All Comments (93)

Ideas of god, heaven and hell are deeply embedded in the human psyche. Ninety percent of the human race is said to believe in god and an afterlife. If the goal of these discussions is to add to our knowledge of life and the universe, we must ask ourselves if there is a naturalistic explanation of how, and when, religion came to humankind. Please consider the following:

The earliest religions of historical record are those of ancient Greece and Egypt 4000 – 5000 years ago. Prior to that we know only the religious cave-art of France and the seemingly pious burial customs of Neanderthal Man, both about 40,000 years ago. That's as far back as the fossil record on religion will take us. But the cave art and the burial customs were highly sophisticated for their time, so mankind's search for religion's origins must go far back before then. How can we possibly go back to earlier times? Anthropology and evolutionary psychology coupled with our knowledge of how modern humans behave individually and in groups may make it possible.

(Many devout readers have rejected the science of evolution and believe the universe was created only 6,000 years ago. To those who are still with me, I urge you, if you want your religion to have any future relevance, to incorporate modern knowledge into your liturgies).

The evolutionary lineage of the great apes and that of humanoids separated from a common ancestor about 7 million years ago. The modern chimpanzee and humans, close relatives, exhibit group behavior, therefore, so must our common ancestor have done. Group formation demands leadership and the dominant male, with his superior strength, arose to fill this role. The next important date is about 1.5 millions years ago when the human brain began to expand, tripling in size by 100,000 years ago, when our sapient selves emerged. Language is said to have evolved 500,000 – 250,000 years ago.

Our pre-sapient ancestors, then, existed for about 5.5 millions of years with a relatively small brain and without language in groups ruled by dominant males; and then continued, with slowly expanding brain, but still without language, for hundreds of thousands of years more. It is probable that Homo's intellectual state during this period was lower than that of the modern chimpanzee. There was no abstract thought; that was to come later with language. They knew no hope because they knew only the present. But they knew fear and pain. And the dominant male supplied these, in order to rule, in large measure.

One may imagine how the awesome power of the dominant male grew, and how each generation learned from anxious mothers to avoid his terrible wrath by total submission. Even today it is common to hear believers define religious belief as the 'fear of god'. Orthodox Jews name themselves haredi, a Hebrew term meaning one who fears god.

Gradually the dominant male took on otherworldly aspects. Perhaps, to quash rebellion, he vowed to return after death to punish ambitious pretenders who might otherwise plot to kill him. To his subjects "belief" was certain knowledge; "disbelief" incomprehensible, neither word occurring in their vocabulary. For here he was, this powerful being, standing before them every day, palpable and real, visible, audible, touchable, fearful. God was not a supernatural hidden power, but actually walked among them everyday, in the flesh.

The lengthy rule of generations of the dominant male would explain the universality of religion in the present day. It would explain also the power of religion. It has somehow been affixed to the neural interconnections of our brains over such a long period that it has come to be an integral part of what it means to be human.

Government and religion evolved together as mechanisms of societal control. What is important is that religion arose from natural, everyday pressures, not from some pre-Paleolithic philosopher ruminating on the nature of life. Nor from an extra-dimensional essence that took an interest in our affairs.

Ideas of god, heaven and hell are deeply embedded in the human psyche. Ninety percent of the human race is said to believe in god and an afterlife. If the goal of these discussions is to add to our knowledge of life and the universe, we must ask ourselves if there is a naturalistic explanation of how, and when, religion came to humankind. Please consider the following:

The earliest religions of historical record are those of ancient Greece and Egypt 4000 – 5000 years ago. Prior to that we know only the religious cave-art of France and the seemingly pious burial customs of Neanderthal Man, both about 40,000 years ago. That's as far back as the fossil record on religion will take us. But the cave art and the burial customs were highly sophisticated for their time, so mankind's search for religion's origins must go far back before then. How can we possibly go back to earlier times? Anthropology and evolutionary psychology coupled with our knowledge of how modern humans behave individually and in groups may make it possible.

(Many devout readers have rejected the science of evolution and believe the universe was created only 6,000 years ago. To those who are still with me, I urge you, if you want your religion to have any future relevance, to incorporate modern knowledge into your liturgies).

The evolutionary lineage of the great apes and that of humanoids separated from a common ancestor about 7 million years ago. The modern chimpanzee and humans, close relatives, exhibit group behavior, therefore, so must our common ancestor have done. Group formation demands leadership and the dominant male, with his superior strength, arose to fill this role. The next important date is about 1.5 millions years ago when the human brain began to expand, tripling in size by 100,000 years ago, when our sapient selves emerged. Language is said to have evolved 500,000 – 250,000 years ago.

Our pre-sapient ancestors, then, existed for about 5.5 millions of years with a relatively small brain and without language in groups ruled by dominant males; and then continued, with slowly expanding brain, but still without language, for hundreds of thousands of years more. It is probable that Homo's intellectual state during this period was lower than that of the modern chimpanzee. There was no abstract thought; that was to come later with language. They knew no hope because they knew only the present. But they knew fear and pain. And the dominant male supplied these, in order to rule, in large measure.

One may imagine how the awesome power of the dominant male grew, and how each generation learned from anxious mothers to avoid his terrible wrath by total submission. Even today it is common to hear believers define religious belief as the 'fear of god'. Orthodox Jews name themselves haredi, a Hebrew term meaning one who fears god.

Gradually the dominant male took on otherworldly aspects. Perhaps, to quash rebellion, he vowed to return after death to punish ambitious pretenders who might otherwise plot to kill him. To his subjects "belief" was certain knowledge; "disbelief" incomprehensible, neither word occurring in their vocabulary. For here he was, this powerful being, standing before them every day, palpable and real, visible, audible, touchable, fearful. God was not a supernatural hidden power, but actually walked among them everyday, in the flesh.

The lengthy rule of generations of the dominant male would explain the universality of religion in the present day. It would explain also the power of religion. It has somehow been affixed to the neural interconnections of our brains over such a long period that it has come to be an integral part of what it means to be human.

Government and religion evolved together as mechanisms of societal control. What is important is that religion arose from natural, everyday pressures, not from some pre-Paleolithic philosopher ruminating on the nature of life. Nor from an extra-dimensional essence that took an interest in our affairs.

Ideas of god, heaven and hell are deeply embedded in the human psyche. Ninety percent of the human race is said to believe in god and an afterlife. If the goal of these discussions is to add to our knowledge of life and the universe, we must ask ourselves if there is a naturalistic explanation of how, and when, religion came to humankind. Please consider the following:

The earliest religions of historical record are those of ancient Greece and Egypt 4000 – 5000 years ago. Prior to that we know only the religious cave-art of France and the seemingly pious burial customs of Neanderthal Man, both about 40,000 years ago. That's as far back as the fossil record on religion will take us. But the cave art and the burial customs were highly sophisticated for their time, so mankind's search for religion's origins must go far back before then. How can we possibly go back to earlier times? Anthropology and evolutionary psychology coupled with our knowledge of how modern humans behave individually and in groups may make it possible.

(Many devout readers have rejected the science of evolution and believe the universe was created only 6,000 years ago. To those who are still with me, I urge you, if you want your religion to have any future relevance, to incorporate modern knowledge into your liturgies).

The evolutionary lineage of the great apes and that of humanoids separated from a common ancestor about 7 million years ago. The modern chimpanzee and humans, close relatives, exhibit group behavior, therefore, so must our common ancestor have done. Group formation demands leadership and the dominant male, with his superior strength, arose to fill this role. The next important date is about 1.5 millions years ago when the human brain began to expand, tripling in size by 100,000 years ago, when our sapient selves emerged. Language is said to have evolved 500,000 – 250,000 years ago.

Our pre-sapient ancestors, then, existed for about 5.5 millions of years with a relatively small brain and without language in groups ruled by dominant males; and then continued, with slowly expanding brain, but still without language, for hundreds of thousands of years more. It is probable that Homo's intellectual state during this period was lower than that of the modern chimpanzee. There was no abstract thought; that was to come later with language. They knew no hope because they knew only the present. But they knew fear and pain. And the dominant male supplied these, in order to rule, in large measure.

One may imagine how the awesome power of the dominant male grew, and how each generation learned from anxious mothers to avoid his terrible wrath by total submission. Even today it is common to hear believers define religious belief as the 'fear of god'. Orthodox Jews name themselves haredi, a Hebrew term meaning one who fears god.

Gradually the dominant male took on otherworldly aspects. Perhaps, to quash rebellion, he vowed to return after death to punish ambitious pretenders who might otherwise plot to kill him. To his subjects "belief" was certain knowledge; "disbelief" incomprehensible, neither word occurring in their vocabulary. For here he was, this powerful being, standing before them every day, palpable and real, visible, audible, touchable, fearful. God was not a supernatural hidden power, but actually walked among them everyday, in the flesh.

The lengthy rule of generations of the dominant male would explain the universality of religion in the present day. It would explain also the power of religion. It has somehow been affixed to the neural interconnections of our brains over such a long period that it has come to be an integral part of what it means to be human.

Government and religion evolved together as mechanisms of societal control. What is important is that religion arose from natural, everyday pressures, not from some pre-Paleolithic philosopher ruminating on the nature of life. Nor from an extra-dimensional essence that took an interest in our affairs.

Ideas of god, heaven and hell are deeply embedded in the human psyche. Ninety percent of the human race is said to believe in god and an afterlife. If the goal of these discussions is to add to our knowledge of life and the universe, we must ask ourselves if there is a naturalistic explanation of how, and when, religion came to humankind. Please consider the following:

The earliest religions of historical record are those of ancient Greece and Egypt 4000 – 5000 years ago. Prior to that we know only the religious cave-art of France and the seemingly pious burial customs of Neanderthal Man, both about 40,000 years ago. That's as far back as the fossil record on religion will take us. But the cave art and the burial customs were highly sophisticated for their time, so mankind's search for religion's origins must go far back before then. How can we possibly go back to earlier times? Anthropology and evolutionary psychology coupled with our knowledge of how modern humans behave individually and in groups may make it possible.

(Many devout readers have rejected the science of evolution and believe the universe was created only 6,000 years ago. To those who are still with me, I urge you, if you want your religion to have any future relevance, to incorporate modern knowledge into your liturgies).

The evolutionary lineage of the great apes and that of humanoids separated from a common ancestor about 7 million years ago. The modern chimpanzee and humans, close relatives, exhibit group behavior, therefore, so must our common ancestor have done. Group formation demands leadership and the dominant male, with his superior strength, arose to fill this role. The next important date is about 1.5 millions years ago when the human brain began to expand, tripling in size by 100,000 years ago, when our sapient selves emerged. Language is said to have evolved 500,000 – 250,000 years ago.

Our pre-sapient ancestors, then, existed for about 5.5 millions of years with a relatively small brain and without language in groups ruled by dominant males; and then continued, with slowly expanding brain, but still without language, for hundreds of thousands of years more. It is probable that Homo's intellectual state during this period was lower than that of the modern chimpanzee. There was no abstract thought; that was to come later with language. They knew no hope because they knew only the present. But they knew fear and pain. And the dominant male supplied these, in order to rule, in large measure.

One may imagine how the awesome power of the dominant male grew, and how each generation learned from anxious mothers to avoid his terrible wrath by total submission. Even today it is common to hear believers define religious belief as the 'fear of god'. Orthodox Jews name themselves haredi, a Hebrew term meaning one who fears god.

Gradually the dominant male took on otherworldly aspects. Perhaps, to quash rebellion, he vowed to return after death to punish ambitious pretenders who might otherwise plot to kill him. To his subjects "belief" was certain knowledge; "disbelief" incomprehensible, neither word occurring in their vocabulary. For here he was, this powerful being, standing before them every day, palpable and real, visible, audible, touchable, fearful. God was not a supernatural hidden power, but actually walked among them everyday, in the flesh.

The lengthy rule of generations of the dominant male would explain the universality of religion in the present day. It would explain also the power of religion. It has somehow been affixed to the neural interconnections of our brains over such a long period that it has come to be an integral part of what it means to be human.

Government and religion evolved together as mechanisms of societal control. What is important is that religion arose from natural, everyday pressures, not from some pre-Paleolithic philosopher ruminating on the nature of life. Nor from an extra-dimensional essence that took an interest in our affairs.

Ideas of god, heaven and hell are deeply embedded in the human psyche. Ninety percent of the human race is said to believe in god and an afterlife. If the goal of these discussions is to add to our knowledge of life and the universe, we must ask ourselves if there is a naturalistic explanation of how, and when, religion came to humankind. Please consider the following:

The earliest religions of historical record are those of ancient Greece and Egypt 4000 – 5000 years ago. Prior to that we know only the religious cave-art of France and the seemingly pious burial customs of Neanderthal Man, both about 40,000 years ago. That's as far back as the fossil record on religion will take us. But the cave art and the burial customs were highly sophisticated for their time, so mankind's search for religion's origins must go far back before then. How can we possibly go back to earlier times? Anthropology and evolutionary psychology coupled with our knowledge of how modern humans behave individually and in groups may make it possible.

(Many devout readers have rejected the science of evolution and believe the universe was created only 6,000 years ago. To those who are still with me, I urge you, if you want your religion to have any future relevance, to incorporate modern knowledge into your liturgies).

The evolutionary lineage of the great apes and that of humanoids separated from a common ancestor about 7 million years ago. The modern chimpanzee and humans, close relatives, exhibit group behavior, therefore, so must our common ancestor have done. Group formation demands leadership and the dominant male, with his superior strength, arose to fill this role. The next important date is about 1.5 millions years ago when the human brain began to expand, tripling in size by 100,000 years ago, when our sapient selves emerged. Language is said to have evolved 500,000 – 250,000 years ago.

Our pre-sapient ancestors, then, existed for about 5.5 millions of years with a relatively small brain and without language in groups ruled by dominant males; and then continued, with slowly expanding brain, but still without language, for hundreds of thousands of years more. It is probable that Homo's intellectual state during this period was lower than that of the modern chimpanzee. There was no abstract thought; that was to come later with language. They knew no hope because they knew only the present. But they knew fear and pain. And the dominant male supplied these, in order to rule, in large measure.

One may imagine how the awesome power of the dominant male grew, and how each generation learned from anxious mothers to avoid his terrible wrath by total submission. Even today it is common to hear believers define religious belief as the 'fear of god'. Orthodox Jews name themselves haredi, a Hebrew term meaning one who fears god.

Gradually the dominant male took on otherworldly aspects. Perhaps, to quash rebellion, he vowed to return after death to punish ambitious pretenders who might otherwise plot to kill him. To his subjects "belief" was certain knowledge; "disbelief" incomprehensible, neither word occurring in their vocabulary. For here he was, this powerful being, standing before them every day, palpable and real, visible, audible, touchable, fearful. God was not a supernatural hidden power, but actually walked among them everyday, in the flesh.

The lengthy rule of generations of the dominant male would explain the universality of religion in the present day. It would explain also the power of religion. It has somehow been affixed to the neural interconnections of our brains over such a long period that it has come to be an integral part of what it means to be human.

Government and religion evolved together as mechanisms of societal control. What is important is that religion arose from natural, everyday pressures, not from some pre-Paleolithic philosopher ruminating on the nature of life. Nor from an extra-dimensional essence that took an interest in our affairs.

Ideas of god, heaven and hell are deeply embedded in the human psyche. Ninety percent of the human race is said to believe in god and an afterlife. If the goal of these discussions is to add to our knowledge of life and the universe, we must ask ourselves if there is a naturalistic explanation of how, and when, religion came to humankind. Please consider the following:

The earliest religions of historical record are those of ancient Greece and Egypt 4000 – 5000 years ago. Prior to that we know only the religious cave-art of France and the seemingly pious burial customs of Neanderthal Man, both about 40,000 years ago. That's as far back as the fossil record on religion will take us. But the cave art and the burial customs were highly sophisticated for their time, so mankind's search for religion's origins must go far back before then. How can we possibly go back to earlier times? Anthropology and evolutionary psychology coupled with our knowledge of how modern humans behave individually and in groups may make it possible.

(Many devout readers have rejected the science of evolution and believe the universe was created only 6,000 years ago. To those who are still with me, I urge you, if you want your religion to have any future relevance, to incorporate modern knowledge into your liturgies).

The evolutionary lineage of the great apes and that of humanoids separated from a common ancestor about 7 million years ago. The modern chimpanzee and humans, close relatives, exhibit group behavior, therefore, so must our common ancestor have done. Group formation demands leadership and the dominant male, with his superior strength, arose to fill this role. The next important date is about 1.5 millions years ago when the human brain began to expand, tripling in size by 100,000 years ago, when our sapient selves emerged. Language is said to have evolved 500,000 – 250,000 years ago.

Our pre-sapient ancestors, then, existed for about 5.5 millions of years with a relatively small brain and without language in groups ruled by dominant males; and then continued, with slowly expanding brain, but still without language, for hundreds of thousands of years more. It is probable that Homo's intellectual state during this period was lower than that of the modern chimpanzee. There was no abstract thought; that was to come later with language. They knew no hope because they knew only the present. But they knew fear and pain. And the dominant male supplied these, in order to rule, in large measure.

One may imagine how the awesome power of the dominant male grew, and how each generation learned from anxious mothers to avoid his terrible wrath by total submission. Even today it is common to hear believers define religious belief as the 'fear of god'. Orthodox Jews name themselves haredi, a Hebrew term meaning one who fears god.

Gradually the dominant male took on otherworldly aspects. Perhaps, to quash rebellion, he vowed to return after death to punish ambitious pretenders who might otherwise plot to kill him. To his subjects "belief" was certain knowledge; "disbelief" incomprehensible, neither word occurring in their vocabulary. For here he was, this powerful being, standing before them every day, palpable and real, visible, audible, touchable, fearful. God was not a supernatural hidden power, but actually walked among them everyday, in the flesh.

The lengthy rule of generations of the dominant male would explain the universality of religion in the present day. It would explain also the power of religion. It has somehow been affixed to the neural interconnections of our brains over such a long period that it has come to be an integral part of what it means to be human.

Government and religion evolved together as mechanisms of societal control. What is important is that religion arose from natural, everyday pressures, not from some pre-Paleolithic philosopher ruminating on the nature of life. Nor from an extra-dimensional essence that took an interest in our affairs.

Ideas of god, heaven and hell are deeply embedded in the human psyche. Ninety percent of the human race is said to believe in god and an afterlife. If the goal of these discussions is to add to our knowledge of life and the universe, we must ask ourselves if there is a naturalistic explanation of how, and when, religion came to humankind. Please consider the following:

The earliest religions of historical record are those of ancient Greece and Egypt 4000 – 5000 years ago. Prior to that we know only the religious cave-art of France and the seemingly pious burial customs of Neanderthal Man, both about 40,000 years ago. That's as far back as the fossil record on religion will take us. But the cave art and the burial customs were highly sophisticated for their time, so mankind's search for religion's origins must go far back before then. How can we possibly go back to earlier times? Anthropology and evolutionary psychology coupled with our knowledge of how modern humans behave individually and in groups may make it possible.

(Many devout readers have rejected the science of evolution and believe the universe was created only 6,000 years ago. To those who are still with me, I urge you, if you want your religion to have any future relevance, to incorporate modern knowledge into your liturgies).

The evolutionary lineage of the great apes and that of humanoids separated from a common ancestor about 7 million years ago. The modern chimpanzee and humans, close relatives, exhibit group behavior, therefore, so must our common ancestor have done. Group formation demands leadership and the dominant male, with his superior strength, arose to fill this role. The next important date is about 1.5 millions years ago when the human brain began to expand, tripling in size by 100,000 years ago, when our sapient selves emerged. Language is said to have evolved 500,000 – 250,000 years ago.

Our pre-sapient ancestors, then, existed for about 5.5 millions of years with a relatively small brain and without language in groups ruled by dominant males; and then continued, with slowly expanding brain, but still without language, for hundreds of thousands of years more. It is probable that Homo's intellectual state during this period was lower than that of the modern chimpanzee. There was no abstract thought; that was to come later with language. They knew no hope because they knew only the present. But they knew fear and pain. And the dominant male supplied these, in order to rule, in large measure.

One may imagine how the awesome power of the dominant male grew, and how each generation learned from anxious mothers to avoid his terrible wrath by total submission. Even today it is common to hear believers define religious belief as the 'fear of god'. Orthodox Jews name themselves haredi, a Hebrew term meaning one who fears god.

Gradually the dominant male took on otherworldly aspects. Perhaps, to quash rebellion, he vowed to return after death to punish ambitious pretenders who might otherwise plot to kill him. To his subjects "belief" was certain knowledge; "disbelief" incomprehensible, neither word occurring in their vocabulary. For here he was, this powerful being, standing before them every day, palpable and real, visible, audible, touchable, fearful. God was not a supernatural hidden power, but actually walked among them everyday, in the flesh.

The lengthy rule of generations of the dominant male would explain the universality of religion in the present day. It would explain also the power of religion. It has somehow been affixed to the neural interconnections of our brains over such a long period that it has come to be an integral part of what it means to be human.

Government and religion evolved together as mechanisms of societal control. What is important is that religion arose from natural, everyday pressures, not from some pre-Paleolithic philosopher ruminating on the nature of life. Nor from an extra-dimensional essence that took an interest in our affairs.

m5k

"I say tax the churches, and get their bible, and twisted beliefs out of my life."

Why do some people walk around with their sexual orientation up on their sleeves and use the might of the government to force it down the throat of everybodyelse?

Just like I think the churches should stay out of government...I think people should keep their sexual orientation out of the government too. No special treatment period.

So tired of hearing Special Rights, the gay community does NOT have the same rights as the straight community. I am a 40 year old gay man, and have been in my life, beaten, stabbed, called names, and raped by these people who claim to be christians. I DO NOT believe in god, church, or the bible. And am sick of how my community is treated. Bush in both elections had signs made that said Gay people have to many rights. I say tax the churches, and get their bible, and twisted beliefs out of my life. Tired of christian hate and ignorance!!!

I escaped the authoritarianism of the Netherlands and now live in the New York but in 2002 things became personal again because some people attempted to isolate and silence me through economic deprivation….using the might of the federal government to make it appear all legal....all these people seem to be speaking on behalf of the so-called, minority, poor, disadvantaged, disenfranchised and oppressed women....but the fact of the matter is that these people exposed themselves to be the hypocrites that they are..... they also decide who gets what and who does not....and only rally behind issues that benefit their political agenda.....exploiting the misery of people, speaking on their behalf only for their personal and political gain.

They have their mouth full about the Christian-conservative-right being wrong on issues….but they remain silent about the leftist-liberal-Christian crimes against humanity.

FreeVoice:
Where are you living where women are jailed for being single mothers? I was a single mother most of my daughter's life. I met and married my husband when she was in her teens. I discovered that I was pregnant several weeks after I broke up with my former boyfriend. After I decided I was going to have the baby and told him I was pregnant, he wanted to get married. I refused. I was not going to marry someone I didn't want just because I was pregnant. I made a conscious decision to become a single mother. In no way was I ever isolated from society because of it. My status as a single mother did not put me under any extra governmental scrutiny or regulation.

As for differences in the sexes, I think for the most part, they're over-emphasized. What can my husband do that I can't? He can produce sperm and pee on a wall. What can I do that he can't? I can grow a child in my uterus, push it out between my thighs, and produce milk to feed it after it's born. I'd say we're even.

As for pay discrepancies, you say you have no problem with men getting paid more. I do. If I am doing the same job, at the same level of skill and experience, then I should be getting the same pay.

I envy no one, and have always worked for my money. At the moment, I am the main wage-earner in our family while my husband finishes his terminal degree. He has no problem with the fact that I make more money than he does. He knows what it took for me to finish college while raising a child and how hard I worked to get the job I have. He admires my strength. Other men I've been involved with couldn't deal with it. One said he wanted a long-term relationship, but I would have to change jobs so that his income would exceed mine. Needless to say, he and I no longer associate.

I beleive that all races, sexes, orientations, religions, etc. are equally deserving of respect. Certain expressions of disrespect, such as rude comments about the sexual habits of single mothers, I can deal with by offering the offender a tube of Chapstick so that his lips will be soft and smooth when he kisses my butt. But when people are physically attacked because of the combination of X and Y chromosomes in their DNA, the color of their skin, or the gender of the person they love, or the name by which they call their deity, that's another story.

“Europe thrived and remained dynamic as long as it stuck to individualism. It has slowly declined ever since Utopian; collectivist ideologies poisoned its bloodstream. In multiculturalism, the individual is reduced to being a member of a “tribe", be that of the black tribe vs. the white tribe, the Catholic tribe vs. the Protestant tribe, or the Muslim tribe vs. all the other tribes. Islam, with its Muslim community or “Ummah” roughly being an enlarged Arab tribe of old, is well suited for this line of thinking.

Some claim that multiculturalism works just fine as long as you keep Islam out of the equation. That’s not the case. One of the reasons why the insanity of using sharia law has been seriously considered in Canada is that Canada was from the outset a weak nation. Canadians have for so long pandered to their French-speaking community that appeasing ethnic minorities has become something of a national habit. This proves the maxim that although being bilingual can be a great advantage for an individual, it is a tragedy for a country.”

This is what I am talking about…..female tribe vs. male tribe…..the left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative. The same political agenda that poisoned the bloodstream of the United States of America….where women are pitted against men at the detriment of women.

http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2807&cid=3&sid=105

lepidopteryx:

Yes I was imprisoned by law and kept isolated from society, as a women/mother who was single I had no freedom of choice my life was to be governed by the state whether I liked it or not. Freedom and liberty was only for the so-called educated and feminist. Refusing to adhere to this notion almost cost me my life in a supposedly free and democratic country.

Gender feminists are both male and female who think that patriarchy is demonic. I believe in equality of the sexes…..but I am also facing a reality that there is a difference between the sexes in many ways. Some things a man can do better than I can and I can do some things better than he can……we complement instead of envy each other. I personally have no issues that a man makes more money than I do. I say more power to him....this does not stop me from doing the things that I know that I am good at and learn how he does it.

I am darn sure that our strengths and weaknesses are not the genitals. True equality does not come from idealizing envy. I am a very independent person and don’t view men as my ultimate oppressor. I never gave men the opportunity to abuse and oppress me….I always made my own money and never depended on a man to take care of me. I am an individual and not every female walking the face of the earth as gender feminist categorize people based on their genitals.

Hate crimes legislation is being passed in the United States but since the United States is not an Island it is bound to spill over its borders and it is. What happens here affects the rest of the world as simple as that. I had to come to that conclusion myself. I escaped the horrors of one country thinking things like that don’t happen over here but was I wrong. When a scholar and gender feminist (I was not fully aware of their agenda at that time) in the Netherlands told me that women in the United States were extremists.....I thought she was just saying that because women in the Netherlands were not visibly assertive (while behind the scene the so-called educated/feminist influenced government policies at the detriment of women).

When I made it my priority to pay attention and read on the issue I came to the conclusion that she had a point. Christina Hoff Somers and others have this extremism well documented. You will get a better understanding of what I am talking about when you read the book. One last point…..gender-feminist in the Netherlands advocate the sexual exploitation of girls and young women by older women/lesbians and some of these people brought their perverted thinking to the institutions of higher learning in the United States…..and I am going to leave it at this.

FreeVoice:
I'm afraid I don't quite get your meaning here. "I have been deprived of precious years of my life but I gained wisdom and understanding to know what it was all about. The people who really need healing are the gender feminist who are consumed by hatred of self and go to the extreme to oppress, destroy, kill and steal the joy of others in order to make themselves feel good.....misery loves company.....and by using the might of the government they make it legal and become untouchable."
How were you deprived of years of your life? Were you imprisoned?
What exactly is a "gender feminist?" I know both men and women who beleive in the equality of the sexes.
What exactly is this "it" that "they" make legal? Gender equality? Homosexuality? I seriously doubt that you would wish either of those things to be illegal, so please tell me what your antecedents for these pronouns are.

"in reality you do not get protection if you do not fit the stereotype of the pitiful feeling sorry for yourself, crying racism till kingdom come black woman who claims to be a
feminist/atheist/socialist."
If a co-worker and I have the same job title, same levels of education, expereince, and ability, and he gets paid more for the same work simply because he's male, it is not "feeling sorry for myself" if I demand equal pay for equal work. It is justice. The same goes for discrimination based on race or sexual orientation. If you're willing to put up with such behavior directed toward you and tell yourself that you're stronger than those who seek remediation of the situation, enjoy your martyrdom. But it sounds to me like you're either scared to make waves because you don't want people to think you're a "whiner" or you've just given up.
I talk about incidents in the United States because we're talking about hate crimes legislation being passed by the United States Congress. Exactly what "political agenda of people that is shaping the culture of death and destruction which goes the world over" are you referring to? Who exactly is advcating the death and destruction of straight women (which seems to be your contention).
Thank you for the book recommendation - I'm not familiar with the title or the author, but I'll check it out.
And I had a lovely Mother's Day celebration with my husband, my daughter, and my parents.

lepidopteryx:

“Wow, someone has hurt you really badly, and that sucks. I wish you healing for your pain and your anger. BUt that doesn't change the fact that you are mistaken regarding BGLT issues.”

I am not consumed by anger and hatred but consider myself blessed by the grace of God. In the midst of adversity I maintained my integrity and never compromised my principles and I am healthy and of sound mind. I can tell you that I am correct in my assesment regarding BGLT issues because the information is out there. Seek and you will find....in San Fran & NY the taxpayers pay. In the Netherlands illegal Romenians go on welfare and taxpayers finance their operation.

I have been deprived of precious years of my life but I gained wisdom and understanding to know what it was all about. The people who really need healing are the gender feminist who are consumed by hatred of self and go to the extreme to oppress, destroy, kill and steal the joy of others in order to make themselves feel good.....misery loves company.....and by using the might of the government they make it legal and become untouchable.

“As a black woman, there are laws to protect you from discrimination and harm based on your skin color and your gender.”

This is a great misconception.....in reality you do not get protection if you do not fit the stereotype of the pitiful feeling sorry for yourself, crying racism till kingdom come black woman who claims to be a
feminist/atheist/socialist.

In today’s world some women are more equal than others courtesy of the gender Nazi Gestapo.

You talk about incidents that happen to people in public in the United States because of the ignorance that abounds but I am talking about the political agenda of people that is shaping the culture of death and destruction which goes the world over. What I encountered is not an incident that happened because of one persons wickedness but it comes from a particular mindset not limited to a person and a country……it is a world wide phenomena.

You should read Who Stole Feminism? How women have betrayed women by Christina Hoff-Sommers to get the picture. If you are concerned and want to make a change you should make an effort. Happy mother’s day….:-))

Freevoice:
Wow, someone has hurt you really badly, and that sucks. I wish you healing for your pain and your anger. BUt that doesn't change the fact that you are mistaken regarding BGLT issues.

For starters, the TS men that I know all paid for their gender reassignment procedures out of their own pockets. They were not covered by insurance. To my knowledge, they are not covered by Medicaid either. Folks who are born in the wrong body and don't have the funds to change that are s-o-l.

A little clarification on waht I meant by identity-based persecution seems to be in order. You don't base your identity on your skin color or your gender or your orienatation, and that's a good thing. You're right - identity is so much more than that. But only a few decades ago, you would not have been able to use certain public restrooms, or water fountains, or even sit at certain lunch counters because someone else DID identify you based solely on the color of your skin. No other aspect of your total person would have mattered to them.
I am white and live in the Deep South. Not long ago, my daughter was dating a black young man. Only a few decades ago, for the two of them to hold hands in public could have resulted in him being lynched because someone identified him based solely on the color of his skin. No other aspect of his total person would have mattered to a lynch mob.
Today, two men or two women holding hands in public are at risk of being physically attacked because someone else identifies them based solely on their attraction to the same sex. No other aspect of their total person matters to the attacker.
A man walking down the street in a dress is at risk of being physically attacked because someone else identifies him based solely on his clothing. No other aspect of his total person matters to the attacker.
A woman who looks "butch" or a man who looks "effeminate" or people with androgynous appearances are at risk of being attacked because someone else identifies them based solely on their appearance and mannerisms. No other aspect of their total person matters to the attacker.
As a black woman, there are laws to protect you from discrimination and harm based on your skin color and your gender. If you choose not to pursue the enforcement of these laws when they are broken, that's your decision. But if you opt to go into a war zone without a bullet-proof vest, it doesn't mean that you can demand that no one else be allowed to have one, calling it special treatment when others seek the protection you refused.

LEPIDOPTERYX

I come from an anything and everything goes ultra liberal culture that is supposedly tolerant but yet not everybody has the same rights.

BGLT are not looking for special rights? They do too and they use the government to get what they want. Here is their contradiction….the government needs to stay out of their bedroom but yet they want government (taxpayers) to pay for their sex change and all other demands…how is that not wanting special treatment? The same way that black people are now looking for special treatment based on skin color and others jumping on the bandwagon to claim special treatment based on their religion or their non-believe in God….don’t you see how nutty this is......and it will never stop because knowing human nature…it is never enough for some. If its not one thing it is another.

BGLT want “The right to protection from identity-based persecution”…..and here is the problem…..the gender lobby in their quest to deconstruct society is pushing the agenda that people their identity is based on their gender and sexuality. I do not subscribe to this notion because myself worth is not defined by my gender, sexual orientation or skin color for that matter. I have been to hell and back as an individual (committee of one) but there is no lobby or law that protects me from this non-sense….and I sure am not the only one…the countless others are suffering in silence but I simply refuse to be oppressed by the counter culture.

I am not dismissing homosexual relationships….I was fortunate to have friendships with gays……I did not get to know them based on their sexual orientation….but simply for who they are as human beings. Special legislation to protect certain groups of people in a free society with many laws on the books is simply demanding special treatment. I am not looking for special treatment because I don’t want the government dictating my private life as simple as that.

Jihadist:

Gays do their thing and use the might of the government but its invisible to the rest of the population.

Freevoice

Right now, if one is a black Muslim lesbian, life must be hell, hell, hell.

Frankly I've never heard of American gays physically bashing anyone, including blacks. Gays are the ones getting bashed verbally and physically, by every homophobes regardless of gender, race, religion and political affiliations.

Regards

My apologies for my misidentification of your gender and orientation.

I don't know what background you come from where straight women are vilified.

As for lesbians hating men, none of the lesbians I know hate men. Infact, the lesbians I know all have straight male friends. They just don't have any desire to have sex with a man.

Among my friends and extended family there are 18 gay men, 12 lesbians, 7 bisexual women, I bisexual man, and 3 female-to-male transsexuals that I can name off the top of my head. These are my relatives, friends from my church, co-workers, my daughter's classmates, etc. - people I interact with on a regular basis. Every one of these people says that they did not choose their orientation. And yet, in some parts of the country - indeed, in some areas of my city, they risk grievous bodily harm if they stroll hand-in-hand down the street with the love of their lives. How is that not persecution?

BGLT people aren't looking for special rights. They want the same rights that everyone else is. The right to marry the person they love and to have that marriage legally recognized as such. The right to protection from identity-based persection.

And please don't dismiss all homosexual relationships as mere lust. Some of the same-sex couples I know have been together for decades. Mere lust doesn't last that long. Love, on the other hand, does.

lepidopteryx,

Please don't take my words out of context....I am a female and mother and attracted to men.......and this is what I said “which SOME of them just took on as a life style and political choice." It didn't come from me but from the horse’s mouth.

I did not choose my sexuality......but according to this gender lobby my sexuality was forced upon me by society which is totally bogus......as a mother I was also a dirty woman....because clean women don't sleep with men. Can you imagine what this non-sense does to ones psyche? I had to constantly defend myself for being female, mother, single, straight and black. Where I come from lesbians are holier than thou other women simply do not exist.

Equating my skin color with the sexual orientation of others to benefit a particular political agenda is insulting my intelligence. Claiming that lesbians are the most oppressed women in society, is also totally out of whack….because those women have a passionate hatred for men. I personally have no issues with people’s sexual orientation because what you do in your bedroom is none of my business…..but I do have an issue when people use their sexuality to gain special treatment or favor….straight women do the same thing using their sexuality as a power tool.

I am straight and it never crossed my mind to sleep with women……but some people clearly make that choice out of lust….and that is beastly instinct….if it feels good to it. As an individual I set boundaries for myself I don’t have to follow all that is en vogue in the cultural landscape. People have the right to do as they please but when they start exploiting the misery of others for their own gain you have a problem……and that is exactly what the gay/lesbian lobby is doing….when it comes to equating their sexual orientation with the skin color of black people…..using the mistreatment of black people gives them leverage to force their will down peoples throat….because it all boils down to power.

Freevoice:
"On the other hand I think that the gay/lesbian lobby is also taking things to the extreme to equate people’s skin color with their sexual orientation which some of them just took on as a life style and political choice is ridiculous."

What makes you think that sexual orientation is a choice? I'm assuming that you are a straight male - please correct me if I am mistaken. If so, did you consciously choose to be attracted to women? Could you will yourself to be attracted to a man? If the answer to either of these questins is "No," then how can you say that orientation is a choice? if you did not choose your own, then why do you assume that anyone with a different orientation from yours must have chosen it?
I am a straight female. I did not choose to be. As puberty set in, I was attracted to men. I could choose to hae sex with a woman, but that would not make me a lesbian, because I am not sexually attracted to women. It would make me a straight woman who had sex with someone to whom I was not attracted. Marrying a woman to whom he is not sexually attracted and having children with her does not make a gay man straight. It makes him a gay man married to a woman to whom he is not attracted, and it makes him a gay father. Orientation is in the attraction, not the action.

"Nobody chooses to be born a certain skin color or ethnicity so putting their sexual orientation on the same level as the denegration of people based on their skin color is worse than calling somebody the N...word or ho."
So gay-bashing is the fault of the bashee? My friend whose face I had to put back together will be interested to learn that he could have avoided that whole nasty incident just by not being gay. Just like Emmett Till could have avoided being lynched just by not being black.

Some Christians take their religion to the extreme just like other people do. They use the word to sooth their own fears and insecurities. On the other hand I think that the gay/lesbian lobby is also taking things to the extreme to equate people’s skin color with their sexual orientation which some of them just took on as a life style and political choice is ridiculous. Nobody chooses to be born a certain skin color or ethnicity so putting their sexual orientation on the same level as the denegration of people based on their skin color is worse than calling somebody the N...word or ho. According to Lesbians they are the most oppressed women in society.....women with children are dirty and non-existent. In the hate crime legislation pregnant women were excluded as a protected group....that tells me that some lives are worth more than others and that violence against people that doesn’t benefit their political agenda does not matter....as simples as that.

Hatred always begets hatred there are no two ways about it.

While I would agree to a point with the foks who say that all crimes are hate crimes (after all, i have never heard of anyone being beaten senseless out of love), not all hate is equal.
I recall several years ago, when I lived a few blocks from a well-known gay bar. One morning about 3:00, there was a knock at my door. Not being accustomed to visitors at that hour, I asked through the door who was there. I heard the voice of a good friend of mine who happened to be a gay man. It's a good thing he had identified himself before I opened the door, or I would not hae recognized the filthy, bloody urine-soaked mass of flesh on my doorstep. He had been jumped in the parking lot of the bar by three guys, beaten, urinated on, and left barely conscious. How he managed to make it to my place, I still don't know, since he had no vehicle. I wanted to take him to an ER, but he refused. The hospital would be required by law to call the police, and he knew all too well the general sentiment of our local gendarmes regarding gay-bashings. As an ex-inlaw of mine in law enforcement put it, "Why should we waste our time every time some little fagg0t (since WaPo does censor some text) gets his as$ kicked? They just need to learn to fight like men instead of girls." My friend knew that I worked in an animal hospital and could provide him with first aid, so he came to me. I took his reeking clothes from him, and, helped him to sponge himself off, and gave him a pair of my sweatpants and a t-shirt to put on. Did I mention that it three guys jumped one who was 5'4" and about 130 lbs? I soaked a pair of eyebrow tweezers, nail scissors, white cotton thread, and a sewing needle in rubbing alcohol, and spent the next couple of hours picking gravel and broken glass out of his face, and trimming ragged edges of cuts and stitching them together. I had a bottle of codeine tablets left over from a recent surgery I had had, and I gave him those to dull the pain.
While the coward who did this to him deliberately picked a victim who was small and alone, they knew that everyone he knew would find out what had happened. As someone else said, it was not merely directed at him, any more than a lynching is directed only at the man on the end of hte rope. It's intended to send a message to an entire group of people - "You could be next." In that sense, hate crime is a form of terrorism, and is different from other crimes, and does need to be dealt with differently.
As for the religious right claiming that hate crime legislation would infringe on their right to practice their religion, I fail to see how. Many Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin. They are free to believe that, and they are free to preach that from their pulpits. But they do not have the right to get up in a gay man's face and berate him for his homosexuality, and they are certainly not free to do him violence or to instruct their congregations to do violence for it. One person's right to speak does not in any way obligate another to listen.
The KKK is alive and well here in the south and the benighted idiots still believe that inter-racial marriage is a sin. They have the right to believe that. They have the right to preach it from their pulpits. David Duke can even wear his sheet if he wants to. They do not have the right to accost my black friend and her white husband and harass them, nor do they have the right to burn crosses on their lawn, and they certainly do not have the right to do them violence or to instruct their congregations to do so.
In other words, as long as the practice of your faith does not include violence, then hate crimes legislation won't affect your ability to practice it.

I haven't been around much because the Mormon question doesn't really interest me, it just seems like an invitation to badmouth other peoples beliefs...

One more time, there is a big difference between members of the right-wing "Libertarian Party" and those with philosophically libertarian leanings. Paganplace, I continue to suspect we support and oppose many of the same practical solutions. I made the J.S.Mill comment assuming you would know exactly what it meant. You are one of the more thoughtful people who posts here (in general most of the neo-pagans here take a much more Christ-like attitude than many of the so-called Christians) which is why I keep trying to explain myself. OF COURSE it is everyone's responsibility to respect others and to give what assistance you can when you can. One of the reasons I am uncomfortable with increasing government action is that it encourages individual citizens to think they don't have to be personally involved in solving problems because some distant bureaucrat will take care of it.

Terra, I cited J.S.Mill because of his argument that the more the government provides, the less individual citizens become willing to take on. We should know enough to be hurt and offended by hateful speech whether or not it is directed at our own group or at a group we consider strange, and we should each consider it a personal responsibility to refuse to put up with it. Too much of what goes wrong lately is because our thick web of laws makes people think that anything at all is permitted as long as there is no law against it.

As the comments about the Netherlands have pointed out, the downside of a tolerant society is that it becomes harder to socially isolate those whose views should be found abhorrent. I don't have a solution to the problem except that I know the answer is not more conformity.

I guess we really need two general and enforceable laws: Don't be a jerk, and Don't hurt anybody.

Doesn't it say somewhere that we are to receive equal protection under the law. EQUAL protection. I am not saying that laws are currently being enforced equally for all people. But I don't think we need another law to make that happen.

Jihadist

I am still in this threat because it is of interest...:-))

Pim Fortuyn was labeled a right-wing bogeyman to scare people but I am falsifying that notion…the Dutch media and the rest of the establishment smeared a man not because he was a threat to minorities but because he was a threat to the extreme left/social democrat’s a.k.a liberals who dominate the political arena. They decide who gets what and who does not. Liberty and freedom is only for a selected few. The rest of the world bought into the hype and biggest lie in Dutch history and now they all look like fools. The same people who labeled Pim Fortuyn right-wing put Hirsi Ali on the map to bash Islam the religion because she pledged allegiance to the Atheist manifesto and because it makes things easy for them, they don't have to say what they really think. Pim Fortuyn simply exposed their hypocricy that's all...and he left a legacy behind that tells the story in full detail.

FYI: I am not the one who came up with Christo-colonialism…..and as far as Islamo-fascism goes I call it as I see it. I got into this subject not from a scholar’s perspective but from the school of hard knocks my friend. When you know, that you know, that you know, you don’t have to play mind games and be politically correct. History is simply repeating itself and I face that reality.

To me Islamo-fascism is a toxic mix of Marxist thought and religion. Religion on top of religion. A big perverted mess. The Ism’s floating around are put in motion by falsehoods and manipulation and perverted thought and it's better to call the beast by the name before the corrupt word becomes flesh that you can’t handle.

Gaby,

I think you are misunderstanding me. I know the thought police is here but they do not have as much weight over here as they would like to that's why I say America is a free country.

Now comes the big Q who is the thought police in the United States?

The Dutch are not a window to Europe? Do you know that the United States is slowly but surely adapting the Ultra of the Netherlands....according to some thinktanks they are the trendsetters in Europe. Even the Supreme court is picking up on those trends. The extreme-left has formed a transatlantic partnership with their Democrat counterparts in the US and they have been influencing things....you would only know that if you paid attention to those details. I know because I've been upclose!

Freevoice:

I live in the US we as well. And if you for one moment believe that we don't have the same thing that is going on in Europe right here at home at home, you are naive.

WE have the same political correctness police right here and are constantly being told how we must accept and respect everything and everyone for fear of offending. You want to talk thought police?

I respect everyone's right to believe and act as they wish as long as they do not infringe on anyone eleses rights. But I expect that same courtesy afforded to me and my believes.

And no, the Dutch are not a window for Europe. They have always be viewed as ultra-liberal by most other European nations.

And I'm sorry if any of that anger comes off as ill-directed. But I hear a lot of people acting like the people who are *against* civil rights and justice for Americans, and use their religious authority to *sow* fear and hatred are somehow the *victims* when they're criticized for *supporting hate crimes.*

Real ones. Ones like I was trying to recover from when they hastened to tell their followers in a nation traumatized after 9/11 that if they'd only not been 'tolerant' of Pagans and secularists and non-straights, then the attack never would have happened.

So, yeah. It does make me pretty furious.

These people neither need nor deserve defending.

It's to our shame as a nation they weren't repudiated, ridiculed, and then roundly ignored.

I'm not even going to *dignify* the claims of 'Oh, secularists questioned me! I'm such a victim! They won't let me control them! I'm a victim! Don't protect people who harm none and just happen to violate my religious tabooes! They oppress me by not obeying me! They want 'Special Rights' to not be singled out by *me* cause I think my prejudices are right, this time, even if the same things didn't work out to be true about the Irish or the Catholics or the Jews or the blacks! It's got to be right *some* time!'

Yabber, yabber, yabber.

This means you, or Jerry Falwell, is 'oppressed' cause they're worried if more of what people do at their behest was seen as *the hate crimes they are,* then, what... you lose yourself, somehow?

Sounds like a self worth *losing* if you're that dependent upon the feeling that some of the *real* hate crimes I happen to have seen and been subjected to are so *unimportant,* compared to how you felt when 'secular' person didn't bow to your assertions of authority over others...

We're talking about *real* violence and *real* oppression, here, not some Fox News sense that 'Christianity is under 'attack' cause the Wal Mart greeters don't refer to our holiday exclusively!'

Forget about the words. These preachers consider it an 'attack on their religion' if a Pagan claims *not* to be the baby-killing, animal-sacrificing Satanist they make so much money defaming her as. Or a gay person says, 'Umm, no, not like your propaganda says I am, no.'

Then they go talking about some abstract 'loss of freedom' for them if what is *obviously* a frequent motivation for hate crime (against people they marginalize themselves) *is recognized as a hate crime.*

Pardon the vehemence, but this is supposed to be *America.*

Equal protection under the law.
Land of the free. Home of the brave.

I *demand* free.

And I *expect* a little guts.

Don't whine about, 'Oh, the big bad secularists disrespected mah authoritay'.

Not. Your. Authority.

This is about *justice.* Here in the world.

To "ANONYMOUS" who wrote the following and for everyone's further enlightenment, please visit www.WouldJesusDiscriminate.com and read the whole thing...maybe it will plant a few seeds. But first, I can tell you that I will relish in the day that there is more definitive evidence that sexual orientation is biological, which any gay person will tell you, or anybody with half a brain will tell you,...is true. Then where will this argument go? The truth is, it's not the Bible, but the person reading it that has a problem with homosexuality.

ANONYMOUS SAID

Oh really, Jesus never annulled the Old Testament proscriptions against homosexual relations. Part of loving your neighbor is admonishing them to turn away from their sins. You don't have a clue about what Jesus meant when he
said love your neighbor. The very idea of "sexual orientation" is a Marxist construct invented by Harry Hay and other Marxists/postmodernists to sell the phony notion that homosexuality is equivalent to race. It's a behavioral inclination, not an inanimate set of physical or cultural characteristics. Why shouldn't we grant special protections for other behavioral inclinations such as smoking, compulsive gambling, consensual incest, etc.? Why not add smoking orientation, gambling orientation, eating orientation, etc., to the hate crimes law?

The sad thing for religion in America is that as the religious right polarizes the country with their hatred and bigotry, an equal an opposite reaction is occuring: more people are GIVING UP organized religion or giving up on religion altogether. When religion accepts GLBT people for who they are (and I'm not talking about just tolerance but ACCEPTANCE) then religion will be serving it's higher purpose. Gays have ALWAYS been around and always will be, so I've always found it ironic (and sad) that the very churches who rail about the supposedly "immoral" lifestyles of GLBT people, while at the same time marginalizing those individuals, end up helping to contribute to the very problems that their supposed "loving" churches disdain. And...it's no secret that teen suicide is proportionately higher among GLBT youth. Is that what Jesus would want? I don't think so.

Signed: A very happy, never-done-drugs, professional, accepted-by-my-loving-family, GAY MAN. (For you bigots out there, does it make you mad that I'm actually happy?)

Paganplace, as a Catholic I have put up with some hateful comments by protestants, but nothing like the hateful comments I have recieved from the free thinking, open minded, tolerant secularists! My Church and beliefs are ridiculed on this and many more forums by all kinds of compassionate gays, humanists, and liberal "Christians". Some even state how they hope Christians are wiped from the face of the Earth, or that how much better it would be if there were no more Christians left.
There are plenty of nasty comments by people of all or no faiths! You apparently think nastyness only comes from Christians.
BTW, I said I know of nothing from the other Christian leaders mentioned, not that I don't see the problem anyway.

Freevoice:)

You're still in this thread?

By the way, the late Pim Fortuyn was a very right wing fellow.

Ease up on the labellings. Soon I'll be throwing in neo-imperialism to your Christo-colonialism.

Relax my friend, no one can force anything on you unless you let them or you want them yourself.

And I see Islamofascists already winning elections in Muncie,Indiana and putting in place Shariah laws there. And the Islamofascists having gun battles with the Ku Klux Klan who dissented their desire to establish an Islamic caliphate from Europe to North America. Or some bizarre and crazy scenario like that.

Paganplace

Please don't put words in my mouth......secularism got Europe out of Christo-colonialism.....but secularism is becoming exactly what it hates the most....an oppressive religion without GOD, giving aid and comfort to Islamo-fascism.....the truth is out there for those who can tell.

I am not worried about the rest of the world being pissed at the west; I am more worried about the self-hatred that is being imposed on people in the West....stripping them of their sense of self and depriving them of liberty and freedom of conscience. We all ready see that secularist decide that some lives are worth more than others, atheist are calling for an end to faith.....and I wonder what will be next.

Most of the times your enemy is much closer to home.....been there know that.

"secularism opened the door for Islamo-fascism."

Secularism got us out of Christo-colonialism, and the complete violent Charlie Foxtrot that was Europe just prior to the founding of America. Even then, that colonialism is why half the world's inclined to be pissed at the West in the first place.

Now, if you're saying that the only defense against 'Islamofascism' is to abandon our ideals of liberty and freedom of conscience and be more 'Christofascist,' well, you've got some selling to do, cause it doesn't look much different to me, either way.

Here's a hint, in case you missed recent centuries' lessons of history...

*stage-whisper*

Fascists *lie.*

And they have a way of getting people wound up about enemies while being sly about other things.

Gaby,

I forgot to ask in what country do you live in?

Gaby:

"In America people still have the freedom to think for themselves instead of being brainwashed by the all knowing thought police."

Hahahhaahhah!!!!!! That is the funniest thing I have read in a long time. Which country do you live in?

You will be surpised I live in the United States of America....shining city on the hill.

FYI: I know that the Dutch don't equal Europe but they are the window for one to see what is going on in Europe. Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Italy, Spain, France....Britain....secularism opened the door for Islamo-fascism.

America is still a free country believe it or not...

The Guy in the Glass

by Dale Wimbrow, (c) 1934

When you get what you want in your struggle for self,

And the world makes you King for a day,

Then go to the mirror and look at yourself,

And see what that guy has to say.

For it isn't your Father, or Mother, or Wife,

Who judgement upon you must pass.

The feller whose verdict counts most in your life

Is the guy staring back from the glass.

He's the feller to please, never mind all the rest,

For he's with you clear up to the end,

And you've passed your most dangerous, difficult test

If the guy in the glass is your friend.

You may be like Jack Horner and "chisel" a plum,

And think you're a wonderful guy,

But the man in the glass says you're only a bum

If you can't look him straight in the eye.

You can fool the whole world down the pathway of years,

And get pats on the back as you pass,

But your final reward will be heartaches and tears

If you've cheated the guy in the glass.