown to be self-contradictory. Hence even if Godel’s “proof” is indeed logically sound, this does not suffice to show that God, even in the most vapid form, must exist.

    More generally, all forms of the ontological argument appear to involve smuggling the conclusion in among the premises. Once this has been done of course a logically sound argument for the existence of God can be constructed. The simplest course, which I recommend to all devotees of the ontological argument, is to make God’s existence an explicit premise of your logic. This ensures that no long and complex derivations will be required.

  236. says

    Jaketoad @ 766: That is really fucking scary. Remind me never to go to Utah and get sick, OK? A catheter up the ass does not sound like a fun time.

  237. Walton says

    The simplest course, which I recommend to all devotees of the ontological argument, is to make God’s existence an explicit premise of your logic.

    Which doesn’t, of course, get us anywhere at all, since God’s existence is not empirically demonstrable (as we’ve already discussed ad nauseam). So does this make the ontological argument simply a sophisticated exercise in navel-gazing?

  238. Matt Penfold says

    To add to what Nick has said, it is quite possible in Mathematics to describe internally consistant systems that do not exist in reality. Using such a system to show god exists is a futile exercise as the system is not achored in reality, and thus it is not possible to extrapolate logical conclusions from the constructed to the real world.

  239. Walton says

    In fact, I’m not keen on sterile “God of the philosophers”-type arguments. One can’t rationally debate the generic concept of the existence of God; because God, if He exists, is by definition inherent in the functioning of universe itself, and since (by that premise) we can never know what a universe without a God can look like, we cannot evaluate whether God actually exists in this universe.

    On a similar level, when a city is destroyed by a storm and the fundamentalists say “It was God’s punishment for our sins”, there is no way to prove or disprove this statement. One can point out that the storm is explicable through the ordinary laws of nature; but they can reply by claiming that God works through the laws of nature. Which makes divine action indistinguishable from the ordinary operation of material laws – and therefore empirically unknowable.

    The only way it would be possible to empirically prove God’s existence would be if God actually intervened in a perceptible way in the material universe, in a way that suspended the ordinary laws of nature. Which, of course, Christians believe He did (the parting of the Red Sea, miracles, the Resurrection, etc.) But the historical truth of these claims has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  240. Stephen Wells says

    @779: you think those are graphic terms? They’re not. they’re euphemisms, and you, having carefully filled in the details _in your own mind_ are now going ewww and blaming me. I find that quite funny really, though my real aim was to see if Michele would freak out.

  241. SC says

    Why can two women share an icecream but not I-Lick-You-Scream?

    Never heard that before – made me laugh.

    That may be the most appealing description of lesbianism I’ve ever seen.

  242. Matt Penfold says

    Oh, and i would just like to say I have made a start on being mean to Mormons.

    There is a Mormon Tabarnacle a couple of miles from me, and I normally get them knocking on my door every couple of months. The last time I explained to them I was an atheist, and that I had the decency not to come round to their homes trying to convince them there was no god and I was surprised they lacked the same manners and consideration towards me. They seemed somewhat flumoxed.

  243. SteveM says

    Michelle wrote:
    Of course, some of you will probably mock this, but do you REALLY want to remain of pre-adolescent mentality all your lives?

    How ironic coming from a fundie Catholic. Religion is based on infantilizing its followers, and the followers wishing to retain the advantages of childhood throughout their lives. The unconditional love of an all powerful parent that will tell them what is right and wrong, will comfort them when they are sad, will protect them when they are scared. Religion represents a denial of adulthood, a retreat from going forth into the world to use ones own brain to reason what is right and wrong, to face one’s fears and make one’s way in the world. To accept and cling to religion the way Michelle does is to cling to childhood, to retain the pre-adolescent mentality she accuses the atheist of. To reject religion is to become fully adult and mature.

  244. SC says

    Ewww. While I understand the point, did you have to put it in such graphic terms?

    Walton, get some professional help. Seriously.

  245. Nick Gotts says

    Walton@783,
    Er, yes, Walton, that was rather my point! Of course, in reality the long and complex derivations are necessary in order to hide the way the conclusion has been smuggled in among the premises. (I’m not accusing those producing ontological arguments for God of deliberate deception – I’m sure they hide this from themselves too.)

  246. Nerd of Redhead says

    Michelle, if you alleged god is real, you should be able to offer up some physical proof for him/her/it. Something like Moses’ burning bush comes to mind. Something that can be examined by scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, and found to be of divine origin.

    Michelle, believe it or not, you are an atheist. You disbelieve about a thousand gods/godesses except for you Abrahamic god. Guess what, he doesn’t exist either. Time to become rational and give up the last god. Then all the logical dissonance of believing falls away. It makes life much easier at the end of the day.

  247. raven says

    Michelle the psychotic lying:

    >>Michelle is undoubtedly a seriously mentally disturbed fruitbat. We see that a lot with the rabid religious fanatics of any sect.

    My goodness, have I hit a nerve? a very raw nerve? I said nothing another law-abiding sincere Catholic wouldn’t say.

    Michelle is lying. No sincere, sane Catholic would say what she said, not in the USA.

    It is not so much a raw nerve as an old story and a commonly boring one. Seriously deranged people who are a danger to themselves at best and a danger to themselves and everyone around them at worst.

    The Michelles don’t so much make their religion look stupid and evil as much as they show that mental illness is hard to treat.

  248. Nick Gotts says

    “Hide the salami”? I thought that was what non-frum Jews say when they see the Rabbi walking up the path!

  249. Mike G. says

    Section 501(c)(3) of US Code Title 26, which governs tax-exempt organizations, reads (emphasis added):

    (3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

    (The “otherwise provided” clause does not apply, as the LDS Church, being a church, is a disqualified entity as described in subsection (h).)

    Sounds to me like LDS might be on shaky ground legally.

  250. says

    to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

    Still not convinced. Would love to get a tax lawyer here to explain the 501c3.

  251. mas528 says

    Somewhat pertinent to the discussion.

    Doesn’t proposition 8 violate the Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

  252. MikeM says

    Too many comments on this thread to read. I have a software install to do today.

    But I want to note this: There was a really clear racial divide on Prop 8, and I think we need to discuss this. Why did so many African-Americans vote for 8?

    This is an interactive map from the Sacramento Bee that shows voting patterns. Prop 8 failed in my neighborhood 55-45. My neighborhood has no ethnic majorities; the largest ethnic group is probably Chinese-American, but that wouldn’t be by a very large margin.

    http://www.sacbee.com/1232/rich_media/1355616.html

    However, look at the area labeled “South Sacramento.” Anyone who lives in this area will tell you that this area is predominantly African-American, and Prop 8 passed there 62-38. Voting data has shown that Latinos voted yes by a small margin, Asians and Whites voted no by slim margins, and African-Americans voted for it, 70-30 (that was the CNN data I saw).

    Does anyone have any theories as to how this can be true?

    Just for fun, click on the area “Granite Bay.” That’s the least ethnically diverse, most religious part of the Sacramento area… And it passed 8 by the same margin as South Sacramento. The only common thread I can see: Protestants.

  253. Alex says

    gypsytag @ 571,

    I used to go door to door collecting food with the Boy Scouts when I was that age. Please don’t abuse these kids, they have no idea what they’re doing; a lot of them aren’t old enough to know the difference yet. There is a difference between making a point and being cruel. If you want to teach someone a lesson, stick with the adults who are culpable for their actions and don’t treat children so unfairly.

    Also, you can’t assume that “these brats…will grow up to be atheist haters”.

    Me –> Boy Scout –> Atheist

    Not such a good assumption on your part, gypsytag.

    Lastly, I am amazed at your lack of cognitive dissonance for wanting to throw bags of shit at people who are collecting food. What’s your next best idea, throwing shit at people who trick-or-treat for UNICEF?

    Where is your sense of decency?

  254. SteveM says

    @799:
    Doesn’t proposition 8 violate the Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

    I assume you are referring to this part of the Amendment?

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; …

    Based on the Wikipedia article on the 14th Amendment:

    …the Supreme Court limited the reach of the Amendment by holding in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was limited to “privileges or immunities” granted to citizens by the federal government in virtue of national citizenship.

    I would say that it does not, since the federal government does not grant marriage as a privilege of national citizenship.

  255. CJO says

    But the historical truth of these claims has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    The case for it has never even been made, Walton. It can’t be made. You’re talking about fairy stories. It’s just as vacuous as if you’d said “That Hansel and Gretel acted in self-defense has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.”

  256. John C. Randolph says

    their offical numbers still show 6.7 million members in the US (2.3% of the pop.) and positive growth rates.

    So, they exaggerate their membership numbers?

    Who knew they had so much in common with the Scientologists?

    -jcr

  257. says

    But I want to note this: There was a really clear racial divide on Prop 8, and I think we need to discuss this. Why did so many African-Americans vote for 8?

    New data coming out that suggests that the 70-30% thing was based on incredibly small sample sizes used to determine how African-Americans voted on Prop 8.

    There’s a link on these threads posted today somewhere. I’ll look in bit

  258. Anon says

    Ignorance and hatred is dripping from this board. And it doesn’t help when the original author is among the worst of them.

    It’s bizarre that a religion known for being out of step with the rest of the country on the issue of marriage, a place populated with polygamists and young girls treated as chattel and coaxed into child marriages, now wants to “preserve the sacred institution of marriage”.

    The LDS church has no affiliation with those polygamist sects. Yes, the church used to practice polygamy, but when it was outlawed by the government back in the 19th century, the church complied and gave up the practice. So much for being “out of step with the rest of the country.”

    We may have to settle for escalating our mockery of mormonism. It’s not hard, after all: it is one of the most palpably ridiculous, unethical, dumb-ass religions flourishing in our unfortunate nation of theological dumb-asses.

    There’s the liberal persona I know. For being such an open-minded way of thinking, it is shocking (!) how ignorant and closed-minded people who claim to be liberal are. This definition of what it means to be liberal is both ironic and spot-on. The irony: free from bigotry. The spot-on truth: morally unrestrained; licentious. If you don’t like something, you mock it. If there isn’t a law for it, you petition for it. If you don’t get your way, you mock some more. Liberals act like a two-year-old kicking and screaming when they don’t get their way.

    Can I get an answer to this question: why is same-sex marriage an “equal right”? Just because you may believe homosexuality is okay that doesn’t mean you are right. Are homosexuals bad people? Of course they are not. But does that mean the government should recognize their sexuality? In other words, why is same-sex marriage an “equal right” when homosexuals do not have the ability to procreate with each other? Shouldn’t a group of people have the ability to do something before they can be considered equals to others who already have the ability? This is where someone will say marriage is the ability, but it’s procreation that is the underlying ability and the issue at hand. But in true liberal fashion, you wouldn’t ever consider this point of view.

    Hate on Mormons, Catholics, and every other theology, but that won’t ever make you more right than them. Voting is an equal right and apparently your opinion is in the minority. From a social perspective, this makes you more wrong than right. Sucks to be wrong, doesn’t it? Just be happy with the thought you live in a country that allows you to voice your opinion. But please, your childish antics are pathetic and quite degrading to your credibility.

  259. John C. Randolph says

    Why did so many African-Americans vote for 8?

    Is it really fruitful to focus on the race of a voter? Perhaps decades of divisiveness was a factor in in many voters’ decision: (IE, “If I’m not one of them, so why should I vote for what they want?)

    The long and short of it is, that the voters who passed Prop 8, like those who vote against medical marijuana, and many other matters that the government should have no involvement with in the first place, fail to understand the suffering caused by their choices.

    -jcr

  260. GuyIncognito says

    While the privileges and immunities clause might not apply, it has always been my opinion that an honest reading of the Equal Protection clause strongly supports legalizing gay marriage:

    “No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    Of course, some say that the Equal Protection clause is satisfied because gays are able to marry a heterosexual just like everybody else.

  261. MikeM says

    BDC @805. I agree that there may be some data pointing that way, but in the very limited map I link to, it certainly supports my conclusion.

    “South Sacramento” is predominantly African-American; “Downtown Sacramento” is predominantly White/Asian… Of course, that’s not a good example, given that “Lavender Heights” is in downtown Sacramento. A better example would be East Sac, which is predominantly white and liberal… And voted against 8.

    Using that map, which is limited, concluding that African-American and Protestant voters approved 8 is not hard. Based on area by area votes, it sure looks that way.

    I haven’t looked at Oakland’s or Richmond’s numbers. That may be even more telling.

    (Orange County, in Socal, voted heavily for McCain and 8.)

  262. John C. Randolph says

    Voting is an equal right and apparently your opinion is in the minority

    This of course is the great hazard of democracy. This is why our constitution was designed to place several barriers to mob rule, such as dividing the government into three branches, electing the president through the electoral college, and establishing the bill of rights as a barrier to arbitrary legislation.

    -jcr

  263. CJO says

    Shouldn’t a group of people have the ability to do something before they can be considered equals to others who already have the ability?

    Really. I’m sick of this ADA business too. Parapalegics can’t walk, so obviously they shouldn’t be considered the equals of those who can.

  264. khan says

    Those who have homosexual tendencies — male or female — have no need to make this public in any way to others, but should recognize this as some cross, some test allowed by God, and strive all their lives to remain pure.

    So homosexuals should ‘remain pure’ when even the priests find it impossible?

  265. MikeM says

    Read this comment from a Sacramento area pastor:

    Protesters in Sacramento said the dispute over same-sex marriage is a modern-day civil rights issue.

    But Phillip Goudeaux, a pastor at Calvary Christian Center who is also African American, takes offense at the comparison.

    “They never had water hoses shot on them, dogs attacking them,” Goudeaux said.

  266. Brownian, OM says

    Shouldn’t a group of people have the ability to do something before they can be considered equals to others who already have the ability?

    What the fuck is it with conservatives and the inability to see an argument through to its conclusion?

    You can’t advocate for the above and be against sex outside of marriage, since we won’t know if someone has the ability to procreate (and therefore deserves to be married) unless they get knocked up/knock someone else up. And if you’re equivocating heterosexuality with the ability to procreate, well, you’re just grossly ignorant of both biology and the Bible (which mentions several barren heteros, if you’re interested in reading it).

    Fuck, but you’re a stupid, stupid human being. As a public health measure, I suggest you take advantage of full-service gas stations from now on; left to your own devices you’re liable to blow up innocents.

    And no more lectures about bigotry, you homophobic moron: all they do is demonstrate that you’re both an anonymous coward and a hypocrite.

  267. West says

    Is it really fruitful to focus on the race of a voter?

    A group that fought hard for it’s civil rights turns around and denies it to another group. That’s worth at least *some* discussion should the numbers prove out. Or are some groups more equal than others?

  268. Czernobog says

    Anon @ 806:

    In other words, why is same-sex marriage an “equal right” when homosexuals do not have the ability to procreate with each other?

    Should infertile heterosexuals be allowed to marry?

  269. Lowell says

    but it’s procreation that is the underlying ability and the issue at hand.

    Maybe in your church procreation is the “underlying ability” justifying marriages. But that is not the basis for civil marriage.

    In this country, a marriage is a contractual relationship between two people. They are not required to reproduce. (Or would you deny the right to marry to a heterosexual couple where one or both parties were infertile?)

  270. SeanD. says

    “They never had water hoses shot on them, dogs attacking them,” Goudeaux said.

    Being beaten to death doesn’t count I guess.

  271. Czernobog says

    In addition to the infertility point, what about couples with no intention to have children in the first place? Should they be allowed to marry?

  272. CJO says

    “They never had water hoses shot on them, dogs attacking them,” Goudeaux said.
    Being beaten to death doesn’t count I guess.

    No shit. And then there’s the Stonewall riots, where fire hoses actually were used, I believe.

  273. Nick Gotts says

    Voting is an equal right and apparently your opinion is in the minority. From a social perspective, this makes you more wrong than right. – Anon

    Wrong, moron. Neither truth nor morality is decided by the casting of votes. It is entirely democratic to be outraged by a majority vote, and work, democratically, to overturn it. That can include protest against and ridicule of those who support it.

  274. Rey Fox says

    Sheesh. All this to-do over buttsex. Really, the sticking of a penis into another man’s butt. Some day, I’d really like to meet one of those people who honk on about it not being “natural”, look him in the eye and ask him, “If that’s the case, then why does it feel so good?”

    Buttsex. Really, if you are even moderately in control of your actions, you will never have to experience buttsex in your entire life, nor even witness it happening, nor have it affect you in any way. And yet it freaks people like Michelle and Anon out so bad that they have to construct these ridiculous justifications as to why we shouldn’t allow it to happen.

    Uh oh, I think Walton just fainted.

    “The spot-on truth: morally unrestrained; licentious.”

    You don’t have to insult us just because many of us have more fun than you do.

    “If you don’t like something, you mock it. If there isn’t a law for it, you petition for it. If you don’t get your way, you mock some more.”

    Someone prepare another fainting couch for the fatally mocked. Boy, we sure get a lot of delicate constitutions around here. The way they carry on, you’d think they were actually being persecuted in some way.

    SC:
    “That may be the most appealing description of lesbianism I’ve ever seen.”

    More appealing than “Two hot chicks totally making out!”?

    Uh oh, I think Walton just fainted again.

  275. Matt Hayden says

    In addition to the infertility point, what about couples with no intention to have children in the first place? Should they be allowed to marry?

    That’s a really good way of reframing this, because it neatly undermines one of the central arguments against same-sex marriage. If a heterosexual couple elects not to have children, does that invalidate the marriage? Should it be invalidated by statute?

  276. Rickr0ll says

    If they hate buttsex, they they SHOULD allow gay marraige; nothin stamps out sex like marraige. Besides, why don’t they TRULY protect the sanctity of marraige and stop divorce from happening. Yeah, that would shut them up, cus they can’t stop divorce because marraige is already a compete sham.

  277. SC says

    “That may be the most appealing description of lesbianism I’ve ever seen.”

    More appealing than “Two hot chicks totally making out!”?

    Speaking as a hot chick, yeah. :o

  278. Rickr0ll says

    WE DON’T NEED MORE PEOPLE! There’s nearly a billion kids to choose from, pick one of them.We no longer neeed to reproduce like rabbits. The world is filled, divine mandate satisfied, so put a cork in it for God’s sake!

  279. Rickr0ll says

    Athiest can marry; that’s a bigger slap in the face to the church than any buttsex! after all, the priests love them some buttsex! But athiests don’t even get a disapproval rating for marrying, it’s total hypocracy

  280. scooter says

    People should get married by the Church of the Sugbenius, you get to choose how long you want to stay married at the ceremony.

    At some of the Devivals, and campouts, there are several one night marriage ceremonies performed.

    Gay marriage and three ways are all approved by BoB.

    You can also get rubbers with BobB’s smiling face on them.

  281. Pete Rooke says

    Why should a church be unable to express an advocacy position on a doctrinal teaching? Whether it’s a letter, speech, diagram, musical arrangement etc., free speech is constitutionally guaranteed whether you approve of the content or not.

    Incidentally, President-elect Obama agrees that marriage is between a man and a woman. Although he opposed Prop. 8. The people have spoken and the irony is that the state may not have passed it had previously disenfranchised minorities not come to the polls to vote for Obama.

  282. says

    I grew up in the second reddest county I can find on the election map, and that includes Appalachia.
    Some important lessons I learned in Middle School classes include: “Why you should not throw aerosol cans on a backyard trash-fire.”, and “people who grow up with a Single Mother can turn out alright sometimes, too. The current president of the Mormon Church has a single mother!” and finally “Don’t have gay sex because the doctor will know what you’ve been up to when you go in to get your bum examined.”

    Among such gems of wisdom, was that when the Mormons went west to escape persecution in Nauvoo, a group of them took off overland in covered wagons. That’s the bunch we know about. Brigham Young and such. Another group decided that it would be better go by boat–south, around the tip of Chile, and back up to California, and then travel East overland. This bunch was called The Water Saints (like a fifties pop band). They landed near San Diego, and quite a few of them decided to stay there and start a community there. That’s why there are a lot of Mormons in southern California.

    We learned this in Utah History class. Yay Theocracy!

  283. Steve_C says

    No one is saying what the LDS church did was illegal.

    We’re just saying it was disgusting. We’re exercising our free speech right too.
    Too fucking bad if they don’t want all the ridicule and contempt.
    They worked to remove a right that the state and courts had allowed.

    Gay marriages don’t hurt anyone, especially hypocritical mormons and christians.

  284. Nerd of Redhead says

    Pete “well meaning fool” Rooke.
    The US contstitution gives freedom of religion by not establishing a state religion. But in turn, the churches are expected to stay out of secular matters, like who to vote for or how to vote on referendum. (Note, if they keep such things internal to their church nobody can do much about it.) This gay marriage vote was a secular matter, since no one was going to require any church to marry anyone against the will of the church. Churches should have stayed out of the matter.

  285. Ray says

    Michelle @654
    Your priest’s little bit of parlor magic, changing a wafer into… a wafer that hasn’t physically changed but is now the flesh of your zombie god? Please! How silly and sad that you believe that. I am happy in my life and can still “snicker and mock” at something so stupid. I have already found peace, real meaning in life and try to lead a sincere and kind life without magic crackers or gods. Try rationality, what a difference it would make in our country!

    Cheers,
    Ray

  286. Nick Gotts says

    Pete “well meaning fool” Rooke. Nerd of Readhead

    What evidence do you have that Pete Rooke is well-meaning?

  287. says

    Why should a church be unable to express an advocacy position on a doctrinal teaching? Whether it’s a letter, speech, diagram, musical arrangement etc., free speech is constitutionally guaranteed whether you approve of the content or not.

    Funny thing is I actually might agree with Pete on this in that I’m not sure the 501c3 statutes say anything about supporting particular propositions and no one has sufficiently answered that question for me so far. From reading the information from the IRS I quoted above in post #114 it is not clear to me.

    If it is a violation of the 501c3 rules then the reason they can not do it Pete is because they receive tax exempt status. Something that if they’d like to give up, they can talk about whatever it is they want.

    However Pete, it is also our right to say what gigantically bigoted assholes the Mormon church as an organization is for holding such viewpoints scripture or not.

  288. Pete Rooke says

    Marriage is a public institution and I was reminded on the radio the other day that this country still remains to the right of center when it comes to values. The church had as much right to their position as the gay issue related charities that advocated against the proposition.

  289. says

    Marriage is a public institution and I was reminded on the radio the other day that this country still remains to the right of center when it comes to values. The church had as much right to their position as the gay issue related charities that advocated against the proposition.

    Reminded by right wing pundits trying to lessen the blow of the Mandate the election results show going to the other side.

    And pete see my comment above. If propositions are not under the 501c3 laws then yes they do have that right. But we have the right to call them on their bigotry.

  290. Brownian, OM says

    God hates buttsex like he hates puddles of pee around the base of the toilet; that is to say not at all.

    If either really were an issue for him, he would have given men better aim.

  291. Nerd of Redhead says

    Nick,I the phrase comes from Heinlein. One of his advices in Time Enough for Love, was to always vote, but if you don’t know who to vote for, find a “well meaning fool” and vote the other way. If Pete posts here on something, generally the truth is the opposite of what he is espouses. But Pete means well, but he has not grasp of modern life.

  292. Rey Fox says

    “The church had as much right to their position as the gay issue related charities that advocated against the proposition.”

    They’re still wrong.

  293. says

    Those who have homosexual tendencies — male or female — have no need to make this public in any way to others, but should recognize this as some cross, some test allowed by God, and strive all their lives to remain pure.

    So it’s okay to hate just as long as God hates them. This is why people strive against religion, because religion is detrimental to secularism. We live in a secular society. Who are you to push your beliefs on others? Oh that’s right, you’re a Catholic. You love everyone; you just don’t want anyone to have a lifestyle out of catholicism. Funny that a cannibal cult is so intolerant of other people’s lifestyle choice… too busy feasting on the body of Christ to realise how fucked up their belief system is.

  294. Rick R says

    Two things have become abundantly clear after the Prop 8 debacle-
    1) Civil rights and equality issues should never be put up for popular vote. This is the wrong arena to fight these issues in. “Is this hatefully maligned group of people equal citizens under the law? Let’s see a show of hands.”
    2) It is WAY too easy to amend the Constitution in some states.

    Oh, and 3) Religion is a cesspool of hatred and bigotry. But we knew that already.

  295. Michelle (the usual one) says

    I would like to disassociate myself from the other Michelle jesuskisser here…

    I don’t wanna pray for you guys since I’m not big on talking to myself and all… S’not personal, guys. I don’t hate you. I love you all, really! I just, you know… I prefer not thinking there’s some pervert peeker up there listening to my insane words.

  296. E.V. says

    Those who have homosexual religious tendencies — male or female — have no need to make this public in any way to others…

    Fixed that for you.

  297. says

    Can I get an answer to this question: why is same-sex marriage an “equal right”? Just because you may believe homosexuality is okay that doesn’t mean you are right. Are homosexuals bad people? Of course they are not. But does that mean the government should recognize their sexuality? In other words, why is same-sex marriage an “equal right” when homosexuals do not have the ability to procreate with each other?

    So infertile couples do not have equal rights because they can’t procreate?

    The reason why it’s “equal” is that marriage is a social contract that brings two people together. It’s a secular institution in our society and there is no reason why homosexuals should not have the same rights as heterosexuals…

    Isn’t it funny how every Christian who comes on here complaining about ignorance and intolerance then complains about homosexuality.

  298. E.V. says

    Take 2:

    Those who have homosexual religious tendencies — male or female — have no need to make this public in any way to others…

  299. Stephen Wells says

    If infertile people can marry, post-menopausal people can marry, and people who use contraception can marry, the fertility “argument” is DOA.

  300. Rey Fox says

    “2) It is WAY too easy to amend the Constitution in some states. ”

    That’s the real tragedy of these amendments. Where I live, you need 60% (or was it 66%?) of a public vote to fund a new library, but only 50% to strip rights from people. It’s fucked up.

  301. Wowbagger says

    So infertile couples do not have equal rights because they can’t procreate?

    I’m sure most of the faithful here probably believe she has the right to stoned to death for being barren, since that’d be in line with the rest of their warped, hateful beliefs.

  302. Wowbagger says

    I wrote:

    I’m sure most of the faithful here probably believe she has the right to stoned to death for being barren, since that’d be in line with the rest of their warped, hateful beliefs.

    Addendum: because it would always be the woman’s fault – the joy of a misogynistic religion – and not the man’s. I just about guarantee none of these guys would admit to having substandard swimmers or suffering from ‘performance anxiety’.

  303. scooter says

    It’s pretty straightforward. Religious institutions are 501 c3.

    You CANNOT lobby congress people, take a stand on propositions, get involved in any electoral contributions, or endorse candidates PERIOD.

    The sierra club lost their 501 c3 in the sixties by lobbying and conducting mailing in protest of a dam that would have flooded part of the Grand Canyon.

    They won the battle but lost their 501 c3, they are now a c4 organization with far less tax benefits.
    The feds could use some money right now, anybody know IRS people?

  304. seamaiden75 says

    Geez, I guess I’m screwed three times over as far as the Catholics are concerned since 1. I am married to a Mormon 2. I’m an Atheist and 3. I had to have a hysterectomy as a result of fibroid tumors.
    Does this mean that my marriage should be dissolved simply because I can’t have kids? Or the fact that I don’t believe in God and since marriage is a religious institution that automatically qualifies mine to become null and void.

    To Pete and Anon,
    The people on this board are expressing their outrage at what should’ve been protected by the constitution in the first place and never to put to vote. Our constitution is supposed to protect the minority from the wims of the majority. Which by the way in case you missed it the majority of people a long time ago used to the think the world was flat. It didn’t make them right! So what’s next for the hating bigots of the world getting all Atheists marriage dissolved! Or perhaps all the people who are barren should be devoid of there right to marriage on the basis that it will never produce offspring. Where does it end?

  305. John C. Randolph says

    A group that fought hard for it’s civil rights turns around and denies it to another group.

    Ok, this is a big part of the problem I’m talking about. Those votes are cast by individuals. If you claim that they did so because they’re black, or some other category you want to hang on them, or that their race creates a particular obligation you don’t address the question of why this particular person chose to vote yes on prop. 8.

    -jcr

  306. John C. Randolph says

    I’m sure most of the faithful here probably believe she has the right to stoned to death for being barren, since that’d be in line with the rest of their warped, hateful beliefs.

    I’m not aware of any religion that calls for a woman to be stoned to death for infertility.

    -jcr

  307. John C. Randolph says

    Our constitution is supposed to protect the minority from the wims of the majority.

    I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I would say that any system of government of a free society should have as its primary goal, the protection of the individual from the collective.

    -jcr

  308. Wowbagger says

    jcr wrote:

    Those votes are cast by individuals.

    What are you saying? Do you mean you don’t believe that individuals can be influenced as a group?

  309. seamaiden75 says

    By the way I feel inclined to mention since it seems Michelle didn’t understand who I was talking about when asked if her last name was Phelps. I’m talking about Fred & Shirley Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. One of their main mantras is “God hates Fags”

    Perhaps she actually knew who I was talking about but instead chose to seem ignorant rather than associate her views with such hate filled individuals. ?

  310. bastion says

    At #419, Maureen Lycaon wrote:

    Off-topic, here, but this appeared just today on the BBC site:

    Octopuses share ‘living ancestor’

    I was kind of expecting to read about a group of octopuses engaging in the equivalent of the cannibalistic rite of catholic communion.

  311. Wowbagger says

    jcr, #854, wrote:

    I’m not aware of any religion that calls for a woman to be stoned to death for infertility.

    If you want to be picky, John, note that I included the phrase since that’d be in line with the rest of their warped, hateful beliefs – not that it was ever a policy of a religious group.

    That being said, do you think it’s really that far-fetched? If there are people who will stone a 13-year-old girl to death for being raped then I have little doubt they could be convinced to do the same if they were assured it was ‘god’s will’.

  312. John C. Randolph says

    What are you saying? Do you mean you don’t believe that individuals can be influenced as a group?

    I’m saying that by fixating on groups, you promote collectivist attitudes. EG, “I’m not one of them, so I’ll vote against them.

    In particular, how do you think it goes over when you tell someone “I believe that you have certain obligations based on the category I’ve placed you in, never mind that I’m not one of you.”?

    -jcr

  313. Wowbagger says

    In particular, how do you think it goes over when you tell someone “I believe that you have certain obligations based on the category I’ve placed you in, never mind that I’m not one of you.”?

    Er, if that person’s holding a sign saying ‘Yes On 8’ and is wearing a cross then I believe I’m going to feel just fine to assume they’re there because of their religious affiliations.

    If you’ve read all the posts in this thread you’ll see where I applauded the ex-Mormons who left the church because of their disgust for its pro-8 lobbying – praising them for being individuals going against the group.

  314. Rickr0ll says

    So God hates fags worse than athiests?! Why does god consider procreation at all, it ISN’T necessary. None of this matters at all compared to the rest of the issues that face this country. By forcing it to be a major point of contention, the religious right have stolen from our country; it has made them intellectually dishonest, morally reprehensible, and politically poinsenous.

  315. SeanD. says

    “I’m not aware of any religion that calls for a woman to be stoned to death for infertility.”

    Anglican? Ah, no…that was beheading.

    ;-)

  316. seamaiden75 says

    “I’m not aware of any religion that calls for a woman to be stoned to death for infertility.”

    I’m not either but I do know that the bible called for the women who couldn’t produce children to present their husbands with their maid servants or basically just any other woman who was around and who they thought could produce children so they could “spread their seed”.
    I wonder if they would like this part of the bible brought back since they want to bring “God back to the helm”. Ugh!

  317. Ian Gould says

    “They never had water hoses shot on them, dogs attacking them,”

    Yes and Blacks were never shipped off in mass to concentration camps, gassed and turned into soap and lamp shades.

    “My victimhood is more genuine than yours” is about as productive as “My father can beat up your father”.

  318. Ian Gould says

    “I wonder if they would like this part of the bible brought back since they want to bring “God back to the helm”. Ugh!”

    What have you got against traditional marriage?

    Next you’ll be saying widows shouldn’t be compelled to marry their brother-in-law.

  319. bastion says

    At #730, Michelle wrote:
    What would I say to a room of abused children…etc. etc. My dear sir, without a moment’s hesitation I would say exactly what I would say to a roomful of relatives of those murdered in the Holocaust, or to, say, a roomful of children tortured by Commies as happened in the pre-50s: I AM SO SORRY! I AM SO SORRY that evil people did this to you, but let me help you now in whatever way I can, and let’s ask God to stay with us and keep us in His grace, AND ask Him to forgive and change the hearts of those who did this to you.” I believe in the power of God,

    Yes! I believe in the power of the almighty, all powerful, all knowing, and all loving god, who saw from the beginning of time that you would be raped, did nothing to keep you from being raped, and then protected your rapists though the institution of his holy church.

    And don’t forget to tell the children: “Please don’t ever forget how much god loves you.”

    Praise the Lord. Amen and alleluia!

  320. Rickr0ll says

    Ian, that is a joke right?
    Actually seamaiden, the whole religion of islam was started because of Abraham’s impatience with his infertile wife, who gave bith at 90 and when Abraham was 100. I’m just iterating the scriptures; they are impossible to believe. No one lived to be that old. but that’s a separate issue isn’t it?

  321. bastion says

    Maybe I need to give up my atheism and start my own religion.

    I’d then write a holy book that would prohibit, by my god’s authority, all the things I dislike, and make god-approved all the things I approved of.

    Then, I could also go around claiming that I get to tell other people how they should live their lives because my divinely inspired book said so.

    Not sure though how crazy my new religion would have to sound to be credible.

  322. Rickr0ll says

    Yikes Bastion!! unfortunately, it is excactly the “wear the blinders” mentality that pervades christian culture and leads to the injustice and ignorace that exists in america

  323. Jeanette says

    Alex @801 (If you can find this among so many posts: You’re reading it out of context. Gypsytag was trying to make exactly those points you mention (and had taken some previous posts too seriously, I think).

  324. andyo says

    So, has Michelle told us yet what kind of science degree she has that tells her the truth about homosexuality?

  325. speedwell says

    Gee, people, I don’t often plug my politics around here, but I really think it’s an irrefutable fact that groups are made up of individuals, and so-called “group choices” are really individual choices in the aggregate.

    If I have something in common with you, it doesn’t automatically mean that I will make the same decisions as you. You and I would be extremely offended if anyone told us that they could influence us by influencing a group we belong to, particularly if that group was, say, our race or sex. We reserve the right to make individual choices and to not have people assume in advance we will, say, hold certain opinions or do a certain something because of a group membership. Last I checked, that was called prejudice, and thinking people frowned on it.

  326. says

    Last I checked, that was called prejudice

    Or the bandwagon effect. Yes groups are made up of individuals, but there’s feedback from groupthink too where people are influenced by what the collective has a general consensus on. By and large our social nature cannot be ignored and looking at groups has some advantages into understanding.

    Of course on an individual level it’s bunk, but we can see general trends based on certain communal ties.

  327. John Morales says

    “I’m not aware of any religion that calls for a woman to be stoned to death for infertility.”

    Heh. Why does this bring Matthew 21 to mind?

    18Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered.

    “He” being Jebus. Tenuous, I know – but hey, vaguer Biblical similes have historically been used to justify nasties. Just sayin’.

  328. speedwell says

    we can see general trends based on certain communal ties.

    Granted. But as individuals we can still decide, in principle, whether or not we want to fall in with the group under discussion. I don’t think we would disagree on that.

    Any scientist knows that it’s a gross fallacy to assume that, if it is (for example) 65% likely to find a behavior in a certain group, any randomly selected individual member of the group is going to exhibit that behavior in 65% of the test cases. Something may be true in the general case, but if there is any variation between individuals at all, it can’t be relied upon in specific cases.

    I run into that superstitious belief regularly on the Internet, and it hacks me off. I’m sure there is a name for it.

  329. seamaiden75 says

    #869 Actually Rickroll: Cain’s son Lamech had two wives and he was way before Abraham Genesis 4:19
    You know I never understood how any of the men in the bible could be considered holy in the least.
    Cain killed Abel
    Noah turned into a naked drunk after the flood, who cursed his sons to be turned into servants for mearly covering his naked ass up
    Lot was a drunk who slept with his two daughters and impregnated both of them while living in a cave after Sodom and Gomorrah
    Abraham pimped his wife out as his sister and not just once
    and Moses killed an Egyptian
    (I could go on and on)
    I mean holy crap if these were the best people that their invisible sky God could up with that is really sad!

  330. Wowbagger says

    Speedwell,

    If those churches did not attempt to, as a body, prompt or compel their parishioners to vote for Prop 8 and the exit polling data happened to show that they were all (for example) Mormons, and anti-8 people were jumping up and down and protesting Mormon churches and businesses then you’d be correct in your criticism. I think we’re being less generalised than that to which you’re referring.

    If we’re talking ‘members of a congregation whose faith condemns homosexuality as a monstrous sin and who were exhorted by their church leaders to vote for Prop 8 in order to preserve the god-given sanctity of the marriage of one man and one woman and that anyone who didn’t would be angering god’ then that’s actually a pretty specific group.

  331. speedwell says

    @Wowbagger: Yeah, I admit that if you define your group as “those who can be trusted to do whatever their group leaders tell them to do,” then you have a special case where the ecological fallacy does not, by definition, apply.

    I’m not here to defend Mormons or Christians, far from it… I was just taken aback that some people were giving another commenter a hard time for saying (essentially) that “group action,” when applied to individual people, is a convenient, but not quite accurate, notion.

  332. CJO says

    18 Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry.
    19 Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered.

    Entirely symbolic. The tree is Israel, which has failed to bear fruit in the presence of the lord.

    Of course, you may well be right that some misogynistic godbotherer has appealed to the passage as a condemnation of infertility generally; that would just go to show: if it’s ignorance of the bible you crave, ask a fundamentalist.

  333. says

    Granted. But as individuals we can still decide, in principle, whether or not we want to fall in with the group under discussion. I don’t think we would disagree on that.

    Agreed.

    Any scientist knows that it’s a gross fallacy to assume that, if it is (for example) 65% likely to find a behavior in a certain group, any randomly selected individual member of the group is going to exhibit that behavior in 65% of the test cases. Something may be true in the general case, but if there is any variation between individuals at all, it can’t be relied upon in specific cases.

    Again, agreed.

    But the real application of what I was trying to get out is how those trends can give meaningful data. I’m sure you’d agree that statistically it’s likely that someone born into an evangelical christian home is going to grow up condemning abortion and homosexuality. While some may be pro-choice, the ‘groupthink’ of that particular group has an influence on the thoughts of the individual. It’s that in certain social circles we can see influence that deviates away from the national average.

  334. Rickr0ll says

    Kel 875: “Or the bandwagon effect.” Or a Stand Alone Complex lol.
    Seamaiden, i get your point. Hey! Cain was the founder of civilization because he( and his incestuous kin) built the first city, Enoch. And it was only Ham that was cursed by Noah (who built the ark at 120 *eyes rolling*, although it was made out of some ‘special wood’ that is apparently a halluconogin [not that it is spelled correctly]). Yep, David had over 300 wives and ALso concubines, but they make a big deal out of Bethsheba. Nope they weren’t good, just Chosen. It’s actually hilarious, because most Jews think of it as i kind of “Quarreling Lovers” relationship (the Bible can attest).
    There was a whole special on the history channel about how god morphs thorughout the Bible, how originally it was EL, the canaanite father God that they adopted and changed the name. The there was that whole “wrestling with God” episode, then there was the burning Bush – I Am who I AM (aka Mind Your Own Damn Business), then there was that mountaintop miracle which officially discredited the other gods. Until then, the other god’s were just as real as Yehway (the serpent in the Garden was the creation god of sourounding nation). Then The Ark vanishes, then God vanishes, then Jesus (who himself wasn’t “holy” or the Son of God until Christianity had the upper hand). God is far from unchanging.
    Mormons are just a new offshoot of the Catholic Church, RCC 2.0. Baptism is central, many gods- god is not the Creator, but the ascended creation of another god, and that one is too, and so on, endless regression. Very bizarre afterlife structure (which points back to the first thing), different books of the Bible, like the Catholics. Pope figure, oppresion of Black people, political entanglements. I needen’t continue, though i could. You see i went to a christian private High School, and Mormonism was a whole week of study(as was catholicism and islam). I have a uniquely informed position on these sorts of things…

  335. Rickr0ll says

    i frogot to mention that the plauges of egypt were direct attacks on the deities of the region. Thje river turning to blood, the sun going black (ra), frogs were minor dieties. very provacative after you familiarise yourself with the information; utter nonesense, but cool mythos at any rate

  336. says

    I’m an ex-Mormon still living in Utah. I don’t think targeting Utah in general is going to help anything. It will certainly make life harder for us non-Mormons in Utah. It’s pretty recent that the state has started to view tourism as important and wanting to attract tourists has managed to start releasing the Mormon church’s grip on the state gov’t, albeit slowly. Most of the big tourism places are not run by Mormons. The best thing to do is boycott Mormon owned businesses (anywhere in the US), and not Utah in general. Utah Mormons would not think it strange for someone to ask if their’s is a Mormon owned business. There are still some Mormons here who won’t knowingly do business with non-Mormons. Down in Utah County (where BYU is located) there was a billboard up last year advertising a website that planned to specifically list Mormon owned businesses on it so that Mormons who want to patronize other Mormon businesses would have a resource to find them. I can’t recall the site name now, and I don’t know if it ever really got off the ground. The point is that the mindset is there, so take advantage of it instead of hurting all of us non-Mormons who are not bigots.

  337. John Morales says

    CJO @882, thanks. I hadn’t delved that deeply, but it sure sounds plausible. Certainly, verses 20..22 don’t clarify that :)

    I merely remember looking it up once as an example of pettiness when replying to someone who subscribed to Sola scriptura, and it stuck in my mind.

  338. Rick R says

    On another blog, I found this comment from a guy who lives in Los Angeles-

    “They keep saying
    on our local news that the Yes on 8 people are going to make
    a formal comment sometime this week as to what they think
    about the protests that have been going on.”

    Can any L.A. Pharyngulites confirm this? Please let us know if you hear anything.

    In my mind, I’m picturing a group of religious haters all red-faced and indignant because there has been a significant backlash against their bigotry-

    “All we did was lie and smear homosexuals so we could dupe innocent voters to take their rights away!! And now they’re being MEAN to us!!”

    Boo fucking HOO.

  339. pcarini says

    If we make it to 1000, the thread will achieve self-awareness. Come on, don’t quit now!

    It’d only take two dedicated trolls. Why do the Catholics come in and shit all over the Mormon bashing threads, anyway?

  340. John Morales says

    pcarini, Why do the Catholics come in and shit all over the Mormon bashing threads, anyway?Rhetorical, I know, but I’d guess (1) it’s about religion (2) there’s 1.2 billion Catholics, but only a few million Mormons (3) they’ve collaborated on Proposition 8. In no particular order.

  341. Alex O'Leary says

    Devout Mormons don’t like to talk about the white salamander incident. Read the Wikipedia entry on “Salamander letter” for the details. In short, Mark Hoffman forged a document which depicted Joseph Smith, founder and original prophet of the LDS church, taking advice from a magic white salamander. Hoffman took the letter to Gordon Hinkley, the then-current prophet-seer-revelator of the LDS church. Hinkley authenticated the letter, presumably after praying about it to get guidance from God. Now that the letter had been authenticated by the prophet, Hinkley proceeded to sell the letter. Then things get complicated. Some of Hinkley’s customers began to ask uncomfortable questions. Hinkley’s solution was to bomb them. Hinkley started building pipe bombs. He was a better forger than bomber. One bomb went off in Hinkley’s car. He now serves a life sentence for the first two bombs which killed their intended victims. With the bombings, the salamander letter was revealed to be a forgery.

    What’s worse? Founding prophet taking advice from a magic white salamander? Or the current prophet (the guy who talks to God) declaring the story to be true?

    Now you can make your own magic white salamander. This requires knitting, something which PZ has commented on in the past.

    http://www.parody.org/knitting/patterns/white_salamander/index.html

    Viewed directly, this appears to be a simple blue and white striped placemat. For those who use discernment to look at the same material from a skewed angle, the white salamander appears.

  342. Rickr0ll says

    yep, rascism against blacks may yet see a revival because of this. and That is irony per force.

  343. Rickr0ll says

    Ham actually fits right back into this equation because he was apparently the seec of the negroid populus. the mysteries never cease lol

  344. Rickr0ll says

    and no, that’s no racial slur. It’s caucoid, negriod, and some other -iod that are the three (supposed) racial archetypes in shem, ham, and Japheth. I never knew that Noah was born in Eastern Africa though, what a surprise.

  345. Michelle (the Catholic one) says

    (Chuckle) You really *do* want to know?
    I have a B.Sc. in Biochemistry, and later obtained my B.Ed. when I decided to teach. Trust me, you can have scientific interests *and* love the one true God with all your heart. Really wish you would try it. There is absolutely nothing to lose, and everything to gain here and in the next world.

  346. Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker says

    She just pulled out Pascal’s Wager.

    Yawn.

    What if you pick the wrong god?

  347. John Morales says

    Michelle the Catholic,

    Trust me, you can have scientific interests *and* love the one true God with all your heart.

    Well, you’re religious, and you’ve made ridiculous statements*, so I don’t trust you.

    But, given that PZ says exactly the same thing, and that it agrees with my own judgement, I accept that claim.

    * “Those of sincere heart, led by the Catholic Church who has never been wrong in 2000 yrs. of her history IN ALL THINGS PERTAINING TO THE FAITH, know what God wants of them.” You’re saying it’s not wrong to torture and cruelly murder heretics?

    I know you’re not consciously doing so, of course not, because you deny and compartmentalise and practice double-think. I pity you.

  348. Owlmirror says

    Trust me, you can have scientific interests *and* love the one true God with all your heart. Really wish you would try it. There is absolutely nothing to lose, and everything to gain here and in the next world.

    Religion is the sacrifice of sanity on the altar of superstition.

    You come here and scream like a madwoman about a piece of bread turning into the body of God, and break the moral code you pretend to hold to by bearing false witness, and you dare to claim that there is nothing to lose by becoming as crazy as you are.

    Feh.

  349. Wowbagger says

    Trust me, you can have scientific interests *and* love the one true God with all your heart. Really wish you would try it. There is absolutely nothing to lose, and everything to gain here and in the next world.

    I guess if you don’t consider having your kids repeatedly raped by god’s agents on earth – and having the church protect them from prosectuion so they could do it to more kids – to be a bad thing then yes, Michelle, you might be right about having ‘nothing to lose’.

    Oh, I forgot – that was just an administrative mistake, wasn’t it, Michelle. Oopsie! Sorry kids, but you’re lives are ruined. Don’t worry, god still loves you. Honest!

    The heart, by the way, is a muscle that pumps blood. It is incapable of emotions. I guess they didn’t teach you that in biochemistry.

  350. Rickr0ll says

    haven’t i been over this? Catholics are so old christian; it’s all about the mormons now. They are your progeny just like the inquisition, the corruption of europe and the current moral bankruptcy. Besides, science and christianity waved bye bye to each other in Newtons time

  351. Rickr0ll says

    The heart as the center of humanity is pagan drivel from ancient egypt. But i guess since the RCC is so STEEped in history, it forgot that there was this thing called the Age
    of Enlightenment. what’s up with this so-redeemer thing about Mary anyway? and why is Christ still hanging on the cross in your churches?

  352. Notagod says

    The mor(m)ons weren’t persecuted without cause:

    – The mor(m)ons were trying to impose their beliefs on others.

    – They were allowed to settle in certain areas but, they kept trying to encroach on areas they had agreed they wouldn’t settle.

    – Joe wasn’t lynched, he was shot during an escape attempt from jail, the escape attempt was facilitated by other mor(m)on leaders.

    – The Mountain Meadows Massacre was ordered in concept although not in specific detail by their god-idea’s words (their prophet communicates with and speaks for their god-idea.) The massacre was planned with the intent to blame it on the Indians. Only children too young to remember and talk were to be allowed to live, many children were murdered along with all adults.

    Read:
    Blood of the Prophets – Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows by Will Bagley.

    They have a myth that it is bad to use their god-idea’s “real” name (not sure of the specifics there.)

    They aren’t suppose to talk about the specifics of their temple marriage ceremony (maybe any temple ceremony.) Which includes a meeting where an elder talks to the couple about acceptable sexual practices. The couple is naked or possibly thinly veiled and should be the first time the couple see each other without clothes on.

    They have a ritual they call baptism for the death in which young girls get dunked (backwards) by males. The dead people have no choice about participation. There has been some minor concession to some Jews. That means your name is intended to be used in a mormon death ceremony, to the mor(m)ons it isn’t just your name, it is you.

    If you read the book mentioned above, with attention to their deceptive mode of operation and tactics, you will have a basic understanding of their current MO and tactics.

    They prefer to separate themselves from polygamy officially and state that the current polygamists shouldn’t be called mor(m)ons. Operationally, they just don’t want any polygamists to talk about it. Also, the polygamists have a legitimate claim to “mor(m)on” because they are living by the original rules, the “official” mor(m)ons are the ones who have broken the god-idea rules.

    Within the clan the undies do magic. Officially, to outsiders, the undies are to help them remember their vows…respect…blah, blah, blah.

    The book of mor(m)on is the official god-idea book and in practice replaces the bible.

    I’ll stop there for now.

    Suck it, jesus christ!

  353. Patricia says

    So Rickroll – Exactly what are your credentials to quote paganism?
    Trot em’ out. Let’s see what you’re made of.

  354. John Morales says

    Patricia, “The heart as the center of humanity is pagan drivel from ancient egypt.” probably refers to Ieb, and the the “Weighing of the Heart” using the “feather of Ma’at”.

    Isn’t it pagan, and isn’t it drivel from ancient Egypt?

    And why would Rickr0ll need credentials to refer to this? I know about it, and I have zero credentials.

  355. says

    Trust me, you can have scientific interests *and* love the one true God with all your heart.

    If only you could show evidence of the ‘one true God’. He’s meant to be omnipresent…

  356. seamaiden75 says

    #907 Patricia- And it Harm none do as you will.
    Blessed Be
    They live by the law of three, which is:
    The good you do will return to you three times and the bad you do will also return to you three times.

  357. seamaiden75 says

    Oh goody, Michelle (the religious one) is back! By the way Michelle I answered your question about who Phelps was on #857
    After you check it out maybe you can explain to us with the exception of perhaps picketing funerals how your views are any different from theirs.
    and
    By the way you never did answer me about what you would do or say to your child if they came and told you they were gay or an atheists or “oh no” a gay atheists?

  358. Rickr0ll says

    i don’t need credentials patricia, it’s common knowledge. They believed man was consisting of four parts (soul, name, body, mind) and that the afterlife was a constant struggle, as you had to traverse the underworld in some sort of unending journey. Tey believed man’s heart to be the source of all good and evil, but the brain (like yourself) to be a vestigidal organ. John, you appear to be the resident expert, so i’ll leave it to you, and maybe there are some more tendrils of connecting theology between egyptian paganism and Mormonism, I appreciate it

  359. John Morales says

    Patricia, Rickr0ll – I’m really no expert (though my Google-fu is not weak), but I think it unfair to avoid the opinion and question credentials, when credentials weren’t used in the claim.

    And, just to provide for quote mining, I linked to a variant of Spell 30 of the Book of the Dead, being an evil atheist and all.

  360. Rickr0ll says

    Are you all quitting?! there’s only 86 more to go (i’m sorry, i just can’t help but want to get behind this lol) Come on Patricia, iasked you about your religous beliefs, and i am curious to know about them seriously. So what if i don’t but it? don’t you still get points for witnessing? Come on, someone else help me out here too lol.

  361. Rickr0ll says

    come on guys, it Is pretty mean to all attack patricia simply because she is in the wrong place. After all, she is Trying toreconcile her faith with science; doesn’t that deserve some props? I’ll admit, Catholicism is probly the most difficult denomination to reconcile with the real world, unike others, such as eastern Orthadoxy or Christian Science, so it is not all her fault. You were probly raised catholic weren’t you patricia?
    Anyway John, could you dig up anything on the net?

  362. says

    I’m not here you go you guys can tell me what you think of the poem I came up with a few days ago.

    The Godless Garden
    Welcome to the Garden.
    There is nothing here to fear.
    No talking snakes or demons to whisper in your ear.
    Their is no god on high to make his anger known.
    The view of sin or fall of man has never been imposed.
    Their is no guilt for being born of the human race.
    In pride and self assurance the women show their face.
    Their is no fear of angering a vengeful jealous god.
    Who for this perceived crime would surely have you flogged.
    Their is no war to bring about great misery and pain.
    For this reason also there’s no need for blood to stain.
    Let us take the time to great the day with love and understanding
    for all the people young and old who’ve simply lost their bearing.
    For it is in reason and scientific knowledge
    that we can find our way again to see the truth and follow.
    Seamaiden75

  363. John Morales says

    OOT – but since this thread is now senescent, I don’t feel too bad about it.

    Rickr0ll @916, what? I’m guessing you’re referring to Michelle the Catholic, because otherwise that makes no sense.

    Patricia is my favorite strumpet here, and it’s for her to tell you (or not) as she wishes about herself.

    seamaiden75, I am antipathetic to poetry, which I consider immensely inferior to prose*, so you really don’t want my opinion. I’ve only come across two poets I like: Cuttlefish and Ogden Nash.

    * Thus revealing that I’m a Philistine and lack intellect.

  364. seamaiden75 says

    Oh well that’s ok John. Just trying to come up with something to talk about. No biggie.

  365. John Morales says

    seamaiden75, I’m glad you understand.

    One thing stands out (and I think it might be because you’ve used a spellchecker): Their -> There.

  366. Rickr0ll says

    Whoops John, you appear to be right. lol oh well. either one is fine for me i guess, anything to put it over 1000 lol. soz particia.
    I like a little poetry, but there are too many who do it on this site.It’s a little irritating and creepy lol (no offence seamaiden, i liked your lol)in the interest of sport i shall add one too i guess:

    Wintering

    If time is an illusion, what is this
    a word – winter – of cold times and warm hearts
    these are the oxymorons that hold us
    but is bondage in human time so bad?

    It is this time of primal survival
    that man forgets the primordial war –
    not mytholigical, but animal –
    Battle agaist demons with our spirit

    Even pagans knew when the spirits dwelt here
    thier unnaparent forsifght is quite strange
    did they know that our time is a closed circle?
    inexorably, beginning meets end

    our condemnation is so visable
    when the world falls away and seems to die
    cheer and joy are adamentally present
    an ironic relic of defiance

    My forte is essay writing actually. i guess now i am a slightly creeepy annotyng athiest. But i repeat myself (nothing like a little self-depreciation to lift one’s spirits).

  367. seamaiden75 says

    John-LOL! OH my gosh! Thank you for pointing that out to me. I can’t believe I didn’t notice it. I guess that just goes to show that sometimes you get so used to reading something the way it should be that you don’t notice when it’s wrong. I need to go and fix that. Oh and by the way I looked up Ogden Nash and I like him too. So thanks for mentioning it. :)
    Rickroll- Sorry wasn’t trying to be creepy. LOL. I liked your poem too. Yours is way better than mine but it’s something that I came up with as a way to start my blog. I’m extremely new to blogging like a couple of days ago and couldn’t think of good way to start it off and that popped into my head so I typed it down. At any rate thanks. :)

  368. says

    I have a B.Sc. in Biochemistry, and later obtained my B.Ed. when I decided to teach. Trust me, you can have scientific interests *and* love the one true God with all your heart. Really wish you would try it. There is absolutely nothing to lose, and everything to gain here and in the next world.

    No one ever said you couldn’t. It’s when your religion starts to creep into your science that the problem rears its ignorant blinders wearing head.

  369. Mark says

    There’s another controversy going on with the Mormon Church based on their bizarre habit of baptizing dead people into the Mormon religion. The Jews are extremely upset because the Mormons seem to be particularly obsessed with with Baptizing holocaust victims.

    http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-baptizing-the-dead,0,6260851.story

    With all the bad press they’re getting these days, what might happen if an intrepid group of people began very publicly baptizing dead Mormons into a new church based on gay rights, and maybe atheism too!

  370. Ian Gould says

    So when the Mormons say their numbers are growing, they’re only counting the LIVE recruits, right?

  371. Rob says

    Yeah, right, like any player is gonna be an atheist in D&D, where Gods actually manifest themselves and clerics have actual divine power

    Have you ever read the Garrett, PI books (Glen Cook)? Gods regularly appear there, and the main character is an atheist. He’s even been hired by gods. He figures they stay out of his business, he stays out of theirs.

  372. Lee Picton says

    Before I forget: It’s about time wowbagger was nominated for an OM. I find I pay attention to all of his posts, which are thoughtful, incisive and have a suitable amount of snark.

  373. Arthur says

    Sorry, I didn’t read the 930 comments that came before this, but I can think of a few things that Mormons would consider sacrilegious. 1)anything to do with the temple outside of the appropriate Mormon context (you can learn anything you want about the temple ceremonies online) 2)insults (preferably vulgar) directed toward Heavenly Mother (this is God’s wife, or perhaps a collective term used to refer to his many wives). There is a reference to Heavenly Mother in one of the church hymns, but most Mormons would say that the scriptures don’t talk about her to avoid sacrilegious comments about her. 3)treating the temple garments (the Mormon underwear) with a lack of respect (most Mormons think that the garments shouldn’t touch the floor, and when they wear out, you’re supposed to cut out the sacred markings and burn them and then you can throw away the rest).

    Like many other religious groups, Mormons have a persecution complex, and one problem with a public desecration is that Mormons would see it as an act of Satan (who’s trying to destroy the work of God, i.e. the Mormon church), and any perceived persecution against the church strengthens the resolve of people within the church to stay firm in the faith.

  374. Arthur says

    “So when the Mormons say their numbers are growing, they’re only counting the LIVE recruits, right?”

    Actually, the Mormon church is not growing all that fast. Mormon missionary work tends to push rapid conversion and baptism, and the result is that most people who are baptized and placed on the church rolls end up leaving the church soon afterward. But most do not actually remove their name from the membership list. Although the church claims something like 13 million members worldwide, there are only about 5 or 6 million who actually attend church and would identify themselves as Mormon.

  375. says

    #929 Norman Doering, thanks very much for posting that link; it’s well worth watching, and one can only hope that at least some “yes on H8” types might give Mr. Olbermann’s words serious consideration.

  376. says

    Arthur, as an ex-Mormon I can answer your question about how they count members. They are like the Catholics, once you get on their rolls, you’re there forever regardless of whether you attend, believe, join another church, whatever. The only way to get off their membership rolls is to either be excommunicated or resign your membership. They have this whole hoop jumping process people have to go through to resign.

    When they say they have 13 million members worldwide, they are counting everyone they have on their rolls, not just the active and believing members. However, in a press release they acknowledge that all their claimed members aren’t active, they claim about 50% are actually active and participating. Other research done by both people inside and outside of the Mormon church puts actual participating membership at about 25-33% of what the Mormons officially claim. I have articles archived below:

    http://intjmom.com/docs/religion/Mormon_numbers/sltrib_Mormon_numbers.pdf
    http://intjmom.com/docs/religion/Mormon_numbers/sltrib-LDS_worldwide.pdf
    http://intjmom.com/docs/religion/Mormon_numbers/sltrib-avewardslosemembers.pdf
    http://intjmom.com/docs/religion/Mormon_numbers/sltrib-09012005.pdf
    http://intjmom.com/docs/religion/Mormon_numbers/Mormon_statistics.pdf
    http://intjmom.com/docs/religion/Mormon_numbers/law_of_harvest.pdf

    Please feel free to archive these yourselves and pass them around if you so desire.

  377. says

    Arthur @ 932, it’s not just Mormons who do that – ever try to get out of being a Catholic? You can only get out via excommunication, and it’s a lot harder to get excommunicated than you’d think. You have to physically attack the pope or start your own schismatic sect or desecrate the eucharist in public. Writing a polite letter to your parish priest won’t cut it.

    I wonder how many of the 2 billion or whatever it is Catholics in the world are actual practicing Catholics – or deconverted like me and almost every other “Catholic” I know.

  378. says

    #906: I’m an ex-Mormon, I had a temple marriage. There is no talking to the couple about acceptable sexual practices, if someone says this happened, I’d venture they were speaking of the interviews they have to go through with their bishops in order to get a temple recommend for the wedding.

    Neither is the couple naked or thinly veiled for the ceremony. The couple has to wear their full temple endowment gear to get married, on top of the bridal dress and the man’s white suit. It’s very uncomfortable. You’ve got a robe, green apron, veil (or hat for the men) on top of your garments and either bridal gown or white suit.

    You don’t meet the wedding officiator until the ceremony starts. You get randomly assigned someone (unless your family has pull and you can request a General Authority). The ceremony itself takes about 2-3 minutes. The ceremony is memorized and said exactly, and there’s no ad libbing generally. The sealing rooms are small and only a very few close relatives and/or close friends who have temple recommends can be at the actual ceremony. Everyone else has to wait outside on the temple grounds.

  379. John Morales says

    Rob @928,

    Have you ever read the Garrett, PI books (Glen Cook)? Gods regularly appear there, and the main character is an atheist. He’s even been hired by gods. He figures they stay out of his business, he stays out of theirs.

    I think I’ve read one (I seem to recall a standard generic fantasy setting). But, how is he an atheist exactly, this hired-by-gods PI? I don’t get you, he obviously does not disbelieve their very existence.

    My point was that, in a reality where deities were, you know, actually and evidently interacting with us, only a fool would be an atheist. In this reality, well…

    It’s like in those movies, where obviously supernaturall occurrences are happening, and the purported skeptic despite all the evidence maintains her “skepticism”. It’s just wishful thinking by believers to imagine such.

  380. Rickr0ll says

    i was kidding seameaide lol. thanks for the praise. i said i liked yours though. Anyway, Norman, that was an awesome video, six stars!
    So what you’re saying is that Morsec0de, another resident atheist, may also still be catholic? wow. check out his posts at suddenly athiest. It’s a hell of a lot easier to keep up with than all these posts on this site (by the way only 64 left!!) yeah, i mean, they are the freindliest religion in terms of what they try to do to people spiritually (they have a database of names that are, or going to be, baptised, and it’s in this crazy mountain fortress designed to survive a nuclear attack. Paraniod much?) but that doesn’t mean they aren’t as reascist or homophobic as any other crazy ass religious institution

  381. Ryan Hayes says

    Sorry I’m late.
    I haven’t read the 936 comments on this topic but,

    What’s with the Utah-thrashing, PZ?

    Utah -> Mormon
    Mormon -> Utah
    This is not true.

    I’ve spent 30 of my 35 years hear in Salt Lake City, and I’m painfully aware of the pervasive Mormon influence in this state. But you’re off base lumping us all into an ignorant-sounding stereotype.

    There are free-thinking, die-hard-atheist scientists here who are big fans of your blog.
    Ouch man.

    Sure.
    Go ski Colorado.
    It leaves more for me.

  382. John Morales says

    Ryan Hayes @939,

    What’s with the Utah-thrashing, PZ?

    If he has, it’s not in this post – you’re being needlessly defensive. PZ is bashing “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”, and “now you’ve got Salt Lake City trying to turn you into a little Utah” means he considers that it’s trying to spread its influence.

    You yourself just wrote “I’m painfully aware of the pervasive Mormon influence in this state.” – are you Utah-thrashing? Because what PZ’s written is no worse than what you have.

  383. Julia says

    I have a serious question, if anyone is still listening. Wikipedia says this about interracial marriage:

    “Perez petitioned the California Supreme Court for an original Writ of Mandate to compel the issuance of the license. Perez and Davis were both Catholics and wanted to marry in a mass in a Catholic Church. One of their primary arguments was that the Church was willing to marry them, and the state’s antimiscegenation law infringed on their right to participate fully in the sacraments of their religion, including the sacrament of matrimony.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp

    Couldn’t a gay couple do something similar? Find a friendly church willing to marry them, and claim religious oppression when the state refuses to allow it? Does this make any sense, or am I not as clever as I think?

  384. Rickr0ll says

    there are such churches out there, i’m sure, and so your argument stands to reason from what i can see. Anyone who brings the matter of gay marraige up to the supreme court will be ultimately asking the same fundamental question as if it were an interracial marraige

  385. Notagod says

    #935 INTJ Mom,

    Well, the person that told me about it was an older gentleman who was married in a mormon temple, I trust him but, then I wasn’t at the mormon temple when he was married so can’t be sure.

    However, as you are surely aware mormons change their god-idea rules from time to time. Being a polygamist was very desirable and at times required to be a “good” mormon.

    Another disgusting mormon practice was proclaiming that people with black skin were marked by the mormon god-idea for doing bad things before being born. Then, one day, it was OK for black males to be preisthooders. What is that? The mormon god-idea declared the remaining black people to be the better part of those it had painted black. The mormons still believe white is better than black, its just that blacks aren’t as bad now.

    Mormons are disgusting and racists, to be a mormon they have to accept that shit as being true or, they are simply living a lie. Well, they are living a lie either way but, the one way they are even worse white mor(m)ons.

  386. Nerd of Redhead says

    Rickroll, don’t worry about 1000 posts. We hit that and more regularly during Crackergate. No door prizes for the 1000th poster. Stick around if you want. Time for bed for me.

  387. says

    Posted by: AlexT | November 9, 2008 2:08 PM

    When I voted for Prop 8 I voted to protect what I believe to be the divine institution of marriage, between a man and a woman.

    Then you made a big mistake. Prop 8 only applied to the legal institution of marriage, not the divine institution. The state of California does not have any jurisidiction over the divine institution of marriage.

  388. Rickr0ll says

    on the glass is half empty post, there is much more fruitful discussion of prop 8 actually, as to how it can be sidestepped, how it can be dismantled, ect. So look there ndt (by the way, what’s that stand for?)

  389. says

    Posted by: gypsytag | November 9, 2008 7:13 PM

    but of course, being 18 that makes them all guilty i guess..

    just like all muslims are guilty cause muslims do the suicide bombings.

    No – but Muslims who willingly belong to organizations that fund and organize suicide bombings are. Individual Mormons choose to stay member of their church and choose to tithe money that is used for political campaigns like this one.

  390. Marie the Bookwyrm says

    Rickroll @948– Have you not read the gripping Crackergate Saga? It begins with a Pharyngula post on July 8 titled IT’S A FRACKIN’ CRACKER! (Sorry, I don’t know how to post a link.) At any rate, it starts with that post, and just grows and grows from there. :)

  391. says

    President James E. Faust, Second Counselor in the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

    “Alternatives to the legal and loving marriage between a man and a woman are helping to unravel the fabric of human society. I am sure this is pleasing to the devil. The fabric I refer to is the family. These so-called alternative life-styles must not be accepted as right, because they frustrate God’s commandment for a life-giving union of male and female within a legal marriage as stated in Genesis. If practiced by all adults, these life-styles would mean the end of the human family.”

    It will unravel the fabric of human society?

    If it’s based on God’s commandment “as stated in Genesis,” then isn’t it a violation of the separation of church and state to have any law based on nothing but a religious dictate?

    http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/11/christian-love-versus-christian.html

  392. says

    One more thought from me before I head home to bed. Of course the anger against the Mormon church is justified. But remember that Prop 8 wouldn’t have passed if a majority of California voters hadn’t voted for it. They bear the responsibility for it passing.

  393. Pimientita says

    With all the bad press they’re getting these days, what might happen if an intrepid group of people began very publicly baptizing dead Mormons into a new church based on gay rights, and maybe atheism too!

    Or how about a proxy blaspheming? Someone could stand in for a dead person and then say ” I deny the Holy Spirit.”

    Dead person’s up in heaven about to gouge her eyes out from boredom when all of a sudden – Whooooosh! Straight slide down to the party in hell!

    I, for one, would be grateful :)

  394. Notagod says

    Re 954:

    President James E. Faust, Second Counselor in the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

    Alternatives to the legal and loving marriage between a man and a woman are helping to unravel the fabric of human society. I am sure this is pleasing to the devil. The fabric I refer to is the family. These so-called alternative life-styles must not be accepted as right, because they frustrate God’s commandment for a life-giving union of male and female within a legal marriage as stated in Genesis. If practiced by all adults, these life-styles would mean the end of the human family.

    The mormon James E Faust is so bushed. He has authority, supposedly, to talk to the mormon sheep but, he’s got nothing for “human society”. His devil-idea has control only over James E Faust himself. His moroni(c) life-style requires the end of the “human family”. If all adults were practicing moronists all life would be in great and elevated danger. Obviously, everyone won’t practice “these life-styles”. However, if they did it would almost certainly be an overall benefit to the human family and other animal families as well, as the human over population problem would likely be reduced. James E Faust would surely admit, if pressed, that happy healthy families exist when the moronist family is absent.

  395. Longtime Lurker says

    There will be protests in NYC outside the LDS church near Lincoln Center.

    I think that ridicule is the best weapon in this “war”. Someone should produce a gay porno about two well-scrubbed, clean-cut Mormon Missionaries who ring a doorbell, only to be answered by some big dude in a skimpy kimono who ends up converting them. The logical title would be “Latter Day Taints”.

  396. randy says

    its a good thing that the atheists are so rational in their response to Prop 8:

    Prop 8 reaction? Book of Mormon set ablaze on church door step
    The Associated Press
    Article Last Updated: 11/12/2008 03:14:09 PM MST

    LITTLETON, Colo. – A fire outside a Mormon church in Littleton is being investigated as a bias-motivated arson that may have stemmed from the church’s position on a gay marriage amendment in California.
    Arapahoe County sheriff’s deputies responded to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints about 7:15 p.m. Tuesday, some three hours after a church member found a burning copy of The Book of Mormon on a door step.
    No damage to the church was reported.
    The caller who reported the fire told authorities that an LDS regional facilities manager indicated the incident may have been in retaliation to the church’s stance on Proposition 8.
    The measure passed last week bans same-sex marriage in the California constitution.

  397. says

    The Gays in California are up in arms about the reformulation of “marriages” as civil unions – note that this would be a change in name only. They claim it is a human rights issue and liken it to the civil rights struggle. Now the irony is that the African-Americans who ended up passing Prop. 8 would probably not have even voted were it not for Obama.

  398. Rickr0ll says

    this topic has shown up in two posts now, and i still think the “glass is half empty” is muche better as far as conversation, as much as i want ot see this post hit 1000 comments. By the by, which post was it where you said “people aren’t born saying the f word” rooke? finding things on this site is always a hassle.

  399. Ryan Hayes says

    John Morales @ #941:
    Point taken, but I think a little defensiveness is warranted.
    “now you’ve got Salt Lake City trying to turn you into a little Utah.”
    “Forget that ski vacation in Park City; Colorado has great snow, too.”
    These are statements about Utah–not about Mormons. If you lived in a state where a sizable minority (majority in SLC) was trying to break free of an historical stigma, you’d be a little defensive about thoughtless statements that perpetuated that mis-characterization.
    I’m not submitting a tirade here, just a little feedback that PZ risks alienating some of his readers.

  400. waldo says

    i think what is going on here is very sad. The mormons never said they hated gays or anything of that nature. they only stated their feeling on the fact that a marriage should be between a man and a woman thats it. by the way every religion out there believes this way the only difference is that the preachers of those churches dont want to scare off anyone that might put a little money in their pockets. thats right not one person/leader of the mormon church is paid for their services. sounds pretty christ like to me. mormons love all mankind dearly and want nothing but the best for everyone. i guess it takes a real christ like person to protest on sacred grounds of another religion or to bash them in any way possible or to get something of theirs that they think of as being very sacred to them and then destroying it right in front of them. one thought is youve never seen the mormons doing any of this only thing close they’ve done to these kind of things was making a public statement of where they stood on a subject referring to marriage.

    Now why are these gay communities so upset. marriage is thought to be a sacred ceremony where the man and woman make a covenant with God!!!!!!!!!!! How many gays believe in God! im surprised if any do seeing how mainstream churches such as cath. baptists,ext. believe they are going to hell for their life styles. Now get this… Mormons dont believe that. mormons believe those gays will have a chance to correct something they couldnt control here on this earth.. i know all of this probably wont matter to any of you people because you wont look with an open mind and heart, but at least i’ve done my part to stand up for what i believe in.. yes thats right.. im a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

    I promise that anyone who will look with an open mind and heart and this church (Gods church) will know the truth in it. God will reveal it to them in personal revelation just like he did with prophets of old. I bear you my testimony that the church is true, joseph smith was a true prophet of God and Thomas S. Monson is true prophet of God. The book of mormon is a true testament of our savior.. it is a history of the people in the americas of the anchient times.. Please i beg of all you dont protest Gods church anymore repent of your wrong doings come unto the gospel and receive your eternal salvation.. these things i say humbly in the name of son Jesus Christ Aman……

  401. Nick Gotts says

    waldo, you mor(m)on bigot,
    No-one is trying to force any church to marry anyone. We are talking about civil marriage, which brings with it specific legal and administrative benefits. Your scumbag church showed its hate, it doesn’t need to state it. Now fuck off.

  402. Sastra says

    waldo #965 wrote:

    i think what is going on here is very sad. The mormons never said they hated gays or anything of that nature. they only stated their feeling on the fact that a marriage should be between a man and a woman thats it.

    That’s not the point. The Mormon beliefs about what makes a sacred marriage are beliefs that belong in their church. They are not rules for non-Mormons. What you have done is like trying to ban coffee for everyone, because some Mormons think it’s wrong to drink it.

    Mormons are learning a valuable lesson: if you take your religious belief out of your church, and try to institute them into the wider society — then you are no longer going to be “left alone.” You will be protested. Your doctrines will be ripped apart and shredded by people who don’t believe in them — because you’re trying to make those people follow them. You brought them into the light of day, and claimed they were reasonable.

    Guess what? No more hiding behind ‘faith’ and ‘respect for religion.’ You are now a political group.

    Nobody (except other Mormons) cares whether the Mormons will allow gay people to marry. It’s not our business if you refuse to allow interracial marriages, or forbid re-marriages, or marriage to someone who isn’t Mormon. It’s your temple, your rules.

    When you try to pass laws that say what not only the government, but other churches can do — you’ve stepped out of bounds. Shame on you. Shame.

    You persecute others as you were once persecuted yourself. And your chickens are coming home to roost on that.

  403. says

    Now why are these gay communities so upset. marriage is thought to be a sacred ceremony where the man and woman make a covenant with God!!!!!!!!!!!

    If that were the case, then non-christians shouldn’t be able to get married. Marriage has nothing to do with God unless you impose it there, and by opposiing Gay marriage, you are imposing God onto those who don’t want it there.

    Secular country, secular institution. You are justifying forcing your beliefs on others and rationalising away that you are doing it in their best interests.

  404. Nick Gotts says

    By the way, waldo, Joseph Smith was a professional conman, Brigham Young a mass murderer, and your church’s doctrines are perhaps the most ludicrous pile of shit anyone has ever believed anywhere, Scientology not excluded.

  405. Sastra says

    waldo was probably a drive-by, and may not even have stayed long enough to read the responses.

    I can see going to a blog I don’t normally read and stopping for a while, throwing an issue around, and eventually leaving, but the sudden gianthuge post hit-and-run makes little sense. Unless poor waldo thinks his “testimony” really is magic, and left fairy-dust in its wake, and who knows but it may someday grow a little fairy? Or, maybe, given the topic, an anti-fairy.

  406. Brandi says

    You don’t have to be a Mormon to believe that marriage is a covenant between a man and woman. My southern baptist raised lesbian mom will even admit to this. “Christians” in general should believe this. Face it, it wasn’t just Mormon voters that passed Prop 8. Someone lost and when someone is a sore loser they need a scapegoat to punish, and it seems that because the Mormon church was the only “Christian” church that stood up and stated their position on it, they’ve become the target. Not to worry though. God will deal with the other “Christians” that sat placidly by and watched. I voted for McCain in the election. Could you IMAGINE if myself and others who voted for him became so enraged because the rest of the country didn’t see it our way that we started protesting and threatening little old ladies, sending powdery substances to sacred places, and started hate blogs? You live in a democratic society. Face it. When something is put to a vote there is no guarantee it’s gonna go your way. But NOTHING excuses violence, intimidation, and my favotire of all- name calling. Calling Mormons polygamists, bigots, idiots, or whatever else does nothing but show the true character of the person slinging the words, and their intelligence or rather lack thereof. Waldo stood up for his beliefs and you called him a bigot. Who’s the bigot now Nick?

  407. says

    Face it, it wasn’t just Mormon voters that passed Prop 8.

    Of course it wasn’t, but them spending $25 million dollars to help it getting defeated was a show of a religious institution meddling in government affairs. That’s what the problem is, it’s not about scape goating at all.

  408. Sastra says

    Brandi #971 wrote:

    You live in a democratic society. Face it. When something is put to a vote there is no guarantee it’s gonna go your way.

    And when basic human rights guaranteed by the Constitution are curtailed because of narrow, sectarian religious views, then those religious views are no longer private matters of faith. They are now political views — anti-American political views — and they’re out in secular ground, and open to just criticism. This includes mockery and insults.

    What’s next? Banning marriage between atheists? It logically follows. Democracy is not about “majority rules” my dear. It is about curtailing the power of the government and the mob, and protecting the rights of the individual. When God is brought into government, then government is given the power of God. Not a good idea.

    We have the RIGHT to not be Mormon, or Christian, and follow your beliefs. We don’t have to take them seriously — no matter how sincerely you believe them. Secular Marriage is a covenant between two people, recognized by the state. NOT THE CHURCH’s BUSINESS. The Mormon church poured huge amounts of money and time into a political matter. No, they can’t sniff and whine about how this is their right. Sure it is. They now have the right to reap what they sow.

    Scorn and contempt. And open criticism.

    NOTHING excuses violence, intimidation, and my favotire of all- name calling.

    There is a huge difference between violence, intimidating threats of violence, and “name-calling.” Don;t think we can’t make the distinction. Nick did nothing violent. For crying out loud. You were called names??? Boo-fucking-hoo.

    The beliefs waldo stood up for do not stand up to the light of reason. There is an excellent case to be made that Joseph Smith was a con man. Brigham Young did indeed appear to be uncomfortably close to the Mountain Meadow massacres. And the Book of Mormon is a ludicrous farago of nonsense written in a phony-baloney 19th century imitation of King James English, with no historical backing and a great deal of evidence placing it firmly into the New England’s burned-over district’s version of New Age channelings of ancient spirits from Atlantis.

    If you want your religion taken seriously, and made into law for people not in the religion, then it’s fair game.

  409. Brandi says

    You must only use checks or credit cards. I’m sure that ‘In God We Trust’ on money must just piss you off. You live in a country that was founded on religious beliefs, and a right to exercise those beliefs. If not for that it wouldn’t be here. You live in a country where a person can cast his or her vote based on what they BELIEVE, regardless of whether they are Baptist, Mormon, Jew, Athiest or whatever.

    I’m gonna wager that you’ve never even read the book of Mormon. Am I right??

  410. Sven DiMilo says

    I’m sure that ‘In God We Trust’ on money must just piss you off.

    Speaking for myself, not for Sastra, yes, it pisses me off. It’s a clear example of government establishment of religion.

    You live in a country that was founded on religious beliefs

    Wrong. Some of the original colonies were, but the USA was founded as an explicitly secular nation.

    and a right to exercise those beliefs

    But NOT the right to make others exercise those beliefs if those others do not share them. What don’t you get about that?

    As for the Boof of Mormon, have you read any of this thread?

  411. Sastra says

    Brandi 974 wrote:

    You live in a country that was founded on religious beliefs, and a right to exercise those beliefs.

    The United States was not founded as a church, but as a secular nation for all citizens, whatever they chose to believe (or not believe) about God. The government does not take votes on whether God exists or not, and what God wants, and which churches got God “right.” These beliefs are exercised in churches. Religious rules are not imposed on people outside the religion. You should know this already.

    Yes, people can cast their vote based on what they believe — but any laws they vote for are limited by the Constitution. If you believe that it is an abomination against God for black and white to marry, you cannot vote that into law by a popular majority. Constitutional Democracy is not mob rule. It is curtailed.

    If I and my friends tried to get “There is no God” on the money, it would be wrong. It would be wrong even if we could be successful. Not because I don’t think it’s true — but because the government should not be given the power to endorse any religious viewpoint.

    That is where you and I differ, I think. I follow principle. You would object only when the view is not your own. Which is, I suppose, a sort of principle — but not one you usually endorse.

    I’m gonna wager that you’ve never even read the book of Mormon. Am I right??

    Yes, you’re right. I haven’t. I’ve read a few sections of the book itself, and some scholarly criticism of the book (and some not-so-scholarly ones — Mark Twain called it “chlorophorm in print” — which is one reason I haven’t waded through as much of it as the Bible.) Serious historians know where to place The Book of Mormon. In a fair fight and level playing field, you’re going to lose this one.

    If you find things of value in it, then it’s probably because human tales share similar themes. And because people usually get what they bring and pout into any text, or church.

  412. Owlmirror says

    I’m sure that ‘In God We Trust’ on money must just piss you off.

    Well, actually, since it’s a lie, it does bother me.

    We don’t trust in God. Even you, a believer, don’t trust in God to give value to money.

    You trust in the money itself.

    You live in a country that was founded on religious beliefs, and a right to exercise those beliefs.

    Half wrong, half right. The country was founded on secularism, which specifically means the free exercise of all beliefs and lack of beliefs.

    You live in a country where a person can cast his or her vote based on what they BELIEVE, regardless of whether they are Baptist, Mormon, Jew, Athiest or whatever.

    Yes, and they can also cast their vote on whether they hate Baptists, hate Mormons, hate Jews, hate Atheists, or hate anyone who differs from what they think is the “right” religion or behavior or race or appearance. However, the ability to cast that vote does not give them the right to deprive those they hate of rights — which is exactly the agenda of the “Yes on 8” campaign, no matter how they downplayed it or hid it.

    And hidden hatred is your agenda as well. May your agenda fail.

  413. says

    I’m sure that ‘In God We Trust’ on money must just piss you off. You live in a country that was founded on religious beliefs, and a right to exercise those beliefs.

    Actually the US was founded on the separation of church and state, that the right to exercise those beliefs could only be guaranteed by making sure the state had no role in the church.

    And as for “In God We Trust” it was only added to the money in the 1950s.

    You live in a country where a person can cast his or her vote based on what they BELIEVE, regardless of whether they are Baptist, Mormon, Jew, Athiest or whatever.

    Anyone can vote on what they believe, but the church is barred from interfering in the political process. In this case, the Mormon church broke the separation of church and state by not only taking a stance on a political issue, but fiscally supported it.

    I’m gonna wager that you’ve never even read the book of Mormon. Am I right??

    I’ve never read the egyptian book of the dead, but if someone came to me spouting that Horus is the virgin birth child of the Sun god, then I’ll think they are a nutter. Just like I think that anyone who believes that Jesus was in America is an absolute nutter.

  414. Wowbagger says

    Brandi wrote:

    You don’t have to be a Mormon to believe that marriage is a covenant between a man and woman.

    Brandi, I’m not very familiar with the bible. Can you please tell me where in the bible marriage is defined specifically as a covenant between a man and a woman?

  415. Brandi says

    Let the Church speak for itself:

    SALT LAKE CITY 5 November 2008 COMMENTARY

    Since Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot in June of this year, the citizens of California have considered the arguments for and against same-sex marriage. After extensive debate between those of different persuasions, voters have chosen to amend the California State Constitution to state that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

    Voters in Arizona and Florida took the same course and amended their constitutions to establish that marriage will continue to be between a man and a woman.

    Such an emotionally charged issue concerning the most personal and cherished aspects of life — family, identity, intimacy and equality — stirs fervent and deep feelings.

    Most likely, the election results for these constitutional amendments will not mean an end to the debate over same-sex marriage in this country.

    We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

    It is important to understand that this issue for the Church has always been about the sacred and divine institution of marriage — a union between a man and a woman.

    Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

    Some, however, have mistakenly asserted that churches should not ever be involved in politics when moral issues are involved. In fact, churches and religious organizations are well within their constitutional rights to speak out and be engaged in the many moral and ethical problems facing society. While the Church does not endorse candidates or platforms, it does reserve the right to speak out on important issues.

    Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.

    P.S. Sven I was asking Sastra if he/she had read The Book of Mormon personally. Being able to spout a bunch of nonsense about two prophets and nonsense about the Book doesn’t mean one has read it. A person can find that sorta garbage anywhere. And as for the US being founded as a secular nation- what highschool or college history class did you take because someone lied to you.

    In any case folks- God Bless you all. When you die and go to the afterlife I hope I’m the one that meets you there and gets to teach you the truth that you so vehemently deny here. Christ loves you very much and one day you’re going to know exactely how much. Goodnight.

  416. Owlmirror says

    I haven’t read the book of Mormon, but I have read essays by ex-Mormons on why they, who had read the book of Mormon, found the book of Mormon to be filled with lies and nonsense.

    Such as this:

    http://nielsenhayden.com/GodandI.html

    The book of Mormon makes empirically false claims about the First Nations; the indigenous inhabitants of the North and South American continents, claiming that they came from the Middle East, despite all of the archaeological evidence against such a claim, and, more recently, the genetic evidence against that claim.

  417. Nerd of Redhead says

    Brandi, your imaginary god won’t bless us because he doesn’t exist. Poor deluded godbot.

    Brandi obviously believes in the tyranny of the majority. Time to make her religion the minority, then let them scream to high heaven when their rights are trampled. Payback can be a bitch. Which is why her church has to respect other peoples rights now.

  418. Owlmirror says

    No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

    Pity the entire proposition and the campaign were utterly dishonest, and based on erroneous information.

    In fact, churches and religious organizations are well within their constitutional rights to speak out and be engaged in the many moral and ethical problems facing society.

    And they should therefore pay taxes on the profits they make, just like any organization that tries to change society does.

    Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians.

    And that is a lie, plain and simple. If the church were simply opposed to same-sex marriage, then all they had to do was proclaim that the Church would not perform same-sex marriages, and that would be the end of it.

    Once they try to get their religious policy made the law of the land, they are acting in utter hostility toward gays and lesbians.

  419. says

    In any case folks- God Bless you all. When you die and go to the afterlife I hope I’m the one that meets you there and gets to teach you the truth that you so vehemently deny here. Christ loves you very much and one day you’re going to know exactely how much. Goodnight.

    In the words of the great pharaoh Bender: “Afterlife? If I thought I had to go through a whole other life I’d kill myself right now.”

    Also, why do fundies think that reading holy texts will tell you about their religion? All it does it tell stories, to find out about the people who started Mormonism, the best tool is to use the discipline of history. Reading the book of Mormon will not tell you about that horny old fraud.

  420. Sastra says

    Brandi #980 quoted:

    It is important to understand that this issue for the Church has always been about the sacred and divine institution of marriage — a union between a man and a woman.

    Yes, I’d already read this. And as much as the Churches protest, this issue is NOT about ‘the sacred and divine institution of marriage.’ Those issues are taken care of in churches, and private forms of spirituality. It’s about secular marriage, and the separation of church and state.

    We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

    Violence and force are wrong — they’re criminal. But if the churches think that this means they can’t be “vilified” they’re out of luck.

    I don’t think they quite realize what they’ve done. This wasn’t even a matter of trying to legalize gay marriage. Gay marriage WAS legal — and they took it away. There’s a psychological difference, there. Loving couples who planned on making lifetime marriage commitments had to cancel. It’s the difference between your boyfriend not asking you to marry him, and your boyfriend leaving you are the altar, in your wedding dress.

    People are pissed. And rightfully so. And they’ve got the Constitution, and principle, and freedom, and love, on their side.

    You will lose. It is only a matter of time. You cannot fight all of them.

    Sorry, but this apologetic speech — and your arguments — suck. They fail. Welcome to the real world, where people aren’t desperately bending over backwards trying to squeeze some sort of sense and meaning out of absurdities they want to believe in, that they make allowances. No “erroneous information?” Coming from the Mormon Church, that is ironic. They’re wide open.

  421. Patricia says

    I have the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Bible, the Gnostic Gospels, Lady Cottington’s Book of Pressed Fairies, and enough pagan books to choke ten Clydesdale’s – so if anyone needs a look up – my home library is pretty good.

    The Book of Mormon is here somewhere…. wanders off… Koran… damned House Elves…

  422. Owlmirror says

    And as for the US being founded as a secular nation- what highschool or college history class did you take because someone lied to you.

    No. Someone lied to you.

    This is what Christian laws looked like in the Americas:

    1. If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other god, but the lord god, he shall be put to death.

    2. If any man or woman be a witch, (that is hath consulteth with a familiar spirit,) they shall be put to death.

    3. If any person shall Blaspheme the name of god, the father, Son or Holy Ghost, with direct, express, presumptuous or high handed blasphemy, or shall curse god in the like manner, he shall be put to death.
  423. Wowbagger says

    The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians.

    The best way to understand the blatant hatred of the church toward gays and lesbians is to substitute other expressions for ‘same-sex marriage’ and seeing what you get.

    For example:

    ‘The Church’s opposition to protection under the law neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians’

    or

    ‘The Church’s opposition to equal pay for equal work neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians’

    or

    ‘The Church’s opposition to right to food and shelter neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians’

    Your church’s bigotry and hostility are plain to see; its actions have illustrated that. You and your people hate gays and consider them second class citizens, and you think you should be allowed to persecute them and treat them differently because your nonsensical, made-up religion says so.

    Why do you keep denying it?

  424. Patricia says

    If you want to know the true skinny on that old fraud Joseph Smith, there is an older book by, I think, Fawn Brodie (from memory) called ‘No Man Knows My History’. I recommend it highly. Your local library should have it.

    While I laugh at Mormons for their bullshit theology, I do thank them for the Family History Library in Temple Square, in Salt Lake City. I’ve made three journey’s there, and every time I was treated well, and learned much.

  425. says

    “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their “legislature” should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” – Thomas Jefferson

    As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. – Treaty of Tripoli

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” – US Constitution

    Yep, not secular. *roll*

  426. Sven DiMilo says

    I don’t know who these guys Jefferson, Constitution, and Treaty are, but they’re lying to you.

  427. says

    Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

    I would like to know how it would infringe on the “tranditional family”.

  428. Wowbagger says

    I would like to know how it would infringe on the “traditional family”.

    Apparently, teh gays make baby jesus cry, and if you believe in him you have to listen to the little prick bawl.

  429. Patricia says

    Hold it – gawd does hate the lesbians.

    Go to Romans 1:26 – For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.

    And in the next verse gawd has a go at the men –
    Romans 1:27 – And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

    To get the full flavor of this bullshit read all of Romans 1:21-32.

  430. Sastra says

    I used to read the personal accounts of deconversion at “Recovery From Mormonism,” and found them addictively fascinating (the top link where it says Index of Stories Ex-Mormon)

    http://www.exmormon.org/

    It wasn’t so much the information on LDS itself that drew me (I know few Mormons, and like the ones I do know), as it was the insight it gave into how people believe a religion — and how they think their way out of it. It’s like examining faith as an anthropologist on field study.

    This isn’t a propaganda site for “true Christianity” — the former Mormons end up in different places, spiritually, including atheism — and there’s a lot of positive things said about the Church, along with the negative. The personal narratives are sometimes painstaking and painful in their discussion of the process of reasoning that goes on — and what they have to give up, emotionally and intellectually — and in some cases, family-wise. It’s also curious to note what their reasons are for stopping the rationalizing process at a particular point, if they do.

    I picked up a fair amount of info on specific problems with doctrine, but it was the psychological angle that really interested me. Mormonism is more clearly falsifiable than many religions — but the mindset is probably similar with other churches. And there’s a lot of variation, even though it’s supposed to be the same religion.

    It’s one of the sites I go to when I want to sit back and just read something interesting.

  431. Wowbagger says

    To get the full flavor of this bullshit read all of Romans 1:21-32.

    Ugh, do I have to? Can’t I read something fun instead? I borrowed David Attenborough’s autobiography Life on Air from the library; I guarantee that’s going to be a lot more useful and interesting. And it’s got pictures!

  432. Patricia says

    Wowbagger – Nope you don’t have to read another word of it – I post the entire set of verses so that loons like Pilty or Fool can’t say I took the scripture out of context.

    Also, sometimes it helps to be armed with the verses when christian terrorists show up at your door. They never expect you to know the verses that they don’t – and trust me, they don’t.

  433. Owlmirror says

    Go to Romans 1:26 – For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.

    But note the reverse of cause and effect: First God doesn’t like them so he punishes them by making them go “against nature”.

    And does “against nature” mean lesbianism?

    Maybe it just means that they wanted to be on top instead of on bottom. Or try something a little different.

    “Aaagh! You want to do it like that? And with those? And over there? That’s against nature!!!!!”