Reference Religion - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Reference:Religion:
Results 301 - 437 of 437   < 1 2 3 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2022/08/07 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2014/1/7-2/5 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Reference/Religion] UID:54762 Activity:nil
1/7     Are you from a family of Mormons, Cuban exiles, Nigerian Americans,
        Indian Americans, Chinese Americans, American Jews, Iranian Americans
        or Lebanese Americans? (
        \_ Somehow she misssed WASP Episcopalians.
2013/5/28-7/3 [Reference/Religion] UID:54684 Activity:nil
5/28    San Francisco, 24% very religious:
        \_ I expected Boulder, CO, being in the Mid-West, to be pretty
           religious.  Yet it's only 17%.
           \_ God damn hippies.
        \_ It says religiousity is negatively associated with "the share of
           adults that are college graduates (-.42), the level of innovation
           (-.45), and the share of knowledge, professional and creative jobs
           \_ this is published by a liberal web site, what do you expect?
              \_ This is true. If you just read your bible and pray a lot
                 you will come to a different conclusion.
2022/08/07 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2013/4/9-5/18 [Reference/Religion] UID:54648 Activity:nil
4/8     "Do We Need God to be Moral?"
        "The seeds for moral behavior preceded the emergence of our species
        by millions of years, ..."
2013/3/29-5/18 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:54643 Activity:nil
3/29    Old news but HITLERISM IS BACK!
        \_ The "religious-battle-in-ger" part in the URL is funny.  "ger" in
           Cantonese happens to refer to the male genital.
2013/3/14-5/5 [Reference/Religion] UID:54627 Activity:nil
3/14    Is the Story of Pi pro or anti God? I'd like to know before
        I go watch it.
        \_ Pi is pro God, the tiger is anti God. Makes for some stimulating debate.
        \_ Pi is pro God, the tiger is anti God. Makes for some stimulating
           \_ I thought the tiger IS God.
              \_ Isn't the tiger supposed to be Tiger Woods?
                 \_ Is that tiger's wood like Tiger Woods'?
2013/3/13-4/16 [Reference/Religion] UID:54623 Activity:nil
3/13    The new pope is from Argentina.
        Does it make another Falkland War between Argentina and the Anglican
        UK more likely?
2012/12/30-2013/1/24 [Reference/Religion, Health/Women] UID:54571 Activity:nil
12/30   Women on jdate look hot. Do I need to give up bacon to
        date them?
        \_ Don't know, but you may have to give up your foreskin to date them.
           \_ I think this is a deal breaker for most men, and why
              throughout history Christianity always overwhelms Judaism.
              In Christianity the barrier to entry is much lower, the recruitment
              strategy is much more aggressive, the church income (10%) is higher,
              the marketing is superior (hot women in church), and most
              importantly you don't need a painful cosmetic surgery on your dick.
              In another word, Christianity is a well run corporation and
              Judaism is just another mom and pop store.
           \_ I think this is a deal breaker for most men, and why throughout
              history Christianity always overwhelms Judaism. In Christianity
              the barrier to entry is much lower, the recruitment strategy is
              much more aggressive, the church income (10%) is higher, the
              marketing is superior (hot women in church), and most
              importantly you don't need a painful cosmetic surgery on your
              dick. In another word, Christianity is a well run corporation
              and Judaism is just another mom and pop store.
              \_ What is the "10%" number relative to?
              \_ What about Catholicism?
              \_ I was cirumcised as a child, as are most American men. No
                 problem for us red-blooded patriotic Isreal-loving Americans.
              \_ Most Christians believe in the literal truth of The Bible,
                 which means they are stuck with a 2 millenial old system
                 suited for tribal sheepheaders. Judaism has something called
                 the Talmud where you can argue endlessly about the right
                 way to do things. So it evolves over time.
                 EEPROM >> CD-ROM
2012/12/28-2013/1/24 [Reference/Religion] UID:54570 Activity:nil
12/28   Looking for a religiousness density map based on county. Is there
        one out there?
        \_ Try
           \_ Public Law 94-521 prohibits us from asking a question on religious
              affiliation on a mandatory basis; therefore, the Bureau of the Census
              is not the source for information on religion.
           This is some interesting by state data.
2012/12/5-18 [Reference/Religion] UID:54547 Activity:nil
12/5    Why the hell are there so many Christians in the Fremont area?
        \_ Really?  I know there are a lot of Chinese- and Indian-Americans.
           Fremont is also the city with the highest Afghan- population in the
           U.S., but their numbers are no match to the Chinese- and Indian-
           \_ a lot of Chinese Christians there.
2012/10/18-12/4 [Reference/Law/Court, Reference/Religion] UID:54505 Activity:nil
10/18   Holy s*** I didn't know Atheists are banned from holding
        public office in the US:
        \_ Yeah, those laws are pretty embarrassing, but they're ancient and
           \_ Are these the same states that ban garage sales unless you're
              selling your garage?
2012/9/26-11/7 [Reference/Religion] UID:54486 Activity:nil
        Mythbuster: Does God Exist? Let's find out!
2010/9/24-30 [Reference/Religion] UID:53964 Activity:nil
        "The Jews are God's Chosen People. They're the best."
2010/9/3-30 [Reference/Religion] UID:53947 Activity:nil
9/3     'God did not create the universe, says Hawking'
        'Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe
        redundant ...... "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe
        can and will create itself from nothing."'
        \_ God is made up of strings.
           \_ Are those strings called God-strings, or G-strings in short?
2010/6/15-7/2 [Reference/Religion] UID:53861 Activity:nil
6/15    The God has spoken. :-)
2010/4/6-15 [Reference/Law/Court, Reference/Religion] UID:53772 Activity:nil
4/6     "Ohio Christian convert fights to stay in US"
        Give her asylum!  We need more hot gals like her in this country!
2010/3/23-4/14 [Recreation/Food/Alcohol, Reference/Religion] UID:53758 Activity:nil
3/23    Oh my God!  Even He is a parent who needs to worry about child obesity.
2010/1/21-29 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:53653 Activity:nil
1/20    So I want to give some money to Haiti relief funds and my employer
        \_ SOCIALISM
        is willing to match it, but I am not really that big a fan of
        The Red Cross (they take your donations and then spend them
        however they like, not neccessarily on what you gave it to them for).
        Who else is a good charity? UNICEF?
        \- I believe after some criticism the Red Cross is better about
           handling earmarked funds. That being said, at this point the big
           global agencies [Red Cross, MSF etc] are asking for unresticted
           funds because 1. they have already depleated unrestricted reserve
           in Haiti early 2. they have rec'd a lot of restricted Haiti funds
           and more is in the pipeline 3. govt are spending money there too
           etc. If you go to the RC web page, it does let you semi-earmark.
           Although not clear you can do so if you go through other channels
           you may need to for matching etc. Also I was unhappy the RC requires
           you to give them your email address. I think there is an argument
           to be made that if you find a reputable agency which goal aligned
           to your philosophy [e.g. georgraphically where do they work, what
           do they focus on ... disaster, routine medical/health, microfinance,
           literacy, infrastructure (clean water etc)] you should give
           unrestricted funds. So I think in this case with a big tide of
           money going to Haiti, it's reasoanble to refurbish say the MSF
           coffers for work in Africa ... of course this doesnt apply if
           your goal is to pipe your dollars to Haiti, as oppose to respond
           to a "shock" requiring more resources, or if it seems like down
           the road Haiti is out of the news or govt have renegged on pledges
           and oranizations you trust are making Haiti-specific appeals again.
           Anyway, without a longer detour into philosophy, consider MSF.
           Those guys stay in some really fucked up places through thick and
           thin and that buys a lot of credibility in my book.
           BTW, here is the restrict/unrestricted info for MSF:
           (Hmm, I guess MSF requires an email too).
           Just dont donate to Wyclef Jean :-)
           \_ Don't donate to Kars 4 Kids either.  I almost donated my car to
              them, until I found out that they are actually a religious
              group that uses the donations for spreading the regigion.  I'm
              not religious but I don't mind donating to religious groups (like
              my kid's Christian school) for geunine charity work.  However,
              Kars 4 Kids is too skewed.
        \_ The American Red Cross has one of the lowest overheads among large
           charities.  For example, the overhead for Hurrican Katrina funds is
           9%.  (In comparison, the American Cancer Society overhead is 95%.)
           (Sources: Wikipedia)
2010/1/20-21 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:53642 Activity:very high
1/20    So I want to give some money to Haiti relief funds and my employer
        is willing to match it, but I am not really that big a fan of
        The Red Cross (they take your donations and then spend them
        however they like, not neccessarily on what you gave it to them for).
        Who else is a good charity? UNICEF?
        \- I believe after some criticism the Red Cross is better about
           handling earmarked funds. That being said, at this point the big
           global agencies [Red Cross, MSF etc] are asking for unresticted
           funds because 1. they have already depleated unrestricted reserve
           in Haiti early 2. they have rec'd a lot of restricted Haiti funds
           and more is in the pipeline 3. govt are spending money there too
           etc. If you go to the RC web page, it does let you semi-earmark.
           Although not clear you can do so if you go through other channels
           you may need to for matching etc. Also I was unhappy the RC requires
           you to give them your email address. I think there is an argument
           to be made that if you find a reputable agency which goal aligned
           to your philosophy [e.g. georgraphically where do they work, what
           do they focus on ... disaster, routine medical/health, microfinance,
           literacy, infrastructure (clean water etc)] you should give
           unrestricted funds. So I think in this case with a big tide of
           money going to Haiti, it's reasoanble to refurbish say the MSF
           coffers for work in Africa ... of course this doesnt apply if
           your goal is to pipe your dollars to Haiti, as oppose to respond
           to a "shock" requiring more resources, or if it seems like down
           the road Haiti is out of the news or govt have renegged on pledges
           and oranizations you trust are making Haiti-specific appeals again.
           Anyway, without a longer detour into philosophy, consider MSF.
           Those guys stay in some really fucked up places through thick and
           thin and that buys a lot of credibility in my book.
           BTW, here is the restrict/unrestricted info for MSF:
           (Hmm, I guess MSF requires an email too).
           Just dont donate to Wyclef Jean :-)
           \_ Don't donate to Kars 4 Kids either.  I almost donated my car to
              them, until I found out that they are actually a religious
              group that uses the donations for spreading the regigion.  I'm
              not religious but I don't mind donating to religious groups (like
              my kid's Christian school) for geunine charity work.  However,
              Kars 4 Kids is too skewed.
        \_ The American Red Cross has one of the lowest overheads among large
           charities.  For example, the overhead for Hurrican Katrina funds is
           9%.  (In comparison, the American Cancer Society overhead is 95%.)
           (Sources: Wikipedia)
2009/11/10-19 [Reference/Religion] UID:53517 Activity:nil
11/10   "Vatican looks to heavens for signs of alien life"
        "Four hundred years after it locked up Galileo for challenging the
        view that the Earth was the center of the universe, the Vatican has
        called in experts to study the possibility of extraterrestrial alien
        life and its implication for the Catholic Church.
        "The Church of Rome's views have shifted radically through the
        centuries since Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno was burned at the
        stake as a heretic in 1600 for speculating, among other ideas, that
        other worlds could be inhabited."
2009/10/11-22 [Reference/Religion] UID:53443 Activity:nil
10/9    What do suburbs in LA have in common? A swelling of bible thumpers:,0,1223443.story?track=rss
2009/8/27-9/9 [Reference/Religion] UID:53305 Activity:low
8/27    ... further proof that Antioch is full of slime balls.
        \_ further proof that Contra Costa police are incompetent.
           They could have solved the case LOOOOONG time ago.
        \_ Antioch is a safe haven for sex offenders:
           One San Francisco Chronicle columnist dubbed the city "the finest
           slum this side of Stockton."
        \_ Christian Fundie slime balls at that.
           \_ Uh, this guy had a religion all his own.  And was a serially
              convicted rapist since the 70s.  A shame he wasn't in prison.
              \_ Uh huh, this guy hung out on Sproul trying to convert people.
                 Why is it always the Christian Fundies that do this stuff?
              \_ fundies like to live in the middle of nowhere.
                 Antioch is in the middle of nowhere.
        \_ From MSNBC: "Garrido was spotted Tuesday with two children as he
           tried to enter the University of California, Berkeley, campus to
           hand out religious literature."
           God I hate these people. They're killing trees for literatures
           that no one really wants to read.
        \_ To me it's proof that the kooks who infest Berkeley are far from
           the harmless oddballs some portray them to be.
        \_ How long do you think Garrido's blog will remain online before
           the Feds ask Blogger to take it down?
        \_ can I get a californiwhatthefuckareyouguysdoing?
           \_ I read on MOTD that we should release these guys from prison.
2009/7/24-8/6 [Computer/Companies/Google, Reference/Religion] UID:53199 Activity:nil
7/24    Misha Dynin is a Google Reader God.                     -k
        \_ the other XCF guy is with God.
      \_ petm, spencer, josh all happily slave away at GOOG still, though
         they are long past the stage of actually needing money. tracs
2009/5/20-25 [Reference/Religion] UID:53021 Activity:kinda low
5/18    Thousands beaten, raped in Irish Catholic reform schools: (
        It's not just the US.  So much for Catholicism.
        \_ God will forgive them.
           \_ Yeah, and God will let them in to Heaven as long as they show
              regret.  So much for Catholicism.
        \_ The good news is that the Catholic church is kicking out father
           Cutie for the much worse sin of having consensual sex with an
           adult woman.
           \_ What?  So priests raping children is OK, but a priest having
              consensual sex with an adult woman is unforgivable?  Is that
              Satan I hear laughing?
              \_ This is just a Catholic thing, AFAIK. Most Jews and Christian
                 permit priests to marry and I think it's not a coincidence
                 that they don't have these molestation problems near as
                 much as the Catholic Church does.
                 \_ Christians generally call their "holy men" ministers,
                    and Jews call theirs Rabbis.  Is there any mainline
                    religion other than the Catholic Church which uses
                   \_ Not sure what your point is here, but yes. For example,
                      Eastern Orthodox and Episcopalian. In fact, the
                      Vatican has allowed Episcopalian priests to convert
                      even after they have married.
                 \_ How would allowing heterosexual marriage reduce
                    molestation of boys by priests?
                    \_ Are you really that dense?
                       \_ You meant "tense"?
              \_ Priests raping *male* children is okay, but priests having
                 consensual sex with female adults is not okay.  You get it
                 \_ if only they castrate priests, none of this would be
                    an issues in the first place.
2009/4/30-5/6 [Reference/Religion] UID:52926 Activity:low
4/30    Who would Jesus torture?  Answer here:
           (According to religious people)
        \_ Nazis.
           (According to religious people)
        \_ God tortures unrepentant sinners -- see references to Hell.
           \_ This is controversial, to say the least.
           \_ Not to mention, but it is complete and total blasphemy
              for people to assume the place of God.  "Judge not, lest
              ye be judged".  I'm beginning to think that the most rabid
              bible-thumping Christians are actually serving Satan.
2009/4/23-28 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:52899 Activity:nil
4/20    Ok, I am not a Jew hater.  In fact, most of my so-called "white"
        friends turned out to be Jews.   And I am fortunate to have
        opportunity to work with whole bunch Israelis and working with them
        has been an absolute pleasure.  HOWEVER, I just failed to understand
        why people got offended by the speech by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  In my
        relatively neutral point of view (I am an Asian),  most of what he
        said has strong points.  For example,  it is obvious that the
        Holocaust has greatly enhance the chance of creating the nation of
        Israel.  and Most Europeans, who has centuries of antisemtic history,
        decided that Palestine people should be the one who bear the cost of
        this statehood.
        It is also true that for all practical purposes, Israel is
        a racist Apartheid state.   What is wrong with these facts?  why
        people walked out for Iran to state the obvious?  or we don't have
        the guts to admit it yet?
        \_ why don't we wipe out all the chinese mainlanders so the Taiwanese
        can restore the former chinese dynasty? I mean this will greatly
        enhance the building up a freer China.
        \_ My observation: I did not hear the speech but some newspaper quoted
           Ahmadinejad mentioning the "question of Holocaust", and that's b.s.
           Holocaust is not a question. It's a historic fact. In any way
           I don't pay much to what he says because you know he's not sincere.
           He's kinda like many other muslim Holocaust deniers. ("Hitler did
           not kill all the Jews. And I am glad that he did!")
              Apparently he did not question the existence of the Holocaust in
              this particular speech, though he has in the past.
           \_ first of all, he didn't denied it this time.  secondly, who
              cares if IRAN denies the Holocaust?  Last time I checked,
              Iran has nothing to do with Holocaust at first place.
              What I am seeing is that USA and rest of Europeans are the one
              in denial.  They want to deny the following trend of logic
              1.  Holocaust happened, this is not right
              2.  Jews need a homeland to protect themselves
              3.  Since non of us want Jews to establish homeland in our
                  territory, let's do that on Arab's land.
              4.  let's call Arabs "terrorist" because they don't accept this
                  arrangement and deny the fact that it was Arabs who provided
                  safe haven for Jews for centuries.
              \_ you're an idiot.
        \_ You're an idiot.
           \_ NO FREE SPEECH... oh fuggedaboitit
           \_ you need to do a better job than that.  I am sincere about all
              these things I've raised. There is a clear cause-effect
              relationship between Holocaust and creation of modern Israel
              nation.  I felt that majority of European nations and America
              are in denial of this.  By the way, there was a proposal to
              create an Jewish settlement in Alaska around the time of end ofr
              WW2. That proposal didn't even made it to the Senate floor and
              died in committe.
              \_ you're an idiot.
2009/3/26 [Reference/Religion] UID:52757 Activity:nil
3/35    Does Geithner want to play God or be God?
        \_ no
2009/1/15-23 [Reference/Religion] UID:52397 Activity:nil
2009/1/6-9 [Reference/Religion] UID:52323 Activity:moderate
1/6     Any Art History buffs here? I'm trying to find out if people
        in the Renaissance used the "golden ratio" to compose their
        art work? Do they divide pictures in some magical ratios to
        make them look the way they do?
        \_ The quick answer is yes; the long answer is that they did, though
           not all of them may have done it consciously.
           \_ can you provide URL that talks about this? A friend of mine
              is asserting that people had no idea what golden ratio was
              in those era and they just did what looked good visually.
              \_ Google for Fibonacci and the Golden Mean (a video).
        \_ iirc, "The Golden Ratio" by Mario Livio includes some discussion
           about the use of the golden ratio by Renaissance artists. I think
           he has some references to additional reading as well.
        \_ Did you just read The Da Vinci Code?  You know it's fiction, right?
           And that most of the "facts" in it are crap?
           \_ Sure, sure, understood. However, some of the facts were accurate,
              insofar as they were presented as facts. -!op
              \_ Nope, pretty much everything I read in that book purporting to
                 be facts were actually wrong.
                 \_ /shrug. There was an Order of Knights called the Templars.
                    Opus Dei is a Catholic organization. The Louvre is in
                    Paris. I don't mean to nitpick, but it's a fiction born
                    out of lots of facts. That the facts don't fit together as
                    presented should be obvious from the word "fiction."
                    \- obviously the large scale stuff is made up, but
                       the da vinci code is "sloppy" on a lot of quotidian
                       details. like say somebody set something in berkeley
                       and said somebody was meeting at the corner of college
                       and university or said they walked from the i-house to
                       berkeley marina in 5min or had a 15min coversation
                       driving from evans hall to the GTU library.
                    \_ Pretty much everything presented as what the Templars
                       did or what Opus Dei is is wrong.  Simple facts about
                       the golden ratio are wrong, etc.
                       \_ Point conceded. How about a nice game of chess?
                       \_ Yeah, it's a joke.  Here's what I noted about it a
                          few years ago:
                          \_ Hey, emarkp, can you point me to an historical
                             mention of Jesus that isn't Flavius Josephus?
                             All sources seem to point back to FJ, and he's
                             not exactly unbiased. --erikred
                             \_ Josephus is the only one off the top of my head
                                who wasn't a Christian.  Justin Martyr wrote
                                about him circa 100, but he was a convert to
                                Christianity (I thought by Peter, but now I
                                can't confirm that, so he's probably third
                                hand).  -emarkp
                                \_ Josephus is not contemporary with the
                                   events he writes about, so it's hard to
                                   trust his account. --erikred
                                   \- i am not especially knowledgeable
                                      or interested in jebus, but if you
                                      are interested in the historical
                                      evidence, you can look into "the
                                      jesus project" and BART EHRMAN ...
                                      i would say josephus's "issue" is not
                                      so much his temporal distance or his
                                      being a jew rather than an xtian, but
                                      the fact that he very much had an
                                      agenda, and it was not a dispassionate
                                      academic inquiry into the historical
                                      "facts" [i have only read The Jewish
                                      War]. EUSEBIUS is an obvious person to
                                      read, but i dont remember what he says
                                      about the early first cent. You may
                                      also look into PHILO OF ALEXANDERIA
                                      aka PHILO THE JEW but i am not really
                                      familiar with him ... again, i am more
                                      interested in what was going on in rome
                                      and the west than in the levant. of the
                                      great western historians, the greatest,
                                      western historians, the greatest,
                                      tacitus, was not that interested and
                                      says little about the first century
                                      goings on in palestine although there
                                      is some discussion of the events of the
                                      60s. seutonious is a hack so i wont go
                                      on about him. dio cassius has a limited
                                      amount of commentary, but that is even
                                      more removed in time.
                                      i know more about intellectual
                                      and church history than the personal
                                      details about jebus ... if you want
                                      pointers to that stuff, let me know
                                      what kinds of Qs you are interested in.
                                      \_ Kudos to psb and emarkp for the
                                         usual good info. Will be in touch.
                                         \- factoid of the day: kudos is
                                            singular. do epong and i have
                                            to split a kudos? :-)
                                            \_ Yes. Knife-fight to ensue.
                         \_ that's a pretty good rebuttal. I refused to read
                            the book after a co-worker of mine successfully
                            argued to others that it was the first book that he
                            had ever read that actually made him dumber...
                            getting actual facts and history muddled with
                            fiction. Everyone else at the table who had read
                            the book and knew anything about history agreed.
                            \- if the Vinci Code really made you dumber, you
                               probably started out dumb [yeah, i know it's
                               probably just a line from your associate, but
                               you can see my point too, i hope]. on the other
                               hand a book like ZatAoMM really is pernicious.
                               \_ I don't think it's so much that he's dumb as
                                  that he forgot all the stuff that he learned
                                  in college 10 years prior (or my other friend
                                  who forgot everything he learned in Catholic
                                  school). He remembered the facts, but they
                                  became hazy with time, and then DBrown got
                                  got inserted into the haze. Kind of like a
                                  virus inserting itself into the code. So I
                                  guess he's dumb in a single-cell sort of way.
2008/11/22-28 [Reference/Religion] UID:52080 Activity:nil
11/22   Everyone should watch Jesus and the Awakening to God-Consciousness
        With Deepak Chopra tonight.
           \_ sweet jesus!
              \_ bugmenot?
2008/11/14-26 [Reference/Religion] UID:51982 Activity:nil
11/14   Red State Mormons teaching their kids to hate:
        \_ I missed the part that they're Mormon, where is it?
           \_ That's because it's not there.  Op is a an idiot.  Are you
                 "With a strongly conservative and Mormon population..."
                 "Roughly 90 percent of the population there is LDS."
                 \_ The area is heavily LDS.  The remaining population is
                    heavily survivalist / white supremecist.
                    \_ Op is an idiot.
2008/10/23-27 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:51650 Activity:nil
10/23   Actually, Mormons contributing 77% of pro-prop 8 funds
        \_ what would Jesus ban?  -tom
           \_ Apparently, someone felt it was important to censor
              my comment that the Mormon church has taken up
              the torch of intolerance.  Truth hurts, eh?  How about
              trying to justify Mormons as being 'pro family'?  You'd
              be wrong, but at least you wouldn't be a censorfuck.
              \_ Since this comment is still here, you were probably just
                 squished.  Get over it.
2008/10/22-26 [Reference/Religion] UID:51643 Activity:nil
10/22   Is Obama Really Christian?

        Obama campaigned for and help raised $900,000 to try to get a Muslim
        candidate and Obama's cousin Raila Odinga elected  for the kenyan
        presidency in 2006. This candidate wanted to form a muslim state and
        sharia law. Raila's  backers used machetes to kill opposing Christians
        and burned down churches with Christians inside. Is Barak really a
        Christian? He is against Christ for supporting those who  persecute
        the Body of Christ. Is this the person who is going to fight terrorism
        and muslim extremist?  He should also just give up the lie he is a
        \_ Dittohead Desperation Level: Turquoise
2008/9/16-19 [Reference/Religion] UID:51189 Activity:nil
9/16    Couldnt have McCain found a VP who does NOT have an ex pastor
        who thinks the end times are just ahead and Alaska will be converted
        into a haven for true christians?  Just no one else out there?
        \_ redux Obama
           \_ Obama's actually a Muslim, so he's not influenced by what
              the Rev. Wright says.
              \_ Secret Muslim.  They are double special.
2008/9/4-9 [Reference/Religion] UID:51065 Activity:nil
9/4     Even Mormons aren't Creationists.  I really can't handle having
        #2 in line believing the earth is only 3000 years old.
        \_ Depends on how you define "Creationists".  Young-earth creationists
           believe the earth is less than 10K years old, but no one believes
           it's 3K years old.
           \_ Because, of course, believing that the earth is only 3k years old
              would be silly.
              \_ But 10k years seems about right.
              \_ My point isn't that 10k is reasonable, just that the 3k
                 number is way off what people actually believe.  2k ago is
                 when Jesus was walking around.  I'm Mormon and believe that
                 God created the world, but the overwhelming evidence is that
                 it was created about 4.5B years ago. -emarkp
                 \_ Is God affected by Gravity?
                    \_ Why are you asking me?  And why do you ask? -emarkp
                    \_ Jesus walked the earth.
                       \_ but did he have to?  He also walked on water.
        \_ Isn't Chinese written history longer than 3000 years?
         \_ The Chinese are Satan's tools.
            \_ Do not anger me, I am Ping!
2008/8/21-26 [Reference/Religion] UID:50927 Activity:nil
8/22    Anyone know of a bank that's owned exclusively by Mormons?  I think
        Mormons prepare for the end times better than I do.  thanks.
        \_ Probably true, but I don't think such a bank exists.  Zion's Bank
           probably used to be, but I don't think that's been true for at least
           50 years...
        \_ الله أَكْ!
        \_ The end times...?
2008/8/4-8 [Reference/Religion] UID:50770 Activity:nil
8/3     Religious nuts in Texas apparently have no sense of irony, and are
        trying to ban "Fahrenheit 451" from schools:
        \_ this appears to be 2 years old.
        \_ interestingly enough Ray Bradbury has said his own book has been
           misinterpreted, and it was really a long rant about how television
           was going to destroy our culture.
           \_ Of course back before he was a cranky old man he said otherwise.
2008/7/3-10 [Reference/Religion] UID:50467 Activity:moderate
7/3     Just checking, how am I allowed to apply my religious beliefs to issues
        today?  Am I allowed to support jails?  How about wars (you know, the
        "kill the other guy" kind)?  -emarkp
        \_ You are allowed to think anything you want.  We are allowed to
           mock you for being a dumbass and possibly a hyprocrite.
           \_ Okay, what are the criteria for being "mockable". -emarkp
              \_ Being different.
        \_ Think what ever you want, but please don't try to legislate your
           beliefs.  Our government must be secular to prevent religious
           descrimination. -mrauser
           \_ Yah, whatever.  I'm trying to figure out what the unnamed jokers
              are trying to "mock" me for in the waterboarding point down
              below. -emarkp
              \_ who would Jesus torture?  -tom
                 \_ Well, yes that's part of the question, but before that, do
                    you think someone who calls himself Christian can support a
                    war?  Fight in a war? -emarkp
                        \_ Someone who "calls himself a Christian" can do
                           anything they like, such as molest children, and
                           the rest of us can call him a criminal, a sinner,
                           unChristian, and a hypocrite.  Someone who advocates
                           torture can similarly call himself a Christian,
                           or a Mormon, and the rest of us can call him a
                           criminal, a sinner, unChristian, and a hypocrite.
                           And the analogy isn't actually very bad, because
                           presumably a child is innocent, and some of those
                           that have been tortured are innocent.
                    \_ Depends on the moral basis for the war.  -tom
                       \_ Okay, so I can justify killing someone if the moral
                          basis is good?  Like self-defense or (obvious
                          example) toppling the 3rd Reich?  What do you think
                          about people who say you should *never* fight anyone,
                          citing "turn the other cheek"? -emarkp
                          \_ I have nothing but resepct for all the Quakers
                             I know.
                          \_ You're intentionally deflecting the debate.  I
                             think the Quaker position is consistent with
                             Jesus' teaching, but it's not the only
                             interpretation.  However, I fail to see any
                             plausible interpretation of Jesus' teaching
                             which allows torture.  "Self-defense" is a crock
                             in that context.  -tom
                             \_ I'm not deflecting anything, I'm trying to
                                figure out where people are going with this.
                                I'm not trying to argue that "torture is
                                self-defense thus is justified".  I'm using
                                "self-defense" as an example of violence that
                                most people consider morally valid, but others
                                point to "turn the other cheek" to suggest the
                                opposite. -emarkp
                                \_ once again: who would Jesus torture?  -tom
                                   \_ Okay tom, now that I know you want to
                                      stay in the 2nd grade, I'll ignore you in
                                      grown-up conversations.  Thanks for
                                      making yourself clear. -emarkp
                                      \_ emarkp, I have a gun and a silencer.
                                         Do you have a silencer?  -tom
                                      \_ Okay emarkp, now that I know you want
                                         to cling to your rationalizations
                                         rather than confront your own
                                         inconsistent worldview, I will return
                                         to mocking you.  -tom
                                      \_ "Who would Jesus torture" is
                                         illustrative of the point that you're
                                         not addressing, emarkp.  If you have
                                         the moral strength, total nonviolence
                                         is the best way of following Jesus'
                                         teachings.  However, most of us don't
                                         have the balls to let ourselves be
                                         killed and tortured without raising
                                         a violent hand in self defense.  It
                                         is still a moral fault by Jesus'
                                         teachings, however.  It is a much
                                         more serious and vile sin to go the
                                         huge step beyond defending yourself to
                                         torture another person.  I can look
                                         in the mirror, and say, "yes, another
                                         person has the right to defend
                                         themselves from me if I attack
                                         them", but can you really
                                         say, "yes, he has a perfect right
                                         to torture me, even though I'm
                                         innocent and have told him all the
                                         truth that I know?"  It all stems
                                         from this:  "Do unto others as
                                         you would have them do unto you",
                                         and torture is a total non-starter
                 \_ an eye for an eye works -!emarkp
                    \_ Your mocking me only makes me more like Jesus.
                       (ISAIAH 53:3). I will not hide (ISAIAH 50:6)!
                       Laughing at me does not hurt me (PSALMS 22:7).
                       I am eping and I am strong and I will WIN! (Psalms 2:4).
                       (Isaiah 53:3). I will not hide! (Isaiah 50:6)
                       Laughting at me does not hurt me (Psalms 22:7)
                       I am eping and I am strong! (not in Bible).
2008/6/19-23 [Reference/Religion] UID:50308 Activity:nil
6/19    remember when a black muslim allegedly shot an oakland journalist with
        a shotgun a year ago?
        \_ I assume this is all admissable in court?
        \_ holy crap this is amazing.
        \_ I can't youtube from here.  What's it say?
2008/6/18-24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Reference/Religion] UID:50287 Activity:nil
6/18    Obama refuses to photographed with Muslim supporters: (Yahoo news)
        \_ Liar.  His campaign officials did this.  Remember, all campaign
           officials are dirtbags. -emarkp
           \_ By necessity.
2008/6/4-9 [Reference/Religion] UID:50148 Activity:nil
6/4     Wow.  Christians warned for preaching to Muslims, because it's a hate
        \_ "A West Midlands Police spokesman said an investigation into the
            complaint had concluded that the PCSO had acted 'with the best of
            intentions' when he 'intervened to diffuse a heated argument
            between two groups of men'.
            A statement added: 'Following this investigation, the PCSO has
            been offered guidance about what constitutes a hate crime and
            advice on communication style.'"
           In other words, no.
           \_ communist
              \_ Yeah, that's what I get for reading the actual story.
2008/6/1-2 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Religion] UID:50112 Activity:nil 54%like:50122
6/1     motd not getting laid guy:
2008/5/16-21 [Reference/Religion] UID:49968 Activity:nil
5/16    "Einstein's musings about religion sells for $400K"
        \_ Yes but computer science god Knuth was very very religious.
           I failed to see the point you're trying to make.
           \_ Since when do posts on motd always have points to make?
2008/5/15-16 [Reference/Religion] UID:49962 Activity:nil
5/15    Mormon furries!
        \_ Does transhumanism have something to do with furries? Never heard of
2008/5/15-16 [Reference/Religion] UID:49953 Activity:moderate
5/15    motd mormon troll guy, are you on vacation?
        "The Mormon Church has instructed its lawyers to gag the Internet over
         WikiLeaks' release of the 1968 and 1999 versions of its confidential
         handbook for Church leaders. Apart from attacking WikiLeaks, legal
         demands were sent to Jimmy Wales of the WikiMedia foundation for a
         WikiNews article merely linking to the material, and has
         also been censored. WikiLeaks has (of course) refused to remove the
         \_ So What?  They're a real religion.  They're serious.  They believe
            in things which are completely insane like other religions, but
            the origins of their faith are so recent, there is no veil of
            time to cover up the crazy parts.  This means, Mormon people
            really believe in stuff.  This has the corollary that they're
            also serious about morality.  Compare the average clean cut
            Mormon to the average slouchy cafeteria Catholic. The Mormon is a
            serious person.  The Catholic might as well be an atheist.
            Mormons don't drink, smoke, jerk off or even drink coffee.
            That's pretty serious.
         \_ Are all Mormons this big?
            \_ she used to be a lot smaller.
               I guess all that Mormon tea really packs on the pounds.
               all that Mormon tea really packs on the pounds.
               \_ Amazing this is same girl:
                  after mission: http://
                          \_ Jesus christ.  I thought Mormons think eating
                                    50 cheeseburgers per day is a sin.
                  please, keep eating!
                  \_ This is a Mormon girl who's been on a mission?  Seems unlikely.
            \_ This is a Mormon girl who's been on a mission?  I doubt it.
            \_ They don't jerk off? What an inhumane religion...
               \_ You don't need to when you have multiple wives to service
         admittedly a lot of the handbook stuff is exactly how i would expect
         a 'mormon handbook' to look like.  it's kind of like when people
         a 'mormon handbook' to look like.  it's like when people
         condemn the new pope for acting like the new pope when he says
         Catholicism is the best and he condemns other religions.  What the
         heck do you expect the Pope to do?
2008/5/9-15 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Religion] UID:49926 Activity:nil
5/9     god i love burritos
        \_ AND?
2008/4/25-30 [Reference/Religion] UID:49832 Activity:nil
4/25    Nancy Pelosi making up bible verses.  (Last paragraph)
        Either that, or she shouldn't be using quotes there.  Maybe it's just
        poor punctuation and grammer.
        \_ That's because she's an evil socialist who hates christians and
           is going to feed them all to the lions.
           \_ Thank God someone is. It's about time.
        \_ "grammar"
2008/4/16-23 [Reference/Religion] UID:49764 Activity:nil
4/16    Pope fashion show!  I had no idea he had so many outfits.,29307,1730229,00.html
        \_ Are you kidding? Pope Benny loves his Gucci and Prada. He's probably
           the queeniest pope ever.
        \- you know most of those are hand-me-downs, right?
           \_ Costumes?
2008/4/4-9 [Reference/Religion] UID:49664 Activity:nil
4/4     God, I hate LA.
        \_ Do you live there, or are you just expressing a random opinion?
           I hate musicals.
           \_ both but stuck here for a very very long time.
           \_ You're wrong, musicals are great.
              \_ I hate the Nutcracker.  It is not great.
                 \_ That's great, but it's not a musical. It's a ballet.
        \_ Well, New Orleans can be fun.
           \_ Only when it's flooding, though.
        \_ "Livin' on an L.A. freeway ain't my kind of havin' fun." -jdenver
2008/3/29-4/6 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:49609 Activity:nil
3/28    The Hamas charter.  Not quite the Declaration of Independence....
2008/3/21-25 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Religion] UID:49530 Activity:high
3/21    Krauthhammer on Obama's speech
        \_ Does Krauthammer still call them Freedom Fries? When is he going
           to apologize for the Iraq War? The guy is a fool.
           \_ So, in other words, he's right and you have no answer to any
              of his points?  Thanks.
              \_ No, he has shown himself time and again to be mendatious
              \_ No, he has shown himself time and again to be mendacious
                 and has shown repeated bad judgement. Why would anyone
                 waste their time bothering to untangle what a proven
                 fool is blubbering on about?
                 \_ It's an opinion piece that *many* people would agree with.
                    Fine if you don't want to read someone's opinions.
                    \_ I don't waste my time reading Ann Coulter's "opinions"
                       either. Some people have worthwhile things to say,
                       this guy has proven, to me at least, that he does not.
                       \- you remember that reporter in manhunter/red dragon?
                          think krauthammer.
                       \_ That's nice.  If you don't want to read something
                          that is fine.  However, that puts you in a poor
                          position to comment on the article.  Your opinion
                          of the writer's previous statements does not create
                          the logical grounds for outright dismissing a later
                          statement.  -!pp  (and no, like you I haven't read
                          it either, but unlike you I am not going to comment
                          on something I haven't read)
                          \_ I didn't comment on his article. I dismissed
                             him as a fool.
                             \_ Exactly.  You gave a zero-content knee-jerk
                                response to seeing his name.  Why bother?
                                Is that really going to convince anyone of
                                anything or just venting?  I see no reason
                                to post content-free rants.  Perhaps you can
                                explain the value of your original post?
                                \_ It is pretty funny that a guy who defends
                                   Krauthammer would complain about a content
                                   free rant.
                                  \_ It's even funnier that a guy who
                                     complains about Krauthammer would engage
                                     so much in content free rants. -!pp
                                     \_ Show me even one column of his that is
                                        not: 1) tendentious 2) partisan and
                                        3) wrong and I will reconsider my
                                        POV. The truth is, I have read over
                                        20 of his columns and not even one of
                                        them was worth the time I spent.
                                        them was worth the time I spent. And
                                        btw, saying "Krauthammer was wrong
                                        about Iraq and I will not consider his
                                        opinion until he recants" is hardly
                                        comment free. Perhaps you don't agree
                                        with the comment, but it is certainly
                                        not comment-free.
                                  \_ I'm at no point defending Krauthammer.
                                     I made it quite clear I didn't read the
                                     article and it doesn't matter at all what
                                     the article says since you didn't read it
                                     either.  You are intellectually dishonest
                                     or possibly just mentally deficient.
                                     Either way you have still failed to make
                                     a point or even attempt to. -pp
                                     \_ No, I made my point just fine, you just
                                        refuse to admit it: some people aren't
                                        worth wasting your time considering.
                                        Do you remember when the motd was
                                        covered with Freeper trolls? I used
                                        to post links to Prof. Thomas'
                                        excellent blog, The Economist's Voice,
                                        excellent blog, The Economist's View,
                                        until some of the Motd Conservatives
                                        complained about the tone of the
                                        comments section. Krauthammer is
                                        far worse.
                                        \_ You didn't make a point.  A point
                                           might have been convincing.  You
                                           expressed a content-free opinion.
                                           There is nothing wrong with that.
                                           It just isn't a point.  Don't
                                           confuse your opinion with fact.
                                        \_ My reply was deleted, so here's the
                                           rehashed version: You posted your
                                           opinion.  Yay.  I'm happy for you.
                                           It still isn't a fact and your
                                           opinion is not something that can
                                           be falsified.  You don't like him.
                                           Ok.  As far as freepers go, if you
                                           were the one posting freeper links,
                                           I was the one saying we don't need
                                           that here.  There's no reason at
                                           all to post a freeper link when all
                                           we're getting is freeper hate plus
                                           a link to the original article.
                                           Just post the original link without
                                           the hate.  I also don't see a need
                                           for dailykos hate either, just so
                                           you understand I'm even handed with
                                           my hate-link complaints.
        \_ The answer to his question (why he stayed in the church) is pretty
           obvious.  A church is primarily about religion and faith.  Politics
           are secondary.  A preacher expressing an opinion he doesn't agree
           with isn't a crime that reflects on him or his judgement.  Unless
           you say he should have left because, cynically, it might be used
           against him for political muckraking and fearmongering purposess.
           \_ A preacher saying the things Wright said should have no
              \_ Well, I'd say any preacher should have no congregation since
                 religion is all a giant pile of bullshit.  But go figure: it
                 seems to help them.  You aren't in that church, you don't
                 know what pros there might be to counter these supposed cons.
                 \_ It's an opinion piece that *many* people would agree with.
                    Fine if you don't want to read someone's opinions.
                 \_ There *is no pro* that can counter these cons.  And what do
                    you mean by 'supposed'?
                    \_ You know everything, why don't you figure it out?
          \_ You know, this kind of shit is amazing to read, given how much
             shit famous ring-wing christians get here. -- ilyas
             shit famous right-wing christians get here. -- ilyas
             \_ Well, I guess to me the thing is that Obama explicitly and
                publically rejects the controversial statements at hand. The
                only real controversy with him then is his church membership
                and apparent friendship with this man.  I don't recall the
                right wing politicians rejecting wacky religious right stuff.
                Actually they (Bush etc) invoke it in public policy matters.
             \_ Slightly off-topic, but if you take a closer look at Wright's
                philosophy, he's far more of a conservative than a liberal.
             \_ Hey, I think he is a kook, but I think that about most
                religious people, so I think my opinion doesn't really matter
                religious people, so my opinion doesn't really matter
                here. What is going on, imho, is that religious conservatives
                are waking up to the fact that there are other strains of
                Christian faith and it kind of freaks them out.
2008/2/27-3/4 [Reference/Religion] UID:49277 Activity:nil
2/26    Major survey challenges Western perceptions of Islam
2008/2/12-14 [Reference/Religion] UID:49126 Activity:high
2/12    I don't understand the whole Trinity / Holy Ghost / Father
        Son thing (ok i figured out the Son is Jesus).  please
        explain?  - bad Christian
        \_ It's all about the Divine Nature (think Source, Course, Flow)
        God as the Father is the Source of the Divine Eternal Life
        Jesus is the Course to obtain this Divine Eternal Life after
        man sinned and got banned from the Tree of Life from Garden of Eden
        The Holy Spirit is now the Life Giving Spirit which is the
        experiential flow one obtains by taking in the Divine Eternal Life
        by receiving Christ. They are all the same entity just they only way
        by receiving Christ. They are all the same entity just the only way
        to approach taking in the Divine Life. God, Jesus, and the Holy
        Spirit are all the same being.
        \_ I just like how God impregnated his daughter and gave birth to
          \_ What is a creator who just exists by his lonesome going to do?
        All He can do is create. So He creates man, dispenses His divine life
        into man so man can become the same in life and nature as He is
        so that God can find a suitable counterpart to spend the rest of
        eternity with. So man receives the Holy Spirit, it transforms mankind
        into God kind. So Mary conceived a child of the Holy Spirit.
        It's a miracle because she was still a virgin even though she got
        \_ it's the Divine Mystery, you're not supposed to understand it.
           (That's religious code for "Bullshit")  -tom
           \_ Your answer may be correct, but it's not what I was looking
        \- look in the "catholic encyclopedia" ... although what you read
           may be incomprehensible because of all the jargon. --psb
           \_ FYI, the Catholic Encyclopedia is an excellent source for
              heresies and controversies, if you're willing to read between
              the lines. --erikred
        \_ The Bible refers to each person individually, and says they are
           "one". The Nicene Creed invented the Greek word "homoousios" (same
           substance) to describe the relationship between the persons (three
           persons, one substance).  It gets more complicated from there. The
           basic idea is "Three persons, one God."  Note: the idea that the
           three persons are different forms of God (like ice, water, steam) is
           a heresy, called "modalism". I AM ... -emarkp
           a heresy, called "modalism".  -emarkp
           \_ Ping: Does God or the Holy Spirit have the power to shoot
              laser beams?  This is a serious question.
           \_ must...resist... trolling emarkp into explaining Mormon
              GOD MAN meme found in ancient Egyptian scroll John
              Smith bought from gypsies...
           \_ I heard Eternal Progression is a heresy.  -- ilyas
              \_ Oh, I reject the Nicene creed out of hand.  (And the Council
                 of Chalcedon is a joke.)  I was answering the question based
                 on what traditional Christianity teaches.  I find the history
                 of the Christian Church fascinating. I didn't go into the
                 whole "filioque" clause which divides the Western and Orthodox
                 traditions either. -emarkp
                 \_ Rejecting the Nicene Creed is pretty much rejecting
                    Christianity, which is one of the reasons why us Christians
                    don't consider Mormons to be Christian.
                    \_ The Orthodox churches rejected the filioque clause, so
                       have a different creed, yet are still Christian. Other
                       \_ I'm Orthodox and a lot of us would consider
                          "other churches" to also be heretical.
                       groups reject other ecumenical councils and are still
                       Christian.  You want to start a "Mormons aren't
                       Christians" thread, go ahead, but this one was about
                       what the Trinity is.  I posted a summary as to how
                       traditional Christians understand the Trinity. -emarkp
                       \_ So Mormons are "untraditional Christians"?
                          That's an understatement.
                          \_ We believe in Christ, but do not adhere to many of
                             the traditions of Christianity, yes. -emarkp
        \_ It's just a mostly-arbitrary doctrine. The father is the normal
           God from the old testament. The Holy Ghost is, essentially,
           everything else. They look at specific bible passages that talk
           about the holy spirit and that's what it is. There's nothing else
           to understand.
           \_ See!  That is the answer I was looking for.  tom you are an
              atheist meanie who will never make it past Terrestial
              \_ Don't confuse atheist with anti-theist.
              \_ I may betray my New Jersey heritage when I say "I'd rather
                 laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints."  -tom
2008/1/16-18 [Reference/Religion] UID:48956 Activity:high
1/16    ok i have date with hot 30 year old Mormon.  I say 'HOLY CRAP'
        and 'GOD!!!!' a lot.  I want to avoid saying such offensive
        blasphemous things.  What are some good Mormon-safe
        interjections?  ok tnx.
        \_ Monkeyballs
         \_ Hey, that's my word.  Make up your own damn words.
        \_ frack
        \_ GM Chrysler! Holy Smith! (see what I did there?)
        \_ Good thing soda came back up! What did you trolls do while it was
        \_ Uhm, how about simply thinking before opening your mouth?  If maybe
           you scorched your hand on the stove and let out a few instant
           curses, well hey, your hand just got charred, but during normal
           conversation why are you cursing if you don't want to?  Just don't.
        \_ I occasionally use 'oh, bother', from Winnie-the-Pooh.   I think it
            gets shock value from its tame-ness.
        \_ Oh, golly, if that doesn't put the shaz in shazam.
           \_ SHA-ZAM!!!!  Ker-pow!  THOK!  WAMMO!
        \_ Why is 'GOD!!!!' offensive to Mormons?
        \_ "Oh my wives!"
           \_ Taking the Lord's name in vain.
        \_ "Oh my Wives!"
2008/1/14 [Reference/Religion] UID:48949 Activity:nil 51%like:48946
1/14    Serious Mormon question:
        Most Christians (and certainly their churches) view Mormons as an
        evil cult at worst and a laughingstock at best. They do not
        consider them Christian in any way and assume all Mormons are
        going to hell. How do Mormons perceive Christians and Jews?
        \_ Are you "stalking the mormon chick" guy?  Instead of turning her
           into a label, how about you just have coffee or whatever and get
           to know her?  That will work a lot better than asking the motd
           about her.
           \_ nearly 30 extremely attractive hot Mormon chicks DO NOT
              DRINK COFFEE.  Actually I dunno how the holy hell Mormons
              live without caffeine.  I guess that god stuff really works.
        \_ Find a Mormon and ask him/her. Enough with the trolling.
2008/1/11-14 [Reference/Religion] UID:48934 Activity:insanely high
1/11    Please dont think I'm trolling emarkp.  So I met an incredibly
        attractive female the other day at a bar.  I don't normally
        hang out at bars, but it was for someone's birthday.  Said female
        and I chatted for a very long time, agreed to hang out later,
        traded phone numbers/email, etc.  I stalked her a bit online
        and found out she's nearly 30 and Mormon.  Her web presence
        makes her seem nice and cool and great and I bet we'd get along
        famously since I don't smoke or drink (much) either.  My pretty
          \_ Do you think that not smoking or drinking is all there is
             to Mormonism?
             \_ No, there is also baptising dead Jews against the wishes
                of their families and polygamy.
        simple question is do hot unmarried nearly 30 female Mormons
        engage in premarital sex?  Or if I pursue this person, is she going
        to be looking to get married before we have sex?  Does this kind
        of thing get hot nearly 30 unmarried Mormons get kicked out
        of the church?  I think she goes to church regularly, I found pictures
        of her and her college friends going to church on her blog.
        I hope some of the motd Mormons humor me and answer me.  I am
        trying to be funny but it's a serious question.  thanks.
        \_ You are doing EVERYONE a favor by tempting her to pre-marital
           sex. Basically, if she fails to be pure, then she's not a true
           Mormon and you'll help filtering out hypocrits and keeping
           Mormonism pure while having sex with her. It's a win-win
           situation for the Mormon religion and pagans like you.
           \_ She gave him an email/phone#.  He stalked her online.  Where is
              the part where our OP stalker even got a first date much less
              was in a position to sleep with her?  She may not even be a
              Mormon.  He only thinks he knows that from stalking her, not
              from her saying so.  This woman is a total stranger.
        \_ It doesn't hurt to try. What have you got to lose?
        \_ If she's actively involved in the church, premarital sex is out of
                \_ Even if she is actively involved in the church, most
                   religious people are hypocrites, so maybe she'll be
                   one of those and put out.
           the question. You may ruin her morals if you try, but why would you
           want to change someone you like? -emarkp
           \_ Yeah, right. Premarital sex is out of the question with actively
              involved Catholic girls, too, and we know how that goes.
              \_ This is why I ask!  She is pretty hot.  I don't know her
                 too well but I would consider converting just for her.
                 I don't believe in a supreme being right now.
                 I just remembered that I've been booty calling a Mormon
                 girl about my age in Sacramento for YEARS.  She's a single
                 mom, she loves being Mormon since there is always a
                 a nearby Mormon family with 5 other kids who don't mind
                 babysitting.  -op
                 \_ So you'll believe in a supreme being if it's convenient
                    for getting laid?  I bet during sex, too!  "Oh God!!"
                    \_ You mean Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, not God.
           \_ Is there a trial period?  Do Mormon females test drive
              relationships with non Mormons for a few months, then issue
              a convert to Mormonism and marry me if you want to stay together?
              \_ Some do some don't.  She may be willing to marry a non-mormon.
                 By 30 the Mormon dating pool is getting kinda sparse. -jrleek
                 \_ So if in my wild fantasy scenario we got married...
                    I would have to convert to Mormonism?  I'm not saying
                    this is a horrible thing, just asking.
                    \_ Dude, you are getting waaay ahead of yourself here.
                     \_ She's Mormon.  Marriage is something you talk
                        about on the 3rd date.
                        \_ Perhaps, but this guy hasn't even had date one yet.
                         \_ Yeah, but when I'm thinking about dating someone
                            I've always got "how is that sex thing going to
                            work" in mind even before the first date.
        \_ Well, I haven't dated any Mormon girls, but I have dated other
           religious women and in my experience you can get pretty far, but
           not go all the way without a very serious comittment. Pretty
           far means almost but not all the way by the late 20s. YMMV.
           This is actually quite hot, if you are into it.
           \_ Seconded. Just be clear on how far it can go ahead of time, so
              as to avoid expectations of more.
        \_ Well, as emarkp said, if she's really Mormon, sex is out of the
           question.  On the other hand, what was she doing in a bar?  Was
           there a show or something? -jrleek
           \_ someone's birthday gathering.  she wasn't drinking.
2007/12/21-29 [Reference/Religion] UID:48850 Activity:nil
12/21   Dalai Lama "is not a call girl"
        "I met the Dalai Lama in my office but I meet everyone in my office. I
        don't know why I would sneak off to a hotel room just to meet the
        Dalai Lama. You know, he's not a call girl,"
        Ha ha!
        \_ The implications here are superb. Thank you.
        \_ 'China condemned Harper for "disgusting conduct"'
           \_ Not for his implied knowledge of call girl etiquette but for
              meeting with the Dalai Lama. China: crazier than thou.
              \_ You know how a joke is never funny if you try to explain it?
                 \_ In Soviet China, funny jokes you!
2007/12/19-29 [Reference/Religion] UID:48835 Activity:nil
12/19   Ken Jennings weighs in on the Romney/Mormon thing
2007/12/18-20 [Reference/Religion] UID:48825 Activity:high 66%like:48819
12/17   Excellent article on religion in politics, tolerance, and multi-
        culturalism.  [urltea has been flaky. -op]
        \_ instead of stuff like, can't we use some sort of standard
           command-line compressor/decompressor? Some reversible hashfunction.
           Anyone know of a tool like that?
           \_ Would that significantly compress the URL given that we'd have
              to stick to ASCII chars?
             \_ I think in general you don't need huge compression, just
                "enough". Just a thought anyway, I hate url shortening sites.
                \_ Learn some information theory and come back later.
                  \_ I bet using UTF-8 would allow enough compression for
                     normal links. Even ASCII has lots of extra crap.
                     I'd rather not shorten them at all than use temporary
                     shortened links that won't remain valid.
                     \_ Pat Pat
           \_ Um, are hash functions usually reversable?
              \_ Not in the most typical use, but there are very many that are.
                 One hashing algorithm which is which you might not have
                 realised is encryption.
             \_ No. But I was asking...
        \_ Ah, a former- and now anti-Mormon writes about religion, slamming
           Mormons in the process.  By the Weekly Standard no less.
           \_ I'm ignorant here.  Is the Weekly Standard a leftie rag or a
              righty rag?
              \_ Righty.
           \_ This does such injustice to the article. You're all troll hags. -op
        \_ What is wrong with the usual url shorteners?  How would a home
           grown motd version be any different?
        \_ Did anyone actually read the entire article? The analysis is quite
        \_ Did anyone actually read entire the article? The analysis is quite
           good, if you look past the lame jokes, and conservative POV. -op
        \_ I actually read this very long and dense article that took me
           over an hour to read and digest. He make some very good points,
           over an hour to read and digest. He makes some very good points,
           but I think he is wrong to claim that the GOP's inner debate
           on religious tolerance somehow tars all of America with the
           brush of intolerance. There will be a Jewish President, a Muslim
           President and probably even a Mormon President someday. But they
           will all be Democrats. The GOP has made itself into the Grand
           Ole' Fundamentalist Party and its inability to nominate anyone
           who is not a mainline Protestant is the inevitable result of that
           choice. Perhaps it can unmake itself, but only after a long time
           in the political wilderness of being out of power.
           \_ I don't think he said the GOP's debate tars all. He said both the
              (current) religious right and (current) multiculturalist left both have
              (current) right and (current) multiculturalist, relativist left both have
              it wrong. (and that Romney is a twink.) Then he laid out an excellent way
              to objectively draw the line about what should be in bounds and what
              should not. And I almost said which "religious subjects", but it's more
              subtle than that, for good reasons. Thanks for commenting. -op
              (current) religious right and (current) multiculturalist left
              both have it wrong. (and that Romney is a twink.) Then he laid out
              an excellent way to objectively draw the line about what should be
              in bounds and what should not. And I almost said which "religious
              subjects", but it's more subtle than that, for good reasons.
              Thanks for commenting. -op
              \_ Yes, he briefly and without too much evidence claimed that
                 multi-culturalism was just as bad as the Right's overt
                 pro-Christian bias. I know he was speaking to an audience
                 that probably already agrees with him, so he didn't feel
                 the need to make much of a case, but I think that:
                 1) multiculturalism is hardly monolithic on the left
                 2) multiculturalism as practiced in the United States
                    is not really significantly different than the more
                    traditional liberal virtues of tolerance that he espouses
                 I have heard that  Europe is different, in that they are
                 making special exceptions for mostly Muslim immigrants
                 (except in France, which has a strong secular tradition)
                 and having a tough time integrating them (especially in
                 and are having a tough time integrating them (especially in
                 France, probably because they are trying harder there),
                 but I honestly don't have way to "reality check" these
                 but I honestly don't have a way to "reality check" these
                 claims. Here in the US, new immigrants are assimilating
                 all the time. Some groups better than others, no doubt, but
                 what is the out-marraige rate for Buddhists in this country?
                 For Jews? For Muslims? I am sure it is higher here than
                 anywhere else.
                 \_ I agree, but it seems clear he's talking about multiculturalism
                    in the US as preached and prosecuted (persecuted? :D), not as
                    practiced. Always a wide gap between the two in US, versus Europe,
                    because the left is large and in charge over there.
2007/12/18 [Reference/Religion] UID:48819 Activity:high 66%like:48825
12/17   Excellent article on religion in politics, tolerance, and multiculturalism. [provenance not provided because not indicative.]
        \_ instead of stuff like, can't we use some sort of standard
           command-line compressor/decompressor? Some reversible hashfunction.
           Anyone know of a tool like that?
2007/12/10-14 [Reference/Religion] UID:48777 Activity:kinda low
12/10   Are there equivalence to the Catholic Pope for Mormons, Muslims,
        Jewish, etc?
        \_ no.
        \_ Definitely not for Judaism though many Jewish sects/degrees of
           orthodoxy have one or more groups of Rabbis who are seen as sort of
           community elders.  They are closer in some respect to Cardinals in
           the Catholic faith, but the attitude/process seems different.  In
           Judaism there is a focus on argument in general, and the view that
                                        \_ s/argument/debate/g;
                                           \_ Sure.  Though I'd argue you're
                                              splitting hairs. -dans
                                              \_ I think this says a lot about
                                              \_ s/argue/debate/g;
                                                 \_ Why do you keep using that
                                                    word?  I do not think it
                                                    means what you think it
                                                    means. -dans
                                                    \_ You killed my father!
                                                       Prepare to die!
                                                       \_ Why am I always the
                                                          last one to know?
           wisdom comes from incorporating many different, sometimes
           contradictory viewpoints.  I know Mormonism has a council of
           elders, but couldn't tell you much more than that.  jrleek could
           likely explain it better. -dans
           \_ great info, thanks. Are you Jewish?
              \_ Ethnically yes.  I'm somewhat ambivalent toward the organized
                 aspects of the religion at present. -dans
                 aspects of the religion at present. I enjoy touching men.-dans
                 \_ If you're going to edit my posts, please note that I
                    usually put two spaces after the period in the text, and
                    at least one after the period when I sign my name.  Also,
                    keep in mind that regardless of the gender of who it is
                    that I'm fucking at any given moment, she or he is
                    likely way out of the league of anyone that would ever
                    willingly go near your trolling ass. -dans
                    \_ Better yet, just don't edit people's posts,
                       even if they're dans.  -niloc
        \_ Alan Greenspan is the Pope of the Jews.      -troller
        \- cathlolic:orthodoxy::jew,muslim:orthopraxy --psb
2007/12/6-7 [Reference/Religion] UID:48758 Activity:nil
12/6    Bernie Ward, a popular San Francisco radio talk show host and former
        Catholic priest, has been indicted on federal child pornography
        charges, authorities said today.
        \_ Whoa!  url?
           \_ It's breaking news. Do you know how to use the google machine?
              \_ I don't use google. It has a very liberal bias. Use Yahoo!
              \_ I guess turning people over to a Chinese worker gulag is
                 pretty conservative, you have me there.
2007/12/6-13 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:48756 Activity:kinda low
12/6    About "While Europe Slept"
        Having recently published an indictment of Christian fundamentalist
        intolerance in the U.S. (Stealing Jesus), New York native Bawer
        relocated to Europe with his Norwegian partner in 1998 and found an
        even more dangerous strain of religious and cultural bigotry ensnaring
        Western Europe. A swarming menace called radical Islam, he writes,
        rings Europe's cities in smoldering Muslim ghettos, provoking
        everything from so-called honor killings and political assassinations
        to the Madrid subway bombings and the massacre of school children in
        Beslan. Worse, the Taliban-like theocracy Bawer sees looming inside
        backward immigrant populations resistant to integration flourishes
        under the protective wing of Western Europe's America-bashing,
        multicultural, liberal establishment.
        \_ Sure, and that's why armed thugs are enforcing burka-wearing
           ordinances in Fremont. Oh, wait, they're not? How'd that happen?
           Oh, right, because Bawer's a nut and a bigot.
           \_ He's gay, and went to the Netherlands to live in a more accepting
              place with his partner. He was assaulted at least once by Muslims
              who saw him together with his partner.
              \_ And on the basis of this he insists that Europe is one step
                 from Sharia? Cf. "I got mugged by a black man, so all black
                 men must be criminals."
           \_ Fremont is in Europe?
              \_ Sorry, misread "Europe's" for "American."
        \_ Yeah, go back and read about how the Irish/Italians/Mexicans, etc
           would not integrate and were doomed to destroy America. It is the
           same old alarmism. It is perhaps true that Europe has a shorter
           history of integrating immigrants, so will need to learn, but
           same old alarmism. It is perhaps true that Europe has less
           experience in integrating immigrants, so will need to learn, but
           hardly concievable that a small minority would overwhelm the
           majoritarian culture.
           \_ Irish/Italians/Mexicans were not Muslim.
            \_ And therefor not EEEEEEEEEEVIL?
              \_ No, they were Catholic, which was considered even worse.
                \_ Yet they weren't blowing people up.
                   \_ Neither are Muslims.  The French riots, 9/11, etc were
                      all the acts of "students" and "youths".
                   \_ You are obviously unfamiliar with the history of the
                      IWW. Ever heard of the Haymarket Riot?
2007/12/6-7 [Reference/Religion] UID:48754 Activity:high
12/6    Mitt "Athiests can't be free" Romney!
        \_ Is that Mitt's brother?  Since that's not his name and he didn't say
           \_ Ack, brain fart.  And he said that without religion we
              can't be free.
              \_ As a society, not as individuals.
                 \_ How is this better?
                    \_ Can you name a free society in history that lacked
                       \_ Isn't Singapore incredibly secular?
                       \_ Lacked an official religion or religion as an
                          official requirement, or lacked religious and/or
                          non-religious freedom?
                          \_ A society of religious people, not necessarily a
                             state religion (which actually damages personal
                             religion) or 100% religious individuals.
                             \_ You're asking for a free society of religious
                                \_ Yes, like the United States--perhaps you've
                                   heard of it?
                                   \_ Are Americans required to be religious?
                             \_ The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, just to name
                                a few places I have been to.
                               \_ Which are all on the tipping point of
                                  collapse.  Read "America Alone" and "While
                                  Europe Slept"
                                  \_ From the inside flap or A.A. ...
And liberals will still tell you that "diversity is our
strength" while Talibanic enforcers cruise Greenwich Village burning
books and barber shops, the Supreme Court decides sharia law doesn't
violate the "separation of church and state," and the Hollywood Left
decides to give up on gay rights in favor of the much safer charms of
                                     Yeah... I think I can safely
                                     ignore this book.
                                     \_ And the other one?
                                      \_ I didn't really feel the need to
                                         check out a book recommended in the
                                         same sentance as Amercia Alone.
                                         If someone can recommend a book
                                         with that as the grab you text, well,
                                         I don't really care what else they
                                  \_ And we're on the tipping point of supply
                                     side economics working!  All hail the
                                     downfall of the heathens!
                                     \_ And have you read either of those
                                        \_ Why not just read Cato the Elder?
                                           These are the same old themes and
                                           Cato is probably better written.
                               \_ Are you saying they aren't religious? If so
                                  I'm not sure where you get that idea.
                                  \_ A majority of people in those countries
                                     don't believe in God. I don't know where
                                     you get the idea that they are "religious."
                                     \_ Well they are historically Christian.
                                        Christianity is still part of the
                                        culture, for burials and christenings
                                        for example. I also knew some religious
                                        Swedes so I guess my perception is off.
                                        I just googled and you're right.
                                        \_ My perception is probably also
                                           throw off by who I know, but in
                                           The Netherlands especially, religion
                                           is in obvious decline, with a number
                                           of old churches being converted to
                                           new uses, like office buildings. It
                                           actually seemed kind of odd, even
                                           blasphemous to me, but I guess it
                                           \_ blasphemous?  who cares?  take
                                              religion too seriously and you
                                              get abominations like that case
                                              in Sudan where they wanted to
                                              kill a school teacher for
                                              "insulting Islam" for allowing
                                              kids to name a teddy bear
                                              "Muhammad".  Insulting religion
                                              and "blasphemy" shouldn't be
                                              crimes, nor even discouraged,
                \_ A bigger problem is the women in many Islamic oriented
                   societies have almost no rights.  One of their big problems
                   is places like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Afghanistan may
                   or not have actual written laws, I forget, but whatever
                   is written down may be trumped immediately by Shariah,
                   or whatever law the current high Islamic clerics interpret
                   as law, that day.  At least in America when you get screwed,
                   they do it with a law that's actually written down somewhere.
                   Who cares about a stupid teddy bear.
                                              \_ The world is not quite as
                                                 black and white as that, imho.
                                           is better than tearing them down.
                                           The exact number of non-believers
                                           depends on how you ask the question
                                           too, I realize. Not that many
                                           "athiests" but lots of "I don't go
                                           to church or believe in God."
                       \_ Irrelevent.  Correlation != causation
                          \_ Right. It's like saying, can you name a free
                             society in history that lacked disease?
                             \_ Actually, religion is very like a disease of
                                the mind.  You suspend all your reasoning
                                powers and critical thinking.
                                \_ Yeah that thought crossed my mind as I wrote
                                   that too. The problem is that "faith" is a
                                   limitless path. It can be used to justify
                                   just about anything. In general it leads to
                                   irrational conflict with other faiths, and
                                   manipulation of the faithful.
                                \_ So what about the people of substantial
                                   reasoning and critical thinking who are
                                   \_ Religion is regarded by the common people
                                      as true, by the wise as false, and by the
                                      rulers as useful -Seneca the Younger 4BC
2007/12/4-7 [Reference/Religion, Recreation/Media] UID:48745 Activity:low
        How sad is your state? Depression rates ranked
        Survey says Utah has the blues but South Dakota's days are bright
        Wait, I thought Mormons are suppose to be one of the most positive
        & productive & happiest people on earth (according to South Park)
        \_ No caffeine and no beer make mormons something something.
        \_ It was the Scientology episode where they checked your happiness
           rating, was it not? One of the characters took the test because
           he was depressed. If I remember correctly, the Mormon episode
           was where they sang and danced.
2007/11/27-30 [Reference/Religion] UID:48699 Activity:moderate
11/27 (NYTimes)
        More Muslim riots in Paris--80 police injured
        \_ "The violence was set off by the deaths of two teenagers on a
            motorbike who were killed in a crash with a police car Sunday
            night. The scene, with angry youths targeting the police mostly
            with firebombs, rocks and other projectiles, was reminiscent of
            three weeks of rioting in 2005."
           It's a youth riot, not a Muslim riot. Read deeper.
           \_ Are you fricking kidding? Everyone mentioned in the article
              is Muslim, the neighborhood is predominated by Muslims, and
              in France "youths" are mostly Muslim, too.
              \_ Are French Muslim citizens of working age rioting? Then this
                 is a youth riot, not a Muslim riot. By calling it a Muslim
                 riot, you're labelling it with an ethnic/religious tag that
                 has nothing to do with why these kids are rioting. READ
                 \_ The issues these kids are protesting and their
                    resentment of the French government stem from their
                    treatment as Muslims in France. Not ever single Muslim
                    treatment as Muslims in France. Not every single Muslim
                    in the country has to riot in order for it to be a
                    Muslim riot. How many non-Muslim youths are rioting?
                    Oh, none.
                    \_ According to the news, black Africans are also
                       rioting. Are they also Muslim?
                       \_ Yes.
                    \_ The kids are protesting two of their buddies getting
                       killed by cops. It's not a Muslim issue.
                       \_ This is like saying the Rodney King riots were not a
                          race issue. They were just protesting someone getting
                          beaten by the cops and race wasn't a factor, right?
                          \_ ...? If RK had been a 16 year old kid and the
                             rioters had all been teens and unemployed youths,
                             would you have called it a race issue?
                             \_ Yes, if they were all black and the white
                                kids weren't rioting.
        \_ And they are using shotguns:
           Can you imagine what would happen here if rioters starting
           using guns?
2007/11/5 [Reference/Religion] UID:48542 Activity:high
11/5    goddamn i just wrecked the company toilet
        I should get an award
        \_ You ever take a dump so big, that after you it you suddenly
           have faith there is a God watching us?
           \_ You need God to help?
        \_ You should weigh yourself before and after
        \_ God might help.  I thought I had finished my ruling for the day,
           but I just went back in and I think I got it all out.  THANK
           YOU LORD.
           \_ If we had transporters as in Star Trek, I'd never take
              another dump.  I'd just "beam it out".
              \_ I've been sitting here enjoying the zen like calm that
                 has filled my body since I evacuated about 5 pounds of
                 crap from me this morning.
2007/10/18-19 [Reference/Religion, Recreation/Media] UID:48358 Activity:kinda low
10/18   who is this 5 foot 10 blond on Regis & Kathy Lee?
        oh, it's rebecca rojim-stamos.
        she must have knocked them dead at Berkeley High.
        \_ Jesus Christ now she's talking about how she wakes up in the
           morning thanking God for being female and needs to feel
           her breasts just to be sure.
           \_ oh it's about a tv show.
           \_ well crap she's convinced me!  she has a new show about
              feeling herself up premiering tonight on ABC, 8pm
           \_ I thank God everyday we have such quality culture on tv.
           \_ I bet Regis makes more than she does for the same work. I
              also doubt she will be on a show with some young hunky guy
              when she's 70 (Regis is 75). Still better to be a woman?
              when she's 60. Still better to be a woman?
2007/9/24 [Reference/Religion] UID:48160 Activity:nil
9/22    God, my ass hurts.
2007/9/20-24 [Science/Battery, Reference/Religion] UID:48135 Activity:kinda low
9/20    explain this whole Jena 6 thing for me.  ok tnx.
        \_ Black student asks for permission from principal to sit under so-
           called "White Tree," principal says sit where you like; next day,
           there are three nooses hanging from tree. Tensions rise, words are
           said, there's a fight, one of the (white) noose-hangers gets
           knocked out (but recovers in time to go to a school function that
           evening); prosecutor decides to prosecute (black) defendants for
           "Attempted Murder."
           \_ My understanding is the white kid who got beat up was not one
              of the noose-hangers but the whole thing has been so spun into
              the sadly typical OJ-like circus that who can tell?
           \_ and prosecutor decides not to prosecute the noose-hangers
              for a hate crime.
              \_ Actually, they were expelled, but then appealed.  Yes, there
                 is a difference between putting up some provocative rope and
                 beating the crap out of someone.
                 \_ Welcome to provocative speech, the kind of 1st Amendment
                    speech that does not protect you from assault and battery,
                    esp. when you're throwing punches as well.
                    \_ Does not compute.
                       \_ (ExpertLaw on A&B, mutual)
           \_ At first, I thought this was a troll about the porn star. My
              coworker briefed me about it this morning. -!op
              \- When i first saw "Jena protest" and "Jena 6" in print,
                 I thought it was a reference to something going on in
                 Germany. Jena is a famous old town prominent in German
                 cultural/intellectual/religious history, and also famous
                 for a Napoleanonic battle [hence the bridge in Paris from
                 the Eiffel Tower to the Trocadero is the "Jena Bridge"].
                 I was kinda surprised when I first heard it pronounced
                 "Gee-na". Did this story get natl coverage when the actual
                 events occured last yr? Or only after the trial. I was kinda
                 amazed to hear about the "White Tree of Jena".
           Thank god they aren't locals, though...
2007/9/12-14 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:48036 Activity:high
9/12    Obama: strong backer of Israel.
                \- BTW, Mearshimer and Walt are two quite well regarded
                   people in the International Relations fields. They are
                   "standard" in the grad IR curriculum. It would be
                   like say Susan Graham and Jeffrey Ullman weighing in on
                   compliers ... ok neither are Donald Knuth, and regular
                   people dont know who they are, but they are top in the
                   field. Walt did his PhD at Berkeley under Kenneth Waltz
                   [who would be like Knuth, or John McCarthy in the earlier
                   analogy]. Anyway, just pointing out these arent two randoms
                   or fringe fruitcakes ... like that dood Dershowitz went
        \_ I thought blanks and jews hate each other.
           \_ Who told you that, Rush Limbaugh?
              \_ Probably not that big a deal in recent years but the further
                 you go back, you more true it is.  I'm sorry if you're unaware
                 of your own nation's history to such a degree you think only
                 Rush Limbaugh might know the ugly truth.  --sad for you
                 \_ You mean during the Civil Rights movement when Blacks
                    and Jews worked hand in hand, literally, to help stop
                    segregation? Or do you mean further back? What
                    specifically are you talking about?
                    "From the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement,
                     Blacks and Jews marched arm-in-arm. In 1909, W.E.B.
                     Dubois, Julius Rosenthal, Lillian Wald, Rabbi Emil G.
                     Hirsch, Stephen Wise and Henry Malkewitz formed the
                     National Association for the Advancement of Colored
                     People (NAACP). One year later other prominent Jewish and
                     Black leaders created the Urban League. Julius Rosenwald
                     and Booker T. Washington worked together in 1912 to
                     improve the educational system for Blacks in the South."
                     \_ No, I mean pre-Civil Rights when jews from Europe
                        were coming to the US to avoid being slaughtered in
                        European pogroms.  The fact that there are a few well
                        known people who worked together at the time does not
                        change the fact that the average black and the average
                        jew hated each other.  They were competing for jobs,
                        housing, etc.  Today you won't find many jews and
                        blacks living in the same areas so distance makes the
                        heart grow fonder.  Each has other concerns in the
                        modern era so the typical jew/black-on-the-street has
                        no special animosity towards the other.  If you're
                        either black or jewish, ask your grandparents how they
                        feel about the other.
                        \_ You are misinformed about pre-Civil Rights history,
                           both in terms of race relations and overlap of
                           employment seeking. Read books like Low Life by
                           Luc Sante for more perspective.
                     \_ Most likely this perception of animosity between Jews
                        and blacks stems from anti-semitic rhetoric from Elijah
                        Muhammed and Louis Farrakhan, not to mention choice
                        mis-steps from the good Reverend, quoted below.
                        mis-steps from the good Reverend, quoted below. -!pp
                        \_ And don't forget about Professor Griff.
                        \_ Still waiting for a reply that shows knowledge about
                           my "nation's history." I assume I will never get it,
                           nor the mea culpa I deserve.
                           \_ Are you the same moron who thought GWB was
                              the principal person behind the PATRIOT Act?
                              Look at the post 3 posts up or the one below.
                              Or try STFW your damn self.
                              \_ Just like I thought, you haven't the foggiest
                                 clue what you are talking about. Even funnier,
                                 you think "Professor Griff" is history. Read
                                 a history book some time, before you make
                                 a fool of yourself again.
                                 a fool of yourself again. Hint: the civil
                                 rights movement started quite a bit *before*
                                 Elijah Muhammed, contradicting your "further
                                 back" claim. Furthermore, the overwhelming
                                 majority of Blacks are Christian, not Muslim.
                                 \_ The Elijah Muhammed comment was from a
                                    different poster, not the one telling you
                                    to STFW. -!pp
                                 \_ Jesse Jackson = Christian. It doesn't
                                    matter either way. The point is that in the
                                    recent past, relatively high-profile blacks
                                    have made some very anti-Jewish statements
                                    and even though Prof. Griff may not be a
                                    historical figure in your opinion, what is
                                    significant is the lack of backlash these
                                    high profile blacks received within the
                                    black community. Jesse Jackson was more
                                    than one remark and yet he is still the de
                                    facto Emperor of Black People. STFW.
                                    Seriously. I'm not doing anymore of your
                                    fucking homework.
                                    \_ No, your point was that blacks and jews
                                       hate each other. This is an over-
                                       generalization. -!pp
                                       \_ I didn't make the statement that
                                          blacks and jews hate each other.
                                          blacks and jews hate each other. I'm
                                          just pointing out that it's not that
                                          far-fetched to believe this is the
                                          case and that you didn't need Rush
                                          Limbaugh to reach the conclusion.
                                          -pp, but not pppppp
                                       \_ Yep, thanks. Also, the idea that
                                          blacks "hate" Jews more than they
                                          "hate" other whites, is quite
                                          frankly, laughable. -pp
                                          \_ Fine. Live in ignorance. I can't
                                             make you STFW and I really don't
                                             care if you feel like you won
                                             some sort of stupid Internet
                                             \_ Are you taking your ball and
                                                going home, too?
              \_ Jesse Jackson. Hymietown.
                 \_ Because of course, Jesse Jackson speaks for all blacks
                    in America. And one remark is proof of "hate."
              \_ Could it be because Jews dominated the slave trade?
                    \_ He told my dad he speaks for all black people...
        \_ Does he plan on bombing them?
        \_ "Brzezinski praised Obama for offering a "new face, a new sense of
            direction, a new definition of America's role in the world,"
            giving the junior senator from Illinois a strong boost of
            credibility in the foreign policy department."
           Yikes! An endorsement from the author of the "fund the Mujahadeen in
           Afghanistan" policy is mixed blessing!
2007/9/6-10 [Reference/Religion] UID:47922 Activity:low
9/6     Well, now we know where the dinosaurs came from.  I for one am
        \_ I am a Christian and I have to say this comic makes me ill and
           angry at the same time.
           \_ What, you've never read a chick tract before?
              \_ No, and why do you call it a "tract"?
2007/9/4-5 [Reference/Religion] UID:47892 Activity:nil
9/4     haven't had a good Mormon troll-off in a while.  Lemme fix
        \_ Wow, that's some pretty bad fact-checking.  Let me highlight an
           easily-checked fact they got wrong:
           "The heretics, in their view, are the five million members of the
           mainstream church."
           Actual membership in the LDS church as of April 2007:
           \_ "He's harmless! Back in the sixties he was part of the Free
               Speech movement at Berkeley. I think he did a little too much
2007/8/4-6 [Computer/SW/Languages/Misc, Reference/Religion] UID:47530 Activity:nil
8/4     The real Da Vinci Code: (
2007/8/2-3 [Reference/Religion] UID:47506 Activity:low
8/2     I want to get a job, to make money, to feel closer to God, to
        get a promotion, to give someone else a STD-- bottom reasons
        to have sex:,2933,291646,00.html
        \_ How is bottom decided here?  Least respondents, or most respondents
           voted it worst reason, or what?
           \_ They voted 1-5 on each reason so presumably the one with the
              lowest average response.
        \_ "To feel closer to God"?  Oh, so all those Catholic priests were
           just trying to bring those boys closer to God.  I see.
2007/7/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Reference/Religion] UID:47306 Activity:moderate
7/17    Here's some flamebait for you.  Holy freakin shit:
        "It's more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an
        Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And
        I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that
        doesn't exist."
        \_ Ummm, so?  The Declaration of Independence says the same thing.
           \_ He's saying he makes decisions based only upon religious
              considerations.  In other words, we're in Iraq because God
              told him that was the Right Thing To Do.  Read up on the history
              of the Crusades and you might see why this is a Very Bad Thing.
              \_ The above quote said this?
                 \_ "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and
                     then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did,
                     and now I am determined to solve the problem in the
                     Middle East."
                    "Events aren't moved by blind change and chance" ...,
                     but by "the hand of a just and faithful God."
                    "I believe God wants me to run for president."
                    Yes, all actual Bush quotes.
                    \_ Belief in Providence was common among the Founding
                       \_ So was Diesm, which discounts religion.
              \_ You do the atheists proud, my friend.
        \_ Freedom isn't unambiguous. Does the Almighty advocate anarchy?
           Communism? Both are freedom in some sense. Freedom from what?
           Strictly from a Biblical perspective, it seems pretty clear that
           Yahweh likes pious kings with many concubines (an autocratic king,
           no wimpy separations of powers or Magna Cartas).
           The Bible also recognizes slavery as legitimate...
           \_ If the Almighty told Bush to invade Iraq, obviously he does
              advocate anarchy.  The fact that he talks to Bush at all means
              that he is not on our side, since his advice seems to be always
              \_ Bush: Worshipping Loki since sobriety.
              \_ Or else he doesn't exist and Bush imagines God talking to him.
                 Or else /something/ talks to him, but it turns out it's not
                 actually God as Bush likes to imagine it. It's the CIA
                 talking through a receiver in his tooth filling (or else
                 the Jews, but the Jews run the CIA so it's the same thing).
                 Or else Bush doesn't even believe it but says it for
                 political points to the religious constituency. Or else
                 Bush doesn't exist and Bush is a sniggering automaton.
                 \_ Sort of like the NASA automatons on the old Mission to Mars
                    ride?  A moment of silence for the M2M ride, please.
2007/6/16 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:46982 Activity:nil
6/16    Jew victim of racism
2007/6/13-16 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:46933 Activity:nil
6/13    poor ed jew
        \_ So, this guy ran for office in the wrong district, and is going to
           jail for it?
           \_ he probably would have stayed beneath everyone's radar if he
              hadnt been suckered by the 40k FBI bribe
              \_ so you think he's a victim in all this?
                 \_ no.  his stupidity is astounding.  can't be that stupid,
                    he's got 15 or so houses, but still, stupids.
                    \_ inherited wealth, but not brains
        \_ This dudes name is begging to be made fun of in so many ways,
           yet no jokes. What gives motd, you're really a let down today.
           \_ Too obvious/not funny even for motd? I considered it of
              course. But not very hard; I was busy at work today. -motd
              \_ I was about to scream Nazi, but someone posted some serious
                 response before I did.
2007/5/22 [Reference/Religion] UID:46720 Activity:nil 77%like:46727
5/22    We're in trouble:
        The full report shows how many American Muslims think Al Qaeda is just
        \_ Go Bush Go!
           \_ ???
           \_ Is that a cheer or a command?
2007/5/17-19 [Reference/Religion] UID:46673 Activity:nil
5/17    emarkp how can a Mormon be pro-torture?
        this is almost a serious, non troll Request For Comment.
        \_ What does being a Mormon have to do with it?  And what are you
           defining as torture? -emarkp
        \_ Mormons are pro-polygamy, hence pro-torture (or, more accurately,
        \_ emarkp: How can anyone who calls themselves a christian be
           pro torture? -not op
           \_ Have you actually read the bible? -dans
              \_ OT Yahweh: "Obey my rules or suffer! And this applies to you
                             all collectively, and family units collectively!
                             And cut off part of your penises!"
                 NT Jesus: "Ok those rules were unobeyable. Love me or suffer!
                            and, uh, oh yeah this is evaluated after death.
                            Btw I "died for your sins". This is important for
                            some reason. I think I have schizophrenia."
                 Allah: "Ok ok that love stuff was bs, I was smoking a lot
                         of dope back then. We're back to obey or suffer.
                         But I'm keeping the afterlife reward stuff in your
                         benefit plan. I better see you on your knees many
                         times per day, stroking my godly ego."
           \_ See above. -emarkp
2007/5/14-16 [Reference/Religion] UID:46620 Activity:nil
5/14    So now that Critical Mass has terrorized moms with kids and elderly
        couples with cerebral palsy, who will be their next target? -emarkp
        \_ pasty computer geeks.
        \_ Mormon necro-converters.
        \_ "So now that Mormons have done <bad thing>, who will be their
           next target?"  "Those [racists|polygamists|slaughterers] were
           not acting under the sanction of the Mormon church.  -emarkp"  -tom
           \_ Problem with that comparison is that CM is a mob, and there are
              some in the mob who are violent, and CM is trying to protect
              them, not expose or eject them. -emarkp
              \_ The SFBC statements after the last psycho motorist incident
                 sound pretty much like Mormon church dissembling.  "They're
                 not really part of us."   -tom
                 \_ Except the LDS church actually excommunicates people, and
                    can document that they aren't part of the group.  So-called
                    "Mormon Fundamentalists" (for instance) have created their
                    own thing. -emarkp
                    \_ Brigham Young got excommunicated?  -tom
                       \_ He didn't break any windshields. -emarkp
                          \_ But he was a racist with 27 wives.  -tom
                             \_ Polygamy was allowed until about 1890. And
                                what he believed about race was pretty
                                mainstream then, and wasn't LDS doctrine.
                                \_ great example, thanks.  -tom
                                \_ perfect example, thanks.  -tom
                                   \_ Yes, for your 2nd-grade understanding of
                                      religion, I'm sure it is.  I hope you
                                      learn to manage fractions some day.
                       \_ He was a "foundamentalist."
        \_ I am not a foaming at the mouth Mormon or Romney hater, but
           I think it was weird when he said "polygamy is the worst
           thing I can imagine."  I can imagine a lot worse!
           \_ What does that have to do with Critical Mass? -emarkp
2007/5/3-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel, Reference/Religion] UID:46519 Activity:high
5/3     So I watched "Frontline/American Experience" this week. The topic
        was "The Mormons". I always knew the Mormons were a cult, but
        they are even more cultish than I thought. I especially liked
        the part about baptising dead Holocaust victims, which for
        some reason Jewish people are not too happy about. I wonder why.
        \_ Hi troll.  This is the same PBS which refuses to show the special
           they produced about fundamentalist Islam without islamic watchers.
           \_ You know emarkp, this guy is just trying to bait you.  Why
              feed the troll?
           \_ Are you accusing PBS of fabrications? Why am I not surprised.
              \_ Biased reporting hardly requires fabrication.
                 \_ I don't think "biased reporting" is an issue. Either
                    the show is telling the truth about the origins
                    and customs of LDS or it isn't. Please give an example
                    of an instance in which you feel knowing "the other
                    side of the story" would put the LDS in a better light.
                    \_ No idea, I haven't seen the show. pp stated that
                       emarkp accused PBS of fabrications.  That's
                       obviously not what emarkp said.  Just pointing that
                       out. -!emarkp -pp
                       \_ *ASKED* if emarkp was accusing them of fabrications
                          \_ I would say the second sentence makes it a
                             pretty obvious accusation.  Whatever.
                          \_ Do you still beat your wife?  Why am I not
                             \_ "Do you still beat your wife?" has the
                                a negative connotation no matter what
                                sentence follows it. There is no right
                                answer. That is not the case with the
                                question I asked.
                                \_ Ok, fine. You're beating your wife now?
                                   Why am I not surprised.
           \_ Hi, emarkp, what parts of the PBS report on Mormonism were
              inaccurate or reported in a biased fashion? --erikred
              \_ Haven't watched it yet, however I was pointing out that it's
                 censoring a producer unless that documentary is vetted by the
                 very religion it was documenting.  We nutty Mormons weren't
                 treated the same.  I have the eps on DVR and will be watching
                 them later. -emarkp
                 \_ Huh? What producer was censored?
                       \_ What do you mean "vetted by the very religion it
                          was documenting"? I don't see any reference to
                          this. The article says the PBS wasn't happy with
                          the documentary and it was not produced for
                          "Frontline". I am having trouble understanding
                          your point here.
                          \_ That was about the Nation of Islam:
                           MARTYN BURKE, PRODUCER, "ISLAM VS. ISLAMISTS": Yes,
                           well, I`ll give you one example. We were doing an
                           investigative report on how the Nation of Islam, the
                           so-called black Muslims, in Chicago were being
                           funded by the Saudi Arabian fundamentalists through
                           the Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C. And PBS,
                           through WETA, the flagship station in Washington,
                           appointed an adviser to oversee our efforts, and
                           that adviser was from the Nation of Islam.
                           Interviewed on the Glenn Beck TV show.
                           \_ Corroboration?
                              \_ That is an interview with the guy himself.
                                 \_ Yes, understood. Now, is there
                                    corroboration from anyone else? Any further
                                    details? How can we fact-check this?
                                    \_ Call PBS if you don't believe Burke.
                                       \_ I googled "Martyn Burke PBS" and
                                          haven't found one article or story
                                          that can't be traced back to
                                 This is dangerous
                                          and shoddy journalism. I'd like to
                                          see a piece on this done by at least
                                          one other source, preferably with an
                                          attempt to ask PBS about it.
                                          \_ Because that's the paper that
                                             broke the story.  I think you
                                             confuse lack of interest from
                                             other news source with lack of
                                             journalistic integrity on the
                                             part of azcentral.  What is it
                                             about the azcentral story that
                                             makes it shoddy?  (Beyond your
                                             personal feelings, of course).
                                             If anything, that lack of
                                             interest from MSM is rather
                                             \_ They "broke" the story in
                                                an opinion piece.
        \_ What is it with the trolls today?
        \_ I am willing to believe that a couple of Mormons NOT
           REPRESENTING THE ENTIRE MORMON CHURCH butchered some nice folk
           in the 1800s, but I certainly do not believe the Mormons
           run around axeing people anymore.  Much like I don't think
           the Pope is going to sack Istanbul.  dunno what Islam has
           to with this.
           \_ I don't think the massacre was very controversial. It was
              more a case of where the church is NOW that was scary.
              That, and the bullpucky that it was founded on, which even
              the LDS seems to regard as suspect. The attitude of the LDS
              officials was one of "whether our religion is a steaming pile
              of crap or not, it seems to work for people". I can see some
              beauty and logic in that, but then call it what it is, which
              is *not* Christianity or really much to do with Christians.
              It is that aspect which, as a Christian, offends me. Don't
              go baptising dead Jews. They're Jewish. If they want to be
              LDS then they will be. Mormons do a lot more proselytizing
              and act much more "holier than thou" than any other religion
              I have ever encountered.
              \_ Once I'm dead, I'm dead.  If some Mormon or anyone else wants
                 to perform some ritual, what do I care?  I'm dead.  Let me
                 spell that out for you: D-E-A-D.  Ok?  --some random Jew
              \_ Don't get out much do ya?
              \_ I don't think the baptism for the dead thing works the
                 way you think it does. See:
                 \_ What do you mean? It works exactly like they described
                    it does. You are posthumously baptising people who
                    may not want that. In fact, most don't.
                    \_ I was refering to the fact that the church itself
                       doesn't randomly do names, they have to be
                       submitted, usually by a descendant.  If a mormon
                       decendent of holocaust victims wants to be baptised
                       for them, what right do you have to say they can't?
                       Beside that, how are you claiming to know what the
                       dead want? Are you John Edward or something?
                       Furthermore, see the last quote of that section,
                       the dead are not compelled to do anything in Mormon
                       \_ So says the LDS, but when their records are
                          examined it seems that that they are lying.
                          As for knowing what the dead want, if they
                          wanted to be Mormon then they would have been.
                          \_ Sigh, re-read wikiepdia and try again.
                             \_ Wikipedia is not the authoritative source
                                for this. Besides, did you read the part
                                about how they continue to find the names
                                of people like Hitler in the records?
                                \_ Ok, site an authoritative source.
                                   Also still on the records != continues to
                                   show up.
                                \_ Ok, site an authoritative source. Also
                                   what exactly are you suggesting the
                                   church do about this?  Have a big list
                                   of names no one is allowed to submit?
                                   Talk about an intractable problem. I
                                   guess it doesn't matter, I've seen
                                   your opinion below, so I'm done.
                    \_ For crying out loud, we're not digging up bodies and
                       dunking them in water.  We're not "posthumously
                       baptising" anyone.  It's baptism **for** the dead, and
                       is an ordinance offered to them, which the person now
                       dead can accept or reject. -emarkp
                       \_ The whole concept is retarded and if you baptise
                          my dead relative without my consent I will personally
                          go over there and kick your ass. I don't mean to
                          resort to violence, but can't the LDS understand
                          why some people might not like this?! What if I
                          started baptising dead LDS members like Joseph
                          Smith and Brigham Young into Islam and created
                          altars to Mohammed with their names on them and
                          had suicide bombers paying homage to Joseph
                          Smith before they blew themselves up. I imagine
                          some LDS members would not care, but some probably
                          would not like that, right - and would ask the
                          question: "What the heck does Joseph Smith have
                          to do with Islam?"
                          \_ I wouldn't care one bit.  I assume you think all
                             religion is retarded, so I really don't give a rip
                             what you think about one particular practice.
                             \_ I posthumously induct emarkp's great granddad
                                into the Ku Klux Klan.  We'll be sure to list
                                him on our rolls of honor.  -tom
                             \_ No, I don't think all religion is retarded.
                                I think baptising non-believers is
                                retarded and I think that even though the
                                Catholic Church did it to the Native
                                Americans. At least they were alive to
                                protest it, though.
                                \_ Again, we're not exuming someone and
                                   baptizing their dead bodies, and you're an
                                   idiot to keep claiming it. -emarkp
                                   \_ What's the religious difference? There's
                                      no difference as far as I can tell. So
                                      there's a proxy body to make things
                                      a little bit more sanitary.
                          \_ Ha ha.  So, say your brother (or some such)
                             converts and wants to do baptisim for one of
                             your dead realatives, are you going to kick his
                             \_ Yes, I would.
                                \_ All right, cleared that up. Later.
        \_ I usually ignore all of the 'Mormon theology is based
           on a bunch of magic plates in a hillside arguments', who cares,
           faith is faith, but putting stock in asking dead people
           (emarkp, they're DEAD, they can't respond) their opinion
           is pretty funny!
           \_ In the context of religion, you do realize there's a concept of
              life after death, right? -emarkp
              \_ In traditional christianity, i don't think you have
                 any contact with dead people.  maybe you hang out with them
                 in heaven.  you don't get to ask them if they'd like
                 to be baptized into another religion.  not too familiar
                 with what islam does.  i think the ancestor worship
                 religions just worship the ancestors, they dont actually
                 talk to them.
                 \_ We don't claim to have contact with dead people to perform
                    proxy baptisms. -emarkp
                    \_ What's the name of your great grandparents?  I'm going
                       to induct them into the Hashish Assassin cult I'm
                       starting up in my basement.
                    \_ Which proxy do you use?  Squid?
2007/4/17-18 [Reference/Religion] UID:46336 Activity:kinda low
4/17    HAW HAW HAW
        "Even if it does not turn out that the shooter is Muslim, this is a
        demonstration to Muslim jihadists all over that it is extremely easy
        to shoot and kill multiple American college students."
        --Debbie Schlussel, after initially blaming the attack on a "Paki"
        \_ The comments on her pages are amusing, and her habit of
           responding IN ALL CAPS TO ALL OF THEM is even better
        \_ I keep trying to come up with something to say here and fail
           every damn time.  Some things can not be improved upon.
        \_ Who the fuck is Debbie Schlussel?
           \_ Blonde haired, blue eyed "Conservative political commentator,
              radio talk show host, columnist, and attorney."  Ann Coulter
              wannabe of sorts.  Also claims to be an "expert" on "Islamic
        \_ It's easy to kill bunches of people almost anywhere. I think
           even jihadists realize that. The problem is that public opinion
           is not so good toward your cause when you do so.
        \_ The best parts of that blog post are the comments.  My god the
           insanity is delicious.
           \_ Yeah, ol' Debbie's site might be even more entertaining than
        \_ Why do you care?  Who is this person?  An AC clone?  No one cares
           about her, why should anyone care about an unknown third rater?
2007/4/11-15 [Reference/Religion] UID:46266 Activity:nil
4/11    RIP, Kurt Vonnegut
        \_ Wow, this is sad news. One of my favorite authors. My favorite
           of his has to be Hocus Pocus, though I liked Cat's Cradle,
           of his has to be Helter Skelter, though I liked Cat's Cradle,
           and Slaughterhouse Five, too. -ausman
           \_ I never read Hocus Pocus. Guess I'll pick that up when I get
              a chance. I thought Galapagos was a fun read.
        \_ So it goes.
        \_ God made mud.
           God got lonesome.
           So God said to some of the mud, "Sit up!"
           "See all I've made," said God, "the hills, the sea, the sky, the
           And I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
           Lucky me, lucky mud.
           I, mud, sat up and saw what a nice job God had done.
           Nice going, God.
           Nobody but you could have done it, God! I certainly couldn't have.
           I feel very unimportant compared to You.
           The only way I can feel the least bit important is to think of all
           the mud that didn't even get to sit up and look around.
           I got so much, and most mud got so little.
           Thank you for the honor!
           Now mud lies down again and goes to sleep.
           What memories for mud to have!
           What interesting other kinds of sitting-up mud I met!
           I loved everything I saw!
           Good night.
2007/4/4-6 [Reference/Religion] UID:46193 Activity:nil
4/4     Teachers in UK drop the Holocaust and Crusades to avoid offending
        \_ Unamed schools!  And I like how you focus on the evil MUSLIMS
           and ignore the Christians being cranky asses too.
2007/3/24-25 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Religion] UID:46085 Activity:very high
3/24    Dear sodans. What's the best way to rid of bad thoughts like sex
        and other bad basic human urges? I think about them all the time
        and I waste a lot of time porn surfing. I know it's a waste of time
        and it is pointless but I just can't help myself. Please help.
        PS. this is NOT a troll. I'd like to be cured.
        \_ Masturbate regularly to satiate your sex drive.
           and I waste a lot of time porn surfing. I know it's a waste of time
        and it is pointless but I just can't help myself. Please help.
        PS. this is NOT a troll. I'd like to be cured.
        \_ Your main problem is that your religion has lied to you about life.
           You've been told by your religion that thinking about sex is a sin,
           yet if you actually read your scriptures, you'll see that your
           religion has no problem with slavery, genocide, and rape.  Sane
           people who are free of the mental disease of
           christiantiy/islam/judaism recognize that these are among the worst
           crimes humans ever perpetrate on one another, and that your religion
           has so much blood on its hands as to erase any moral authority it
           might claim on any subject.   Why don't you overcome your urges
           to think about sex(and I'm guessing violence) by having sex with
           people who actually want to have sex with you and fighting people
           who want to fight you in a controlled environment, and tell
           your religion to go fuck itself?
           people who are free of the mental disease of christiantiy/islam/
           judaism recognize that these are among the worst crimes humans ever
           perpetrate on one another, and that your religion has so much blood
           on its hands as to erase any moral authority it might claim on any
           subject. Why don't you overcome your urges to think about sex (and
           I'm guessing violence) by having sex with people who actually want
           to have sex with you and fighting people who want to fight you in
           a controlled environment, and tell your religion to go fuck itself?
        \- YMWTR: Jonathan Edwards
           The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a
           spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is
           dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he
           looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the
           fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight;
           you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the
           most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him
           infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet
           it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the
           fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you
           did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake
           again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And
           there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into
           hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held
           you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone
           to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his
           to hell, since you have sat here in the sloda motd, provoking his
           pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn
           worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason
           why you do not this very moment drop down into hell.
           O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great
           why you do not this very moment drop down into /dev/hell.
           O slodan! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great
           furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of
           wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath
           is provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of
           the damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames
           the damned in hell. You hang by a slender pthread, with the flames
           of divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe
           it, and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any Mediator,
           and nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off
           the flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever
           have done, nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one
        \_ If you are a religious person, you don't really want to lose the
           urge to commit sin, or that would mean that you have just become
           an automaton, unable to think and act freely. The whole metaphor
           of the Garden of Eden is to remind us that we have the choice
           to sin or not and that choice is what seperates us from the
           angels and from animals. You should not want to lose your free
           will, just learn to excercise it with restraint. If you are not
           religious, why would you want to stop thinking about doing something
           that is perfecly normal and healthy? -ausman
        \_ If you really want to quit this habit, why not try doing something
           that you find more productive/positive w/ your time? If you like
           outdoors activities, try doing weekly hikes, &c. Or maybe you could
           try going back to school for a professional degree.
           that you find more productive/positive w/ your time? Also, have you
           tried weaning yourself of pr0n, &c. by voluntarily limiting your
           exposure? You could gradually work yourself away from those habits
           you dislike towards other activities you think are more positive.
2007/3/21-26 [Reference/Religion] UID:46037 Activity:low
        Click on My Religious Rights.
        "For more than 80 years, the ACLU and its allies have attempted to
        eliminate public expression of our nation's faith and heritage.
        They have done this through fear, intimidation, disinformation,
        and the filing of lawsuits (or threats of lawsuits)."
        \_ Good to see that the $1000 I gave the ACLU last year has
           helped them to be effective. I will remember and give them
           that amount again. Thanks, I had almost forgotten.
           \_ I'm glad all the KKK members they help defend, and all
              the poor cities they sued to remove "religious" symbols
              and monikers from surely helped the people in general.
              Do they even know what the word Sacramento means?
              What about one of their bastions? Los Angeles. ACLU is the
              best sign you don't needs enemies abroad.
              What about one of their bastions? Los Angeles. ACLU is
              the best sign you don't needs enemies abroad.
              \_ Don't forget all the Neo-Nazis whose 1st amendment
                 rights they helped to protect. Of course, the ACLU
                 occasionally gets something right, but usually that
                 is completely by accident, like when Inspector Gadget
                 foils Dr. Claw's plans w/o help from Penny and Brain.
                 \- aclu membership and contributions took a hit after
                    the skokie case.
                 \_ Quite seriously, I think the ACLU gets it right all
                    the time, with the exception of their stance on 2nd
                    Amendment gun ownership rights. They are the main
                    group that has blocked government censorship of
                    the Internet and they have stood up for the free
                    speech rights of unpopular minorities (your Neo-Nazis
                    for instance) again and again. That is what America
                    is all about to me. Freedom. -$1000/yr ACLU donor
                    \_ With biological warfare available to these
                       monsters -- the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the
                       Arafats -- what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible
                       as it is, could be minuscule if, in fact God
                       continues to lift the curtain and allow the
                       enemies of America to give us probably what we
                       deserve....The abortionists have got to bear
                       some burden for this because God will not be
                       mocked....I really believe that the pagans, and
                       the abortionists, and the feminists, and the
                       gays and the lesbians who are actively trying
                       to make that an alternative lifestyle, the
                       ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of
                       them who have tried to secularize America -- I
                       point the finger in their face and say, "you
                       helped this happen."
                       \_ Who gave Rev. Faldwell an account?
2007/3/16-20 [Reference/Religion, Recreation/Dating] UID:46000 Activity:nil
3/16    Does it please Allah that I cuddle my wife in the position of the
        Does it please Allah that I sieze my wife in the position of the
2007/2/23-27 [Reference/Religion] UID:45801 Activity:moderate
2/23    "Medieval Muslims made stunning math breakthrough"
        "Quasicrystalline patterns comprise a set of interlocking units whose
        pattern never repeats, even when extended infinitely in all
        directions, ..."  Wow!  Home Depot can probably charge a premium if it
        carries these kinds of tiles.
        \_ Cool!  The medieval Arab world is actually responsible for lots of
           math breakthroughs, many of which we use regularly.  The most
           obvious example I know if lies in the etymology of the word
           algebra: -dans
           \- isnt the arab contribution to science sort of common knowledge?
              [in addition to algebra, you'ld think cs people would know
              algorithm]. but anyway, less common knowledge is the origin
              of "sine", which was due to a "lost in transation" mistake
              from sanskrit -> arabic -> latin due to "lossy compression".
              it's kind of funny. obwiki:
              If you are interested in "the fall of rome" and the rise of the
              arabs" w.r.t. medieterranian culture, you may enjoy reading about
              the PIRENNE THESIS.
              If you are interested in the rise of the arab between the "fall"
              of rome and the later rise of western "christendom" esp w.r.t.
              w.r.t. mediterranian culture, you may enjoy reading about
              the PIRENNE THESIS. I dont really know anything about art
              history, but i like islamic art alot ... i think it is often
              "design pattern" driven because they didnt waste so many
              cycles on images of people in 2-d or 3-d, unlike the greeks,
              romans, western eurpeans etc. that was for religious reasons.
              why they didnt spend time on say landscapes [or if that is
              even true] i am not sure.
              \_ I think the Arab contribution to science is common knowledge
                 among  mathematicians and science history buffs, but I think
                 they make up a pretty small segment of the general
                 population. :) -dans
                 \_ I think we should be more clear here. The Babylonians
                    and Persians, for example, were not Arab. Since the Arabs
                    were mostly nomads, I am not sure their contributions are
                    that great. I don't know if that last statement is
                    true, but nomadic horsemen aren't usually the type
                    to develop scientific breakthroughs.
                    \_ You'd have to check out the Arab world at it's height
                       in the 12-14th C.  Before that it was barbarian tribal
                       time like you said and after that they were pretty much
                       under someone else's thumb right up to today.
                    \_ Cairo has been a city for longer than most of
                       the world has had literacy. It moved a few times,
                       due to the Nile moving around, but it has been
                       a center of learning for at least 4000 years. And
                       surely you have heard of the Library of Alexandria.
                       \_ You mean the library that the Greeks built?
                    \_ Yeah, I was going to point out that Persians (i.e.
                       modern-day Iran, typically Farsi vs. Arabic speakers.)
                       also contributed considerably to the Arab golden age,
                       but it felt like splitting hairs.  But, yes, Persians
                       are distinct from Arabs.  Was Babylon near its height
                       at the same time as the height of the Persian and Arab
                       empires? -dans
        \_ We're all using arabic numerals.
           \_ Which were developed in India.
              \_ Huh?  URL please?
                    Was that too difficult for you to find?
2007/2/3-6 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:45646 Activity:nil
2/3     Ancient Greek religion makes a comeback in Greece:,,329702212-103680,00.html
2006/12/7-12 [Reference/Religion] UID:45419 Activity:nil
12/6    This is awesome:
2006/12/6-12 [Reference/Religion] UID:45415 Activity:nil
12/6    Been having lockfile problems from procmail since late last night.
        \_ This is awesome:
        \_ Both politburo root and alumni root are aware of this.  Cranky old
           alumni root are working on trying to solve this problem. - jvarga
2006/11/26-12/5 [Science/GlobalWarming, Reference/Religion] UID:45372 Activity:kinda low
        Nice FUH2 pictures (fuck you H2). Middle fingers, not Mormon safe
        \_ I must know, what is your (the unnamed troll) infatuation with
           Mormons? -emarkp
           \_ Hero worship.
        \_ Why are they including H1's in there? Seems like a dumb thing to
           waste energy on. Why should anyone bother looking at these? They are
           just, you know, H2s with middle fingers.
2006/11/14-25 [Reference/Religion] UID:45339 Activity:nil
11/14   Article by a Christian on why D&D is OK.
        That's all fine and dandy, what I actually found interesting in the
        article is his reference to "the more intellectual question of whether
        the assumption of statistical randomness is an affront to the
        sovereignty of God." First time I've heard THAT. Really throws me.
        \_ God is a perfect random number generator
           \_ God is not random
        \_ This is, of course, a subset of the larger problem of the
           incompatibility of divine plan and free will.
           \_ <insert obligatory Matrix reference vis a vis The Architect
              and The One/>
2006/11/11 [Reference/Religion, Computer/Theory, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:45329 Activity:high
11/11   Curt looked at his erection, amazed.  "I thought it had stopped
        earlier...  My God, I'm huge!" Tentatively, he touched his engorged tip
        and patted it with his finger tips.  It bobbed slightly as he stood up.
        Picking up a tape measure from the hall desk, Christa quickly came
        over to Curt and measured him.  She let out a low whistle of
        appreciation at his new length as she wrapped the tape measure around
        his shaft.  She looked up at him...  "Curt, you've grown to eleven
        inches long and five-and-a-half inches around." She did some quick
        mental math.  "Jesus, Curt.  You're 1.7507 inches thick! Make
        sure you keep that thing the hell away from me."
2006/11/10-12 [Reference/Religion] UID:45313 Activity:low
11/10   Has anyone heard of Otakukin before?  These guys have got to be a
        \_ It sounds much more harmless and less stupid than Christianity.
           If these people are for real, how many of them do you think
           believe that the world was created 6000 years ago exactly as
           described in Genesis?  You know, the same ignorant load of shit
           believed by OVER HALF of our dumbass redneck nation.
                                                \_ Hi racist!
           \_ BTW, is it Genesis or another Bible book which said the earth is
              flat and the sun revolves around it?
              \_ Neither.
                 \_ Then why did the Church arrest Galileo?
                    \_ They were staying the course.  -John
                       \_ I see.  So it wasn't the Bible that was wrong.  It
                          was the Church that was wrong.
                          \_ No, the pope is infallible.
                          \_ The Bible never says "the earth is flat", nor does
                             it say the Sun revolves around the Earth. There
                             are passages which talk about "the four corners of
                             the Earth" which some people interpreted to mean a
                             flat world. There is a record of a miracle in
                             which "the sun stood still" which many interpreted
                             to mean the sun goes around the earth, etc.
2006/11/3 [Politics/Foreign, Reference/Religion] UID:45128 Activity:nil
11/2            In what can only be described as a surprise move, God has
        officially announced His candidacy for the U.S. presidency.  During
        His press conference today, the first in over 4000 years, He is quoted
        as saying, "I think I have a chance for the White House if I can just
        get my campaign pulled together in time.  I'd like to get this country
        turned around; I mean REALLY turned around!  Let's put Florida up
        north for awhile, and let's get rid of all those annoying mountains
        and rivers.  I never could stand them!"
                There apparently is still some controversy over the Almighty's
        citizenship and other qualifications for the Presidency.  God replied
        to these charges by saying, "Come on, would the United States have
        anyone other than a citizen bless their country?"
2006/11/1-2 [Reference/Religion] UID:45065 Activity:nil
11/01   hey emarkp, what does Mormon scripture say about our pro
        waterboarding vice president?
        \_ A republican must justify the opinions and actions of all
           republicans.  Fairness++. !emarkp
           \_ Funny, I'm not even a Rebublican. -emarkp
              \_ What kind of mormon are you? ;) !emarkp
                 \_ He's a Mormon Communist like OSC.
                 \_ I'm "Decline to State". -emarkp
        \_ It's pretty clear about killing.  It is, however, somewhat fuzzier
           on the subject of kneecaps. -emarkp
           \_ Cheney: Sweetie, we're crooks. If everything were right,
              we'd be in jail.
           \_ Sweetie, we're crooks. If everything were right,
              we'd be in jail. -cheney
2006/10/30-31 [Reference/Religion] UID:45038 Activity:high
10/30   Poll of the week. What is your favorite wacko cult? My favorite
        is the Koolaid cult where 1000+ people drank koolaid and died.
        How about your favorite cult? Koresh Davidian? Heaven's Gate?
        \_ Scientology.
        \_ Islam.
        \_ Christianity.
        \_ rms-inanity
        \_ Mormonism
        \_ Apple users
        \_ Raelians, hands-down.  I can't believe no one's even mentioned them.
        \_ Mormons. Warren Jeffs.
        \_ My favorite evil cult is the Nazi Geramny Cult. Heil.
        \_ Remember, they're only wackos because they don't have critical mass
           to be a religion.  All of the slightly more mainstream religions
           can tut-tut the cultists for accepting the _wrong_ set of
           baseless mythology on faith.
        \_ Heaven's gate.  I was just starting to discover the joys of the
           internets when they offed themselves.  Then a friend of a friend
           of a friend mirrored their whole site for great justice before
           the police had it taken down.  Ahhh.. memories.
        \_ Four-way toss-up between Temple Solaire, Heaven's Gate,
           Branch Davidians and People's Temple.  Catholic church and islam
           are in close running for honorable mention.  -John
           \_ I'm no fan of either religion, but if you call Catholicism and
              Islam cults, you're using a very odd(wrong) definition of cult,
              especially for Islam.  They don't have a leader or a coherent
              \_ Well, catholicism has a leader and a coherent organization,
                 and having spent a large part of my early childhood in a
                 very strictly catholic environment and community, I think I
                 know what I'm talking about.  As for islam, would you accept
                 if I said "radical islam" instead?  There is no one structure
                 of authority, but many charismatic individual leaders who are
                 followed pretty much unquestionably.  -John
           \_ Not the LDS?
              \_ Not even close.  -John
        \_ atheists, secular Jews.
        \_ jews for jesus and the atheists who hate others for believing.
           \_ which atheists hate others for believing? do they have an
        \_ mormons, they are so nice for cultists
        \_ I don't remember the name, but there was a religion based on
           celibacy. They didn't last very long.
           \_ There were several Christian utopian communities formed in the
              mid-19th century in the U.S. which practiced celibacy.  Yes, they
              died out.
           \_ The Shakers?
           \_ Catholicism?
           \_ Computer Science? ha ha.
2006/10/26-29 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Religion] UID:44986 Activity:kinda low
10/26   Muslim cleric blames women for rape:
        'A senior Muslim cleric compared women who go without a head scarf to
        "uncovered meat" left out for scavengers, ...
        "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside ... without
        cover, and the cats come to eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or
        the uncovered meat's?"'
        \_ Sadly not an original stance.  Look at Pakistan's legal structure
           that says a raped woman needs 4 male witnesses or she's guilty of
           adultery.  The obvious assumption is women are SEX MACHINES just
           waiting for that chance to get it wherever they can.  Of course
           there's some merit to "dressing provocatively gets you raped", but
           it's no different than "buying that expensive car is what got it
           \_ No, there is no merit to "didn't cover herself head to toe got
              her raped".  Nor is there any merit to "she was wearing a
              bikini and it got her raped".  Buying an expensive car doesn't
              get it stolen.  Getting it stolen gets it stolen.  Sheesh.
              \_ I think we're agreeing with each other.  My point was that the
                 "merit" is pointless.  There's definitely a herd mentality
                 at play here, though.  If they're all covered head to toe and
                 one's showing ankle, she _is_ more likely to get raped.  That
                 doesn't mean she was "asking for it" or "deserved it", but
                 there is cause and effect.
                 \_ I think you'd have to back that up. I don't know what
                    goes through a rapist's mind (probably - often - just
                    a simple "right place at the right time") but I know
                    that when talking about being sexually attracted to
                    women I am not necessarily more attracted to the ones
                    showing more skin. If one is not attractive (to me) and
                    half-naked and her friend is totally hot but covered
                    head to toe, I'm still interested in the hot one.
                    \_ But in an environment where most dress conservatively,
                       one can use the fact that one girl is dressed "slutty"
                       to rationalize that that one is "asking for it" and
                       so it's ok to rape her. In those fucked up religious
                       places "slutty" could be having your head uncovered.
                       Actually there was a case in Iraq where a goat farmer
                       was murdered because he had been warned to put diapers
                       on his goats and failed to do so. source:
                       The real implication here is that men are like
                       dumb beasts, who will eat "meat" if it's available
                       regardless of morality.
        \_ How can one buy meat at the "meat market" if one can't see it
           \_ If you're hungry enough anything tastes good.
           \_ Your parents arranged it with her parents.  No one asked you.
              \_ So when do you start feeding yourself?
        \_ This is the argument I keep having with American friends who do
           not really have a lot of exposure to really nasty militant islam
           inside the country--some of the shit you see from the loonies,
           who are neither few nor far in between nor particularly fringe, is
           so egregiously bad that it immediately removes any legitimacy they
           might lay claim to--and yet some insist on "dialogue" with
           assholes like this while painting painting people like Orianna
           Fallaci as fascists (probably right, but still) who should be
           shunned and ostracized.  Sigh.  Then again, there was the Italian
           court a few years ago who acquitted a guy of rape because it's a
           well-known fact that you can't get blue jeans off a woman who
           isn't a willing participant... -John
           \_ Italian rape case:
        \_ I want to ask this cleric: if he goes to a public restroom and
           pees with his microscopic willie, without cover, and a stray dog
           walks in and bites it off, whose fault is it, the dog or the
           uncovered willie?
           \_ His wang would be unclean and unable to join him in paradise.
           \_ Neither.  It would be the fault of the Jews and their Zionist
              Entity, created and sponsored by The Great Satan.
              \- i have neither followed the story nor the thread above closely
                 but i think a number of people are missing the point. the
                 point is not to debate this on the merits, but ask "why do
                 obvious fruitcakes continue to have followers rather than
                 discrediting themselves." this applies to: crazy mullahs ...
                 a category in which i include pat robertson, people like
                 rush limbaugh [i dont include ann coulter, michelle malkin,
                 michael moore ... because i dont think they really have
                 followers in the same sense ... and they are to a greater
                 extent just clowns]. i dont really think there is anything
                 to talk about "on the merits". like w.r.t. to creationism:
                 creationism in the 21st century is an interesting social
                 phenomena in america which begs some explanation, but
                 obviously there is nothing to talk about on the substative/
                 scientific merits. back to the mullah vs mullah: obviously
                 it's silly to claim not wearing the chador/burka/hijab ->
                 "come get me" is ridiculous ... why are you even talking about
                 that. do you sped a lot of time debating whether america
                 "deserved" 9/11, katerina because it is not appoximating
                 "deserved" 9/11, katerina because it is now appoximating
                 soddom and gommorah? how about "can a good christian
                 pray for the death of ussc justice." so what begs explanation
                 is almost anthopological, not ethical/moral/legal or religous.
                 is almost anthopological, not ethical/moral/legal or relig.
                 \- BTW, it occurs to me that the cathloic popes have some
                    equally fruitcake views. they might be less inflammory
                    and not have obvious policy consequences, but intellec-
                    tually, they are about as nutty. i suppose it's a
                    somewhat interesting question would you rather work for
                    a boss who held some minorly offensive political views
                    or somthing fruitcakish, like aliens are walking among us
                    or the earth is flat or we never landed on the moon ...
                    which speaks to general world view and reasoning, but
                    little if any policy consequences.
2006/10/17-18 [Reference/Religion] UID:44848 Activity:nil
10/17   Vatican issues cartoon version of John Paul's life
        \_ Crap.  Now we're going to have another violent muslim riot.
           \_ Why do you hate violent muslim riots?
2006/10/17-18 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44843 Activity:high
10/16   [silenced!]  --purged by brownshirt neocon  </self-amusement>
        And this is just what goes on in San Francisco! All over the rest
        of the country there are hundreds of similar incidents just like this
        one happening every day.
        \_ Debra J Saunders has successfully trolled you all, I salute
           \_ DJS isn't smart enough to troll her own dog.
             \_ I guess being a political columnist is all about being
                a successful troll.  I disilke her columns but she
                does appear to refrain from leaving out convenient
                facts that piss off tom so much when writing about
                draconian sentencing for 1st time drug convictions.
              \_ Why do liberals knee-jerk with the "I disagree with him so he
                 must be stupid" act?
        \_ yeah, you're right, it is bad that an intolerant asshole can
           say what he wants on the radio in SF and still keep his job.
           spew idiocy on the radio in SF with no repercussions.
           \_ Michael Savage is not in this article.
        \_ Yeah, you are right, critisizing someone is exactly the same as
           bashing them in the face and breaking their nose.
           \_ Yeah, your are right. Bashing someone in the nose is exactly the
              same as systematically rounding up Jews for extermination.
              \_ Your knowledge of history is lacking. The Brown Shirts had
                 nothing to do with exterminating Jews because they were
                 dissolved after the "Night Of The Long Knives." Kristallnacht
                 is a more appropriate analogy.
                 \_ Did you miss the thread from a couple of days ago?
           "The FBI reported that the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes rose
           from twenty-eight in 2000 to 481 in 2001, a seventeen-fold increase"
           \_ Truly shocking.  Here's some more numbers from the FBI showing
              who the real victims of hate crimes are:
              I'll quote the section on Muslims for you, "Of the 1,480
              reported offenses within single-bias incidents that were
              motivated by the offenders religious bias, 67.8 percent were
              anti-Jewish, 13.0 percent were anti-Islamic, 3.9 percent were
              anti-Catholic, 2.9 percent were anti-Protestant, and 0.5 percent
              were anti-Atheism or Agnosticism. Bias against other
              (unspecified) religions accounted for 9.5 percent of the hate
              crime offenses motivated by religious bias, and bias against
              groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple
              religions, group) accounted for 2.5 percent."
              \_ I suspect jews are much more likely to report hate
                 crimes for a variety of reasons.  -A Jew
              \_ Very good, now show me the statistics for 2001 and 2002.
                 \_ If you care go find and post them and quote the same
                    section and explain why 2001 or 2002 is any different than
                    2004 while you're at it.
                    \_ They have been mysteriously deleted from the FBI web
                       site. If you don't understand why bias crimes against
                       Muslims might have peaked right after 9/11, then I
                       probably can't explain it to you.
                       \_ Duh, of course they spiked.  And then they dropped
                          again.  But you fail to notice (or care) that the
                          vast and overwhelming number of hate crimes are
                          against Jews and that number hasn't changed much.
                          If you failed to miss that point even after I
                          quoted it to you then there is no reason to try to
                          explain it to you.  It isn't worth the effort.  And
                          yeah, the FBI #s mysteriously disappeared.  It is
                          clearly an anti-Muslim conspiracy of the bushco run
                          FBI.  Whatever.
                          \_ Hate crimes are bad. You are the only one trying
                             to minimize them or somehow rationalize the
                             behavior of people committing them. And yes,
                             *everything* that Bush does is for political
                             gain. He is much like Clinton in that fashion.
                             The vast majority of hate crimes are against
                             Blacks, not Jews, btw. But yes, you are right
                             that in overall total number, there are more hate
                             crimes against Jews than Muslims. I suspect this
                             is not true on a per capita basis though I have
                             to admit to not seeing anyone do that calculation.
        \_ Just another example of how diversity of every kind is celebrated by
           the left.  Except of course diversity of thought.
           \_ Excuse me? Who's the one calling the other side a terrorist
              or "America hater" for questioning the president?
              \_ Um, neither side AFAICT.
                 \_ Why do you hate acronyms?
        \_ Thomas Sowell's comments about this:
           \_ do you really want to be on the same side of the argument as
              Thomas Sowell and Debra Saunders?  -tom
              \_ Actually, /I/ do. -emarkp
              \_ Some don't automatically dismiss a source based on who the
                 writer is.  If they make sense or have some facts then so
                 be it.  YMMV.
                 \_ What facts are there in either of those columns?  Both
                    *completely leave out* the comments which got people
                    angry, because they're not convenient to the points the
                    shill wants to make.  Those writers do that *all the time*.
                    \_ Both articles are explicitly opinion articles.  The
                       facts have been reported, these are stated opinions
                       about the facts. So? -emarkp
                       \_ So, don't you think the fact that Pete Wilson called
                          the kid a "travesty" is, you know, kind of important
                          to the discussion?  Don't you think it's kind of
                          disingenuous to portray the situation as liberals
                          trying to squash someone *just* for holding a
                          different opinion?  There's a difference between
                          holding a different opinion, and calling someone
                          else's kid a travesty; the supervisors are angry
                          about the latter, not the former, but these
                          moronic tools dishonestly frame the situation
                          as being about the former.  -tom
                          \_ No, I don't think anyone should lose their job or
                             have it threatened for calling someone else's
                             public relationship or the kid in their (to be
                             kind) odd relationship a travesty.  They're both
                             public figures and so is Pete Wilson.  His
                             expression of his opinion does not in any way
                             rise to the level of job loss.
                             \_ I might agree with you.  But if you write
                                an opinion column and leave out the fact
                                that he called the kid a travesty, I might
                                think you're full of shit.  -tom
                                \_ Wouldn't matter to me if he called the kid
                                   the Ultimate Evil Spawn Of Satan And Cause
                                   Of All Badness In The Universe(c) and they
                                   didn't mention that in their op/ed.  It
                                   still doesn't rise to the level of job loss.
                                   Public figures do not have the same level of
                                   privacy protection from what I'll call
                                   "unwanted speech" that private citizens do.
                                   Being called names is part of public life.
                                   \_ The kid is not a public figure.  -tom
                                      \_ Oh n0es!  I'm sure he's been defamed
                                         and is highly upset and Pete Wilson
                                         should lose his job due to the long
                                         emotional trauma Mr. Wilson caused
                                         as well as the future financial
                                         losses due to his defamation!  We need
                                         to try and execute Pete right away
                                         because this goes any further!  Think
                                         of the children!
                                      \_ What about the Bush twins?  They were
                                         just kids and there were all sorts of
                                         horrible things said about them.  They
                                         were not public figures, either.
                                         should all those reporters and various
                                         commentators be fired?
                                         \_ I am not advocating for
                                            Pete Wilson to be fired;
                                            I'm just identifying the
                                            real point which the
                                            right-wing shills are not.
                                            Should Pete Wilson be
                                            fired for thinking that
                                            two gays who aren't in a
                                            romantic relationship
                                            shouldn't have a kid?  I
                                            don't think so, and I
                                            don't think any liberals
                                            think so, either.  The
                                            whole idea is a straw man
                                            created by dittoheads.
                                            The real question is
                                            whether someone should be
                                            fired for hateful speech,
                                            and whether Wilson's
                                            comments constituted
                                            hateful speech.
                                            Personally, I'd say yes to
                                            the first and no to the
                                            By the way, could you point
                                            out an example of a respected
                                            news anchor saying something
                                            that borders on hate speech
                                            about the Bush twins?  Another
                                            straw man.  -tom
                                            \_ Why does it have to be a
                                               'respected anchor'?  There are
                                               numerous reports, cartoons, etc
                                               published in print, online, etc
                                               calling them all sorts of
                                               things.  You can't honestly say
                                               they weren't getting picked on.
                                               And unlike an infant, they were
                                               old enough to get hurt.  Let's
                                               just execute everyone we don't
                                               like or says anything mean.
                                               \_ Please provide some examples
                                                  of people in positions like
                                                  Pete Wilson's making
                                                  comments about how the
                                                  Bush twins are "a travesty"
                                                  (or similar language).
                                                  This is not the MOTD or
                                                  dailykos we're talking about
                                                  here; this is someone whose
                                                  job it is to report news.
2006/10/10-12 [Reference/Religion] UID:44760 Activity:nil
10/10   The NY Apple store is apparently insulting to muslims:
2006/10/5-7 [Reference/Religion] UID:44693 Activity:moderate
10/6    Iran's supreme leader Khameini: No masturbation during Ramadan.
        If you "accidentaly" make it hard, but don't cum it's bad but not
        too bad? WTF?
        No wonder suicide bombings go up during Ramadan, the young Muslim men
        are going nuts!
        \_ Not even after sunset!?!
           \_ Does it matter? The humor is in the fact that these
              religions are so obsessed about everyone's private lives.
              Don't stick your dick in the wrong hole or play with
               yourself at the wrong time!
              yourself at the wrong time!  Scientology proves you can make
              a religion as wacky as possibly and you'll still get legions
              a religion as wacky as possible and you'll still get legions
              of followers.
              \_ Scientology is a religion? I thought they were a mafia.
        \_ ...but it's ok not during Ramadan?
        \_ Explain to me how it is that this causes Muslim suicide bombers but
           the Catholic Church's ban on masturbation doesn't create Catholic
           suicide bombers? Ditto the Mormons?
           \_ It only causes the number to go UP.  Actually I wasn't
              being serious (duh). -op
              \_ And at first I didn't think you were. And then I had a
                 depressing insight into how you might have been. And then I
                 was sad and needed to share.
        \_ This seems like something you'd find in the onion.
2006/9/28-29 [Reference/Religion, Recreation/Pets] UID:44595 Activity:kinda low
9/28    God, what a depressing day.  Can someone post some lesbians so I can
        feel better?
        \_ Here you go:
           \_ What a lot of pretty boobies!  Thank you boobie guy!
           \_ Better than seagulls, I guess.  --op
        \_ Go watch Saving Face. It's a romantic comedy about Chinese American
           lesbians... and I feel guilty for saying this, but the sex scene
           was HAWT.
2006/9/27-28 [Reference/Religion] UID:44581 Activity:nil
9/27 (
        Barack Obama says gays should get their Jesus on
        \_ Vaguely related: he notes that he's opposed to abortion "for
           religious reasons"  Now I've never met a anyone who's pro-murder,
           atheist or otherwise, so the religious objection to abortion isn't
           just "Thou Shalt Not Kill".  What in the Bible says "though shalt
           not abort a fetus" or even "from the moment of conception, it's a
           \_ ob I don't think it's the Bible, but I think the Pope has a lot
              to do with it.
                \_ Good thing the Pope changed the rules on when life begins
                   before he became infallible.
2006/9/27 [Reference/Religion] UID:44576 Activity:nil
9/27 (
        Barack Obama says leftists should get their Jesus on
        "My father ... became an atheist. ... My mother ... grew up with a
        healthy skepticism of organized religion ... so did I. ...
        But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard
        God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and
        dedicated myself to discovering His truth."
2006/9/22-25 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Jblack, Reference/Religion] UID:44501 Activity:low Cat_by:auto
9/22    Apparently the Pope is a Jew:
        \_ Ironic considering they killed a solid 20-30 million Orthodox
           Christians during the first half of the 20th century.
        \_ Of course!  It all makes sense now!
        \_ I'm told by a guy I know in Azerbijain that it is common
           knowledge in Azerbijain that Bush and Cheney are both Jews.
        \_ Better a Jew than a red-neck right wing nut case like our
           President. If I can only choose one race to rule the earth,
           I'd totally pick the Jew over all other races   -jeworshippor
           \_ Considering they killed a solid 20-30 million Orthodox
              Christians during the first half of the 20th century
              this is not so surprising.
              this is not so surprising.                        -jblack
              \_ What?
              \_ Uh oh, jblack seems to be hitting the meth pipe now.
                 \_ You, sir, have been trolled.  Try new improved formula
                    Troll Gro(tm) for healthy trolls!  -John
           \_ That's Kazakhstan.  Kill the jew Sacha Baron Cohen!  -John
                 \_ Uh oh, politically incorrect history.  I suppose this
                    is not taught in hate Whitey 101.
2006/9/19-22 [Reference/Religion] UID:44442 Activity:nil
9/19    Muslims are so trollable - the fucking Pope
        \_ Most religious nutcases are easily trollable. Just look at
           emarkp for example. Watch him delete this post over and
           over again.
        \_ Does a bear shit in the pope's hat?
        \_ Does a bear shit in the fucking pope's hat?
        \_ The apology rocked: "I'm so sorry you are all a bunch of whiny
2006/9/18-20 [Reference/Religion] UID:44432 Activity:nil
9/18    Gosh I hope the Muslims don't assassinate the Pope. I think
        he's kinda cool.
        \_ yay nazi pope
2006/9/18-20 [Reference/Religion] UID:44429 Activity:kinda low 66%like:44428
9/18    [I'll keep reposting this until you stop censoring it, thanks]
        \_ I'll keep deleting it.  You have my email address. -emarkp
           \_ Is your religion too weak for a link on the motd?
              \_ Non-sequitur.  Your question is about history.  Is your too
              \_ *laugh* as opposed to other, more mainstream religions which
                 stand up great to scrutiny and uncensored historical fact?
                 The only reason people pick on Mormons is that they're too
                 The only reason people pick on Mormons is that you're too
                 dumb, brainwashed, or cowardly to point out the same flaws in
                 the more mainstream fairy tales.
              \_ Non-sequitur.  Your question is about history.  Is your
                 question too weak to sign? -emarkp
        \_ Can you tell us what's being deleted, so I can go look it up
           in the log?
           \_ Google "Mountain Meadows Massacre," unless he censors this
              reference to it as well.
              \_ Why, is there some new evidence, is it just the usual
                 conspiracy theory level psudeo-history?
                    Wow, that sounds pretty convincing:  "Although the various
                    sources agree on the essential story of the massacre on
                    September 11, 1857, the sources differ on many of the
                    facts leading up to or following the massacre."
                    Is there some part that's not true?
                    \_ Right above: "Almost every acknowledged 'fact'
                       about the fate of these murdered people is open to
                       question." Other places on the page is says that
                       who attacked is debated.  I'm curious which part of
                       the essential story isn't debated.  That a bunch of
                       people died?
                       \_ This is the first I've heard of this but really at
                          150 years later who cares who did what to who?  They
                          executed the one guy 20 years later and everyone that
                          had any involvement and their grand children are
                          dead long ago.
                          \_ Good question.  I suspect this thread
                             actually started with op somehow linking
                             emarkp with the massacre, but op being too
                             big a pussy to sign his post.  Don't know
                             \_ He was asking me what I thought of it.  I
                                delete posts addressed to me by anonymous
                                trolls. -emarkp
                                \_ While I can understand why you might be
                                   irked by anonymous trolls, this policy of
                                   deletion could prevent you (and the rest
                                   of us) reading something interesting. I
                                   don't always sign my stuff, especially when
                                   I run out of room on the line. --erikred,!op
                                   \_ FWIW, I honestly wasn't trolling, I just
                                      read about the incident (in the book
                                      "Under The Banner Of Heaven") and I was
                                      curious about a modern Mormon's opinion
                                      on it... I could have asked a more
                                      general question about "blood atonement,"
                                      but that seemed a bit more inflammatory.
                                      \_ Ok, I think you got your answer.  Can
                                         this thread die now?
                                      \_ "Under the Banner of Heaven" is a
                                         crock of crap from the reviews I've
                                         read.  You might want to read real
                                         history. Here's an apologist response
                                         to Krakauer:
                                \_ Part of this response seems to amount to
                                   "He doesn't believe in Jesus, so what does
                                   he know?"
                       \_ The quote is from author Will Bagley.  He also said:
                          "the same critics say 'Well you know what? There's no
                          smoking gun there. ...' ... I don't think that the
                          evidence is ambiguous."
                          \_ Yeah, that site looks unbiased.
                             \_ So are you making any opinions about what
                                Bagley's two statements?
                             \_ So are you making any opinions about Bagley's
                                two statements?
                          \_ And here's an apologist reply to Bagley:
2006/9/18-20 [Reference/Religion] UID:44426 Activity:nil
9/18    Belief in God in America and other countries,,11069-2355486,00.html (
2006/9/18-20 [Reference/Religion] UID:44422 Activity:nil
9/18    The religion of peace protests at Westminster Cathedral
        \_ Not to be confused with the Westminster Abbey which is of much
           higher significance in the UK, and which is not Roman Catholic.
2006/9/15-19 [Reference/Religion] UID:44390 Activity:nil
        Once again the religion of peace riots.
        \_ "death to the infidels for implying we are violent!!"
        \_ Not to defend their reaction, but watching "Monarchy" recently, it
        \_ Not to defend their reaction, but it
           seems that even Westerners whose freedom of expression and say in
           their government has been non-exitent have reacted this way
           their government were non-existant have reacted this way
           throughout history. Riots are a time-honored tradition everywhere.
2006/8/8-11 [Reference/Religion] UID:43941 Activity:low
8/8     One quarter of the religion of peace in England says it's okay to blow
        people up in subways and busses.
        \_ All the bombings of public transportation are clearly the work of
           the oil industry.
        \_ and 1/4 of adult americans think the sun revolves around the
           link dead but I've seen the pdf in the past.
           \_ So?  Does that mean they think it's okay to kill random people?
           \_ That doc has all sorts of fun.  Like more high school dropouts
              know that smoking causes lung cancer and can explain what a
              molecule is than high school graduates.
        \_ 47% of Americans believe God created man in his present form within
           the past 10,000 years.
           \_ Hey, nice little red herring.  I like how with an appeal to the
              anti-Christian knee-jerkers you managed to equate a wide spread
              belief among British Muslims that blowing up innocent civilians
              is good the same as Americans believing in God's creation of the
              world.  Because, as we all know, all religious beliefs are
              equally evil, except for Xtians are who much worse of course.
              You earned the troll of the week award and an A+ for this one!
           \_ 47% of Americans are fucking stupid.  Why are more people
              in America religious than in Europe?  I was talking to a guy
              at work who was saying I should be ashamed of myself for
              not believing in god and that I'm going to go to hell and
              that I'm arrogant for not considering Jesus and the bible.
              I mean he's right that I'm arrogant about it, but why can't
              he see that he's similarly arrogant (possibly not as much as
              me actually)?
              \_ Not true.  They think they _know_ GOD?  They think we
                 measly humans share form with GOD?  Who do you think
                 is more arrogant?
              \_ The *average* American is dumber and less educated than the
                 average citizen of any other industrialized nation.  What
                 saves us is that the smartest Americans are smarter than the
                 smartest citizens of any other nation (because they move
                 here.)  Of course if nativist republican fucks have their way,
                 that will no longer be true, and America will fall within
                 a decade.
                 \_ that, and stem-cell research ban AND "intelligent Design"
                    in public education... AND allowing swarm of illegal
                    immigrants to overflood our public school system :D
              \_ obviously you did "consider" Jesus and the bible...
                 I "consider" it mythology.
                 \_ Some I consider my girlfriend, and some I just consider.
                    Like yer mom.
           \_ So?  Does that mean they think it's okay to kill random people?
        \_ "Mr Blair declared: 'I am not the person to go into the Muslim
           community and explain to them that this extreme view is not the true
           face of Islam."  Dude.  The "true face of Islam" isn't what you want
           it to be, it's reflected in how people actually practice it.  And
           they practice it by repressing women and demanding death for
           \_ what the fuck?  You should go to Malaysia, Indonesia, Qatar, even
              Iran and check it out yourself.  In case of Iran, there are more
              women in their Assembly than US congress :D
        \_ The Daily also says: (
           "Britain's most senior Asian policeman yesterday warned that ......"
           "The Ugandan-born police chief, 51, ......"
           Hmm, Uganda is in Asia?
           \- there are a lot of asians[indians] in uganda.
              \_ <DEAD><DEAD>
                 non-African (European, Asian, Arab) 1%, other 8%
                 \_ Indians & Pakistanis controlled a large proportion of
                    Uganda's commerce before Idi Amin evicted "Asiatics" in the
                    1970s.  -John
                    1970s.  Many fled to the UK.  -John
                    \_ I see.  Thx.
                    \- see also MISSISSIPPI MASALA
                       \_ Denzel beds a hot Indian girl in that movie.  Nice.
                          Once you go black, you never go back!  -black male
        \_ Does anyone have a reference to a poll taken in England that
           supposedly showed that a MAJORITY of Muslims in England would
           like to impose Sharia law on the entire country? I've heard it
           said but never saw the story to back it up ...
        \_ Sadly, the poll question is never given verbatim.  The same poll
           also shows 50% of respondents saying 9/11 was an Israeli-U.S. plot.
           I'm pretty sure this is the spin machine trying to keep Blair as PM
           for another year
        \_ Sadly, the poll question is never given verbatim.
        \_ 5% of Americans think that George W Bush is the greatest American
           President ever.
           \_ You're damn right we do!!! --proud 5% of Americans
2006/7/31-8/2 [Reference/Religion] UID:43848 Activity:nil
7/31    Kentucky museum uses Bible to tell Earth's natural history
        \_ The last two sentences are awesome.
           \_ "Fishy fishy fishy.... FISH!"
                         Ahh, childhood memories reborn on YouTube --michener
        \_ You may enjoy this:  -John
        \_ Miss Kentucky is one hot Miss USA. -proud American
2006/7/18-20 [Reference/Religion, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll] UID:43709 Activity:nil
7/18    John may be an idiot but I enjoy trolling him. Thank God for stupid
        people like him who provide hours of free entertainment. Heil.
        \_ i liked the swedish chef version better
        \_ The troll farm flourishes!  Troll-Gro worked!  Awesome.  -John
           \_ Your chicom troll pen has really blossomed into a best-in-show
              gallery!  Very impressive!
2006/7/6-7 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:43577 Activity:nil
7/6     Wow, I got this in my e-mail today:
        Islam: What the West Needs to Know    (NR); NY/Wash/ATL
        ... this documentary demonstrates that Islam is a violent, expansionary
        ideology that seeks the destruction or subjugation of other faiths,
        cultures, and systems of government.
        \_ Islam or Death  (In Michigan)
           \_ Silly man, doesn't he realize that without cherry-picking the
              religious texts, there would be no western liberal (and that
              includes fundies, btw) Christianity?
              \_ That's a huge oversimplification of the situation.  The core
                 issue is not cherry picking.  It is that the other major
                 religions have all come to terms with the modern world but
                 Islam has not.  The world has all sorts of crazies but you
                 don't see large organised well funded groups of <insert any
                 religion but Islam here> running around suicide bombing
                 civilians in some hopeless effort to turn the world into
                 their idea of 8th century heaven.
                 \_ and selectively ignoring inconvenient bits of one's
                    religious texts is a key component of
                    "[coming] to terms with the modern world"
                    \_ Yes.  It has to be.  Is there a problem with that?
                       The alternative is the aggressive Islam we see today.
                       I much prefer people giving a wink and nod to people
                       cutting off heads and keeping women as 4th class non-
                       \_ Yeah.  I'm curious how much of radical Islam has
                          to do with the fact that most of it's followers
                          are just really, really poor and uneducated.
                          \_ Most of radical Islam relies entirely on its
                             followers being illiterate and ignorant; if they
                             don't have to rely on Imams for instruction,
                             most people would reject radical Islam.
                             \_ Except the 9/11 suicide bombers, who were on
                                the whole well-educated and well-off.
                                \_ ... i.e., "most."
        \_ Sounds just like the Catholic Crusaders.
2006/6/30 [Reference/Religion] UID:43538 Activity:nil
6/30    "Youths" Kick Man to Death on Crowded Antwerp Bus
2006/6/26-28 [Reference/Religion] UID:43496 Activity:nil
6/25    Why is it that in many depictions of Hindu deities, they are portrayed
        with blue, green, or purple skin?  Is it sort of like how Christian
        icons have halos?
        \_ that is why people think these Hindu and Christian Gods were Aliens
           visiting earth back then.
           \- deities have canonical representations. this doesnt just
              apply to skin color but also clothing details, pose, what they
              are holding, what animal they will be pictured with etc.
              the "standard blue god" is krishna, which is an avatar of
              vishnu [other vishnu forms will not be blue/black]. krishna
              actually means dark. however, "neel kantha", meaning "blue
              throat" revers to shiva [who will occasionally be shown with
              a blue throat, in reference to a story where he was asked to
              drink some poison as a favor and stored it in his throat].
              neelkantha is also a very attractive mountain in the garwhal
              himalaya ... which somewhat confusingly is more tightly bound
              to vishnu in non-blue form than shiva, after whom it is named.
              better analogy might be to the "hints" in pictures of christian
              saints as to who if being depicted. for example if you seen an
              saints as to who is being depicted. for example if you seen an
              old fellow with a lion and a book, it is probably st. jerome,
              the translator of the bible into latin.
              \_ I'm now more confused than before. Cool though.
2006/6/23-28 [Reference/Religion] UID:43485 Activity:nil
6/23    This is beyond odd.  YARN (yet another religious nutjob.)  -John
        \_ Which part is "beyond odd" exactly? It seems pretty standard to me.
           \_ I guess you have pretty low expectations of people :-)  -John
2006/6/22-26 [Reference/Religion] UID:43466 Activity:nil
6/22    "Keeping out the Christians"
        UC rejecting evangelical High School curricula on the most
        contrived of grounds.
        \_ Those grounds being "you're not teaching science".
        \_ The Hoover Institution is Dubya's west-coast "brain trust".
        \_ The same "contrived" grounds would preclude automatic admission of
           students who attended a FSM school. The real victims here are the
           students who have been used by Christian schools to spark an
           argument over UC's standards.
           \_ Disqualifying a book based on the quotes it uses to start
           \_ Disqualifying a book based on the quotes it begins to start
              chapters?  Sorry, that's just contrived, even if they were
              FSM quotes.
              \_ Physics textbooks containing Biblical quotes?  If we allow
                 that, what's to prevent us from having quotes saying God
                 defined the universal constants?  I propose a Constitutional
                 amendment defining science as driven by testable hypotheses,
                 to the exclusion of religion that does not have testable
                 \_ This is a troll, right?
              \_ Verses as headers are not a reason to reject a text, but
                 they were mentioned in an interview w/ someone that, IIRC,
                 wasn't even involved in the decision, so this is really a
                 red herring.
        \_ I like how the chart midway down doesn't compre Christian Private
        \_ I like how the chart midway down doesn't compare Christian Private
           to Secular Private schools, it compares Christian to Public.
           \_ What do you think the comparison would show? What would it
              prove? How would that affect UC's decision?
2006/5/27-6/2 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:43206 Activity:nil
5/26    Mormon Church posthumously baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims
2006/5/23-28 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:43166 Activity:nil
        What do jews gain from communism? It's all about power and wealth.
        \_ Whoever is posting these is a moronic nutjob. -dans
        \_ Stormfront links go away
        \_ Link doesn't work but there is no question that early
          Communists in Eastern Europe and Russia were
          disproportionately populated by Jews.
2006/5/19-22 [Reference/Religion] UID:43115 Activity:nil
        Dear motd Christians, let's all boycott the Code!
        \_ Oh no!  I really wanted to waste $10 on a crappy movie!
2006/3/31-4/2 [Reference/Religion] UID:42589 Activity:nil
3/31    Re: prayer study. "The praying was done by members of three Christian
        groups in monasteries and elsewhere -- two Catholic and one Protestant
        -- who were given written prayers and the first name and initial of the
        last name of the prayer subjects."
        The study should be "praying for strangers doesn't work."
        \_ Yeah, God can't identify people without a full last name, and it's
           impossible to actually care for a stranger.
           \_ Child, the Lord sees through this because they were "testing"
              him. He always makes sure his doings are indistinguishable from
              non-divine expectations. You fools ask for a sign, but none will
              be given except the thing about Jesus resurrecting which
              nobody really saw but ye of little faith despair. Though if you
              had faith as small as a mustard seed you could move mountains.
              Apparently nobody on Earth has even that. God bless.
              \_ Do not be too proud of this theological terror that you've
                 constructed. -dvader
              \_ Mmm.  Meta-sarcasm.
                 \_ "Meta-Flame"
                    \_ That's an interesting concept.  A, what, quantum process
                       that consumes the chemical process of flame and turns
                       it into something else.
        \_ We care why?
2006/3/30-31 [Reference/Religion] UID:42545 Activity:high
3/30    Study: Praying Won't Affect Heart Patients:
        So does this mean Yahweh ignores prayers to ensure that there's no solid
        proof of His existence?  What does Occam's Razor say about this?
        \_ Hello I'm George W Bush and I do not approve this message.
        \_ What would alarm me if I were Christian is the fact that the new
           pope claimed that he prayed to God that he not be selected pope.
           If God doesn't listen to the pope's prayers, why would he listen
           pope claimed that he prayed to Yahweh that he not be selected pope.
           If Yahweh doesn't listen to the pope's prayers, why would he listen
           to anyone else's?
           \_ Jesus asked God to take away the cup (not be crucified) from
              Him but also prayed to do God's will. God didnt save him from
              being sacrificed. God didn't answer his prayer but in a way
              he answered the part to do God's will.
        \_ The whole "God" thing is a big scam.  People just don't want to
           \_ Jesus asked Yahweh to take away the cup (not be crucified) from
              Him but also prayed to do Yahweh's will. Yahweh didnt save him from
              being sacrificed. Yahweh didn't answer his prayer but in a way
              he answered the part to do Yahweh's will.
        \_ The whole "Yahweh" thing is a big scam.  People just don't want to
           admit that they were suckers.
           "Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
            by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." -- Seneca
        \_ Ever seen the Jimmy Stwart movie Harvey? What's the difference
           between Harvey (the 6ft tall rabbit that only Jimmy Stewart's
           character can see) and Jesus? Not a whole heck of alot if you ask me
           \_ The difference is that Jesus is a histocial figure who is
              reported to have made miracles happen.  Harvey is a movie
              character.  The only question is do you believe the historical
              reports or not?  If not, then you need to come up with a reason
              those reports exist in the first place.  If so, then it is a
              question of 'how did he do it?'  If it was Divine then case
              closed.  The Divine can not be measured since it doesn't have
              to follow the laws of physics, science, etc and is assumed to
              have self-will and the power to change reality.  If it was some
              sort of super science, hypnotism, mass halucination, etc, then
              how that came about needs to be explained.  I'm an atheist but
              I have no issues with Christians or other religious types.  Their
              business is theirs and mine is mine.  The rare few who made the
              mistake of trying to convert me found themselves trying to answer
              unanswerable questions.  Most are more polite than that.  I find
              the faith-based atheists who are really more "anti-christians"
              than true thought derived atheists to be far more obnoxious and
              hateful than any Christians or other religious types.  The key
              to all of this is that no matter what you decide for yourself,
              you still can't prove or disprove the existence of God through
              you still can't prove or disprove the existence of Yahweh through
              the scientific method or through pure faith.  You can only make
              a rude ass of yourself.  If everyone was simply nicer to each
              other the world would be a better place.  So go back and ask
              yourself again the difference between a ficticious Hollywood
              character and a historical figure who is reported to have done
              things we can't explain 2000 years later.
              \_ What "reports"? there is only the bible's own word for it.
                 \_ The bible has made mention of the locations of places once
                    thought mythical that were found later by archaeologists.
                    It is not so easily dismissed with a hand wave.  There is
                    truth in the bible.  I'm sure there's also lies, and
                    misunderstanding and misinterpretation as well.  It was
                    2000 years ago and has to be understood in that context.
                    The problem is not whether or not the bible is fairy tale
                    or truth, but how much of each and to what degree for
                    everything in it.  --atheist
                    \_ Examples? I know it mentions places that exist and
                       events that happened, substantiated by evidence or
                       other sources. That has zero to do with the miracles.
                       \_ It says you can't outright dismiss the whole thing
                          as fairy tales.  It raises the question that if it
                          got some things right we thought were false, then
                          what is the explanation for the rest?  I already
                          said, it could be anything  from outright lies to
                          the Divine, alien super science or simply stories
                          not originally intended to be taken literally.
                          \_ The Bible is set in real-world locations and
                             real-world times. That doesn't lend credibility
                             to the mythology any more than the doings of Zeus
                             and friends in the Iliad just because of new
                             archaelogical information about Troy and Mycenae.
                             Did the River Xanthus rise up against Achilles
                             after he single-handedly choked it up with bodies
                             of Trojans? Did Aeneas get whisked away magically
                             by the Gods to escape death? Thousands of troops
                             must have seen this stuff so it must be real.
              \_ The difference between Harvey and Jesus is that Harvey's
                 existance isn't detailed in a book riddled with
                 inconsistencies and totally inexplicable nonsense.
                 \_ Yes, this is exactly the sort of faith-based atheism
                    I was talking about.
                        \_ Except I'm not an atheist. -- pp
                           \_ So Christianity is a competing religion then?
                              What do you believe in?
                                \_ I'm agnostic.  I don't see a problem in
                                   believing in a God or not, but the more
                                   believing in a Yahweh or not, but the more
                                   I read the bible the more I'm convinced
                                   you have to be basically insane to believe
                                   the majority of it.  And saying "well don't
                                   interpret it literally" is stupid.  You're
                                   basing your entire belief system on what
                                   is written in this old book, if you had a
                                   physics book that contained 60% stuff that
                                   didn't reflect reality, would you believe
                                   any of it?
                                   \_ Grr, this is annoying.  Someone rolled
                                      back the motd.  Anyone, my previous
                                      answer is the same: I would neither
                                      outright accept nor dismiss the other
                                      40%, which is all I'm saying about the
                                        \_ I'm sure there are some pearls of
                                           wisdom buried in "Mein Kampf" too,
                                           but I wouldn't base my belief system
                                           on that book either.
                   \_ How is saying the the Bible is riddled with
                      inconsistencies and inexplicable nonsense "faith-based
                      atheism"?  If you're _actually_ an atheist and not just
                      using it as an arguing point, then you know for yourself
                      that there are any number of examples to support both
                      of those claims.
                      \_ Because you don't *know* which claims are true or
                         false and to what degree so dismissing all of them
                         and then being openly hostile and aggressive towards
                         those who believe there might be something to it is
                         no better than the people who blindly accept all of
                         it as literal truth and push it on you.
                         \_ Of course we know which claims are false, assuming
                            you believe in fact-based reality.  Earth is 10,000
                            years old? Obviously false.  Noah's ark? Totally
                            impossible nonsense.  A star falling into the
                            ocean? Can't happen either.
        \_ I hate it when politicians make policy decisions based on
           a book that was first probably oral tradition, who knows
           who the heck came up with it, then written in Aramaic, then
           some parts in Greek, throw some Hebrew and Latin in,
           and along we come along and translate it into the King's
           English, and then dumbasses say "IT IS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE,
           SO IT IS WRITTEN".
           \_ I wouldn't out right dismiss all of it
              but I wouldn't blindly accept it either
              which is all I'm saying about the bible.
              \_ [ this was originally in response to something totally
                   different.  it'd be nice if people were more careful
                   with their edits ]
           \_ Exactly.  This is why now is not the right time to be a "just
              leave them be" atheist.  People are electing leaders not on the
              basis of qualifications, but because of their fanatastical
              beliefs.  Our nation is unwilling to find Muslim ethics wanting
              because they're based on faith and holy books.  It's impossible
              to have factual, logical, intelligent debates about many topics
              related to medical ethics because of religious assertions that
              CANNOT be refuted with fact, because fact is irrelevant to the
              discussion.  These are serious problems with being a "they're
              not hurting anyone with their beliefs" atheist.
              \_ People have always elected leaders, in part, based on their
                 religion.  They said Kennedy would never get elected because
                 he was Catholic.  Yet... somehow he did.  Have more _faith_
                 in people (heh).  And careful siding too closely with so
                 called medical ethics professionals.  Some of them have
                 made some really outlandish statements by anyone's measure.
                 \_ Who said I was siding with "ethics professionals"  I said
                    we couldn't have intelligent debate because it's FORBIDDEN
                    to question blind faith!  You can argue logical points in
                    a scientific manner, and perform tests to aquire better
                    supporting facts, but in a culture where "my religion says
                    X" completely ends all possibility of debate, something is
       \_ Study is flawed. The patients didn't pray hard enough.   -jesus
        \_ "Do not tempt the Lord your God" .. split into 3 groups?
        \_ "Do not tempt God" .. split into 3 groups?
        \_ "Do not tempt Yahweh" .. split into 3 groups?
            sounds unauthentic
           \_ Huh?
            \_ Where does it say that?
                \_ Matthew 4:7 "you shall not test the Lord your God"
                \_ Matthew 4:7 "you shall not test God"
                   \_ Why the frack not?
        \_ God does answers prayers.  Sometimes the answer is no.  A chant
                \_ Matthew 4:7 "you shall not test Yahweh"
        \_ Yahweh does answers prayers.  Sometimes the answer is no.  A chant
           leading to a result is magic, not Christianity.
           \_ No he doesn't. What do you base that on? Give me one example
              of a prayer having been answered.
              \_ All my life I have been an athiest, but a few years ago I
                 got so tired of shitting in the stall next to this really
                 annoying guy I used to work with that I started to pray to
                 the shit gods that he not have to shit at the same time as I
                 did.  Well, he stopped shitting at the same time and my
                 prayers were answered.  So now I believe in the shit god.
              \_ My cs170 final, for starters....
                 \_ As long as there are exams, prayer in schools will never
                    be eradicated.
              \_ I've had prayers clearly answered.  Sometimes the answer was
                 no.  Sometimes the answer has what I expected, and sometimes
                 wasn't.  It very much depends on the individual and the
                 circumstances.  Which is why it could never be reliably
                 studied by the scientific method IMO. -emarkp
                 \_ "Sometimes, when I cross myself before I take a free
                    throw, my prayer is answered and I make it.  Sometimes
                    the answer is no and I miss it.  Sometimes I miss it
                    but get the rebound and get two points.  It very much
                    depends on the individual and the circumstances."
                    Complete cop-out.  If there is any real effect to
                    prayer, that effect is measurable by scientific
                    methods.  -tom
                    \_ I'm glad you have so much faith in the scientific
                       method.  I don't a tool to this level of worship
                       however.  If a phenomenon is inherently subjective, it
                       can't be tested by science, which doesn't make it false,
                       it simply can't be admitted into scientific theory.
                       \_ If prayers can be answered, the phenomenon is not
                          "inherently subjective."  What is subjective is
                          someone's *belief* that their prayer was answered.
                          It is certainly the case that people believe
                          all kinds of stuff with no evidence other than
                          their own subjective feelings.  -tom
                          \_ You seem to think "answering prayer" means
                             "granting a request".  It doesn't. -emarkp
                             \_ You seem to think that what goes on inside
                                your head when you pray has some relation
                                to external reality.  It doesn't.  -tom
                                \_ Thoughts have no relation to external
                                   reality? That's a pretty impressive
                                   assertion tom. -emarkp
                                   \_ Why? Is there some difficulty with
                                      asserting that, and if so what?
                                      \_ Well, there is that whole
                                         observer problem.
                                        \_ Alright, I suppose it is a poor
                                           way to phrase it. Nevertheless, in
                                           context we are talking about
                                           assigning religious meaning to
                                           someone's thoughts. This starts to
                                           smack of schizophrenia.
                                           \_ Where'd you get your license to
                                              practice psychiatry?  Do you even
                                              know what schizophrenia is?
                                              \_ Yes. But if it makes you feel
                                                 better, substitute "psychosis"
                                                 so we don't have to argue the
                  \_ No you haven't. You've prayed for something, and it
                     happened, or it didn't. It would have happened regardless.
                     \_ With all due respect (i.e. none) I'm a better authority
                        on my own experience than you are. -emarkp
                        \_ No, you're not. Because you filter everything that
                           you experience through your warped sense of reality.
                           I bet you consider feelings experienced in your mind
                           as divine contact.
                           \_ Why is "my" sense of reality warped Mr. Anonymous
                              Troll? -emarkp
                              \_ Is Jesus your Friend?
                              \_ That's my judgement of those who do what I say
                                 in my last sentence.
                                 \_ Judge not lest ye be judged!  (heh, sorry,
                                    someone had to say it).
                              \_ Everyone's sense of reality is warped. No one
                                 experiences the world as it really is b/c the
                                 brain/mind is constantly filtering and inter-
                                 preting the inputs from our senses and trying
                                 to form predictive patterns.
                                 If you have all these notions of external
                                 powers stuck in your head, you end up using
                                 those notions to evaluate your experiences,
                                 rather than assessing them objectively.
                                 In the end, it is all just a bunch of neuro-
                                 transmitters flowing between neurons.
                     The real trick is to try praying for something that
                     really couldn't happen without a prayer. You'll find those
                     will never ever be "answered".
                     Well, I guess one area where religious people get points
                     is with other religious people. For example, being
                     religious is a prerequisite to get with some religious
                     girls. So, if you really like a religious girl and
                     pray and stuff then there's a much better chance of
                     getting with her than if you didn't. That much is
                     probably scientifically provable :)
           \_ An effect indistinguishable from random chance either:
              a) doesn't exist
              b) is irrelevant
              Which is it?
              \_ what part of do "not test the Lord" do you not understand?
                 \_ The part where "the Lord" exists, maybe?
              \_ what part of do "not test God" do you not understand?
                 \_ The part where "God" exists, maybe?
              \_ what part of do "not test Yahweh" do you not understand?
                 \_ The part where "Yahweh" exists, maybe?
                 \_ I understand cop-outs perfectly well.  In fact, that's
                    the same cop-out psychics use.  -tom
                    \_ Have you ever read The Men Who Stare at Goats?
                 \_ It's still indistinguishable from the case where there
                    is no God and no prayers being answered. You can call
                    is no Yahweh and no prayers being answered. You can call
                    that a test if you want. -!pp
        \_ Actually, it probably means that God's install of Spam Assassin
        \_ Actually, it probably means that Yahweh's install of Spam Assassin
           is working (given he's had billions of yrs, or at least 6K yrs,
           to train it, I'm not surprised).
           Of course, this presupposes that the Universe is real and
           separate from God.
           Of course, this presupposes that the Universe is real and separate
           from God.
           from Yahweh.
           \_ Thank you, Bishop Berkeley.
        \_ How Jesus taught us to pray:
           Our Father in Heaven, Hallowed be thy Name
           Thy kingdom come.  Thy will be done,
           on earth, as it is in heaven
           Give us this day our daily bread
           Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debters
           And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
           For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever.
        \_ Prayers are not just the asking of things.  A prayer is a dialogue
           with the Lord, through which we build a closer relationship with
           him.  It could be like a child talking to her father, or a friend
           talking to a friend.  God listens to the righteous, and reveals
           talking to a friend.  Yahweh listens to the righteous, and reveals
           himself to those who seek him.  He hears those who cry out to him.

           "Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him,
            "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."
            He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a
            miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of
            the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three
            nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be
            three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

           Some relevant verses:
           Matthew 12:38-42
           Matthew 13:58
           Isaiah 58:9 (read the whole of 58)
           \_ This debate is not about prayer-as-conversation.  It is directly
              about the much vaunted "power of prayer" to DO things.  Talking
              to a parent does not effect physical change unless the parent
              DOES something.  If they DO, it's measurable.  Look, either God
              DOES something.  If they DO, it's measurable.  Look, either Yahweh
              can be cajoled into doing things or He can't.  If He can't, then
              everything happens according to His Plan and there is no free
              will.  If he can, then prayer is certainly making a request, no
              matter how many "be it your will..." and "if it pleases you..."
              clauses you add to your request.
              \_ Essentially, what you want is to be shown a miracle.  And
                 I've already pointed out above as to why you won't see one.
                 Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean prayers aren't
                 \_ Which is why, again? Can you articulate it in simple terms?
                    (Also, isn't it noteworthy that in the Bible, first God and
                    (Also, isn't it noteworthy that in the Bible, first Yahweh and
                    then Jesus gains followers by the use of direct miracles?
                    c.f. Jesus walking on water blah blah resurrecting, c.f.
                    burning bushes and clouds and booming heavenly voices.
                    \_ You know about the miracles, so why are you asking
                       for more?  God is sovereign.  He is not obligated to
                       \_ The point is I know what miracles it SAYS happened,
                          and by the Bible's own internal logic it's reasonable
                          to expect some sort of proof, but I don't actually
                          have any personal evidence nor do I believe the
                          unsubstantiated reports in the Bible.
                          \_ If you want personal evidence, why don't you
                             start praying and seeking him then.
                          \_ If you want personal evidence, you can start
                             praying and seeking him.
                             \_ So in your world, you have to first believe
                                in it before you can get evidence for it.
                                No, that is insane. And I've never talked to
                                anyone who actually had personal evidence.
                                Why don't you describe yours hmm?
                                \_ Praying and seeking doesn't mean belief.
                                   If you want witnesses, there are plenty
                                   of books and video documentaries with
                                   testimonies, or you can find a church.
                                   Another way would be to follow Isaiah 58,
                                   and do what is righteous, or follow
                                   what Jesus teaches.
                       for more?  Yahweh is sovereign.  He is not obligated to
                       perform any miracle, or 5 miracles per century.  He
                       is not obligated to perform any miracle to prove his
                       existence to you.  And what seperates us from him is
                       our sin; it is not the lack of or abundance of miracles.
                       The people who saw Jesus performed miracles, also nailed
                       him to the cross.
                       p.s. Read the book of Esther.  Did God perform any
                       p.s. Read the book of Esther.  Did Yahweh perform any
                       miracles in the events in Esther?
                       \_ The point is I know what miracles it SAYS happened,
                          and by the Bible's own internal logic it's reasonable
                          to expect some sort of proof, but I don't actually
                          have any personal evidence nor do I believe the
                          unsubstantiated reports in the Bible.
                          \_ If you want personal evidence, you can start
                             praying and seeking him.
                             \_ So in your world, you have to first believe
                                in it before you can get evidence for it.
                                No, that is insane. And I've never talked to
                                anyone who actually had personal evidence.
                                Why don't you describe yours hmm?
                                \_ Praying and seeking doesn't mean belief.
                                   If you want witnesses, there are plenty
                                   of books and video documentaries with
                                   testimonies, or you can find a church.
                                   Another way would be to follow Isaiah 58,
                                   and do what is righteous, or follow
                                   what Jesus teaches.
                                   \_ Praying is communicating with something
                                      I believe doesn't exist and doesn't
                                      answer... I call that insanity.
                                      The testimonies are worthless for
                                      one reason or another (name one and
                                      I'll tell you why). You also haven't
                                      answered my last question.
                                      \_ Try the other way then - i.e. Doing
                                         what is righteous.  That's the
                                         harder way, but it leads to a
                                         stronger faith.
                                         \_ But that's the point. Determining
                                            what is righteous is something
                                            we can discuss rationally.
                                            (and besides, nobody agrees on
                                            what the religions really say
                                            is righteous.)
                                            Baseless faith is dumb. I have
                                            a certain faith in family and
                                            friends because I know them from
                                            past experience. I also have a
                                            more limited faith in other
                                            fellow humans, based on my
                                            dealings with them in general.
                                            I have no faith in Yahweh.
                                            \_ Yes, we have faith in
                                               God for we experienced him,
                                               and he is faithful, and
                                               good, and just, and his love
                                               \_ If you "experienced" Yahweh,
                                                  then you don't need faith.
                                                  Which is it? (and, what was
                                                  the nature of this experience?
                                                  the nature of this
                                                  \_ When you say you have
                                                     faith in someone, what
                                                     does it mean?
                                                     \_ It is belief; belief
                                                        that they can be relied
                                                        on in certain ways. In
                                                        the case of Yahweh, I
                                                        guess it is about belief
                                                        that what is said about
                                                        him is true (bible), but
                                                        mainly for me the truth
                                                        "how he is" is pretty
                                                        much irrelevant, what
                                                        guess it is about
                                                        belief that what is
                                                        said about him is true
                                                        (bible), but mainly for
                                                        me the truth "how he
                                                        is" is pretty much
                                                        irrelevant, what
                                                        matters is if he exists
                                                        in the first place. If
                                                        you "experienced" him
                                                        then you must not have
                                                        such doubts, non?
                                         why are you averse to my _/
                                         calling it that? It helps to
                                         distinguish the Judeo-Christian
                                         God from other possible
                                         conceptions, which may be
                                         far more interesting.
                                            \_ Yes, we have faith in
                                               God for we experienced him,
                                               and he is faithful, and
                                               good, and just, and his love
                                               endures forever.
                                         \_ feel free to use Yahweh,
                                            just don't change God
                                            to Yahweh for what other
                                            people wrote.  Someone
                                            was doing that.
                                         \_ YASHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUA!
        \_ I find your lack of faith disturbing. -dvader
           \_ "The force bugs are strong within him".
2006/3/30-31 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Taiwan, Reference/Religion] UID:42532 Activity:high
3/30    Southern Taiwanese girls are among the most self absorbed and
        money loving people I've ever met. Every time they talk, it's about
        themselves, or about money, or how they want <stick in whatever
        materialistic thing here>. The word charity is completely
        foreign to them. Anyone have similar experiences with other girls?
        \_ When you marry a S Taiwanese woman, you marry her entire family.
           You better like Oh-Ah-Jian (oyster pancake) and the food they
           eat. You better like her parents. You better like the mainland
           China bashing shows they watch and their Fox News equivalence
           (Taiwan Independence Newspaper). You'll have to live in closed
           quarters with her inlaws for an extended amount of time and cook &
           eat together. You should at minimum drive a 3 year old Lexus or
           better. The exception to this is if you're a doctor, then she'll
           do anything for you till you get married because the culture
           believes doctors are bigger than God or the President. After you
           believes doctors are bigger than Yahweh or the President. After you
           get married though, "all your bases belong to her". By that I mean
           your income, car, house, and the way you're suppose to think.
           \_ Move to some non-community property state.  Then it is just a
              personal backbone issue, not a legal issue enforced by law.
           \_ this is so funny... and has a lot of truth in it.
        \_ How is this different from libertarian geek guys whose only
           interest is consumer electronics?
           \_ Hey! Some of us give money to soda and public tv!
        \_ I am not found of Taiwanese girls in general, but your statement
                    \_ fond
           of "self absorbed and money loving people" applies to A LOT of
           people, men or women, regardless of color of skin!
        \_ There are some Taiwan girls on soda who are the exact opposite
            you describe. It is just like the other person said: stereotypes
            /generalizations are a very bad road to go down.

        \_ My gf is from Chiayi, and she ain't bad.  We are Christians
           so she gives 10% to church.  She is generous to others, but
           too thrifty herself (not as fun in terms of enjoying life).
           She says Taiwanese show their love using money, so there
           may be some truth in what you are saying.
           \_ Interesting. So what do YOU think? Or does she think for you?
              \_ She tried, but I ain't no pushover.
              \_ She tried, but I ain't no pushover.  What do I think
                 about Southern Taiwanese girls in general?  I don't
                 know enough of them to conclude.  I have quite a few
                 cousinettes spread over the island, but I haven't spent
                 much time there so I don't know them well.  I do know
                 Southern Taiwanese guys don't do much housework, the prime
                 example being my dad, but then, maybe that's because
                 he's the only boy in his family and he had 5 sisters.
           \_ i love this logic: she is a Christians and give money
              to church she attends to, which makes her a much superior
              human being.
              \_ I am just responding to "The word charity is completely
                 foreign to them".  Why is it that I can't mention
                 Christianity without being attacked?
           \_ If you were _good_ Christians you'd give everything away... but
              I guess that's a part of the Bible it's no fun to follow.
              \_ Commandments to specific people may not be applicable in the
                 general case.
                 \_ especially when it's inconvenient.  -tom
                 \_ especially when they're inconvenient.  -tom
              \_ I am not a good Christian.  Giving has little to do
              \_ Giving has little to do
                 with "fun to follow" or not, and more to do with your
                 faith in the Lord, and the Lord's calling.  Are
                 Christians required to give away everything.  No.  Do
                 some Christians give away everything?  Yes.  Giving
                 should also be joyous!
                 \_ You say that as if it's clearly stated thus in the Bible.
                    It's not.  It's _your_ clear understanding of a book that
                    can (and is) interpreted absolutely any way people want.
                    I can extol the virtues incest, slavery, rape, revenge,
                    misogyny, just about any horrid thing you like using only
                    actions that are endorsed by God at some point in the Bible.
                    You might as well use the dictionary as your holy book.
                    actions that are endorsed by God at some point in the
                    Bible. You might as well use the dictionary as your holy
                    \_ You are right that people can interpret things in
                       different ways, but that doesn't mean some of them
                       are not wrong.  Even in the bible itself,
                       you have Satan and the Pharisees interpreting the bible
                       one way, and Jesus "interpreting" it a different way.
                       \_ But we can't know which interpretation is right.
                          It is basically useless. It's one thing to have
                          Yahweh/Yashua him/themselves clarifying stuff
                          (albeit in a cryptic, impatient, and irritated
                          fashion... what is up with that anyway, it's
                          his/their own damn fault people get it wrong)
                          or to have the literal voice of God or supposed
                          deputies (why do the old testament people blindly
                          accept that some being is an "angel of the Lord"
                          anyway? It's not like they have any kind of
                          authentication or digital signing of divine
                          communications). But no, in all of modern times
                          these fantastical communications, on which all
                          of the religion is ultimately supposed to have
                          been founded, are completely absent. Basically
                          if Yahweh gave a shit what you think he'd say
                          something. If Yahweh existed he would say something,
                          according to the character laid out in the Bible
                          itself. Reality does not bear it out.
        \_ In what context are you meeting them? What's their socio-
           economic background? Are they recent immigrants or 2nd or 3rd
           gen Americans? Also, what's your sample size? Anecdotes are
           amusing but statistically irrelevant.
           \_ in the context of being one and being with them for many
              decades, and the sample size is slightly less than 100
              \_ You're a Southern Taiwanese girl? Are you as materialistic
                 as you make them out to be?
                        \_ I wonder what his opinion of Northern ones are.

        \_ post pics please!
2006/3/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/911, Reference/Religion] UID:42377 Activity:moderate
3/21    I think it's hilarious the "Human Rights Commission" in
        Aghanistan wants to kill a muslim who converted to
        Christianity. Even more funny is that because he
        converted to Christianity he must be insane and therefore
        that is his only hope for not facing a death sentence.
        \_ The state-sponsored "Afghanistan Independent Human Rights
           Commission," in a country where the constitution is based on Sharia.
        \_ Mission: Accomplished
        \_ Freedom Is On The March
        \_ i'll commission YOUR human rights
2006/3/20-21 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/Asia/India, Reference/Religion] UID:42331 Activity:moderate
3/20    religion of peace - or intolerance?,2933,188364,00.html
        \_ bad decision on the gov.'s part.  best case is they
           should just exile the poor guy.  it sucks that people
           magically pull laws out of their ass and say
           "it's Islamic law!" when it was really only in the hadith,
           not the koran.
        \_ let's kick some middle east butt then
        \_ if you dont believe in islam, you are attacking it
        and therefore you have to die.. paraphrasing the judge
        so.. everyone who is not muslim must die then..
           \_ that explains the 99% muslim rate in afghanistan.
             \_they maintain a 1% hindu population in order
                to maintain their shooting skills
        \_ They'll get what's coming to them after we've exploited
           all their countries' natural resources (e.g., oil)
           - passive aggressive man
           \_ the liberal view is to just wipe them out first
           and then take their oil freely?
        \_ Mission Accomplished!
        \_ From the BBC version:
           "The editor of a women's rights magazine was convicted of insulting
            Islam and sentenced to death last year - but was later released
            after an apology and heavy international pressure."
           Expect a similar result here. Executing apostates would
           significantly undermine Karzai.
2006/3/20-21 [Reference/Religion] UID:42326 Activity:high
3/20    Hey tom, we've already established that you think of yourself as
        omnipotent.  Do you also believe yourself to be infallible?  I'm
        thinking I may want to include you as an NPC if I ever run an RP
        campaign again, and am trying to establish if the tom NPC would be a
        god or `just' a demi-god.  TIA. -dans
                                   \_ He could play Tiamat, sure.
        \_ First, you may want to investigate the difference between
           "omnipotent" and "omniscient."
           Second, get a fuckin' life.  Really.  -tom
        \_ don't forget, tom is also omnipresent.  he may be omnivorous too.
           \_ I feel like the rest of us should be paying you two for the
              entertainment you're providing.
              \_ It was entertaining for a while but it's getting old.
                 dans has proven that he's as petty as the person he used to
                 know. tom on the other hand has shown a lot of restraints,
                 without lashing out and rambling. For crying out loud,
                 the incident was many years ago. People change. Move on.
                 \_ Getting old like yermom?  Look, it's the motd.  If you want
                    something new and original, why read a text file edited
                    by the same group of old, grouchy alumni for years and
                    years?  If on the other hand you want decades of yermom
                    jokes, political trolls and insane rants it's nice to have
                    something that never changes.
                    \_ listen you smart ass. I do read other sources for
                       entertainment, like But that gets old too
                       \_ Aaawwwwww. Are we not entertaining you enough?  You
                          want more boob pics?  Flame wars about text editors?
           \_ Ah, thanks for the correction.  One tends to make silly errors
              of that sort when posting at 5 AM.  Mea culpa.  While I've got
              your ear, perhaps you could tell me in your all-knowing wisdom,
              what constitutes a life?  I thought I was doing reasonably for
              myself, what with a circle of wonderful friends, a fantastic SO,
              a busy calendar, and work I love, but, apparently, I am mistaken.
              Please tell me oh wise tom, what must one do to have a life?
              Also, you never answered my question, do you think you're
              infallible? -dans
              \_ Here's a hint, dans. Life is inversely proportional to the
                 amount of trolls you spill. Obviously, tom has a lot more
                 life than you. Get a life.
                 \_ This runs counter to my experience. -dans
              \_ I don't suppose a polite request to take this to email will
              \_ If you have to ask, you don't know.  -tom
                 \_ So that's a yes? -dans
2006/3/19-22 [Reference/Religion] UID:42317 Activity:nil
3/20    Guide to the religions of comic book characters:
        \_ Awesome link.  I had no idea there were so many jewish superheroes,
           or that Captain Canuck was Mormon...
2006/3/14 [Reference/Religion] UID:42224 Activity:very high
3/14    Hail moroni
        -motd boob guy
        \_ Her name is Moroni?  Huh?
        \_ Is she supposed to be a Mormon?
           \_ Those are pretty small Mormons.  Try these:
              \_ Those are micro!
2006/3/13-16 [Reference/Religion] UID:42221 Activity:high
3/13    The scripture says: "Resist not evil: but whosever shall smite thee on
        thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
        So after 9/11, shouldn't we have fueled up some planes in SFO and
        invited some Al Qaeda types aboard? Instead of attacking Afghans?
        \_ No, no.  You're interpreting the Bible incorrectly.
        \_ Some Christians would agree with you.  I would say that while I have
           a right to make that decision for myself, I don't for others.  Hence
           there is no conflict between saying, "I personally forgive you your
           transgressions against me" while simultaneously upholding the law,
           or pursuing a war. -emarkp
           \_ What a cop-out.  "I believe in doing this personally, but
              supporting government and social actions that are the opposite"
              \_ No, emarkp is right.  I am only in a position to forgive if
                 I am the person injured.  I am not in a position to forgive
                 for the sake of the 9/11 victims and their family.  For
                 the victims, we seek justice.  Now, does invading Afghanistan
                 in attempt to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and other Al
                 Queda members the right way for justice, that is another
                 the victims, we should seek justice.   - christian socialist
                 \_ This implies that seeking "justice" is the default course
                    and doing nothing (which is in action the same as offering
                    forgiveness) is the alternative course of action.
                    \_ If someone is murdered, raped, etc., yes, society
                       should seek justice for the person.  That's why we have
                       laws and the police force.  Yes, justice should be
                       the default cause of action.  And yes, sometimes
                       justice fails to be done, or is difficult to do.
                                                       - christian socialist
                       \_ You're confusing justice with a combination of
                          vengeance and sensible prevention.
                          \_ I think I have given my (or rather emarkp's)
                             answer to the question of "turning the other
                             cheek".  I have no interest in arguing with you.
                                                       - christian socialist
                             \_ In regard to the wars, I supported the one in
                                Afghanistan, grudgingly, but did not like the
                                invasion of Iraq at all.
                                                       - christian socialist
                       \_ Why should we have secular laws and police? God sorts
                          out the good and evil, and provides for the good.
                          \_ No, God want us "loose the chains of injustice
                          \_ God wants us "loose the chains of injustice
                             and untie the cords of the yoke", "provide the
                             poor wanderer with shelter - when you see the
                             naked, to clothe him", "spend yourselves in behalf
                             of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the
                             oppressed".  The parable of the Good Samaritan
                             also tells us that we cannot be apathetic.
                             also tells us that we must not be apathetic.
                                                   - christian socialist
                             \_ Is that reply in the right place? If so, your
                                quotes refer to personal deeds. It doesn't
                                follow that you need a police state to
                                do that stuff. Ask a libertarian.
                                \_ I disagree.  The quotes tell us that
                                   we have to actively fight against
                                   injustice.  Ensuring that our laws are
                                   just and are properly enforced is part
                                   of what we should do.
                                   of that.
                                  \_ Where? The "shelter" and "spend in
                                     behalf of hungry" is philanthropy.
                                     The other stuff is about not exploiting
                                     workers and so forth. In any event none
                                     of it requires setting up a police state
                                     to force everyone to do this; the passages
                                     tell you to do it personally. I find this
                                     contradictory: you are the one claiming
                                     that the "turn the other cheek" only
                                     applies to yourself, and the nation can
                                     justly behave opposite; yet here you
                                     take these words and say they must be
                                     enforced upon everyone.
                                     \_ sorry, but I fail to see what
                                        you are trying to argue about.
                                        also, why do you keep bringing
                                        up "police state"?
                                        \_ heh, you disagreed last time.
                                           this subthread is about the need
                                           for secular laws and police to
                                           enforce them. this is in response
                                           to your claim that we should seek
                                           justice against people who commit
                                           crimes instead of forgiving them.
                                           \_ Ok, but my beef was with
                                              your use of your claim "God sorts
                                              out the good and evil, ...."
                                              as justification for not having
                                              "secular" laws and police.  I don't
                                              see how one follows from the
                                              other.  And I think your claim
                                              and your use of it as justification
                                              showed that you misunderstood
                                              the bible, which is what I was
                                              pointing out with my Isaiah
                                              quotes.  As for whether our
                                              current laws and police force
                                              can or should be thrown away,
                                              my answer is "why?".  Instead,
                                              as Christians, we should make
                                              sure they are just.
                                              \_ Well, it's just that
                                                 "turn the other cheek" taken
                                                 far enough would obviate the
                                                 need for punishment of crime.
                                                 Also, OT quotes don't always
                                                 jibe with NT Jesusisms.
                                                 \_ If you want NT, there's the
                                                    Good Samaritan which I
                                                    mentioned above.
        \_ The Koran had something similar.  I don't know why Christians
           automatically assumes that they got the monopoly on all the good
           virtues while neither the Bible nor Koran can control those fanatics
           who slaughters innocents in the name of God.
           \_ I agree with you, except that I take issue with the claim that
              turning the other cheek is a "virtue".
              \_ Depends.  Would you take a nation to war over some tiny
                 sleight?  If not, why not?  Isn't that turning the other
                 cheek?  If someone scratched your car in a parking lot,
                 shouldn't you just kill them on the spot?  Why not?  If your
                 kid came home from schol crying shouldn't you find out why
                 and then kill whoever was responsible?  Why not?  Getting the
                 point now I hope?
                 \_ You realize you're an idiot, I hope?
                    \_ Ok, guess you didn't get the point.  I'm sure ad hominen
                       makes you much smarter than me.
                       \_ Sometimes when someone says something really
                          dumb, there's no point in responding other than
                          to point it out.
                          \_ more ad hominen.  thanks.
                             \_ ad hominem.  Are you sure you even know
                                what the term means?
                                \_ [ > 80 column comment expurgated ]
                                \_the best you can do is a typo slam? whatever.
                                   how about hitting me up for violating the 80\
columns rule too?  Can I get you for starting a sentence with a lower case lette\
r?  I note you don't deny my claim that your entire 'point' is just personal att\
ack and that you completely fail to address my point.
                                   [80 col. please]
                                   how about hitting me up for violating the 80\
columns rule too?  Can I get you for starting a sentence with a lower case lette\
r?  I note you don't deny my claim that your entire 'point' is just personal att\
ack and that you completely fail to address my point.
                                   \_ Uhm, yeah, you missed a 'typo' up
                                      above.  And I'm not the some person
                                      you've been arguing with previously.
                                \_ the best you can do is a typo slam? whatever.
                                   how about hitting me up for violating the 80\
columns rule too?  Can I get you for starting a sentence with a lower case lette\
r?  I note you don't deny my claim that your entire 'point' is just personal att\
ack and that you completely fail to address my point.
                                   [80 col. please]
                                   how about hitting me up for violating the 80\
columns rule too?  Can I get you for starting a sentence with a lower case lette\
r?  I note you don't deny my claim that your entire 'point' is just personal att\
ack and that you completely fail to address my point.
                                   \_ I'm not the same poster you've been
                                      arguing with.  I'm not 'slamming' you,
                                      I'm offering a correction so you don't
                                      look like an ignorant boob that doesn't
                                      even know how to use a spell checker.
                                      \_ Spell check on the motd?  You're
                                         kidding, right?  What the hell for?
                                         The motd is often amusing and
                                         sometimes educational, but not worth
                                         spell checking.  "Whatever".
                                         \_ Uhm, you do know that you can
                                            spellcheck your changes in lieu of
                                            the whole motd, yes?  Wow, I'm
                                            beginning to see why the other guy
                                            resorted to using 'ad hominen' so
                                            readily with you.  You know what?
                                            You win -- be an ignorant boob;
                                            it's your prerogative.  I'm done.
                                            \_ 1) why would I bother? 2) thanks
                                               for the laughs 3) get over it,
                                               its the motd, anyone anal enough
                                               to spell check their motd
                                               entries... well I won't resort
                                               to personal attack.
                 \_ Your "points" don't relate to this scripture. You are
                    saying "don't grossly overreact" but presumably, in your
                    theoretical system, a large offense will merit a large
                    response, which Jesus specifically decries. I don't think
                    there's anything morally interesting in the cases you
                    \_ Presumably.  Or not.  You're presuming.  I think Jesus
                       was saying "don't react to petty offenses because the
                       *other* guy is likely to grossly over react".  By not
                       reacting at all you don't provide the other guy with
                       an excuse to over react and likely kill you which was
                       a likely outcome in more primitive times.
                       \_ Personally, I think it's less relevant what Jesus
                          really meant than the fact the "turning the other
                          cheek" has been used by the leaders of Christianity
                          to help enslave the masses for 2000 years.
                          \_ No.  Fear of burning hellfire and not getting into
                             a gold paved heaven has kept the masses in check.
                       \_ Well you are the one trying to say it only applies
                          to "slight" offenses. You pull that from your ass.
                          There's nothing there from which to draw that
                          limitation. But you feel free to invent whatever
                          interpretation you want to justify whatever
                          is convenient for your world view.
                          \_ I expressed my opinion.  You're entitled to
                             yours, whatever it might be since you didn't
                             bother to share it.
                             \_ I already did. I think it means what it says.
                                "Resist not evil." Where do you get this
                                about "petty offenses"?
                                \_ Most of the translations say, "Do not
                                   resist an evil person."  Some say, "Do
                                   not resist an evil person [who injures
                                   you]."  Couple this with the context
                                   (The next passage has "Love your
                                   enemies and pray for those who persecute
                                   you."), and one gets a more complete
                                   picture.  Simplifying to just "Resist
                                   not evil" (which translation did you
                                   get that from?) may mistakenly suggest
                                   not to resist evil even as an abstract
                                   concept or when it is done to others.
                                                    - christian socialist
                                   \_ KJV Matthew 5:38
                                      "Ye have heard that it hath been said,
                                      an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a
                                      tooth: But I say unto you, that ye
                                      resist not evil: but whosoever shall
                                      smite thee on thy right cheek, turn
                                      to him the other also."
                                      There's lots of great stuff in that
                                      chapter that most Christians ignore.
                                      I agree that the meaning of it is
                                      "resist not evil [done to you]" as
                                      opposed to, say, resisting doing evil.
                       \_ I think your interpretation is wrong.  Emarkp's
                          interpretation is correct.   - christian socialist
                          \_ You know for a fact what a guy who died 2000
                             years ago meant based on multiple translations
                             of books written after his death?  Ok.  you're
                             way smarter than me.  I'm going to stick to what
                             I *think* he meant and not make flat out
                             statements of fact about what he meant.  I'm glad
                             to know someone around here has this all worked
                             out as fact.  Let the pope know.
                             \_ ah, interpretation relativism - any one
                                interpretation is as good as another.
                                If you read the whole context (5:38 - 5:42 or
                                the whole of 5), your interpretation don't make
                                sense.  Also, Jesus almost always talk about
                                things that are fundamentally important,
                                whereas your interpretation is more of a
                                "technique".  From "an eye for an eye" to
                                "turning the other cheek" is part of the
                                "from laws to grace and faith" message of
                                Jesus, which runs throughout the NT.
                                                     - christian socialist
                                \_ Relativism?  No.   It's ridiculous to come
                                   here and say he *knows* not only what Jesus
                                   _said_ but what Jesus *meant* as well.
                                   \_ It's obvious what these words mean. I
                                      think it's up to you to show some
                                      reason to ascribe some different
                                      meaning to them.
           \_ Cf. the Hadith collected by Abu-Dawud: :
              "When one of you becomes angry while standing, he should sit
               down. If the anger leaves him, well and good; otherwise he
               should lie down."
        \_ In case you haven't noticed, most ppl are against the war in Iraq,
           not Afghanistan...
        \_ Pertinent question: are you a Xian looking for interpretation of
           scripture, a non-Xian looking to understand why some Xians are for
           war, or a non-Xian looking to criticize Xian support of the war?
           \_ Why does that matter?
              \_ Because if you're either the first or the second, this could
                 be an interesting thread, whereas if you're the last, this is
                 a waste of time.
                 \_ Let's say I'm 2.
                    \_ Then I would suggest that some Xians place more emphasis
                       on OT and/or the fiery evangelist portions of NT than
                       they do on the "Love thy neighbor" portions. It's a big
                       book, with justifications for everybody.
2006/3/13 [Recreation/Media, Reference/Religion] UID:42218 Activity:high 87%like:42219
3/13    Isaac Hayes (Chef) quits South Park over religion:
        \_ Dude, he's a Scientologist!  Hah!
2006/2/24-27 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Reference/Religion] UID:42001 Activity:high
2/24    S.D. legislature passes near total abortion ban - no exception for
        rape or incest.
        \_ Which is consistent at least.  If you believe abortion is killing a
           human life, why should those be exceptions?
           \_ The so-called Christians who are behind this are usually
              also strongly in favor of the death penalty, so no, they don't
              even get to claim consistency.
              \_ Your knee is jerking.  There is a difference between innocent
                 life and a person condemned for a capital crime.
                 \_ I guess Pope John Paul II must have been another misled
                    knee-jerk athiest who just needed a patronizing talking-to
                    by one of the motd's asshole rightwingers.  Too bad you
                    missed your chance.
                    \_ LOL.  good one.
                 \_ Actually, if you follow fundamentalist Christian
                    doctrine, there isn't.  What matters is that you accept
                    Jesus into your heart.  If you sin on earth, God (or the
                    devil) will punish you.  It's not man's place to mete out
                    punishment.  At least, that's what the Christers believe.
                    \_ sorry my friend, but that's not the case.  christians
                       have always recognized the necessity for earthly
                       authorities to mete out justice.  we do have a
                       responsibility to ensure that it is just.
                                               - socialist christian.
                       \_ I have a hard time understanding how you can be a
                          socialist and a *fundamentalist* christian.  The two
                          seem likely grossly incompatible philosophies. -dans
                          \_ what do you mean by fundamentalist christian?
                             and how would that be incompatible with being
                             a socialist?
                             \_ Fundamentalist Christian: an individual who
                                believes that G-d spoke directly to the
                                authors of the bible, i.e. old and new
                                testaments, who then transcribed His without
                                alteration.  Consequently, Fundamentalists
                                believe in the literal truth of the bible, and
                                that it is not subject to *any* interpretation.
                                As jrleek suggested, Jack Chick would fit this
                                definition.  This gives rise to contradictory
                                and patently absurd ideas.  For example,
                                their are passages in the Bible that state
                                that hearing the voice of G-d would destroy
                                the frail form of any human who hears it.
                                Similarly, Fundamentalist Christians believe
                                the earth is only 3000 (5000?) years old,
                                which flies in the face of the geological and
                                fossil record, i.e. dinosaur bones were put in
                                the earth by G-d to test our faith.  Socialism
                                simply is not compatible with this literal
                                interpretation.  Clearly, Mormons do not fit
                                this definition since they believe in the Book
                                of Mormon.  One might posit Fundamentalist
                                Mormons who believe the    literal truth of
                                all three books, but I have not ever heard
                                of someone who follows such a belief. -dans
                                \_ There are so many things about this post
                                   that are stupid, and I wouldn't even know
                                   where to begin pointing it out.  Since
                                   you've acutally chosen to sign your name
                                   to your idiocy, I'll just let it stand.
                                   \_ I take it by your lack of a counter
                                      argument and swift resort to ad hominem
                                      attack that you find my post offensive,
                                      but correct.  And you are correct, Many
                                      things that Fundamentalist Christians
                                      believe are stupid. -dans
                               \_ My friend, according to the Bible, the
                                  early Christians do not own any possessions
                                  and shared everything they had.  You may
                                  also be aware of the Bible, both the Old and
                                  New Testaments, teaching us to take care
                                  of the widows and the orphans, to help
                                  the poor and the aliens, to forgive the
                                  debts of others, and so on.  There are
                                  also mentions of not worrying about
                                  accumulating earthly wealth, being rich
                                  making it difficult to get into heaven,
                                  trusting in the Lord to provide your
                                  daily needs on a day to day basis (eg.
                                  mannah while in the wilderness), etc.
                                  There are also things like bringing the
                                  Israelites out of slavery in Egypt,
                                  Jesus admonishing the corrupted religious
                                  leaders (Pharisees, etc.), Jesus including
                                  all in his salvation, bringing the gospel
                                  to the samaritans, greeks, romans,
                                  ethiopians, eunuchs, slaves, peoples to
                                  the end of the earth, all to be included
                                  in his church as one, as brothers and
                                  \_ My friend, the bible also teaches that
                                     you should be honest in your dealings.
                                     If you believe in its teachings, why do
                                     you argue in bad faith by presenting such
                                     a one-sided, saccharine sweet description
                                     of exclusively noble teachings from the
                                     bible?  Afterall, lies of omission are
                                     still lies.  What about the myriad of
                                     truly atrocious practices that the bible
                                     explicitly permits when read literally?
                                     Nice fluffy things like owning slaves
                                     and stonings in the public market place?
                                     Treating the bible literally means you
                                     don't get to pick and choose which
                                     testament and teachings you do or don't
                                     follow.  As a lark, why don't you attend
                                     the next local IWW meeting and suggest
                                     that owning slaves would really advance
                                     the cause of socialism, see how that goes
                                     over and report back to us. -dans
                          \_ I think the problem is your narrow definition
                             of fundamentalist christian.  You seem to
                             think it means "Jack Chick" -jrleek
                          \_ Google "liberation theology."
           \_ Actually that's the fun part. The law declares life begins at
              fertilization. So if you see a pregnant woman drinking, smoking,
              taking drugs or engaging in behavior that may endanger the
              pregnancy, can she be arrested for child endangerment?  If she
              she miscarriages, is that manslaughter?  Fun, happy thoughts.
              \_ Why stop there?  Eating fatty foods, not taking enough niacin.
              \_ No. See Section 4, the act explicitly exempts the mother
                 from liability.
        \_ OK, but doesn't Roe v. Wade make abortions legal and doesn't that
           have precedence? (I don't know the details of law-making, which
           is why I'm asking.)
           \_ Roe v. Wade was a crappy decision based on crappy law making
              from the bench.  If anyone was serious about making abortion
              truly legal someone would've made a constitutional amendment
              regarding everyone's right to their own body, medical info, etc.
              \_ $20 says you weren't even born when Roe v. Wade was decided.
                 Your vast leaps of logic would be amusing if they didn't give
                 of such a stink. -dans
                 \_ Get your $20 out.
                    \_ Sign your posts.  So you attended Cal before 1991?  Not
                       many folks that old on the motd. -dans
           \_ Roe is no longer controlling on abortion. It has been largely
              superceded by Casey, 505 US 833 (1992). Under Casey one looks
              at whether the regulation is pre or post viability to determine
              1. If the regulation is pre-viability, then it is only invalid
                 if it imposes an "undue burden" (ie it is not possible to
                 get an abortion.)
              2. If the regulation is post-viability, then it is only invalid
                 if it does not contain a health exception. ("Subsequent to
                 viablity, the State [may] ... proscribe abortion except where
                 it is necessary ... for the preservation of the life or health
                 of the woman." - which is basically the same as in Roe, but
                 note that this does not explicitly require the state to make
                 an exception for rape or incest.)
                 of the woman." - which is basically the same as in Roe)
              SD has done something very interesting. Section 4 contains the
              health exception, as required under Casey. Section 1 attempts
              to get into Casey prong 2 by defining post-viability as starting
              at the moment of conception. It is unlikely that this definition
              will be accepted b/c Casey strongly suggests that viability can
              be advanced to a "point somewhat earlier"  than the 24 weeks in
              Roe. The earliest that even this ct is probably willing to go is
              16 weeks (20 weeks from Webster - generally accepted 4 week error
              re date of conception).
              The SD Legislature seems to expect this as shown by the sever-
              ability provision in Section 10 and the reinstatement provision
              in Section 11.
              [ Yes I know that Alito dissented in Casey, but it was based on
                the sufficiency of the challenger's evid re undue burden not
                on the underlying law, therefore I doubt that he would vote
                to reverse ]
              16 weeks (20 weeks from Webster - 4 week error). [ Yes I know
              that Alito dissented in Casey, but it was largely based on the
              sufficiency of the challenger's evid re undue burden not on the
              underlying law ]
2006/2/15-16 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:41866 Activity:low
        Forgive me, Father, for I have guns...
        German people are weird. Why is that?
        \_ "... church rules governing confession prevented him from revealing
           the man's identity."  Hmm, church rules are above law, okay.
           \_ Attorney client privilege is not codified in many countries, yet
              it's usually accepted as a reason for not divulging information.
              Or a journalist protecting his sources?  Even if it is not a
              legally valid reason, there is still precedent for it; if the
              police really want to know something, they can always have a
              subpoena issued; it is then your choice as to whether you will
              respect the subpoena or suffer the consequences.  -John
           \_ Actually, the privilege of a priest to refuse to divulge
              confidential information and the privilege of a penitent
              to prevent the priest from divulging confidential infor-
              mation have a long history of acceptance at common law.
              Many states, including CA, have codified these privileges
              in their evidence codes. In CA the privileges are codifed
              in Cal. Evid. Code Sec 1030-1034.
2006/2/15 [Reference/Religion] UID:41854 Activity:nil
2/14    Mormons Heavier, study at BYU finds
        Well, emarkp?
        \_ can you blame them for being more prosperous and satisfied in life?
        \_ Hi troll!  You want to talk to me by name, sign yours.  I have email
           as well. -emarkp
2022/08/07 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Results 301 - 437 of 437   < 1 2 3 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Reference:Religion: