... keep all the dangerous religious nutters on the same site.
Catholics around the world and the next will be pleased to know that two of the US' top Catholic dating sites have come together in the unity of an acquisition. Yes, Catholic Match has thrown its loving arms around rival site CatholicDaters.com, meaning that single Catholics now have a single site through which to get to know …
... keep all the dangerous religious nutters on the same site.
Would it have to be a barbed-wire ring - big enough to be worn on the thigh?
... you could argue that such a site facilitates the creation of infant sponges ready to suck up the religious drivel that their parents feed them to create even more nutters!!
where's the IT angel?
Coat is on, exit stage right
Oh Hi, 'scuse me I was just wondering - is this the good bigotry or the bad bigotry ? You know: if I am, say, jewish or homosexual, you may not be a bigot because that's bad bigotry. If I am Catholic or Welsh, hate me as much or as little as you like, and why not invite a friend along to lend a hand. That's good bigotry and it's free to everyone. It's a little bit like open source.
Anon will hate you just as much if you're Jewish or Homosexual as Anon will if you're Welsh or Catholic.
Anon also reserves the right to hate anything else anon chooses to hate or belittle at any given point in time.
Anon also reserves the right to change anons mind for no reason at all.
Anon also needs no reason to question your sexuality.
Being Jewish, Catholic, Muslim or whatever, are something you CHOOSE to be and therefore are valid subjects for ridicule.
Being a homosexual, Welsh, or both, is something you're born with, and are not.
Are we all clear now?
A professional, interesting, well researched article with poignant comment on the ethical question of lifetime membership for a dating site for people with firm views on marriage and sin. Beautifully complemented by bigoted and ill-informed drivel from pretentious people who think they represent the majority!
Now for some ill-informed drivel of my own: in transubstantiation the host (bread) becomes the body of Christ.. The Bible states that John was special among the disciples because Jesus “loved him”..
If you presume that the bible implies that Jesus was “gay” then all Catholics willingly put the body of a gay man in their mouths every Sunday..
While your writing your bigotry GPL, can you fit something in about redheads ?
'Well, those that are single and not under holy orders' - and not gay and not even a bit camp (like perhaps a pope with a fetish for Nazi Youth uniforms...)
Oh and yeah I'm equal-opportunities with my anti-religeous bigotry: being an atheist I'm extremely bigoted about all religeous bigots, fundamentalists, jihadis, crusaders, evangelists, choir boy buggerers, female genital mutilators...
*bandwidth alert: too many religeon-inspired crimes against humaity to post*
"Do you take my assets?"
Hey, whoa there! Last time I checked they were supposed to do it for procreation purposes only. So none of this "assets taking", thank you very much!
@ J - You can date without sex
@ Ian McNee - Being an atheist doesn't mean that you have to be bigoted about anything. I am a Christian and I accept that people don't have the same beliefs as me, I think they are mistaken, but I am not bigoted about it. In the same way, I have friends who are athiests, thiests (mono and poly) and roll players, we all get on and accept each other's beliefs.
Also - NEWS FLASH - lots of bad stuff has happened in the name of nothing.
@ Russell Curtis - You don't really choose a religion, it is something that you come to believe, you know like gravity, you can't see it's there, but you can see sufficient evidence to know that it is there. You may well say that there is no evidence for religion, but that is what you believe, others believe differently.
@ Anyone else who thinks that I should have posted a reply, you should probably grow up instead.
Please - "choir boy buggerers" are not "religion inspired". This is (one look at Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit later) a fallacy called "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc", something that atheists (who *all* use the same phrases and vocabulary, but who all are 100% free thinkers, apparently) seem to be very inclined to use when it suits.
Labelling everything under the blanket "religion" is ridiculous. It's like blaming atheism for the Holocaust (*please* don't retort that this was also inspired by religion), two world wars, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, the Great Leap Forward, Soviet massacres...come on. No-one would claim this, because no-one follows a teacher so blindly as to believe such illogic. Yet Dawkins can claim the same thought process about "religion" (that ultimate straw man, thank you again Carl) and the idea is accepted by unquestioning ears.
Next: crusades. Have a look at the political and social climates at the time, and the maturity of Christianity. This was clearly a phase through which those in the church passed, which has long since gone (Hundreds of years ago...is this the best you have?). If it were actually a part of Christianity then it would still be continuing; this is not the case.
Lastly, evangelists (by definition) and fundamentalists (depending on what they are fundamental about) are not intrinsically bad things. I see an atheist evangelist on television talking about deistic delusions, and I see Christians of all ages - due to their fundamental adherance to the core of Christianity - laying down jobs, safety, even lives, to go and help fight poverty and famine overseas; to reach people who are considered unreachable or unworthy of help; to do everything peacable and good and right - and yet they are fundamentalists.
As for female genitalia mutilation - I agree. It is a horrific thing. As is jihad. But I do not speak for other religions.
I say all this in an attempt to refute your idea that such a blanket statement is ok. You phrased it in a very jingoistic, "us vs them" way - no logic, just a list of (mostly) assumptions, which I have tried to break down, so that anyone that read it and nodded automatically might actually stop and think about what you said. If after reading this they (and you) still believe the same, then fair enough. Can't blame me for trying :)
I am a Buddhist, I feel neglected when all the other faiths get ridiculed and mine is not included.
"You don't really choose a religion, it is something that you come to believe, you know like gravity"
So if i stop believing in Gravity, i'll be able to float in mid-air ala Arthur Dent in HHGTTG... cool!
And by that same logic that must mean that all babies can float as well because quite obviously a baby cant believe in anything, i think i'll head down to the local nursery and find out...
Religion is something you choose to believe in, or not as the case may be. You choose to go to a church/mosque/synagogue and listen to some guy/girl with as much experience in metaphysical/theological things as you have and to listen to the doctrine they purport. The choice to take it in is yours. Many of us underwent forced sitting through church when younger and chose to disregard it as bullshit, we made that choice, you made yours - dont try to pass it off as something its not...
The religious among you can claim that religion is not responsible for all the bad things in the world and this is true, but the words of Immanuel Kant sum up the feeling of good Athiests everywhere -
"Good People do Good Things, Bad People do Bad Things, but for Good People to do Bad Things it takes Religion"
"Choir boy buggerers" may not be religiously inspired, but are certainly religiously assisted. There's a reason Cardinal Bernard Law fled from justice to the Vatican.
Likewise, the Holocaust may not have been religiously inspired, but they helped out. Rather than invoking Godwin's Law, I'll point you to http://nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
Please tell me where Dawkins has been "labelling everything under the blanket religion". Perhaps you should should actually read more than the title of his book. And finishing that paragraph with a "strawman" quip? Priceless.
"Evangelists (by definition)" followed by "an athiest evangelist on television"? Perhaps you should have actually looked it up! Evangelism (n): zealous preaching and advocacy of the gospel.
As for fundamentalism, to what holy book exactly do atheists have a "fundamental adherence"?
And Christians only do good works "due to their fundamental adherance to the core of Christianity"? So they're only one doubt away from going out raping and pillaging instead? Very poor show.
You totally missed my point - Religion is something that you become aware of, maybe through experience of going to church/mosque/etc., maybe through meeting other religeous people, much in the same way as you come to know about gravity, you learn about it. I may not believe that gravity exists (I do, as it happens), it doesn't mean that it is going to stop working for me. I also believe that God exists, it doesn't mean that because you do not that God doesn't exist. You are correct that you choose to go to Church/Mosque/Gurdwara/etc, but the act of attending a particular building does not define your beliefs and understandings.
Take this one for example. I've been ignoring it for days now because I don't wat to get dragged down into some aimless theological argument but in a fit of weakness decided to have a peek. Haven't laughed so freely and healthily at shameless bigotry in ages. Thanks guys.
Surely the homosexuals would be exchanging ring-pieces.
And, if they set up a police reunion site, could they exchange ring donuts?
So, what would ParisHilton say?
@Fraser, @Russel Curtis... woah there like d00d, yes, religion is a belief system, but there are some out there for whom the particular faith is a requirement for living in that country... there is no "choice" involved for them whatsoever.
Whilst I agree that "lots of stuff happened for nothing", the single greatest/worst contribution to war, violent action and unjustified wholesale suffering of a population is, by the longest mile, the abuse of the power of religion as wielded by individuals. And for sure, the greatest support offered to any population are these same belief systems, unwielded.
Is not the same as saying that religion is the cause of a war, if there wasn't the excuse of religion, there would be something else, such as, say, the threat to national security of a nation due to weapons of mass destruction. Saying that religion is the cause of major conflict (especially when the core principles of the cited religion are against such conflict) is like saying science is the biggest killer in the history of man because every weapon has been a product of science.
I'm agnostic, I'm not religiously bound, but I think there's probably a lot of stuff we don't know a lot about, and there's probably something slightly more to life. Whether this is a magical invisible entity, or Santa Claus, I don't know. However, my father was a minister, he's recently retired, but he's gone back into a figurehead role. He is a very learned man, and a Doctor of Philosophy. He studied at London Bible College and has more knowledge theologically than a lot of the people who go along to church and sit in the pews. He doesn't like to boast about it, and he treats them like equals, but it is naive and childlike to suggest that ministers are equally qualified theologically as attendees.
I hate arguments like this because on the one side you tend to have people who are fundamentally Christian but have no basis for their arguments and haven't read Dawkins, on the other hand you have atheists who have read Dawkins and think it is the be all and end all. There are plenty of books out there that counter Dawkins very well using Christian doctrine, and if you're going to criticise someone for not knowing what they're talking about when it comes to Dawkins, you might at least want to read these books so that you know what you're talking about.
I've heard many arguments about Christianity and religion in general, but in general they're pretty weak, scientifically as well as theologically. The King James Bible is rife with mistranslations and the sources are pretty doubtful for me, however the argument that religion really had anything to do with the Crusades is ludicrous if you know anything of the history of the wars. The Vatican at that time was essentially a country with a lot of power, and it used that power to stabilize the situation in Europe at the time. I don't agree that the Crusades were a good thing, but I very much doubt that Urban had God's wishes on his mind when he made his famous speech.
@ Russell Curtis - Interestingly made point about it being okay to ridicule people for something that is their own choice. Not really. It's still ignorant. Sure it's okay to disagree with beliefs, but not to foster hatred of communities through mockery, and this could be the (unintended) consequence of your ridicule.
Also it's illegal in the UK, and the Register would not dare publish an article like this if the group concerned were (say) Hindu rather than Catholic. 'Cos that would be bad bigotry.
No, if you want to have some spicy "good" bigorty, do as the Register article and choose one of the whipping boys - Catholics, Welsh, Irish, people from the USA, Manchester United fans. Stay off Muslims, Polish, gays, or you will be taken away in a dark van.
For some reason, this discussion brings to mind a story about Padre Pio. A woman once approached him and said, “Father, I don’t believe in hell.” Pio responded, “That’s not a problem; you will when you get there.”
Fraser, you did not get the (admittedly bad) joke... Must be the American x British English problem. Slaine is there though.
lol. Best joke so far goes to Padre Pio.
"Interestingly made point about it being okay to ridicule people for something that is their own choice. Not really. It's still ignorant. Sure it's okay to disagree with beliefs, but not to foster hatred of communities through mockery, and this could be the (unintended) consequence of your ridicule."
So we can't ridicule Astrology? Scientology? David Icke?
Come off it. Just because nonsense is popular doesn't make is any less nonsensical.
First at Anon with the title "The abuse of the power of religion...", i dont intend for this to sound mean (but it probably will come out that way as i'm not good with subtlety) but tell me what extra knowledge of the supernatural/theological/next world/etc type stuff does your father have that the common person doesnt have? I will admit he probably has extensive knowledge gained from the study of a 2000 year old text with many proven inaccuracies (or technically 1700 year old text since the bible was formally created by Emperor Constantine in the 3rd century), and a study of the history surrounding said text.
Has your father ever spoken to God, or more importantly has God ever spoken back? Has your father visited the next life, been to heaven and hell ala Dante, or any of the other things that are claimed by christianity? Im talking first hand experience...
The answer of course not... Therefore his specialist knowledge in theology is based on study of a book only and is therefore no more or less experienced in the reality of the situation then any other person on this planet. None of us can say what happens when we die... because as far as im aware no ones come back to tell us what happens....
@Fraser - The fairies at the bottom of my garden have ordered me to make peace with you. It seems were going to have to agree to disagree on this topic. I strongly disagree with you about your statement that "religion is something that comes to you". I believe it was something that came to our ancestors because they needed some way to explain the things they could not understand, i no longer believe that is necessary as science can answer most things these days and that which it cannot answer yet, it will be able to answer one day. "Just because i dont know the exact date a letter is going to be delivered to me doesnt mean i need to pray to the god of the post office for my letter to arrive..."
@ Russell Curtis - I guess it depends on how far your "ridicule" goes, and what community you are targeting. Certainly it is illegal to foster hatred of gays, or about to become so. If the article had been about a dating agency for gays or Hindus, it simply would not have been published (in that tone) and the author would now be scrubbing the Register toilets with a block of wood.
I am not sure how far Astrologists / Scientologists / David Icke qualify as a recognised community in the UK. Perhaps David Icke would like to comment ?
Hindus and Jews are protected in this country under race discrimination legislation, as they are recognised as distinct races. Homosexual people should also be protected as - and I'll say it again - sexual orientation is not a matter of choice.
Catholicism, Islam, Astrology, Scientology are all things one chooses to believe in, and not something you are born with.
Why should Catholics be immune from ridicule whilst David Icke isn't? Just because there are more of them? Believing that the world is run by a race of alien lizards, or that we are decended from Thetans doesn't seem any more daft to me than transubstantiation or the concept of original sin. It's all a load of bollocks.