http://religionnews.com/2017/02/27/the-dangerous-perversion-of-religion-and-politics-i-warned-about/


In “The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right’s Plans For The Rest Of Us,” published in 2006, I had warned that a well-financed and highly organized group of religious and political leaders was seeking to impose their narrow extremist beliefs and harsh public policies on the United States, even as our nation’s population was increasingly multireligious, multiethnic, and multiracial.

The intention of that group, whom I labeled “Christocrats,” was to establish a white-dominated nationalistic “Christian America” officially buttressed and ruled by judicial, presidential and congressional law.


Some readers scoffed at my assertion that religious right leaders wanted to enforce a punitive religious domination over the totality of American life by first infiltrating a major political party and then ultimately gaining mastery of that party to achieve their goals that include legal control over our bedrooms, public schools, media, hospital rooms, medical laboratories, courtrooms, libraries, workrooms, and public spaces.

I remember my participation back then in a public forum where my book was discussed. A panelist laughed at my “wild” assertions, and many in the audience joined in the laughter.

The once-popular song “They Didn’t Believe Me” could have been the theme that night. But in light of current events and numerous examples that validate my assertions, the appropriate song today should be “Who’s Sorry Now?”

Oddly, right above this message in the message index is Steve Benson's post about Terror Attacks: Van plows thru people on London Bridge, then stabbings

In London, the attackers did not cry out, "This is for Jehovah!"

You might have had a point back in the 70s and 80s when the Moral Majority was a genuine political force. As I read "the Christian Right," they're willing to settle for a very flawed man (Trump), simply because he's the only alternative to the Progressives. So-called "Kingdom Theology," the belief that a Christianized world will somehow induce Christ's return, has very little traction, as opposed to the a more widely proselytized belief that Al Madi, the "12th Iman," will return if Islam, "the religion of peace," is established globally.

Resources for the dangerous convergence of atheism and left-wing politics:

https://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-American-Left-Conservative/dp/1594036942/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1594036942&pd_rd_r=FS70HPVNASVG7VQN30VG&pd_rd_w=ljBm8&pd_rd_wg=QbR7o&psc=1&refRID=FS70HPVNASVG7VQN30VG

https://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496761352&sr=1-1&keywords=black+book+of+communism

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Resources for the dangerous convergence of atheism
> and left-wing politics:

Since atheism has no doctrine, no dogma, no rules, no theology, no instructions, or anything else...

What makes it "dangerous?"

Other than it rejecting your "belief?"

edit: not that I agree with all of the OP, btw...
Yes, I do think religious dogma should be kept out of politics completely. All religious dogma.
And yes, there are "kingdom" christians who very much want to make the US a christian theocracy. But you're right, they're not as much of a current threat to politics, domestic or global, as Islam currently is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2017 11:48AM by ificouldhietokolob.

I'd just like to point out that the Al-Mahdi 12th imam belief is only held by Shia muslims (think Iran...).

The people behind Daech (IS to you) and the current wave of terrorism are Sunni muslims (think Saudi Arabia...) who do not follow this belief.

Who knew it was so complicated?

Tom in Paris

It's always interesting how so many on left feel the need to respond to every report of Islamic terror somewhere in the world by screaming that the real danger is the Christians.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's always interesting how so many on left feel
> the need to respond to every report of Islamic
> terror somewhere in the world by screaming that
> the real danger is the Christians.

The "real danger" is religious fanatics.
Of all stripes.

Your statement is a complete misrepresentation of the OP, by the way. Nice.

Huh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I'm stating that religious fanatics in every religion are a "real danger."

Which is exactly what I said.
And which isn't what you said.

The faith in question doesn't matter. Christians are persecuted in China and in Egypt. In America, some far right people are using one form of Christianity to dominate and control using religious freedom as a means towards that end.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The faith in question doesn't matter. Christians
> are persecuted in China and in Egypt. In America,
> some far right people are using one form of
> Christianity to dominate and control using
> religious freedom as a means towards that end.


I've asked this before without response. Will you please detail exactly what specific rights and freedoms have been lost at the hands of religious activists in the US?

https://thinkprogress.org/when-religious-liberty-was-used-to-justify-racism-instead-of-homophobia-67bc973c4042


The Hobby Lobby decision is the closest example at the federal level but several states are attempting to pass laws to justify discrmination via the "religious liberty" route.

Fortunately, the Constitution doesn't allow such laws.

The sad thing is they don't stop trying to pass them.

You choose two interesting examples. The KKK was a movement aligned with the Democratic Party, not Republicans. It was birthed among disgruntled confederates who hated two things: Blacks and Republicans. They certainly appropriated some religious language to justify some of their actions, but once you realize the time and place of its birth, you see it was a reaction to the Civil War.

And your example of Hobby Lobby is bizarre. Are you contending that Hobby Lobby was actually able to prevent women from exercising certain freedoms? Unless you can find some obscure section of the Constitution that compels a company to supply specific drugs and procedures to the populace, you're once again left with no examples to support your claim. Last I looked, doctors are still prescribing all forms of birth control and pharmacies are still filling those prescriptions. Is it different where you live? And exactly how many abortions was Hobby Lobby able to outlaw? I believe an in depth survey will show that number is zero.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You choose two interesting examples. The KKK was a
> movement aligned with the Democratic Party, not
> Republicans. It was birthed among disgruntled
> confederates who hated two things: Blacks and
> Republicans. They certainly appropriated some
> religious language to justify some of their
> actions, but once you realize the time and place
> of its birth, you see it was a reaction to the
> Civil War.

The souther democratic party, known as the Dixiecrats switched to the republican party when the democratic party added civil rights to their official platform. They were opposed to civil rights for black people. Whom do you think the KKK would have been aligned with?


>
> And your example of Hobby Lobby is bizarre. Are
> you contending that Hobby Lobby was actually able
> to prevent women from exercising certain freedoms?
> Unless you can find some obscure section of the
> Constitution that compels a company to supply
> specific drugs and procedures to the populace,
> you're once again left with no examples to support
> your claim. Last I looked, doctors are still
> prescribing all forms of birth control and
> pharmacies are still filling those prescriptions.
> Is it different where you live? And exactly how
> many abortions was Hobby Lobby able to outlaw? I
> believe an in depth survey will show that number
> is zero.

Hobby Lobby is a for profit corporation. They provide health insurance to their employees. They don't provide drugs or procedures. Denying only their female employees insurance to cover certain types of birth control that they didn't feel should be provided with is certainly a type of religious discrimination. The fact that the supreme court provided them with a work around is a good thing, but it still is a type of discrimination. But keep in mind, this is about health insurance for their female employees. If your employee decided that they objected to certain insurance benefits to their male employees based on their religious convictions, I'm sure you would feel discriminated against.

But the short answer is that not a single person in the entire country has had any right whatsoever infringed at the behest of a Christian individual or company owned by a Christian.

That's the point. Our OP, and perhaps you too, seem to think that if you fail to compel someone to provide a good or service against their will, you're depriving the person making the demand of some fundamental right. Sorry, not so. If you want birth control, and your employer doesn't provide it as a benefit, you're completely free to purchase it on your own. You have not been wronged in any way. My employer may not provide me with a company car or a company-paid apartment. I provide those things myself.

And though it may seem a bit obvious, there is still a biological difference between men and women. Only half of the employee bathrooms generally have a Kotex machine, though I'm sure there are lawsuits revving up to get that changed.

Freedom does not mean you have the right to demand someone to provide something to you that you are perfectly free to provide for yourself. And if women receive different services than men, it is perhaps due to the fact that they are fundamentally different than men. And if an employer chooses to not offer birth control that can be an abortifacient, so be it. They are permitted to do that. That's the law.

http://latinousa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Mexicans.png

http://the-american-catholic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/no-irish-need-apply-daily-republican-il-7-may-1873.bmp

http://i.amz.mshcdn.com/I-k045n3FfSXzo8nakuU8xSdazA=/http%3A%2F%2Fa.amz.mshcdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F06%2FSigns-2.jpg

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1f0186668e15e43fc275e93288dae79d-c

Sorry, this isn't going to work in the modern world.

"But the short answer is that not a single person in the entire country has had any right whatsoever infringed at the behest of a Christian individual or company owned by a Christian."

I'd like you to prove that assertion.

"That's the point. Our OP, and perhaps you too, seem to think that if you fail to compel someone to provide a good or service against their will, you're depriving the person making the demand of some fundamental right. Sorry, not so. If you want birth control, and your employer doesn't provide it as a benefit, you're completely free to purchase it on your own. You have not been wronged in any way. My employer may not provide me with a company car or a company-paid apartment. I provide those things myself."

No. If you are a public company who provides employees with a benefit package that includes health insurance, you shouldn't be able to select what procedures and medications your insurance package provides based on your own religious belief. If you don't believe in birth control, don't take it. But you shouldn't be able to single out your female employees and take exception to something they should be able to chose for themselves. As a charity or religious organization yes but not as a public company. A woman's health includes her reproductive organs. This is not the same as providing a car. If your company provides cars to the male employees but not the females, that would be analogous.

"And though it may seem a bit obvious, there is still a biological difference between men and women. Only half of the employee bathrooms generally have a Kotex machine, though I'm sure there are lawsuits revving up to get that changed."

This has nothing to do with insurance.

"Freedom does not mean you have the right to demand someone to provide something to you that you are perfectly free to provide for yourself. And if women receive different services than men, it is perhaps due to the fact that they are fundamentally different than men. And if an employer chooses to not offer birth control that can be an abortifacient, so be it. They are permitted to do that. That's the law."

No therein lies the rub. Women have needs associated with the fact that they have different reproductive organs that have specific needs that doesn't have only to do with preventing pregnancy. And it's not about $10 birth control pills that are easy to obtain. Why should women not get the medical care they need because it bother's their employers conscience? Is that equal protection under the law? No, the supreme court simply offered a work around.

You start a topic citing the dangers of the evil coercive right wing religionists, and respond that in your ideal world there is a list of things you would coerce the unwilling to participate in so that you may fulfill your specific agenda. Businesses in your world MUST provide specific services to employees. That's not liberty. That's totalitarianism -- you know that thing you accuse the religionists of seeking?

See, this is why YOU are the problem with America, not the Christians. As with most left wing ideologues, you promote the exact thing you warn is part of the agenda of your enemies.

And as you continue to overlook, not a single liberty is being deprived of anyone by Christians. If you were in charge, however, the list of liberties you would deprive is a lengthy one. You are the exact thing you claim to detest.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2017 09:49PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

What the hell are you even talking about?

Liberty is making sure others have the option to buy or do things that you don't like. Liberty is NOT trying to make the laws so that you impose your religion on others.

Liberty is making sure that you don't have to use birth control or have an abortion or marry someone of the same sex if you choose not to. Liberty is NOT a religious person deciding for others because it offends them to allow others different choices.

Liberty:
Me - making sure I fight to assure you to have your freedom of religion at church and home.
You - making sure you are keeping it at church and home.

Once you impose your religious beliefs on others, because you can't follow your religion unless they do things your way, that's not liberty, IMO.

Bravo, dagny. :)

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberty is making sure others have the option to
> buy or do things that you don't like. Liberty is
> NOT trying to make the laws so that you impose
> your religion on others.

Surely you realize you're just making that definition up out of whole cloth, right? Why even engage in these conversations if you're just going to make stuff up? Look it up. The actual dictionary definition is, "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." It's a personal freedom, not a means to force others to act as you wish.

But in your upside down world of "liberty by coercion" it's perfectly fine to make laws that impose YOUR morality on others. As long as you don't attach a religion to it, you're perfectly fine imposing your beliefs on others. So if a company chooses to offer a wide array of benefits to employees, but not one that YOU deem to be important, your totalitarianism will force them to act according to your will. Their freedom? Meh.


>
> Liberty is making sure that you don't have to use
> birth control or have an abortion or marry someone
> of the same sex if you choose not to. Liberty is
> NOT a religious person deciding for others because
> it offends them to allow others different
> choices.
>

Dagny, I know you're a smart person, but why do you make such an idiotic argument? Do you actually believe that the Hobby Lobby Police Force has descended upon doctors offices and pharmacies across America and made it impossible for a woman to find any kind of birth control because they've shackled the pharmacies and arrested the pharmacists?

Please enter the real world. If an employer does not choose to offer a certain benefit, it does not somehow mean that specific item or benefit is magically and globally withheld from the employee. Do you get a company car? Does your employer pay for your housing? How about your food -- does your employer supply you with your food? I take it if you answer "no" to these questions, you're living under an overpass somewhere begging for food, because your employer has somehow forbidden you from getting transportation, housing and food, right?


> Liberty:
> Me - making sure I fight to assure you to have
> your freedom of religion at church and home.
> You - making sure you are keeping it at church and
> home.
>
> Once you impose your religious beliefs on others,
> because you can't follow your religion unless they
> do things your way, that's not liberty, IMO.

No, "Liberty" for you is coercing others to act in a way that YOU believe is correct even if they disagree. Actual freedom is an INDIVIDUAL freedom. We grant individual the freedom be free from the coercive demands of government and other individuals as much as possible.

You have the complete freedom to buy birth control wherever you want. You do not have the right to force others to provide a good or service to you against their will. That's totalitarianism. I've read the Constitution, and it appears they edited out that part where we're all entitled to birth control provided by our employers.

Actual liberty is a society where people are free to choose who they work for and companies are free to choose the benefits they offer. Good workers will be able to command better benefits, and everybody can get pretty much anything they want on the open market. Some employers will offer some benefits and others a different package, and every employee can choose to work for whomever they please.

Only a fool would suggest that if some specific item is not provided by an employer, but is readily available elsewhere, they are somehow being deprived of that item.

If an employer can tell an employee that their earned benefits cannot be used to provide contraception, since it's against the employer's religion, why shouldn't they be able to tell their employee that they can't use their paycheck to buy shorts that aren't long enough, or beer? It's the same thing.

Not to mention it's a blatant lie using the excuse that the excluded BC methods are "abortifacients." Not everyone can use hormonal BC and for many women, IUDs are the best option.

a nonny mouse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If an employer can tell an employee that their
> earned benefits cannot be used to provide
> contraception, since it's against the employer's
> religion, why shouldn't they be able to tell their
> employee that they can't use their paycheck to buy
> shorts that aren't long enough, or beer? It's the
> same thing.

You are grossly misstating the circumstances. As long as the free market exists, with doctors and pharmacies willing to offer contraception, it is impossible for an employer to "tell an employee" how they can or cannot use their income.

As I've noted above, the things that my past employers have refused to provide me with are nearly endless, yet I was able to find housing, transportation, contraception, and virtually everything I needed. It's not my employers job to provide everything I need in life. I work, they pay me, I procure what I need if it's not offered by them. See how that works?

Benefits are assembled by the employer as they see fit. If your employer does not offer the benefits you wish, try to find one who does. Only in the Orwellian world of leftists would it be considered a "freedom" to require a company who sells craft goods to provide certain forms of birth control against their will. That's not freedom, that's totalitarianism.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only in the
> Orwellian world of leftists would it be considered
> a "freedom" to require a company who sells craft
> goods to provide certain forms of birth control
> against their will. That's not freedom, that's
> totalitarianism.

Only in the totalitarian religious world of fundamentalist christians would it be considered "freedom" to provide full health insurance coverage to all of a company's employees -- except for women, who don't get full coverage and are denied specific health care because the company's owners are mired in bronze age superstitious nonsense. That's not freedom, that's imposing religious beliefs on employees of a corporation whether they share those beliefs or not.

"Freedom" doesn't mean "I get to impose my religious beliefs on you." No matter how many times you disingenuously twist the argument to try and make it seem so.

We can always count on you for some appallingly sexist, racist, or otherwise "save the status quo for the straight white males" post, tmsh. Good heavens, are you that insecure that those attributes (white skin, heterosexual male) that have nothing to do with your abilities are so precious to you? Seriously - a world where everyone is treated as if they are deserving of respect and have value is actually a good thing we should aspire to. The world as run by the straight white males has not been going so well. TSCC is a prime example of that.

And we can always count on you to run to your worn out list of "isms" and "ists" that require no actual intellectual engagement, but sure look good on your crowded bumper.

Your side is losing with its anti-intellectual retreat to plugging its ears and reciting a list of meaningless diatribes about sexism, racism, yada yada yada. You have a great future as a protest sign writer. We'll not look to you for actual meaningful dialogue.

Were you not aware the GOP had no issues with abortion before Roe V Wade? And that abortion fell in line with their "cherished ideas of conservative ideals?" When religion started influencing politics i.e. The Moral Majority, the GOP started changing some positions to gain more support and a larger voting base.

As a believer, I reject the idea that anything opposed to Christianity is somehow the fault of the left. In the US we love to marginalize people with our little titles..."Oh he/she is a liberal." or "Oh he'she is as rightist." and we do it, I think, because it saves us the bother of listening and considering the other's point of view. Why is it that Christianity and politics are so much more intertwined here in the US than other countries? When I go to the UK and mix with Christian there I don't hear this debate. They appear more concerned with living their faith and fulfilling the Great Commission. Christians have enough negative issues we are responsible for to focus on instead of feeding the divisions we think mighty be there.

Coming from the UK to America the most shocking thing you find out is just how racist the society is. The racism didn't go away in the sixties. It just got suppressed. Imagine the Brexit vote multiplied fifty times and you'll get the idea. Many Whites living in rural and ex-urban areas that really hadn't changed much since that time became alarmed about the recent demographic changes suddenly thrust upon them. Add depopulation, economic stress, changing racial attitudes, and more acceptance of sexual and gender fluidity into the mix and you get an explosive situation.

In other words, these people are living in fear of the coming changes of the twenty-first century and can no longer legally discriminate so they are attempting to the same thing by using "religious freedom" as the means to do it.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In other words, these people are living in fear of
> the coming changes of the twenty-first century and
> can no longer legally discriminate so they are
> attempting to the same thing by using "religious
> freedom" as the means to do it.

I think they're living in fear of the coming changes of the twentieth century.
They're just that far behind.
I'm not kidding...

As for TMSH:
Christians tried to push through a constitutional amendment making christianity the official religion of the US, and putting into the constitution that Jesus is the ruler of this world, and that citizenship was dependent on being a christian, in 1864 (they blamed the Civil War on our un-christian-ness).

Fortunately, they failed.

So they tried again in 1920 (same argument, different war).
And again in 1950 ("godless communism" this time).
And again in the early 1960's ("un-natural mixing of the races" by those damned liberals that time).

Now some of the same rhetoric is making the rounds again (this time it's the damn Mohammedeans).

Those repeated attempts to subvert the constitution and take away the rights of anyone but christians certainly, at the very least, merit our attention and watchfulness, don't you think?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2017 05:35PM by ificouldhietokolob.

are people having difficulty with? It seems pretty clear to me.

>As you are, I once was...

Honest.

Christians (and others) are seeking to eliminate my right to go natural in the (back) yard, I don't like that, regardless of which group to do or don't belong to!

Individual rights are More Important than 'group rights' or power-influence to enforce them.

Since it's about power, with religion being the cudgel, it doesn't matter what ideology they ascribe to. It's about power.

Doesn't the OP trot this red herring out on a regular basis?

This bucket of rotten fish is really starting to smell bad.

and this is the same thing the Islamic fundies are trying to do.



http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/god-government-and-roger-williams-big-idea-6291280/

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I should think ex-Mormons who escaped a theocracy
> would want to warn others
> and this is the same thing the Islamic fundies are
> trying to do.
>

So Islamic fundies' motivation is warning people about the perils of theocracy? does their Imam approve of that approach? or are they going to get their moslem heads cut off for being out of line?


You should have limited your statement to the first three words.

Smirk, I think you misunderstood what anybody was trying to say.


anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I should think ex-Mormons who escaped a theocracy would want to warn others *(about the dangers of theocracy)*
> and this *(trying to establish a theocracy)* is the same thing the Islamic fundies are
> trying to do.
>
>
>
> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/god-governme
> nt-and-roger-williams-big-idea-6291280/

you make a valid point, and you are commended for it.

However, the reason that I took that position was an intended reflection of how often that the OP acts as an apologist for (indefensible) Islam and defends Islam beyond any reason.

Lots of people have convinced themselves that what they do is commanded by some deity or another.

I know plenty of Muslims and they are no better or different from you. Some are urbane, some are provincial, some are religious in name only, some are devout and some aren't at all.

Being a Muslim doesn't make you a terrorist anymore than being Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or a pagan does.

If you think that's condoning terrorism you have a problem with reality.

Uhhhhh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doesn't the OP trot this red herring out on a
> regular basis?

uhhhhhhhh" ..... YES!

> This bucket of rotten fish is really starting to
> smell bad.

CORRECT, AGAIN !!! ......except for the fact that is has stunk all along

So what's wrong with people using government to assert their will? That is how things work now, since the restraints of the Constitution are long gone.

Easier to use the force of government than to actually convince people.

While religion uses government, for many on the left, government is a religion. It is considered the solution to all our problems - like god, providing for all our needs. Paid for by money taken by force, of course.

"the restraints of the Constitution are long gone."

Prove this statement.

Masks the reality that right now it is the rich "religionists" who are a minority who have nevertheless subverted the will of the majority.

You guys have yours, and your attitude is screw the rest; it amounts to pathological scapegoating, period. Self awareness of racism and misogyny is kept under wraps via pathological denial.

Just a bunch of guilty consciences whose projection mechanism is working overtime, IMO...

Praise the Lord and pass the paranoia.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2017 02:08AM by SL Cabbie.

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You guys have yours, and your attitude is screw
> the rest; it amounts to pathological scapegoating,
> period. Self awareness of racism and misogyny is
> kept under wraps via pathological denial.

Yup. On the nose. "If we don't talk about it or it doesn't affect me, it's not a problem and it's made up issue to divide us."

Free Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While religion uses government, for many on the
> left, government is a religion. It is
> considered the solution to all our problems - like
> god, providing for all our needs. Paid for by
> money taken by force, of course.

Thanks for clearly demonstrating that you don't know a thing about "the left," and that you appear to have simply bought into the dishonest BS peddled by some on the "right."

It originated in Britain in the mid 1800s.

Liberals don't "worship" government.

Democracy, universal suffrage, and the rule of law are all liberal ideas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Long, long ago in Australia the government had an official "White Australia" policy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy

The purpose of this was to effectively bar non-white immigration into the country. This policy didn't end until 1975.

Why? Why do some people feel the presence of other people who are not like them as a threat? I've never felt that way. But for every Richard Spencer, David Duke, or Jared Taylor there are a hundred other people who may think similar thoughts but do not dare voice them.

In America, this fundamental question of white Christian racial hegemony permeates everything. Since out in the open racism is no longer legal or socially viable, religion and religious tolerance are being used as vehicles of hate, intolerance and repression.

I know several sincere evangelical Christians who are appalled at what is being said and done in the name of their faith.

Ten years ago or twenty years ago the idea that America could become an illiberal fascist state would have been laughable. Today it's a not so unrealistic real possibility.

Think for a moment. Would you really want America run the same way that the Brethren control LD$, Inc? If you lived through the 1950s, would you really want everyone in America forced to live in some modern recreation of that era? Does not the increasingly irrational retreat into an alternative reality of Biblical literalism disturb you? In 1600, Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for saying not only that the Earth went around the Sun but also that the stars in the night sky might be suns themselves with inhabited planets that went around them. Would you want to return to that closed existence?

You would never have to worry about seeing an R-rated movie. There wouldn't be any. Everyone would be "normal." No visibly gay or trans people around so you won't be tempted to examine your own sexuality. No non-whites who aren't subservient to make you uncomfortable or feel unsafe or introduce you to other customs or foods or music. You'd never hear another language. Only "safe" approved art and literature would be allowed. You would never see anything that would make you think or examine your own beliefs. Women would be confined to the domestic sphere and dress and fashion would be reassuringly regulated. Everywhere you went everything and everyone would be refreshingly the same:

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/english/pdf/callings/young-women/young-women-temple-1051081-code0.jpg.

http://www.tiemposprofeticos.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/4-The-Book-Of-Mormon-London-800x442.jpg

But -- If you have money or influence, you don't have to follow all of these rules. Behind closed doors, all manner of things happen that no one wants to talk about.

Any of this sound familiar? Didn't you escape from a world like this? When they talk about "choice" but they really don't mean choice. They talk about "freedom" when they really mean repression. They talk about "association" when they really mean discrimination -- just as in "1984."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2017 11:58PM by anybody.

Mormonism claims to know that god exists
Atheism claims to know that god does not exist
How can either side of those two positions know that either belief is true? Both sides are irratiinal.

Agnostics believe that they do not know whether or not god exists. This seems like the only true belief considering that we can't really know anything for sure about god.

Muslims believe that not only does god exist, but that you have no legal nor ethical rights if you do not believe and practice as they do and in too many cases, your life itself is worth less then their beliefs.

azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Atheism claims to know that god does not exist

No, actually, it doesn't.
Atheism is a LACK of belief in claimed god-things.
Not an assertion that they do not exist.

If you're going to make an argument, at least start with factual premises.