Hostility Toward Faith Not Limited to Catholicism

I am concerned with Huck Colsons obvious ignorance of the Catholic Churches Anti-Christ position.

Christians do face their own form of oppression in a modern day society. We live in a society that uses tolerance to justify any and all behavior. If there must be a true "live and let live" then where are we to derive any type of law. One might say we draw the line when your actions impede on mine; however, such a statement without merit in a society where the actions of others are very public. For example, public displays of sex, homosexuality, etc. very much impede on my ability to raise my children as I see fit. If I tell my child these things are wrong and he/she sees them heralded in the public forum, that very much is society impeding upon my parenting in the name of social hedonism. I am not advocating a theocracy nor do I think the Church should dictate policy; however, to think that Christians won't bring their moral code into the forum of ideas is as ridiculous as it is stupid.

When you say, "Christians are not tolerant but I am"...you are just saying I am intolerant of Christians.

Sure, I'll end with a few thoughts.

1) Truth by assertion, even when asserted by a large number of people, is often a poor guide to reality. Assertion tends to cling to and defend ideas even when they are based on discredited understandings and riddled with inconsistencies. Heretics were burned at the stake for suggesting that the earth went around the sun, an idea that emerged only from study and tests of alternative hypotheses about how celestial bodies move, hypotheses that were in direct conflict with what the religious majority had asserted. Science, by providing an objective method, has universally advanced us beyond misunderstandings about the world. To do so it has constantly fought against the unsupported assertions of religion, and is frankly the only thing that has saved us from them.

2) I have never heard a Christian explain, if we can only be saved by a relationship with Jesus, what is likely to happen to the billions of people who have never even heard of Jesus. Will they all face eternal damnation, simply as a consequence of where and when they were born? Is that the plan of a just and loving god?

3) I note the way you refer to beliefs in other religions as "stories" and "myths" that mirror the "real" god of Christianity--the irony and hypocrisy of that statement are stunning.

4) The "what if you're wrong" argument is a little silly, for several reasons. Chain letters, for example, threaten dire consequences if they are not forwarded to ten friends. Sure, there is no rational reason for you to believe that assertion--but what if you're wrong? Wouldn't it be better to just go ahead and forward the letter, just in case?

The rational mind considers the evidence and understands there is no plausible connection between what the chain letter threatens or promises and what will actually happen. We use these rational thought processes every day and in most decisions we make. The superstitious mind, in contrast, pays attention to signs that are disconnected from what it understands and makes decisions that draw no rational connection between cause and effect. At the extreme, delusion, paranoia, and fear become the basis of actions and decisions. One finds comfort and hope in thinking one has done every action possible to assure a good outcome, despite any evidence that the actions are connected to the outcome. This is the ground on which religion operates. The religious institutions that threaten dire consequences and promise salvation exploit people's fears in order to manipulate their actions including, history demonstrates, taking the vast sums of money necessary to operate the institution.

Equally as important, I think Christians need to face the "what if you're wrong" problem with as much trepidation as anyone. Here are two scenarios that seem equally plausible to yours. First, you arrive at the gates to your next life to find an entirely different god from the one you expected. Perhaps it's a group of gods, and they collectively say to you, "why did you worship a false idol? We have revealed ourselves in many ways to humans, but apparently you discounted us or never heard of us. Off to the fiery furnace with you." The odds of you, a mere mortal, having picked the right god to worship seems infintesimally small. And not having worshipped false idols, I am spared the furnace.

In a second scenario, you find the god you expect and he says, "I bestowed on you one precious life to live on a beautiful planet among other beautiful examples of my creation. I gave you, among all my creations, the ability to wonder about the world, the ability to use rational thought to make discoveries about that world, and the wisdom to learn from those discoveries. Why did you squander those gifts of reason, rejecting the discoveries of your species and failing to learn from them to improve your condition? Why did you dwell on what you perceived to be imperfections in the world and in yourselves? Why did you waste your time condemning others for not living according to the rules that you, mere mortals, decided in error were my rules? Why were you taken in by that fellow Jesus, a human, who claimed to be my son (as have so many others), and then supported the monolithic institutions perpetrated by his followers?

"Why did you waste the one precious I gave you just to prepare for some hypothetical next one? It seems you've already wasted one, you seem least deserving of another."

Rafael,

This will be my last post, but I will look for your response if you should desire to write a closing statement.

You write as though the fact that I believe in a Divine Entity places me in the minority of the global population. Roughly 1/3 of the Earth's population associates itself, in some way, with Christianity, while a vast majority of the remainder has "stories" and "myths" referencing something godlike in which they place their trust.

It would seem to me as though you are among the enlightened few who've succeeded in existing apart from the intoxicating effects of the great opiate of the masses.

So, what if you're right? How does that impact me? I'll continue to live, satisfied in my religious stupor, deriving meaning from my simplistic view on life (and afterlife) until the immaterial essence of my life ceases to exist as my synapses stop firing. The end. However much good I've done will be my legacy until a new social contract takes effect and I'm judged anew by an evolved moral convention.

But, what if I'm right? You'll go on living, satisfied by whatever it is that satisfies you, leaving behind a legacy of proving the existence of things through tangible scientific evidence. You'll have lived a life free from the fetters of faith, yet constrained by biological impulses beyond your control.

But, when your synapses cease to exist, you'll no longer have your intellect to demand evidence for the existence of the God you'll be facing.

My friend, you have a wrong idea about the Gospel. You describe God as being a narcissistic sovereign who arbitrarily determines an individual's worthiness for eternal existence in heaven or hell. The Bible describes it much differently.

It very clearly sums up anything we need to know about our worthiness: we are not worthy, because all men have sin and have fallen short of God's standard (Romans 3:23). There is no man that can do enough good, or be righteous enough to measure up (Romans 3:10). We don't have to wait to know our destiny, because it is already determined - the wages of sin is death and we have been condemned (Romans 6:23, John 3:18).

Rafael, how do we know how much a gallon holds, or how long an inch is? We have standard weights and measures that we can compare it against. The Bible teaches that God is perfect, and therefore is the standard that we fall short of. "How bold and arrogant," you say. Have you been able to live up perfectly to your biology driven standard? Have you ever done something that would ultimately be contrary to good biological reason? The Bible calls that shortfall sin. True, sin doesn't have DNA or a chemical formula. If you choose to deny its existence, that's fine. But at least understand correctly what the Bible says about it. I'm including verse references so you can check and see that I'm not merely re-interpreting it through a modern lens.

The Bible says that works done in this life cannot merit heaven, or serve as an escape from hell(Romans 3:20, Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5). Therefore, they don't serve as my motivation. My motivation is gratitude and love (does love have DNA?). Simple faith in Jesus Christ changes man's sinful nature into one that is covered by the righteousness of Christ (John 3:16-18, 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter 2:24). He died for us, even when we were sinners, because He loved us (Romans 5:8, 1 John 4:10).

God then offers this salvation to man, for free to whoever will call on Him and ask (Romans 6:23, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 10:9-10,13).

You may be certain that you have this life, but can you really be certain that this life ends at death? Do you have hard evidence of what happens after death?

What if you're wrong?

Our conversation has taken many dips and turns, and I don't think anyone else is still tracking this to see what we think about discrimination against Catholics :). I wish you the best - and I would certainly never desire to impose my beliefs upon you. But, because I think I'm right, it would be uncaring of me not to share it with you.

Explore the verses I've posted. See if my explanation more accurately reflects the teaching of the Bible than that of the Christianity you've been exposed to that you so despise.

May the love of God capture your heart and expose you to worlds previously unkown.

~Jeremy

JB, I don't know of any evidence for the assumptions that would support the existence of sin as defined by Christians. I see no reason to believe in stories that people make up if they provide no evidence. But I reject the logical fallacy you draw from that premise that we are therefore accountable to no one. I am accountable to all the people whose lives I affect. That accountability underlies my sense of responsibility to do good things with my life, the only one I'm certain I'll ever have.

As I recall, I derived a lot of joy, comfort, and connection to actions larger than myself from believing that the tooth fairy cared about me enough to leave a quarter under my pillow. Fairy tales that make enchanted promises are comforting, and Christianity offers a whopper of a promise--just do what the book says (or at least the current interpretation of what it says--apparently including insisting that everyone else do what the book says) and you will be rewarded after you are dead. I find this view of life unbearably cynical concerning the joys that we are meant to experience in this world. I take a dim view of a supernatural being that creates life as one big test of our worthiness once we step up to the throne for judgment. And I find it demoralizing to hear people say that their only source of personal responsibility, their only motivation to be good to others in this life, comes from wanting to avoid hell in the next one.

I did answer your Hitler/rape questions. I rejected your premise that a sense of outrage at such acts must arise from some supernatural and universal force--there are perfectly good biological reasons to feel revulsion at suffering, human or otherwise. I also pointed out that slavery has been condoned by Christianity in the Bible as well as in our country's recent history, even as you now profess a sense of universal moral outrage over it. Rape and murder are also acts that have been condoned by Christianity, directly in the Bible as well as in practice. The reality, if you care to take note of history, is that moral values change, in Christianity as in all belief systems, and are certainly not universal across cultures.

Your devotion to finding inner peace in one especially comforting myth reminds me of the old joke about dropping a quarter on one side of the street but looking for it on the other side because the light is better over there. Because you struggle with difficult questions, you are willing to accept fantastical and salvational answers, despite the lack of evidence and solely, it seems, based on what they promise. You can't bear the idea of existence "by chance," so you replace that sense of chance with a fantastical story that offers something that seems "hopeful" in its mystery. Clearly you have experienced the gnawing, the void, and the aching that lead you to such needs, but why do you assume that what you feel is universal? I'm going to guess that you keep company with people who feel similar pain and have found similar types of relief, but as with all of your professed universals, your experience lends itself to a remarkably narrow view of the diversity of people in this world and the diverse meanings they find in living.

To answer your final question, my interests in these topics are both personal and professional.

Rafael,

By the way, what is your profession? You seem to me to be a rather learned individual...job related or personal study?

~JB

Rafael,

There is so much we could talk about, but there is truly one issue at the heart of the matter.

If we are merely matter, and if we have not been designed, and if there is no Being by whom moral standards are established, then there is no sin. In this case, we can absolve ourselves of the guilt we feel from years of making wrong choices, for we are accountable to no one. At death, we cease to exist, our matter is recycled, and we face no divine judge.

Yet, if there is a God who designed us and who establishes moral standards, then one day we must face Him and give an account.

Why did you not answer the Hitler/rape questions? Is it because you know that if you admit these acts were/are wrong - truly absolutely evil - then you too would be measured by a moral code that is unbending?

If you truly believe that Adolph Hitler, the Dictator who slaughtered millions, did not commit atrocities that are universally immoral, then I fear your humanity has in fact been put under subjection to your intellect.

Do these questions not gnaw at your soul? Does the void within you that only God can fill not ache for satisfaction?

Of what significance are your arguments, anyhow, if you exist simply by chance? They hold no implications beyond your temporary amusement.

Yet I have confidence in a hope that is eternal. I have peace with God through my Savior, Jesus Christ. My life has meaning, as it is lived for a God that has given it purpose.

You are content to trust in chance - a mathematical factor. It works well in a calculator, but what else. My God speaks to me through His Word, guides my steps by His Holy Spirit within me.

My life has been transformed by Him. The things I sought to satisfy my longing for meaning all left me empty. I pursued, and I achieved, and yet I wanted more. In Christ, I am satisfied.

I invite you to objectively explore what I'm talking about. Read through the Gospel of John - not seeking to dissect, but to understand.

I've enjoyed our discussion.

God bless.

JB, the problem isn't your lack of evidence. Our senses overload us with evidence that we must organize according to assumptions (or presuppositions, as you call them). People who think a burnt pancake is holy because they see the face of Jesus base that belief on evidence and assumptions. Children who believe the tooth fairy left them a quarter also base that belief on evidence and assumptions. The fact that two belief systems have both evidence and assumptions is hardly a basis for the claim that they have equal standing as explanations of the natural world.

What "your camp" lacks is not evidence, but an objective method for determining whether evidence supports or refutes your ideas. When you say, "Is "science" as you call it, really as exhaustive in its resevoir of knowledge as you think it is?" you reveal again a profound but common misunderstanding of what science is and what it does. Science is not a collection of knowledge, it is a method. The method evaluates evidence for explanations both by testing cause and effect predictions and by testing assumptions that underlie those interpretations of cause and effect. The method rejects poor explanations in favor of better ones. Your camp has no basis for seeking "equity in [y]our scientific explanations" because you don't offer any. Your "explanations" have no explanatory power because you do not employ an objective method to reach them.

I am willing to accept your statement that the universe is amoral (though I'm not exactly sure what that means, how can a "universe" be moral or amoral? Honest or dishonest?) What I reject are your claims about what this position implies. Practices that appear nearly universal can become that way simply because they work nearly universally. It turns out, not surprisingly, that living things generally benefit, in an evolutionary sense, from playing by similar rules, the kinds of universals you want to ascribe to something fantastical and otherworldly.

These rules apply not just to humans but to all living things. So, for example, genetic mixing is demonstrably favorable to the ability of offspring to adapt to changing environments (in most but not all cases), which helps to explain why sexual reproduction is so widespread (though not universal) among living things. Similarly, animals that live in complex societies benefit from recognizing individuals and behaving according to rituals that improve their chances of surviving and reproducing. Rituals that reciprocally preserve life, property and paternity can easily emerge under a widespread set of conditions.

As is often the case, the examples that teach us the most come from exceptions to these rules. For example, Christians like to proclaim that marriage was designed by God to involve one man and one woman, and that any violation of that rule violates a rule of absolutely morality. The unfortunate reality is that while monogamy is widespread, polygyny is culturally accepted or preferred in the vast majority of human societies(e.g. 83% according to _Ethnographic Atlas_). Polyandry, on the other hand, is rare but favored under certain conditions. Scientists have found support for ecological explanations for this variation, related to the control and distrubtion of resources and the costs of raising offspring in different societies. Do these patterns reveal moral absolutes? You and other Chrisitians who say we must rely on 2000 year old assertions written in a book might hope so for the sake of the book, but the evidence doesn't support you.

Finally, let me turn your question about historical relativism back to you. Would you claim that Christianity as a set of beliefs and practices will never in the future be found in violation of moral absolutes? At times in human history, slavery and female subjugation, for example, were not only practiced widely but claimed to reflect the natural order. And I'm sure I don't have to remind you that Christianity was at the forefront of pushing these moral standards. You raise slavery as an examnple of a practice we now, in our advanced moral sensibility, find objectionable. Doesn't it seem possible that other rigid, arrogant, absolutist, subjugational stances of Christianity will be found to be obviously morally objectionable in the future?

Rafael,

First, I'd like to thank you for engaging in civil debate, without resorting to character attacks. I've enjoyed this discussion very much.

The matters we're discussing are extremely difficult to encapsulate in a forum - volumes have been written and yet debate rages on. There are arguments you've made that I disagree with and have the sources to back it up. You would likely have similar sources that counteract mine. We could debate forever, but that would be silly. Regarding the Founding Fathers, suffice it to say that there were many Founding Fathers who were not merely deists, but were in fact Christians, and that Christian heritage strongly influenced their decisions. Now, on to graver matters.

Again, you're not considering the entirety of Biblical teaching. The Bible itself addresses your question regarding punishment. The OT Law was a contract between God and the Jewish people, a matter of the Jewish theocracy as recorded in the OT. However, the application changed with Christ. The New Testament teaches that the purpose of the law was not the strict enforcement of rules, but rather was to expose mankind's inability to keep those rules - it was to show us our own sinfulness (Galatians 3:24, Romans 5:20). The Gospel of John records an incident where the Jews were seeking to enforce their law upon a woman caught in adultery. Jesus said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." The Jews having dispersed, He then said to the woman, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you? Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more." His purpose wasn't to condemn the sinner, but to save him/her (John 3:16-17). But, someone who doesn't know they have a problem doesn't look for help. Hence, the law. It isn't applied similarly today because (1)We are not the Jewish Theocracy wherein it was established (2)That's not its purpose and (3) the Bible says that the penalty for sin is eternal death. Sin will be punished - it must, for it violates God's holy character. The Good News is that God has already poured out His punishment for sin on Jesus and that through faith in His substitutionary death on the cross and resurrection to eternal life, we too can have eternal life with Him, our sins having been dealt with. Our account will be purged, and we can have peace with God.

If I didn't explain this clearly enough please ask more. I'd love to help you understand better or attempt to explain myself more clearly.

My discussion of "faith" in a chair was not meant as a direct comparison but as a simple illustration. Therefore, I'll go deeper.

We all operate from presuppositions. They are the foundation upon which we build our worldview. Christians presuppose that God always has been, and from Him all things exist. Materialists presuppose that matter and energy have always existed, and that from them all things exist. Either way, something has had to always exist. That something can be called The Great First Cause.

You believe that matter and energy are The Great First Cause and have always existed because you look around and see matter and energy at work. You can touch it and feel it. From that basis, you believe that random chance, and beneficial mutations (simplified, I know) over eons of time have led us to where we are.

I believe that an intelligent being always was because I see evidence of design in the matter and energy. I understand that systems left to themselves break down over time, not improve. I recognize that genetic mutations (chromosomal disorders) have disastrous effects on species.

We both have evidence in our favor. We both have flawed human beings who interpret this evidence with bias. To spend time arguing this is wasteful. My camp seeks equity in our scientific arguments. Your camp claims superiority and excludes ours. At the core, however, are presuppositions - belief systems that incline us one way or the other. That, my friend, is faith. My God has intellect, purpose. Your god is just stuff that happened to interact with other stuff.

Is "science" as you call it, really as exhaustive in its resevoir of knowledge as you think it is? Just consider the things we don't have answers to. Can science concretely describe how matter formed into a body has the intagible quality of life? Can science replicate life by infusing inanimate matter with it?

Regarding the social contract, you wrote, "Of course the social contract we follow is purely a man-made convention--there is no need to invoke anything more fantastical. Different societies follow entirely different social contracts, and we are just one of many animals that live by social contracts." Are you saying then, that we live in an amoral universe? Are you saying there are no transcendant moral absolutes? Consider the implications:

(1)If there are no transcendant moral absolutes, then the Holocaust was only wrong because it offended our Western convention. Hitler, and those that agreed with him, would not have been wrong.
(2) Slavery would only be wrong because it offended an even more contemporary convention. Slaveholders would not have been wrong.
(3) This same applies to rape, theft, murder of any sort, etc.

Are you willing to say that Hitler didn't violate any absolute moral principles? Are you ready to say that what happened to slaves wasn't wrong? Are you willing to say that when a murderer cut an unborn baby out of its mother's stomach, killing the mother in the process (within the past 2 years in Connecticut), the murderer wasn't wrong? Do you really think that all they did was violate our social contract? Are these things not evil?

I would hope that these things turn your stomach, as they do mine. Generally, mankind holds these behaviors to be abominable. Is that "universal morality" simply a universal convention that could change in the future? I contend that it isn't and that it is derived from a Moral Divine Intelligent Being.

Finally, you called me a thinking, rational being. If you didn't mean it, then you're dumb for wasting your time arguing with an unthinking, irrational being. If you're sincere, then you must admit that thinking, rational people sit on the other side of the aisle and stop pretending that all of the evidence points to you. I admit that there is evidence on both sides of the debate, but I have made an informed decision from that evidence. If you haven't seen any evidence that argues for my perspective, then, my friend, you've been brainwashed with only one perspective, or you're simply biased and you have a closed mind.

Please don't consider these to be attacks, they are simply arguments I see (and at least a few others like me) as logical.

Again, I appreciate the debate and look forward to your retort.

JB, it appears I did not misunderstand at all. You wrote:
"I was intending to point out to Jim that if you are going to quote a Biblical source as representative of the entire teaching of the Bible without regard for the remainder, you are in fact misrepresenting what the Book teaches."
You've echoed my point perfectly. When you focus selectively on portions of what your good book says, you open yourself to the criticism of not fairly representing its message, especially when the parts emphasized are adjusted for modern practices. Why are the punishments no longer appropriate? Why are they not applied equally among the acts that are equally "sinful"?

The only thing that seems "foolish" is thinking you have a convincing argument for which there is no objective evidence. Of course the social contract we follow is purely a man-made convention--there is no need to invoke anything more fantastical. Different societies follow entirely different social contracts, and we are just one of many animals that live by social contracts. Ours is written; those of many human societies are not, just like those of many animals with complex social structures.

"Christians (also known as those who framed the Constitution) still have a right to participate in their government and contend from their faith system."
I know that by claiming the founding fathers as some of your own you'd like to believe they were just like you. Our best evidence from their writings, though, is that many were deists, who would have rejected as "foolish" the supernatural aspects of Christianity and many of whom rejected Chrisianity altogether. I know you would like to reinvent the founding fathers as a group of dedicated Christian theists just because they make reference to higher powers, but the evidence doesn't support you.

"The constitution forbids the establishment of an official government religion, not the agreement between legislation and sacred writings."
You're a little short on your understanding if you think all the constitution forbids is a government religion. It also forbids the formation of policy based on the beliefs of any particular religion--as our fair-weather strict constructionists like to remind us, all the principles we need are in the document itself. Of course there can be agreement between those our policies and the beliefs of various religions--that would be a little hard to avoid, don't you think?

"Faith" that a chair will act like a chair is hardly equivalent to faith in supernatural beings. We have objective, empirical evidence that favors the former, but not the latter. More generally, your post reveals your profound misunderstanding or willful ignorance of science. I hope you will take opportunities as a thinking, rational being to learn why science is a process that guards against faith as the basis for understanding, and about the nature of evidence available to us even without the presence of a human observer.

Rafael,

You wrote, "If I understand correctly, you say we must not ignore any part of the bible when looking for guidance on behavior, lest we create a "straw man." I can see how you misunderstood what I wrote. I was intending to point out to Jim that if you are going to quote a Biblical source as representative of the entire teaching of the Bible without regard for the remainder, you are in fact misrepresenting what the Book teaches.

Often I hear people quote the Old Testament law as an argument against considering the orthodox Christian view regarding homosexuality. However, the New Testament similarly condemns the behavior as sinful (See Romans chapter 1), although the penalties of the OT Jewish law are no longer imposed. Similarly, unmarried sexual behavior is considered sin, as is indulging in lustful fantasies.

The message of the Bible, as viewed throughout its pages, is that man is sinful and that, regardless of his sin, God extends the gift of salvation from that sin for free through faith in Jesus Christ - in His substitionary death where He paid the penalty for your sin so that you might be found blameless in God's sight. Disagree with the notion if you will, but don't pretend that it isn't the overwhelming message.

You speak of a social contract as though it were simply a man-made convention. Reread our founding documents and see what basis the Founding Fathers cited. Does, "we have been endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" ring a bell? It is foolish to think that universally held moral standards did not derive from a Divine Standard-giver. You ask, "What moral standards?" How about the notion of justice that so many of you hold to - that nobody can impose their beliefs upon you, that you are free to decide for yourself, and that to usurp that freedom is wrong? God agrees. He asks you to choose freely. Or equality? If we are not created equal, and we are at various evolutionary stages, would we not in fact be unequal, with those of greater evolutionary complexity trumping the lesser? Yet God says we were created in His image, and therefore we are all equally special in His sight.

Rafael, you miscontrued my argument as one against homosexuality instead of one in favor of equal standing in the marketplace of ideas. If, as you say, the government is restricted from establishing laws that have been influenced by any particular religious belief, consequently no one would be allowed to participate in our republic. Do you think that the convictions that drive people to advocate for or against anything have no basis whatsoever? Everyone advocates from their particular worldview and their faith is a component of that worldview. Do you truly think that a person can believe fervently that something is right or wrong, and than disconnect that belief (read faith) from their actions? Do you truly believe that anyone is faithless? I contend that everyone has faith in something. Every time I sit in a chair I put my faith in that chair into action. If I were to believe in evolution, I would have to believe that matter and energy had always been and that random chance caused those eternal entities to organize into their current formation. Since no one was there to document the beginning of all things, it is simple faith placed in a conclusion drawn from available evidence that causes us to believe one way or the other. Yet, it is still nothing more than faith.

Christians (also known as those who framed the Constitution) still have a right to participate in their government and contend from their faith system. Likewise, Jews, Muslims and Wiccans have the same right. The constitution forbids the establishment of an official government religion, not the agreement between legislation and sacred writings.

P Stanley writes "I want to repent for all of the actions that I may have committed that offended others, if they are truly searching with all of their hearts to find GOD".

He makes it clear, though, that all bets are off if he doesn't think they are truly searching for his god.

Typical.

"Atheism=HATE You know more people have been murdered by atheistic regimes than by all the religious ones combined."

I don't this is entirely fair. Rome was a theistic regime, but I don't think Christians would want to be judged by the actions of the Roman Empire.

It is also worth asking whether it was the atheism of Stalin and Mao which caused their actions. Or their political ideologies. The same question can be asked about the Crusades and the Inquisitions.

Atheists do not claim that atheism always leads to good actions, but simply that it is a more rational position to hold. Theists, by contrast, generally claim their religious beliefs to lead to better conduct. Stalin's hatred and persecutions show an over-abundance of prejudice and a cold-heartedness which we see in many dictators and monarchs throughout history, but they don't undermine his rationality. The Crusades and Inquisitions, by contrast, show that religious organisations are just as likely to commit atrocities as any other organisation, and what is frightening is that those performing the inquisitions would have seen themselves as 'righteous' for doing so.

"That doesn't even including the murderous atheist regimes of Spain prior to the Spanish Civil War"

As was said earlier, Franco was Roman Catholic. The Church was more strongly opposed to communism than to facism. They considered atheism (as promoted by Marx) to be a greater evil than mass murder it seems.

G.K. Chesterton, "Atheists are the biggest bigots of them all."

How ironic.

Well, let's see. Adolph Hitler and Francisco Franco were both Roman Catholics. Mao and Stalin followed the religion of communism. The ones we have to fear are "true believers", who prefer theocracies, because they are so convinced of their righteousness.

Atheism=HATE You know more people have been murdered by atheistic regimes than by all the religious ones combined.

Atheists are fond of indicting and convicting Christianity, but they never look at all the mischief, mayhem or murder they have caused.
France during the Great Terror 40,000 murdered for their faith, including my ancestor. Nearly 100 million under Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot, etc.

That doesn't even including the murderous atheist regimes of Spain prior to the Spanish Civil War, Mexico following the Mexican Revolution, and so forth.

To quote G.K. Chesterton, "Atheists are the biggest bigots of them all."

P. Stanley: The title of the book you refer to as "Revelations" is really The Revelation to John.
Secondly, the same book is apocryphal literature, not prophecy as you seem to understand it. You might want to learn something about biblical literature and biblical criticism before you
pontificate about the Iron Age writings in the so-called Bible. Just a suggestion, as I would give to any fundamentalist Christian.

I applaud "Fat Pie 42 for their keen thoughts.
Right on.

P. Stanley,

You considered that man's sexuality to be morally wrong, and then you suddenly showed an interest in him when he was dying from AIDs. What did you expect his response to be? Not all gay men catch AIDs, so if you were linking his AIDs with his sexuality I'm sure that would have seemed insulting to him. Also, at a time like that he would have wanted to be surrounded by friends, not to be pitied by people who disrespect him for his actions.

The fact is that there are many people in society who do not believe that the Bible (Old Testament and New), the Koran, the Vedas, or the Guru Granth Sahib, are revelations from God. They do not see any reason why they should make certain moral judgements like 'homosexuality is wrong' without a rational justification - and 'God says so' doesn't cut it for them.

People of all faiths and none are generally happy to live life with boundaries. We just don't think those boundaries should be dogmatically dictated by a book written several thousand years ago (especially when judging what that book says is a matter of interpretation - and that in-of-itself can be a controversial matter).

All of the comments serve to tire me. What is life, if all we do is try to rationalize and justify our unnatural behaviors, our actions that hurt others, and our ignorance of what is still foolish both in science and the world of the "flesh". I want to repent for all of the actions that I may have committed that offended others, if they are truly searching with all of their hearts to find GOD. I don't believe that is the case here however. I feel the very essence of the comments are all biased and "protesting to loudly" about each of their soap opera box stands... Truly it would seem we have learned nothing about tolerance. About 90% would have the writer tarred and feathered, much like John the Revelator on the isle of Patmos. I will give you a good example of the flip side of the coin. All my life I have been good and shown love to my fellow man, in this case, my cousin, born on the same day I was, etc... all of the growing up together love and mutual respect. Yet, when this man, became ill with AIDS, I who wanted nothing but to visit him and tell him I loved him, was publicly humiliated at the hospital with his screaming to "get out" that he wanted no part of "any christians", his hatred, his discrimination, his bigotry was totally evident by the mere fact that two of his friends were allowed to stay, one his lover, the other a fellow actor. Miraculously, his recovery was destined, because now he has survived against horrendous odds... I said that to say this, now he has none of those friends around him, they gave out on his two to three year recovery, but he has family. Might I had, most of whom are christians. This fight is not about homosexuality but the total lack of morality that we are being told we must accept or tolerate. But, I ask you to put your self in anyones shoes and think how would you feel if any of these acts were done to you or a loved one; "murdered", "robbed", "adulterated", "fornificated", and the list goes on. What are you going to use as your rationalization, your reasoning, your standard to say these are OK too? Why is it OK to have relations with someone and destroy a family, versus just plain out killing them, wouldn't it be less painful in the long run? Our bible is written under the holy inspiration of GOD, it gives truths whereby we live a good day to day life. Where would we by in our society without these guidelines? I believe we would have anarchy, sacrifices, raping, you know all that "the strong will survive, evolutionalist stuff!" I believe we evolve, but only because God made it a part of his process, not because we just got smart in scientific theories to his ways... We are all selective in our thougths, our beliefs, our actions, doesn't that scare all of you to death? I personally have been born again with the acts of baptism and a spiritual awakening that no one can take away from me, what about you? What makes any of us think we could live in our society without boundaries? without common beliefs in our rights as humans? without compassion for the human condition? and most certainly with Hypocrisy? We need to worry about the beam in our own eyes before we worry about the mote in our brothers or sisters? Finally, I realize I could study and use High fluting reasoning, but common people would not get it, that is why so many opt out of church, opt out of life in general. Paul said, "when I am with the poor, I become as the poor, when I am with the rich, I become as the rich..." we have to get it together, as one writer said, there are too many other issues at hand, and however right, I beg to disagree, the other issues, such as global warming, terrorism, inhumane acts, etc...are all a part of the end of the whole story. If this bible is so wrong, why does it tell us of what is happening in Revelations in the seals etc...I don't understand or know how it all fits, but I know I see it with my very own eyes...So, I believe we need to re-evaluate out stand on God, his son and our saviour Jesus Christ, and how we love and treat our fellow man... This is Food for Thought at a Common persons Table...

It is likely that Paul was a self-hating homosexual, like Ted Haggard. Who cares. He was only a man. The god of the old testament is a pathological, genocidal monster. How convenient for the jews that "God told us to do all that bad stuff"

The real point is that gays are simply people like you and me. What they do in private between consenting adults is their business, not yours or mine. Get a life and get over it. We have real problems in this country, made worse by the retard-in-chief and his toadies. Abortion and homosexuality are not problems. If they were magically made to disappear right now, would you be any better off? No, because you and the religious lunatics would have to find a new target to hate. Which is the real reason that the religious right are not Christians, but merely redneck bigots.

Cacorn,

Hitler was all for upholding the 'traditional family' and that was why he developed the catchphrase "Kinder, Kirche, Kuchen" (children, church, kitchen).

I feel little need to deal with the rest of your ill-informed reactionary rantings.

Rafael,

A section of the Bible which illustrates how outdated and sexist the old Bible laws have become is Numbers 5: 11-31. It's pretty much a witch-hunt. Note that the jealous man (not to mention the person who she is meant to have committed adultery with) gets off scot-free regardless of what happens to her after drinking the dirty water.

Take care...

JB,

If I understand correctly, you say we must not ignore any part of the bible when looking for guidance on behavior, lest we create a "straw man." What about the many other passages that advocate killing, rape, and slavery? Shall we advocate death for gays, as the bible says? Why be selective about homosexuality, why not advocate for killing children who curse their parents, fortunetellers, adulterers, non-virgin brides, followers of other religions? What about those who eat oysters, shave their beards, and mix fibers in their clothing? Stoning these people to death rarely seems to get much defense these days even though God said they were okay in the bible.

You also sound confused about the intention of the Constitution. "Freedom of religion," or freedom from the government interfering in your right to practice what you believe in-- and "freedom from religion," freedom from government establishing laws or policies based on the beliefs of any particular religious group--they're both guaranteed. The beauty of our Constitution is that the authority for ideas on which we base our social contract does not derive from religious documents, they derive from a set of ideals embodied in the Constitution itself. The "Christian conviction"--we should follow these ideas because they are written in our book--deserves no special consideration at all.

Yes, the substantive challenge is do you have a concrete example to your absurd charge of "Wahabist infiltration" of American universities? If so, let's hear it. Otherwise stop calling your political opponents traitors, which of course is the first tactic of the fascist.

What's this? No substantive challenges of my message? Just more cries of a resurgent "Christian Taliban" seeking to impose a bigoted, fascistic worldview on the rest of the world? I rest my case.

Jim,

The record containing Jesus' words is the Bible. You're setting up a straw man argument that ignores the rest of the Bible. Much is said in the Bible about homosexuality being sinful and unborn life being precious.

We as a society certainly place limitations on behavior - murder is illegal, as is rape, stealing and not paying your taxes. These standards of behavior have to be derived from somewhere and people push for them based upon their conviction.

Mr. Colson's argument is that the Christian conviction deserves the same hearing as yours and shouldn't be discounted simply because it is derived from Scripture.

By the way, you sound really angry...did Jesus say anything about that?

If you are against abortion, don't have one. If you are against gay marriage, don't marry one. But please don't try to force your bronze age mythological beliefs on me. Breaking news! The earth is not flat. The moon is not composed of green cheese. Jesus never said anything about abortion, homosexuality, or birth control. Forty years ago, the religious right were known as segregationist redneck bigots. Only their labels have changed. Dobsen, Falwell, and Robertson are still sideshow freaks.

It's a sad day at On Faith when Canyon Shearer begins to look like a rational and measured debator. John is one of the most contradictory dogmatists I've read on this board, and that's saying a lot. Followed by a history lesson from Cacorn about how religion has kept people from mistreating and killing one another.

"Homosexuality defies both logic and reason." Does left-handedness defy logic and reason? Surely we have all heard that the world of human products is designed for righties, so why do all those lefties insist on *behaving* in such an abnormal (that is to say, not the norm) way? In fact, lefties are born that way, just like gay people.

"Homosexuality is a disorder, and sanctioning it runs contrary to the gospel." Well, at least we can see the basis of your professional, learned opinion on the "disorder." Do you think your declaration makes things true?

"What happened to freedom of religion. Shouldn't it mean that I have a right as a Catholic not to accept your secularist views on homosexuality?" Don't worry, your freedom of religion is perfectly safe. You are free to practice whatever your particular group believes, even to the point of thinking you are abomination if you happen to be born gay (or left handed, or female, or whatever group happens to be an abomination to your particular thought process).

"If liberals had their way, the only form of Christianity that would be tolerated is the" (allow me to correct your sentence on this one) kind that actually follows Jesus' teachings, which "has ceased to have any meaning."

"Perhaps you all would prefer passing laws requiring religious Jews and Muslims to eat pork." Now this is just weird. In the same breath that you condemn and advocate legislating against homosexuality, you accuse those who disagree with you of wanting to legislate against the practices of other groups. But it gets weirder! "I'm sure the bigots of the Old South didn't consider themselves bigots when it came to hating black people. The same is true with the bigotry known as liberalism."

From the rest of your writing, I gather that you have a very limited understanding of liberal philosophy. For one thing, you seem to think that all liberals are non-Christians. Can your appreciation of the diversity of opinions in the world really be that limited? The diversity on this board alone should be enough to convince you that people who have a liberal mindset aren't interested in destroying Christianity any more than are non-religious conservatives. It's a simple-minded and somewhat paranoid view of the world.

CACORN,

Faith drives what otherwise might have been reasonable individuals to kill people in the name of their god. Faith leads others, based on their warped view of 'morality', to obstruct medical research that could end the suffering of many.

We do not need more faith or for people to pay more attention to those holy books.

I would not expect you to understand that for you are obviously an individual unable to see what reasonable people see, that faith and the desire to impose their (Judeo-Christian, Islamic, insert your irrational Hitleresque) world view on others leads to death and destruction.

More faith will lead to mankind's destruction (much to the delight of hundreds of thousands of fundamentalists) so fight your short-term 'culture war' all you want. I'd rather work with reasonable, intellectually honest people who see a future over those who cling to their outdated, hate-inspiring view of god.

Wahhabi infiltration of academia? You got an example of that you blowhard?

Cacorn, what you are describing in your post is teh desire for Christian Taliban. You and people like you are dangerous fascists.

In December 2004, then-talk radio host Tony Snow wrote a column about an aversion to the United States of America's founding belief system that he -- most excellently, I should think -- called "Theophobia -- the absolute, frenetic, run-away-from-Godzilla panic that afflicts some people when they hear the "G" word." The most critical point of his column that I have observed resonates almost perfectly with Ann Coulter and Michael Medved's separate yet shared assumption that Liberalism itself is a creed diametrically opposed to the doctrines of Judeo-Christianity, or so I opine:

"Faith supplies the essential ingredient for individual liberty -- and that ingredient is virtue. If people can agree upon basic moral precepts, they don't have to waste time watching their backs for Hobbesian treachery; they can proceed with some confidence that their persons, property, and lawful actions are safe from assault.

To put it in another way, when societies drive out God, somebody always moves swiftly to fill the vacuum —- and that somebody inevitably is a person or government that attempts to exercise irrevocable authority over its 'flock.' It is no accident that Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot and other butchers of note took special pains early in their despotic careers to suppress religion and undermine the traditional family."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140889,00.html

Thus, homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, Wahhabi infiltration of academia -- all constitute fronts in the larger sociocultural battle between Liberalism and Judeo-Christianity over the collective soul of the United States of America. As the great Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos stated most eloquently those six centuries ago, acting irrationally goes against the very nature of Almighty God. Just look at how much GENUINE religious freedom exists in Iran or Saudi Arabia. No construction of churches or synagogues allowed, constant jizya harassment, shish kebab-type torture, institutional discrimination against Saudi Shiites, prohibitions against Iranian Sunnis from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's position, mandatory identification cards stating proof of dhimmification under Islamic law -- need I go on? As I have seen and realized, political correctness in the United States of America implies intolerance toward Christianity: the great media bastions of the old left-wing establishment are deafeningly silent, if in general, about the plight of the Persecuted Church. Just ask Professor Allen Hertzke of the University of Oklahoma.

Mr. Colson,

Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians like you have consistently whined about discrimination against themselves and their beliefs. Quite frankly, the whining has reached such a pitch in this country that one wants to flee to Europe where some sanity regarding religion still exists. The resulting response by people like me who do not hold to your belief system, and that of evangelical crusaders like you, is basically a "turn-off." Biblical literalism, particularly with regard to human sexuality, is such nonsense that it shouldn't even merit a comment. But, since you and others continue to harp on it, many people find it imperative to challenge the anti-reason, irrational, and fear-mongering thoughts that ultra-conservative "traditionalists" continue to voice.

Critical thinking and intellectual honesty in religion have been replaced by an irresponsible belief system that is based on nothing but fear...fear of death, fear of life, and fear of not having all the answers. I'm glad you have all the answers, Chuck, but, please, don't keep forcing them down the throats of prison inmates and others to whom you "minister," who are in places of despair and confusion. And, please stop telling the rest of us how to think and believe. You are not helping one bit, in fact you are doing a great deal of harm. If my comment is "discrimation" against your brand of Christianity, as historically and theologically dishonest as it is, then so be it.

"Would someone kindly show me where science has ever produced any experiment (let alone one that is repeatable) whereby one species evolves into another?"

You obviously don't understand how evolution works. You also don't seem to understand that species is a human classification method.

Dogs developed from wolves. In fact sometimes it can be hard to tell the difference between a wolf and a husky (despite them being classed as different species). Changes in species in plants occurs all the time.

Also some combinations of species can arise when various members of the cat family mate (though often this produces infertile offspring, there are exceptions). For example Tigons and Ligers are the product of both a tiger and lion (the two terms depend on whether the mother was a lion or a tiger). This is not the normal way in which new species are produced.

Evolution works through selection, where changes occur in order to allow continued survival within a certain environment. Those which survive best, produce the most offspring. A good analogy for how natural selection works is the artificial selection we see in dog breeding. In natural selection a certain trait will be continued due to its benefits to their survival. When dog breeding the breeders will want more dogs with certain traits such as, say, longer tails, so they will continuously select the dogs with the longest tails to breed. Over a long enough time, mutation can cause some serious differences, and the same species can develop into many different sub-species.

You know, if you really want to know more about evolution, wikipedia is probably a good starting point. Check out the links you find there. If you understand evolution properly, creationism doesn't make any sense at all. (If you don't have the patience to study evolution in more detail, there is a careful examination of the falsity of common creationist claims here: http://www.talkorigins.org/)

One last thing, when did homosexuality or liberalism for that matter have anything to do with reason. It's all feelings and sentimentalism.

Homosexuality defies both logic and reason.

I have to love liberal self-righteousness. Tolerance = thinking the way I do about things.

Homosexuality is a disorder, and sanctioning it runs contrary to the gospel. What happened to freedom of religion. Shouldn't it mean that I have a right as a Catholic not to accept your secularist views on homosexuality?

If liberals had their way, the only form of Christianity that would be tolerated is the nominal kind that has ceased to have any meaning.

Perhaps you all would prefer passing laws requiring religious Jews and Muslims to eat pork.

Homosexuality is NOT a civil rights issue. It is the first mental disorder that was ever declassified for purely political reasons. A deeper review of the studies undergirding the pro-homosexual position reveals a host of sampling errors, researcher biases, poor controls, etc. In other words it's unscientific.

The problem with the Left is that it really isn't about tolerance, it's about hating Christianity.

Before anti-theists start pointing the finger at the evils of Christianity, they should take a look at everything anti-theism has caused since the Great Terror in France during the 1790s to Stalin's purges. Atheism is nothing but a form of bigotry because all it is about is hating Christianity. Homosexuals are nothing but a stalking horse for militant atheism's goal of destroying Christianity.

There is NO comparison between homosexuality--a behavior--and race, a physical characteristic. BTW, the Catholic Church NEVER embraced the curse of Ham theory put forward by English and American evangelicals.

I'm sure the bigots of the Old South didn't consider themselves bigots when it came to hating black people. The same is true with the bigotry known as liberalism.

As G.k. Chesterton once remarked, ""There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions." - ILN, 1/13/06

I guess you Leftists believe in fighting "hate" with hate.

Frankly, apart from that, as someone who's occasionally been looked down upon by 'ethnic Protestants,' for appearing to be
ethnic Catholic, well.

Allow me to be 'ethnically-Catholic' and say again,

Just so's we're clear:
I call Bullsh**.

Capiche?

Ok, here's the paranoia right here.

From Mr. Colson:

"But the discrimination today takes a different form. The state of Massachusetts, for example, forced Catholic Charities to abandon its adoption services because it refused to violate Catholic teaching and place children with homosexual couples. Not only is the discrimination today subtler, it is also less directed at the Catholic Church alone, rather, it is directed at all Christians."

No, sir. The state of Massachusetts did *not* 'force' the extremely-affluent, actually, 'Catholic charities' to 'abandon its adoption services,'

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts said that *the state can no longer fund your discriminatory practices that involve, well, hatespeech based on your religious ideas.*

You're a conservative, sir, aren't you?

Conservatives keep saying that the churches are doing all kinds of major charitable good and this is all based on the market economy and a pious private sector....

Now, you're saying that without government funding, a religious organization that is supposed to charitably have only the good of kids at heart, is 'forced to shut down' without government funding?'

Interesting you and they say that.

I call BS on the whole thing.

Allow me to pick up where Ba'al left off.

The same Anonymous (can't you anonymouses just pick an alias for the sake of communication?) wrote:
"Evolution is NOT scientific. Its first assumptions have never and will never be able to be proved."

Let's take a look at the "first assumptions" of evolution by natural selection:

#1: individuals in a population and among populations differ--we have undeniable evidence for this one, as variation is a characteristic of any population

#2: trait differences among individuals have a heritable (genetic) basis--the mechanism was unknown in Darwin's time, but we've come to understand a great deal about the genetic basis of trait expression for the last 50 years, as well as its application to modern medicine

#3: trait differences among individuals are responsible for differences in survival and/or reproduction--again, one can find abundant documentation in any collection of biological scholarship that trait differences play a role in how many offspring live to reproduce in the next generation

#4: in most populations, more offspring are produced than can survive and reproduce--it is a mathematical certainty that, in a stable population, each individual on average can only replace itself each generation, which means that a vast supply of offspring that do not make i

If you think through the logical consequences you will understand: if these four assumptions are true, evolution will happen. That is, individuals with offspring that have traits that are more favorable in that particular environment will tend to leave more offspring, leading to an increase in the representation of genes that produce those traits. That's the beauty of evolution: it is a process that follows from assumptions that have undeniable support. The idea is so simple that it's remarkable someone (other than Wallace) didn't describe it before Darwin.

Now here is why, Anonymous, you may find it frustrating not to have more examples showing one species changing into another: evolution takes a long time. Tens or hundreds of thousands of years. It requires that populations become separated--by the appearance of mountain ranges, rise of seas, and so on--but then become reconnected for unsuccessful interbreeding to lead to divergence between the reconnected populations. In fact, the published literature has plenty of evidence for current-day examples of many of these intermediate stages in the process. But most of the complete examples of cladogenesis you're looking for, like the one Ba'al cited, will involve organisms that go through enough generations, and enough of the special circumstances of isolation and recontact (which we circumvent through artificial selection)to evolve in your lifetime.

So thank you, anonymous, whoever you are, for raising the issue of assumptions. Understanding the assumptions and their consequences is the best way to teach open-minded students about evolution.

The same Anonymouse wrote:

"Also, the statistical prevalence of depression and self-loathing among homosexual community is significant."

Why don't you just think about this for a while. I suggest you explore the question of why this might be so. I will read the results of your investigation with delight so please, don't neglect to post them here.

One of the Anonymouses asks "Would someone kindly show me where science has ever produced any experiment (let alone one that is repeatable) whereby one species evolves into another?"

OK, here is an example.

Nature volume 441 pages 498-501, 2006.
Resource Competition and Social Conflict in Experimental Populations of Yeast. MacLean RC, and Gudelj I, of the NERC Center for Population Biology, Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Ascot, Berkshire SL5 7PY, UK.

There are many more like this. Humans have actually done this throughout history by domesticating plants and animals to the extent that they can no longer interbreed with wild populations.

Throughout history, Christian's claims of truth have tended to have bad consequences for people who deny those claims -- especially when Christians disagree with each other.

Tom, you should take your Truth Claim further. Not only is Ahura Mazda the One True God, but the God of Chuck Colson, the creator of the material world, is actually Ahriman, the adversary of the Wise Lord.

As christians we are not called by Jesus to tolerate --we are called to love. Tolerance is not enough --Love requires us to tell the truth when someone is in sin--whether they like it or not.

REAL CLEAR RELIGION
http://www.realclearreligion.com

Would someone kindly show me where science has ever produced any experiment (let alone one that is repeatable) whereby one species evolves into another? Evolution is NOT scientific. Its first assumptions have never and will never be able to be proved. Therefore, it is a dogmatic faith, not a scientific law.

Also, the statistical prevalence of depression and self-loathing among homosexual community is significant. Further, no Father can ever be a good mother to a child. No mother can ever be a good father to a child. Gender is not as fungible as some like to think.

Finally, does anyone see Chuck Colson denying that his involvement in watergate was wrong and sinful? No! He openly acknowledges that he is was a crook.

Those who attempt to hold that over his head show their personal bitterness and not his eternal sinfulness.

Sorry, forgot to put my details down. The previous two posts were me.

"Goes down a little easier when you say "terminating a pregnancy" as opposed to "killing an unborn child""

Except that most abortions (where abortion is freely available in my country at least) are chemical abortions which happen within the first fortnight. The pills induce a miscarriage.

"Terminating a pregnancy" is technical terminology, whereas "killing an unborn child" is emotive language which ignores the fact that what is in the womb has hardly developed far enough to be referred to as a child. It is better referred to as a zygote or (a little later) an embryo. A child and an embryo are not the same thing.

You might as well call a 'miscarriage' the 'untimely death of a poor innocent baby who could have been president one day'. After all, redefining things to suit our own agenda is fun isn't it?

"I would argue that society needs to take a hard, sober look at how we define tolerance. Is it as classically understood, a willingness to entertain all points of view and listen respectfully to those with whom we disagree? Or does it mean accepting an all-beliefs-are-equal position?"

Neither of those questions gives us any reason to allow Roman Catholic adoption agencies to be exempt from equal rights laws which obligate them to serve all members of the public fairly - even gay couples. Now if they were only allowing Roman Catholics to adopt, or if the evidence didn't point to same-sex couples being just as good parents as heterosexual couples (or single parents, whom the adoption agency also allow to adopt), then perhaps they would have a case.

The equality laws apply to ALL organisations, and the Roman Catholic adoption agencies want exemption. The Roman Catholic adoption agencies are making an exception for a certain group which they personally dislike without any rational justification. I think you'll find that makes the Roman Catholic adoption agencies the source of the discrimination, not the victims of it.

"In an era of rampant relativism, a truth claim by its very nature is seen as oppressive."

I think it's going a bit far to suggest to claim we are in a state of 'rampant relativism'. The reason why people find religious truth-claims oppressive is because they are truth-claims without any rational justification. When a truth-claim is dogmatic and evidence is considered irrelevant to its truth, no argument can be made against it. There's something worrying about the fact that the Church can say 'black is white' and followers will believe them.

Anonymous wrote:
"Hundreds of schools across the nation regularly do not allow religious clubs, however they are increasingly allowing gay/lesbian clubs. If this isn't discriminatory, I don't know what is."

Well they've made this decision to keep religion out of school, because there are certain groups in America who want to subvert lessons like biology to teach nonsensical pseudoscience. As we saw from the previous topic, many atheists on this forum would be happy to allow religious studies in school so long as it is taught fairly, and so long as it isn't used as an opportunity to bring creationism into schools again.

I don't know who you think has an agenda against religious groups. Atheists tend to be more against money which insists that THEY, as citizens who use the money, must trust in God, or pledges of allegiance which insist on them claiming a God-belief. I don't think atheists are very concerned about religions having their own groups. If you are happy for Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Christians, Humanists, Wiccans, etc. to all have their own religious groups in school, that is cool with me. (But are you sure that the Muslim group won't be accused of supporting terrorism, and Wiccans of satan-worship? If you are, that's perfect.)

Bearing in mind that as far as we know there is no god...I find it very difficult to respect those who
insist that there is one,even though there's not the
slightest evidence of this...and when common sense and Voltaire says that people invent there own gods.
As Sam Harris says...mythology is where gods go to die.
The 21st century God is no more real than the gods
of our ancestors.There is no Apollo..there is no
Neptune..there is no Thor.And there is no God.
Religion is the last refuge of snake oil salesmen and other crooks,right Chuck?

There are not 100 people in the USA who hate or are bigoted against Catholicism/Catholics. There are thousands, perhaps millions, of people in the USA who *THINK* they know Catholicism who are bigoted against Catholicism/Catholics. Some have revealed themselves on this board.

Sorry I messed up and got the previous post twice. I do want to add that most of my friends throughout life have been born catholic, but most subscribe to the cafeteria theory of the religion, and re on a very limited diet in that regard, or call themselves agnostics.

The key thing I missed is the church's concept of heaven and hell. To me this is their promise of everlasting life if you do as I say, and burning in hell if you don't. This is just an insurance scam that in any other context would be shut down instantly by a responsive government. Stories written and rewritten, translated and retranslated that originate in an era of superstition when the church controlled what limited education there was don't cut it. Jesus apparently was a good man, enlightened for his time. His 'resurection' - many questions can be asked - a twin brother, someone else crucified in his place, he was cut down in minutes, not days - who knows. Virgin birth - yuh, happens every day in the terrified words of kids - "but Daddy I didn't do it", Kind of crude, but the analogy is there. It's like Mohammad rose up to heaven on a winged horse. He too, I am sure would be horrified to see the tragedies perpetuated in his name, for one of his greatest accomplishments was to stop the endless murderous warfare amongst the tribes of his people. Compare that with the recent questioning of Mr. Kahild Sheik Mohammed, the architect of 9/11 and other monstrosities, who told his questioners "you are all going to hell". It is all the same, and what we need is the spiritual world to catch up a few thousand years with the secular, and find the real truth that someone - a person - wrote long ago - do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Lets just understand that the history of the Catholic church (and much of religion) is one of tyranny and control and abuse of mankind. It gave us the crusades, the inquisition, much of the burning of 'witches' etc. Their corrupted view of morality, e.g. their position on stem cell research, birth control (94% of Catholics ignore this one)abortion, gay marriage and equality, and of course their abuse of children and the heirarchy's hiding it. Why did they hide it, and why do they persist in slamming the door on social progress - because if they relent anywhere,change anything, admit to anything, their whole claim of infallibility - their house of cards will come tumbling down. We left this monstrosity decades ago, for their only God is their own desire to control, and the only way I can find a way to justify the church at all is relatively - compare them to extremist Islam.

For their people who haven't been able to make the leap from blind faith t(in all religions) to seeing the light and the true goals of the institution - power, money, and perpetuation of itself, we should work to help them to see the light. When the history of mankind is written, conservative and extremist religion will be a stain upon mankind probably equal to the worst of abuses in history from other causes.

I also predict, based on a PHD biotech guy who is working on the 'roots of life' that in the next 50 years or so, we will make the technical jump to creating basic replicating life forms from non living matter. It's just a matter of an enormous increase needed in computer power. From my career in computers and software, within the same period we will succeed in building computer software systems that have intelligence and awareness. The tests for these capabilities already exist. We will also most likely be able to look back to the creation of the (current) universe 14 or so billion years ago, and understand whether the universe will ultimately collapse and rebirth - the big bang-, or simply run down and die. Then the whole question of God will in many ways become moot. Yes, we can ask about who made the universe, but we can ask about who or what made 'God'. To that, I profess being stumped, but it seems we are just natural developments in an almost infinite universe. If the concept of God could be redefined into the idea that this world should be dedicated towards helping the current and future people of mankind to live a full life, minimize suffering, break down the ideas of some people or institutions who believe only in their power over people and their self perpetuation - that is the 'religion' I would want to be a part of today.

Lets just understand that the history of the Catholic church (and much of religion) is one of tyranny and control and abuse of mankind. It gave us the crusades, the inquisition, much of the burning of 'witches' etc. Their corrupted view of morality, e.g. their position on stem cell research, birth control (94% of Catholics ignore this one)abortion, gay marriage and equality, and of course their abuse of children and the heirarchy's hiding it. Why did they hide it, and why do they persist in slamming the door on social progress - because if they relent anywhere,change anything, admit to anything, their whole claim of infallibility - their house of cards will come tumbling down. We left this monstrosity decades ago, for their only God is their own desire to control, and the only way I can find a way to justify the church at all is relatively - compare them to extremist Islam.

For their people who haven't been able to make the leap from blind faith t(in all religions) to seeing the light and the true goals of the institution - power, money, and perpetuation of itself, we should work to help them to see the light. When the history of mankind is written, conservative and extremist religion will be a stain upon mankind probably equal to the worst of abuses in history from other causes.

I also predict, based on a PHD biotech guy who is working on the 'roots of life' that in the next 50 years or so, we will make the technical jump to creating basic replicating life forms from non living matter. It's just a matter of an enormous increase needed in computer power. From my career in computers and software, within the same period we will succeed in building computer software systems that have intelligence and awareness. The tests for these capabilities already exist. We will also most likely be able to look back to the creation of the (current) universe 14 or so billion years ago, and understand whether the universe will ultimately collapse and rebirth - the big bang-, or simply run down and die. Then the whole question of God will in many ways become moot. Yes, we can ask about who made the universe, but we can ask about who or what made 'God'. To that, I profess being stumped, but it seems we are just natural developments in an almost infinite universe. If the concept of God could be redefined into the idea that this world should be dedicated towards helping the current and future people of mankind to live a full life, minimize suffering, break down the ideas of some people or institutions who believe only in their power over people and their self perpetuation - that is the 'religion' I would want to be a part of today.

Brambleton wrote: "If I told you I believe in Jesus Christ, and that you were condemned to Hell without that relationship, would you be offended? Would you whine and cry and say I was being mean?"

If I thought you were being genuinely compassionate, I'd think you were probably a sweet and well-meaning person. I wouldn't think you were being malicious, no. I wouldn't be offended.

I would tolerate your view but I would not respect it. It is undeserving of respect since it offers other views on the same issue none. In fact, it demands that its adherents have none as well. If, beyond all reason, you demanded that your view be respected or whined and cried about discrimination then yes, I would be offended. How could any thinking person not be offended by such blatant stupidity?

I'm willing to both tolerate and respect your view. Are you willing to abandon your sado-masochistic fetish with your hell and admit that your view is fundamentally flawed in order to respect mine? Or is mutual respect not that important to you?

There is anti-Catholic prejudice, just as there is distrust of most religious views from two groups of people: Those who do not know enough about a certain religious faith and those who know too much.
Most Americans -- and I include my Catholic self -- are afraid of being steamrolled or coerced into assenting to beliefs and practices that are strange to them. The authoritarian nature of any organization, whether represented by a pope, an ayatollah or the personally charismatic organizer of a so-called nondenominational protestant congregation, makes us nervous. And rightly so. Nervousness and fear of being told what to do are not necessarily indications of bigotry.

Brambleton: I don't mean to speak for Tom, but I would be offended if someone told me I was going to hell. If that is hard for you to understand, you strike me as someone who lacks humility and grace.

Un-Strange Bedfellows

How surprising that Colson's reasoning should be BOTH so convolutied and so un-constitutional.

And how strange that this Orwellian creature should propound the position that
refusal to allow discrimination
is
discrimination.

Colson condemning equal rights is
what I mean by
UN Strange Bedfellows.

The constitution guarantees your right to follow your religion
BUT
it forbids your right to ESTABLISH a Religion (Catholicism or any other)
as the law of the land.

So
the fact that Catholicism says Gays should be discriminated in their ability to adopt
CAN NOT
trump the constitutional obligation of the state
to Guarantee Gays (who are NOT criminals)
equal rights to adopt.

Colson has served his debt to society, but he still has no understanding of EITHER
the law
or
basic morality

"An environmentalist, for example, can promote his particular agenda in the public square without ever being accused of imposing anything on anyone. But a Christian who says that he believes a particular moral position—a position that he believes a free society would do well to embrace—is accused instantly of imposing his views."

Oh, look. Apples and oranges, being compared.

Pretending that an 'environmentalist' (read as 'extremist') promoting his views is somehow the same as a 'Christian' (you know, the good guys) trying to convince others to follow his 'god' and trying to force those beliefs to be allowed as 'fact' into public affairs is not only dishonest, but no 'example' of discrimination.

It's just political propaganda, disguised as 'thought' by a 'holy man' who has lied to the American public to defend unholy actions.

Chuck -

What you seemed to have missed is that if you take money from the state, then you play by state rules. You, know, secular ones that do not allow you pick and choose who you serve. Equal protection and all that sort of stuff.

Further - an environmental agenda can at least be supported or refuted using some sort of objective criteria. Declaring your faith (by definition, non-objective) to be the TRUTH is different. Since it is accompanied by an attempt to use the power of the state to enforce what YOU think is right, you are claiming a moral superiority that isn't there. Way to many religions have different takes for anyone to get the high ground.

Tom,

I find it interesting that you would keep "friends" who were "always" hostile and discriminated against you in regards to your religious preference. Odd. The real question I'd ask you is, "If I told you I believe in Jesus Christ, and that you were condemned to Hell without that relationship, would you be offended? Would you whine and cry and say I was being mean?

Why on earth is the subject of discrimition against catholics begun here? Nothing new, nothing changed. Like, no one is blaming the CATHOLICS for getting us into the Iraq war and wanting us to bomb Iran. Quite the contrary. Discrimination against Catholics isn't growing.
Must be some agenda by some group...

Chuck wrote: "Today’s hostility—yes, and discrimination—exists because Christians make a truth claim. That is the cardinal sin against the overarching virtue of modern society called tolerance. In an era of rampant relativism, a truth claim by its very nature is seen as oppressive."

When I make the truth claim to my Christian friends that Ahura Mazda is the one true god, they always get hostile and they usually discriminate against me by not asking me back for tea for a few months. Darn 'tolerant' relativists.

I'll make the same truth claim here. Let's see how it plays out.

Ahura Mazda is the one true god.

Hundreds of schools across the nation regularly do not allow religious clubs, however they are increasingly allowing gay/lesbian clubs. If this isn't discriminatory, I don't know what is.

Nice retort Bill. Regardless of Mr. Colston's position on the issue, he appears to at least given the question some thought and offered some support. Your post could be strung together by a six-year old and "word of the day" toilet paper.

How does this happen? How can anyone living in the 21st century write this kind of inane drivel. Not that Colson is some great thinker or a person of whom we should expect much intellectual rigor. (He made his name breaking into the Watergate hotel and then exploiting uneducated prison inmates) But I think that these issues are pretty basic and that Colson shows absolutely no mental acuity. The same cliches of the Christian Right are re-hashed "relativism," "hostility towards faith," and a paranoid victim complex.

Just ignore this garbage.

Mr. Colson proposes a new definition of discrimination: Not elevating a group above the law and not allowing a group to impose its views on the rest of the public. If this is discrimination, we need more of it, much more. Take the Catholic bias against gays. It has no rational basis apart from religion. Sexual attraction to members of the same sex has been abundantly documented in nature. Are those penguins damned to Hell? The state is fully justified in banning any such discrimination, just as it can ban discrimination against Catholics. If Colson is right, then the right of the followers of the not-so-Rev. Bob Jones suffer discrimination if they are not allowed to refuse to rent to or hire Catholics. This intellectual whining is simply a cover for claiming that Catholics, as the sole possessors of truth, are entitle for force their views on the rest of society.

As for his claims of discrimination against anyone of faith, this too is intellectually fraudulent. This is also a cover for wanting to impose the views of a particular sect (here, Christianity as opposed to Catholicism) on the wider society. If Christians cannot get over their irrational bigotry against gays, they are free to withdraw from society, just like Christians who opposed freeing the slaves and then opposed repealing Jim Crow were free to do likewise. They were NOT free to use their irrational belief in a supernatural deity to hold other men in slavery (even if they were the Sons of Ham and thus Biblically damned to eternal serfdom) or live in segregated ghettos. There is no rational scientific basis for racial discrimination, just as there is no rational scientific basis for discrimination based on sexual orientation. Yet Mr. Colson claims is religious views exempt him and his fellow travelers from rational laws meant to protect society from irrational and socially harmful acts.

Catholics are offended by gays? Maybe gays are offended by Catholics. Let's give gays the right to discriminate against Catholics. Whaddya say? Turn about is fair play.

Some will object to my claiming religious as irrational to be discriminatory. OK, but what about those who publicly and vociferously claim over the airwaves, on national radio and TV and over the internet, that atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians (such as Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists) will burn in Hell for all eternity? That's OK but saying belief in a supernatural being is irrational is not? Again, a double standard which Mr. Colson needs to address.

BAAL,

I don't think anyone, certainly not Mr. Colston, is suggesting that Catholics are "victims". There is no need to paint the picture at the extremes one way or the other.

And what, exactly, are all the benefits I've received these past centuries as a Christian that my secular friends down the street haven't received?

Norrie,

You wrote, "Your wonderful Roman Church lobbies for laws that would put people in jail for terminating a pregnancy." I have to applaud your choice of words. Goes down a little easier when you say "terminating a pregnancy" as opposed to "killing an unborn child", doesn't it.

Chuck wrote "But the discrimination today takes a different form. The state of Massachusetts, for example, forced Catholic Charities to abandon its adoption services because it refused to violate Catholic teaching and place children with homosexual couples."

The irony of those statements is extraordinary. First, the MA ruling forced equal treatment of couples, which is the opposite of discrimination. Discrimination is evidenced by disparate treatment, not equal treatment.

And secondly, disparate treatment is exactly how Catholic Charities' actions can be defined in not allowing same-sex couples to adopt.

Claiming discrimination for not being allowed to discriminate is laughable.

I wonder what the reaction would be to an adoption agency that refused to place children in Catholic or Christian homes.

Greg,

You're wrong - I didn't prove his point.

Unlike the RC Church, I don't try to mobilize the power of government to deprive the Church or its members of their freedoms. I also don't act in ways to cause harm and suffering to them.

The Church and its members can believe anything they want. But when they try to constrict my life through governmental power, I will fight back and will say what I think.

That's not intolerance - it's self-defense.

I should have said that Christians in America are downtrodden victims -- because now for the first time in many centuries they have to play by the same rules as everybody else.

I see. Christians in America are downtrodden victims.

It all makes sense to me now, I don't know why I didn't see it before.

Norie,
You just proved his point. Tolerance has to go both ways...

Chuck,

Tolerance among decent people is based on the principle of "live and let live".

Your wonderful Roman Church lobbies for laws that would put people in jail for same-sex contacts, terminating a pregnancy, and for deciding to ask for help in ending their lives at the end of an excruciatingly painful terminal illness.

And you're surprised that so many good people loathe this Roman Non-Christian Church?

Chuck,

The Vatican and the Roman Catholic hierarchies are the most intrusive, domineering, intolerant organizations in the world today. They are always attempting to use the force of law to oppress ordinary citizens and deny them the right to determine the most personal issues of their lives.

Discrimination against Catholics?

Five of the nine members of the United States Supreme Court are Roman Catholic. Four of them
vote as an authoritarian bloc. Juestice Scalia's comments suggest that he thinks the U.S. Government acts best when it acts as an arm of the Vatican. He himself would have made a fine consiglieri to the Holy Inquisition.

Discrimination against Catholics? This court discriminates against freedom, liberty, the concepts and ideas of the Founders, and individual rights, in favor of corporate and authoritarian interests, and most of all, in favor of sectarian religious interests.