>> ^bareboards2:
As the person who wrote the description, let me assure you that you have interpreted the "they" incorrectly.
I meant crazy fundamentalists who have a deep need to control the world. Regardless of what religion.
I copied the wiki article and pointed out that this sentence was a deep relief to me: Although many authors have described such influence (particularly of Reconstructionism),full adherents to Reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.
So there is my proof that this is what I meant.
I am also not an atheist. I believe there are things we can't possibly understand with our puny restricted human brains. I respect the personal choices of individuals -- I would never argue someone out of their personal experience of the divine.
What I don't like is when someone uses their personal experience as an excuse to control others, to define "morality" for others. This guy. Mormons working tirelessly on Prop 8. Parents trying to keep any mention of homosexuality out of schools, which perpetuates the bullying and the shaming.
And I believe that when atheists attack someone's belief as irrational, it is no different than a Christian attempting to force their worldview on the atheist. I think atheists take their justifiable anger at Christians attempting to -- and succeeding at -- controlling others through shame, laws, wars and go too far with it -- I don't believe it is necessary to talk someone out of their personal religious experience, IF IF IF that personal religious experience isn't affecting the atheist in any way. I think atheists need to learn to let folks be, and focus on facts -- overturning Prop 8, booting fundamentalist School Board members out.
Them there's my two cents. Sorry you have felt beat up here. The Sift is a great place, with some really really REALLY smart and funny people. Including some, in my opinion, angry atheists. It is part of the Sift's charm, if you can treat it like entertainment.
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^quantumushroom:
From that link:

LGBT Activists in Uganda point to a virulently anti-gay March 2009 conference 2009 put on by three American Evangelical activists for inciting the latest round of violence and intimidation against the local LGBT community. Among the three were Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, Exodus International board member Don Schmierer, and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Lee Brundidge, who is a protege of ex-gay advocate Richard Cohen. Lively, who blamed gay men for the rise of Nazism and the Rwandan genocide, proudly declared his talk as being a “nuclear bomb” against LGBT advocacy in Africa. (You can read about all of the events of 2009 and early 2010 here.)
So atheists have no problem using these fringe kooks as representatives of true Christendom, but get insulted when it's pointed out 20th century mass murderers were all leaders of communist regimes? Death toll: 100 million and counting

The whole thread was created under that presumption. "I am flabbergasted. I keep thinking they can't go any more off the deep end." They as in all Christians. As in all Christians are kooks. I don't know if this site is just pro-atheist but there is a definite undertone of intolerance and bigotry here against Christians. What happened to civil discourse? Oh yeah, this is the internet. Nevermind.



That's cool.. thanks for enlightening me here. I didn't mean to cast aspersions but I guess that shows how easy it can be to misinterpet peoples intentions/beliefs, which really underscores your point I think. I wouldn't say I feel beat up, just that there seemed to be a tone here. I'll go with your assesment for now.

Personally, I don't tell people what to believe. That is what free will is for. It's up to them to draw their own conclusions. If someone asks, I will answer. If someone is mistating, I will correct. Other than that, to each his own. I will speak the truth as I know it, and hopefully someone will listen, but that's as far as I go. If you try to force something on someone, it just pushes them farther away.

As the person who wrote the description, let me assure you that you have interpreted the "they" incorrectly.

I meant crazy fundamentalists who have a deep need to control the world. Regardless of what religion.

I copied the wiki article and pointed out that this sentence was a deep relief to me: Although many authors have described such influence (particularly of Reconstructionism),full adherents to Reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.

So there is my proof that this is what I meant.

I am also not an atheist. I believe there are things we can't possibly understand with our puny restricted human brains. I respect the personal choices of individuals -- I would never argue someone out of their personal experience of the divine.

What I don't like is when someone uses their personal experience as an excuse to control others, to define "morality" for others. This guy. Mormons working tirelessly on Prop 8. Parents trying to keep any mention of homosexuality out of schools, which perpetuates the bullying and the shaming. edit - And of course when the Bible is used to trump science. That gives me the screaming mimis.

And I believe that when atheists attack someone's belief as irrational, it is no different than a Christian attempting to force their worldview on the atheist. I think atheists take their justifiable anger at Christians attempting to -- and succeeding at -- controlling others through shame, laws, wars and go too far with it -- I don't believe it is necessary to talk someone out of their personal religious experience, IF IF IF that personal religious experience isn't affecting the atheist in any way. I think atheists need to learn to let folks be, and focus on facts -- overturning Prop 8, booting fundamentalist School Board members out.

Them there's my two cents. Sorry you have felt beat up here. The Sift is a great place, with some really really REALLY smart and funny people. Including some, in my opinion, angry atheists. It is part of the Sift's charm, if you can treat it like entertainment.





>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^quantumushroom:
From that link:

LGBT Activists in Uganda point to a virulently anti-gay March 2009 conference 2009 put on by three American Evangelical activists for inciting the latest round of violence and intimidation against the local LGBT community. Among the three were Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, Exodus International board member Don Schmierer, and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Lee Brundidge, who is a protege of ex-gay advocate Richard Cohen. Lively, who blamed gay men for the rise of Nazism and the Rwandan genocide, proudly declared his talk as being a “nuclear bomb” against LGBT advocacy in Africa. (You can read about all of the events of 2009 and early 2010 here.)
So atheists have no problem using these fringe kooks as representatives of true Christendom, but get insulted when it's pointed out 20th century mass murderers were all leaders of communist regimes? Death toll: 100 million and counting


The whole thread was created under that presumption. "I am flabbergasted. I keep thinking they can't go any more off the deep end." They as in all Christians. As in all Christians are kooks. I don't know if this site is just pro-atheist but there is a definite undertone of intolerance and bigotry here against Christians. What happened to civil discourse? Oh yeah, this is the internet. Nevermind.

Excerpt from the wiki article (I take some comfort from the last line of this):

Dominion Theology

Dominion Theology is a grouping of theological systems[5] with the common belief that the law of God - as codified in the Bible - should exclusively govern society, to the exclusion of secular law, a view also known as theonomy. As of 2010[update] the most prominent modern formulation of Dominion Theology is Christian Reconstructionism, founded by R. J. Rushdoony in the 1970s. Reconstructionists themselves use the word dominionism to refer to their belief that Christians alone should control civil government, conducting it according to Biblical law.[6][7] Social scientists have used the word "dominionism" to refer to adherence to Dominion Theology[5][8][9] as well as to the influence in the broader Christian Right of ideas inspired by Dominion Theology.[5] Although many authors have described such influence (particularly of Reconstructionism),[10][11] full adherents to Reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.[10][12][13]


>> ^9547bis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
They've been here for a generation. They already have financial backing, they have expanded across the globe, and now they're looking for their very own Mussolini to lead them.
Take heed, because one day they'll be coming for you.

So...I don't know...

Children are little mirrors of ourselves. This seems great when it's your own children and they mirror your values and beliefs. After all, isn't that part of your job? Part of being a parent is to prepare your children for the world by instilling in them an understanding of the world that will help them to succeed. How many people believe their own values and understanding do not represent the proper path for their own children?

Some people value logic, truth and critical thought and some people value faith, obedience and group assimilation. There are a million valid paths to a successful life.

Even though the values of these parents might conflict with your own, they are still loving parents who want their child to have the best life possible. Watching your children follow in your footsteps is one of the most endearing moments there is as a parent. If you're filled with revulsion to see your own child mimic your behavior then there's probably something not right about you. Being filled with revulsion by seeing other people's children mimic their behavior is perfectly normal though.

But at least try to keep a balanced perspective on it. I'm not jazzed to see another ultra conservative christian in the making but I wouldn't call it abuse.

yes, she's for real. this is not a parody. she is actually one of the conservative christian dingbats.

beck appeals to the inherent paranoia of those who are un-educated or ill-educated.
i posted a few months ago how rhetoric kills.
beck appeals to those who are angry,scared and dont understand the why's or what's and what beck offers is not news,nor any form of journalism.he does not offer context and repeatedly has been caught blatanly lying and making things up all for the specific purpose to incite his viewers,who are already angry and upset.
lest we forget the man who consumed almost exclusively neo-con and right wing propaganda i.e:beck,hannity and linbaugh and walked into a unitarian church and opened fore on innocents.

in the political spectrum conservative ideology has its place just as progressive ideology does.both are needed for a myriad of reasons but what we get in beck and hannity, and limbaugh for that matter, has little or nothing to do with a "conservative" ideology but far more to do with pushing a narrative to further a political party.
it is almost verbatim the very definition of propaganda.
hugh hewitt reveals himself to be a tool in just such a propaganda machine as he tries...poorly..to explain away beck and his rhetoric.if anybody actually took the time to pay attention to what has been going on you would find that both parties have abandoned their core principles in order to serve their corporate masters.
while the democrats give lip service to their progressive netroots base while enacting policy that serves the corporate elite.the republicans use inflammatory language to incite anger and distrust and use such banal terms such as :family values,fiscal conservative,christian nation.all terms used to fire up the base but when you take a look at their own policies you see a very different narrative.

in my opinion.the people who are becoming angry and frustrated.progressive and teabagger alike are ill-served by the likes of glenn beck.for while they have reason to be angry and frustrated they are no more closer to understanding WHY pr WHAT they are angry about,because the corporate media has utterly failed to inform properly its own viewers which has left these people vulnerable to the predatory antics of such douchebags as beck,hannity and even mr perfect hair hugh hewitt.
they should not be making million dollar contracts but be ran out of town in a cloud of shame.

oh shit! dont tell my conservative christian mother, she just saw it with my kids and super super loved it.

>> ^Fusionaut:
Wanna know the real reason conservative christians can't have pre-marital sex? Because it might lead to dancing...


If it leads to less Christian rap I'm for it.

Wanna know the real reason conservative christians can't have pre-marital sex? Because it might lead to dancing...

>> ^entr0py:
chilaxe, yes you'd have to be naive to take this guy at his word without scrutinizing his evidence. But unfortunately I doubt any of us really care enough to put the time into it.


Either that or we don't trust conservative christian leaders to begin with, so regardless of the evidence it isn't changing our opinion of these scumbags anyway.

Honkeytonk, I had to look up sanctity myself to be sure there wasn't also a secular meaning for it. But, It's a purely religious term, so it should be completely unconvincing to those of us who don't believe in the biblical god.

c.1394, from OldFrench sanctité, from Latin sanctitatem (nom. sanctitas) "holiness, sacredness," from sanctus "holy" (see saint).

The question in my mind is, why do Christians still think that civil marriage in the US is sacred? Don't they know that the government has been permitting wicked heathens, cowardly agnostics, and godless atheists to marry since the founding of our nation? Not to mention the blasphemy of mixed race marriage.

Given that, it's more accurate to say that conservative Christians believe marriage AS GRANTED BY THEIR CHURCH is sacred. But no one is suggesting churches could somehow be forced to marry gays. So WTF is their problem after all?

>> ^JiggaJonson:
I'm going to LOVE watching the republicans who have defended this whole torture thing for months be force fed their words when they see what really went on.


They'll just dodge this and Attack everyone that it shouldn't be released

...because as right wing, conservative Christians, they firmly believe that truth and ethics in government is a bad thing.

Oh woops, totally neglected the Iranian factor. For what it's worth, Dr. Sizer gave a talk at my relatively-conservative Christian university on a panel with relatively-conservative Theology professors. I entirely agree with you on the perceived lack of legitimacy on account of the domain name, but I feel that his critiques transcend that. And this is coming from a former stalwart Zionist.

>> ^dag:
The court was just upholding the ballot decision- it's not their job to legislate from the bench.
Prop 8 will be overturned soon by initiative though so it's only a temporary setback.
I hate to cast dispersions- but the large amount of Catholics represented by the latino population would certainly be one reason prop 8 passed originally. Chalk another victory up for conservative Christian values.


True, but a lot of the Pro-8 money came from Utah.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

The court was just upholding the ballot decision- it's not their job to legislate from the bench.

Prop 8 will be overturned soon by initiative though so it's only a temporary setback.

I hate to cast dispersions- but the large amount of Catholics represented by the latino population would certainly be one reason prop 8 passed originally. Chalk another victory up for conservative Christian values.