Christians Are Not a ‘Hated Minority’

CNN’s John Blake has a controversial article up about the strange idea that Christians may constitute a “hated minority.”

It’s a strange idea because Christians (as a whole) aren’t hated and they’re in no way a minority.

What’s Blake’s referring to is the Martyr Complex Mentality displayed by conservative evangelicals like Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, a group that routinely disparages homosexuals, spreads lies about them, and prevents them from getting equal rights. They say they’re hated because people disagree with them and say so out loud!

But why would anyone have anything against Christian love?

Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the council, wrote in a council pamphlet that homosexual men are more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are straight men. He also wrote that gay men are also afflicted with a higher rate of sexually transmitted diseases and mental illness as well.

Sprigg says he does not believe homosexuality is a choice and that “personal testimonies” and “clinical experience” show that some people “can and do change from gay to straight.”

“Maybe we need to do a better job of showing that we are motivated by Christian love,” Sprigg says. “Love is wanting the best for someone, and acting to bring that about.”

Peter: No one hates you because you hold unpopular opinions. They hate you because you force your religious views on other people through bad legislation. There’s no “love” in what you do; you tell lies based on faulty “science” and your own brand of bigotry, dismiss claims from LGBT people who say sexuality isn’t a choice, and pretend like everyone is out to get you when they voice disagreement.

This is the reason Sprigg’s group is called a hate group while evangelical churches that preach similar beliefs about gay people are not:

[Spokesman Mark Potok] says the Southern Poverty Law Center didn’t designate the Family Research Group a hate group because they view homosexuality as a sin or oppose same-sex marriage, Potok says. There are plenty of Christian groups who hold those beliefs but are not hate groups, he says.

A group becomes a hate group when it attacks and maligns an entire class of people for their “immutable characteristics,” Potok says. The Family Research Council spreads known falsehoods about gays and lesbians, he says, such as the contention that gay men are predisposed to abuse children.

“That’s a lie,” Potok says. “These guys are engaging in straight-up defamation of a very large group of people. There are not many things much worse than you can say in America about somebody than they are a child molester.

Even atheists at their most extreme tend to think “Christians are wrong,” not “I hate Christians.” We just focus our energies on the ones whose beliefs lead to horrible social policies based on lies and myth. No one’s stopping Sprigg and the FRC from voicing their opinions. No one’s filing lawsuits against the FRC because they said something “unpopular.” They can revel in their own filth all they want. To be sure, much of the self-described “hate” they talk about comes from other Christians, angry that people like Sprigg are using their Holy Book to justify bigotry.

Sprigg confuses hatred against Christians with stubbornly clinging to ideas that are so outdated and awful that the majority of Americans are finally coming around to the right side of the issue.

If some Christians are afraid to say they disapprove of homosexuality — which, let’s be honest, just means they feel icky thinking about gay people having sex and that’s why, in their minds, no one else should be allowed to have it — then I’m glad we’re making them think twice before they say it out loud. They can spout hatred from the pulpit or through press releases all they want; no one has to take them seriously or accept their lies at face value.

Here’s what’s probably happening: The FRC, and Focus on the Family, and other Christian groups that have built their legacies on demonizing the LGBT community are losing members and donors fast. They can’t accept that they’re saying or doing anything wrong. Instead, they’re blaming the “liberal media” or President Obama or evolution or, in this case, “hatred against Christians.”

Eventually, their views will become so abhorrent, even in Christian circles, that they’ll be forced to adapt or go extinct. It’s sweet justice to think of how fast their power will fade because they can’t evolve quickly enough.

On a side note, CNN has the worst discussion format on the Internet, with no ability to sort through thousands of comments. For shame, CNN…

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.

  • ortcutt

    Whenever I read comments like Spriggs’, all I can hear in my head is someone saying “It’s getting to the point where you’re condemned for just being a segregationist. I don’t hate black people, I just don’t think we ought to have to eat with them and send our kids to school with them.” Everyone is legally entitled to their beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that I won’t think someone is a bigot on account of those beliefs.

  • Greg Peterson

    What I don’t understand is that the article literally says “Sprigg says he does not believe homosexuality is a choice.” NOT a choice. Do you think that’s a typo, or do you think he really thinks it’s not a choice but can be changed anyway? Like left-handedness used to be?

  • jenbo

    Maybe we should explain it to them this way, of course, in the same condescending tone they would use to others: “We don’t hate you, we just hate the awful things you say and do.” That line of reasoning would make sense to them, right?

    • busterggi

      Hate the self-righteousness not the self-righteous.

    • Kinky F.

      no, I pretty much hate them. They are vile. They are hypocrites. I think its time to be honest and put away the fake “we don’t hate you bullshit”. I pretty much hate ‘em.

  • SeekerLancer

    I suppose in people like Sprigg’s mind, “true” Christians are a minority. Still, as Willy Wonka is eloquently putting it these are the same people who will argue that we live in a Christian nation.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke

    it’s all about the money. don’t worry, when equality comes to pass, they’ll find another group to demonize. bigots gotta hate if they’re going to get paid.

  • DrewHardies

    That article makes a weak argument.

    The author says disagreement isn’t hate. Except, when people disagree with conservative Christians. /That/ crosses a line.

    • http://spacegod.tumblr.com/ spacegod

      Huh? Christians have the odd idea that they are being persecuted and silenced for what they say. When others disagree with them or disprove their junk science, Christians often confuse that disagreement with hate and censorship. Most people don’t hate Christians, they just find them annoying.

  • Lurker111

    I consider Christians a despisable majority. /semi-snark

  • TnkAgn

    Not a hated minority. But aye, a pitiable majority…for now.

  • Kubricks_Rube

    I love how hard the CNN article tries not to take sides:

    But quoting the Bible doesn’t inoculate anyone from becoming a bigot or hater, some scholars say.

    At least the scholar quoted in the article is not so wishy-washy:

    “Truly damaging speech cannot be excused just because it expresses genuine religious belief,” says Mark D. Jordan….“Some religious beliefs, sincerely held, are detestable.

    • Hat Stealer

      Personally, I’m just irritated that the word “hater” has entered mainstream usage.

    • TheAnti-Coconut

      oh, CNN, what a joke.

  • ganner918

    “Christians,” no. Evangelicals, however, are a minority of the country and their public image is growing more and more tarnished. If you describe yourself to me as an evangelical or fundamentalist Christian, the baggage attached to that is going to cause me to make initial judgments about you. Maybe you’re a good person, maybe you grew up in it and haven’t questioned, maybe you try to be good to people and aren’t a crusader. But your willing association with those groups that I find harmful to society will make me judge you in some way.

  • decathelite

    paging rwlawoffice to come to the butthurt department, paging rwlawoffice…

    • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

      yea I was thinking a similar thing, “Where’s the apologists, on this one?”

    • Kinky F.

      Ahhhhh!!! Ahhhh Ahh ahhh AHHHHHHH!!!!! How dare you use “butthurt” and alienate sodomites, you incredibly insensitive person you. How can you use such language, it marginalizes and demotes a segment of society….AHHHHh AHha HHAHHA AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

      • RobMcCune

        Well at least you’re getting a lot of amusement out the fact hew-mon dignity confuses and enrages you.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Agree with the comment, kinda cringing at “butthurt”. (But I totally get what you mean — where is that whiny self-righteous douche?)

      • Kinky F.

        AND THERE IT IS! Yes, I knew we could net one! The “butthurt” butthurt….the faux sensitive asswipes that get all butthurt over terms like butthurt! YES!

        Thanks little chick, you just won me a smooth c-note!

        • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

          Mmm, yeah, I’m a faux-sensitive asswipe, right, because I acknowledge that some words have some painful baggage.

          Wow. That’s just so… so… fucking stupid I can’t even find words for it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Dharmaworks David Benjamin Patton

            The expression “Butthurt” has painful baggage for you? Man, your childhood must have been seriously fucked up.

            • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

              Not for me, personally, but it has some seriously homophobic undertones to it.

              • http://www.facebook.com/Dharmaworks David Benjamin Patton

                Again, seriously? I’m a 100% bonafide queer ass faggot. Have been all my life. I’m been called every homophobic and derogatory name, slur; put down you can name. I’ve heard every snide comment or remark you can think of too. Hell, I’ve even had guns in my face before. In all this history of verbal homophobia the term ‘butthurt’ is so far, far down the list of ‘homophobic undertones’ that it’s sitting on the bench feeling all, well, butthurt because it didn’t make the cut. Loosen your girdle soon kitty, the world is a lot better when you can actually breathe.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Loosen my… *snorfle* *snicker* *guffaw*

                • Andrew Bennett

                  It’s totally cool if people saying “butthurt” doesn’t bother you at all. Clearly the word faggot doesn’t bother you much either. This does not mean that either should be considered acceptable to use in polite situations. Both words bother a great many other people.

                • http://www.facebook.com/Dharmaworks David Benjamin Patton

                  Words are just words, puffs of air and nothing more. They only carry the weight that you give them. if you’re bothered by certain words that’s YOUR problem, not someone else’s that they must accommodate you.

                • GCT

                  Tell that to all the gay children that have committed suicide due to being bullied. Oh wait, you can’t. Better yet, go tell their families that.

                • http://www.facebook.com/Dharmaworks David Benjamin Patton

                  Dude, do not talk to me about gay kids that have been bullied. You sound as arrogant as a white man trying to tell a black man how it feels to be black in racist America. That doesn’t work so just don’t even go there.

                  What I said is true – words are just words. They only have the power and importance that we give them. It’s up to me whether I run and hide if someone calls me a faggot or whether I stand my ground, look them in eye with shoulders squared, nose to nose and say “And? So fucking what?”

                  Everyday is a choice. Every word said to us is a choice to either accept or reject it’s power over us. Just because someone says something mean or derogatory at me doesn’t mean it is true. There is a lot of power in realizing that. Yeah, it takes a strong sense of character and self esteem to do that but anyone is capable of being their own Superman. Anyone.

                  Our society is broken almost to the point of no repair because we are being taught to be victims instead of victors over ourselves. It’s called getting a backbone and that’s what I teach my kids. You can’t offend me because I don’t believe in being offended, not by mere words. I’ll just laugh at you.

                • GCT

                  Don’t pretend that because you have no issue with certain words that you are the sole arbiter of what is and is not acceptable. You do not have the right to tell everyone else what they can and cannot get upset about. That is the height of arrogance, and callousness when you turn your uncaring eye towards people whose lives have been fatally affected by hatred.

                  Secondly, words are the vehicles we use to express ideas, and those ideas can and do have real world consequences. It might not directly bother you when someone calls you a fag, but it does add to the societal stigma against homosexuals that has become a death sentence for some homosexuals. It poisons the culture and poisons cultural interaction. You may “choose” to not be affected by it (who actually chooses that?) but you may not have a choice when someone steeped in a bigoted society decides to take it out on you, or decides that you’re being too uppity by standing nose to nose and beats the shit out of you for being gay.

                  Lastly, on your point about “getting a backbone” (besides what I’ve already said on it) you’re simply wrong to imply that simply “getting a backbone” will keep people from being victims. There are inequalities in our society and there are victims, and that doesn’t go away by simply pretending it is not so. And, further, to claim that it’s because people who are actually victimized are at fault for not having a backbone or for acknowledging that they’ve been victimized is nothing short of blaming the victim.

                • http://www.facebook.com/Dharmaworks David Benjamin Patton

                  And by the way – this is an internet forum, a place where you can bet on ideas and dialogue constantly being challenged. If you and kitty are that butthurt over people using words like butthurt then maybe this isn’t the place for you. Perhaps you should find a Victorian era tea party to hang out at instead.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Take your idiocy and your sexist language elsewhere. You’re not winning any points here.

          • Kinky F.

            Ahhhh AHAHHAhhAHHAHHAHHH THS KY IS FUCKING FALLING BECAUSE SOMEONE WENT OFF SCRIPT. AND 30 YEAR OLD, Mr. Man of the WORLD HEMANT THINKS HE KNOWS WHAT IS BEST VIA CENCORSHIP, even though he constantly makes posts about censorship being bad for our side.

            Entropy folks, pure and simple. You diddledinks cannot fathom thinking for yourselves or bypassing party line nonsense.

            Oh and kitty – you are one of the most butthurt little twats around here.

    • Rwlawoffice

      I’m here. Nothing really worth commenting on. The SPLC hate crime designation for the Family Research Council is nonsense and silly, but it did cause one person to shoot up their office and kill a guard.

      As for Christians being a hated minority, I don’t think that is true except here on this blog, the media and the Democratic Party where those that cry for tolerance are just the opposite. However, I do not believe that Hemant is correct in his depiction of the perceived demise of focus on the family or evangelical Christianity. I will let you in on a secret, the issue of homosexual behavior is far less of an issue for these folks than your self importance thinks it is. The discussion over it will not lead them into extinction.

      • Carmelita Spats

        So there are no Christians in the Democratic Party? Zero? Oh, right…Those aren’t “TRUE” Christians because Jeebus votes Republican. James Dobson, Christ incarnate through the awesome power of the Holy Spirit, has conceded that the culture wars are over and his creepy 1950s vision of Amerika has lost. Miserably lost. Dobson’s own kid, Ryan Dobson, is DIVORCED and REMARRIED which is akin to ADULTERY according to Jeebus.

        http://bible.cc/luke/16-18.htm

        His daughter, Danae, is a self-professed 48-year-old dipped-in-concrete virgin who writes soggy malt shop books on sexuality for teens. Danae Dobson didn’t marry young so as to squirt out a mewling pile of attention-deprived semen demons. She’s still single and sexless at 48 because she’s looking for a godly man, “like my father.” Ewwwww. Hypocrites.

        • rwlawoffice

          Actually, there are Christians in the Democratic party. It is the evangelical Christians that the Democratic Party hates.

          You are so misquided on the Christian faith due to your obvious hatred for it that trying to comment on your faulty theology is really not worth the effort.

          • Dez

            Most americans hate the fundies of any religion. Muslim, christians, whatever.

          • http://twitter.com/noblockheads Sarah

            Yeah, well, it’s kinda hard to respect people who are always trying to shove religion in your face. I dislike all fundamentalists equally.

      • Baby_Raptor

        Dear god, I think I might die from oxygen deprivation, I’m laughing so hard.

        Can you go even one post without letting your persecution complex out?

        The SPLC has very strict definitions for what constitutes a hate group. And the FRC meets them. And somehow, were a group meeting those definitions RE Christians, I doubt you’d be calling the designation “nonsense and silly.” You only call it that here because you agree with them.

        Oh, and how did the designation cause someone to shoot a guard? Did the designation somehow take over his body, mind control him and force him to pull the trigger? I bet you’re one of those people who denies that Sarah Palin’s gun sights caused the gabby Gifford shooting, or that extreme pro-forced birth rhetoric causes abortion clinic bombings. Anyone you agree with is innocent; the rest of us are Fucked.

        And your last statement there is the most hilarious of all. LGBTs aren’t the ones out there constantly talking about ourselves. We aren’t the ones constantly screaming about marriage, or sex, or any of that. And we aren’t the assholes who only seem to see LGBTs as the sex we might be having, not the people we are.

        All that is YOUR side.

        One of these days, the lying sack of shit will manage to say one true thing. And then we’ll all be shocked into silence.

        • rwlawoffice

          You really should try to get more oxygen to your brain because the lack of it is evident in your post.

          The SPLC is a joke when it comes to these designations and they are not taken seriously by the Family Research Council or most Christians who know better. To group an organization like the FRC with the KKK or white supremacist groups is a farce.

          As for how the designation caused someone to shoot a guard, read the news. The shooter says he was motivated by this designation. But of course, never let the facts get in your way of the agenda.

          http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-video-family-research-council-shooter-admits-used-141041463.html

          Really, LGBT’s aren’t in the public eye pushing their agenda everywhere you look? They aren’t pursuing same sex marriage in every state, they aren’t filing claims against people who think they have discriminated against them, they aren’t filing lawsuits in most jurisdictions to pursue their rights, they aren’t calling those who disagree with them bigots? You really do like to ignore reality.

          • GCT

            SPLC has specific criteria. When applied to the KKK and the FRC, both meet the criteria for being classified as hate groups. If you don’t like it, then perhaps you should question what the FRC is doing that gets it lumped into the same designation as the KKK.

            • rwlawoffice

              So exactly how many people have the FRC lynched?

              • http://twitter.com/noblockheads Sarah

                The KKK hasn’t lynched anybody since the early 20th century. They now stick to spewing verbals insults against their perceived enemies – kinda like the FRC. But at least both groups have an animosity to homosexuals. Maybe they should buddy up.

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  That is, of course, assuming that there is currently little to no overlap between the two.

                  I suspect, however, that many of the members of one are also members of the other…

              • GCT

                That’s not the only criteria. Again, why don’t you actually look at the criteria and see why the FRC gets the hate group designation? And, see what the FRC is doing to merit that designation. I’ll also note that your defense is really terrible. You’re basically claiming that the FRC isn’t as bad as that other group, so…actually, I don’t understand what you’re trying to prove here. Just because the FRC may not be as bad as the KKK (that’s up for debate) doesn’t mean that the FRC isn’t a hate group.

          • AntiTroll

            It seems equal rights is an “agenda”, when your a bigot. Anyways, It’s not really important what an old fart like you thinks of reality, because you clearly despise it.

      • Billy Bob

        1. The guard wasn’t killed

        2. Yes, the hate group label motivated the shooter. Not the hate spewed out daily by the assholes running the group. Must have been because someone called them out on it.

        3. If homosexuality isn’t that much of an issue, why do these assholes constantly try to spread lies about gays to demonize them?

        • rwlawoffice

          You are correct. The guard was injured as he tackled the shooter, not killed. My error.

          Do a little research on Focus on the Family and you will find out that the issue of homosexuality is a very small part of what they are about and what they deal with.

          • Dez

            And that small part is based on lies to demonize gays. Are you denying that they do that even if it is a small part of what they do?

            • rwlawoffice

              They don’t demonize homosexuals. They claim that homosexual behavior is a sin. There is a big difference.

              • http://twitter.com/noblockheads Sarah

                “They don’t demonize homosexuals. They claim that homosexual behavior is a sin.”

                I see no difference between the two.

              • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

                How, exactly, are these statements any different?

              • GCT

                They also create bogus statistics, lie about other results, etc. They do demonize homosexuals. Using lies and other underhanded tactics to dismiss a whole swathe of humans as sub-human is demonizing, especially when it’s based on their own bigotries.

              • Dez

                So it’s okay to lie about gays because it’s a sin? It’s disgusting that you find that acceptable.

      • decathelite

        Christians aren’t a hated minority. That is the second sentence in this blog post. The top rated comment here shows the nuance of our position: we don’t hate Christians we just hate the things they say and do that promote inequality.

        I think homosexual behavior is quite a big issue for FRC. There are few Bryan Fischer radio podcasts where it hasn’t been brought up at least once.

        The FRC isn’t going away, and evangelical Christianity isn’t going extinct. The KKK or Aryan Nations haven’t gone extinct, it’s just that they don’t have the social and political influence they had prior to the civil rights movement.

        I think it’s sad that you think that we believe that we want Christians to go extinct. That’s not what I believe. I just want the toxic elements of inequality to go away.

      • http://twitter.com/noblockheads Sarah

        Try being a Christian in Pakistan, and then maybe you’ll truly understand what being a “hated minority” is. Get back to me when mobs of Muslims are burning down your home because of perceived verbal threats to their faith.

  • Bdole

    Try being an atheist.
    But to be fair, atheists are only hated on those rare occasions when the majority remembers we exist. So, memorial services, political campaigns, and the like…no hatred at all.

    • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

      I kind of have to disagree with you on this, Atheists are really hated when we stick our collective noses in christian/theistic business and openly voice our opinions on mainstream media. When christians make legislation violating the Separation of Church and State Clause and when one of the four horsemen gets on TV (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Krauss.*) Then we are hated. Otherwise we are marginalized. Generally we are seen as being a dishonest group by American christians because of the Morality Without Gawd paradox that causes so much confusion.

      *IDK why but I keep hearing an imaginary receptionist saying, “Welcome to Dawkins Dennett Harris and Krauss, how may I direct your soul?”

    • baal

      Buying gelato or tee shirts is occasionally an issue.

  • A3Kr0n

    I think Christians are wrong, but I don’t hate them. Since I was raised Methodist I like the moderates the best. What I hate is when the non-denominational church puts up a 60 ft F’in penis cross where I have to see it twice a day.

    Look! It’s getting an erection now!!!
    http://gazettextra.com/

    • baal

      Why do modern christian monuments have to look so awful? At least the cathedrals are pretty damn awesome to look at.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        And quite a bit of the christian-themed artwork. The masters ARE called “the masters” for a reason, you know…

      • Gus Snarp

        Because when secular art become economically feasible most of the worthwhile artists went to secular art where they could be free to do what they wanted.

    • McAtheist

      Viewed the pic, that is an erection of biblical proportions.

  • indorri

    Gods, CNN’s comments section really are terrible, both in format and content.

  • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

    I’m kind of thinking Hemant that if the title had been, “Christians may constitute a “hated minority.” verses “Christians Are Not a ‘Hated Minority’ then there would have been substantially more hits on the web crawlers/spiders.

    • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

      OK nvm I take this back

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeff-Baker/679510827 Jeff Baker

    FOX News does not allow posting of comments. Very telling….

  • Sue Blue

    Okay, so this is what I posted on another blog about this Christian persecution meme, and I’ll just repeat it in all its snarkiness:

    Oh, boo-friggety-hoo – the Christians are getting persecuted again. So, so persecuted. So downtrodden they can’t even spew their hatred and bigotry openly for fear of being called haters and bigots. Whatever happened to the day when fine, upstandin’ Christian Amurkin patriots could yell out racial slurs in proud solidarity with their white brethren, only hiding behind sheets when they actually lynched someone? Oh, for the high times when strapping young Christian men could chain a gay man to a pickup truck and drag his bloody body through town to the cheers of their fellow Christians? Oh for the days before the internet, when loving, concerned Christians could rail against progressive social policies, voting women, single parents, birth control, abortion, premarital sex, extramarital sex, gay sex, any sex at all ever – without the whole world instantly witnessing their backwoods ignorance and bigotry. Oh for the centuries in which they could burn anyone they didn’t like as witches or heretics. Those were the days, man. Those were the days. But now…oh, the mockery. The derision. The heavy sighs of disgust. What a terrible, awful, cross to bear.

  • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

    Re: “It’s a strange idea because Christians (as a whole) aren’t hated and they’re in no way a minority.”

    “Strange”? No it’s not. Illogical, yes, but not strange, because it’s something most of us are very familiar with. The Christian syllogism goes something like this:

    The US has freedom of religion.
    Thus, people are free to practice their religions as they see fit.
    One of Christianity’s beliefs is that everyone is required to believe in Christianity.
    Thus, Christians are entitled to expect that everyone believe what they believe.
    Anyone who refuses to believe what a Christian believes, therefore …
    … is depriving that Christian of the expectation taught by his religion.
    Thus, to refuse to believe what Christians believe, prevents them from enjoying all of their beliefs …
    … and represents a gross abridgment of their religious freedom.

    Sound crazy? It’s not that far off the mark. This reasoning very handily explains Christians’ otherwise-nonsensical, paranoiac reactions to the very existence of non-believers.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      It makes sense, in a weird, wibbly-wobbly way. (Whoa.)

      • http://www.facebook.com/kwdayboise Kim Day

        Even a time-y wime-y way?

        • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

          Could be. Could be…

    • Godlesspanther

      Yes — to the fundie xtians — not believing everything they say without question is, according to them, persecuting them.

    • http://www.facebook.com/dvojir Daniel F. Vojir

      Number 3 is the key: it has led to the righteous arrogance of certain strains of Christianity from the 5th century, through the Crusades, the ghetto-ization of millions of people and up to the Holocaust. The belief (as many radical Muslims believe) that one theology is the ONE TRUE Religion has brought misery to much of mankind,

      And righteous arrogance needs to be fed: with fear, hatred and a feeling of being persecuted if things don’t go the way as hoped. Criticizing them in any way is “persecution.”

      Unfortunately, righteous arrogance is immutable and impervious to thoughts of change.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kwdayboise Kim Day

      While I know some Christians seem to act that way, there’s no tenant or dogma within the faith requiring everyone to believe just as a matter of course. It’s generally required as a step toward salvation, but even that isn’t necessarily required. Catholics (my faith) believe that salvation is a gift or grace that isn’t guaranteed any human thought or action, and that salvation is possible for those who’ve never heard of Christianity.

      You could fairly say that the faith requires all Christians to evangelize, which is what the nuts at FRC perceive themselves to be doing, and that preventing evangelism is an abridgement of freedom. But Mehta is spot on that expressing disagreement isn’t stifling freedom. It’s just calling an asshat an asshat.

      • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

        Re: “While I know some Christians seem to act that way, there’s no tenant or dogma within the faith requiring everyone to believe just as a matter of course.”

        Actually, your own faith, Catholicism, would beg to disagree with you on that. The bishops, for example, oppose gay marriage for all, because their religion teaches that it’s wrong, therefore, they think NO ONE in the US … whether Catholic or not … should be allowed to marry the same sex. In states where gay marriage is permitted, the bishops are on record as considering that an abridgement of their religious freedom. So are other Christian sects.

        For evidence, see e.g. the following:

        http://www.adventistreview.org/article/4868/archives/issue-2011-1530/30rns2-catholic-bishops-warn-congress-of-threats-to-religious-freedom

        http://www.religionnews.com/2013/02/19/gay-marriage-opponents-make-their-case-to-supreme-court/

        A lot of Christians like yourself probably don’t see their own sects in the syllogism I posted above, but it applies more often than it doesn’t. I’m sorry to break the news to you, but you really ought to know.

        • http://www.facebook.com/kwdayboise Kim Day

          Re: ” A lot of Christians like yourself probably don’t see their own sects in the syllogism I posted above”

          You would, apparently, be surprised. Out of 1.2 billion Catholics there’s a surprisingly dynamic range of opinions and interpretations, on this subject and hundreds of others.

          I see the activism of the bishops as largely being motivated by paranoia, mostly the fear that the government will force them into performing what is viewed as a sacrament in a way contrary to their perception of sin. But even that public advocacy is less about making everyone Christian and more about allowing immorality in the law. It’s their opinion, and I believe it to be wrong-heard. However, I am probably in the same boat when my faith motivates me to lobby against capital punishment and unjust economics.

          So it’s not really a syllogism. It’s activism based on one’s perceived calling. I and other Catholics are more alert to misguided activism than you may be aware. I’d suggest checking sites such as Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Commonweal, U.S. Catholic, National Catholic Reporter and, for more ecumenical sources, Sojourners and The Christian Left. Please understand that I’m not offering these to proselytize, simply to help your argument be less one-sided.

          • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

            Re: “I see the activism of the bishops as largely being motivated by paranoia, mostly the fear that the government will force them into performing what is viewed as a sacrament in a way contrary to their perception of sin.”

            You and the bishops realize, I hope, that no state that’s permitted gay marriage, is forcing Catholic priests to marry gays? If they, and you, seriously contend it’s happening, then they, and you, are liars. Because it’s not. They, and you, know better, so please stop regurgitating this lie.

            Re: “It’s their opinion, and I believe it to be wrong-heard.”

            I’ve heard their “opinion,” believe me, and I haven’t heard it “wrongly” at all. I’m quite clear as to what their “opinion” is.

            Re: “I and other Catholics are more alert to misguided activism than you may be aware.”

            Really? Please, tell me, how many of you Catholics who realize the bishops are “misguided,” are stopping them from being “misguided”? What, precisely, are you doing to correct them? What, precisely, are you to doing to force your own Church where you wish it to go rather than where the bishops want it to go?

            It’s your Church. It quite literally cannot go anywhere that you don’t allow it to go. If you think your Church’s governance is out of your hands (and at the moment, it certainly looks as though it is), that can be changed. The tool to do so is called “the Power of the Collection Plate.” If the bishops won’t do what you want them to do, starve them for contributions. They won’t be able to say “no” to you forever.

            At the moment, though, I see zero evidence of any campaign underway by any American Catholics to financially starve the bishops into capitulation. Maybe some Catholics are choosing not to give, but clearly, not enough of them are … because the bishops are even more Christofascist now than they’ve ever been.

            When enough of you so-called enlightened Catholics decide to seize the reins of your own Church and force it to do what you want it to do, then we can talk about what you’re doing to change it. Until then, I remain skeptical that enough American Catholics are concerned enough to take enough action to make things any different.

            Re: “Please understand that I’m not offering these to proselytize, simply to help your argument be less one-sided.”

            As I said, by virtue of the fact that the bishops are digging their heels in harder and becoming more Christofascist, it’s clear that none of the groups you’ve named has had any measurable impact on anything. You can gather among yourselves and congratulate yourselves on how much better you are then your own bishops, and maybe whine and complain that they won’t listen to you … but at the moment, none of that matters one iota. You need to get off your bottoms and take your own Church back. The power to do so is entirely in your hands. Either you wish to use it, or just make excuses and do nothing at all.

            Your choice. Just remember, it’s your religion. If it means something to you, then you have to act as though it means something. Don’t expect outside observers such as myself to respect your religion … and you, for believing in it … if you don’t respect your own Church enough to get it going where you wish it to go.

            • http://www.facebook.com/kwdayboise Kim Day

              The auto-correction on my Kindle seems to have offered you an unintended insult. I was trying to say the bishops were wrong-headed not wrong-heard.

              Beyond that, the church isn’t a democracy, though thousands have voted with their feet. Unfortunately, the cardinals and those huddled with them (plus the protestant evangelicals flooding into the church because they think the Baptists are too liberal) have the strange belief that those who left will be lured back if the church could be more critical and less inclusive.

              So those willing to speak, in precisely the venues I listed for you, do so. Eventually the church will adjust where it’s appropriate, as it always has, though it’s not a faith for the impatient.

              • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

                Re: “So those willing to speak, in precisely the venues I listed for you, do so.”

                Yet, by your own admission, their speech is ineffective and useless. Time to find a new tactic instead. One that works. Continuing to just do the same old stuff, hoping things will turn out differently, are useless.

                Re: “Eventually the church will adjust where it’s appropriate, as it always has, though it’s not a faith for the impatient.”

                So you’re saying, someday your to-date-ineffective-and-aimless tactics might — somehow, magically — get just a little bit of traction, and — somehow, magically — actually start getting somewhere, that hasn’t been accomplished yet?

                I have a better idea: Stop with the crap that you already know doesn’t work. Abandon it. Start doing things you know will work.

                If I may point this out: The hierarchs are as good at “talking” as you are, and quite honestly, are completely uninterested in anything you have to say. Better to take action that will coerce them to listen, even though they’d rather not.

                Stop talking. Start starving them for donations. It really is that simple.

                If you can’t or won’t take action that’s meaningful, then you may as well be doing nothing at all … and in turn, that would mean you’re supporting the hierarchs, rather than opposing them.

                What I suspect is the case is that Catholics like yourself who say they’d like the hierarchs to change, either aren’t sincere about that desire, or don’t have the stomach for a real confrontation that would cause real change. Either you have the courage to force the hierarchs to change, or you don’t.

                It’s your problem to solve. Not mine. But don’t tell me the problem is being solved, when you and I both know very well that it’s not. I’m not stupid. I know cowardice and inaction when I see it.

                • Jonny

                  First of all, the Catholic teachings don’t apply to you or any non-Catholic. Nobody can force them. So interfering with the Catholic Church is none of your business.

                  Secondly, the Catholics, including myself have complete right to hold their own opinion and that is also none of your business. Catholic leaders do not oppose homosexuality if it is not affecting them. They are helpless, because if it is legalized, they would be forced to use Catholic institutions to compromise their own beliefs. And it is their right under the ‘freedom of religion’ to not accept it.

                • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

                  Re: “So interfering with the Catholic Church is none of your business.”

                  Sorry, but I can’t do that. Because the Catholic Church refuses to get itself out of my personal business, and the personal business of everyone in the country, Catholic or not. They want things like abortion and gay marriage, for example, outlawed for everyone, not just Catholics.

                  If the bishops were willing to limit their activities to just controlling Catholics and no one else, I would have absolutely no problem with it. But they aren’t doing that.

                  Re: “Secondly, the Catholics, including myself have complete right to hold their own opinion and that is also none of your business.”

                  That’s true, but only so long as you Catholics are keeping to yourselves. As I said, however, you aren’t. The bishops and a large number of lay Catholics demand the entire country … Catholics and others too … live according to their doctrine. Therefore I cannot and will not be silent, so long as this is going on. And you can’t make me silent.

                  Re: “Catholic leaders do not oppose homosexuality if it is not affecting them.”

                  Then they have no reason to oppose it at all, because it does not affect them.

                  Re: “They are helpless, because if it is legalized, they would be forced to use Catholic institutions to compromise their own beliefs.”

                  That’s a lie, and you know it. No priest would ever be forced to marry a gay couple if they don’t wish to. In no state that allows gay marriage, including my home state of Connecticut, can clergy be required to marry anyone who doesn’t meet the requirements for marriage in their religion.

                  If you can produce evidence that a Catholic priest has been forced to marry a gay couple against his will, in one of the states that permit gay marriage, please do so. If you can’t, then stop telling lies.

                  Re: “And it is their right under the ‘freedom of religion’ to not accept it.”

                  “Freedom of religion” starts and ends at one’s own front door. It does not extend elsewhere. If the Catholic Church doesn’t want to marry gays, that’s fine. It doesn’t have to. And it won’t have to. But that doesn’t mean the Catholic Church should be able, essentially, to walk into other churches and forbid them from marrying gays, if they’re wiling to do so, just because their own doctrine forbids it.

                  Your whole “leave us Catholics alone” argument is specious because the Catholic Church refuses to leave non-Catholics alone. And this “we have to forbid gay marriage for everyone in order not to be forced to marry gays ourselves” is, as I said, a flat-out lie. One you really need to stop telling.

                  I suggest you and the bishops and the rest of the militant Catholics grow up for once in your lives, accept there are non-Catholics in your country, and move on already. I’m willing to leave you alone, if you will leave me alone. Have any of you the maturity to actually do that, though? I doubt it. The bishops may be old men, but they act like infants most of the time.

  • Baby_Raptor

    If the Christers would just stop trying to police everyone elses’ lives, we wouldn’t give a damn. They can believe whatever they want; nobody is trying to stop them from doing that. It’s once they start trying to force everyone else to live as though they believe that shit too…You know, thus denying us *our* rights…That’s when the issue crops up.

    Of course, then you get idiots like Bryan Fisher, who claim that the First Amendment “clearly only applies to Christians.”

    • Free

      How does a Christian force you to do or not to do anything? Live your life. Laws in place are not the sole responsibility of Christians. Do not give them that much credit . The laws of the land that may may you think that you are forces are a culmination of a majority morality that serves the greater good of the society. Things are changing and will continue to change. Morality and what is good for the majority will play the role in keeping the ship of society sailing. Plug too many holes in it and it sinks. (ie.. Rome, Egypt and other world powers). We have to find common ground to work together. In America, we have been conditioned to think of “me” first and the greater good of society. We tend not to make any sacrifice for what would truly benefit all the best and only want to see our preferences catered too. Keep fighting for what you believe and find the common ground to fight with the rest of society. Be willing to make concessions where possible and always be willing to say “I might be wrong” then you can actually effect change.

      • smrnda

        The problem is that Christians are advancing positions that certain things are ‘against the common good’ which are false and which cause harm to others. You’re pretty vague in your comment, criticizing people for too much ‘me first’ thinking without really adding qualifiers to what horrible, selfish behavior is going to drag us down. People are entitled to some reasonable expectations of happiness, and the wrong people have been asked to ‘sacrifice’ for too long.

        • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

          With a society as large as ours it’s easy to make generalizations sound profound. Except in an Atheist forum because we are going to ask the poster to site resources. Or in my case just point out the flaws and then shove the facts down his eye sockets.

          • Free

            Sounds hateful.

            • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

              no one here would deny that about me neither

        • Free

          True. I just wonder that our “reasonable” expectations of happiness” can not incorporate all. We seek our own good often at the expense of others. It’s called selfishness. If we are all seeking what’s good for me someone’s happiness has been compromised. We can not all expect to be “happy” and make life simply about us when we are part of society. The Christians should just die and make me happy.
          The infidel atheists should just die and make the religious happy. Really! Like it or not, if we expect to survive as a nation, as we have, we got to figure this out. Thus I quoted Jesus above that “A house divided against itself will not stand” There is sure historical evidence that this is so. Of course what does and old carpenter know.

      • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

        If the consensus of the majority had be true in 1776 we would still be under British rule. But a minority saw with great foresight how majority opinions and policies do great harm to people. The Moral Majority does not serve the greater good of society. The Moral Majority serves only itself. America in it’s very nature is a society of rebels and skeptics. I’ll reiterate in a different light, that had we just been sheep, rolled over and bared our jugulars at the first sign of oppression, we would still be under British rule. Rome and Egypt are poor examples of failed states. The reasons of their declines are ambiguous at best. It is rare that a nation will fail or fall into decline because the citizens increasingly become immoral. This is theistic myth based upon the premise of Sodom and Gomorrah. “Me-ism” is also a myth promoted by theists. Altruism exists throughout our society and manifests itself quite often without gawds hand in the mix. A great example of that is from the Boston Marathon bombing when hundreds of people ran to the aid of the fallen despite the danger that other bombs may still explode. While we can not prove the collective ideologies of those people I strongly doubt that every single person that risked his life to come to the aid of the injured was a christian. And lastly the difference is that the Moral Majority does not admit the possibility of being wrong, in their honest opinion they are doing the right thing for “the greater good for their society and everyone else can go to hell”

        • smrnda

          Sorry to have sounded critical, you seem like a sensible person. I agree that a society needs to function both by altruism and some sort of a social contract, but I think neither can be effectively applied without some grounding in reality. I mean, I’ve read accounts of people who have wasted years of their lives and thousands of dollars paying religious ‘counselors’ to help them change their sexual orientation, typically with zero results. Silly rules about sexuality prevent so much human flourishing.

      • Baby_Raptor

        Wow, this is going to be a fun take down!

        How does a Christian force people to do things? Majority power. Threats. Law. Things of those natures.See, for example, “God says the definition of marriage is one man and one woman, so no marriage equality.” Or “The bible says life starts at conception, so no abortion!” Or “God says no sex before marriage, so teach only abstinence and shame anyone who doesn’t go along.

        Why deprive them credit? It’s their fault. Or are you forgetting that this is a majority Christian country, with Christianity and it’s beliefs soaked into culture? The Christian POV is inescapable in America. It’s going to affect people whether they want it to or not…It’s only natural that it would then soak into our laws.

        Laws and the majority do not always serve the greater good of society. Here, I’ll give you a couple examples: How does allowing a rapist to sue for custody of his child, thus exposing the child to a known sexual abuser and the victim to her rapist, a good for society? How does marriage inequality serve the greater good? How did racial inequality serve the greater good? Or slavery? How about income inequality, how does that help everyone out?

        Things are changing, yes. With very little thanks to the christians, or people like you who want to just hand-wave off the people doing the harm. Those of us who actually have a decent set of morals are slowly dragging you lot into the future.

        Citation needed for your claim that immorality is what wrecks nations. That claim is invalid until you put some proof behind it. Most nations collapse due to war or economic failure, not because people suddenly decided that traditional “Don’t do thats” were bad.

        We already have common ground. We are all given the same rights in the Constitution. We are all born equal, supposedly. Is it perfect? No. There’s a lot of improving that needs done; things like education, job opportunities, income inequality, et cetera. But we have a mutual starting point. The problem is, we’re trying to work with a group that *doesn’t see anyone who disagrees with them as human.* Their entire attitude is “Our way or the highway.” So, yeah. Knock yourself out trying to compromise with that. Those of us that they’re trying to re-enslave will be over here fighting them tooth and nail, because that’s what will actually get us somewhere.

        You can make grandiose statements about what you think people do and don’t focus on all you want, but all you’re doing is blowing smoke out your ass in an attempt to sound wise and good. You have no real idea what people actually think, or what sacrifices they’re willing to make.

        If this were about preferences, I’d agree with you. It’s not. Peoples’ basic civil rights are not “preferences.” Womens’ rights to bodily autonomy is not a preference. People having the right to marry whomever they please, instead of whomever perfect strangers think they should, is not a preference. Access to healthcare…Not a preference. Freedom of religion…Not a preference. The right to vote…Not a preference. The right to exist unmolested if you’re not white…Not a preference. The right to not be raped…Not a preference. Are you seeing the pattern here?

        It takes a real dose of privilege to look at the fights going on in America, a country where ~75% of the population is still having to fight for civil rights in one form or another, and wax poetic about people being “self-obsessed” and “refusing to sacrifice their personal pet causes for the greater good.” You want to find the egotism and the MEMEMEMEMEME views you were whining about? Go look in the mirror. You’re a perfect example of them.

        I’ve already covered your tripe about common ground, so this sentence doesn’t get a paragraph.

        You don’t know me from the other tiny baby raptor sitting in your lawn. You know nothing about me. You have no idea what I’ve been through, and where life has taken me. So it takes a lot of balls for you to lecture me on being willing to compromise and being able to admit that I’m wrong. You just automatically assume that, because for whatever reason you disagree with me, I’m a lesser being that can’t possibly adhere to your standards. See again my comment about looking in the mirror for your selfishness issues.

        So I just typed a book, but your complete lack of a response deserved it. Hopefully you managed to learn something.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-Buchy/542338898 James Buchy

          THAT’S going to leave a mark! Bravo!

        • GCT

          YES!

        • Free

          Your passion is to be admired. Your response quite clear and reasonably stated. The quandry is that a country divided against itself can not stand. There needs to be give and take on both sides. I will agree as a Christian that the pharisitical, self-righteousness of the religious right sickens me as well. Forgive me for generalizing. I understand the frustration of oppression. You also do not know my story either and we need to all agree that is the case. We arrive at our “places” based in part to our experiences etc… Jesus was the first to have a problem with the “religious right” of his day. He would have a fit and probably rebuke, rebuttal and flat our renounce a good majority of what goes on in his name in this country. He was about people first. He took risks to love people and did not put “the rules” before people. There is good reason why such a nobody like Jesus, poor, not of noble birth, persecuted, not learned in the customary ways, no political support etc… impacted this world the way he did. His wisdom stands to reason and calls for consideration. If you hate his followers, at least consider him and don’t judge him any more than you would want him to judge you.

          • GCT

            The quandry is that a country divided against itself can not stand.

            We are not the dividers. You are.

            There needs to be give and take on both sides.

            No. There can be no give and take when it comes to fundamental rights.

            Jesus was the first to have a problem with the “religious right” of his day.

            Yes. They weren’t religious or right enough for him. Plus, they had a nasty habit of not bowing down to him.

            There is good reason why such a nobody like Jesus, poor, not of noble birth, persecuted, not learned in the customary ways, no political support etc… impacted this world the way he did.

            The cult based around him just happened to catch on.

            His wisdom stands to reason and calls for consideration.

            I see very little wisdom in the outdated “teachings” attributed to Jesus in the Bible.

            If you hate his followers, at least consider him and don’t judge him any more than you would want him to judge you.

            Consider Jesus? Jesus, if he ever actually existed, is dead, and most likely never said any of the things attributed to him. And, why should I judge a dead person that I know just about nothing about? How is he going to judge me? And, if he could, bring it on.

  • LesterBallard

    There are at least four churches within a quarter mile of my place. Not a single Mosque.

  • Free

    Christians are no a hated minority but too often the hate card gets pulled. Hate and disagreement are not in the same word family. They should not be treated that way. I agree the political realm is not the primary concern of the Christian in a secular society. It is far better to share ones views through the way one lives. Love is compelling to all and true love is the only true persuader to consider ones life philosophy. I do wonder however about suppose born again christians who say they were once gay. I can think of Dennis Jernigan as an example. He seems to be enjoying his wife and family. Is he the exception? Can one change if he/she really wants to? He has been married for a number of years and has 9 children and says he genuinely does not miss his “old nature”. Should Christians or atheists condemn such a man and hate on him? If it is possible for him, should we communicate in absolutes (not a good topic for athiests) that he is gay and denying it? That it is not possible to change ones sexual preference? What do we do about his reality? Hate is too strong a word to be using this day and age. We can disagree without hating and hurting and equally forcing our opinions and ideas on others. To seek to convince Dennis that he is really gay at heart would be forcing a fundamental homosexual belief on him. Does not fare any better than the Christian saying you can change.

    • smrnda

      Most GLBT people are pretty happy with their lives and are sick and tired of the *suggestions* that “this isn’t who you’re meant to be” as we are of annoying telemarketers. They know what the Christian perspective on homosexuality is as it isn’t like what any group of Christians believe is some kind of secret, and having heard it, rejected it, we’re sick of getting the same sales pitch. People are sick of the relationships that sustain them and bring them joy being trashed by total strangers. Basically, we’re living in a nation where the Christian perspective can’t be avoided, and the input isn’t needed.

      There might be a tiny minority of people who dislike it who will come crawling to some church, and hey, if they want to do that, that’s their choice, but so far there’s not much evidence aside from occasional anecdotes that orientation change happens, there’s been a lot of high profile ex-gays saying they never really changed or that change is pretty much not happening.

    • Kengi

      People who are comfortable with their attraction to either sex are generally considered bisexual. The problem you are having is thinking there is a discrete scale for sexual attraction. Attraction manifests along a non-discrete range for different people.

      If someone had same-sex relationships because of natural attraction, but is also comfortable with an opposite-sex relationship, they were most likely bisexually oriented all along.

      So long as they are actually happy and well adjusted, it should never matter what kind of relationship they are in. When it gets ugly is when gay people are coerced into an opposite-sex relationship against their natural orientation This has happened several times recently to high profile people who underwent the much discredited gay reversion therapy. That type of therapy is harmful.

    • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

      Would you argue that your idea of change is true for pedophiles? If we are going to use singular generalizations. To seek to convince a pedophile that he really prefers adults would be like forcing a fundamental fetish belief upon him. Every pedophile will tell you (I’ve met many in my line of work) that they have no choice, that the feelings are too compelling to resist. Over time they are taught skills to resist the compulsion but the compulsion still exists. It, sadly, never goes away.
      Can you also use your line of reasoning for say drug addicts or alcoholics. Every alcoholic will tell you that they can not ever drink again. So should we also try to forcefully convince him that he has always been sober. Your example is very myopic. It concerns one individual who does not represent the majority of the LGBT community.

  • BamaJack

    This is hilarious. Atheist bigots call Christians bigots while simultaneously being bigots towards Christians. What a bunch of whiney pussies.

    • RobMcCune

      Says the raging bigoted asshole.

    • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

      and an un-designated bigot has to point that out /lol

    • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

      It’s only hilarious to someone who’s enough of an idiot to believe that.

    • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

      Ironically though most if not all Atheists hold no prejudices against theists or christians. Bigotry is often if not always a result of ignorance concerning the target of prejudice. Atheists are in no way ignorant of theists, christians and the way they act towards other people. Using an Ad Hominem, especially in an Atheist forum, pretty much screams bigotry. Because immediately you point out your ignorance of a subject or people i.e. Atheism and Atheists.

      • BamaJack

        Idiot… Atheists discriminate against Christians for their beliefs. Thus, Atheists are bigots. What can’t you understand?

        • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

          Really please site examples of Atheists discriminating against christians? We disagree with their beliefs yes that is true, but we still give them jobs, let them vote, open doors for them, marry them, call most of their children cute and then resist eating said children.

          • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

            A troll trolling a troll this is going to be good.

            • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

              that was fun

          • BamaJack

            That’s easy… In this very blog there is a perfect example. A Christian-owned t-shirt business is refusing to print t shirts for an atheist group because they don’t agree with and want to print the message the atheists wanted to have them print. The atheists are calling for lawsuits and for the business to fail. The atheists are discriminating against the business’ rights to grant/refuse service to anyone they wish. This is discrimination and bigotry against Christians and their beliefs. Bigotry, plain and simple.

            • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

              Um, nope. A business can not make a contract and then back out of the contract because it disagrees with their religious beliefs. Not discrimination on the part of Atheists it’s exactly the reverse.

              • BamaJack

                Who’s religious beliefs? I thought “atheist” means “without theism”, thus without religious beliefs. Besides, a business can refuse a religion as well if they so desire. If for instance, another Christian group had a vulgar t-shirt request, the t-shirt company can most definitely refuse them service.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  I was implying the store owners beliefs, please actually open your eyes and read before commenting Mr. Anonymous Lawyer

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  they can prior to an agreement of service rendered, once an agreement of service is made and all implied actions are agreed upon, if they chose to change the agreement afterwards, then they must either make a new agreement or compensate the other party for any losses. You really can’t say I’ll bake you a wedding cake and then refuse to put frosting on it because frosting a cake goes against some ideology you hold. It is implied that the cake will be received by the customer as it was intended to be made.

              • BamaJack

                A business most certainly CAN refuse service. It’s quite simple, really.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  they can refuse service, but they can not first agree to do business, make a contract for the services rendered and then back out of the contract after they discover it disagrees with their religious beliefs that is called discrimination. And the Atheists of Utah have every right to sue for breach of contract.

                • BamaJack

                  Really? Have you read the contract??? You’re absoultely, and ridiculously stupid. The Christian t-shirt maker is not discriminating against atheists, they’re simply refusing to print something that they do not agree with and believe may harm their business and thus their livelihood. Any business can refuse service for this reason and this reason alone.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  you really need to study contract law before you go making insane claims

                • BamaJack

                  I’m a contracting lawyer.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  please state your credentials?

                • BamaJack

                  None of your business. I’ve worked in gov’t contracting law for the past five years.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  sure OK now I am really buying your “Authoritative” argument, as a lawyer you would know that making an argument from the position of authority does not prove your argument as true or correct.

                • RobMcCune

                  Then not understanding what a breach of contract is means you have a serious problem.

                • BamaJack

                  1.) I haven’t seen the first mention of any breach of contract. The atheists argument is NOT on grounds of contract, but a violation of title 2 of the Civil Rights Act. So drop your lame argument of contract encroachment and tote the party line….. Jack…

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  /facepalm

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  I’m really still having a hard time connecting a compliant of discrimination to actual reversed discrimination, perhaps you can illuminate me as to how a lawyer can make this very partisan connection.

                • BamaJack

                  I don’t know what you’re asking for but it’s very clear to me. Atheists are discriminating against the Christian business owner’s right to refuse service. Period. Think of it this way…. Ever been into a restaurant and read posted on the door ‘NO SHOES, NO SHIRT, NO SERVICE’ ? Now, if I go into a restaurant without shoes and a shirt, I have absoultely NO CASE whatsoever to claim I was discriminating against, because, say for instance, I’m jobless and homeless and I can’t afford shoes and a shirt….

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  Ever go into a christian business, unaware that they are christian business and read a sign that says no soul no service?

                • BamaJack

                  You’re absolutely missing the point. The business CAN refuse service. PERIOD.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  your absolutely missing the point, they agreed to do business then said they would print one part of the agreed upon message and not another part because it offended their sensitivities that is clearly discrimination.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  enough examples of their business with the LGBT community were given, plus cannabis t-shirts and other notable controversial subjects, they chose to make an exception and in there lies the discrimination.

                • BamaJack

                  Wrong again… The business has grounds for refusing service based on legitimate business concerns alone.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  I think if this ever went to court our debate here would pretty much play out as we have written it, except by people who are actually lawyers.

                • BamaJack

                  Next time you walk into a retail store, observe and you will likely see: “WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE”. Pretty simple eh?

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  I’m sure I will see that someplace here in Washington but I have yet to.

                • BamaJack

                  and one more thing: you have no right to happiness, either. Only the right to pursue it. There’s no guarantee that you’ll get it.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  yup I know got a copy of the constitution sitting in arms length when ever I am at my desk

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  but they would still have to honor their contracts or face a lawsuit

                • Stev84

                  Which doesn’t mean anything at all. They can throw out unruly customers. They can’t discriminate against certain groups that are a protected class. Usually that includes things like race, gender, age, disability status, ethnicity and in some states sexual orientation.

                • BamaJack

                  I’ve even seen a case where a local business refused services to a man because said man slept with the business owner’s wife…. AND IT’S PERFECTLY LEGAL.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  except in this case. where they chose to do business with said Atheists but not fully do business with them, that is they are making an exception because their religious ideology conflicts with the ideology of the Atheists up to a point.

                • BamaJack

                  Another example, what if the porn industry wanted to sell dvd’s in Wal-mart. Is wal-mart discriminating against the porn industry? Of course not. They simply don’t want to distribute porn and they know they’d lose business from their customer base if they did. Simple.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  but had Wal_mart originally agreed to sell the dvd’s and then stopped because said dvd’s went against there internal morality it would be discrimination. and a porn retailer would know in advance not to sell their product to Wal-Mart the Atheists on the other hand were unaware of the store owners discriminatory beliefs.

                • BamaJack

                  That’s a ridiculously stupid statement… Think I’ll leave on that note.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  bye

                • RobMcCune

                  So a christian business violating title 2 of the Civil Rights Act is a case of atheists discriminating against christians?

                  Even for a lawyer that’s a stretch.

                • BamaJack

                  Give it some thought. And then explain to me how the Christian business is in violation of title 2 of the Civil Rights Act.

                  Hint, you’re on the losing side of this argument.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  Of one.

                • RobMcCune

                  The t-shirt company is a private club?

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  a christian business that did not specifically express that they were a christian business who incidentally discriminates on whims

                • BamaJack

                  No discrimination took place. Question for you.. When a restaurant posts “no shoes, no shirt, no service” on their entry doors, are they discriminating against homeless people who can’t afford shoes and shirts?

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  nope they are obeying the local health department codes, not discriminating just being safe but if said homeless person walks into a restaurant and orders a meal then starts to eat the meal and is kicked out because he smells bad then yup that is discrimination.

                • BamaJack

                  Ok, so let me get this straight, the health department is discriminating against homeless people? And strike two on your second point…. the business can also refuse service based on the fact that a smelly, shirtless person may (probably will) run off other customers.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  and now we are back to contract law, which pretty much implies that if you agree to do business with a person, it is implied that at the moment of exchange or agreement all of the factors involved are mutually agree upon.

                • Stev84

                  There is no such thing as a “Christian business”. People have religious beliefs. Businesses don’t.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  /facepalm

                • RobMcCune

                  He’s a “contracting lawyer,” which means he’s a contractor who’s represented himself in court.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  If I walk into a t-shirt printing store and ask you to print t-shirts for me you have agreed to do business with me, plain and simple as you put it. We don’t even have to shake hands on it. If then you decide to back out of that agreement for religious reasons then you are committing 1) a breach of contract and 2) discrimination.

                • BamaJack

                  Let me ask it this way to absorb into your space of air between your ears. If you owned an ice cream shop, and a man verbally approaches you and says he wants ice cream for himself and his group of 30 friends whom will arrive in two hours. You say, sure! I’d be glad to provide you with ice cream, kind sir (a verbal agreement). And then two hours later the man arrives with his 30 friends and they’re all wearing KKK uniforms. You now refuse service because a.) you don’t want to support such an organization, and b.) you’re afraid that if you do support said organization it could prossibly hurt your business. You have every right within the law to refuse service to the organization.

                  HOWEVER, shut up about contracts because this isn’t about contracts.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  and you need to shut up about “a lawsuit” because one doesn’t even exist. If you read any of the articles in the news you would find out that no lawsuit was ever considered by the Atheists of Utah and that it was a fabrication made by a local News agency.

                • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

                  I suspect that no, you are not allowed to discriminate in such a way, but I’d like to hear from someone who knows the case law.

                • RobMcCune

                  Perhaps you don’t know what the word “contract” means.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  He’s thinking really hard

                • Stev84

                  No, they can’t. Learn about non-discrimination laws and public accommodation.

                  Businesses haven’t been able to discriminate based on religion since the 1960s. And a lack of belief counts too for legal purposes in this context.

                • BamaJack

                  If this goes to court the atheist group will get their asses handed to them in two seconds. Let me put it this way, as atheists, if you owned a business, and the Westboro baptist church requests anti-gay t-shirts from you, you most certainly CAN refuse service to them…. And by doing so, you are NOT discriminating against Christians. You simply do not want a business affiliation with the Westboro Baptists…. This is not discrimination. The repurcussions of doing business with Westboro Baptists alone is reason enough to refuse service and will most definitely stand up in court… Customers could possibly boycott your product/service based on the fact that you did business with Westboro… TIKI’s case is absolutely no different. They most certainly can (and did) refuse service.

            • RobMcCune

              The atheists are discriminating against the business’ rights to grant/refuse service to anyone they wish.

              There’s no such thing as discriminating against a right.

              • BamaJack

                Sure there is… The business has a right to refuse service based on the message the atheists want to have printed. The atheists want to sue (thus discriminate) against their right of services rendered, or in this case refused.

                • RobMcCune

                  You really don’t know what “discriminate” means, do you? A right can’t be discriminated against because it is something people have the freedom to do. Discrimination happens to people, not rights. This would be like saying that discriminating against certain beliefs is discriminating against free speech. That makes no sense because everyone has free speech, it’s the people who are being discriminated against.

                • BamaJack

                  The act of bring forth suit (and thus personal harm) to the Christian business owners is discrimination against people.

                • RobMcCune

                  But not against rights.

                • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

                  so when Christians bring lawsuits are they discriminating?

                • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                  Dude, I’m not a lawyer, but even I know that you’re so far beyond wrong you’ve warped the fabric of wrongness itself.

                • BamaJack

                  It’s very obvious you’ve no clue of the law….

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  It really comes down to the fact that the T-shirt printing business chose to use religion as an excuse to refuse service. They could have made up any excuse but they didn’t and thus they are accused of discriminating against an Ideology. BamaJack is missing this very obvious fact.

                • BamaJack

                  I don’t know if you’re still following this thread or not but I had to jump in and respond to your comment because THIS is where you’re totally mistaken, and do you even realize the hyprocisy you’re spewing? Two things: 1) All you whiney pussies do is cry about Christians pushing their moral beliefs on you…. Now you want to FORCE yours on us? Screw that. 2) If you so much as tried to sue a business I owned for this I’d laugh in your face and double down on you, counter-suing for EXTORTION. Unlawfully coercing a person or business to extract goods or services against her will is a criminal offense. You cannot, I reapeat, CANNOT tell a business to what to sell and who to sell to. Would you expect a an African American owned t-shirt company to sell vulgar shirts to the KKK? A Jewish company to sell anti-Jewish shirts to the American Nazi party? A gay and lesbian owned company to sell anti-gay shirts to the westboro baptists? Of course you wouldn’t. So why do you take exception to this? You should really read up on actual law before having a knee jerk, emotional reaction to an issue that’s so amazingly clear it’s not even funny.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  Elane Photography, LLC v. Vanessa Willock pretty much sets the precedent. It is up to the courts to decide if the business owners have rights under the First Amendment (exercise of free speech) or if they (the print shop) violated the rights of the Atheists under Title II CRA 1964.

                • BamaJack

                  See Wooley v Maynard… U.S. Supreme Corut decision…. No better precedent than that of the Federal Supreme precedent, eh? Now, run along and change your username.. And wipe the gooey egg off your face.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  Yea I don’t see how that case applies to this one but since you are already deluded by your faith I’m sure you can add that to your delusion as well. As for changing my user name, um why? I pretty much have used this name for awhile seemingly far longer than you have used yours. Matter of fact I don’t just randomly invent a user name to start commenting on a website. I use the same one where ever I go. Don’t eat eggs so there is none on my face but maybe you want to wipe the shit off yours when you decide to pull your head out of your ass.

                • BamaJack

                  A.) you’re totally wrong on every single thing you’ve said on these comments. You have absolutely no clue of the right of Business owner’s and what discrimination means. And B.) Even if you’re right (you’re not), and we Christians are forced to provide anti-God t shirts to atheists, DON’T BITCH AND COMPLAIN ONE TIME when we Christians demand anti-atheist t shirts from an atheist-owned business. That is, of course, IF you basement-dwellers actually do even own a business… Secondly, don’t whine and cry when the westboro baptists demand anti-gay t-shirts from you either, or when an African-American owned business gets a demand from the American Nazi party….. It’s just fair, afterall….

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  You lose! You invoked Godwin’s Law

                  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  Plus you used these arguments too:
                  Argument by assertion: Saying the same BS over and over won’t make it true.
                  Argumentum ad cellarium: an attack saying we all live in a basement.
                  Slippery Slope: “don’t whine and cry bla bla bla”
                  The Law of Exclamation!!! Using ALL CAPS!!!
                  Shaker’s Law: You said you were going to leave and then you didn’t.

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Tanner B James

                  wow I think I will change my username such a good idea, thanks man

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  if you add expansionism to that then holy cow batman he is really wrong.

            • Baby_Raptor

              /head-desk.

              I guess religious discrimination protections only apply to christians, then? Nobody else?

              • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                yup at least to BamaJack

              • BamaJack

                What religion was discriminated against?

                • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                  I thought you were leaving?

              • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

                but technically he is correct, since Atheism is not a religion it therefore has no tangible protections under the law. the theists can discriminate against us without discrimination.

                • Stev84

                  Actually, for legal purposes, a lack of religious belief counts as a belief when it comes to anti-discrimination laws. That’s been well established.

              • BamaJack

                but to answer your question more specifically…. No… A Muslim owned business owner for example can refuse business to a Christian customer who for example may want to print t-shirts blaspheming Allah….

            • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

              Re: “The atheists are calling for lawsuits and for the business to fail. … This is discrimination and bigotry against Christians and their beliefs.”

              So you’re saying it’s OK for Christians to do things against atheists, but atheists aren’t allowed to do anything to Christians. How is this not hypocrisy? And in turn, how is this not a violation of Jesus’ own clear, unambiguous, explicit instructions to Christians never to be hypocritical?

              “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” (Mt 7:5)

              “Or how can you say to your brother, “Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,” when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye.” (Lk 6:42)

              Do you think your Jesus is happy that Christians disobey him as often as they do?

            • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

              Isn’t it the Christians who are discriminating in that case? You don’t have the right to refuse service to anyone you wish. We had a whole civil rights movement over that issue.

        • http://absurdlypointless.blogspot.com/ Bubba Tarandfeathered

          Come on you ignorant asshat give me some examples of atheistic discrimination. Or are you too weak to posit a strong argument? I’ve got 9 hours to waste on you and I’ve been looking for a pasty like you all day.

        • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

          Discriminate? How? Criticizing someone’s speech or writing is not discrimination. Now if you can find an example of an atheist who refused to hire Christians, that would be both wrong and illegal. That would be discrimination.

    • Matthew Delemos

      A coward calling others pussies? Now that’s hilarious.

  • Boyo Mc

    I think the Christians that hate gay people tend to forget the child abuse scandles that occur within churches.
    The also tend to shun science, but are happy to try and use it against others when it suits them, this kind of shows though with the bollocks they come out with.

  • http://spacegod.tumblr.com/ spacegod

    Most people don’t hate Christians, they just find them annoying.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mike.malfi Mike Malfi

    HEY HERMAT, WHATS IT LIKE LIVING IN AN UPSIDE-DOWN BIZARRO UNIVERSE. YOUR TOTAL B.S. JOB MIGHT WORK AS LONG AS YOUR PREACHING TO THE CHOIR, BUT FOR THE REST OF THE REAL WORLD YOU SEEM TO HAVE FOLLOWED ALICE DOWN THAT HOLE OR DOROTHY OVER THE RAINBOW, PUNS FULLY INTENDED.

    • http://twitter.com/noblockheads Sarah

      DUDE, TYPING IN ALL CAPS AND MAKING EGREGIOUS SPELLING ERRORS REALLY GETS YOUR INANITY ACROSS BETTER!

    • Leiningen’s Ants

      DOUBLE ENTENDRES ARE NOT PUNS MR. THINKS HE’S FUNNY

  • http://www.myfathershouse.squarespace.com/ A Christian

    From a Christian’s perspective I know that a lot of evangelicals are strongly influenced by big “Christian” organizations which have their roots in some scary beliefs.

    Disclaimer: Not all Christians believe in these things, thankfully! And most Christians don’t adhere to the doctrines, so much as the symptoms of the doctrines. One of the roots is called Kingdom Now theology which purports God is going to establish Heaven on Earth, and soon (not in the Bible).

    What that leads into is a mess of “America is/was a Christian nation and we must get back to that at all costs” rhetoric. Oh, and support Israel too!

    Here are two articles I’ve written on my Christian blog (don’t want to mislead anyone) to try and Biblically combat these notions. I’d love to hear what you think.

    http://myfathershouse.squarespace.com/journal/2013/3/17/war-what-is-it-good-for.html

    http://myfathershouse.squarespace.com/journal/2010/9/26/responding-to-persecution.html?SSScrollPosition=114

    • http://www.myfathershouse.squarespace.com/ A Christian

      I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to post this twice.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

        No worries, it happens. :)

        • http://www.myfathershouse.squarespace.com/ A Christian

          :)

  • http://www.myfathershouse.squarespace.com/ A Christian

    From a Christian’s perspective I can only say that not all Christians feel this way. There is a large and influential group in the evangelical arena who are strongly influenced by huge Christian organizations which promote some scary beliefs.

    Kingdom Now theology scares the pants off me. Most Christians don’t actually know about the roots of this belief, nor do they understand this is where all the “America was/is a Christian nation and God will judge us if we don’t return it to such (which is in turn where all the major militant-anti-homosexual and anti-abortion stuff comes from)” and “All Christians should support Israel” rhetoric stems from.

    Kingdom Now is…well the belief that God is going to establish Heaven on Earth, soon. It isn’t Biblical.

    Here are 2 articles I’ve written on the so-called “culture-war” for Christians. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

    http://myfathershouse.squarespace.com/journal/2013/3/17/war-what-is-it-good-for.html

    http://myfathershouse.squarespace.com/journal/2010/9/26/responding-to-persecution.html?SSScrollPosition=114

  • dred37

    Is all of this yelling by one group at another about “gay rights?” I really do not get it! From my perspective, if you are “gay” you are “gay”. If you are “straight”, you are “straight” and it is none of my business (period) whether I am a Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, or nothing at all (religiously). None of my business. I really can’t get it that everyone is making such a fuss over other people’s choices. This is the United States of America. I learned in kindergarten that everyone is equal and everyone has a right to his/her choices and ideas. We can discuss them; we can agree or disagree, but we can not force anyone to be what he does not want to be. So, I seriously and sincerely wish Christians would shut the …. up about what choices people make. I do not believe in hell but by the same token it is everyone’s absolute and concrete right to go straight to hell (if hell is/were real) and no one has the right to stop them. And I wish Atheists would quit being so …. smug about their supposed intelligence and their worship of their supposed brain power and quit calling other people stupid. They are no more stupid than you are. No one on this little green planet has all the information and all the knowledge and walks around with The Truth in his/her pocket. So, I plead with you all to shut up and let folks be who they are. PEACE!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/MattDavisBuxton Matt Davis

    The thing that annoys me almost as much as the proselytising is the fact that whenever First Amendment freedoms come up, these evangelical “family” hate groups regularly produce petitions with lots of signatures showing how they’ve got lots of support. They don’t seem to get it; constitutional issues are not a majority vote! If they were, we’d still have all the discriminations we had 100 years ago! Also, why is it that creationists still refuse to accept the scientific evidence for evolution, and yet they refuse to accept their bible might be incorrect? The very definition of a scientific theory or hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable. If they’re not willing to accept the bible can possibly be falsified, then it’s not science by strict definition. Thus they automatically lose the argument but they won’t accept that!

  • Jane

    There are africans who would give their 40 years of savings to put their kid in a catholic school because they know they are the best in the world and this is known all over the world……….

  • Lydia

    There is a lot of hostility toward Christians. Yes, some are extreme and bring it on themselves, but all too often nice genuine Christians are put into a box. I see it most from the media. Christians are almost never portrayed in an accurate or fair light. Usually, only the extreme is shown. This is true for gay marriage. Not everyone is either homophobic or advocates of gay marriage.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Oh, BULLSHIT.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X