NationStates Jolt Archive

Several folks have made the point that there is an anti-Christian bias among many of us posting in NS. I myself am not a Christian, but decided to do a small, unscientific test to check that assumption.

I started three threads, each critical of a non-Christian religion:

The Hindu Rape of Gujarat (about the rape and murder of 2,000 Indian Muslims at the hands of Hindu fanatics)

Where is the Muslim Martin Luther King? (about the lack of peaceful, moderate Muslim leaders)

Jewish Students Spit on Christian Clergy (pretty obvious what that was about)

The response to each was decidedly less enthusiastic than similar threads criticizing the ideology or behavior of Christians. The Muslim and Hindu threads got a bare handful of responses, although even among those few there was no real condemnation of the extremist behavior of either religions’ radicals. The “Jewish students spitting on priests” thread got the most responses, but almost all of them were criticisms of the thread as anti-Semitic or in defense of the boorish behavior of the spitting students.

I cannot help but wonder what the response would have been if Christians had killed and raped 2,000 Muslims in Gujarat (Hindu thread), were responsible for 2/3s of the world’s political prisoners and 80% of all executions (Muslim thread), or if Christian students had been spitting on Jewish rabbis.

As an agnostic who has posted many threads criticizing Christian hypocrisy I am forced to admit there may be an anti-Christian bias on the part of many people posting in the NS General forum.

Duh. Everyone feels like picking on us mainly because we picked on them.

I'd have to agree with you there. Really, I've always wondered what it is about Christianity that gets people so enraged.

I'll tell you why nobody visited your threads. Your titles were too intelligent. If you'd posted something like "I can't believe this!" or "How can they get away with it?" you'd be flocked no matter who it was about.

That is a very good point. I think I am probably one of the biassed anti-Christians. I know that I am biassed in favour of polytheism, I greatly prefer the near extinct pagan religions, so in regards to Hindu I am not surprised. Muslims are much more radical than Christians as well, it seems, as there are not many cases of violent Christian terrorism as far as I know. And we all know how f**ked up the Middle East is. So it is less surprising that there are no moderate Muslim leaders. As far as comparing Judaism to Christianity...I have no defence. The only possible rationalisation is that I am fond of Kabbalists, so have biases in favour of Judaism. Overall, I think that my distaste of Chirstianity is brought about by my daily experience with it. I don't run into many creationist Hindus in the U.S.

I don't pick on christians, I pick on morons.

Just so happens that the christian morons are highly visible, and have more of an effect on me. Don't worry, I think the muslim fanatics are equally as around the bend. A harem of virgins waiting after death for slamming yourself into a tower?

Morons.

Being a Christian myself I tend to notice that there is an anti-Christian bias in a lot of places. For example many people say that they think that 9/11 was done by a bunch of anti-American extremists who happened to claim to be Muslims - I have seen very few people try to blame that on Islam itself. Yet the Crusades, Spanish Inquisitition, Salem Witch Trials, and the KKK are often offerered as "typical examples" of why Christianity is so "bad" and needs to be stomped out.

In addition to the afomentioned sexual violations... they should include same sex and bestial violations carried out by "the church."--which is not to say that other religions in the near east are stainless.

Being a Christian myself I tend to notice that there is an anti-Christian bias in a lot of places. For example many people say that they think that 9/11 was done by a bunch of anti-American extremists who happened to claim to be Muslims - I have seen very few people try to blame that on Islam itself.
Well, apparently you haven't been listening, as there are many Christians who say that Islam is a very violent and hateful religion or some such nonsense.

Well, apparently you haven't been listening, as there are many Christians who say that Islam is a very violent and hateful religion or some such nonsense.

True, I've seen people say that, just not large numbers.

Maybe?! This is probably one of the most flamboyantly anti-Christian forums out there that is in the public consciousness. Maybe these people should take a look at the upsides of Christianity, not just the downsides.

And if people can call me a "fanatic" for "supporting the Crusades", just for being a Christian, then I have every right to call them a "Communist pig" for "supporting Stalin's Purges", just for being an atheist. Tooks.

Maybe instead of examining the hypocrisy of Christianity, or atheism, or Islam, or anything else, people just start examining their own hypocrisy.

You're only halfway there. There may be a Christian bias, but it's more like there's a strong non-Christian demographic.
The typical age of players here (15-35; typically young American/Euro white males) just happens to be the same age group with the lowest number of Christian believers. (Just do some Googlin'.)
I don't have any hard numbers, but a few polls would most likely confirm this.
So from a statistical standpoint, I think that the political, religious and social perspectives and prejudices on this board just confirms what anyone with any marketing knowledge probably would've guessed.
Good place for "Passive Activism"? :mp5:

Hmpf, you try to sum up 3 subjects in 3 small posts.


The Hindu Rape of Gujarat (about the rape and murder of 2,000 Indian Muslims at the hands of Hindu fanatics)

Yes. It is a bad thing and you overlook that it's being going on for a long time. Both sides do nasty things to each other.


Where is the Muslim Martin Luther King? (about the lack of peaceful, moderate Muslim leaders)

You failed to look at the "biased" media. People don't seem to want news about peaceful leaders talking. Violence sells. Doesn't make it right but that is the way of things.

You also failed to take into consideration that out of 1.2 billion Muslims, simple odds says there a great deal moderates and they have peaceful leaders.

One local Cleric once told his followers that Muslims can not judge people until they speak and act against the slaughter of others(meaning Rwanda).


Jewish Students Spit on Christian Clergy.

And again the actions of a few makes the whole bad.

Anti-Christian bias to whatever level it is; didn't happen without cause. How many "Christians" have thought or done nothing when that Sheppard kid had his head caved in? How many Christians ran over to Sheppards town and protested the idea of a statue saying he entered hell served no purpose?

How many christians actively work out against "godhatesfags.com" or the AFA?

How many "Christians" were hiding Eric Rudolph was running around?

Sorry but a couple of your subjects are rather lengthy to determine the lack of responce/concern is due to anti-Christian bias.

My my my! There's so much that can be written here... I cannot be bothered to write most or any out because I cannot be bothered to tell half a story, and if I did tell the whole story, it would probably be rather patronising.

I am a confirmed Catholic, but I do not practise my religion, so I don't really consider myself a Catholic. I do feel that beyond any other denomination, Catholics get the most of the stick.

Nevertheless, there are reasons why I can't follow 'my' religion. It doesn't feel right and while I don't aggressively attack aspects of it, I have to admit, I do smirk when I see some messages on NS forums I agree with.

Saying that, I do feel that Christians get descriminated against too much. Being some sort of agnostic atheist, I feel it is the human aspect that people like to pick on, rather than God's 'celestial' teachings.

I find that on NS, there are two groups, concerning Christians... the atheists and agnostics who are critical of the Christians... and the over faithful Christians who preach too much for their own good. The two groups aggrevate each other way too much for their own good...

And occasionally it makes for a good read, but more often than not, it is a show of ignorance between the two groups. Yeah, I think the hate has to stop... Or the haters need to get a little more education.

.

Maybe instead of examining the hypocrisy of Christianity, or atheism, or Islam, or anything else, people just start examining their own hypocrisy.

Darn and I thought I got to use that logic on you! ;)

And occasionally it makes for a good read, but more often than not, it is a show of ignorance between the two groups. Yeah, I think the hate has to stop... Or the haters need to get a little more education.
You speak truth. I haven't yet read the Bible, yet I criticise it. I just base my accusations from what I've heard Christians say they believe, and probably from what anit-Christians say that Christians believe. I do know, however, that devout Christians are unwilling to question their religion in any way. I know this from personal experience.

Hmpf, you try to sum up 3 subjects in 3 small posts.

Sorry but a couple of your subjects are rather lengthy to determine the lack of responce/concern is due to anti-Christian bias.

Let me skip over your justification of mass murder and rape ('it has been going on a long time and they do bad things') and acknowledge your point that there may be many reasons why people failed to feel any passion about the religious transgressions I posted. However, I have never noticed that history, complex causes, or media bias has ever stopped people from jumping on the bandwagon to bash Christianity or Christians in this forum. Nor from tarring all with the actions of a few.

You speak truth. I haven't yet read the Bible, yet I criticise it. I just base my accusations from what I've heard Christians say they believe, and probably from what anit-Christians say that Christians believe. I do know, however, that devout Christians are unwilling to question their religion in any way. I know this from personal experience.

No, *stupid* Christians are unwilling to question their beliefs. The same goes for any other religion.

Where is the Muslim Martin Luther King? (about the lack of peaceful, moderate Muslim leaders)

That's a great point I haven't considered.
We know there are plenty of these leaders out there with that kind of population, but the fact is the media aren't interested (conservative or liberal). It's been done and it will never sell as well as hostile Muslim madmen.
Sad but true.

No, *stupid* Christians are unwilling to question their beliefs. The same goes for any other religion.
Perhaps some of them are stupid, but I have a Catholic aunt who is not stupid, per se, but is a creationist. Stupidity encourages the unwillingness to question, but is not a rule.

I find that on NS, there are two groups, concerning Christians... the atheists and agnostics who are critical of the Christians... and the over faithful Christians who preach too much for their own good. The two groups aggrevate each other way too much for their own good...

Sounds about right from what little I've seen.

Also, there are some perfectly good and nice Christians, and perfectly good and nice agnostics/atheists, but it's the few in each religion that manage to spoil it. Saying you really dislike a certain religion based on the people from it is ridiculous. People from all different kinds of religions disagree. People should just calmy agree to disagree and be with that. But really, I think the Christians often get the better end of the stick, seeing the large majority of them. Or maybe that's just where I live. >< I know some perfectly nice, loving, Christian people, and I know some Christians who aggravate me terribly. I'm sure the same happens with atheists/agnostics, but I don't know very many of them because I'm still in school and Christianity is definitely the predominant religion in this area.

Perhaps some of them are stupid, but I have a Catholic aunt who is not stupid, per se, but is a creationist. Stupidity encourages the unwillingness to question, but is not a rule.

If you do not question, you are stupid. Period. It has nothing to do with "devoutness". BTW, are you saying that Christians are *taught* not to question, or simply that there are many who don't? There is a difference...

No, *stupid* Christians are unwilling to question their beliefs. The same goes for any other religion.

The same also goes for many atheists and agnostics. It's a double standard. Here's the solution: there is no stupidity in religion. There is no stupidity in a lack of religion. There is only stupidity in people.

Darn and I thought I got to use that logic on you!

Well, I have a crappy memory, so I can't say I remember it. But by applying that little doctrine to myself, I've become a changed person. Instead of changing my beliefs, I merely adhered to them - and it's done wonders.

It seems to me that most posters here are from regions (America, Europe, etc.) where Christianity is still the "dominant" religion in some way or another. Criticism of a dominant form of belief or powerful organization is, to some extent, not viewed in the same light as criticism of a minority belief or less-powerful organization.

Also, yes, PLEASE be educated.

If I'm going to argue with someone my dislike of the Bible, I'm going to have read a lot of it first, which I have.

The same also goes for many atheists and agnostics. It's a double standard. Here's the solution: there is no stupidity in religion. There is no stupidity in a lack of religion. There is only stupidity in people.

I know, that's what I meant - any religion or lack thereof. I meant, well, the same thing you just said - it is the same for believers in any religion because stupidity happens only with people, not religion.

Well, I have a crappy memory, so I can't say I remember it. But by applying that little doctrine to myself, I've become a changed person. Instead of changing my beliefs, I merely adhered to them - and it's done wonders.

No, *stupid* Christians are unwilling to question their beliefs. The same goes for any other religion.The same also goes for many atheists and agnostics. It's a double standard. Here's the solution: there is no stupidity in religion. There is no stupidity in a lack of religion. There is only stupidity in people.
Thank you, that is very, very true. However, atheism is based on reality able to be sensed, and thus usually do not draw a stupid crowd for those who actually believe it (I think, I'm not sure on that), and agnostics may be stupid, but are not like religious ones or atheists, because they are skeptical, and unsure, so do not have any strong conviction to express, except that it is too early to tell.

I have no way of proving this, but I strongly suspect that one reason so many idealists ( of which there seem to be a lot on this board ) criticize Christianity is because so many Christians don't seem to live up to the stated high standards of both the Bible and the church.

Another possible reason is that Christianity has been an "establishment" religion for many years, and we all know that a large number of people on this board are definitely anti-establishment.

Just some possibilities.

It seems to me that most posters here are from regions (America, Europe, etc.) where Christianity is still the "dominant" religion in some way or another. Criticism of a dominant form of belief or powerful organization is, to some extent, not viewed in the same light as criticism of a minority belief or less-powerful organization.

That is an excellent point. Much of the bias against Christianity may in fact come from former Christians who have had bad experiences with their religion.

Another possible reason is that Christianity has been an "establishment" religion for many years, and we all know that a large number of people on this board are definitely anti-establishment.


That's what I was trying to get at, less successfully. If there were, in America, a "Muslim Right" or "Atheist Coalition" that had the same kind of cultural prominence/influence that the "Christian Right" does, you can bet they'd be up for the same criticism.

I have no way of proving this, but I strongly suspect that one reason so many idealists ( of which there seem to be a lot on this board ) criticize Christianity is because so many Christians don't seem to live up to the stated high standards of both the Bible and the church.

Another possible reason is that Christianity has been an "establishment" religion for many years, and we all know that a large number of people on this board are definitely anti-establishment.

Just some possibilities.
Some of us, myself included, at least try. That and anti-establishment feelings are something that should be kept as part of the realm of childish teenage rebellion, because its just too damn lame for anything else. You don't like the establishment? Fine. Don't try and destroy it. Try and change it.

It's because in America, it's fundamentalist Christians (unfortunately the loudest kind) are making life in America worse. Banning gay marriage, abortion and other such attempts to enforce Biblical law.

Now, you may say that what extreme Muslims do is worse, and you'd be right. But I think the disdain towards Christian extremists is because they are fellow Americans, while the Muslims fundamentalists are seen as weird foreigners who we cannot understand.

That is an excellent point. Much of the bias against Christianity may in fact come from former Christians who have had bad experiences with their religion.

Sounds about right... I still go to a Catholic school and have done since I was five. I don't have religious study lessons now... but some of the teachings troubled me. Having never had faith either, it's been hard for me. It was like being force fed the teachings and in the end, it became like a lesson where I just had to learn facts. It had no relevance in my life and still doesn't. And like any lesson you don't like... your distaste for it sticks. Kinda like German >.< How much I hate German!

It's because in America, it's fundamentalist Christians (unfortunately the loudest kind) are making life in America worse. Banning gay marriage, abortion and other such attempts to enforce Biblical law.

Now, you may say that what extreme Muslims do is worse, and you'd be right. But I think the disdain towards Christian extremists is because they are fellow Americans, while the Muslims fundamentalists are seen as weird foreigners who we cannot understand.
But that assumes that all Christians are fundamentalists or fanatics. Not all of us are - there is really only a significant population of them in the United States. If this sort of thing is a backlash against Christian fundamentalism, and many moderate Christians (myself included) are getting caught in the crossfire, then try and aim correctly instead of painting every single Christian with the same brush.

Some of us, myself included, at least try. That and anti-establishment feelings are something that should be kept as part of the realm of childish teenage rebellion, because its just too damn lame for anything else. You don't like the establishment? Fine. Don't try and destroy it. Try and change it.
Exactly what I have been at pains to point out in some of my earlier posts. That's much more mature than the political/religious equivalent of "if you don't play the game MY way, I'm going to take my toys and go home!" :D

There is no anti-christian bias. Christianity does not enrage people.

There is a bias against religious fanatics. People who want to shove their religion, what ever it is, down everyone elses throat does enrage people.

Go ahead and be chrisitan. You can even be a Christian with a capital "C" if it makes you happy. Just stop trying to convince/legislate everyone else into your beliefs.

Once you do, you'll notice a lot of nice people who can talk to you calmly and rationally.

It's because in America, it's fundamentalist Christians (unfortunately the loudest kind) are making life in America worse. Banning gay marriage, abortion and other such attempts to enforce Biblical law.

Now, you may say that what extreme Muslims do is worse, and you'd be right. But I think the disdain towards Christian extremists is because they are fellow Americans, while the Muslims fundamentalists are seen as weird foreigners who we cannot understand.

With all due respect. No one banned gay marriage. It was never legal.

Exactly what I have been at pains to point out in some of my earlier posts. That's much more mature than the political/religious equivalent of "if you don't play the game MY way, I'm going to take my toys and go home!" :D
Why thank you ;) I always like trying to bring the middle ground into the NS forums, where so few of the people actually stand on it.

With all due respect. No one banned gay marriage. It was never legal.Wrong, in several ways.

First, ANYWHERE that 2 people of the same sex can't get married is a place where gay marriage is banned. Something does not have to be legal first, and then made illegal, in order to be banned.

Second, in fact gay marriage IS legal in a few places in the United States.

Third, if two gay people want to get married, and can't, then whoever is preventing them is "banning" gay marriage - and a(n) (insert a selection of derogatory nouns here - skip the expletives, though).

Why thank you ;) I always like trying to bring the middle ground into the NS forums, where so few of the people actually stand on it.That's because it's so small. And seems to be getting smaller every day. ;)

There is no anti-christian bias. Just stop trying to convince/legislate everyone else into your beliefs.

.

You mean like legislating against slavery? This was a movement which started in churches afterall. At the time people were 'offended' that someone would try to legislate their morals onto everyone. It led to war. Are you suggesting they were wrong to pursue the end of slavery of just unwilling to admit that values change and the church has been a driving force behind good values.

Wrong, in several ways.

First, ANYWHERE that 2 people of the same sex can't get married is a place where gay marriage is banned. Something does not have to be legal first, and then made illegal, in order to be banned.

Second, in fact gay marriage IS legal in a few places in the United States.

Third, if two gay people want to get married, and can't, then whoever is preventing them is "banning" gay marriage - and a(n) (insert a selection of derogatory nouns here - skip the expletives, though).


Not banned, never legal.

And where in the US is it permitted? That's right no-where.

All that's happening is that people are stopping it from becoming legal.

Edit: And you can't ban a legal status, you can only refuse to recognize it. Gay people can have all the marriages they want, the government just doesn't recognize their status: which is why some churches already perform the ceremonies.

There is no anti-christian bias. Christianity does not enrage people.

There is a bias against religious fanatics. People who want to shove their religion, what ever it is, down everyone elses throat does enrage people.
Well, I don't know about everyone else, but I realise now that I get more pissed off at Christian fanatics than Islamic ones. Perhaps that's because I have the stereotype in my mind that Islam is suppoed to be mroe extreme or something. I really don't know that much about it.

Go ahead and be chrisitan. You can even be a Christian with a capital "C" if it makes you happy.
Well, actually, Christian should be spelled with a magiscule (capital/uppercase) "C", because it comes from the base of the proper noun "Christ". Same reason that Marxism and Darwinism are spelled with a magiscular inital letter.

Just stop trying to convince/legislate everyone else into your beliefs.
Yes, please do. Mainly the legislative part. I don't care if they try to convert me, but don't teach creationism or pray in public school. Please don't.

Once you do, you'll notice a lot of nice people who can talk to you calmly and rationally.
Snub Nose 38 is right again. I think all Christians should take that under advisement.

the church has been a driving force behind good values

except for that whole prejudice-against-homosexuals thing, yeah.

Someone tell me, do all churches think homosexuality is a sin, or is just some faiths/churches/sects?

Yes, please do. Mainly the legislative part. I don't care if they try to convert me, but don't teach creationism or pray in public school. Please don't.

Yes. Exactly. There are schools now in America that are teaching creationism. And it makes me upset to think of it.

Yes. Exactly. There are schools now in America that are teaching creationism. And it makes me upset to think of it.
American Christians just need a little dose of reality. I mean, I'm a devout Catholic, but I don't believe in creationism. I don't believe in evolutionism, either. I'm a "interventionist", which is the middle ground between the two. I won't explain it for those who don't know what it is, I don't have the time.

I go to a Catholic school and they teach evolution in science class, creationism in religion class, and both in anthropology. It's a nice approach - giving all of the examples equal weight.

If they want to pray in school, they can start their own.

except for that whole prejudice-against-homosexuals thing, yeah.

Someone tell me, do all churches think homosexuality is a sin, or is just some faiths/churches/sects?

I assume you mean Christian churches - then yes, the Bible says it's a sin so the if the church is going by the Bible then it should teach that it's a sin. Although there are a few exceptions - a few churches teach that the "traditional" idea of it being a "sin" is completely wrong.

I am a Liberal Roman Catholic Christian.

One of my best friends is a Jew. Another is a Muslim. Two of my friends are gay.

I actively speak out against the war in Iraq and against George W. Bush for what he's doing, I see it as extremely anti-Christian. I believe that there are changes that need to be made inside the teachings of the Church and American government.

I believe that all people are basicly good, no matter their race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

I believe that there is no reason for all the hate and violence in the world today, that the innocents in Iraq didn't deserve what was laid upon them. But still, I pray for the safty of our soldiers over seas, and for the safty of their soldiers, that no one may have to fight this meaningless Iraq war any longer, and that we all can see peace within the year.

I am Christian, and I am not Conservative. Never generalize what people are by their race, creed, or color.

Yes, I too oppose teaching creationism (Christianity in a lab coat) in public school. I also support gay marriage (although I wish the issue had never come up this election year). And like most people I find enthusiastic zealots intent on sharing the "good news" extremely annoying.

Each of those is an issue to be legitimately discussed and debated. However, knee jerk bias against Christians because of their beliefs is a different matter. If substituting "Jewish" or "Native American" or any other more acceptible group for the term "Christian" changes your attitude toward the post then that is prejudice and bias.

Not banned, never legal.Wrong - everything that is not legal, is banned - by definition. That includes everything that once was legal, and is made illegal, as well as everything that has never been legal

And where in the US is it permitted? That's right no-where. Massachusetts for sure, although both parties must be citizens of MA, - and I think Vermont.

All that's happening is that people are stopping it from becoming legal.Oh, is that all?

Edit: And you can't ban a legal status, you can only refuse to recognize it. Gay people can have all the marriages they want, the government just doesn't recognize their status: which is why some churches already perform the ceremonies.Could you rephrase that? It really makes no sense the way you've written it.

Marriage is both a Religious status, and a Civil Status. It is perfectly acceptable for a Religion to choose to ban gay marriage - because one can then choose to leave that "religion" and find a reasonable one. However, because marriage carries with it certain legal benefits in the United States - next of kin, income tax, etc - it is not acceptable for the government to ban gay marriage.

American Christians just need a little dose of reality. I mean, I'm a devout Catholic, but I don't believe in creationism. I don't believe in evolutionism, either. I'm a "interventionist", which is the middle ground between the two. I won't explain it for those who don't know what it is, I don't have the time.

I go to a Catholic school and they teach evolution in science class, creationism in religion class, and both in anthropology. It's a nice approach - giving all of the examples equal weight.

If they want to pray in school, they can start their own.
Yes! I completely agree with you. Except that I'm not sure what "interventionism" is. And it's evolution, not "evolutionism", for the record. But I'm not sure if I've ever heard a Christian say such wonderfully reasonable things! If I knew more Christians like you, I'd probably be much less against it.

I believe that all people are basicly good, no matter their race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.
That must feel so, so good...I wish I could believe you. But that demonstrates ignorance of human nature, but mainly nature in general. Species do what, according to evolution, is best for the species. Whether this is good or bad is left to interpretation by humans, but nature pays this no heed.

This is a new one on me...a debate on the definition on whether gay marriage is "banned" or not. Does it really matter? Just say that it is currently "not allowed". :p

I said basicly.

A person can do horrible things, and I wont like it. But everyone does what they believe is right, just as often as they do what they know is wrong. So no matter how horrible a person is, I can be sure that down inside that there is always a little bit of goodness that wont leave them.

Wrong - everything that is not legal, is banned - by definition. That includes everything that once was legal, and is made illegal, as well as everything that has never been legal

Massachusetts for sure, although both parties must be citizens of MA, - and I think Vermont.

Oh, is that all?

Could you rephrase that? It really makes no sense the way you've written it.

Marriage is both a Religious status, and a Civil Status. It is perfectly acceptable for a Religion to choose to ban gay marriage - because one can then choose to leave that "religion" and find a reasonable one. However, because marriage carries with it certain legal benefits in the United States - next of kin, income tax, etc - it is not acceptable for the government to ban gay marriage.


Being married is a legal status. That is a specific status that is recognized under the law. That's all. Now, if two gay people want to go around and hold themselves out as married, then they are perfectly free to do so, and they will not face any legal consequences - that is said assertation and behavior is not illegal. The only difference is that their relationship, as compared to a straight marriage, is that they are unable to obtain a marriage license from the state which grants them the same rights, privilidges and obligations as a straight couple that does.

Therefore it is not banned, but rather unrecognized. It is not illegal conduct.

This is in sharp contrast to polygamyists, who can end up in prison for going around and holding themselves out as married.

Edit: I thought it was currently undetermined in MA. Vermont allows civil unions, which I think is ultimately what is going to be allowed throughout the US.

Thus polygamy banned. Gay marriage not banned, but also not recognized.

ALL people do what they believe is right. Not what you, or I, believe is right - but EXACTLY what they believe is right, each and every time.

It might not be what they were taught is right, or what their religion says is right, or what Mom and Dad say is right, or what is legal, or what is moral, or what is ethical. It may be for selfish reasons, or selfless reasons, or for no apparent reason at all.

But every time a human being does anything, it is exactly what that person believes is the right thing to do at that time. I'm not even sure it is possible for someone to do something they truly believe is wrong. Even if someone was to set themselves up to do something they believe to be "wrong" as a test of this theory - that would really be doing something they believe to be right...testing this theory.

I think the trick is to work together to put the vast majority of people in the world into a set of circumstances where what the will believe to be right is what we have come to define as "good" or "moral" or "ethical".

I think this has to do with education, and with sufficient food and shelter and clothing. I think it has to do with safe environments, and a feeling of self-worth.

In the context of this thread - I think it has to do with the difference between what religion is supposed to be, and what fanatic religions have in many cases become.

ALL people do what they believe is right. Not what you, or I, believe is right - but EXACTLY what they believe is right, each and every time.

It might not be what they were taught is right, or what their religion says is right, or what Mom and Dad say is right, or what is legal, or what is moral, or what is ethical. It may be for selfish reasons, or selfless reasons, or for no apparent reason at all.

But every time a human being does anything, it is exactly what that person believes is the right thing to do at that time. I'm not even sure it is possible for someone to do something they truly believe is wrong. Even if someone was to set themselves up to do something they believe to be "wrong" as a test of this theory - that would really be doing something they believe to be right...testing this theory.

I think the trick is to work together to put the vast majority of people in the world into a set of circumstances where what the will believe to be right is what we have come to define as "good" or "moral" or "ethical".

I think this has to do with education, and with sufficient food and shelter and clothing. I think it has to do with safe environments, and a feeling of self-worth.

I was just about to comment on this - I remember reading a discussion in another forum debating whether anyone ever does anything that (at the time) they know to be wrong. For example, if someone really needs food but has no money, he might break into someone else's house to get some - he might *later* realize that it was wrong, but at the time it seemed right.

I don't think so.

Often I find myself knowingly lying, or puting off work till the last minute, knowing that it's not what I should be doing, but usually, I don't change my line of thought. So you can do what you believe is wrong, that's what Guilt is about.

I'd have to agree with you there. Really, I've always wondered what it is about Christianity that gets people so enraged.
Mainly it's practioners who can't keep their noses out of other people's business. It just pisses people off. That and it is violent, hypocritical, fear-based and cruel.

I personally am biased against Muslims, Christians and Jews alike, they're all the same to me. Eastern religions I am more trusting to, because they have lots of good ideas and are quite intellectual.

There you go Stereotyping again.

A person can be stupid, and be Buddhist, just as easily as a person can be stupid, and Christian, or Jew, or Muslim.

But I do agree, the ideas given in Buddhism for example, I like very much.

I've noticed all of the smartest arguments on this board get ignored in lieu of the most "extreme" viewpoints. That's unfortunate. We hear only from wackos on both sides.

Yes! I completely agree with you. Except that I'm not sure what "interventionism" is. And it's evolution, not "evolutionism", for the record.

If I hear this from one more f*cktard on this board, I'm gonna pop. Please, go back to English 101 immediately and do not pass go until you recieve at least a weak C.
The imaginary restrictions you put on language is just restricting your vocabulary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolutionism&r=67
(See also Evolutionist, a word I've also seen weakly debated)

Oh, and from now on you'll be sure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interventionism

Please do your research before you post something flameworthy and blatantly state someone is wrong, you're right.

If there is an anti-Christian bias I'm happy to say I'm not part of it

Several folks have made the point that there is an anti-Christian bias among many of us posting in NS. I myself am not a Christian, but decided to do a small, unscientific test to check that assumption.

I started three threads, each critical of a non-Christian religion:

The Hindu Rape of Gujarat (about the rape and murder of 2,000 Indian Muslims at the hands of Hindu fanatics)

Where is the Muslim Martin Luther King? (about the lack of peaceful, moderate Muslim leaders)

Jewish Students Spit on Christian Clergy (pretty obvious what that was about)

The response to each was decidedly less enthusiastic than similar threads criticizing the ideology or behavior of Christians. The Muslim and Hindu threads got a bare handful of responses, although even among those few there was no real condemnation of the extremist behavior of either religions’ radicals. The “Jewish students spitting on priests” thread got the most responses, but almost all of them were criticisms of the thread as anti-Semitic or in defense of the boorish behavior of the spitting students.

I cannot help but wonder what the response would have been if Christians had killed and raped 2,000 Muslims in Gujarat (Hindu thread), were responsible for 2/3s of the world’s political prisoners and 80% of all executions (Muslim thread), or if Christian students had been spitting on Jewish rabbis.

As an agnostic who has posted many threads criticizing Christian hypocrisy I am forced to admit there may be an anti-Christian bias on the part of many people posting in the NS General forum.
ive been thinking about this for a whle and i think you are way off base

its not an anti-christian bias

it is not posting about stuff that we dont know much about. wtf do we know about the roots of atrocities in india? did you expect the board to start ranting about how terribly hinduism is? to suddenly have knowlege of the vedas that we could quote detailing why such things are not DONE in hinduism? (or why it might be OK)

did you expect someone here to have some knowlege of the islamic world that would let you know that there IS some MLKjr guy in indonesia? were we supposed to say that islam sucks because it HASNT produced such a leader?

are we supposd to go on an anti jewish rant because some asshole kids spit on obvious christians? what is there to SAY beyond "gee thats wrong"?

we are anti-christian or pro-christian because we KNOW lots of christians. some of us even ARE christians. so there is a good give and take on any christian topic. if no one replied to any criticism of christianity, these threads would die too.

i say we are to be congratulated on not ranting about things we know nothing about.

i know that i, personally, have been on vacation, and haven't been posting with my usually vigor, but i will admit that your chosen topics wouldn't have gotten much of a reaction from me. here's why:

The Hindu Rape of Gujarat-
the key word was in your description; it was by FANATICS, and i think we can all agree that fanatics of any sort tend to be a problem. the fact that a group of fanatics did something nasty isn't particularly interesting to me, because (sadly) it's just not all that unusual in this crazy world of ours.

Where is the Muslim Martin Luther King? -
this topic isn't about an incident, but rather about a general state of the Muslim religion. the answer to the topic question seems so obvious to me that i don't see much point in the discussion.

Jewish Students Spit on Christian Clergy -
i (metaphorically) spit on Christian Clergy pretty much every day of my life, and thus don't feel that i am in any position to criticize somebody else who does so.

One of my best friends is a Jew. Another is a Muslim. Two of my friends are gay.

Everything you said was awesome, except for this. The "I have friends who are so-and-so" doesn't work. If my best friend went around saying "Hey, I'm not biased, one of my best friends is Jewish," I'd probably smack her for it. But I don't know, maybe that's just me.

It is refreshing to see more reasonable Christians emerge :) There are a lot of you, I know!

I have a friend who's Christian and thinks abortion is really wrong, but she agrees on the fact that women should have the choice, and I love 'er for it.

Looks like I just negated my argument, oops :P

I'm an atheist, I don't feel that I'm biased against Christians though. In fact, I feel I tend to be biased for them. Sure you can wheel out the Crusades, but then I think, who really was the aggressor there? Pagans can go on about how the inquisition attacked them, but in reality the organised inquisition was perpetrated against other Christians, not pagans. And then I think about what Bach and the like have done: great Christian inspired works, and I look around for similar things done by non-Christians, and they're few and far between. Of course, nowadays I don't see a lot of that coming from Christianity anyway, so it's all the past.

ive been thinking about this for a whle and i think you are way off base

its not an anti-christian bias

it is not posting about stuff that we dont know much about. wtf do we know about the roots of atrocities in india? did you expect the board to start ranting about how terribly hinduism is? to suddenly have knowlege of the vedas that we could quote detailing why such things are not DONE in hinduism? (or why it might be OK)

did you expect someone here to have some knowlege of the islamic world that would let you know that there IS some MLKjr guy in indonesia? were we supposed to say that islam sucks because it HASNT produced such a leader?

are we supposd to go on an anti jewish rant because some asshole kids spit on obvious christians? what is there to SAY beyond "gee thats wrong"?

we are anti-christian or pro-christian because we KNOW lots of christians. some of us even ARE christians. so there is a good give and take on any christian topic. if no one replied to any criticism of christianity, these threads would die too.

i say we are to be congratulated on not ranting about things we know nothing about.

I agree that we all tend to get most vocal about things we know best. However, don't you think we have an obligation to find out about what is going on in the rest of the world? Part of our problem in dealing with the Islamic and Arab worlds (they overlap, but are not the same) is that we (I'm speaking here about Americans) really have no idea who these people are, what they want, or what their society is like.

The world came to a standstill for many Americans because a handful of religious fanatics killed nearly 3,000 people on American soil. However, we couldn't even be bothered to acknowledge that 2,000 people were killed by religious fanatics in India barely a year later. How many Americans knew that the world was on the brink of nuclear war just a few years ago?

It is too easy to say we just don't know. Perhaps instead of spending so much time flaming for or against Christianity we should all spend just a little time each day reading a foreign newspaper. There has certainly never been a time in history when so much information has been available about cultures and people different from our own. The world is too small for us to be content in our smug ignorance.

Being married is a legal status. That is a specific status that is recognized under the law. That's all. Now, if two gay people want to go around and hold themselves out as married, then they are perfectly free to do so, and they will not face any legal consequences - that is said assertation and behavior is not illegal. The only difference is that their relationship, as compared to a straight marriage, is that they are unable to obtain a marriage license from the state which grants them the same rights, privilidges and obligations as a straight couple that does.

Therefore it is not banned, but rather unrecognized. It is not illegal conduct.

This is in sharp contrast to polygamyists, who can end up in prison for going around and holding themselves out as married.

Edit: I thought it was currently undetermined in MA. Vermont allows civil unions, which I think is ultimately what is going to be allowed throughout the US.

Thus polygamy banned. Gay marriage not banned, but also not recognized.

No - polygamist only end up in prison if they get the paperwork filed in an attempt to make more than one of their marriages LEGALLY recognized.

Otherwise any group of 3 or more consenting adults can have a non-legally binding ceremony which would make a group "marriage". Perfectly legal.

So neither are banned in the absolute sense.
Both are banned in the legal sense.

No - polygamist only end up in prison if they get the paperwork filed in an attempt to make more than one of their marriages LEGALLY recognized.

Otherwise any group of 3 or more consenting adults can have a non-legally binding ceremony which would make a group "marriage". Perfectly legal.

So neither are banned in the absolute sense.
Both are banned in the legal sense.

Hmm, well Utah and Nevada do in fact have laws that criminlize polygamy. License applications notwithstanding. Further, as you admit you can potentially go to jail in some states for attempting to gain a license for a polygamist marriage, but not a gay one.

In addition to outright criminilization some jurisditictions attempt to restrict the practice by other means. For example, New York City has co-habitation laws, although they are not enforced, which target polygamy. Probably some states take no position on the issue, but all that means is that in some states it is not banned.

So yes, one form is genrally banned. The other is not recognized. I really don't care either way, I just wish people would get of their high horse.

While they are at it, what about Ireland's appaling lack of civil rights.

"Hitler had the right idea! He was just an under-achiever! Kill them all Adolph all of them! Jew, Mexican, American, white, kill them all!!!!" - Bill Hicks

I'm sure that will get someone's attention.

To get to the point, I am biased and for good reasons too. The reason people have problems with Christianity is Christians. Why is that? Hmm, let's take a look at the evidence.

1. Quite a few Christians blame the grand illusionary scapegoat to account for the own actions. They refuse to take responsibility for their own actions.

2. There are Christians that commit hate crimes in the name of a person that supposedly was nailed to a tree about two thousand years ago. Dubya claims that "Jesus" is talking to him to invade other countries. Would "Jesus" really want to have innocents hurt?

3. Some Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong. Does the Bible not say that Jesus/God loves the sinner. Are we not all flawed in their ideology? How can a flawed individual criticize and judge another person when the Bible says that only "God" can judge? If it's such an abomination, why does it occur in nature as well?

There are far more I could use, but that is fine for right now.

I realize that there are some true Christians out there that practice what "Jesus" taught. That was compassion. These folks seem to be few and far between. Part of me wishes that the Christians are right just so they can leave the Earth during the Rapture. Unfortunately, I know that is not the case. It's a pain I will carry with me until the day I pass on.

They say that faith is believing in something without proof. I say it's the sign of a lack of intelligence. That is why organized religions do not like questions usually. There are far too many holes in the beliefs.

Are you all ready for the truth? All organized religions are cults. Don't believe me? Look up what a cult is objectively.

The Bible is not a history book as the world is older than a few thousand years. It is a collection of stories that were manipulated for political power. Every wonder why you are supposed to tithe? Ever wonder about the missing years of "Jesus"? Or why there is not an eye witness account of "Jesus"? How about why the last three written Gospels take ideas from already established ideas from religions at the time? Can you explain why the Gospels contradict themselves?

I am aware of the answers. The question is how many of you out there are as well.

Christianity is a great concept, but one that doesn't work when applied. Of course, the same could be said about Marxism.

Or why there is not an eye witness account of "Jesus"?
I'm pretty sure Jesus existed. He might have not been the "Son of God", but there were plenty of people just like him that the Romans crucified during that time period. What I don't get is what made him so remarkable. There have certainly been people that have suffered much worse than Christ...but are they martyred? No. Occasionally there's another saint added, but Christianity really ignores a lot of suffering that occurs.

If anyone wants to read more about how Christianity was at least partially stolen, read The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. It's awful as a novel, but is intriguing in other aspects. Overall I think it was a worthwhile read.

I'd have to agree with you there. Really, I've always wondered what it is about Christianity that gets people so enraged.


I would say: Proximity

I agree that we all tend to get most vocal about things we know best. However, don't you think we have an obligation to find out about what is going on in the rest of the world? Part of our problem in dealing with the Islamic and Arab worlds (they overlap, but are not the same) is that we (I'm speaking here about Americans) really have no idea who these people are, what they want, or what their society is like.

The world came to a standstill for many Americans because a handful of religious fanatics killed nearly 3,000 people on American soil. However, we couldn't even be bothered to acknowledge that 2,000 people were killed by religious fanatics in India barely a year later. How many Americans knew that the world was on the brink of nuclear war just a few years ago?

It is too easy to say we just don't know. Perhaps instead of spending so much time flaming for or against Christianity we should all spend just a little time each day reading a foreign newspaper. There has certainly never been a time in history when so much information has been available about cultures and people different from our own. The world is too small for us to be content in our smug ignorance.
absolutely
our ignorance and dismissal of the rest of the world will only lead us into more trouble

but that has little to do with responses on this forum.

i would judge the effectiveness of your threads by the number of LOOKERS not the number of posters. everyone who read those threads learned something. something they will probably use against you one day in this very forum. youre gonna hate that!

dont stop posting interesting things just because the threads dont last long. thats what BUMP is for eh?

Well I don't think there is really an anti-Christian bias, there is an anti-stupid-ignorant fanatics bias.
Probably the response to those other threads was slight because it's HARD to re find a thread if you don't subscribe to a thread or book mark it, a hassle btw.
Guys like Ashcroft and his damn silly bad hymns, if I was God I'd feel insulted. Maybe that's why Ashcroft is in such bad health...
Then too a lot of these Christian fundamentalists are ignorant of their own religion, in terms of behavior and custom. That tends to piss off people who know the actual rules, and it pisses off people who are not Christians but aware of basic teachings.
Instead these people are big on making up sappy hymns and small potatoes on doing what their religion actually requires, like helping the poor, making peace, and living modestly instead of off the interest system, dressing modestly, like being careful stewards of this earth God was nice enough to let us live on.
As far as the huge numbers suppsedly raped by Hindus, most of the attacks by Hindus in fact are on Christians in India, who have replaced Muslims as a popular target, probably because Muslims do not turn their cheek and invite you to strike then the other cheek, nor do Jews offer you their other cheek.
Both religions have a well deserved reputation for fighting back.
Which is ironic because self defense isn't necessarily an un-Christian behavior.
In India a lot of this violence has more to do with caste war than with religion as such. As far as what happened in Israel, this is part of a bad new attitude among Zionists. It is something any good Jew would find repulsive behavior!
Discussion threads disappear very easily on this site, it would be easier to comment on things if they didn't disappear and weren't so hard to find again.

"Hitler had the right idea! He was just an under-achiever! Kill them all Adolph all of them! Jew, Mexican, American, white, kill them all!!!!" - Bill Hicks

I'm sure that will get someone's attention.

To get to the point, I am biased and for good reasons too. The reason people have problems with Christianity is Christians. Why is that? Hmm, let's take a look at the evidence.

1. Quite a few Christians blame the grand illusionary scapegoat to account for the own actions. They refuse to take responsibility for their own actions.

Yes, that is a problem with some people - many anti-religious people complain about how many "religious" people use "God said so" as an excuse for their actions. Problem is, God gave us free will, so even if God *did* tell me to do something, it is still up to me to decide whether or not I want to (not to mention that it's my responsibility to figure out whether that's really God talking, or just my imagination).

2. There are Christians that commit hate crimes in the name of a person that supposedly was nailed to a tree about two thousand years ago. Dubya claims that "Jesus" is talking to him to invade other countries. Would "Jesus" really want to have innocents hurt?

No, Jesus would never want innocents hurt, but then this would lead to the question of whether the other country is "innocent" but lets not get into that here...

3. Some Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong. Does the Bible not say that Jesus/God loves the sinner. Are we not all flawed in their ideology? How can a flawed individual criticize and judge another person when the Bible says that only "God" can judge? If it's such an abomination, why does it occur in nature as well?

I'm always surprised by how often homosexuality is brought up. Yes, the Bible says it's wrong, but then it also says...

1. There are many other things wrong (murder, theft)

2. We are to love all other people because we are all equally sinful

I'm a little confused as to why homosexuality is often singled out as somehow being considered a "worse" sin than anything else - it certainly is not - it's "just another" of many. I guess it's often mentioned because it might be a little harder to figure out *why* it's a sin (I will admit that I can't think of a convincing non-religious argument against it) but I don't know why many anti-Christians act like we believe you will go straight to hell if you're gay.

There are far more I could use, but that is fine for right now.

I realize that there are some true Christians out there that practice what "Jesus" taught. That was compassion. These folks seem to be few and far between. Part of me wishes that the Christians are right just so they can leave the Earth during the Rapture. Unfortunately, I know that is not the case. It's a pain I will carry with me until the day I pass on.

They say that faith is believing in something without proof. I say it's the sign of a lack of intelligence. That is why organized religions do not like questions usually. There are far too many holes in the beliefs.

Refusing to question *is* a sign of a lack of intelligence, but faith is not. Faith is just believing something that you can't 100% verify - it does not mean that you simply accept what others have told you without question.

Are you all ready for the truth? All organized religions are cults. Don't believe me? Look up what a cult is objectively.

The Bible is not a history book as the world is older than a few thousand years. It is a collection of stories that were manipulated for political power. Every wonder why you are supposed to tithe? Ever wonder about the missing years of "Jesus"? Or why there is not an eye witness account of "Jesus"? How about why the last three written Gospels take ideas from already established ideas from religions at the time? Can you explain why the Gospels contradict themselves?

You really can't invalidate any beliefs by insisting that they happen to be similar to other beliefs - that proves nothing. I couldn't care less about whether Christianity "borrows" ideas from other religions - all that matters is whether it stands up on its own.

I am aware of the answers. The question is how many of you out there are as well.

Christianity is a great concept, but one that doesn't work when applied. Of course, the same could be said about Marxism.

Hmm, well Utah and Nevada do in fact have laws that criminlize polygamy. License applications notwithstanding. Further, as you admit you can potentially go to jail in some states for attempting to gain a license for a polygamist marriage, but not a gay one.

In addition to outright criminilization some jurisditictions attempt to restrict the practice by other means. For example, New York City has co-habitation laws, although they are not enforced, which target polygamy. Probably some states take no position on the issue, but all that means is that in some states it is not banned.

So yes, one form is genrally banned. The other is not recognized. I really don't care either way, I just wish people would get of their high horse.

While they are at it, what about Ireland's appaling lack of civil rights.

Actually in order to become a state in the United States, Utah HAD to ban polygamy. Which to me is silly, 1, it violated the First Amendment rights of the people in Utah, 2. the fact is polygamy still happens and in an unregulated setting it's socially very much more costly than it would be if it were regulated. 3. I think polygamy is more responsible than haveing mistresses, and making children outside of marriage altogether with said mistresses. I have heard people say the idea of mistresses distressed them LESS than polygamy and I frankly don't understand that line of thinking. It strikes me as illogical and emotional.
Obviously in Christian teaching, chastity for life is the prefered option, and marriage is regarded as a concession to human weakness of men in particular. There are other reasons for marriage though, like the protection of children.

(Incidentally I'm Christian myself before you all start the flameing! Please don't kill me because I failed to check my brain in at the door. I like to ask questions so people think)

As a Christian, I haven't felt that there is a huge anti-Christian bias here. No one has derided me simply for being a Christian, although there have been some very logical challenges to some of the beliefs I hold that have helped me to refine them.

What I have seen is an anti-fundamentalist bias, which I must admit I add to. And I haven't seen any fundamentalist Muslims, Hindis, or Jews posting here. The only fundies that have posted here are Christian fundies. Very few of the attacks I have seen have been against the Christian religion in general (and just about everyone ignores the few militant atheists on the board when they start going on it), but I have seen quite a few people come down hard on fundies who can't support most of what they say in any version of fact.

In your threads, for instance the rape one, if someone had come in and said "They did God's work and this is why..." you probably would have seen quite a bit of backlash.

*shrug*

I haven't seen any fundamentalist Muslims, Hindis, or Jews posting here....In your threads, for instance the rape one, if someone had come in and said "They did God's work and this is why..." you probably would have seen quite a bit of backlash.

Actually, "Shonar Bangla" has been making an angry (and verbose) defense of Hindu fundamentalists, with repeated justifications for both rape and murder in the Hindu Rape of Gujarat thread.

Actually, "Shonar Bangla" has been making an angry (and verbose) defense of Hindu fundamentalists, with repeated justifications for both rape and murder in the Hindu Rape of Gujarat thread.

Ah, I wasn't looking in that thread much because I hadn't had time to check up on the history behind it. But I can assure you that, if this is true, I have just as much bias against that person as any other fundie.

Followup: Actually, there is still no one defending it. The person you spoke of has not once said that the acts were justifed, and has in fact condemned them in every single post. Meanwhile, you apparently wanted to see something that wasn't there, and so you have been goading him/her from the start because he/she posted (as a persecuted people is likely to do) atrocities committed against Hindus. You erroneously assumed that this was supposed to be justification for the acts, and ignored that the poster had already condemned those acts and is simply asking for equal condemnation of the acts against their faith.

Let me skip over your justification of mass murder and rape ('it has been going on a long time and they do bad things') and acknowledge your point that there may be many reasons why people failed to feel any passion about the religious transgressions I posted. However, I have never noticed that history, complex causes, or media bias has ever stopped people from jumping on the bandwagon to bash Christianity or Christians in this forum. Nor from tarring all with the actions of a few.

Justification? :rolleyes:

Sorry I don't simply condem the actions of one group in a 2 sided story of wrongs.

The Hindu are not innocent in such actions. Yet the Muslims have done their share as well.

Blame both groups. You can't simply blame one.

knee jerk bias against Christians because of their beliefs is a different matter. If substituting "Jewish" or "Native American" or any other more acceptible group for the term "Christian" changes your attitude toward the post then that is prejudice and bias.

Well, you don't have the nations people(I think that is what they prefer to be called) actively trying to force to follow their "moral" code.

Most of the Jews in this country don't try to force people to follow their "moral" code.

Yet you have many christians attacking companies because they support homosexuals or have content(music, tv) they don't like, ban books from libraries, ban teaching subjects, force their philosophy in the science classroom....

Rather then crying about anti-christian attitudes, as somebody pointed out; a little self-reflection is needed.

Now I read most of the thread and agree with most of the sentiment …

The one I wanted to add to the collection is familiarity … at least for me it is the one I am most familiar with and can argue against because of a personal experiences. I have not necessarily had the same option for other religions

Sad I know

But lack of personal experience really does lead to lack of fervor in arguing against something

I noticed the exact same damn thing :P Except I never went off and proved it.

I'm also kind of agnostic-ish... well not really but that's what I call myself because it's closer than anything else.

What makes most of the posters here (from the US primarily, others from western europe) hold more animosity towards christianity than islam or hinduism or judaism is the fact that in our societies it is christians who are most active in trying to stamp out reason and impose religious law.

I am certain that if i were in iran, I would hold the muslims in more contempt than that christians.

I think the problem is that everyone is so damn certain they're right that there is no possibility that they might just be wrong. Over the past four years I have wavered back and forth between liberal christianity and agnosticism. I have constantly questioned my beliefs.

People also need to understand that someone's beliefs are a very personal thing. And often times well considered. We all have a right to be wrong. I know there are morons on both sides, like an unnamed person on these forums who said we needed a secret police to keep religion down. Or the guy on the OSU South Oval who told me I was going to hell because of "sodomy," something I don't understand in the slightest as I am straight. I don't even look gay!

So, we need to chill out and not be so damn fanatical about our beliefs or non-belief. Let's just be respectful of others.

(and yes, there is a third group, people like me who plea for respect and get bowled over by the flaming.)

I think the problem is that everyone is so damn certain they're right that there is no possibility that they might just be wrong. Over the past four years I have wavered back and forth between liberal christianity and agnosticism. I have constantly questioned my beliefs.

People also need to understand that someone's beliefs are a very personal thing. And often times well considered. We all have a right to be wrong. I know there are morons on both sides, like an unnamed person on these forums who said we needed a secret police to keep religion down. Or the guy on the OSU South Oval who told me I was going to hell because of "sodomy," something I don't understand in the slightest as I am straight. I don't even look gay!

So, we need to chill out and not be so damn fanatical about our beliefs or non-belief. Let's just be respectful of others.

(and yes, there is a third group, people like me who plea for respect and get bowled over by the flaming.)


My child the path of enlightenment is knowing that you are an idiot! ;)

It could be a bias - or it could be the fact that most of the people that post here are in 'christian' countries, who have a noticable 'christian' presence in their communities, their laws, their governments, their media.

Those people are quite unlikely to have much information about what Hindus get upto in the middle east, for example - but probably have a very good idea of how christianity affects their everyday life.

So, I don't think that christians really get to cry "conspiracy" against christianity - they are merely rebelled against more prominently, because they are a more prominent establishment.

If NS was primarily Arabic, and was 'sold' primarily to the Middle East, you'd probably find a very different demographic, and a very different response.

Justification? :rolleyes:

Sorry I don't simply condem the actions of one group in a 2 sided story of wrongs.

The Hindu are not innocent in such actions. Yet the Muslims have done their share as well.

Blame both groups. You can't simply blame one.

Your oversimplification and generalization of the people involved is where you are wrong. You are looking at people as a mass, as a group. "Muslims have done...," etc.

The people of Gujurat were not part of any armed insurgency or organized political group. They were people - women, children, villagers trying to create a life for themselves. To say, "a plague on both your houses" lumps the victim in with the victimizer. It is like saying in response to a woman who was raped, "well women have done terrible things to men, so I blame both groups."

It may require less thought to just wave your hand and say, "those people," but it doesn't make it morally right.

Yet you have many christians attacking companies because they support homosexuals or have content(music, tv) they don't like, ban books from libraries, ban teaching subjects, force their philosophy in the science classroom....

Wait a minute. I may disagree with and dislike many of the attitudes and beliefs of fundamentalist Christians, but aren't they doing what they should do in a democracy to have their voices heard? If I disagree with a company's environmental policy don't I have a right to pressure them to take a line more like the one I think they should? If I like a political candidate's positions on social issues shouldn't I organize like-minded people to support her?

As long as Christians aren't breaking the law don't they have a right to try and bring their beliefs into the market place of ideas? If we don't like them we have an equal right to make a counter argument or offer a different philosophy, but we cannot criticize them for taking advantage of their freedoms in a free society.

Wait a minute. I may disagree with and dislike many of the attitudes and beliefs of fundamentalist Christians, but aren't they doing what they should do in a democracy to have their voices heard? If I disagree with a company's environmental policy don't I have a right to pressure them to take a line more like the one I think they should? If I like a political candidate's positions on social issues shouldn't I organize like-minded people to support her?

As long as Christians aren't breaking the law don't they have a right to try and bring their beliefs into the market place of ideas? If we don't like them we have an equal right to make a counter argument or offer a different philosophy, but we cannot criticize them for taking advantage of their freedoms in a free society.
the problem is that Christians of that sort turn right around and complain that they are being oppressed when any other group tries to exercise the exact same rights and involvment in government. i have no problem with Christians making their voices heard, i just get really tired of them claiming that anybody who isn't gung-ho about writing God into the Pledge is oppressing Christians' freedoms and violating their rights.

As long as Christians aren't breaking the law don't they have a right to try and bring their beliefs into the market place of ideas? If we don't like them we have an equal right to make a counter argument or offer a different philosophy, but we cannot criticize them for taking advantage of their freedoms in a free society.

Yes but the problem comes in when my ideas are being encroached on. Take music for example. Religious groups are always pushing to ban "bad" lyrics or videos, or songs. They are not providing a counter-arguement they are simply removing something from the market. If they truely feel that they have a better idea the correct way to go about things in our society would be to provide a competitive alternative.

Take for example BET, African American leaders saw a problem in the current situation. Instead of forcing the existing market to change to their demands they created an alternative. This may in the end have stopped people from watching ABC, but the choice between the two remained.

This is why people get so up in arms about Christians, the in your face attitude. It's either our way, or you just suck, and I'm going to condemn you and scream about it so everyone can hear. Not that other religious groups don't act the same way, but their's a lot more Christians in the U.S., in positions to be heard, then there are other groups.

Personally I just get sick of people yelling in my ear, so I yell back.

the problem is that Christians of that sort turn right around and complain that they are being oppressed when any other group tries to exercise the exact same rights and involvment in government. i have no problem with Christians making their voices heard, i just get really tired of them claiming that anybody who isn't gung-ho about writing God into the Pledge is oppressing Christians' freedoms and violating their rights.

That's it... the most commonly heard cry from Christians on the prospect of 'gay' marriages is that it destroys the 'sanctity of marriage'.

Someone else makes a case, they start whining about it being 'unfair'.

Your oversimplification and generalization of the people involved is where you are wrong. You are looking at people as a mass, as a group. "Muslims have done...," etc.


Ok. I will make it simple for you.

Clarification: Not all Muslims are killers and or rapists. Not all Hindu are killers and or rapists.

Both sides have bad people that do bad things.

Is that easier for you?


The people of Gujurat were not part of any armed insurgency or organized political group. They were people - women, children, villagers trying to create a life for themselves. To say, "a plague on both your houses" lumps the victim in with the victimizer. It is like saying in response to a woman who was raped, "well women have done terrible things to men, so I blame both groups."

It may require less thought to just wave your hand and say, "those people," but it doesn't make it morally right.

Ok again I will simply it for you.

The Fundi Hindu actions of Gujurat are wrong. The Fundi Muslim actions in India are wrong. The Fundi Hindu actions are wrong.

There is that better for you now?

Again, one group is not the only villian here.

As was pointed out to you, this violence has been going on for a long time and it is not so simple to label one action and side with one group.

You obviously have some agenda of blame going on but the fact remains, both sides have done nasty things to each other.

Again condem all violent acts.

Wait a minute. I may disagree with and dislike many of the attitudes and beliefs of fundamentalist Christians, but aren't they doing what they should do in a democracy to have their voices heard? If I disagree with a company's environmental policy don't I have a right to pressure them to take a line more like the one I think they should? If I like a political candidate's positions on social issues shouldn't I organize like-minded people to support her?

As long as Christians aren't breaking the law don't they have a right to try and bring their beliefs into the market place of ideas? If we don't like them we have an equal right to make a counter argument or offer a different philosophy, but we cannot criticize them for taking advantage of their freedoms in a free society.

Ahh and yet oppression is screamed when people think that Religous philosophies should not be involved with certain things(ie the 10 commandments in the classroom).

If you don't like the companies stance on something, then don't buy their products or services.

Going about denying their products or services for people who have no issues with the companies stance is wrong.

You right is either purchase or not purchase something. It is not the ability to infringe my rights on doing the same.

Ahh and yet oppression is screamed when people think that Religous philosophies should not be involved with certain things(ie the 10 commandments in the classroom).

If you don't like the companies stance on something, then don't buy their products or services.

Going about denying their products or services for people who have no issues with the companies stance is wrong.

You right is either purchase or not purchase something. It is not the ability to infringe my rights on doing the same.

Boycotts are a time honored tool of change from Cesar Chavez' UFW boycott of grapes in the 1960s to the divestment campaign against South African apartheid in the 1980s to the current boycott of Chinese made goods in protest of the occupation of Tibet.

If Christians want to organize a boycott of a company or goods, I say more power to them. It is, after all, a free country.

Personally, I was grateful to all the people sending me emails of French products to boycott because of their lack of support in Iraq. It gave me a list of products I could specifically go out and buy to show my support of France.

Boycotts are a time honored tool of change from Cesar Chavez' UFW boycott of grapes in the 1960s to the divestment campaign against South African apartheid in the 1980s to the current boycott of Chinese made goods in protest of the occupation of Tibet.

If Christians want to organize a boycott of a company or goods, I say more power to them. It is, after all, a free country.

Personally, I was grateful to all the people sending me emails of French products to boycott because of their lack of support in Iraq. It gave me a list of products I could specifically go out and buy to show my support of France.

Yes I know about Cesar Chavez. My mom was involved with that.

There is nothing wrong with a boycott.

That however, is different then what Christian groups do.

Yes I know about Cesar Chavez. My mom was involved with that.

There is nothing wrong with a boycott.

That however, is different then what Christian groups do.

Go on.... Explain.

bump