Free Speech Moment: Declare War on Christianity Not Drugs!

Peter's CrossSite Note: From time to time, Disinfo.com does post an article for the sole purposes of the speaker intended on exercising their First Amendment rights. If you are curious about this new venture, contact us through the site with the subject line “free speech moment”, and of course, all comments are welcome.

HFS, Christians have denied and continue to deny non-Christians the right to pursue happiness. Christians oppress homosexuals and their right to marry and pursue happiness. Christians are attempting to thwart legal marijuana use. It’s time we deny them their rights for they have clearly shown they abuse those rights to oppress non-Christians.

If Germany can keep out Scientology then America should be able to boot out Christianity!

ISN, 666

, , , , , ,

  • Scarlett_156

    You are behind the times.  A war has already been declared on Christianity.  

    • sndman1964

      Where? Certainly not here in the US.

    • Ryanc561

      It’s more like a war on illogic.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Daniel-Grace/100002133529226 Daniel Grace

        Do you realize how much trouble we would all be in if there was war on illogic? We’d lose all of our leaders!

        • quartz99

          lol sounds great to me. Where do I sign up? ;)

  • http://twitter.com/xRedRoverx Kristi

    You are behind the times.  A war has already been declared on Christianity.  

  • DrDavidKelly

    Yeah and lets get those damn Muslims out of Afghanistan!

    • SF2K01

      Oh no, you can’t say that. We can bash Christianity all we like, but Muslims living under despotic theological government are simply a different culture and we have to respect their lifestyle.

      • papicuzo

        Or else bomb them to smithereens, take their oil and strip their women. We’ve been wearing that ol’ number out for quite a while now, haven’t we? 

        • SF2K01

          It’s obviously better that we should let them bomb us, then we’ll apologize for being so offensive to their culture that we made them want to bomb us so much. We clearly know much more now about how to wage a war in a civilized fashion; the old ways are completely outdated.

  • Dr David Kelly

    Yeah and lets get those damn Muslims out of Afghanistan!

  • DeepCough

    Finally! I can now put my pet lions to use! Mwahahahaha.

    • David M. Nevarrez

      LOL! “The christians to the lions!” – Aleister Crowley

  • DeepCough

    Finally! I can now put my pet lions to use! Mwahahahaha.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rusty-Boersma/1516044826 Rusty Boersma

    Where? Certainly not here in the US.

  • Guest

    “I condemn Christianity; I bring against the Christian church the most
    terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his
    mouth.  It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it
    seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible
    corruption.  The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its
    depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth
    into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul.  Let any one
    dare to speak to me of its “humanitarian” blessings!  Its deepest
    necessities range it against any effort to abolish distress; it lives by
    distress; it creates distress to make itself immortal.”

    Friedrich Nietzsche

    • Guest

      Yes, that’s all fine and true, but to agree with this statement you must understand *why* exactly he condemns Christianity, not just be condemning Christianity just because we all know how *some* Christians can be.  Christianity, as an institution, has completely brainwashed people into believing there is only ONE God, you see, *that* God.  Individuals are born with the instinct to find God, a God, their God, whatever… Christianity got the monopoly on the game of human instinct and if you are an inhabitant of the Western world, you have either chosen to follow it or rebelled against it, thinking either that you agree with the image of God they are giving you or this image does not seem *right* to you (along with the rest of the indoctrination).  People often walk away from Christianity sore and angry and unable to see the big picture (the God-big-picture) ever again sometimes, resorting to atheism or agnosticism or choosing to align with another religion entirely.  This not only affects a person on an individual level, but creates a ripple-effect that wakes over an entire land mass, causing people to be unable to connect with a God, therefore unable to connect with themselves and other people, resulting in, now, where media is spewing hatred, we join together to hate people, hate, hate, hate and war with one another, judging one another.  That’s what happens.  Christianity ripped humanity apart because of this one, single fundamental idea.  Now, yes, I condemn Christianity, as an institution (not the people within it), as well.

  • Guest

    “I condemn Christianity; I bring against the Christian church the most
    terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his
    mouth.  It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it
    seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible
    corruption.  The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its
    depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth
    into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul.  Let any one
    dare to speak to me of its “humanitarian” blessings!  Its deepest
    necessities range it against any effort to abolish distress; it lives by
    distress; it creates distress to make itself immortal.”

    Friedrich Nietzsche

  • Challenger

    Much like islam, xians have a militant movement bent on forcing people to comply with their beliefs through the legal system (and the violence that enforces it). That said, I still believe in the Constitution, so count me out. It’ll probably do more harm than good to give them a cross to be martyred on. Let them destroy themselves.

  • Challenger

    Much like islam, xians have a militant movement bent on forcing people to comply with their beliefs through the legal system (and the violence that enforces it). That said, I still believe in the Constitution, so count me out. It’ll probably do more harm than good to give them a cross to be martyred on. Let them destroy themselves.

  • The Doctor

    1. not all christanity is like that
    2. we are to numerous here in america…
    3. make love not war

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1452846937 Matthew Fahey

    1. not all christanity is like that
    2. we are to numerous here in america…
    3. make love not war

  • TennesseeCyberian

    Gay marriage and marijuana use, huh?  These are the big gripes?

    First off, modern monogomous marriage has its roots in Catholic tradition, so to promote gay marriage while condemning its cultural roots is a confused endeavor at best.

    Second, the frazzle-brained Pat Robertson recently advocated the decriminalization of marijuana, Ron Paul is a Christian, and I don’t recall any recent reports of Christians promoting the death penalty for drugs, as both Muslims and Communists have done.

    For me, the way in which fundamentalist Christianity manipulates politics to maintain imperial aims, the crass hucksterism of megachurch preachers whose love of money is the root of tremendous evil, the pedophile cover-ups of the Catholic Church, and the general moronic attitude that prevails in the fundamentalist milieu are the most despicable attributes of organized Christianity.

    That said, if you haven’t read the five Gospels (including Thomas) carefully–as well as a good bit of the Old Testament and the Epistles–your attacks are doing nothing more than piling more ignorance onto an already dishearteningly large population who already cling to ignorance fervently.  If you are truly against Christianity, then you will have to master their primary texts.  By the time you have finished them, you may have a different idea of who the Real Enemy is.

    War on Christianity?  I think a broader War on Assholes would be more productive.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Daniel-Grace/100002133529226 Daniel Grace

      If my understanding is correct, which at times it’s a little off, but I think I’ve got this one, marriage was to make sure that the guy’s kid was actually his biological kid. It was also used to combine families and property and such. So while you talk about condemning its cultural roots, you’re actually ignoring its roots, but you cover yourself when you say “modern monogamous marriage”. It doesn’t make sense to talk about the modern version of something, but at the same time comment about ignoring roots. And if you want to talk about modern marriage, it’s a contract between two people, that gives them some privileges and makes it more difficult to separate. There’s a ceremony that most people have with it, but the important part is the piece of paper they get saying that they are married, which has nothing to do with religion.

      As for Pat Robertson’s stance on marijuana, that’s the first sane thing I’ve ever heard come from the man. He’s talking about lessening the mandatory sentencing and such, which is great. From what I understand the sentencing is too harsh, especially for the amount of young people that do it. However, he still does say it should be illegal, which I don’t have enough factual knowledge to have a strong opinion. I just don’t like the stuff.

      • TennesseeCyberian

        The Western tradition of lifelong marriage without extramarital sex is rooted in the rise of what we now call Catholicism in the Early Middle Ages.  Today we have a civil version of this which has basically reverted back to the impermanent, serial monogomous marriage system of the Roman world, while maintaining Christian sexual fidelity.

        If a gay couple promises “‘Til death do we part,” they take a Christian vow.  If a gay couple chooses to remain absolutely faithful, they simply pick up where the Christians left off.  If those are values that you cherish, at least give credit where credit is due.

        As for spittle-dripping Pat Robertson, he is quoted as saying: “I just believe that criminalizing marijuana…it’s costing us a fortune and it’s ruining young people. Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. That’s not a good thing.”

        You are certainly right that it is the first sane thing ever uttered by the man, but don’t nitpick me to death without consulting the Oracle first.

        • Simiantongue

          “The Western tradition of lifelong marriage without extramarital sex is
          rooted in the rise of what we now call Catholicism in the Early Middle
          Ages.”

          Not true, you might want to read up on the evolution of monogamy in humans before you place that at the mantle of Catholicism. Catholicism does have such a tradition but it is not the “root” at all. Far from it. A leafy, thorny offshoot at best. People have been marrying and remaining monogamous, even as a tradition, long before Christianity was around. And people would continue to do so if Christianity had never come about. In fact people have done exactly that without Catholicism or Christianity, in areas of the world where historically Christianity or anything like it never existed. Saying that Catholicism or even Christianity as a whole is the root of lifelong marriage without extramarital sex is simply conceited cognitive bias. It’s just something that some humans do. And they would do it in western societies even if Christianity never existed.

          That’s not to say that Catholicism and Christianity as a whole has not tried very hard to institutionalize their ideas about marriage and force that on every human society it comes across for it’s entire existence. That’s clearly true. Christianity as an ideology is very coercive and morally repugnant like that. Even then in the exchange with every human society it has come across there has been somewhat of a trade off where Christianity has been changed even more than society as a whole.

          Yes, Christianity practices monogamy but it is not unique to, or started with, or is the only tradition of monogamy in western society. Saying that a lifelong marriage without extramarital sex is rooted in the rise of Catholicism, is something akin to saying that if you drive a car that is rooted in the history of GM. Not true, there were cars before GM, there will be cars after GM, there would be cars without GM, even in western culture. There were and are cars in cultures where GM has no influence at all.  Now replace cars with monogamy and GM with Catholicism. Clearly Catholicism and Christianity as a whole is not much more than a footnote in the subject of human monogamous relationships.

          “Today we have a civil version of this which has basically reverted back
          to the impermanent, serial monogomous marriage system of the Roman
          world, while maintaining Christian sexual fidelity.”

          Civil unions are not marriage. Separate but equal never works. Also. Sexual fidelity might be part of Christian tradition, but again, Christianity is not the root of it and such things would still be present if Christianity did not exist. Christianity cloaks itself in the mantle of such traditions that already naturally exist in humans and lay claim that to this behavior as virtuous and that it is their creation. Mostly because it gives that institution some measure of credence and control over peoples lives, as such institutions need to do in order to exist. They meddle in the most intimate aspects of people lives. The idea that marriage is the bedrock of any society has some merit. On a larger scale Christianity understands this well.  Which is why, as an ideology, it constantly seeks some measure of control in that intimate purview of society. In doing that they paint themselves, most religious institutions, as the bedrock of human society because they constantly entangle themselves within it to the point at which it’s hard to tell where one starts an another stops. Purposely so, to interfere with the church is not only to question the will of their particular god but you are trying to upset the very bedrock of society. You bad person you. Which supports the whole sectarian institution thing. I wouldn’t call that clever because it has is something that has heuristically arisen. Over time it is discovered what works and what does not to support certain ideologies. Naturally those who successfully seek influence, will eventually gain such influence over people. Those who don’t die off. 

          The claim is simply untrue that sexual fidelity is was created by that society or this group or that one. Simply rubbish. Such traditions exist outside of Christian cultures and any other. It is not the exclusive province of any one culture. It’s simply a human behavior. And I might add that being polygamous, monogamous or being anything on a sliding scale in between is no better or worse as a personal choice morally either. Strict monogamy or polygamy is not for everyone. It’s up to you and your partner to make those personal choices together and sectarian institutions should have no say in that. People have been pairing off since the first humans and before. It was not anarchy or a moral vacuum before religion came along to tell you what was right or wrong.  As for the rest that religion lays claim to? Anyone who lays claim to any of those intimate aspects of your life, well, lets just say you should give them and their true motivations a good hard look.

          Some people imagine a moral hole where Christianity used to be if it were never to exist. Which is so much vacuous crap. Christianity is nothing more than fetishism, Catholicism or any other denomination within Christianity even more so. Ultimately it’s a way for someone else other than you to have control over the most intimate aspects of your life. That is actually comforting to some people and that’s fine. It’s not for me and I’d thank them to keep their paws off me, the damn dirty apes. < POTA reference tee hee.

          "If a gay couple promises "'Til death do we part," they take a Christian vow."

          I made the same vow in a traditional Chinese ceremony. Does that mean I owe some type of allegiance or thanks to Chinese tradition? Not at all. If I didn't like that sentiment I would have used another. Till death do us part is used in traditional Christian vows but is not unique to, or started with Christianity. Many Christians do lay claim to anything Christianity has ever uttered as strictly their province. Like the golden rule for instance, "Do unto others…". As if Christianity came up with that. Silly really. As a matter of fact I prefer Poppers addendum, "Do unto others as they would have done…". Much better. Or that Christianity has any unique claim to either "Till death do us part" or the golden rule. Christians didn't come up with those things and they are not even the best at it either. Don't get me wrong Jesus had some pretty radical ideas for his time. But it was just around the bronze ages or so and it shows. Not much use for today. I'd much rather at least try for something after the dark ages myself. That is unless you take the whole Christian bible  in a metaphorical sense. If that's the case then you could use Lord of the Rings for the same thing. I actually know a few nerds who take life lessons from Tolkien's books exactly as some religious people use the bible. To each their own. Like I said it's fetishism.

          "If a gay couple chooses to remain absolutely faithful, they simply pick up where the Christians left off."

          Christians might embrace monogamy, which is not even a uniquely human trait, but laying claim that monogamy is a uniquely Christian idea is not only conceited it's untrue. Even in western culture. Why not go that one step further and say Christianity invented sex. Then they could rightly claim people aren't doing it right. But that would be absurd Christianity didn't invent sex everyone knows that is obviously not true. But they invented monogamy at least? Bahahaha!  Well, ok they didn't, but Christianity preaches monogamy and introduced it to western society at least? No, the only thing that Christianity achieved by preaching monogamy is make many Christian hypocrites. Sure they have been able to influence quite a few people. There are probably more than a few people who kept the idea of monogamy when they ordinarily wouldn't because of their Christian faith I'm sure. Does this mean that Christianity introduced monogamy? Certainly not. Or that Christianity even influences people to any large degree about monogamy? My personal experience says no.

          Christianity and monogamy is sort of like the first attempt at legislating people into good behavior. Which is impossible to do. Monogamy existed long before Christianity and people will or will not be monogamous depending on their own conscience. Now, taken that monogamy is actually good and desired behavior. And also that Christianity is in fact in a place to influence people in this most intimate detail of their lives. And that for an institution to do that is considered good also. I just don't think Christianity is even that effective at doing such at all. It's almost as if monogamy is a rule only so that one may break it, so much sweeter the spoils when they're naughty, right?. It's actually literally fetishism and not just a little sociopathic in fact. You have to giggle at all us bald apes and our machinations to make life interesting.

          "If those are values that you cherish, at least give credit where credit is due."

          Christians breathe, drink and eat. Should I thank Christianity for air, water and food? You can't be monogamous without Christianity so we should thank Christianity? Never mind the conceited assumption that all culture and society is Christian culture and society. You simply wouldn't have any human culture if not for Christian culture. Pffft, the whole thing would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. In fact there is monogamy without Christianity. It didn't begin with Christianity, it's not going to end without Christianity. Like I said we'd might as well thank Christianity that we can breathe because Christians breathe too. Well, they must of invented it because Christians breathe don't they? and clearly we won't be able to breathe if Christianity disappears. lol So silly.

          "As for spittle-dripping Pat Robertson, he is quoted as saying: "I just
          believe that criminalizing marijuana…it's costing us a fortune and
          it's ruining young people. Young people go into prisons, they go in as
          youths and come out as hardened criminals. That's not a good thing."

          You
          are certainly right that it is the first sane thing ever uttered by the
          man, but don't nitpick me to death without consulting the Oracle first.
          "

          Meh, I don't really care what the old codger has to say on that. A stopped clock and all that. His brain stopped ticking a long time ago.

          • TennesseeCyberian

            During your incredibly long-winded response, you never provide one concrete example of pre-Christian, Western monogamy.  I am talking about the Western World, the root of our American culture–excepting the contributions of the recent arrivals of large groups of Eastern peoples during the 60s and 70s.  In both Roman and Greek traditions, as well as the Celts to the north, marriage was both temporary, perfunctory, and certainly allowed for what we now call infidelity–most often with captured slaves and prostitutes.

            Chinese marriage is important for cross-cultural studies, as is the study of Indians and birds, because they also practice lifelong monogamy.  But you cannot find that it the West before Christianity, and therefore no direct lineage exists within the overwhelming majority of American religious, cultural, or legal practice. 

            In your attempts to put forth a coherent retort to my historically backed claims, you fall short on evidence.  And clarity.  And brevity.

          • Simiantongue

            “During your incredibly long-winded response,”

            Which you obviously failed to read. Which is fine if you don’t have the time, I understand. But I’m confused as to why you would respond if you haven’t read it. I can’t apologize for the length of the post, it takes some explaining when you say something other than conventional thought. People demand to know why you are saying such things. As opposed to something conventional which they usually accept without much thought or explanation demanded. So I have the task of laboriously having to explain my statement. Nobody is twisting your arm to read anything if you don’t want to, there won’t be a quiz later.

            “you never provide one concrete example of pre-Christian, Western monogamy.”

            I think you’ve missed my point completely. There is a very heated and interesting debate about the root of human monogamy and its origin in the fields of genetics and paleoanthropology. There is a lot of interesting material that you can go read to study this.  Even material about particular cultures too if you like, Christianity among them. Your arrogation that monogamy has it’s roots in Christianity is a conceit.  Monogamy is just something that humans do. I can’t be any more clear about that. As with most cultural practices these things are adopted by religion from the society they are practicing in not the other way round, almost always. Monogamy is not one of the exceptions. (Also you read like you’re  little miffed in your response. Don’t take a word like “conceit” and automatically construe that as I am saying you are being conceited. Meaning I am calling you conceited. In that context it simply means you are taking the role of religion and giving it an excessively favorable role in the root of monogamy. It’s not an insult. Unless you are taken aback on behalf of Christianity)

            This goes for morality also. I know the conventional thought is that these things come from religion. But that simply is not true. At some level people even recognize this. For example you yourself in your response to quartz99 say

            “There is such a wild variety within Christianity, you can’t nail it down
            to one homogeneous religion.  To use the poster’s particular complaints
            as an example, the Episcopals have slowly but surely opened the doors
            to gay marriage in their churches, and there are plenty of Christian
            potheads, Rastafarians included.’

            This clearly shows religion, as it always doing, adjusting. Taking it’s cues from larger human culture. The Christianity of today is a far different creature than that of the past. That is not because some theologians decided that change would be good. Religions must adapt or die. They do this by adopting the moral and societal norms of larger human culture in order to adapt and survive. It’s a slow process, they are always some steps behind it seems usually. This is also blatantly obvious in American religious culture where churches cater to the wants and needs to fill the demand of a consumer culture. Advertising signs out front like one stop religious superstore shopping. You mentioned in another post

            “the crass hucksterism of megachurch preachers whose love of money is the root of tremendous evil,”

            Okay that is another example of religion taking it’s cues from the larger human culture that it is embedded in too. You have but to drive through any urban community and see the almost infinite flavors of religion available. It’s not at all surprising to see that religious society is conforming to that consumer model here. You can see examples where the same exact denominations within the
            same religion have differences in what they practice according to what culture they are practicing in. You can find churches that will accept that women don’t need to wear dresses only, others that allow women to preach etc… Despite the show of conceit of where these practices and doctrines find their beginnings, some claim it’s due to “new revelations” for instance, it’s obvious that they are adaptations of the larger human culture that they find themselves embedded in as a whole in order to attract new/ more adherents. Like I said before that situation has arisen somewhat heuristically. The survival of the selfish meme I guess sums that up nicely.
            (As an addendum it’s also apparent the differences of religions in say British culture, which is ensured some measure of support as it is part of the government being the CoE and religious culture in the US which theoretically has no government support and must be much more aggressive. The Church of England obviously does not rely as much on aggressive proselytizing to survive and has what you might consider atrophied in that aspect as yet another example)

            So that’s only the first sentence addressed, have I gone over your word limit yet?. Oh well anyhoo.

            “I am talking about the Western World, the root of our American
            culture–excepting the contributions of the recent arrivals of large
            groups of Eastern peoples during the 60s and 70s.”

            So am I. You missed the point. Since you did, this response cannot really be address except to say that If American culture had different priorities so would Christianity share much of those same priorities, else it would fade and die here. No doubt that there is some feedback influence at work there too. I’m not intimating that larger human society and religious societies live in separate cultural bubbles with a vacuum in between. There is definitely some measured influence back from Christianity which reinforces monogamy. Your idea that monogamy is due to Christianity is laughable though, and the degree to which Christianity influences western society is grossly overstated, usually by Christian authority. There is no doubt that monogamy would exist in western culture even in the absence of Christianity here, it exists in most cultures to varying degrees. Would there be less monogamy in western culture if not for Christianity? The most I’ll concede on that is that I don’t know. I’m sure there are arguments that can be made to show there might be more or there might be less. Give one and we’ll talk about what you proffer. Your claim that monogamy is in western society because of Christianity, that is absurd. I don’t feel I have to offer an alternative theory of where monogamy came from in western culture other than to say it appears in many, humanity has a long evolutionary history of monogamy. In that history you won’t find anyone that says monogamy has it’s roots in Christianity, except for some very conceited Christians of course, that probably believe that if you repeat some silly statement like that enough that it’s accepted as conventional thought. Humans had monogamy in western culture long before the US existed. Or any other “ism” existed in fact. Christianity is a footnote in that history.

            It’s no chicken and egg conundrum. Monogamy came before Christianity. There is even much evidence that points to monogamy evolving millions of years before humanity as it exists today. Those are the roots of monogamy and it exists within human behavior quite apart from the tenets of Christianity. The conceit is so thick in the assumption that Christianity is responsible for monogamy, even just in western culture, that you might as well say that we ultimately evolved necks in order to hold crucifixes on chains too. It’s no less an astounding claim.

            “In both Roman and Greek traditions, as well as the Celts to the north,
            marriage was both temporary, perfunctory, and certainly allowed for what
            we now call infidelity–most often with captured slaves and
            prostitutes.”

            Yes that’s very interesting as I said you can read all about that. Monogamy has existed a long time and in many forms. But again since you didn’t get the larger point I was making then there is not much to say here.

            “Chinese marriage is important for cross-cultural studies, as is the
            study of Indians and birds, because they also practice lifelong
            monogamy.  But you cannot find that it the West before
            Christianity, and therefore no direct lineage exists within the
            overwhelming majority of American religious, cultural, or legal
            practice.  ”

            Well, clearly monogamy wouldn’t exist in the west if not for Christianity then? Ridiculous. Of course it would as it does in most cultures. You want to split hairs over to what degree then by all means give your best argument. But your arrogation that monogamy has it’s roots from Christianity is ass backward in my opinion. I think that monogamy exists quite apart from religion, which means that perhaps we can only agree to disagree. I think that religion only adopted it from larger society for advantageous purposes and is not strictly speaking a “vessel” for monogamy, rather monogamy is just reflected in Christianity as an evolutionary human behavior which most cultures have to some degree or other, not just Christianity. You may not believe this but even in cultures that are considered polygynous there are still monogamous people and traditions and they are not even counted in small numbers. No really, it’s not all as black and white as you’d imagine. Though it is true that in western culture that polygamy is nothing like as popular as monogamy is in most polygamous cultures.

            “In your attempts to put forth a coherent retort to my historically
            backed claims, you fall short on evidence.  And clarity.  And brevity.”

            Historically backed claims? Sounded more like a lot of baseless assertions to me. Your first post more so. I did you the courtesy of leaving that first one alone. It was not very coherent so I was not motivated enough to respond to it to be honest. Your very first line was so much rhetorical rubbish. Lets have a look now though shall we?

            “First off, modern monogomous marriage has its roots in Catholic
            tradition, so to promote gay marriage while condemning its cultural
            roots is a confused endeavor at best.”

            So what is it about gay marriage that would violate any Catholic tenet about monogamy? After all, monogamy is simply marriage with only one person. So are we assuming that gay or lesbian couples somehow violate monogamy when they marry? Of course not. Yours is not a very coherent statement. We’re all aware it’s not the monogamous aspect of gay or lesbian marriage that sticks in the Catholics craw, now is it? They are actually very concerned with “who” people are having monogamous sex with rather than anything about monogamous commitments. So that first statement is either not very coherent or somewhat disingenuous.

            That Catholics are concerned with who gays and lesbians are having a monogamous relationship with is also beside the point. Which is why I gave that a pass the first time around. It hardly needed pointing out that your statement was incoherent. I chose to address your claim that monogamous marriage has it’s roots in Christianity instead. Seemed like a better use of my time. As I have pointed out at length in two posts now. Monogamy existed before Christianity and nobody need thank Christianity for it, not even gay and lesbian couples. Though they are not wholly wrong when they point their fingers at Catholicism and other religions when they are not allowed to have the same rights as heterosexual couples in a monogamous relationship. So it is really ironic that religions are probably the most responsible for gays and lesbians not having those rights and you have the gall to sit there and say they should actually be thanking Christianity for starting the whole monogamy thing rolling. Oh the irony.

          • TennesseeCyberian

            Let me clarify my definitions before we go on.  Polygamy is the practice of taking more than one spouse.  Polygyny is the practice of men taking more than one wife.  From the ancient Near East to Africa, this is the most common form of marriage in human history.  Polyandry, the practice of one wife and multiple husbands, and is extremely rare outside of Tibet and two or three tribal societies.

            Monogamy at its most extreme is the practice of two people who pair off for the duration of their lives with no extramarital sexual activity.  This is taken for granted today, but is historically a rather new practice, going back only 1,600 years or so in the West.  In general, men have always prefered to take multiple wives, but only the strongest and wealthiest could maintain and afford so many ladies, so plenty were stuck with only one.

            Serial monogamy is the practice in which two people pair off exclusively for a time, and then move on to pair off with someone else after awhile.

            In what historians generally consider to be the Western World, combining both Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christians traditions, the norms were serial monogamy in the former, polygyny in the latter–until, of course, the Catholic church forced the practice of total, lifelong monogamy in the Early Middle Ages.

            If you have any references that give evidence of exclusive, lifelong monogamy–which is the marriage tradition now taken for granted in America–in the Western World before the Early Middle Ages, I will be happy to read them and continue discussion.  You must know something that I don’t, so you have my undivided attention.

            Your abstract argument is compelling, and I agree with your theory that religious norms function in a feedback loop with the larger society.  Rabbi Hillel had a version of the Golden Rule before Jesus was born, but Hillel had very few followers in comparison.  Therefore we attribute the widespread adoption of the Golden Rule with Jesus.

            Total monogamy may have existed in the West before Catholicism, but to my knowledge was never so widespread as to be recorded in the historical record.  Therefore we can only imagine.  If you have specific historical evidence, please, let me know.

    • quartz99

      Marriage was about using a woman as collateral to better a relationship
      between families or simply a transfer of chattel from father to husband,
      along with her dowry. Women were considered such a burden to care for
      that you had to pay someone to take your daughters off your hands. There
      are still cultures where this is the meaning of a marriage. The idea that marriage was anything other than a property transfer until very recently is laughable. And it far predates Christianity, let alone Catholicism.

      These days, in the US, legal marriage is about property division and
      gaining access to certain rights that the State confers on the legal
      spouse, such as visiting rights in hospitals, inheriting your partner’s
      property (right now many states take it away from the surviving gay
      non-spouse even when it’s something 50/50, like a joint checking account
      with both names on it!), being able to take join actions (such as
      declaring bankruptcy), and insurance access. That is what the legal
      contract is for and anything added to it by bigots is purely irrelevant
      baggage.

  • JoJoDancer

    Gay marriage and marijuana use, huh?  These are the big gripes?

    First off, modern monogomous marriage has its roots in Catholic tradition, so to promote gay marriage while condemning its cultural roots is a confused endeavor at best.

    Second, the frazzle-brained Pat Robertson recently advocated the decriminalization of marijuana, Ron Paul is a Christian, and I don’t recall any recent reports of Christians promoting the death penalty for drugs, as both Muslims and Communists have done.

    For me, the way in which fundamentalist Christianity manipulates politics to maintain imperial aims, the crass hucksterism of megachurch preachers whose love of money is the root of tremendous evil, the pedophile cover-ups of the Catholic Church, and the general moronic attitude that prevails in the fundamentalist milieu are the most despicable attributes of organized Christianity.

    That said, if you haven’t read the five Gospels (including Thomas) carefully–as well as a good bit of the Old Testament and the Epistles–your attacks are doing nothing more than piling more ignorance onto an already dishearteningly large population who already cling to ignorance fervently.  If you are truly against Christianity, then you will have to master their primary texts.  By the time you have finished them, you may have a different idea of who the Real Enemy is.

    War on Christianity?  I think a broader War on Assholes would be more productive.

  • Anonymous

    Oh no, you can’t say that. We can bash Christianity all we like, but Muslims living under despotic theological government are simply a different culture and we have to respect their lifestyle.

  • Ryanc561

    It’s more like a war on illogic.

  • David M. Nevarrez

    Unfortunately, that would be as intolerant as the xians are. I do know good xians. But separation of Church and State should be more actively enforced. And we should definitely keep calling the xians on the hypocrisy of the most vocal amongst them.

  • David M. Nevarrez

    Unfortunately, that would be as intolerant as the xians are. I do know good xians. But separation of Church and State should be more actively enforced. And we should definitely keep calling the xians on the hypocrisy of the most vocal amongst them.

  • David M. Nevarrez

    LOL! “The christians to the lions!” – Aleister Crowley

  • Nzdmj2000

    WHY NOT JUST MOVE TO NORTH KOREA AND CHINA, AND ENJOY YOU JESUS FREE ZONES, OR SAUDI ARABIA….ANOTHER JESUS FREE ZONE

  • Nzdmj2000

    WHY NOT JUST MOVE TO NORTH KOREA AND CHINA, AND ENJOY YOU JESUS FREE ZONES, OR SAUDI ARABIA….ANOTHER JESUS FREE ZONE

    • H8mail

      That’s nothing like a FREE JESUS zone is it? 

      Love it or leave it. “This is America – where Jesus was born!” – Marylin Manson

  • CH50

    Hating christians is so 1998.
    Then again, hipsters made it populair again so, yeah, I’ll join the ironic inquisition.

  • CH50

    Hating christians is so 1998.
    Then again, hipsters made it populair again so, yeah, I’ll join the ironic inquisition.

    • http://thefirstchurchofmutterhals.blogspot.com/ mutterhals

      No one expects the ironic inquisition.

      • quartz99

        Our chief weapon is sarcasm! …sarcasm and science! Our two weapons are…

      • KOnD

        Hilarious Python reference!

  • older&wiser

    Baphese king 666? so we take your ignorant post as a plug for the devil, another stupidity. So you believe in the devil and you waste our time and minds with your crap. 

  • older&wiser

    Baphese king 666? so we take your ignorant post as a plug for the devil, another stupidity. So you believe in the devil and you waste our time and minds with your crap. 

  • Gregory Wheeler

    Christianity is definitely not a monolith.  What makes it (and any meme really) so dangerous and oppressive is fundamentalism, i.e. functional decortication.  It’s these intellectual zombies who must be stopped at all costs.  Pick the right enemy.  Perhaps the best way to do this is the one we already have but do not use enough.  NO establishment of religion–total separation of church and state, including no favoring of religious institutions, no “faith based” BS, no tolerance for a religious dictum on any civil matter (gay marriage, reproductive rights), no “intelligent design” or creationism BS in the public schools, etc.  Its a battle, but if more zombies (Bachmann, etc.) win, we (who still have a cortex) are totally screwed.  No new Dark Ages.  Let there be light! 

  • Gregory Wheeler

    Christianity is definitely not a monolith.  What makes it (and any meme really) so dangerous and oppressive is fundamentalism, i.e. functional decortication.  It’s these intellectual zombies who must be stopped at all costs.  Pick the right enemy.  Perhaps the best way to do this is the one we already have but do not use enough.  NO establishment of religion–total separation of church and state, including no favoring of religious institutions, no “faith based” BS, no tolerance for a religious dictum on any civil matter (gay marriage, reproductive rights), no “intelligent design” or creationism BS in the public schools, etc.  Its a battle, but if more zombies (Bachmann, etc.) win, we (who still have a cortex) are totally screwed.  No new Dark Ages.  Let there be light! 

  • Martynbudding

    Were the Fuck is America ?

  • Martynbudding

    Were the Fuck is America ?

  • Anonymous

    So you want to adopt fascism to solve your bigot problem? Next you’ll need a pack of mongooses to eat the fascists, and it will escalate from there.

  • dumbsaint

    So you want to adopt fascism to solve your bigot problem? Next you’ll need a pack of mongooses to eat the fascists, and it will escalate from there.

    • Tuna Ghost

      Nonsense, eventually the gorillas will just freeze to death

  • http://thefirstchurchofmutterhals.blogspot.com/ mutterhals

    No one expects the ironic inquisition.

  • Frak

    How can we get this started. It is a brilliant idea.

  • Frak

    How can we get this started. It is a brilliant idea.

  • Gregory

    Well, see the problem isn’t Christianity, which only a few people are actually practicing, the problem is Xians, who are “Christians” who have X-d Christ out of their lives and are part of the political and military empire that we used to call Christendom.  These are the folks who wouldn’t hesitate to make Uhmurkah an Xian nation, a theocracy, while claiming the US Constitution says thats the way it should be, the same way the South leading up to, during and of course still after the Civil War said the US Con supported slavery.  Even today, what the US Con says and what these crackerheads think it says are two different things…remember what Sarah Palin thought the Vice President said…wow, Mussolini wouldn’t as much power as she thought she would have.

    Many of these Xians say this now about the US Con, that it supports a Theocracy and all the other rubbish and they claim all the founding fathers were all Southern Baptists, which is like saying that Mother Theresa starred in fetish films in her spare time.  But yes, these Xians already say that Uhmurkah is an Xian Nation, that we need to “get back to god” which is part of what they mean when they say “take our country back” which is…take it back to the 1950s when white people got to always sit up front.

    These are the lunatics who are, after centuries of ideology dressed in religious clothing, wouldn’t recognize Jesus at all and are truly lost.  The lord helps those who helps themselves?  Not in the bible…what is in the bible is that Christians are supposed to REDISTRIBUTE THEIR WEALTH so that no one in the community goes without or has more than another, because someone who is a Christian isn’t supposed to give a toss about material things, wealth or 401ks.  Uhmurkah is a Christian Nation?  No, it’s the opposite.

    So, no Christianity is not the problem…it’s these folks who just call themselves Xians who are trying to turn the New World from a place people fled to to escape religious persecution into a place people will have to flee FROM to escape the same.  And of course the irony is, the Old World has turned secular once they got shed of all the riff raff that crossed the pond.  The Puritans weren’t upset that they were being persecuted as much as they were irked that they weren’t doing the persecuting themselves.  These Xians who think they have a right to control your life are hold overs from the bad old days in Europe when the church and the state were the same thing and either you were a Protestant or a Catholic or you were other and shunned or burned at the stake, etc.

    Today, in Uhmurkah we have millions of these waterheads talking about their beliefs, when they’ve just been trained to be part of the culture, they even call it “Sunday School.”  You pity them, really…because if you’ve been taught since infancy that a spade is a goddamned shovel, you’d only have shovels in your shed, too.  Their “religion” has become such a part of their identity, and they have been suckered into melding patriotism, nationalism, racial identity and everything else with it…when these thing have jack shit to do with religion, that they are truly lost, confused and increasingly desperate in a world where information causes their silly ideas to crumble like graham crackers.

    Even more tragic are the growing numbers of atheists that are being created because they see how this Xianity is a fraud and they then, being as spiritually incompetent as the Xians, proceed to throw the baby jesus out with the bathwater.

    Meanwhile, millions of Hindus are wondering what the fuss is about and if this is Wednesday, I guess we should sing our “Ganesha is a Tasty Geezer” song.

    Fiat lux.

  • Gregory

    Well, see the problem isn’t Christianity, which only a few people are actually practicing, the problem is Xians, who are “Christians” who have X-d Christ out of their lives and are part of the political and military empire that we used to call Christendom.  These are the folks who wouldn’t hesitate to make Uhmurkah an Xian nation, a theocracy, while claiming the US Constitution says thats the way it should be, the same way the South leading up to, during and of course still after the Civil War said the US Con supported slavery.  Even today, what the US Con says and what these crackerheads think it says are two different things…remember what Sarah Palin thought the Vice President said…wow, Mussolini wouldn’t as much power as she thought she would have.

    Many of these Xians say this now about the US Con, that it supports a Theocracy and all the other rubbish and they claim all the founding fathers were all Southern Baptists, which is like saying that Mother Theresa starred in fetish films in her spare time.  But yes, these Xians already say that Uhmurkah is an Xian Nation, that we need to “get back to god” which is part of what they mean when they say “take our country back” which is…take it back to the 1950s when white people got to always sit up front.

    These are the lunatics who are, after centuries of ideology dressed in religious clothing, wouldn’t recognize Jesus at all and are truly lost.  The lord helps those who helps themselves?  Not in the bible…what is in the bible is that Christians are supposed to REDISTRIBUTE THEIR WEALTH so that no one in the community goes without or has more than another, because someone who is a Christian isn’t supposed to give a toss about material things, wealth or 401ks.  Uhmurkah is a Christian Nation?  No, it’s the opposite.

    So, no Christianity is not the problem…it’s these folks who just call themselves Xians who are trying to turn the New World from a place people fled to to escape religious persecution into a place people will have to flee FROM to escape the same.  And of course the irony is, the Old World has turned secular once they got shed of all the riff raff that crossed the pond.  The Puritans weren’t upset that they were being persecuted as much as they were irked that they weren’t doing the persecuting themselves.  These Xians who think they have a right to control your life are hold overs from the bad old days in Europe when the church and the state were the same thing and either you were a Protestant or a Catholic or you were other and shunned or burned at the stake, etc.

    Today, in Uhmurkah we have millions of these waterheads talking about their beliefs, when they’ve just been trained to be part of the culture, they even call it “Sunday School.”  You pity them, really…because if you’ve been taught since infancy that a spade is a goddamned shovel, you’d only have shovels in your shed, too.  Their “religion” has become such a part of their identity, and they have been suckered into melding patriotism, nationalism, racial identity and everything else with it…when these thing have jack shit to do with religion, that they are truly lost, confused and increasingly desperate in a world where information causes their silly ideas to crumble like graham crackers.

    Even more tragic are the growing numbers of atheists that are being created because they see how this Xianity is a fraud and they then, being as spiritually incompetent as the Xians, proceed to throw the baby jesus out with the bathwater.

    Meanwhile, millions of Hindus are wondering what the fuss is about and if this is Wednesday, I guess we should sing our “Ganesha is a Tasty Geezer” song.

    Fiat lux.

    • quartz99

      I see what you’re saying, and I don’t disagree, but can you really separate out the religion from its followers? You can say “If they weren’t hypocrites, this is what Christianity’s texts says it’s _supposed_ to be,” but can you really say “so therefore the majority of people calling themselves Christians aren’t”? A religion is not a religion without its followers.

      • TennesseeCyberian

        There is such a wild variety within Christianity, you can’t nail it down to one homogeneous religion.  To use the poster’s particular complaints as an example, the Episcopals have slowly but surely opened the doors to gay marriage in their churches, and there are plenty of Christian potheads, Rastafarians included.

        I think that the overall hatred of Christianity is the result of personal contact with zealots and hypocrites.  I have met plenty of overzealous and hypocritical atheists.  Others take issue with the control freak aspect.  But how much personal freedom has ever been enjoyed within Hindu, Muslim, or atheistic Communist societies?  Again, there is a variety, but a lower caste Indian, a resident of Iran, or anyone who lived through the Kmher Rouge regime probably has a few complaints about the loss of personal freedom due to their society’s dominant belief system.

        Christianity is not going anywhere.  You can always choose to move away from church culture here in America, but for me the most productive approach is to reinterpret the existing tradition–albeit from a comfortable distance at the moment.  Vapid tirades won’t cut the mustard.  I know that because I have launched into a number of vapid tirades in my day.

      • jp

        Because religion/philosophy/spirituality is a personal pursuit, it can be only understood personally, if you follow an organized religion, you must assume someone elses answers are correct instead of using them as guideposts to guide your personal understanding. All organized religions are cults, it is exactly as you say, a cult is not a cult without its followers. All religious texts were written by men and subject to their… inconsistencies and personal understandings and cannot DIRECTLY translate to anyone elses, especially after several translations and the loss of cultural significance.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Daniel-Grace/100002133529226 Daniel Grace

    If my understanding is correct, which at times it’s a little off, but I think I’ve got this one, marriage was to make sure that the guy’s kid was actually his biological kid. It was also used to combine families and property and such. So while you talk about condemning its cultural roots, you’re actually ignoring its roots, but you cover yourself when you say “modern monogamous marriage”. It doesn’t make sense to talk about the modern version of something, but at the same time comment about ignoring roots. And if you want to talk about modern marriage, it’s a contract between two people, that gives them some privileges and makes it more difficult to separate. There’s a ceremony that most people have with it, but the important part is the piece of paper they get saying that they are married, which has nothing to do with religion.

    As for Pat Robertson’s stance on marijuana, that’s the first sane thing I’ve ever heard come from the man. He’s talking about lessening the mandatory sentencing and such, which is great. From what I understand the sentencing is too harsh, especially for the amount of young people that do it. However, he still does say it should be illegal, which I don’t have enough factual knowledge to have a strong opinion. I just don’t like the stuff.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Daniel-Grace/100002133529226 Daniel Grace

    Do you realize how much trouble we would all be in if there was war on illogic? We’d lose all of our leaders!

  • Anonymous

    Marriage was about using a woman as collateral to better a relationship
    between families or simply a transfer of chattel from father to husband,
    along with her dowry. Women were considered such a burden to care for
    that you had to pay someone to take your daughters off your hands. There
    are still cultures where this is the meaning of a marriage. The idea that marriage was anything other than a property transfer until very recently is laughable. And it far predates Christianity, let alone Catholicism.

    These days, in the US, legal marriage is about property division and
    gaining access to certain rights that the State confers on the legal
    spouse, such as visiting rights in hospitals, inheriting your partner’s
    property (right now many states take it away from the surviving gay
    non-spouse even when it’s something 50/50, like a joint checking account
    with both names on it!), being able to take join actions (such as
    declaring bankruptcy), and insurance access. That is what the legal
    contract is for and anything added to it by bigots is purely irrelevant
    baggage.

  • Anonymous

    I see what you’re saying, and I don’t disagree, but can you really separate out the religion from its followers? You can say “If they weren’t hypocrites, this is what Christianity’s texts says it’s _supposed_ to be,” but can you really say “so therefore the majority of people calling themselves Christians aren’t”? A religion is not a religion without its followers.

  • Anonymous

    Our chief weapon is sarcasm! …sarcasm and science! Our two weapons are…

  • Anonymous

    lol sounds great to me. Where do I sign up? ;)

  • Jahopson Tx

    JoJoDancer: You are on the mark. And I will only add that political ‘suck-uppance” to the religious conservative right renders the religionists as merely tools. Marijuana isn’t illegal because Christianity exists – don’t be that naive. It is still illegal because many causes in this country are served by the exaggerated money that can be made off it DUE to its ‘illegal status”. A marijuana plane was confiscated in my hometown years ago and the Juvenile Judge, the Ass’t D.A., and some highewr ranking law enforcement officials were indicted and convicted of ownership of it. Yes, Christianity is bothersome; all fundamentalist religions need to be banned (or at least TAXED to hell and back), but they are merely political tools.

  • Jahopson Tx

    JoJoDancer: You are on the mark. And I will only add that political ‘suck-uppance” to the religious conservative right renders the religionists as merely tools. Marijuana isn’t illegal because Christianity exists – don’t be that naive. It is still illegal because many causes in this country are served by the exaggerated money that can be made off it DUE to its ‘illegal status”. A marijuana plane was confiscated in my hometown years ago and the Juvenile Judge, the Ass’t D.A., and some highewr ranking law enforcement officials were indicted and convicted of ownership of it. Yes, Christianity is bothersome; all fundamentalist religions need to be banned (or at least TAXED to hell and back), but they are merely political tools.

  • Jahopson Tx

    …and one more thing to consider: As long as we are bed-buddies with Israel, Christianity will thrive. Why? Because Christianity is ultra pro-Israel, due to their biblical prophecies and pronouncements(“And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee…Genesis 12:3) . Pro-Israel sentiment in America is VERY essential to politicians and their biggest lobbyists. Jews and pro-Israel factions LOVE Christianity as a tool because they are so full of zeal for the “Holy Land”…just listen to John Hagee for a few minutes.     

  • Jahopson Tx

    …and one more thing to consider: As long as we are bed-buddies with Israel, Christianity will thrive. Why? Because Christianity is ultra pro-Israel, due to their biblical prophecies and pronouncements(“And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee…Genesis 12:3) . Pro-Israel sentiment in America is VERY essential to politicians and their biggest lobbyists. Jews and pro-Israel factions LOVE Christianity as a tool because they are so full of zeal for the “Holy Land”…just listen to John Hagee for a few minutes.     

  • JoJoDancer

    There is such a wild variety within Christianity, you can’t nail it down to one homogeneous religion.  To use the poster’s particular complaints as an example, the Episcopals have slowly but surely opened the doors to gay marriage in their churches, and there are plenty of Christian potheads, Rastafarians included.

    I think that the overall hatred of Christianity is the result of personal contact with zealots and hypocrites.  I have met plenty of overzealous and hypocritical atheists.  Others take issue with the control freak aspect.  But how much personal freedom has ever been enjoyed within Hindu, Muslim, or atheistic Communist societies?  Again, there is a variety, but a lower caste Indian, a resident of Iran, or anyone who lived through the Kmher Rouge regime probably has a few complaints about the loss of personal freedom due to their society’s dominant belief system.

    Christianity is not going anywhere.  You can always choose to move away from church culture here in America, but for me the most productive approach is to reinterpret the existing tradition–albeit from a comfortable distance at the moment.  Vapid tirades won’t cut the mustard.  I know that because I have launched into a number of vapid tirades in my day.

  • jp

    Hey, umm… does anyone realize that spirituality/religion/philosophy is first of all, ALL THE SAME THING, second of all, A PERSONAL PURSUIT. If you associate yourself with an organized religion, you are part of a cult, a tame one maybe, but a cult nonetheless, and they deserve no special treatment, tax the shit out of them and silence their ignorant propaganda. What does oppressing someone else grant you in the eyes of god? Nothing, you’re only wasting your time spreading misery and misunderstanding while you’re own soul becomes stagnant and confused. Your rules are FOR YOURSELF. So follow them and STFU.

    It is my personal belief that anyone who is willing to associate themselves with ANY organized religion is simply ignorant and has never bothered to define those concepts for themselves. If you had your own idea about it, you’d be a lot nicer about it and you wouldn’t need to supplant your questions with someone elses answers. Neither would you need to fight someone elses war, thinking it is holy and right, that is the same trick that peasants of the past fell for with their ‘divine selection of kings’ and whatnot, THERE IS NO WAR THAT IS HOLY. Also, ‘Remove the plank in your own eye before you try to remove the speck from your brothers’, ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’ and so on, you guys really ought to read your own book since you tout about ‘the word of god’ so much. How could someone you don’t know save you from a threat you aren’t sure exists? Stop letting life suck for everyone and get off your ass and fix it because every day you go to work doing something you hate, you’re betting that you get a ‘get out of jail free’ card to get into heaven just because you pretended to acknowledge some myth? I’ll bet you tell yourself that ‘heaven is beyond your comprehension’ too dont you?

  • jp

    Hey, umm… does anyone realize that spirituality/religion/philosophy is first of all, ALL THE SAME THING, second of all, A PERSONAL PURSUIT. If you associate yourself with an organized religion, you are part of a cult, a tame one maybe, but a cult nonetheless, and they deserve no special treatment, tax the shit out of them and silence their ignorant propaganda. What does oppressing someone else grant you in the eyes of god? Nothing, you’re only wasting your time spreading misery and misunderstanding while you’re own soul becomes stagnant and confused. Your rules are FOR YOURSELF. So follow them and STFU.

    It is my personal belief that anyone who is willing to associate themselves with ANY organized religion is simply ignorant and has never bothered to define those concepts for themselves. If you had your own idea about it, you’d be a lot nicer about it and you wouldn’t need to supplant your questions with someone elses answers. Neither would you need to fight someone elses war, thinking it is holy and right, that is the same trick that peasants of the past fell for with their ‘divine selection of kings’ and whatnot, THERE IS NO WAR THAT IS HOLY. Also, ‘Remove the plank in your own eye before you try to remove the speck from your brothers’, ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’ and so on, you guys really ought to read your own book since you tout about ‘the word of god’ so much. How could someone you don’t know save you from a threat you aren’t sure exists? Stop letting life suck for everyone and get off your ass and fix it because every day you go to work doing something you hate, you’re betting that you get a ‘get out of jail free’ card to get into heaven just because you pretended to acknowledge some myth? I’ll bet you tell yourself that ‘heaven is beyond your comprehension’ too dont you?

  • jp

    Because religion/philosophy/spirituality is a personal pursuit, it can be only understood personally, if you follow an organized religion, you must assume someone elses answers are correct instead of using them as guideposts to guide your personal understanding. All organized religions are cults, it is exactly as you say, a cult is not a cult without its followers. All religious texts were written by men and subject to their… inconsistencies and personal understandings and cannot DIRECTLY translate to anyone elses, especially after several translations and the loss of cultural significance.

  • Anonymous

    What a hapless and skewed bigot the author of this ‘article’ is.
    It’s just froth
    “Christians have denied and continue to deny non-Christians the right to pursue happiness”
    wtf?
    I think he’s taken the views of a tiny handful of Christian extremists and imagined that their views and prejudices are shared by all of them.
    Which is a classic mistake for Under-11 year olds to make.
    My Mum is a Christian yet she has gay friends.
    You retarded fuckwit.
    If he’d made similar sweeping statements about Jews then his bigotry would be obvious. Imagining that all Christians hold the same views, and all act in the same way, is a similar arse-backwards fascistic way of thinking.

    Twat.

  • cakey pig

    What a hapless and skewed bigot the author of this ‘article’ is.
    It’s just froth
    “Christians have denied and continue to deny non-Christians the right to pursue happiness”
    wtf?
    I think he’s taken the views of a tiny handful of Christian extremists and imagined that their views and prejudices are shared by all of them. He has confused the general with the particular, in other words.
    Which is a classic mistake for Under-11 year olds to make.
    My Mum is a Christian yet she has gay friends.
    You retarded fuckwit.
    If he’d made similar sweeping statements about Jews then his bigotry would be obvious. Imagining that all Christians hold the same views, and all act in the same way, is a similar arse-backwards fascistic way of thinking.

    Twat.

  • JoJoDancer

    The Western tradition of lifelong marriage without extramarital sex is rooted in the rise of what we now call Catholicism in the Early Middle Ages.  Today we have a civil version of this which has basically reverted back to the impermanent, serial monogomous marriage system of the Roman world, while maintaining Christian sexual fidelity.

    If a gay couple promises “‘Til death do we part,” they take a Christian vow.  If a gay couple chooses to remain absolutely faithful, they simply pick up where the Christians left off.  If those are values that you cherish, at least give credit where credit is due.

    As for spittle-dripping Pat Robertson, he is quoted as saying: “I just believe that criminalizing marijuana…it’s costing us a fortune and it’s ruining young people. Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. That’s not a good thing.”

    You are certainly right that it is the first sane thing ever uttered by the man, but don’t nitpick me to death without consulting the Oracle first.

  • jp

    One more, our political and social agenda should be based on real truths, real truths are those that simply are and cannot be fought. Truths like, most people follow by example and not information, physical love is instinctual and we ought be more open and respectful about it, no one wants to work 40 hours a week and barely afford the only lifestyle they know how to live. Truths like the social contract, which states that for any group of people to exist, they must give up certain rights to maintain certain community agendas. Truths like, the more complicated the law it, the less people will understand or follow it. We follow of lot of ignorant concepts here and we don’t talk about basic stuff. What about schools huh? They don’t teach kids anything about how to survive in the world we’ve created for them, they steal our youth and turn us into office drones, what about that? No one talks about REAL SHIT anymore. FUCK marriage, marriage is only a tax writeoff, people don’t need it and are capable of living in ACTUAL dedication to one another. This is all semantic bullshit, no one is fixing anything that really needs to be fixed and it certainly will make a lot of people unhappy either way. It’s time to bite the fucking bullet and change our lifestyle at some cost, or we will end up paying the HIGHEST cost.

  • jp

    One more, our political and social agenda should be based on real truths, real truths are those that simply are and cannot be fought. Truths like, most people follow by example and not information, physical love is instinctual and we ought be more open and respectful about it, no one wants to work 40 hours a week and barely afford the only lifestyle they know how to live. Truths like the social contract, which states that for any group of people to exist, they must give up certain rights to maintain certain community agendas. Truths like, the more complicated the law it, the less people will understand or follow it. We follow of lot of ignorant concepts here and we don’t talk about basic stuff. What about schools huh? They don’t teach kids anything about how to survive in the world we’ve created for them, they steal our youth and turn us into office drones, what about that? No one talks about REAL SHIT anymore. FUCK marriage, marriage is only a tax writeoff, people don’t need it and are capable of living in ACTUAL dedication to one another. This is all semantic bullshit, no one is fixing anything that really needs to be fixed and it certainly will make a lot of people unhappy either way. It’s time to bite the fucking bullet and change our lifestyle at some cost, or we will end up paying the HIGHEST cost.

  • Anarchy Wolf

    Instead of going to war broadly against Christians, can we just go to war against Christian Dominionists? Those fuckers are crazy. Their goal is to end the world, in all seriousness, that is their goal.

  • Anarchy Pony

    Instead of going to war broadly against Christians, can we just go to war against Christian Dominionists? Those fuckers are crazy. Their goal is to end the world, in all seriousness, that is their goal.

  • Anonymous

    @bfda8560267fec8276fdb91011d3273d:disqus BaphometRex666 
    Hitler without a brain?

  • GoodDoktorBad

    BaphometRex666 
    Hitler without a brain?

  • Tom A

    This is just so, so, so corny.

  • Tom A

    This is just so, so, so corny.

  • TruthMonger

    I’m not Christian, and I think plenty about Christianity in theory and practice are lame. But this editorial is juvenile. The America I want to live in is a pluralistic society where people respect each other’s differing beliefs and allow each other to go in peace. If Christians have not taken this approach to non-Christians, that’s their folly. I believe in leading by example, and winning the debates with truth. Making war on a group is not a solution, it’s compounding the problem.

  • TruthMonger

    I’m not Christian, and I think plenty about Christianity in theory and practice are lame. But this editorial is juvenile. The America I want to live in is a pluralistic society where people respect each other’s differing beliefs and allow each other to go in peace. If Christians have not taken this approach to non-Christians, that’s their folly. I believe in leading by example, and winning the debates with truth. Making war on a group is not a solution, it’s compounding the problem.

  • Penguins4life

    Wow I have to say im surprised to see this! Anyway…

    I will say that Christian people do annoy the hell out of me. For people who go around pointing out other peoples sins and wrong doing, they sure as hell do a lot of it themselves. Really many “Christians” have turned their religion into a “build-to-order” situation. They follow the parts they want and ignore the bits they dont like. At the moment, it seems the only part they care about it “Jesus died for our sins.” Great! That works out nicely doesnt it?

    Another annoyance is they ASSUME everyone else around them is christian and if they find out your not, be ready for a volley of criticism and questions about why you dont follow Christianity and about what you do follow. They will point out things that they here about or use stereotypes to demean your religion or beliefs even if they are not true. This usually done in public making it a very awkward situation for the poor fellow being literally interrogated  while people around him are starring him down. 

    And not to mention how much they contradict themselves on a daily basis. They have to many “opinions” and scientific facts to prove why this and that is ok because some people did research or discovered something, but will quickly abandon the words of god in a heart beat because “We live in modern times…” Not to mention the poor understanding they have of the bible and how each person understands each part differently.

    And also their claim to be very “open” and tolerable of other people is bogus as well. They go around handing out bibles to people and if you dont take it they get all mean and they do it in schools where kids might not be, god forbid, christian. They throw up churches every where left and right and have all kinds of gatherings. As soon as some mosque is wanted in a community they start throwing all kinds of complaints and arguments “O, but should this be allowed?” and other BS. They stop people from following their own beliefs and make them feel awkward and even laugh when people are just minding their own business following their own. They openly say “O Jesus!” “Jesus christ!” But let someone else say “O allah forgives!” and you better start running.

  • Penguins4life

    Wow I have to say im surprised to see this! Anyway…

    I will say that Christian people do annoy the hell out of me. For people who go around pointing out other peoples sins and wrong doing, they sure as hell do a lot of it themselves. Really many “Christians” have turned their religion into a “build-to-order” situation. They follow the parts they want and ignore the bits they dont like. At the moment, it seems the only part they care about it “Jesus died for our sins.” Great! That works out nicely doesnt it?

    Another annoyance is they ASSUME everyone else around them is christian and if they find out your not, be ready for a volley of criticism and questions about why you dont follow Christianity and about what you do follow. They will point out things that they here about or use stereotypes to demean your religion or beliefs even if they are not true. This usually done in public making it a very awkward situation for the poor fellow being literally interrogated  while people around him are starring him down. 

    And not to mention how much they contradict themselves on a daily basis. They have to many “opinions” and scientific facts to prove why this and that is ok because some people did research or discovered something, but will quickly abandon the words of god in a heart beat because “We live in modern times…” Not to mention the poor understanding they have of the bible and how each person understands each part differently.

    And also their claim to be very “open” and tolerable of other people is bogus as well. They go around handing out bibles to people and if you dont take it they get all mean and they do it in schools where kids might not be, god forbid, christian. They throw up churches every where left and right and have all kinds of gatherings. As soon as some mosque is wanted in a community they start throwing all kinds of complaints and arguments “O, but should this be allowed?” and other BS. They stop people from following their own beliefs and make them feel awkward and even laugh when people are just minding their own business following their own. They openly say “O Jesus!” “Jesus christ!” But let someone else say “O allah forgives!” and you better start running.

  • Guest

    do not feed the trolls!

  • Guest

    do not feed the trolls!

  • DrummingRaccoon

    This won’t help, you will only add fuel to their fire by playing into their war games. In a sense, you are giving them exactly what they want– more hate in the world and another target for them to point their fingers at.

  • DrummingRaccoon

    This won’t help, you will only add fuel to their fire by playing into their war games. In a sense, you are giving them exactly what they want– more hate in the world and another target for them to point their fingers at.

  • O. Spengler

    A large amount of Americans are actually ChriNOS, Christian in Name Only. The life they lead has more in common with Satanism: greedy, selfish, materialist, lusting for war, lack of compassion and lack of ecological stewardship.

  • O. Spengler

    A large amount of Americans are actually ChriNOS, Christian in Name Only. The life they lead has more in common with Satanism: greedy, selfish, materialist, lusting for war, lack of compassion and lack of ecological stewardship.

  • Anon

    after which fundamentalist christian bashers grabbed some beer and knocked heads together

  • Anon

    after which fundamentalist christian bashers grabbed some beer and knocked heads together

  • Simiantongue

    “The Western tradition of lifelong marriage without extramarital sex is
    rooted in the rise of what we now call Catholicism in the Early Middle
    Ages.”

    Not true, you might want to read up on the evolution of monogamy in humans before you place that at the mantle of Catholicism. Catholicism does have such a tradition but it is not the “root” at all. Far from it. A leafy, thorny offshoot at best. People have been marrying and remaining monogamous, even as a tradition, long before Christianity was around. And people would continue to do so if Christianity had never come about. In fact people have done exactly that without Catholicism or Christianity, in areas of the world where historically Christianity or anything like it never existed. Saying that Catholicism or even Christianity as a whole is the root of lifelong marriage without extramarital sex is simply conceited cognitive bias. It’s just something that some humans do. And they would do it in western societies even if Christianity never existed.

    That’s not to say that Catholicism and Christianity as a whole has not tried very hard to institutionalize their ideas about marriage and force that on every human society it comes across for it’s entire existence. That’s clearly true. Christianity as an ideology is very coercive and morally repugnant like that. Even then in the exchange with every human society it has come across there has been somewhat of a trade off where Christianity has been changed even more than society as a whole.

    Yes, Christianity practices monogamy but it is not unique to, or started with, or is the only tradition of monogamy in western society. Saying that a lifelong marriage without extramarital sex is rooted in the rise of Catholicism, is something akin to saying that if you drive a car that is rooted in the history of GM. Not true, there were cars before GM, there will be cars after GM, there would be cars without GM, even in western culture. There were and are cars in cultures where GM has no influence at all.  Now replace cars with monogamy and GM with Catholicism. Clearly Catholicism and Christianity as a whole is not much more than a footnote in the subject of human monogamous relationships.

    “Today we have a civil version of this which has basically reverted back
    to the impermanent, serial monogomous marriage system of the Roman
    world, while maintaining Christian sexual fidelity.”

    Civil unions are not marriage. Separate but equal never works. Also. Sexual fidelity might be part of Christian tradition, but again, Christianity is not the root of it and such things would still be present if Christianity did not exist. Christianity cloaks itself in the mantle of such traditions that already naturally exist in humans and lay claim that to this behavior as virtuous and that it is their creation. Mostly because it gives that institution some measure of credence and control over peoples lives, as such institutions need to do in order to exist. They meddle in the most intimate aspects of people lives. The idea that marriage is the bedrock of any society has some merit. On a larger scale Christianity understands this well.  Which is why, as an ideology, it constantly seeks some measure of control in that intimate purview of society. In doing that they paint themselves, most religious institutions, as the bedrock of human society because they constantly entangle themselves within it to the point at which it’s hard to tell where one starts an another stops. Purposely so, to interfere with the church is not only to question the will of their particular god but you are trying to upset the very bedrock of society. You bad person you. Which supports the whole sectarian institution thing. I wouldn’t call that clever because it has is something that has heuristically arisen. Over time it is discovered what works and what does not to support certain ideologies. Naturally those who successfully seek influence, will eventually gain such influence over people. Those who don’t die off. 

    The claim is simply untrue that sexual fidelity is was created by that society or this group or that one. Simply rubbish. Such traditions exist outside of Christian cultures and any other. It is not the exclusive province of any one culture. It’s simply a human behavior. And I might add that being polygamous, monogamous or being anything on a sliding scale in between is no better or worse as a personal choice morally either. Strict monogamy or polygamy is not for everyone. It’s up to you and your partner to make those personal choices together and sectarian institutions should have no say in that. People have been pairing off since the first humans and before. It was not anarchy or a moral vacuum before religion came along to tell you what was right or wrong.  As for the rest that religion lays claim to? Anyone who lays claim to any of those intimate aspects of your life, well, lets just say you should give them and their true motivations a good hard look.

    Some people imagine a moral hole where Christianity used to be if it were never to exist. Which is so much vacuous crap. Christianity is nothing more than fetishism, Catholicism or any other denomination within Christianity even more so. Ultimately it’s a way for someone else other than you to have control over the most intimate aspects of your life. That is actually comforting to some people and that’s fine. It’s not for me and I’d thank them to keep their paws off me, the damn dirty apes. < POTA reference tee hee.

    "If a gay couple promises "'Til death do we part," they take a Christian vow."

    I made the same vow in a traditional Chinese ceremony. Does that mean I owe some type of allegiance or thanks to Chinese tradition? Not at all. If I didn't like that sentiment I would have used another. Till death do us part is used in traditional Christian vows but is not unique to, or started with Christianity. Many Christians do lay claim to anything Christianity has ever uttered as strictly their province. Like the golden rule for instance, "Do unto others…". As if Christianity came up with that. Silly really. As a matter of fact I prefer Poppers addendum, "Do unto others as they would have done…". Much better. Or that Christianity has any unique claim to either "Till death do us part" or the golden rule. Christians didn't come up with those things and they are not even the best at it either. Don't get me wrong Jesus had some pretty radical ideas for his time. But it was just around the bronze ages or so and it shows. Not much use for today. I'd much rather at least try for something after the dark ages myself. That is unless you take the whole Christian bible  in a metaphorical sense. If that's the case then you could use Lord of the Rings for the same thing. I actually know a few nerds who take life lessons from Tolkien's books exactly as some religious people use the bible. To each their own. Like I said it's fetishism.

    "If a gay couple chooses to remain absolutely faithful, they simply pick up where the Christians left off."

    Christians might embrace monogamy, which is not even a uniquely human trait, but laying claim that monogamy is a uniquely Christian idea is not only conceited it's untrue. Even in western culture. Why not go that one step further and say Christianity invented sex. Then they could rightly claim people aren't doing it right. But that would be absurd Christianity didn't invent sex everyone knows that is obviously not true. But they invented monogamy at least? Bahahaha!  Well, ok they didn't, but Christianity preaches monogamy and introduced it to western society at least? No, the only thing that Christianity achieved by preaching monogamy is make many Christian hypocrites. Sure they have been able to influence quite a few people. There are probably more than a few people who kept the idea of monogamy when they ordinarily wouldn't because of their Christian faith I'm sure. Does this mean that Christianity introduced monogamy? Certainly not. Or that Christianity even influences people to any large degree about monogamy? My personal experience says no.

    Christianity and monogamy is sort of like the first attempt at legislating people into good behavior. Which is impossible to do. Monogamy existed long before Christianity and people will or will not be monogamous depending on their own conscience. Now, taken that monogamy is actually good and desired behavior. And also that Christianity is in fact in a place to influence people in this most intimate detail of their lives. And that for an institution to do that is considered good also. I just don't think Christianity is even that effective at doing such at all. It's almost as if monogamy is a rule only so that one may break it, so much sweeter the spoils when they're naughty, right?. It's actually literally fetishism and not just a little sociopathic in fact. You have to giggle at all us bald apes and our machinations to make life interesting.

    "If those are values that you cherish, at least give credit where credit is due."

    Christians breathe, drink and eat. Should I thank Christianity for air, water and food? You can't be monogamous without Christianity so we should thank Christianity? Never mind the conceited assumption that all culture and society is Christian culture and society. You simply wouldn't have any human culture if not for Christian culture. Pffft, the whole thing would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. In fact there is monogamy without Christianity. It didn't begin with Christianity, it's not going to end without Christianity. Like I said we'd might as well thank Christianity that we can breathe because Christians breathe too. Well, they must of invented it because Christians breathe don't they? and clearly we won't be able to breathe if Christianity disappears. lol So silly.

    "As for spittle-dripping Pat Robertson, he is quoted as saying: "I just
    believe that criminalizing marijuana…it's costing us a fortune and
    it's ruining young people. Young people go into prisons, they go in as
    youths and come out as hardened criminals. That's not a good thing."

    You
    are certainly right that it is the first sane thing ever uttered by the
    man, but don't nitpick me to death without consulting the Oracle first.
    "

    Meh, I don't really care what the old codger has to say on that. A stopped clock and all that. His brain stopped ticking a long time ago.

  • Nuyorican94

    Okay people that’s like saying eliminate Islam because of the Taliban. Not all Christians try to deny people their rights. And eliminating Christianity would outlaw all Christians even if they aren’t the kind to work against equal rights. AND that entire statement about Christianity doesn’t even apply to many Christians. Making an entire religious belief illegal too would be just as bad as working against equal rights. I support equal rights for everyone and sorry that includes people that we may not like, freedom is only freedom if everyone is free. People can believe what they want as long as the laws of the land prevent certain people from taking rights away from the people. 

  • Nuyorican94

    Okay people that’s like saying eliminate Islam because of the Taliban. Not all Christians try to deny people their rights. And eliminating Christianity would outlaw all Christians even if they aren’t the kind to work against equal rights. AND that entire statement about Christianity doesn’t even apply to many Christians. Making an entire religious belief illegal too would be just as bad as working against equal rights. I support equal rights for everyone and sorry that includes people that we may not like, freedom is only freedom if everyone is free. People can believe what they want as long as the laws of the land prevent certain people from taking rights away from the people. 

  • JoJoDancer

    During your incredibly long-winded response, you never provide one concrete example of pre-Christian, Western monogamy.  I am talking about the Western World, the root of our American culture–excepting the contributions of the recent arrivals of large groups of Eastern peoples during the 60s and 70s.  In both Roman and Greek traditions, as well as the Celts to the north, marriage was both temporary, perfunctory, and certainly allowed for what we now call infidelity–most often with captured slaves and prostitutes.

    Chinese marriage is important for cross-cultural studies, as is the study of Indians and birds, because they also practice lifelong monogamy.  But you cannot find that it the West before Christianity, and therefore no direct lineage exists within the overwhelming majority of American religious, cultural, or legal practice. 

    In your attempts to put forth a coherent retort to my historically backed claims, you fall short on evidence.  And clarity.  And brevity.

  • KOnD

    Hilarious Python reference!

  • H8mail

    That’s nothing like a FREE JESUS zone is it? 

    Love it or leave it. “This is America – where Jesus was born!” – Marylin Manson

  • papicuzo

    Or else bomb them to smithereens, take their oil and strip their women. We’ve been wearing that ol’ number out for quite a while now, haven’t we? 

  • papicuzo

    “Site Note: From time to time, Disinfo.com does post an article for the sole purposes of the speaker intended on exercising their First Amendment rights. If you are curious about this new venture, contact us through the site with the subject line “free speech moment”, and of course, all comments are welcome.”
    Wow. Disinfo is really giving us a bit of the old “future shock” with this hard-hitting, confrontational brand of journalism. Makes me wonder if they type this stuff up in their mother’s basement beneath black light iron maiden posters and Frank Frazetta pinups… 

  • papicuzo

    “Site Note: From time to time, Disinfo.com does post an article for the sole purposes of the speaker intended on exercising their First Amendment rights. If you are curious about this new venture, contact us through the site with the subject line “free speech moment”, and of course, all comments are welcome.”
    Wow. Disinfo is really giving us a bit of the old “future shock” with this hard-hitting, confrontational brand of journalism. Makes me wonder if they type this stuff up in their mother’s basement beneath black light iron maiden posters and Frank Frazetta pinups… 

  • Anonymous

    It’s obviously better that we should let them bomb us, then we’ll apologize for being so offensive to their culture that we made them want to bomb us so much. We clearly know much more now about how to wage a war in a civilized fashion; the old ways are completely outdated.

  • Simiantongue

    “During your incredibly long-winded response,”

    Which you obviously failed to read. Which is fine if you don’t have the time, I understand. But I’m confused as to why you would respond if you haven’t read it. I can’t apologize for the length of the post, it takes some explaining when you say something other than conventional thought. People demand to know why you are saying such things. As opposed to something conventional which they usually accept without much thought or explanation demanded. So I have the task of laboriously having to explain my statement. Nobody is twisting your arm to read anything if you don’t want to, there won’t be a quiz later.

    “you never provide one concrete example of pre-Christian, Western monogamy.”

    I think you’ve missed my point completely. There is a very heated and interesting debate about the root of human monogamy and its origin in the fields of genetics and paleoanthropology. There is a lot of interesting material that you can go read to study this.  Even material about particular cultures too if you like, Christianity among them. Your arrogation that monogamy has it’s roots in Christianity is a conceit.  Monogamy is just something that humans do. I can’t be any more clear about that. As with most cultural practices these things are adopted by religion from the society they are practicing in not the other way round, almost always. Monogamy is not one of the exceptions. (Also you read like you’re  little miffed in your response. Don’t take a word like “conceit” and automatically construe that as I am saying you are being conceited. Meaning I am calling you conceited. In that context it simply means you are taking the role of religion and giving it an excessively favorable role in the root of monogamy. It’s not an insult. Unless you are taken aback on behalf of Christianity)

    This goes for morality also. I know the conventional thought is that these things come from religion. But that simply is not true. At some level people even recognize this. For example you yourself in your response to quartz99 say

    “There is such a wild variety within Christianity, you can’t nail it down
    to one homogeneous religion.  To use the poster’s particular complaints
    as an example, the Episcopals have slowly but surely opened the doors
    to gay marriage in their churches, and there are plenty of Christian
    potheads, Rastafarians included.’

    This clearly shows religion, as it always doing, adjusting. Taking it’s cues from larger human culture. The Christianity of today is a far different creature than that of the past. That is not because some theologians decided that change would be good. Religions must adapt or die. They do this by adopting the moral and societal norms of larger human culture in order to adapt and survive. It’s a slow process, they are always some steps behind it seems usually. This is also blatantly obvious in American religious culture where churches cater to the wants and needs to fill the demand of a consumer culture. Advertising signs out front like one stop religious superstore shopping. You mentioned in another post

    “the crass hucksterism of megachurch preachers whose love of money is the root of tremendous evil,”

    Okay that is another example of religion taking it’s cues from the larger human culture that it is embedded in too. You have but to drive through any urban community and see the almost infinite flavors of religion available. It’s not at all surprising to see that religious society is conforming to that consumer model here. You can see examples where the same exact denominations within the
    same religion have differences in what they practice according to what culture they are practicing in. You can find churches that will accept that women don’t need to wear dresses only, others that allow women to preach etc… Despite the show of conceit of where these practices and doctrines find their beginnings, some claim it’s due to “new revelations” for instance, it’s obvious that they are adaptations of the larger human culture that they find themselves embedded in as a whole in order to attract new/ more adherents. Like I said before that situation has arisen somewhat heuristically. The survival of the selfish meme I guess sums that up nicely.
    (As an addendum it’s also apparent the differences of religions in say British culture, which is ensured some measure of support as it is part of the government being the CoE and religious culture in the US which theoretically has no government support and must be much more aggressive. The Church of England obviously does not rely as much on aggressive proselytizing to survive and has what you might consider atrophied in that aspect as yet another example)

    So that’s only the first sentence addressed, have I gone over your word limit yet?. Oh well anyhoo.

    “I am talking about the Western World, the root of our American
    culture–excepting the contributions of the recent arrivals of large
    groups of Eastern peoples during the 60s and 70s.”

    So am I. You missed the point. Since you did, this response cannot really be address except to say that If American culture had different priorities so would Christianity share much of those same priorities, else it would fade and die here. No doubt that there is some feedback influence at work there too. I’m not intimating that larger human society and religious societies live in separate cultural bubbles with a vacuum in between. There is definitely some measured influence back from Christianity which reinforces monogamy. Your idea that monogamy is due to Christianity is laughable though, and the degree to which Christianity influences western society is grossly overstated, usually by Christian authority. There is no doubt that monogamy would exist in western culture even in the absence of Christianity here, it exists in most cultures to varying degrees. Would there be less monogamy in western culture if not for Christianity? The most I’ll concede on that is that I don’t know. I’m sure there are arguments that can be made to show there might be more or there might be less. Give one and we’ll talk about what you proffer. Your claim that monogamy is in western society because of Christianity, that is absurd. I don’t feel I have to offer an alternative theory of where monogamy came from in western culture other than to say it appears in many, humanity has a long evolutionary history of monogamy. In that history you won’t find anyone that says monogamy has it’s roots in Christianity, except for some very conceited Christians of course, that probably believe that if you repeat some silly statement like that enough that it’s accepted as conventional thought. Humans had monogamy in western culture long before the US existed. Or any other “ism” existed in fact. Christianity is a footnote in that history.

    It’s no chicken and egg conundrum. Monogamy came before Christianity. There is even much evidence that points to monogamy evolving millions of years before humanity as it exists today. Those are the roots of monogamy and it exists within human behavior quite apart from the tenets of Christianity. The conceit is so thick in the assumption that Christianity is responsible for monogamy, even just in western culture, that you might as well say that we ultimately evolved necks in order to hold crucifixes on chains too. It’s no less an astounding claim.

    “In both Roman and Greek traditions, as well as the Celts to the north,
    marriage was both temporary, perfunctory, and certainly allowed for what
    we now call infidelity–most often with captured slaves and
    prostitutes.”

    Yes that’s very interesting as I said you can read all about that. Monogamy has existed a long time and in many forms. But again since you didn’t get the larger point I was making then there is not much to say here.

    “Chinese marriage is important for cross-cultural studies, as is the
    study of Indians and birds, because they also practice lifelong
    monogamy.  But you cannot find that it the West before
    Christianity, and therefore no direct lineage exists within the
    overwhelming majority of American religious, cultural, or legal
    practice.  ”

    Well, clearly monogamy wouldn’t exist in the west if not for Christianity then? Ridiculous. Of course it would as it does in most cultures. You want to split hairs over to what degree then by all means give your best argument. But your arrogation that monogamy has it’s roots from Christianity is ass backward in my opinion. I think that monogamy exists quite apart from religion, which means that perhaps we can only agree to disagree. I think that religion only adopted it from larger society for advantageous purposes and is not strictly speaking a “vessel” for monogamy, rather monogamy is just reflected in Christianity as an evolutionary human behavior which most cultures have to some degree or other, not just Christianity. You may not believe this but even in cultures that are considered polygynous there are still monogamous people and traditions and they are not even counted in small numbers. No really, it’s not all as black and white as you’d imagine. Though it is true that in western culture that polygamy is nothing like as popular as monogamy is in most polygamous cultures.

    “In your attempts to put forth a coherent retort to my historically
    backed claims, you fall short on evidence.  And clarity.  And brevity.”

    Historically backed claims? Sounded more like a lot of baseless assertions to me. Your first post more so. I did you the courtesy of leaving that first one alone. It was not very coherent so I was not motivated enough to respond to it to be honest. Your very first line was so much rhetorical rubbish. Lets have a look now though shall we?

    “First off, modern monogomous marriage has its roots in Catholic
    tradition, so to promote gay marriage while condemning its cultural
    roots is a confused endeavor at best.”

    So what is it about gay marriage that would violate any Catholic tenet about monogamy? After all, monogamy is simply marriage with only one person. So are we assuming that gay or lesbian couples somehow violate monogamy when they marry? Of course not. Yours is not a very coherent statement. We’re all aware it’s not the monogamous aspect of gay or lesbian marriage that sticks in the Catholics craw, now is it? They are actually very concerned with “who” people are having monogamous sex with rather than anything about monogamous commitments. So that first statement is either not very coherent or somewhat disingenuous.

    That Catholics are concerned with who gays and lesbians are having a monogamous relationship with is also beside the point. Which is why I gave that a pass the first time around. It hardly needed pointing out that your statement was incoherent. I chose to address your claim that monogamous marriage has it’s roots in Christianity instead. Seemed like a better use of my time. As I have pointed out at length in two posts now. Monogamy existed before Christianity and nobody need thank Christianity for it, not even gay and lesbian couples. Though they are not wholly wrong when they point their fingers at Catholicism and other religions when they are not allowed to have the same rights as heterosexual couples in a monogamous relationship. So it is really ironic that religions are probably the most responsible for gays and lesbians not having those rights and you have the gall to sit there and say they should actually be thanking Christianity for starting the whole monogamy thing rolling. Oh the irony.

  • louieloui

    About time we reclaim our freedom to live without Christianity pointing its disapproving finger — however we should also not create a hole in our culture for Islam to fill — or other similar religions. It seems a belief in a god empowers people to impose their god derived beliefs on all. In order to spread their beliefs they attempt to meld into the political power of a culture.

  • louieloui

    About time we reclaim our freedom to live without Christianity pointing its disapproving finger — however we should also not create a hole in our culture for Islam to fill — or other similar religions. It seems a belief in a god empowers people to impose their god derived beliefs on all. In order to spread their beliefs they attempt to meld into the political power of a culture.

  • louieloui

    About time we reclaim our freedom to live without Christianity pointing its disapproving finger — however we should also not create a hole in our culture for Islam to fill — or other similar religions. It seems a belief in a god empowers people to impose their god derived beliefs on all. In order to spread their beliefs they attempt to meld into the political power of a culture.

  • JoJoDancer

    Let me clarify my definitions before we go on.  Polygamy is the practice of taking more than one spouse.  Polygyny is the practice of men taking more than one wife.  From the ancient Near East to Africa, this is the most common form of marriage in human history.  Polyandry, the practice of one wife and multiple husbands, and is extremely rare outside of Tibet and two or three tribal societies.

    Monogamy at its most extreme is the practice of two people who pair off for the duration of their lives with no extramarital sexual activity.  This is taken for granted today, but is historically a rather new practice, going back only 1,600 years or so in the West.  In general, men have always prefered to take multiple wives, but only the strongest and wealthiest could maintain and afford so many ladies, so plenty were stuck with only one.

    Serial monogamy is the practice in which two people pair off exclusively for a time, and then move on to pair off with someone else after awhile.

    In what historians generally consider to be the Western World, combining both Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christians traditions, the norms were serial monogamy in the former, polygyny in the latter–until, of course, the Catholic church forced the practice of total, lifelong monogamy in the Early Middle Ages.

    If you have any references that give evidence of exclusive, lifelong monogamy–which is the marriage tradition now taken for granted in America–in the Western World before the Early Middle Ages, I will be happy to read them and continue discussion.  You must know something that I don’t, so you have my undivided attention.

    Your abstract argument is compelling, and I agree with your theory that religious norms function in a feedback loop with the larger society.  Rabbi Hillel had a version of the Golden Rule before Jesus was born, but Hillel had very few followers in comparison.  Therefore we attribute the widespread adoption of the Golden Rule with Jesus.

    Total monogamy may have existed in the West before Catholicism, but to my knowledge was never so widespread as to be recorded in the historical record.  Therefore we can only imagine.  If you have specific historical evidence, please, let me know.

  • Tuna Ghost

    Nonsense, eventually the gorillas will just freeze to death

  • Tuna Ghost

    All religious debate aside, including the puzzling comparison of christianity and scientology (I’m usually game to jump in the “religion is dumb/no YOU’RE dumb” shouting contest, but not right now), is this “Free Speech Moment” actually a thing?  Or did the author just come up with a lame excuse to write a single vague paragraph?

  • Tuna Ghost

    All religious debate aside, including the puzzling comparison of christianity and scientology (I’m usually game to jump in the “religion is dumb/no YOU’RE dumb” shouting contest, but not right now), is this “Free Speech Moment” actually a thing?  Or did the author just come up with a lame excuse to write a single vague paragraph?

  • wizard troll

    LONG COMMENT!

  • wizard troll

    LONG COMMENT!

  • Guest

    Fuck You Christian Bastards! Shit your Fucking Mouths and Kill yourselves, its the only way to save Humanity. You are the Devil you seek to find … Faith and Belief serve no man, they are “The Serpents Fellow”. Faith and Belief are the very Antithesis of Knowledge and Wisdom. REPENT for your inability to be content in the pursuit of Wisdom and to fall prey to your own Feeble Minds to serve no other that THE DEVIL WITHIN YOU!

  • Guest

    Fuck You Christian Bastards! Shit your Fucking Mouths and Kill yourselves, its the only way to save Humanity. You are the Devil you seek to find … Faith and Belief serve no man, they are “The Serpents Fellow”. Faith and Belief are the very Antithesis of Knowledge and Wisdom. REPENT for your inability to be content in the pursuit of Wisdom and to fall prey to your own Feeble Minds to serve no other that THE DEVIL WITHIN YOU!

  • Guest

    Fuck You Christian Bastards! Shit your Fucking Mouths and Kill yourselves, its the only way to save Humanity. You are the Devil you seek to find … Faith and Belief serve no man, they are “The Serpents Fellow”. Faith and Belief are the very Antithesis of Knowledge and Wisdom. REPENT for your inability to be content in the pursuit of Wisdom and to fall prey to your own Feeble Minds to serve no other that THE DEVIL WITHIN YOU!

  • Guest

    Fuck You Christian Bastards! Shit your Fucking Mouths and Kill yourselves, its the only way to save Humanity. You are the Devil you seek to find … Faith and Belief serve no man, they are “The Serpents Fellow”. Faith and Belief are the very Antithesis of Knowledge and Wisdom. REPENT for your inability to be content in the pursuit of Wisdom and to fall prey to your own Feeble Minds to serve no other that THE DEVIL WITHIN YOU!

  • Guest

    Fuck You Christian Bastards! Shit your Fucking Mouths and Kill yourselves, its the only way to save Humanity. You are the Devil you seek to find … Faith and Belief serve no man, they are “The Serpents Fellow”. Faith and Belief are the very Antithesis of Knowledge and Wisdom. REPENT for your inability to be content in the pursuit of Wisdom and to fall prey to your own Feeble Minds to serve no other that THE DEVIL WITHIN YOU!

  • Guest

    Fuck You Christian Bastards! Shit your Fucking Mouths and Kill yourselves, its the only way to save Humanity. You are the Devil you seek to find … Faith and Belief serve no man, they are “The Serpents Fellow”. Faith and Belief are the very Antithesis of Knowledge and Wisdom. REPENT for your inability to be content in the pursuit of Wisdom and to fall prey to your own Feeble Minds to serve no other that THE DEVIL WITHIN YOU!

  • Guest

    Fuck You Christian Bastards! Shit your Fucking Mouths and Kill yourselves, its the only way to save Humanity. You are the Devil you seek to find … Faith and Belief serve no man, they are “The Serpents Fellow”. Faith and Belief are the very Antithesis of Knowledge and Wisdom. REPENT for your inability to be content in the pursuit of Wisdom and to fall prey to your own Feeble Minds to serve no other that THE DEVIL WITHIN YOU!

  • Guest

    Fuck You Christian Bastards! Shit your Fucking Mouths and Kill yourselves, its the only way to save Humanity. You are the Devil you seek to find … Faith and Belief serve no man, they are “The Serpents Fellow”. Faith and Belief are the very Antithesis of Knowledge and Wisdom. REPENT for your inability to be content in the pursuit of Wisdom and to fall prey to your own Feeble Minds to serve no other that THE DEVIL WITHIN YOU!

  • Guest

    Fuck You Christian Bastards! Shit your Fucking Mouths and Kill yourselves, its the only way to save Humanity. You are the Devil you seek to find … Faith and Belief serve no man, they are “The Serpents Fellow”. Faith and Belief are the very Antithesis of Knowledge and Wisdom. REPENT for your inability to be content in the pursuit of Wisdom and to fall prey to your own Feeble Minds to serve no other that THE DEVIL WITHIN YOU!

  • Guest

    Yes, that’s all fine and true, but to agree with this statement you must understand *why* exactly he condemns Christianity, not just be condemning Christianity just because we all know how *some* Christians can be.  Christianity, as an institution, has completely brainwashed people into believing there is only ONE God, you see, *that* God.  Individuals are born with the instinct to find God, a God, their God, whatever… Christianity got the monopoly on the game of human instinct and if you are an inhabitant of the Western world, you have either chosen to follow it or rebelled against it, thinking either that you agree with the image of God they are giving you or this image does not seem *right* to you (along with the rest of the indoctrination).  People often walk away from Christianity sore and angry and unable to see the big picture (the God-big-picture) ever again sometimes, resorting to atheism or agnosticism or choosing to align with another religion entirely.  This not only affects a person on an individual level, but creates a ripple-effect that wakes over an entire land mass, causing people to be unable to connect with a God, therefore unable to connect with themselves and other people, resulting in, now, where media is spewing hatred, we join together to hate people, hate, hate, hate and war with one another, judging one another.  That’s what happens.  Christianity ripped humanity apart because of this one, single fundamental idea.  Now, yes, I condemn Christianity, as an institution (not the people within it), as well.

  • GuestSpam

    You’re an anti religious bigot. You’re a fascist hater. You’re a hyprocrite who wants tollerance for your group but shows no tollerance for anyone else on the planet. I laugh at you and I spit in your face. And shit, I’m not even christian, I’m a fucking Buddhist.

  • GuestSpam

    You’re an anti religious bigot. You’re a fascist hater. You’re a hyprocrite who wants tollerance for your group but shows no tollerance for anyone else on the planet. I laugh at you and I spit in your face. And shit, I’m not even christian, I’m a fucking Buddhist.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2HVZZCZC5I67WBON4CHZJG2BGY maudrindead

    Or.. we could check out integralinstitute.org and maybe see how to manage these mutual hostilities.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2HVZZCZC5I67WBON4CHZJG2BGY maudrindead

    Or.. we could check out integralinstitute.org and maybe see how to manage these mutual hostilities.

  • duh

    ugh…

  • duh

    ugh…