Am I my brother's keeper?

[TZ]

It seems to me that one of the problems here is the attack on a whole group of people because of the bad behavior of a few. Or the instance that the whole group should be held accountable for the behavior of the most strident. Or because a particular prominent atheist (like Christopher Hitchens whom I loathe) is a reflection of how atheists all believe.
And this does go both ways, atheist assholes bring the whole "atheist fundamentalist" meme that we all have come to know and love.
And in the other corner is the stereotype of liberal christians being little better than the fundies. Or that they should be held responsible for the behavior of Pat Robertson et al.
Well, I know that no person can be the keeper of another's concience and I don't hold anybody responsible for the zealots of any stripe, but I would like to see those of each group confront the people who are making it ugly here, which I try to do and at least let them know that they don't speak for all. Maybe if more people kept this in mind, we would get along better. I don't know.
But I do know that broad brush terms that are thrown around here (fudamentalist, fairy tale believer, etc) have no place here except to ignite flamewars.
I treat every individual fairly, unless they show they aren't interested in being fair and rational, then I have no problem with being blunt and harsh. I live by the golden rule...and I think that if everyone else did here, we could have some productive discussions (as we are having in several threads here).
Just my .02 cents.
:)

[uberllama42]

1. I agree

Especially about Christopher Hitchens. I can't stand being associated with him- he is an abrasive, hateful neoconservative.

I will certainly do my best to avoid broadbrushing others and will make an effort to stand up to anyone who makes unfair generalizations- especially against people I disagree with.

[JerseygirlCT]

2. And a good two cents it is

I agree. The broad brush is pointless, whoever it's turned on. I don't represent anything or anyone but myself. I can speak to my own beliefs and my own thoughts. To some extent, a small one, perhaps, I can speak to my particular denomination.

In a much larger sense, I've felt called on to speak to people of faith in general - always in response to broad brush attacks though.

Treating individuals like individuals is a smart way to go, Sue!

[Turbineguy]

3. People speak for themselves

it's just that Hitchens and Robertson say what they think will pay the most.

[DCKit]

4. You may very well say the same about HRC and BO's over-zealous supporters...

reflecting on either candidate. Worse yet, the failed policies of the current pResident and his minions representing all U.S. citizens.

[TZ]

5. I agree completely on those points.

And because of that I have tried to make this point in GD--P sometimes...But it always gets drowned out by the, umm zealots.:)

[wellstone dem]

6. Very interestingt

I did not expect a "brother's keeper" about behavior here. Thank you for this post.

[checks-n-balances]

7. Good question/discussion, but I interpret the question differently

I don't disagree at all with the way you are using it, but when I think of "Am I my brother's keeper?", I find in it the best answer I can think of to the debate about whether or not there should be a commonwealth/the common good/a government safety net, whether or not we should be "bleeding heart liberals", etc.

The alternative to that answer is a YOYO (You're On Your Own) world - the one we've been moving toward for almost 30 years, especially the last 8 years.

Yes, we are our brothers'/sisters' keepers!

[Igel]

24. Interesting idea.

No, we're not. I don't want to be. Being one person's keeper is plenty, thank you.

You should want to be Abel, not what Cain wrongly accused God of wanting him to be (flippantly, at that).

Abel fed sheep; most Bibles have it as "keeper" or "shepherd". Perhaps "shepherd" is an ok translation, but the focus is on nurturing.

Cain asked if he was a keeper. Cain was being flippant, his question is a reply to a question, not a foreshadowing of what's to come. "Where's Abel?" "Am I his warden?" Most people take it as "Am I to ensure his well-being?" as though anticipating "You killed him." But the Hebrew doesn't allow it, and the story flow doesn't allow it. English allows the word to have that meaning (after all, a woman can be kept in luxury, i.e., maintained or supported), and, well, we can ignore the narrative flow when it suits us, even if it's not necessary.

There are lots of other verses you can cite to show a duty to help anybody who needs it. The authority we have is over ourselves, to meet our responsibilities--nobody is forced to accept offers of aid just as nobody is forced to provide aid.

Cain asked if he was Abel's keeper. With the status, the responsibility, must come authority. You protect somebody in your custody; you watch over a precinct in a city that you're responsible for; you guard a prisoner. If you ask God to keep somebody, you assume that he has the authority to do what's necessary to do so. If you're tasked with monitoring somebody, unless you're at their beck and call you tell them what to do. 2500 years ago people in authority weren't into being at their wards' beck and call.

Now, we probably have the Abel mistranslation for political reasons. Priests had authority over their congregations; they were shepherds, often less involved in feeding and more involved in policing. It's kept now because we've thought our way around the problem and don't want to rethink the passage, but we have to skew the meaning to make it PC. We're keepers, but first we redefine the word and decide that we have to re-interpret a text whose meaning is clear. Proof-texting at its worst, faithful neither to the words' meanings or to the syntax. Sort of a free-floating idea in search of something to attach to.

There are no texts that anybody can cite to show that we have authority over everybody else. Authority goes with responsibility: You're responsible for maintaining order, raising children, providing stability in a congregation, you get authority. To have authority over somebody to ensure their well-being is a nonsensical proposition, unless the person is not free: children, mentally ill, prisoners all are subject to forced-feeding and being required to accept help. A ruler exerting authority irresponsibly is a bad ruler; a person who accepts a responsibility without the authority to execute it is a fool. I aspire to be neither.

Go with "feeder". Don't be a totalitarian or force a bad interpretation because you're wedded to a word. You want government to feed people, fine; if people don't want to eat, that's their business. But don't ask government to assume custody over free individuals, because to do so is to render them not free. In the narrative, God ignored Cain's flippant question. Why so many people considering themselves Xian have decided to assume God answered "Yes, Cain--you are responsible for keeping track of your brother" is a mystery to me, unless they really want to assume they have some sort of responsibility over others (and with the responsibility, authority over others).

[ironbark]

8. Do you look after his Bees? How the hell would we know !?!?

;-)

Sorry.

Good post and much appreciated.

You "live by the golden rule" ?

Now you give that rule back you atheist you....!!!!

;-)

[HamdenRice]

9. If a small group agrees ontologically and behaves similarly ...

it is almost inevitable that they will be perceived as some sort of "clique," and in such circumstances I would say yes, one is responsible for one's corhorts' behavior.

That is one of the basic dynamics of the R/T Forum, as noted upon by many, many outsiders.

[TZ]

10. great

So I can hold you responsible for the fundies that troll this forum from time to time?
Thanks once again in bringing your "logic" (NOT) into a rational thread. I can always count on you to be contrary.
Want to give examples? Do I have a clique?
(I'm pretty sure I know what you are gonna say here)

[HamdenRice]

11. "So I can hold you responsible for the fundies that troll"

Since I am a moderate atheist, I don't have the same ontological position as any "fundie," and therefore, your post does not make any sense to me.

[TZ]

12. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=263&topic_id=32916&mesg_id=32936
Remember this? You are the only person on this site that I have seen defend this loathsome marketing.
I also hold you responsible for the bad behavior of whichever is not your political candidate! Does that make sense?
Bout as much as YOUR saying that one person should be held responsible for another person's comments
And thats the end of this discussion. If you get anyone to agree with your position I'd be surprised.

[moggie]

25. He jumped the shark with that one

The Ford thread convinced me that HR is arguing in bad faith. His animosity towards certain DUers has led him to the point where he simply takes up a contrary position, even if it makes no sense from a liberal perspective.

[varkam]

14. You certainly have been behaving as such.

And, if the shoe fits...

ETA - and I don't mean to say you've been behaving as a moderate atheist, seeing as how most "moderate atheists" don't feel the need to pick fights, hurl insults, or start flame wars.

[cosmik debris]

17. Hey, I'm the third party doing the perceiving here.

I'll decide what clique you are in and whose behavior you are responsible for.

You set the ground rules. Your perception of yourself is no longer relevant! Third parties will make the determination about your responsibility!

You can't make this stuff up.

:rofl:

[varkam]

13. So perception equals responsibility?

Say what?

[cosmik debris]

15. WHAT A HOOT!

You said:

"If a small group agrees ontologically and behaves similarly ...it is almost inevitable that they will be perceived as some sort of "clique," and in such circumstances I would say yes, one is responsible for one's corhorts'(sic) behavior."

Because a third party PERCEIVED them as a clique, then therefore they are burdened with a responsibility for the behavior of others. Your basis is a THIRD PARTY PERCEPTION?????

Let's see which third party perceives YOU as a member of a clique? Shall we guess whose behavior you will be held accountable for?

[Evoman]

19. Whhhhhaat????!!!!

Are you even thinking before you type? That isn't honestly what you believe, is it?

Think about it man. That's bad, even for you.

[varkam]

16. Good post, but I had a funny feeling that it wouldn't be long before...

someone showed up to play the eternal nay-sayer. :hi:

[HamdenRice]

20. So why was the question asked?

Are you saying that there are not two possible opinions of the issue? Or that there are, but one should not be articulated for some reason?

[varkam]

22. Sure there's two possible opinions on the issue.

That, however, does not mean that they are both of equal merit.

[TZ]

23. somebody doesn't understand the value

of a rhetorical question in pointing out something.

[varkam]

27. No, I think someone does.

I think that someone is reasonably intelligent, I just think that someone felt the need to ignore it when an opportunity to hijack a thread presented itself.

[HamdenRice]

28. Well I think there is confusion throughout the thread about pronouns and rhetorical questions

Unfortunately, American English does not have a third person indefinite pronoun as British English does, which leads to some confusion -- that is, we use "you" or "I" for "one."

To review, the OP asks, essentially, "am I my brother's keeper" and the OPer concludes, "I treat every individual fairly."

I assumed that the "I" in "am I my brother's keeper" means "one" -- is anyone his or her brother's keeper -- but that toward the end, when she says, "I treat" people fairly she is referring to herself personally.

My response was:

"If a small group agrees ontologically and behaves similarly ...

it is almost inevitable that they will be perceived as some sort of "clique," and in such circumstances I would say yes, one is responsible for one's cohorts' behavior."

Notice the highlighted pronouns. Now this is a rhetorical statement, because it does not refer to the "I" (Sue) in the last sentence of her OP, but the "I" (anyone) in the subject line. A familiarity with international (non-American) English would lead one to the conclusion that neither "they" nor "one" referred to Sue; otherwise the post would have simply said "you." Therefore the response obviously was phrased as a rhetorical answer to a rhetorical question.

So I was well aware this question was rhetorical and my comments obviously were rhetorical also are not directed at Sue.

But both rhetorically speaking and specifically with respect to this forum, I'll stick to the substance of my point: if people have similar ideas, make the same points, behave in a similar pattern and even coordinate their ideas in another forum, then they will be perceived to be members of a group that have responsibilities for each other's behaviors.

That is, indeed, the way the group in question is perceived outside the R/T Forum and by occasional visitors.

[TZ]

29. You are the ONLY one confused about the meaning of this thread

I wonder why that could POSSIBLY be?

[HamdenRice]

30. That's your opinion

I disagree. I think you disagree with my substantive point, and rather than explain how, would prefer to think of my point of view as "confused" or "antagonistic".

[varkam]

33. HamdenRice antagonistic?

Nahhhhh....

:rofl:

[HamdenRice]

35. antogonistic?

or disagreeing?

I am convinced that for reasons that escape me, if one disagrees with a certain consensus, and presents one's views, views that may be disagreeable to some, one will be perceived to be "antagonistic."

But the same could be said about the current Hillary-Obama conflict. If one criticizes Hillary (for example) in certain ways, Hillary supporters will consider one to not just be criticizing Hillary, but to be antagonizing Hillary supporters.

But in the r/w, presenting alternative viewpoints is not considered to be "antagonizing" anyone.

[greyl]

36. You appear to be much more willing to forget your egregiously antagonistic posts than others are.

You do what you gotta do.

[trotsky]

37. ...

I am convinced that for reasons that escape me, if one disagrees with a certain consensus, and presents one's views, views that may be disagreeable to some, one will be perceived to be "antagonistic."

You mean like an atheist who disagrees with the majority theist consensus and presents their views? Strange, I've heard that some like to label such people as "fundamentalists."

But in the r/w, presenting alternative viewpoints is not considered to be "antagonizing" anyone.

So I guess if your "alternative viewpoint" is simply that someone is dumb, there's no way that could be considered antagonizing them if you simply say it, right?

[Evoman]

40. GAHAHAHAHAAH THE IRONY KILLS ME!

"I am convinced that for reasons that escape me, if one disagrees with a certain consensus, and presents one's views, views that may be disagreeable to some, one will be perceived to be "antagonistic.""

HOLY FUCK. :rofl:

Fair warning so you can side step the trap. Next time you call me antagonistic, aggressive or fundamentalist, I'm going to cut and paste this sentence. It's just so well written :rofl: .

[varkam]

46. Here's the thing, Hamden...

Now you may very well be honestly seeking an open and honest discussion on this matter. Your opinion may, in fact, be sincerely held. Here's the thing, though: you've burned entirely too many bridges for people to be able to take what you say at face value (at least, people around here). However, I'll bite.

One thing that I am wondering, though, about your opinion is how it differs significantly from stereotyping. For example, if I know a black man in my community. Assume also that the black community where I live is a small group. Now, if some members of the black community engage in illicit or otherwise anti-social behavior (but not this individual, mind you), you're saying that I should consequently hold him responsible for the behavior of his peers? I mean, I perceive him to be a member of a small group, therefore he has responsibility for the behavior of his peers - right?

That's how I read your post, and that's one of the reasons that - at least initially - I didn't think you were coming here seeking discussion but rather just to stoke the embers a little bit.

[HamdenRice]

48. There is no necessary connection between race and behavior

There is no natural phenomenon that you could propose that requires a black person to behave in a certain way or believe certain things. You could, however, say that people who live in certain environments are, because of environmental influences, likely to behave certain ways, but then the environment is the explanation. There will be many people in that environment who do not engage in those behaviors and there will be members of that race who simply don't live in that environment. So to make claims about black people's behavior would be an invalid stereotype.

On the other hand, if you tell me you are, by commitment, a communist, then I am completely justified in predicting that you believe in the abolition of private property.

If one tells me that religious people should be locked up in mental institutions because religion is a delusion, I am similarly justified in labelling that person "intolerant." You are confusing racial stereotyping with categorizing an ideological position expressed entirely through rhetoric on a message board.

Anyone who tries to compare racism to the negative feelings or attitudes of the majority toward atheists is clueless about racism. People have negative feelings or attitudes about all kinds of ideological positions, including atheism, socialism, liberalism, or even objectivism, but I haven't heard of any atheists being shot 50 times by police officers who are then acquitted of all charges. Atheists may be disliked because of what they believe and profess -- in the same way that Republicans may be disliked by Democrats, socialists may be disliked by free market fundamentalists, advocates of tolerance may be disliked by the intolerant, and reproductive rights advocates may be disliked by right to lifers -- on the basis of ideological antipathy.

As for burning my bridges with "too many people," it seems that I have "burned bridges" (because of their emotional reaction to my ideas) with about six to eight people out of a DU membership of over 100,000, and those six to eight people whom I consider to be of varying degrees of intolerance were not people I was going to have love fest discussions with anyway as a result of their positions. Morever, that same six to eight people has "burned their bridges" with (I'm guessing) dozens or maybe hundreds of DUers who consider the R/T Forum useless for the discussion of religion or theology because of their behavior. Ever listen in on what others say about this forum? On the other hand when I post in GD, I often have thousands of hits and have often been at the top of the Greatest Page, so I don't think I've "burned bridges" with the general DU population. If six to eight people have severe emotional reactions to certain of my ideas that they disagree with, and this leads to the creation of space in the R/T Forum for respectful discussion among other DUers -- religious people, agnostics and moderate atheists -- then the wrath of their emotional reactions, on net, is worth it.

[trotsky]

49. #2 Blame Others. n/t

[cosmik debris]

50. C'mon Hamden, give us the scoop.

How is your clique responsible for your bad behavior?

[TZ]

51. Oh you want to make this a popularity contest?

Well I know, from other forums that your claims of only have alienated 6-8 DU'ers are absolute bunk.
You seem to have a reputation that procedes you. And having thousands of replies could indicate that a lot of people DISAGREE strongly with you. As is obvious in R/T you have a habit of posting things that are deliberately provocative, especially to those who have dared to disagree with you. And if you brag about recs..that don't mean jack or have you not seen the shit that gets high numbers of recs in GDP?
I have no doubt you behave the same way in the 9/11 forum for example.

[greyl]

53. "because of their emotional reaction to my ideas"? Pathetic.

It's an intellectual and emotional assessment of the quality of many of your posts which have been disgustingly misleading, dishonest, full of unfounded sinister insinuations, well poisoning, and riddled with ad hominem.
I wonder if you remember when you said "Ad hominem is a means to attack someones ideas".

Do you really believe that it's wise to excuse someones terrible behavior by citing some dubious measure of good behavior elsewhere? I don't. It may be appropriate to consider it as a balance, but sure as hell not as an amnesia inducer or absolver.

edit: additionally, your "six to eight people" estimate is way off. Way off.

[trotsky]

55. Rush Limbaugh Logic.

Seriously - he has often claimed that the reason liberals get upset at him is because what he says is true.

[LanternWaste]

60. I don't think it's the presentation..

I don't think it's the presentation of one's contrary views that would be perceived as antagonistic, but rather *how* that person presents their views.

[cosmik debris]

31. The Ultimate "Blame Others" post.

You absolve yourself from all responsibility for your own words, while holding others responsible for words that they did not speak.

Like I said, You can't make this stuff up!

:rofl:!!!!!

[varkam]

32. Again, though...

just because someone perceives you to be a member of a group does not mean, as a consequence, that you bear responsibility for the behavior of others. When perception translates to responsibility, it would seem that posturing is the order of the day.

[HamdenRice]

34. I disagree

I'd ask you to reconsider what I wrote, and compare it to the R/T Forum dynamics.

Of course there is not a secret cabal that meets in r/l and is an organized group.

But if the conditions that I wrote are true, then most visitors to this forum are going to perceive there to be a "group" of members that think alike and treat dissent from their view in a certain way. That, in fact, is an accurate description of how this forum works.

So the next question is the OP's question: are they "responsible" for each other? That's hard to discuss in a cyberspace context where identities are ephemeral. Should cosmik be, for example, TS'd if trotsky goes overboard? Of course not. But if a newcomer or visitor who is a progressive Christian gets tag teamed by cosmik, trotsky, heaven & earth and evoman, and if cosmik goes overboard (hypothetically), that newcomer is going to perceive them to be a quadruple team, and that newcomer will probably treat trotsky, evoman, and H&E the same as cosmik.

Whether you think it fair or logical or not, it has, in fact, happened. This forum has a reputation for having a group of atheists who coordinate their responses to progressive Christians, agnostics and moderate atheists, and who, whether they like it or not, are considered "responsible," at least in terms of reputation, for each other.

[trotsky]

39. How interesting.

So maybe an atheist who was tag-teamed by HamdenRice, ironbark, bananas, and let's say kwassa might very well think THEY were a quadruple team, a group trying to control the forum's content? And let's say one of those four, oh I'll pick HamdenRice, goes "overboard" by name-calling and insulting. What should that participant think then?

Are those four responsible for each other too, since the perception may exist that you're working in concert to coordinate your responses, say through private messages or some other medium?

[cosmik debris]

41. So, are you saying that another member of his clique is responsible

for HR's bad behavior? Or that all the members of his clique are equally responsible?

He has already established that the only thing necessary to assign responsibility is the perception of a clique. And I certainly perceive a clique. So the only question left is whether it is individual responsibility or group responsibility?

I wonder if HR is getting advice and direction from other members of his clique?

[trotsky]

42. Since HR is saying a clique should be held responsible for one of their members,

maybe he can tell us what he thinks.

I wonder if HR is getting advice and direction from other members of his clique?

That's a good question. But private messages are just that - private - and we would certainly not be privy to their contents, unless someone carelessly addressed one to the wrong individual. I doubt that would ever happen though.

[cosmik debris]

43. I doubt that too

Their shared responsibility would prevent such a terrible mistake. :)

[cosmik debris]

44. I just realized something

HR is the only one to ever post here who actually believes in the EAC.

I wonder what else he believes in? Donald Duck? Scooby Doo? The Trilateral Commission conspiracy for World Government?

[trotsky]

45. DUDE

Ixnay on the EAC-way! You know the first rule of the EAC is that WE DON'T TALK ABOUT THE EAC! Or the black helicopters, or the mind control rays!

Uhh... oops... I mean, um, of course I'm just being silly and none of that is real of course not no way no how.

[Goblinmonger]

47. What the hell? What about me?

First I'm the leader of some evil atheist horde and now I'm just chopped liver and don't even make the cut of your ridiculous post? I'm pissed. I'm going to go in the corner and pout.

[cosmik debris]

52. When we need leadership

You are off in the corner pouting?

Look, if I'm responsible for your behavior, I don't want to be responsible for pouting.

Go get yourself a colon cleanse and come back with a better attitude--or you are through as Horde Leader.

:rant:

[cosmik debris]

54. I still want to know where my free will went????

If trotsky is responsible for my behavior, I have lost my free will.

I've had it a long time and I'd like to get it back.

So, how about a little hint? where did my free will go?

[cosmik debris]

38. Ya know, it makes you wonder

which clique is responsible for HR's bad behavior.

[Evoman]

18. Man, I've argued the same thing.

And this applies to Christians too. I've always felt uncomfortable when people say that liberal christians are responsible for their fundie brethren. To some extent, all of us share some responsability for not expressing our distaste when bad people talk, or responding with action when bad people harm others.

Every human being has to determine when it is their time to accept responsability. I can not punch a man if his brother fucked me over, but I can stop defending my own brother if he deserves to be punched.

It is not my fault if some other atheist offended you. I am not the person who offended you. Similarly, if I am a gardener, or a socialist, or a stamp collector, I am responsible for other gardeners, or socialists, or stamp collectors that offended you. However, it is my personal conviction that if I see an injustice done by another atheist, then it my job as a human being to confront the injustice. And if the injustice is horrible enough (not just some shitty post on a stupid website), then I will even understand the anger directed at me.

Sometimes I see posts, for example, from female DUers who have been sexually assaulted, who may be angry or accusatory to men in general. And I understand the anger completely. And I hate it when the first responses to those posts are "I am not like that" or "not all of us men are like that" because we should be using the time that we are protesting to instead understand and learn to take action. Have I ever sexually assaulted someone? No. But instead of wasting my time protesting, I realize that as a man, if I am not trying to be part of the solution (and whining about a person who has suffered a severe injustice having an unfair characterization of me is not a solution), then I'm part of the problem. I recognize that men do indeed do a lot of horrible things, and I take responsability for not doing enough to stop that shit, and I take it upon myself to confront other men. It's not something other people get to put on me. It's what I CHOOSE to put on myself.

That being said, if some theist calls you a fundie, or some atheist calls you delustional, and you respond in an equally negative fasion, then it isn't some fucking important injustice done to you and I won't interfere because I don't give a shit.

However, if some theist is ever trying to pass legislation to force your kids into a religious ceremony, or some atheist is trying to tear down your church, you can bet I'll be there with my piercing palm strikes, dragon punches, and flying haymakers to take care of the asshole.

[Dorian Gray]

26. I like this post!

Well said!

[Meshuga]

21. It depends

There is no such a thing as the "atheist people" so if one atheist acts as an asshole he is pretty much on his own. There is no such thing as "atheist values" since atheism is a theological position, nothing more or nothing less.

Christianity seems complex and very diverse so a liberal Christian is probably taught different values from a fundamentalist Christian. This is not a claim, btw, this is just a guess from observation since I am not an expert on Christianity and the Christian world. So I perceive a liberal Christian as having no link with a Christian who says hateful stuff.

But religious Jews (from the ultra-liberal to the ultra-orthodox and everything else in between) are taught values from the same body of work. So when a religious Jew decides to do something hateful we feel that it reflects on all of us. Not so much a Jew who never had much exposure to Judaism but the people who claim to be religious cannot ignore the ethical teachings.

For example, a video showing a couple of haredim attacking Christian missionaries will embarrass me. And I would probably confront those people.

[MikeH]

56. I think "keeper" is a poor word

I think the word "keeper" itself is actually a poor word to use to characterize our obligations to others.

The word "keeper" is usually used for a keeper of animals, e.g. a zookeeper.

Incidentally I am reminded of the monkey who, on learning about the theory of evolution, asked "Am I my keeper's brother?"

[rug]

57. Yes. And your sister's.

[BobKasp]

58. Horsefeathers!!!!!

My problem with Fundamentalists is that they,What ever stripe, believe in things that are untrue. The Bible was written by the emperor Constantine albeit by committee. The Morman founder did not receive golden tablets, L Ron was a science fiction writer, Islam was founded by a man........ on and on, and if you question this drivel, you are a heretic who will be burned at the stake, tortured etc. Religion is the perfect place for people who can't think for themselves, When they do think for themselves they usually leave. Most of the christians I know are very imperfect people. The happiest people I know are very spiritual but do not turn their inquiries into a belief system.I like some of the christians I know but I'd never want them to run my country. Just look what these dimwits have done in the last eight years. Want more of that??????????
You can hold Religion as a question or you can hold it as an answer. The former is the path to wisdom, the latter is the road to perdition.
For example consider the Amish response to the Nickel mines school shootings as opposed to the lynch mob mentality response to 911 by the american government. american citizens, american press corpse. Christian nation my arse.
"I never meant to say that conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally conservative"
John Stuart Mill

[ZombieHorde]

59. Topic creators are vile. Why do you hate puppies?