Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
I will no longer be tolerant of
other religions 26%
unwed mothers 11%
single sex familys 5%
drug users 12%
baby kilers 25%
homosexual behavior 19%

Votes: 88

 What shall we give up for Lent?

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Feb 12, 2002
 Comments:
As we approach the holiest season, we will be asked what we intend to give up for Lent. Instead of the usual namby-pamby sacrifices (chocolate, wine, televised sports) let's do something more drastic. For this Lenten season, I ask that you consider giving up tolerance.
religion

More stories about Religion
Holes
Is Catholicism to be tolerated?
Wicca - a scientific, Christian approach to the problem
Winning The Battle Against Pornography
Christianity isn't working in the USA; Is Islam the answer ?
The Scriptural Proof of Extraterrestrial Life
The Revival of the Ancient Ways
The Problem is You - Not Religion
We are all children of Adam and Eve
A Taliban Warlord answers YOUR questions.
Islam: What is it?
Kill Yr Idols: God
Have a Right Halloween!
Religion: The Appendix of Modern Society
The Evil of Harry Potter
Islam is not the enemy
Happy Birthday Christ!
Bloody Sunday, Bloody Right!
Reclaiming St. Patrick's Day
The Proselytizing Atheist
Let us pray for the priests and victims of sexual abuse
The Incontrovertible Existence of God
Tolkien, Star Wars and Jesus Christ
World Youth Day: An Alarming Report

More stories by
Adam Rightmann

My husband wants to do my ass!
Rock Star: Headbanging Nights
Saluting American Heroes on Flight 93
We are all children of Adam and Eve
I'm a teenager, and I want it bad!
I have not had relations for months!
My neighbors are foreigners, and they don't fly a flag
Have a Right Halloween!
Should we circumcize our boy?
My wife hungers for dark meat, and my nephew is a Commie!
My husband wants me shorn!
My inlaws are not fertile!
Help save a baby, and snowballs
Reclaiming St. Patrick's Day
Let us pray for the priests and victims of sexual abuse
Why can't I get a second date?
I want a mistress!
My roommate is gay! My roommate is a drunk.
What, give up tolerance? Isn't the hallmark of our enlightened age a greater appreciation for diversity, an increased tolerance for differences? Well, this enlightened age is really a cess pool of moral turpitude in which we are stading up to our necks, and the feces are rising. For this I blame too much tolerance.

To start with, let's have less tolerance of other religions. As a member of the true Church, you know that all non-Catholics are doomed to eternal agony in the pits of sulforous hellfire, and non-practicing Catholics and Catholics who die in a state of sin need to spend eons in purgatory. So if you really care about your nice agnostic cube mate, your nice Jewish pediatrician, your sister who's obviously using birth control and your swell neighbor who worships at a heretical Baptist church, are you going to sit there and let them head for an eternity of torment, or are you going to try to bring them into the true Church? Offer to bring them to Mass (let them know ahead of time that they have to leave at Communion, of course), explain the history of the true Church, offer to babysit their children Sunday morning, whatever it takes.

How about less tolerance of unwed mothers. Back in the days, an unwed mother would drop her baby off at an orphanage. Sure, it was heartbreaking, but a lot of orphans grew up to be productive citizens, and a lot of people became parents who couldn't. Nowadays, unwed motherhood is practically a career option. Drop out of high school, have a few kids and pull in the government checks. So what if your girls grow up to be immoral sluts, and you boys grow up to be misogynist, irresponsible gang members, it's not your problem. Just subtly talk about the nice people who would love to adopt children, and the irreparable spiritual harm done to a child growing up in a single parent household.

Let's have less tolerance of drug users. George Dubya Bush may be a snake-handling, murdering, cowardly moron, but he hit the nail right on the head when he read the speech his handlers gave him on drug users being terrorists. Did you know that in most major cities, you can buy marijuana smoking materials right on Main Street? For a small fee, you can use the license plate number of one of these dope-head customers and get their address from the DMV. It's but a short step to calling the police for strange odors and loud music coming from their house or apartment. The potheads may hate you at first, but after they've cleaned up and licked the evil weed, they will be grateful.

Let's have less tolerance of baby killers. In addition to the picketing of abortionists and the racists supremacists at Planned Parenthood, how about picketing the pharmacies and groceries that sell the Pill, and condoms and sponges.

Let's have less tolerance of homosexual behavior. Sure, perhaps your cross to bear is a perverted sexual inclination towards a member of the same sex. You are a far greater person if you resist that temptation; and with prayer, cold showers and exercise, you will be able to resist it.

Now, many of you are wondering what chance a small, persecuted minority like us Catholics have of influencing America. Well, you have to start somewhere, why not with us. I say we make our stand at the bottom of this pit of moral relativism, and strive for a more moral America from now on!

See you in Church tomorrow!

       
Tweet

Bah (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by westgeof on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 10:19:37 AM PST
I say give up christianity altogether for lent. What the world need is more people willing to think for themselves, to show kindness towards others, and to be open to new ideas; all things prohibited by this religion.

It's sad that something that was begun in the true spirit of idealism and hope has been corrupted by an organization that goes against that idealism in evey way.

(Note that although I speak against christianity here, I don't think much more about any other religion. And for the record, I'm not an atheist, just agnostic. I'm sure there is something out there, but I doubt that whatever that being is, it doesn't need to be filtered through greedy and selfish individuals or organizatons to reach me.)


As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

Brilliant. (1.00 / 1) (#6)
by tkatchev on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 10:52:45 AM PST
So. If I understand what you are trying to say, the best way to start thinking for yourself is to buy wholesale into a suspicous, pervasive ideology. Am I getting the hang of this "free thinking" business? You know, I awfully want to be a free thinker, but I'm afraid I don't have much practise with this activity. Can you give me some instructions on how best to become a free thinker? Thank you very much. I await eagerly.


--
Peace and much love...




Oops. (1.00 / 1) (#7)
by tkatchev on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 10:54:41 AM PST
"Practice", of course. Sorry.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Not at all (none / 0) (#13)
by westgeof on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 11:57:22 AM PST
It seems to me if you'r intelligent enough to put words in my mouth, then surely you are also capable of understanding how to think for yourself. I may be wrong, but I always thought it was rather simple.

Believe it or not, I don't have any conspiracy theories floating around my brain, and I don't conform to anyone's idea of what I should be like. As you so sarcastically put it, many so-called 'free-thinkers' are simply slaves to an alternative brainwashing.

If you weren't being sarcastic, though, and would like some advice on how to think freely, I can give two golden rules.
  • Rule number one, if someone tells you to think something, odds are you shouldn't. There's nothing wrong with a convincing argument, while there is everything wrong with being forced to think something.
  • Rule number two: when in doubt, just don't think. Don't think consciously, that is, and listen instead to your unconscious. Overanalyzing something is often not good for you, and tends to promote crowd following, as it is usually the 'safest' path.



As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

 
Ooh! I got one hint! (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by elenchos on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 12:08:21 PM PST
Free thinkers do not react to labeling, such as "you are a liberalist", as if it were an argument. This means that they don't change their minds just because some guy came along and called them a name. Instead, free thinkers give weight to conclusions that are supported by a logically-related set of points.

Practice that one a bit and maybe later I'll give you another.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Oh. (1.00 / 1) (#18)
by tkatchev on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 12:34:26 PM PST
I see. Effectively, you are saying that logic is the measure of all things.

I'll remember that when I fall in love, or if I happen to be dying of starvation.

Glad you gave so much meaning to my life.


--
Peace and much love...




I said that!? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by elenchos on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 12:42:07 PM PST
I thought I said "give weight to". Is that really the same as "measure of all things by"?

Look, if English really gives you so much trouble, just say so, and we will make some special handicap rule for you, so as to avoid this kind of embarassment. Perhaps you should find someone who is fluent in both Russian and English to review your comments and fix them up before you post them.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Sir, (1.00 / 1) (#32)
by tkatchev on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 09:47:09 PM PST
You are starting to act edgy for some reason.

Perhaps it is your troubled conscience speaking?


--
Peace and much love...




your attack (none / 0) (#75)
by rsknapp on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 04:44:37 PM PST
"ad hominem" is not an argument!


When have I ever argued rationally? (none / 0) (#77)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 03:53:33 AM PST
Really. I consider logical arguments beneath me.

Logic is the crutch of the simple-minded.


--
Peace and much love...




I agree (none / 0) (#80)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 05:37:21 AM PST
Really. I consider logical arguments beneath me.

I agree. No self-respecting politician would use a logical argument when an emotionally loaded, bandwagon-jumping argument would work so much better.

If you want to convince the masses, deception and trickery is the way to go. If that doesn't work, threat of force is the all-curing panacea. History proves this.
An unreformed Aristotlean


yep, we'd all be much wiser if we stopped (none / 0) (#81)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 05:45:04 AM PST
trying to prove stuff with logic.

I agree. No self-respecting politician would use a logical argument

That's because rational argument never convinced anyone of anything they didnt "feel" was true to begin with.


so... (none / 0) (#83)
by derek3000 on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 05:59:38 AM PST
everything that we 'feel' to be right is right? That's the worst foundation for a philosophy I've ever heard.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Philosophy... (none / 0) (#84)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 06:58:14 AM PST
Philosophy is a crutch for those who have serious problems interacting with society. It makes these people feel like they aren't complete failure.

P.S. I don't mean to insult anyone who is involved in philosophy. I merely meant those people who believe that philosophy is an end-all-be-all foundation of life. Everything is good in moderation -- philosophy g**ks can be even more pathetic than software g**ks.


--
Peace and much love...




I agree. (none / 0) (#85)
by derek3000 on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 07:17:28 AM PST
But what does that have to do with what I said?


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
Re: (none / 0) (#86)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 07:40:15 AM PST
What I meant is:

You are correct -- that would be a horrible foundation for a system of philosophy. It would also be a very useful way of leading a balanced, holistic lifestyle.

If I had to choose between philosophy and lifestyle, I would choose lifestyle. I think any healthy person would agree with me, no?


--
Peace and much love...




Getting to know you. (none / 0) (#101)
by derek3000 on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 11:05:54 AM PST
I knew you would say that! I don't mean that in a bad way, either.

Your idea that our conscience is the voice of God is very interesting. But don't you think that it could be shaped/distorted by different cultures and religions? Just a thought.

One more question--and try to 'unload' it, because I can't exactly say it a certain way through this medium: How do you know that the Bible is the word of God? I know a lot of people who post here are hypocritical when it comes to knowing exactly what it is that God 'wants' for us; i.e. a troll saying "How do you know God doesn't like abortions? God would want everyone to accept each other," etc.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

"The word of God". (none / 0) (#102)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 12:00:57 PM PST
But don't you think that it could be shaped/distorted by different cultures and religions?

I don't "think", I know this for a fact. In any case, we are all guilty on some level. Learning to be honest with yourself is just the first step.

As for the second part: if by the phrase "word of God" you mean "literally from God's mouth" than no, that is a ridiculous and satanic concept. Only heretical fundamentalists believe that. (i.e. Snake-handlers and muslims.) I'd be surprised to know how little these people represent true Christianity.

The Bible is a holy book in the sense that it is divinely inspired -- meaning that even though it was written by actual, living people, for actual, living people, it has been imbued with divine grace[1].

[1] Interpret that as you wish; I don't have any intention on making this harder on you than it needs be.


--
Peace and much love...




Substitute: "You'd be..." for "I'd (none / 0) (#103)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 12:03:29 PM PST
Sorry.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Um... (none / 0) (#104)
by derek3000 on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 12:30:11 PM PST
[1] Interpret that as you wish; I don't have any intention on making this harder on you than it needs be.

Are you being condescending? Just wondering. I would be pissed if you were.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

No, not at all. (none / 0) (#105)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 12:52:51 PM PST
I just seriously do not want to sound pedantic.


--
Peace and much love...




 
that's *your* incorrect inference (none / 0) (#90)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 08:15:17 AM PST
It isnt what I wrote.

everything that we 'feel' to be right is right?

No, but "rational argument never convinced anyone of anything they didnt "feel" was true to begin with." (Although I fail to see how any putative truth isnt based on faith.)


Rational argument (none / 0) (#121)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 03:00:37 PM PST
I think I see what you mean. In other words, you couldn't convince me that the earth is flat with any amount of rational argument; the belief (which, as far as I know, happens to be true) that the earth is round is too firmly held by me.


 
can it be? (none / 0) (#25)
by nathan on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 01:56:15 PM PST
I doubt that whatever that being is, it doesn't need to be filtered through greedy and selfish individuals or organizatons to reach me.

Martin Luther! I thought you were dead!



Oh wait. You are.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

My friends call me 'Marty' (none / 0) (#39)
by westgeof on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 05:36:56 AM PST
Actually, I am not the reincarnated spirit of Martin Luther, nor will I be nailing and lists of grievences to and doors. However, I guess you could classify me as a protestant, just in the most extreme sense. I don't believe in any religions, I feel they simply pervert any spiritual nature one might have. I'm a much bigger fan of getting in touch with God on your own. My spirituality is my business, not that of some priest who, odds are, doesn't follow what he preaches.


As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

but! but! (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by nathan on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 06:28:50 AM PST
My spirituality is my business, not that of some priest who, odds are, doesn't follow what he preaches.

Priests are only human too. On the other hand, there are good reasons for there to be an authoritative, historically legitimate body in control of doctrine. The Catholic and Orthodox churches, whatever faults they may have, are repositories of a vital, 2000-year-old philosophical dialogue. It's kind of shocking to watch fundamentalists today rehashing theological issues that was decisively solved[1] such a long time ago.

[1] By 'solved,' I mean that the more repellent or philosophically inept concepts were weeded out of them, leaving solid thinking behind.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

relativism (none / 0) (#45)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:00:22 AM PST
The Catholic and Orthodox churches, whatever faults they may have, are repositories of a vital, 2000-year-old philosophical dialogue.

They certainly are!

It's kind of shocking to watch fundamentalists today rehashing theological issues that was decisively solved[1] such a long time ago.

There's a well known phrase, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it". I mean, you think by now mankind would have tired of wars, but there's always some convincing reason to have another one, and lo and behold, more people are murdered in the name of one power or another.

The main problem people have with churches and movements and religions are not their theological heritage, but their political nature. Perhaps you should explore this aspect as much as you have obviously explored the theological and philosophical aspects.


Sorry (none / 0) (#48)
by Right Hand Man on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:19:15 AM PST
more people are murdered in the name of one power or another

No one is murdered in a war, at least not in the sense you are trying to convey. They are killed, for sure, but not murdered.

The main problem people have with churches and movements and religions are not their theological heritage, but their political nature

Not all churches have a political component. Check out one of the many commonly known as Churches of God with Signs Following. Those I have visited engage in no political activism and generally stay well out of the affairs of government. While you may seem some things as having a political motivations, attacks on abortion providers for instance, they are really just our attempts to do the work asked of us by God.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Politics (none / 0) (#51)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:49:47 AM PST
No one is murdered in a war, at least not in the sense you are trying to convey. They are killed, for sure, but not murdered.

What about civilians, or people forced to draft against their will? These people did not choose to engage in combat, yet their lives were stolen from them by their fellow man. As I'm sure you'll agree, the right to end another's life is a power belonging to God alone.

I have visited engage in no political activism and generally stay well out of the affairs of government.

My dear fellow, politics is found in more places than just goverment. Certainly, the lion's share of politics is found there, but politics can be found in all areas of life, including churches. For example:
  • Who owns the land the church is built on? Who permitted the church to be built? Who owns the church?
  • Who gives the sermons? If that person retires or passes away, who replaces him? Who chooses the replacement?
  • Are their collections taken from the congregation? Who banks the collection? Who chooses what the money is spent on?
I do not know the answers to these questions, as I have not been to the church you mention. But the answers to these questions reveal the political nature of the church.

While you may seem some things as having a political motivations, attacks on abortion providers for instance, they are really just our attempts to do the work asked of us by God.

Yes, that may be the case, but this would still be a political statement. Perhaps the shrewdest faith-based organisation would be the Freemasons. These people have taken the political stance of not officially passing comment on any public matters, thus ensuring their political survival for thousands of years with no bloodshed.


 
Didn't Karl Marx say that? (none / 0) (#57)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 08:24:41 AM PST



the quote is (none / 0) (#58)
by nathan on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 08:40:52 AM PST
Santayana: "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

I may just have been trolled, but that's a risk I will have to live with.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

My Bad (none / 0) (#63)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 10:43:03 AM PST
That sounded suspicially like Historical Materialims, but I would not accuse you of buying into that sin


 
re (1.00 / 1) (#70)
by PotatoError on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 02:46:39 PM PST
"By 'solved,' I mean that the more repellent or philosophically inept concepts were weeded out of them, leaving solid thinking behind."

You mean religion accepts the scientific method??

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

science is not above criticism (1.00 / 1) (#71)
by nathan on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 03:07:44 PM PST
And you are NOT free to continue quoting me out of context for obnoxious trollery. My signature will now reflect this.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

hmm (2.50 / 2) (#89)
by PotatoError on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 08:06:55 AM PST
and

The above post is , and the sole and sovereign property of PotatoError, it may not be copied or included in any post in any way without the prior permission of PotatoError.

religion is not above criticism either.

"And you are NOT free to continue quoting me out of context for obnoxious trollery. My signature will now reflect this."


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
very good comment (1.00 / 2) (#69)
by PotatoError on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 02:41:58 PM PST
yes you speak what religion really is.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Not enough! (none / 0) (#93)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 02:51:41 PM PST
Give up religion, tolerance and humanism.
These are the most glorified virtues, and you should not go for anything less on lent. What more could you sacrifice on lent?


 
hell yea (none / 0) (#124)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 12:12:33 AM PST
I agree with you 100%


 
Omission from the article (none / 0) (#3)
by Yossarian on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 10:24:14 AM PST
Excellent and thought-provoking article -- you neglected to mention onanism though. It may be less serious than the other sins you mention above -- an onanist only sends himself to hell, but a Mormon or a single mother can condemn their entire family to eternal damnation. However, it is probably the most overlooked sin in these shameless times that we live in. Having struggled with it myself, I know how insidious it is...


Spelling Error in Subject (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by jvance on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 11:53:56 AM PST
That should read "Emission from the article."

HTH

jvance
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
Beautiful (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Right Hand Man on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 10:44:13 AM PST
With the exception of the entire third paragraph, and the possibility that the second sentence of the fifth paragraph is blasphemous, this is by far the best article I have ever read on this internet, at Adequacy or otherwise.

For years I have spoken out against tolerance. All of this 'open your mind' crap is just marginally disguised newspeak for rolling over and accepting any sort of deviant behavior some mentally impoverished person might think up. I say screw opening your mind, it only serves to allow unfiltered sin to come pouring in. What we all really need is to take a step back and look at things for what they are, then strike back with all of the fury we can muster at the damnable, Godless, heathens. But I'm only restating the points made in this article.

It is high time that right thinking men stood up made their presence known. Your lot might be to take one of the suggestions made by Mr. Rightmann, or it might be to step outside those bourdaries and be a little more hands on, you'll never know unless you make the decision to draw a line in the dirt and defend it.

Also, is it possible to vote for more than one option in a poll? I am unfamiliar with the workings of the thing but I was not able to simultaneously choose every single option and, although I placed my vote against the bottom of the barrel, baby killers, I despise all of them equally.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

 
Less "creative theology" next time, OK? (none / 0) (#5)
by tkatchev on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 10:48:23 AM PST
The Church has very clear guidelines for how to best approach Lent. Our ancestors have perfected the procedure for hundreds of generations before us, so the less you invent yourself, the better for your soul.

Trust me, our ancestors were much smarter than we are today. They knew what they were doing.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Question about Lent. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by hauntedattics on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 10:56:46 AM PST
Mr. Rightmann:

Is it acceptable to talk about what you gave up for Lent? A friend of mine once gave up chocolate for Lent, and reminded me every day what a big sacrifice she'd made and how great she was for making it...usually while I was eating chocolate.

Isn't there some sort of rule against that kind of behavior? It seems rather prideful to me...

Sincerely,
Haunted and Vexed



Prideful, and street cornerish, too (none / 0) (#17)
by Adam Rightmann on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 12:27:00 PM PST
Being a sinful human, I often think cynical thoughts about those who are so fervent in their prayers and sacrifices, almsot a praying on street corner kind of thing. To be charitable, perhaps your friend was looking for spiritual help in avoiding the temptation of chocolate. As for myself, I try to keep my Lenten sacrifices between myslef, the Lord, and a priest.


A. Rightmann

How close are you to your priest Adam? (4.33 / 3) (#27)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 02:26:36 PM PST
It seems that most of your ignorance stems from the fact that you were once (or more often) molested by your priest. Is this possible or do you think I may be off base. The priest molestion thing is very common and I am sure there are many support groups to chose from.

Joe


What?? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by hauntedattics on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 06:03:06 AM PST
Oh, now I get it! Priest...child molester...wow, that's really clever and so unexpected. I never would have thought that some bonehead would automatically equate all Catholic priests with child molesters, just based on what he or she reads in the mainstream press.

For all so-called 'liberal' people talk about tolerance and open-mindedness, it only seems to extend to others who are just like themselves. Convenient. Just like this butthead who makes me embarrassed to call Washington, DC my birthplace. Disgusting.

[Ahem] Done with my rant. Back to smiling, mild-mannered girl. Pardon the interruption.


Adam? was that you? (none / 0) (#49)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:39:49 AM PST
Posing as a girl and using a different name does little to convince me that I am off base. I did not mention all catholic priests nor did I claim I am liberal or openminded. I do believe their is help for you if only you get beyond this denial. Perhaps you have buried the molestation deep into your mind and no longer remember it. Again, seed a group which will help you.


No, hauntedattics is a young woman in Boston (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:49:39 AM PST
I am in upstate New York. Believe it or not, there is more than one person on this site who believes the vast majority of priests are upright, celibate men who can provide you with much spiritual guidance.

Why would I need an alter-ego to push my viewpoints when I could just abuse my editorial privileges and silence you?


A. Rightmann

So you actually believe what you post? (none / 0) (#54)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 08:04:53 AM PST
I thought this was a JOKE! LMAO


Nasty. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by hauntedattics on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 03:14:35 PM PST
Sir or madam, please pick your ass up off the floor or I will step on it. Thank you kindly.



 
Addendum (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by hauntedattics on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 03:23:06 PM PST
Oh, and one more thing - fuck off and die.

Luv,
Haunted




 
True (none / 0) (#56)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 08:20:20 AM PST
Believe it or not, there is more than one person on this site who believes the vast majority of priests are upright, celibate men who can provide you with much spiritual guidance.

Absolutely. It is only the sick, twisted paedophiles who lie and cheat their way into positions of authority (including, but not limited to, the Catholic church) who are the problem here. And so is anyone who covers for these monsters' actions.


 
Thats disgusting (none / 0) (#59)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 09:08:37 AM PST
A feeble wafer of a sun rises through the morning layers of downtown smog, looking like a white aspirin in the sky, encircled by a weirdly cheerful rainbow

That man should be buried up to his neck, smeared with honey, and feasted upon by ants for making me suffer through that sentence.


 
Further explanation (none / 0) (#94)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 03:27:07 PM PST
The true weakness in my argument was my inability to connect 'being molested by a priest' with ignorance. Since I am not an expert on this I can only bring up cases with similar codependant abusive situations like the wife who stays married to the husband who beats her (something else supported by the Catholic church btw.) It apears that like the hostage who builds up an affinity for his/her captive, the ignorant burrow into the catholic church. Its to bad you happened to be born catholic and not muslim, at least as a muslim you would have a halfway respectible religion. (i.e less molestion but with the benefits of wife beating etc.)

Joe


Clue. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
by hauntedattics on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 05:52:01 AM PST
Dear Mr. Troll:

Here's a clue for you - I am not Catholic.

It's a mindbender, eh?

Haunted



Troll? (none / 0) (#111)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 02:32:55 PM PST
Did I say you were? Why then did you decide to take what I said personally?

Joe


Confusion. (none / 0) (#115)
by hauntedattics on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 03:42:02 PM PST
Yes, you did:

Its [sic] to [sic] bad you happened to be born catholic and not muslim...

You may have been being sincere in your comments about priests, Catholics and child molestation. Based on your comments in a previous post about making a joke and laughing your ass off, I assumed that you were making inflammatory statements designed solely to get someone to react to them. If that's not trolling, or if you were sincere, then my apologies for calling you a troll.

I took what you said personally and reacted as I did to get you to think a bit about stereotypes. Not all priests are child-molesters, and not all non-Catholics view that venerable religion with repugnance and hostility.




So you are Adam? (none / 0) (#117)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 05:45:25 AM PST



 
Are you using troll correctly? (none / 0) (#114)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 06:46:48 AM PST
Trolling is a form of a form of fishing*. A person doesn't call a fisherman who trolls a troll, or even a troller. Troll (as you are using it) is a verb, not a noun. Please try to correct your grammar in the future and/or start using words as they were intended. This abuse cannot be tolerated.

Thanks,
Joe

*Trolling is the form of fishing where line is cast from a boat and the boat moves through the water thereby increasing the chance of exposing the lure to a fish. Generally you don't troll for suckers, you spear them or net them, but some times a stupid sucker will bite anyway....


 
wrong (none / 0) (#113)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 04:50:03 AM PST
Spousal abuse as you describe is grounds for an anullment.


 
Schismatic, non heretical (none / 0) (#9)
by ICS Dempsey KBE on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 11:04:43 AM PST
I am pleased that you rightly left Anglicans out of the list of those doomed for eternal torment. We in the schismatic, non-heretical Rites are, to my dismay, often classified with that chaotic band of deluded souls that left the true Church in the Protestant Reformation (as if we could expect more from the Germans).

I thank you for your ecumenical spirit, Mr. Rightmann. I will ask St. Thomas More to pray for you and the ecumenical movement this Lent.


Ahh yes, the Adultican, ^H^H^H^H Anglicans (none / 0) (#42)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 06:42:43 AM PST
Founded when a tinpot despot couldn't keep his codpiece tied, and wanted spiritual power in addition to his material power. The head chosen by the theologically rigorous process of being the first born male of the King. Please, ditch the monarchy, resubmit to the Pope and perhaps you an be brought back into the Catholic fold.


A. Rightmann

History Aside (none / 0) (#52)
by ICS Dempsey KBE on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:49:50 AM PST
One would be a fool to deny the Anglican branch's disreputable founding and I do not. However, I believe it is more important to observe present circumstances when choosing a Rite. Personally, I take no issue with the doctrine of Papal primacy, as I have not read particularly strong historical or Scriptural arguments for or against it. Thus, without a strong, clear theological mandate for rejoining the Roman Catholics, I must take other issues into consideration, in particular my oath of allegiance to the Queen. Having sworn that oath, subsequently swearing allegiance to the Pope without her blessing would be treason, a crime I could only commit if Our Lord, who holds my only greater allegiance, demanded it. Perhaps my Queen and your Pope will become reconciled before my life ends. However, this is unlikely as long as those chauvanistic Italians dominate the Magisterium and continue to deny women the ability to answer God's call to the priesthood.


But (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by Right Hand Man on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 11:35:57 AM PST
and continue to deny women the ability to answer God's call to the priesthood

Of course, God does not call women to the priesthood, so I don't think anyone is being denied anything.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Have you asked him? (none / 0) (#95)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 03:35:52 PM PST



 
Drop your crutches you mental cripples. (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 11:19:59 AM PST
It's because of people like you that makes organized religion a bad thing. An Evil thing. Your beliefs weren't passed down by God. God didn't come down and tell your precious Pope how to run things. HE MADE THEM UP TO SUIT WHAT HE FEELS IS RIGHT AND GOD BE DAMNED IF HE DOESN"T LIKE IT!!!! It's the same with the Mormons and their prophet, and the rest of that hokey garbage called organized religion! God teaches you to love your fellow man, yet you obviously choose to ignore this because he doesn't share your beliefs or life style. Organized religion stops free thinking, because you are all afraid you will burn if you so much as question. You are all sheep. Not The Lords sheep, but the Pope's sheep, the Prophet's sheep, your religion's sheep. Who made you and your precious Pope gods to decide the fates and actions of Gods children? I'm sure he didn't. But you don't want to hear that huh? Because YOU know the mind of God, and what God feels is right. But you don't think about that, do you? If you do it might pop that over inflated ego of yours and bring you back down to the commoner's level instead of God's right hand side huh? Because HE can't do the job without YOU? Never believe you know what's best for God's children, because you don't, and you never will. Even after reading this you won't question. Because you're afraid to bring down the wrath of God? God won't hate you for questioning. He won't hate you if you search out the truth. Instead you cling desperately to one man's idea of the truth like a man clings to the mast of a ship, afraid that if he lets go his precious ship will sink. Instead of preaching the word of God you preach your word, your beliefs, and if preaching doesn't work you try your damnedest to cram it down an unwilling throat. You try to 'save' people from their God given right to question, and their God given right to live their life as they choose. God put us here to test us. Some will fail, and some will pass, but don't take it upon yourselves to be the one to grade these tests. That's God's job, not yours. So drop your crutches you mental cripples, because all they are doing is slowing you down.


Glad to see (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by hauntedattics on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 11:24:39 AM PST
that you've got the ultimate information on God, even you haven't got a clue about using whitespace.

It's pretty easy...just hit the 'Enter' key.



Wasted electrons (2.00 / 1) (#22)
by iconoclast on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 01:23:47 PM PST
> that you've got the ultimate information on God, even you haven't got a clue about using whitespace.

You won't mind if I paraphrase this as: "Your argument is wrong because you didn't break between paragraphs."
Were you even thinking when you wrote that?


sorry, you lose (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by nathan on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 01:45:17 PM PST
All Ms. Attics was saying was that you should format your posts, as a courtesy to the readers of this site. It was a formal criticism. That's all it was. Take it with some grace and for heaven's sake move on.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Lose? (none / 0) (#28)
by iconoclast on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 03:52:52 PM PST
I do agree that it is hard to read a post that is not formatted properly, but what I dispute is the use of that (especially within the same sentence) to attempt to refute someone's point.


lose. (none / 0) (#30)
by nathan on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 05:57:43 PM PST
I don't see that. What I see is someone getting agressive when he's called on anything.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Hmm... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by hauntedattics on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 06:55:10 AM PST
My point, which was apparently too subtle for you to grasp, was that in accusing religious people of speaking for God and knowing what God thinks, you went ahead and spoke for God and claimed to know what God thinks. So how are you any different than the people you scorn and despise?

In any case, not all religious people claim to speak for God and a good many are refreshingly humble in their philosophical and theological journeys through life.

And my point about whitespace still stands, if only as a courtesy to your fellow visitors to our favorite discussion site.



Can you read? (none / 0) (#96)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 07:13:55 PM PST
I only ask because you say that I claim to be speaking for God. Yet if you actually read the post you'll notice I never made that claim. Could you have misread it when I said that God wouldn't damn you for questioning? If you find a paragraph in the bible that says, 'God shall damn those who question, those who seek knowledge', then I'll concede.

I also never made that claim that people caught up in organized religion were bad. Just zealots like the fool that made the original post.

So, you find in that post where I claim to be speaking for God and get back to me, okay?


Not quite illiterate. (none / 0) (#106)
by hauntedattics on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 04:42:27 PM PST
OK, I guess I'll bite. Here goes:

God didn't come down and tell your precious Pope how to run things.

God teaches you to love your fellow man, yet you obviously choose to ignore this because he doesn't share your beliefs or life style.

Who made you and your precious Pope gods to decide the fates and actions of Gods children? I'm sure he didn't. (Emphasis added.)

Never believe you know what's best for God's children, because you don't, and you never will. (Emphasis added.)

God won't hate you for questioning. He won't hate you if you search out the truth.

You try to 'save' people from their God given right to question , and their God given right to live their life as they choose. (Emphasis added.)

God put us here to test us. Some will fail, and some will pass, but don't take it upon yourselves to be the one to grade these tests.

Believe me, I read your post. And I still maintain that you are attempting to speak for God. How do you know for a fact that any of what you wrote is true? Think about it, and get back to me.

Best,
Haunted




Gotta do better than that. (none / 0) (#118)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 06:28:21 AM PST
Nope. . . Nothing here.

"Who made you and your precious Pope gods to decide the fates and actions of Gods children? I'm sure he didn't. (Emphasis added.)"

I wasn't speaking for God here, I was questioning the Pope's claim to be speaking for God.

"Never believe you know what's best for God's children, because you don't, and you never will. (Emphasis added.)"

So I'm speaking for God here? Are YOU or anyone this post was aimed at God? No? Then this should be fairly obvious.

"You try to 'save' people from their God given right to question , and their God given right to live their life as they choose. (Emphasis added.)"

So, you don't have the right to question anything? Does the Bible say, "And verily I say unto thee, thou shalt not question. Thou shall lead thine lives with a veil of ignorance covering thine eyes."?

Can you make your own decisions? When you're going to make a decision God might not approve of does he drop down, look you in the eyes, and say, "Hey, what're you doing? I'm not going to allow you to do this, or anything else for that matter.", well maybe he's doing it in the background then? If so then he's making people do some pretty messed up things.

Again, I've yet to see anything I've written where I claim to be speaking for God. Keep trying buddy.

P.S. I'm going on 3 hours of sleep, so leave out any scathing comments on my poor typing/punctuation/bible talk.
Thanks


Talking at cross purposes? (none / 0) (#119)
by hauntedattics on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 08:14:50 AM PST
Well, sir, it seems like you are not willing to step back from your position and accept the fact that in making the assumptions you have made, you are in fact attempting to speak for God. Maybe it's the lack of sleep.

How do you know the Pope doesn't speak for God? How do you know what's best for God's children? How do you know that the rights to questioning and living our lives as we choose are God-given? You still haven't answered those questions to my satisfaction.

My point still stands - you are making a lot of presumptions about God and the way God supposedly wants us to live our lives. And in this way, as I said a few posts ago, you are no better than those in organized religion that you scorn. Step back from your automatic judge-o-meter for a moment and look at this issue through a different perspective.

(Keep in mind here that I'm not denigrating questioning things or living your life as you choose.)

As for the whole issue of God being involved in our decision-making, that's a question of free will and there are others here much more qualified to address that than I am. All I can say for myself right now is, of course we have free will. It's a critical part of being human. All those "messed up things" you refer to are the responsibility of the people who commit them. Don't lay all that on God's doorstep.



Man... (none / 0) (#120)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 10:23:30 AM PST
You keep reading this all wrong. I'm not laying the responsibilities of the world at God's feet. I'm not blaming him for anything. IMHO I think he lets us live as we choose. But if God hasn't given us the right to make our own decisions then what other alternative is there but God running the strings in the background? If that's the case he is responsible.

But that's not the stand I'm taking. As I see it God gave us the right to make our own decisions and to question what doesn't seem to make sense, instead of ignoring it and leaving it up to 'faith' instead of questioning the man who is teaching it.

I never said I knew what was best for God's children. I was basically asking the many zealots that frequent this board what makes them think they know what's best for God's children.
I don't believe in a true church. All churches are going to be skewed by the views of the leader. It's done all the time. 'Well, the bible says this... but if I word it like that, I can get this meaning out of it.' So IMHO I don't believe that the Pope speaks for God. I don't believe Joseph Smith spoke for God, or that the Prophets speak for him.

You can't prove this, however, you have to rely on faith. You have faith in what you believe, and I'll have faith in what I believe. But I'm going to be pretty sure of what I put my faith in. I'm not going to take some guy's word for it just because he sounds convincing.

So again I state that I never said I spoke for God. I offered my oppinion in a way that would get some attention to those who refuse to open their eyes to any other option because they're afraid.

I don't think I'm better than the zealots, I'm just more open minded than they are, more accepting for human failure. I'm not going to damn someone because of how they live. I might not like it, but then I'm not living it either. So I just live and let live.


I think... (none / 0) (#122)
by hauntedattics on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 07:30:02 PM PST
more than anything, I was turned off by the self-righteous tone of your original post. I respect your ideas, but in future you may want to tone down the rhetoric. For this site, anyway.



 
Thank you. (none / 0) (#14)
by tkatchev on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 12:08:06 PM PST
I see. I guess unimportant things like punctuation are irrelevant for the enlightened uebermensch?

Good luck in your quest to dominate the worthless sheeple. Remember, they only believe in God because they lack a strong father figure! Might makes right, dude. Believe in yourself!


--
Peace and much love...




Give me a break. (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 12:39:07 PM PST
I was typing that up while helping those 'wonderful' MSN users connect to the internet.

You seemed to get the wrong impression about that little rant of mine. I wasn't trying to say that I know God's will. I was just trying to point out that organized religions can cause more harm then good when a person, who believes they know the will of God, decides to enforce it any way they can. Look back in time and see what the zealots of the world have done when they believe they know God's will.

BTW, not once did I mention 'dominating' anyone. I didn't try to force my oppinion down someones throat, I just tried to get someone to pay attention to another point of veiw. If you decide you want to be a Catholic, or a Mormon, or a Baptist then go for it. That's your choice. God gave you that right.

It's just that most people refuse to look before they leap. They never question the beliefs of the church because they fear it's wrong to do so. I once felt that way because I was told it was wrong because the church I was attending was The Church, the True Church, and you aren't supposed to question that. But I did and realized what I'd been suckered into. So I figured why not share it, even if no one cares?

Anyway, back to work.


 
Bang on (none / 0) (#35)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 02:15:33 AM PST
Eloquently put! (despite the lack of white space... ;)) I salute you sir.



 
Well, well, well... (none / 0) (#16)
by manux on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 12:16:10 PM PST
This is the kind of article I like to read: someone with adequate writing skills speaks out his personal opinion on society, and a controversial opinion, for sure. That is what can make this site different, and thus interesting.

The opening "give up tolerance" point made me jump. That was a trap, and I nearly got caught in it, but spiritful provocation such as this is what make mature people think. Actually, when reading beyond the provocative reactionist shape of the article, you raise some interesting points. It is quite obvious that tolerating too much is the way to anarchy and social decline. On the other hand, tolerating not enough has, in a paradoxal way, the same effect. As this site is (or should be) a tribune for sharing ideas, I will answer my point of view.

First, reducing tolerance about illegal drugs is actually something important, because of all the related criminal activity. It is a secret to noone that the commerce of drugs is one of the primary sources of money for most criminal organisations, and even for some governments, such as it was for the Taliban. Let me now throw my own controversial opinion: to me, the main problem is to state which drugs should be legal and which ones should not. Today, in most countries, the only legal drugs are alcohol and tobacco, and a some countries such as Netherland consider cannabis as legal. I think this approach is good because, as judged by medical studies, these three drugs are not a major problem when used moderately (except for alcohol because of its well-known effect related to car driving). Forbidding soft durgs like these would be nonsense because they are used as anti-depressors and anti-stress in our speedy societies. On the other hand, hard drugs (like heroin and such) have much more harmful effects on physical and mental health, and thus should never be tolerated outside explicit medical use.

Now, about religion, honesty commends me to write that I do not agree in any way with your point. Refusing anything else than one's religion is the epitome of prententiousness and egocentrism. First of all, how would you define what Catholicism is ? There are many slight variations in its interpretation throughout countries and people. But most of all, who gives you the right to speak about a so-called true Church ? What wondeful luck made you be born in precisely the right country, believing in the one and only true God and practicing exactly the one and only adequate set of rituals ? Why would the rituals invented by some people a few decades ago be the supposed good way to honour your god ? I use the word "decade" on purpose, because I know that you are aware that rituals evolve through time. Do you even realize that your vision of Catholicism is exaclty, point by point, the way how the Taliban consider their flavour of Islam ? The problem is not whether other religions than yours should be tolerated or not, the problem is that every religion has a right to be, precisely because there is no absolute knowledge in the field of mysticism, and that is why the word faith exists. By essence, the nature of any deity, can never be comprehended by mortals, let alone what would the will or the intent of any deity. Therefore all people must be respected the same way independently of their beliefs, because thinking never harmed anyone by itself. The only thing about religion that must not be tolerated is your behaviour.

After that point about religion, the other topics seem minor, especially because your point of view about unwed mothers, homosexual behaviours, and so-called baby-killers are clearly influenced (if not determined) by your religious thoughts. After all, in any sense you consider it, using a condom does not kill anyone. I will not argue about these points anyway.

I like this site. It provides me with refreshing opinons, so far from the ones I have. Whatever the topic, debate and civilised echange of ideas is a virtue.

Je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai pour que vous puissiez le dire. (Voltaire)


Sloppy thinking. (none / 0) (#23)
by dmg on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 01:31:28 PM PST
Perhaps you need to take a deep breath and think again. Soft Drugs good Hard drugs bad ? What is this Orwellian distinction you are trying to make ? Nicotine is more addictive than heroin, and alcohol kills more people than all other illegal drugs put together. All recreational drugs should be legal. Period. And the users thereof should be forced to take out mandatory insurance to cover their medical expenses in later life. Its called responsibilty.

But most of all, who gives you the right to speak about a so-called true Church ?

This is America, Bud. You might not like it, but we have something called the first amendment.

Do you even realize that your vision of Catholicism is exaclty, point by point, the way how the Taliban consider their flavour of Islam ?

I don't even know where to start with the inaccuracies here, so I won't bother.

Therefore all people must be respected the same way independently of their beliefs, because thinking never harmed anyone by itself. The only thing about religion that must not be tolerated is your behaviour.

I have never read anything so ludicrous in all my life. How would it be if I thought all Jews should be killed ? Would that be allright so long as I didn't actually kill any Jews ? Can't you see how this could get out of hand quickly. Humans are basically stupid creatures. Most of them need to be told what to think and feel for their own good. Just look at all the flag flying going on in the USA right now. Do you think that is individuals thinking for themselves ? Or is it the knee-jerk reaction of a Nation under the mind-control of its Fascist rulers ?

Clue: It is the second of the two choices.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

So what ? (none / 0) (#29)
by manux on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 04:53:16 PM PST
It seems some of my words have been misunderstood.

Soft Drugs good Hard drugs bad ? What is this Orwellian distinction you are trying to make ?

I realize, as seen by the formulation of my previous post, that I seemed to make a strong distinction of this kind. First I didn't use the words "good" and "bad", nor anything of this meaning, on purpose. I am not judging any moral implication of drugs, I am only referring to their impact on people. Actually, at first sight, I consider there is a qualitative difference between soft and hard drugs. My limited knowledge about the related medical aspect doesn't let me know if there aren't any soft drugs more dangerous than some hard drugs, I'm just assuming that the words were chosen appropriately.

All recreational drugs should be legal. Period. [...] Its called responsibilty.

I feel this a bit contradictory with your point afterwards. If "most of [humans] need to be told what to think and feel for their own good", the same works about taking drugs. If a given substance is very dangerous to health, it is part of a government's responsibility to prevent its people from destroying themselves with it. Anyway, my opinion on this subject is not carved in concrete in the center of my brain, I also visit sites like this one to make myself a mature opinion on things.

This is America, Bud. You might not like it, but we have something called the first amendment.

First, I am not an American, I don't know precisely your consitution. After some documenting, it seems your first amendment protects the right to freedom of religion and expression of it. (By the way, this is about the USA, not America, but this is playing on words.) This is a fundamental human right that I never intended to discuss. Mr Rightman has the undiscussed freedom to believe his church to be the true and only one, and to say so. My formulation is actually misguiding, and what I meant was not about legal rights. An alternative way of saying it would be "what makes you so sure as to talk about a so-called true Church ?". It was meant as a rhetoric question, which I thought would be rather obvious considering the followng sentences. Apart from that, saying that other religions should not be tolerated is the expression of a wish that the government did not tolerate them, thus violating the aforementioned first amendment. How does this classify, constitution-wise ?

I don't even know where to start with the inaccuracies here, so I won't bother.

Yes, please explain us all the differences between catholic fanatism and muslim fanatism. I expressed a sincere opinion, and I would really love to get some insight about it.

How would it be if I thought all Jews should be killed ? Would that be allright so long as I didn't actually kill any Jews ?

Although your ideas in that case would be repugnant beyond words (to my mind at least), it could actually be mostly allright as long as you don't kill any Jews and you don't incitate anyone to do so (for instance by publishing incitation to hate and crime on a web site). Of course, this is a slippery reasoning, and defining where freedom of speech stops and where incitation to crime starts is a hairy topic. But this is the inherent problem of democracy: either we decide to forbid the public expression of ideas classified as unacceptable, thus opening the door to fascitoid excesses, or we allow anyone to express whatever opinions he has, thus letting dangerous ideas spread. The second option is the way of democracy, but vigilance is the price.

Just look at all the flag flying going on in the USA right now. Do you think that is individuals thinking for themselves ?

Of course this is the result of propaganda. Surely many USA citizens "knee-jerk under the mind-control of [their] Fascist rulers" instead of exercising their own thoughts, and I don't see how that contradicts my point. Here we are talking about a government manipulating the people's opinion by its own presentation of information. CNN actually seems to be the most powerful instrument of mind-control the world has ever invented, and I kind of regret that I can only seldom watch it, because that would probably provide me with some more arguments. That said, I don't see what this has to do with respecting people regardless of their religious beliefs.


 
Great (none / 0) (#21)
by BCFH on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 01:21:42 PM PST
Although i haven't digested the actual content, this is probably the best written article i have ever read on adequacy.org I wish all of the others were as good as this in terms of the english language


 
Indeed (none / 0) (#26)
by zikzak on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 02:02:43 PM PST
The best thing about the beginning of Lent is that for one day each year we know who amongst us truly is a child of God. As we walk through town proudly bearing our mark of the Lord, we can clearly identify each of the thousands of heathens who surround us - their clean foreheads loudly proclaiming their future damnation.


 
Why not? (none / 0) (#31)
by Bad English on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 07:01:33 PM PST
I like this idea. Give up tolerance. Be honest. Sure, it may lead to all of us eating each other alive on the streets, but at least we'd be truthful. Go ahead, tell your girlfriend that yes, indeed, that outfit makes her look fat, explain to that guy behind you why he's such a moron, and call your best friend's girlfriend a slut.

The truth hurts and isn't always what we want to hear, but like Keats said, it's beautiful.


 
Oh yeah? Here's what *I'm* giving up: (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 10:34:15 PM PST
SOBRIETY

You should too.


 
Whats the point? (none / 0) (#34)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 10:46:16 PM PST
Only 144,000 are going to end up in heaven anyway


Holy Christ on a stick... (none / 0) (#37)
by tkatchev on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 04:55:28 AM PST
Are you one of those people who don't celebrate Christmas because it's "pagan"?

Yuck.


--
Peace and much love...




Apparently AR is a Jehovah's Witness cultist (none / 0) (#38)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 05:29:20 AM PST
The handle I've met are very screwed up people, barely fuinctional in modern society. What is the best way to free them of those strange bonds?


A. Rightmann

Whaaat? (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:05:51 AM PST
Jehovah's Witness? Who, the '144,000" guy?

Guess you and tketchup have never heard of Calvinism, huh?

Sheesh. You guys have got to start doing a bit more research if you want these personas to be convincing.


Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses (none / 0) (#55)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 08:13:49 AM PST
They believe that only 144,000 people will go to heaven. Try here, or just search in google.

They are an insidious, proliferating cult, of which I've known several.


A. Rightmann

 
Ask them if they're male virgins. (none / 0) (#47)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:06:19 AM PST
If they're not, they're not saved from the "end times", as it quite clearly states in their favourite book in the Bible.


 
Bah.. Christians (none / 0) (#53)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:53:40 AM PST
It says this in black and white in the bible. Now either everything in the bible is accurate, or none of it is -- as it is alledgedly the word of god. Which is it today? Not that I would expect christians to read the bible since they have preacher to do it for them. However if an individual has only one frame of reference for truth we should attempt to accept them as they are and recognize that who they are as such right now is not who they are through their entire lives. People can change. The first pricipal of tolerance.


 
I agree with your premise (none / 0) (#36)
by John Wainright on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 02:39:31 AM PST
But not in such a limited format as the Lenten season.
Tolerance has resulted in the "dumbing down" of our society.
Tolerance for the social pariahs you mention above has weakened the moral structure of this great land.
Tolerance for those with limited cognitive faculties has resulted in our schools becoming a laughing stock. Not only are the children being neglected in the public babysitting service, but also these so-called teachers are getting in through standards that are weakened constantly.
Tolerance at the workplace has resulted in the implementation of policies that are downright demeaning to anyone with rational thought. Merely telling a person that he has to do his job can result in a lawsuit for a corporation.
The list goes on and on.

Lets make it an active part of our lives to root out Tolerance wherever it lies. Not just put it on like a coat for a few weeks per year.

Thank you for bringing this subject up Mr. Rightmann



Oh how misguided! (none / 0) (#43)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 06:53:57 AM PST
>"Tolerance for those with limited cognitive faculties"

What the hell is that supposed to mean?! "WE SHALL NOT TOLERATE THOSE WHO ARE LESS GIFTED!!!"? Perhaps your next line should have been "We shall not tolerate the blind for they are irritating" or perhaps "We shall not tolerate the weak of arm for they can do less work". An individual can have little influence on their cognitive capacity (and I'm not talking self-education here).

If nothing else, the one thing that makes your country a laughing stock is the INTOLERANCE shown by people such as those posting small-minded, dictatorial and hateful messages in this discussion - including yourself.

Perhaps you should think before submitting again? Until then, I shall just have to tolerate your spiteful bile.


Yes you are correct! (none / 0) (#60)
by John Wainright on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 09:45:43 AM PST
>"Tolerance for those with limited cognitive faculties" What the hell is that supposed to mean?! "WE SHALL NOT TOLERATE THOSE WHO ARE LESS GIFTED!!!"? Perhaps your next line should have been "We shall not tolerate the blind for they are irritating" or perhaps "We shall not tolerate the weak of arm for they can do less work".

Thank you so much for agreeing with my point of view. Perhaps later we can discuss, over coffee, the sterilization of the institutionalized.
This is what I love about adequacy. It is so easy to find those of like mind.


Disgrace (none / 0) (#79)
by asharp on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 05:32:52 AM PST
Oh dear... little did I realise that you were such a bare-faced fascist. Can I assume that you believe people have no fundamental human rights? Freedom to you is obviously just a word.

Perhaps I should provide some reference for you: Eugenics was the practice used by the Nazis fifty/sixty years ago in an attempt to irradiate 'undesirable' genetic traits in society. This included mass sterilisations and elimination (murder). People were hanged for these actions as crimes against humanity. Ring any bells? No pinpricks on your conscience?

Certainly you have the right to express your opinions - I would never begrudge you that opportunity. However, I cannot help but feel that you are one of the most repugnant individuals I have ever come across. I sincerely hope that you and those of your ilk fail to spread these malicious sentiments any further. You are a disgrace to mankind.




more western conceit (none / 0) (#82)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 05:57:59 AM PST
Freedom to you is obviously just a word.

Well it certainly isnt a rights based doctrine. A tribal community in the middle of some god forsaken jungle understands freedom and lives freely while routinely violating all manner of USian rights. The western conceit is that it is western society which has reduced Freedom to a series of words and is eager to punish any society which strays from the "logic" of those words.

Liberalist, heal thyself!


 
I see I touched a nerve.. (none / 0) (#87)
by John Wainright on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 07:42:43 AM PST
You would have the bastardized offspring of institutionalized retards running rampant through the streets?
I have an uncle that worked in one of these places for close to 30 years.
In the late 70's/ early 80's many federal funding was removed from institutions or if you would "Nut Houses" or asylums. As a result many of these deficient people were released out onto the streets or into halfway houses. Now here comes the problem. They started to breed. If nature didn't kill these released jackals off they multiplied.
When they were in the institution, the State took care of the "accidents" that occurred. Surreptitiously, mostly at night, but there wasn't another freak unleashed on the world. And this practice still went on as of the mid-90's. Only the really bad cases that couldn't clean up after their own bowel movements were kept. But somehow these "less fortunate sons of liberty" found out how to screw like bunnies.
Now here's an interesting topic. What is more criminal? Sterilize a woman incapable of taking care of herself who finds the opportunity to fornicate at every chance, or possibly even the victim of repeated raping. OR, perform multiple abortions so that:
1. The state or the poor abandoned woman's family isn't responsible
2. Another freak of nature isn't born to repeat the cycle.

They do sterilize with repeat offenders in these places.
It's a sick, debasing practice, but I stand by my previous post.



Common ground (none / 0) (#99)
by asharp on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 06:55:14 AM PST
OK, I got a little carried away - it's an emotive subject and the tone of your comment put my back up. You're correct that it's a sick and debasing practice but under the conditions that you've described, I agree that in the best interests of the indivdual that it can be appropriate (but these are EXTREME cases where the individual is incabable of looking after his/her self, etc, etc. I won't get into an arguement about this as it's waaaay off topic). However, I cannot see how anyone can advocate this kind of practice wholesale which is what was implied (or at least left open to interpretation) in your previous post - hence my reaction.


 
Logic 101 (none / 0) (#61)
by derek3000 on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 10:07:47 AM PST
Let's have less tolerance of baby killers. In addition to the picketing of abortionists and the racists supremacists at Planned Parenthood, how about picketing the pharmacies and groceries that sell the Pill, and condoms and sponges.

Makes perfect sense to me.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Do you know how the Pill and IUD work? (3.00 / 1) (#62)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 10:25:17 AM PST
The Pill, and other hormonal methods, trick the the body into thinking it is pregnant, thus preventing fertilized babies from successfully implanting and growing to maturity. A sexually active couple on the Pill may end up flushing 10 babies a year down the toilet.


A. Rightmann

Like I said, (none / 0) (#65)
by derek3000 on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 11:50:26 AM PST
it makes perfect sense to me.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Mea culpa, I have been tainted by the lunix trolls (none / 0) (#66)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 12:36:53 PM PST
and was expecting a sarcastic remark. I beg your pardon.


A. Rightmann

All right, (none / 0) (#67)
by derek3000 on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 01:45:50 PM PST
I can't joke around any more.

But you should know that I'm not exactly sure what position to take on abortion--I don't have all the answers. But I don't think that I would ban condoms and birth control to prevent abortions.

I will give you this: if you are not a troll, you at least (seem) to stick to your guns. Everyone I know who complains about homosexual behavior as 'unnatural' regularly engages in protected sex, as well as oral sex.

We're fundamentally opposed--I hold personal freedom/responsibility as ideal, where you would hold piety. But tolerance is my thing, not yours.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

You should take No Position on the subject (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by John Wainright on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 08:00:07 AM PST
If you are male, you have a VERY slight chance of ever having an abortion. For you to make decisions on the functioning's of a woman's body would be wrong.
Unless of course you are the Creator. Then you would have every right to administer your creation in a way you see fit.
A person that firmly believes in the sanctity of life, the Will of God, and the Teachings of His Word, would have little problem realizing how wrong abortion is.
God created us as free moral agents. So it is indeed the prerogative of a woman to decide, based on her god given conscience what she wants to do about an unwanted pregnancy.
If you are the sort that does not believe in God, or perhaps is not as firmly rooted as others are, it is still not your decision if you are male to decide on the workings of female anatomy.
People call up special cases such as Rape and Incest, but still, right or wrong, this is a choice to be made by the woman.
She is the one who will have to live with Displeasing God, or if she's not a believer, live with whatever consequences this action brings.



Anyway, (none / 0) (#107)
by derek3000 on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 08:54:31 AM PST
Thanks for telling me how to live my life. I would never tell someone else what to do with their body. Good job of misinterpreting my post.

You should take No Position on the subject

It sure sounds like you have, regardless of what you might say.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

The right to your body. (none / 0) (#109)
by tkatchev on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 12:29:56 PM PST
"The right to my fist ends where the right to your face begins."

Or something like that; as a liberalist, you are more familiar with the art of circular argumentation.


--
Peace and much love...




Your right to post, however pretentious it may be. (none / 0) (#112)
by derek3000 on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 12:38:38 AM PST
"Sticks and stones..."

Or something like that; as a religious zealot, you are more familiar with ad-hominem attacks than me. You use 'liberalist' as a 4th grader would use 'fuck'--only with more feigned familiarity.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
Holy cow you people are messed up. (none / 0) (#68)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 01:59:19 PM PST
First off, I can't believe you people even consider decreasing your tolerance in the name of some greater being. Nobody is perfect. Everybody makes mistakes. Without tolerance, you would be in just as much trouble as the next man, my friend. All of you would. Don't even deny the things you did in your childhood. I know you were curious, we all were. Every person who breathes the air of this world has made a mistake (with exception to babies, of course). Even your God tolerates lesser sin, why shouldn't you?

Second point, other religions. I won't even go here. You people are fascist. Your method for recruitment is much like that of a drug abuser. Peer pressure among your friends (and strangers), and forcefulness among your children.

Third point, unwed mothers. I've met unwed mothers, yes even teen unwed mothers, who have raised their children well. I agree something needs to be done about teen pregnancy, but prohibiting unwed pregnancy will not affect the matter. The source must be attacked, youths must be preventing from having unprotected sex. Whether that's by use of protection or by abstinence, it is the only solution.

Fourth point, drug users. How can you possibly believe that drug money supports terrorism? Do you have ANY backing for that whatsoever? Does anyone? I haven't heard any. I can tell you right now that all the marijuana that I buy is grown by the person who I buy it from. He thinks the same way of terrorism as I do: it is unbecoming. Terrorists are cowards and murderers, and I bear no association.

Fifth point, baby killers. I'm not going to touch this one. I do, however, want to point out that if preventing contraceptives from being used is your goal, you should review your third paragraph. What do you expect children to do? They will continue to have sex, with or without your permission. With or without the law's permission. Deal with it.

Sixth point, homosexuality. Personally, I hate homosexuality. However, I bear no malice against homosexuals, as long as they don't hit on me, I can deal with it. Their sexuality is not my business.

I'm not going to argue that America is a cesspool of corruption and greed. No one in their right mind would. However, the points you have brought up are of little concern to me. If anything, we need to keep you psychotic zealots away from the law books. What we need to focus on are the millions of people dragging our government down with their petty law suits. We need to focus on huge corporations in which "morals" are a laughable concept. If everyone in this country would start being HONEST, all the other problems would simply work themselves out.


Why? Why, G*d, why? (none / 0) (#74)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 03:49:20 PM PST
How is it that you liberalists have taken over the western world? It just doesnt make any sense! I mean, who did you have to sleep with?


I think... (none / 0) (#78)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 03:59:52 AM PST
I think the liberalists are simply more vocal.

P.S. Are you Jewish? I'm asking because I'm interested whether the orthodox Jewish community is also fighting against the liberalist menace. I'd be very interested in a first-person Jewish perspective.


--
Peace and much love...




 
What doesn't make sense? Your lack of a reply? (none / 0) (#100)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 08:25:48 AM PST
What doesn't make sense? Why doesn't it make sense? While your reply may have been enlightening and all-encompassing, it lacks substance. Try proving a point once in a while, it does go a long way.

To answer your question, we liberalists were forced to move here by conservative Catholics who tried to force their religion on us. The only difference is that we had the will to refuse, so we came here. How often do you actually question your own religion? How do you know that you actually believe it? Perhaps you've just been conditioned by your parents, like so many others?

Are you happy?


 
Re: Lent Sacrifices (3.00 / 1) (#76)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 10:39:24 PM PST
Thank you for yet another thought provoking and well written article. I hope you will be glad to know that I will be forsaking making love with my homosexual partner while under the influence of drugs, and will strive to throw as many unwed mothers at the abortionists as I can before i get tired. And to prove I am serious, this will continue for the entire period of Lent. Hopefully this will meet with your approval.

Thank you, Sir.


 
Well, i was agreeing with you up until a point. (none / 0) (#91)
by Winter on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 09:35:32 AM PST
You non-Jews are all going to burn, however. Not non-catholics. Anyone knows that.


Whoops. (none / 0) (#92)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 01:05:24 PM PST
Actually, Jews do not believe in hell. The closest thing you have is "gehenna", but that is much closer to the Christian tradition.

"Gehenna" was actually the name of a garbage dump in ancient Jerusalem -- basically, a pit in the ground where useless rubbish was brought so that it could be burned.

P.S. I am not in any way knowledgeable in the matters of Judaism, so use with caution!


--
Peace and much love...




 
what will we give up for lent? (none / 0) (#98)
by Mr Somebody on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 06:44:12 AM PST
how about giving up playing "my god's bigger than your god"?
just a thought...


 
amazing! (none / 0) (#108)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 11:40:46 AM PST
You, sir, have discovered the most sublime mysteries and revealed everything that was once hidden about the way in which the brains given to us by God function!

For I once thought that it was difficult to discern between the competing truth claims of various religious institutions, and instead found what God Willed for me to find through esoteric study and in that way came to understand all that I was capable of bringing to light.

But you are attempting to perform a feat I did not think was possible: To demonstrate the obviousness of the Catholic Church's claims throught words alone.

If you perform this, you will have achieved a feat of magic sufficient to put you in the ranks of the most powerful sorcerers ever to have lived.

Frater Rightmann, I commend thee.

PS: I had been thinking of giving up abstinence: how does Your Most Excellent and Sublime, Learned and Subtle Person consider this?

T. S. M. 23/93/3 : 5-4


Ouch. (none / 0) (#110)
by tkatchev on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 12:32:27 PM PST
Which cave did you just crawl out of, dude?


--
Peace and much love...




 
actually I was paraphrasing Yasser Arafat, (none / 0) (#116)
by Mr Somebody on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 05:07:21 AM PST
so he'll have to accept your glowing praise! I don't imagine he was attempting to fortify the pope's market share though.
On the subject of abstaining from abstinence, all well & good for a true hedonist like dmg :), but how far do you take it? Are you limiting yourself to your known vices, or would you be abstaining from, say; looking both ways before crossing the street? I see complications.
Why not start off with something smaller, like socks?


 
Let's see...Giving up for lent. (2.50 / 2) (#123)
by Weezmacht on Fri Mar 8th, 2002 at 08:27:19 PM PST
I think the ignorant masses, such as Christians, Catholics, and others following the zealotous brainwash of the religious world should give up their life for Lent.

Make the ultimate sacrifice, you god-loving, ignorant, self-righteous morons. Play Russian Roulette with six bullets.


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.