201. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153685 by secondsoprano on April 1, 2008 at 8:32 pm

You said:

your analogy fails because we live in a society of agreed-upon rules. A man may not beat his wife in America because its against the laws that we as a country have laid down for ourselves. Can you appreciate the difference between that and laws decided for us by people who don't even live in our country?

You have already agreed that there are "inalienable human rights". This is just another way of saying "universally agreed upon rules". You live in a society (the US) of agreed-upon rules. You also live in a broader society (the world) with universal human rights.

You are part of the US social contract: you are also part of the universal human contract.

I said:

… you seem to be denying that any international law should apply within domestic borders. My point is that this denial is contradictory to your expressed belief in universally applicable rights.

You said:

International law that isn't agreed upon by that nation! Ugh - why is this so hard to understand?

Ugh yourself: that is a definition of domestic law.

There is no point in saying a country can pick and choose the parts of international law it wants to apply: either human rights are internationally applicable (in which case they apply despite what an individual nation decides) or they aren't. You say the US should be free to ignore internationally applicable human rights. You can't have it both ways.

If an Islamic organization passed a law and then ordered the UK to follow it, what do you think would happen? You would *hopefully* tell them to jog on!

Yes, I would feel free to ignore (if that's what "jog on" means) a law passed by "an Islamic organisation" which doesn't represent me, and doesn't articulate universally applicable human rights. [I'm Australian, by the way]

You either want us to use our military for the defense of human rights or you want us to stay out of everyone's business.

No, those are not the only two options. I want you to recognise that there are internationally applicable human rights standards which EVERY NATION should be held accountable to.

If the US hasn't committed torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity etc, what is your problem in defending the charges before an international court?

If it has, what moral right does it have to say to the rest of humanity, f-off, we will torture/commit war crimes etc as much as we like, and you can't stop us?

202. Vatican: Islam surpasses Roman Catholicism as world's largest religion

Comment #153675 by secondsoprano on April 1, 2008 at 7:51 pm

OT: who is the Frum you are waiting for?

My partner didn't want to be a called a stepmother, so my daughter calls her "frum" - combination of "mum" and "friend". I've never heard of "frum" - I thought we made it up!

203. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153647 by secondsoprano on April 1, 2008 at 6:13 pm

FF, I'm glad to say I agree with you wholeheartedly ... on this thread at least ;)

204. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153625 by secondsoprano on April 1, 2008 at 5:16 pm

What other countries want to do domestically is their own problem. I see no reason to sacrifice American lives and money to stop the domestic problems of others.

How is this different from saying "What husbands do to their wives in the privacy of their own home is their own problem. I see no reason to put police in harm's way to arrest the perpetrators of domestic violence"? Living in a society carries a responsibility to protect the weaker members of that society.

I believe in certain inalienable rights for all human beings but I would never advocate the use of force to tell others how to live. I decry human rights abuses in foreign countries but wouldn't use force to change them.

The victims of human rights abuses have their "inalienable rights" taken away from them. Your claim to believe in the existence of those rights is hollow if you are not prepared to do something to protect them.

Obviously there are questions about the best way to do this, as Dr Benway has pointed out. But you seem to be denying that any international law should apply within domestic borders. My point is that this denial is contradictory to your expressed belief in universally applicable rights.

If there are universally applicable rights, then there must be corresponding universally applicable responsibilities.

If a country be engages in something that amounts to "tyranny", why is the international community not entitled to object? Why should "domestic law" be an answer to a breach of internationally applicable human rights? And why should America be any exception?

"Object" all you want. How much as your "objection" accomplished in Africa, Asia and the Middle East?

I'm not talking about whether the UN is effective (clearly it isn't, on many fronts). I'm talking about whether, as a matter of logic and ethics, there should be a body of international law to which all nations (including the US) should be subject.

205. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153617 by secondsoprano on April 1, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Do I care about persecution in other countries? Of course I do. I abhor tyranny anywhere but I don't think that we (America) have the responsibility to defend the entire world. I recognize the rights and laws of other countries (Hell, I live in England) but I will never agree to international law superseding American law.

But you have demonstrated that you believe there are generally applicable standards of human rights. Otherwise the words "persecution" and "tyranny" have no meaning.

If there are internationally applicable standards, why should they not be internationally enforced?

If a country be engages in something that amounts to "tyranny", why is the international community not entitled to object? Why should "domestic law" be an answer to a breach of internationally applicable human rights? And why should America be any exception?

206. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153586 by secondsoprano on April 1, 2008 at 3:49 pm

I care about one thing in this world - the preservation of the US Republic. Nothing else disturbs me in the least.

And you Americans wonder why so much of the world hates you.

I don't hate you ... but I find many of you very, very disturbing.

Sorry, but I didn't sign up to die in Africa to stop some useless civil war. What other countries want to do domestically is their own problem.

I didn't ask you to die in Africa. What I find so disturbing is your assertion that because I was not born within your borders, my human rights are of no concern to you.

If it truly "does not disturb you in the least" that Chinese men are imprisoned without trial, Australian women are raped, Indonesian athiests are jailed, African children are abused, and Zimbabwean voters are tortured (but presumably you would be disturbed if the same things happened to Americans), then you are in my opinion a greatly diminished human being.

I do not ask you to die to protect my human rights. All I ask is that you recognise that I have them, even though I am not a citizen of your magnificent republic.

207. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153532 by secondsoprano on April 1, 2008 at 2:36 pm

I care about one thing in this world - the preservation of the US Republic. Nothing else disturbs me in the least.

And you Americans wonder why so much of the world hates you.

I don't hate you ... but I find many of you very, very disturbing.

208. Wicked untruths from the Church

Comment #150983 by secondsoprano on March 27, 2008 at 11:21 pm

I don't understand your system in the UK. People vote for what they feel is best, no?

Well, no. In Australia (and I presume UK, since our system is based on theirs), MPs vote according to the official party line, on the basis that people voted for person X, of party Y, and that they are entitled to assume that person X will vote according to party Y's policy, regardless of what the politician "personally" thinks.

Only rarely is this voting on non-party lines allowed - these rare occasions are called conscience votes.

I understand that in the US, parliamentarians vote as individuals, so you get Democrats voting for Republican-sponsored bills, and vice verse. If true, this sounds very strange to those of us brought up in the Westminster system.

209. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #150980 by secondsoprano on March 27, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Evolution is big trouble

Right you are. Evolution is big trouble for the creationists ... that pesky problem of it being right, 'n all.

Reverend, did you watch documantary about beavers

Oh stop it you naughty man.

210. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #150977 by secondsoprano on March 27, 2008 at 9:38 pm

The story of how insulin was discovered is an interesting one. No prayer was involved according to many accounts.

Sure it was. Someone, somewhere prayed that god would cure their child of diabetes. Miraculously, some time later, some scientists discovered insulin. Hallelujah! Prayer works.

The fact that the child died doesn't matter. No-one can fathom god's mysterious plan.

The fact that the scientistic didn't pray doesn't matter. God was working through him/her anyway.

The fact that there is nothing whatsover to to connect the prayer and scientific discovery doesn't matter. If you have faith you will understand.

211. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #150418 by secondsoprano on March 26, 2008 at 9:36 pm

If the atheist movement as a whole can make a big enough fuss about this, ala have as many of the big guns make a fuss over this specific case (or any of the related cases pointed out by the fellows here) then we can turn this into the biggest PR fiasco for the Xians in America.

Nice try, but you'll get the "not my Christianity" argument every time.

Which, interestingly is the same argument these fruitloops use themselves, kinda reversed.

Their testimonials (which, like MelM, I have spent far too much time reading today) are full of excited declarations that they have seen the light and 'left the apostate churches' and that they are now "true Christians". Their enemy is the pope, presbyterians, and other "so-called Christians' who do not completely give their lives (and their children's health, and their tyre tread) to the Lord.

I think they would be astounded to hear that there are people who not only haven't given their lives to jesus, but DON'T EVEN BELIEVE GOD EXISTS!!! That would just be too weird to contemplate.

212. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #150398 by secondsoprano on March 26, 2008 at 8:41 pm

OK, now this one is seriously worrying. This woman is a trained nurse, and she failed to get medical attention for her child for something she KNEW was extremely serious.

http://www.americaslastdays.com/?page=amomstrials-christina

My older son Dmishion who is 10 was complaining all day that his stomach hurt. I was not really too concerned until he stopped playing and went and laid down on the couch, doubled over in pain. This was during UBBS on a Sunday night. At this point he was moaning so I began to ask him if he ate anything funny. He said no but that he had to go to the bathroom. After he came out he told me he passed a lot of blood. I went to check and it was a large amount of bright red blood. From my experience as a nurse I knew this was very bad. I have observed a lot of GI bleeds in patients that required blood transfusions and surgical correction etc. The first thing I had to do is say, well I know that is not good but it does not matter because God is able to fix it. Dmishion asked to pray so we did. We also put in a prayer request to Bill and He agreed with us that whatever the problem was God had already fixed it! By the end of the study the stomach pain was completely gone! No more bleeding! Praise God! The Lord is teaching me to trust Him for all things!

Can't someone do something to stop these people?

213. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #150395 by secondsoprano on March 26, 2008 at 8:36 pm

I have been spending far too much reading these wacko posts on that link.

I felt compelled to share Kathryn, my 7-year-old's, testimony of God in her life.

Her bedtime book is the Bible which I read to her. She does not understand it all but listens. She asked me tonight if she could share some miracles from the Lord.

She told me that when she went to bed last night she started getting a headache. She said in her own words, "I rebuked the headache in Jesus' Name."

For the first time in a long time, she did not get out of bed her usual 3-4 times for something trivial. She went right to sleep and was happy to tell me about what God did for her the next day. She said it never bothered her again.

She also said she prayed her remaining 5 fish would live as 7 had died the day before. All are alive and she was thrilled.

It is exciting to hear her words as she is using words in the correct way straight from the Word of God.

I need to explain that her "headache" at bedtime had become a habit. She liked to delay bed in any manner possible and for weeks had complained of sudden headaches only at bedtime. She would ask for an aspirin. I used to give in and give her one just so I could then rest but I knew it to be wrong. I told her she was relying on medicine instead of God.

Now the problem is gone as she figured out, by the grace of God, how to rebuke in Jesus' Name.

How dumb is this woman? Her poor brainwashed 7 year old is smarter than she is. She was sick of the "headache" story, but couldn't admit they were made up, but she knew that if she used "words in the correct way straight from Jesus" her mom would swallow it whole.

I don't know whether to be pleased that this poor kid still has some independent thought, or despair at the chances of her making it through childhood unscathed...

214. Expelled Overview

Comment #150223 by secondsoprano on March 26, 2008 at 3:30 pm

if you believe in evolution, you're a homosexual

and that's bad because ..??

215. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #150221 by secondsoprano on March 26, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Are we sure this is true? I dunno, it just has that "urban myth" feel to it.

But maybe that's just wishful thinking...

216. Gay scientists isolate Christian gene

Comment #150189 by secondsoprano on March 26, 2008 at 2:41 pm

An oldie but a goodie, I suspect.

I can't view the video (blocked at work) but from the comments I assume this is a classic CNNNN episode.

It was a brilliant series on ABC a few years ago - a spoof on CNN. Their slogan was "We report. You believe", and they produced statirical news reports including one on Christian scientists and the gay gene. (They also did one entitled "Gay Games scandal - 100m track too straight").

The CNNNN team are the same ones that brought you "The Chaser's War on Everything" with the fake Osama Bin Laden episode at APEC last year.

217. A Letter From Hell

Comment #148996 by secondsoprano on March 24, 2008 at 9:46 pm

I am a Christian woman who does witness to people around me.

I am a lawyer, and I would be fascinated to know how you can purport to be a "witness" to something which allegedly happened 2000 years ago, when you clearly weren't there.

It is actually talking about that if a person isn't listening to the major players and their message, they don't deserve to recieve the personal message of God from their friends.

So, why do you bother with the whole "witnessing" thing, then. (I don't mean to be rude - although I appreciate it might come out that way - I really am curious. Why do Christians proseletize? I don't get it.)

This indicates communication is possible between Heaven and Hell.

No, this indicates that someone invented concepts of Heaven & Hell, someone invented rules about them, and someone else translated the original fiction. It doesn't actually "indicate" anything factual at all.

Please, if you want to use the Bible 'against' Christians, do it right.

I wouldn't start the "I know the bible better than you do" game around here. There are plenty of posters who know an extraordinary amount about it.

218. The death-of-god debate

Comment #148950 by secondsoprano on March 24, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Most religions are smart enough to use spring as a metaphor for reincarnation. Birds sing, eggs hatch, buds burst into life and, if you like, God is love. Only a misanthrope would deny the stirring of springtime juices and not dream of resurrection. Can atheism and religion find some accommodation at Easter?

Here in the southern hemisphere the whole new life, birds, buds stuff is even sillier (don't get me started on the fake snow at Christmas and Santa Claus in full fur regalia in the middle of summer).

It's autumn. D'oh. Easter is the start of the footy season.

abc.net.au (Australian national broadcaster) ran a poll on "What does Easter mean to you?"

Results (out of 3244 votes)

A holy Christian time with profound meaning.
37%
A holiday with comforting religious overtones. 14%
An outdated festival that doesn't warrant time off. 6%
A welcome break that doesn't reflect my own beliefs or culture . 36%
A chance to binge on chocolate. 3%
The start of the footy season. 4%

219. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147127 by secondsoprano on March 19, 2008 at 9:44 pm

Seems Mercy Ministries are not the only ones peddling this crap.

Here is a story in today's Crikey (Australian on-line news) about one of Sydney's most prestigious schools

I watched anti-gay videos at my North Sydney school

Ex-student of Sydney Church of England Grammar School writes:


Anti-gay videos from an ex-gay American pastor are only used by fundamentalist Christian organisations in Australia, right? Not necessarily -- I remember watching them as a student at Shore School, or more correctly, Sydney Church of England Grammar School.

All week, The Sydney Morning Herald has been publishing feature stories exposing the extraordinary link between Gloria Jeans Coffees, the Pentecostal Hillsong Church and the dubious Mercy Ministries -- an organisation caught up in allegations of psychological torment through exorcisms, forced submission and isolation.

The SMH journalist at the centre of the investigation, Ruth Pollard, has revealed allegations from many young women who went to the ministry seeking help and came out tormented by the fundamentalist teachings and techniques.

It seems like another world, but yesterday's feature about the training videos had my jaw drop as it was revealed that Mercy Ministries used the same videos as a senior Divinity teacher at my school. He would, along with many of his religious colleagues, openly condemn homos-xual practice and show us the videos in class of Sy Rogers who proudly claims that "homos-xuality can be overcome".

At one stage, I remember the teacher speaking to us one lunch-time peddling the theory that the social acceptance of homos-xuality would eventually lead to a social acceptance of paedophilia.

I don't know whether the school, in the well heeled suburb of North Sydney uses the videos anymore, but they certainly did while I was in my formative teenage years in the mid 1990s, just ten years ago.

Would the parents of students at this elite private Anglican school believe that teachers were once using films like this to teach their wards about the evilness of homos-xuality and ways to suppress those urges?


It is easy to look upon such behaviour as character building and just part of the rough and tumble of an all-boys school which proudly defended its record in cricket, rugby and rowing. But for many others, especially those that came from the country, such messages from a respected master at the school would merely fan the existing intolerance towards gay or camp behaviour. I look back on it astonished that such material was used.

The school's history is steeped in the Anglican tradition, with the governing council consisting of the Archbishop of Sydney who is president as well as six clergymen and six laymen elected by the Sydney Diocesan Synod plus past students.

In 1991 the school 'reaffirmed' its aims of stating that a boys education should be with a "Christian perspective of the world in which they live".

It goes on to state that "regular Christian Studies teaching is undertaken by qualified lay teachers as well as the Chaplain and Assistant Chaplain. In this way, together with an emphasis on pastoral care for each boy, the School strives to develop personal integrity and sound moral character. Emphasis is given to awareness of the nature and needs of the outside community, as the idea of service is fundamental to the aims of a Christian School."

Never in their wildest dreams do I think that the people that wrote this charter would have imagined that some staff would use training videos that are also associated with an organisation as dubious as the Mercy Ministries.

To many, organisations like the Mercy Ministries might be a world away, but in reality it is just a step away from the mainstream - especially when organised religion is involved.

220. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147098 by secondsoprano on March 19, 2008 at 7:43 pm

birth order seems to play some role in the expression of homosexuality.

Really? That's interesting - tell me more.

221. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147081 by secondsoprano on March 19, 2008 at 6:59 pm

208. Comment #147055 by Electric Monk on March 19, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Pathfinder:
"Homosexuality is abnormal, it rules out procreation"

- not anymore it doesn't

It never did.

222. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #147080 by secondsoprano on March 19, 2008 at 6:57 pm

Genes that predispose a significant minority of men to homosexuality raise a Darwinian puzzle. If homosexual men rarely father children, homosexual genes should dwindle to the low frequency expected from recurrent random mutation, a frequency below one in a million. Even if Kinsey's estimate of one in ten is high, there can be no doubt that the abundance of homosexual men is too great to have stemmed from recurrent mutation alone.

I'm not a biologist so I'm loathe to wade too deeply into this debate, but from a lay perspective there seems to be a lot wrong with this analysis.

Firstly, I agree with Bonzai that the assumption that homosexuality and sterility are related seems ludicrous.

Secondly, (and again, I'm no anthropologist), but the assumption that homosexually inclined people [ie, if the gene theory is right, people with the "gay gene"] do not have heterosexual sex is surely misplaced.

It would seem obvious that many gay people have sex with people of the opposite sex, for whatever reason (there may be no alternative, cultural/societal pressure, physical force, duty, bisexual leanings, whatever), and that some of those couplings result in children.

I would think this applies even more strongly to lesbians than to homosexual men. (I note Richard's article only deals with men - a significant omission may I say).

If one assumes that in most societies throughout most of human history, women have had less choice over whom they have sex with than men, then it is reasonable to assume that there are sufficient instances of lesbians being forced (physically or culturally) to have sex with men to ensure that "lesbian genes" [if they exist] have been passed on to children.

223. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146992 by secondsoprano on March 19, 2008 at 4:16 pm

189. Comment #146985 by Frankus1122 on March 19, 2008 at 4:07 pm

I am sure that he meant "homosexual sex" does not yield children. Meaning two men or two women.


That's what I meant.
I am sometimes dim but not that unintelligent.

Yes, but my point (and Bonzai's at 186) was that "being homosexual" is not related to "being unable to have children". You suggested that there was no way gay genes (if there are such things) could be passed on.

Clearly there are plenty of ways, as Bonzai and I have tried to show.

Sorry to be so insistent on this, but I think it is important to correct people who say "gays can't have children".

For the fundies and lawmakers, it is very easy to slip from

(1) "gays can't [physically] have children" to

(2) "gays shouldn't [morally] have children" to

(3) "gays must be prohibited [by law] from having children".

If we firmly demonstrate that (1) is wrong, we are better placed to argue against (2) and (3).

224. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146952 by secondsoprano on March 19, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Ooooohhhh you are being slippery.

I am sure that he meant "homosexual sex" does not yield children. Meaning two men or two women.

Yes, well, who knows what Pathfinder "means" (I'm not even going to speculate on what he would make of me being slippery ...)

225. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146944 by secondsoprano on March 19, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Mitchell - re "Love my life" - yes, I agree, that was a great movie!

226. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146912 by secondsoprano on March 19, 2008 at 2:41 pm

18. Comment #146590 by Pathfinder

Homosexuality is abnormal, it rules out procreation

and 119. Comment #146843 by Frankus1122

It seems curious that homosexuality would continue to be present in a population when there does not seem to be any way homosexual genes (if there are such things) would be passed to the next genereation.

Frankus, I'm sorry to link you with Pathfinder in any way, but really, you both srsly lack imagination.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with reproductive capacity. It is perfectly possible (and indeed relatively common) for "gay" sperm and/or "lesbian" ova to make a baby:

1. Heterosexual intercourse by choice [just because a lesbian decides to have sex with a man to get pregnant doesn't make her any less gay]

2. Heterosexual intercourse by force [ditto lesbians who are raped]

3. Assisted insemination [very, very easy, and can be done in the privacy of your own home with no medical intervention required - please advise if more detail required]

4. Artificial conception with medical assistance.
[eg IVF]

227. Fleabytes

Comment #146284 by secondsoprano on March 18, 2008 at 9:47 pm

I leave now. My task complete. I shall not return unless the Lord sends unto me another vision.

Chicken.

How am I supposed to be saved if you run away?

228. Fleabytes

Comment #146257 by secondsoprano on March 18, 2008 at 8:39 pm

How do sheep shaggers stack up? Only saying because there is a large landmass about 3 hours flight away from where I live who engage in the practice.

Keep your greedy kiwi paws off our sheep, mate.

Baa

229. Fleabytes

Comment #146256 by secondsoprano on March 18, 2008 at 8:36 pm

Give up your nubile sheep and other farm animals.

Can I keep the old ones then?

Stop fondling all that lives and breathes.

Is necrophilia OK with you?

Stop using stupefying drugs.

Does that include coffee?

Follow the Lord and you'll know real mind transcendence!

Which way did He go?

Sell all your belongings, for the end time nears.

What should I do with the proceeds?

Leave your family, this is what Jesus has said.

Can I bring my daughter, and if not, will you explain to social services?

Have no more than a hair-cloth to protect you.

What is a hair-cloth and where can I get one?

Then await for the Lord to give you a vision. If the vision doesn't occur then it is due to you pathetic lack of faith. Fast and sleep in the elements until a vision is received.

I'm a bit concerned about this part because to be honest I am rather lacking in the faith department. Can you assist on the easiest way to abandon my critical facilities?


Is there anything else I need to do or is that it?

230. Fleabytes

Comment #146243 by secondsoprano on March 18, 2008 at 8:05 pm

OK, clair, since no-one has taken up your kind offers, let me be the first.

Assume for a minute that you have convinced me.

What do I have to do now?

231. They prayed to cast Satan from my body

Comment #145647 by secondsoprano on March 17, 2008 at 9:44 pm

Thanks for the prompt Leon. I have added my comments to the feedback form on the link you provided, and I encourage others to do the same.

232. They prayed to cast Satan from my body

Comment #145621 by secondsoprano on March 17, 2008 at 7:55 pm

RE: 19. Comment #145420 by secondsoprano on March 17, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Crap, I accidentally click on the "offensive" link on your post. Please explain to Josh I did it accidentally. Sorry.

No offence taken. No sure what, if anything I or Josh need to do about this, but thanks for letting me know :)

233. Fleabytes

Comment #145577 by secondsoprano on March 17, 2008 at 6:12 pm

casting into dubeity the IMPERISHIBBLE truth of our LORDS RESURRECTION

He's got him on the ropes now. How is Mr Cleverpants Robertson going to be able to respond to immpekabubble logik like that?

Round two - ding!

234. Fleabytes

Comment #145544 by secondsoprano on March 17, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Oh yeah, more popcorn. This is fun.

235. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145541 by secondsoprano on March 17, 2008 at 5:33 pm

I am an AUTODIDACT

pathfinder, further to your remarks about juries, have you heard the old saying "the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client"? (Attributed to Abraham Lincoln, I believe.)

Same applies for teachers.

(Amazingly enough, I already knew what "autodidact" meant. I don't need to look up anything with more than one syllable.)

236. Two More Fleas

Comment #145463 by secondsoprano on March 17, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Comment #145403 by Calilasseia

Ooh-er, gosh, wow. I didn't understand that at all.

Therefore God exists.

237. They prayed to cast Satan from my body

Comment #145420 by secondsoprano on March 17, 2008 at 2:57 pm

This place sounds like a cult. I wonder if they get tax exemption in Australia?

According to the Sydney Morning Herald (which is doing an "expose" series on these creeps), both Mercy Ministries, and the associated Hillsong Church have tax exempt status, and earn millions of dollars [yes, fellow Australian taxpayers, that's OUR money!!].

In the letters to the editor page today, a reader asserts that "Mercy Ministries is an affront to the Gospel" and that he is "appalled and ashamed that Christianity is associated with such horrendous practices".

I am so incandescent with rage about this whole thing that like scarecrow I can't think straight, nor write straight, so to speak. I really want to write a response that points out that this hideous, unspeakable brutality is EXACTLY what Christianity is about - brainwash people, tell them they are worthless sinners, take their money etc - but I can't calm down enough to write anything which would be published.

Is there a calm, articulate RD-net'er who could take up that challenge for me? (silly question. ... ;)

See these links for more details [my apologies if they don't work ... I'm not very good at this tech stuff. Go to smh.com.au & search "mercy" if I haven't done it right]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-business-of-giving-mercy/2008/03/17/1205602293116.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/why-mercy-ministries-was-godsent-for-hillsong/2008/03/17/1205602284113.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/hell-or-a-godsend-women-tell-their-stories/2008/03/17/1205602293125.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/they-sought-help-but-got-exorcism-and-the-bible/2008/03/16/1205602195048.html

Stay tuned ... tomorrow the Herald brings you "How Mercy Ministreies and Hillsong believe they can cure homosexuality" (Sadly, I am not making this up).

Australians tend to be rather smug when we hear about wacko US-Bible-belt god-botherers. "Only in America" we smile patronisingly. Unfortunately, stuff like this shows how wrong we are.

Edit: I almost wish I used to buy coffee from Gloria Jeans, just so I could boycott it now. But of course there are so many places in Australia to buy GOOD coffee. "Only in America" do they think that Gloria Jeans/Starbucks style dishwater is coffee...

[ducking incoming missiles from irate Americans... OK, OK, sorry! it was a joke!]

238. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143199 by secondsoprano on March 13, 2008 at 3:57 pm

How many of our gay breathren on this board start their morning with coffee, perhaps and english muffin and a reaffirmation of their desire to conspire against the catholic church.

Simply put, where do you find the time?

What with sacrificing babies at the full moon, undermining the sanctity of marriage, packing school lunches and making it to soccer practice, I really struggle to get much anti-Catholic plotting in.

I must say RD net is a big help in that regard. You all do a fine job of feeding their paranoia for those of us too busy to pull our weight.

239. Crossing the Divide

Comment #142074 by secondsoprano on March 11, 2008 at 10:15 pm

I also remember the sudden realization, seeing a bumblebee fertilizing a rhododendron, that insofar as there was such a thing as "creation" I was watching it happen right in front of me. That was when I realized atheism was a liberating truth, not a depressing truth.

That's a wonderful image. Thank you for brightening my day.

(Needed it. Dealing with cr*p at work. Best solution - avoid work and get on RD net :)

240. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #142045 by secondsoprano on March 11, 2008 at 7:10 pm

"The Pope also complained that an increasing number of people in the secularised West were "making do without God.""

(((Aside from the fact that the Pope needs to learn how to spell secularized)))...

If the Pope actually said this (in English), and spelled it with an "s", I find myself in the disturbing position of agreeing with him.

(Only about the spelling. Obviously)

241. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139916 by secondsoprano on March 6, 2008 at 5:59 pm

I love doing, I love thinking, I love seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling. I love experiencing, I love being.

Death is the lose of all that I cherish most, all that I am, and all that I have.

Thanks Mitchell, I think I get it now. I think acutally our feelings on the subject of death are not as far apart as it originally seemed - we just describe the feeling differently.

You say (if I paraphrase you correctly) that you absolutely love life, and that death is the loss of the thing you love most, namely life. I feel the same.

You describe that feeling as being afraid of death. I describe it as "I really, really, really don't want to die (yet)".

But I think in the end it is the same thing by a different name.

We both accept that death = non-existence.

Do I have that right?

Are we all sick of the "who's afraid of the big bad death" thread yet?

242. Fleabytes

Comment #139833 by secondsoprano on March 6, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Wasn't there some kind of study done years ago that showed a positive correlation between homosexuality and sinistrality?

Oh, clearly. And intelligence. And gorgeousness. And general all-round superiority.

regards
secondsoprano
your fellow sinister homosexual

243. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139456 by secondsoprano on March 5, 2008 at 10:15 pm

I'm being spoken to as if I'm an idiot who doesn't realise that I won't be able to experience not existing to be afraid. THAT IS PRESICELY WHAT I AM AFRAID OF!

Mitchell, I'm sorry to be thick here, but I really don't get what the issue is. The "philosophical placebos" you quote are a sufficient answer as far as I can see. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence - I really don't get it. I really don't understand how you can fear non-existence. Sorry if you're sick of the conversation, but if you could find it in yourself to try and explain it to me in words of one syllable, I'd be most grateful!

244. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #139449 by secondsoprano on March 5, 2008 at 9:22 pm

wooter: How do you handle with the thought of death; one day believers or non-believers will die for sure? ...How do you overcome this fear of being gone forever?

I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. Mark Twain

245. Bulldozers tear down giant religious teapot

Comment #138871 by secondsoprano on March 4, 2008 at 11:03 pm

This ought to be funny ... but then I keep remembering that a woman has actually been thrown in jail, not for anything she has done, but for failing to believe Muslim doctrine , and I stop laughing.

This is highly objectionable, to say the least.

Apostacy, heresy, blasphemy and similar crimes are extremely bad law, for several reasons:

1. It offends against human rights, freedom of (and from) religion, free speech, freedom of association etc.

2. It goes against all modern civilised criminological principles. Conduct should only be criminalised if it creates harm to others.

3. Apostacy purports to criminalise thought, not action. This is legally and morally untenable.

4. It is illogical to mandate belief. Belief is either held or it is not. The most you can require is that a person must say they believe . Inevitably, this means requiring some people to lie, which goes against the whole foundation of criminal law.


(At last, a topic I can be expert in! I have lurked for ages, with nothing to contribute to the scientific debates but "oooh. gosh. isn't s/he clever? oh - you don't say?!" and "huh?" respectively, depending on the complexity of the topic. But law, and criminal law at that - now you're speaking my language :)

246. Fleabytes

Comment #138559 by secondsoprano on March 4, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Steve Zara said

Before Darwin, people thought: "Hey, that looks like a mind has done that" when they looked at what seemed like design. It was common sense. Darwin showed they had fooled themselves. It was a general lesson, about the way we think about all reality.

That was a WOW moment for me. You encapsulated far more articulately than I could the sense of how one revelation can change the way we think about others aspects of reality.

I had the same experience when one aspect of religious "truth" and morality led me to question the rest of it.

Some years ago it began to dawn on me that although I had been told since childhood, and had believed, that homosexuality was wrong, evil, harmful, sinful, dirty, damaging etc etc, this simply wasn't true. I don't mean as a matter of opinion (I changed my opinion long ago) but as a matter of actual, verifiable fact.

Which naturally led to the question "well, if they're wrong about that, what else are they wrong about?". Which of course led to the conclusion "pretty much everything". Which led me, eventually, here.

Which is a very long way of responding to Paula's observation

I'd be very interested to hear whether any other former Christians can relate to what I have described here.

(To which the answer is yes! very much so!)

and of introducing myself ... a long time lurker (and long time admirer of both Steve and Paula's calm and rational approach). Hi :)