twitter quotes

ashleyrebeccah

I wish antis would stop complaining ab not wanting 2pay 4 abortion. I don't agree w war so I guess I shouldn't have 2pay 4 that.

PPact

RT @KiaJD: My dating motto/Don't sleep with anti-choice boys/they don't understand

antitheistangie

So tired of random Christians demanding I explain morality for them. If you can't understand how to treat people, that's not MY fault/issue.

beyondmythology

RT @AtheistQOTD - "Religion attacks us in our deepest integrity by saying we wouldn't be able to make a moral decision without it" ~Hitchens

antitheistangie

Rick Warren's #Christianity seems to be anti-humanism. "You're worthless & disgusting & only here to kiss god's ass for eternity." Yucky.

"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion"

When the Anti-Choice Choose

By Joyce Arthur

Copyright © September, 2000

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the solution she would deny to other women -- abortion.

In the spring of 2000, I collected the following anecdotes directly from abortion doctors and other clinic staff in North America, Australia, and Europe. The stories are presented in the providers' own words, with minor editing for grammar, clarity, and brevity. Names have been omitted to protect privacy.

"I have done several abortions on women who have regularly picketed my clinics, including a 16 year old schoolgirl who came back to picket the day after her abortion, about three years ago. During her whole stay at the clinic, we felt that she was not quite right, but there were no real warning bells. She insisted that the abortion was her idea and assured us that all was OK. She went through the procedure very smoothly and was discharged with no problems. A quite routine operation. Next morning she was with her mother and several school mates in front of the clinic with the usual anti posters and chants. It appears that she got the abortion she needed and still displayed the appropriate anti views expected of her by her parents, teachers, and peers." (Physician, Australia)

"I've had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, 'You're not going to tell them, are you!?' When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn't want this to interfere with it." (Physician, Texas)

"In 1990, in the Boston area, Operation Rescue and other groups were regularly blockading the clinics, and many of us went every Saturday morning for months to help women and staff get in. As a result, we knew many of the 'antis' by face. One morning, a woman who had been a regular 'sidewalk counselor' went into the clinic with a young woman who looked like she was 16-17, and obviously her daughter. When the mother came out about an hour later, I had to go up and ask her if her daughter's situation had caused her to change her mind. 'I don't expect you to understand my daughter's situation!' she angrily replied. The following Saturday, she was back, pleading with women entering the clinic not to 'murder their babies.'" (Clinic escort, Massachusetts)

"We too have seen our share of anti-choice women, ones the counselors usually grit their teeth over. Just last week a woman announced loudly enough for all to hear in the recovery room, that she thought abortion should be illegal. Amazingly, this was her second abortion within the last few months, having gotten pregnant again within a month of the first abortion. The nurse handled it by talking about all the carnage that went on before abortion was legalized and how fortunate she was to be receiving safe, professional care. However, this young woman continued to insist it was wrong and should be made illegal. Finally the nurse said, 'Well, I guess we won't be seeing you here again, not that you're not welcome.' Later on, another patient who had overheard this exchange thanked the nurse for her remarks." (Clinic Administrator, Alberta)

"We saw a woman recently who after four attempts and many hours of counseling both at the hospital and our clinic, finally, calmly and uneventfully, had her abortion. Four months later, she called me on Christmas Eve to tell me that she was not and never was pro-choice and that we failed to recognize that she was clinically depressed at the time of her abortion. The purpose of her call was to chastise me for not sending her off to the psych unit instead of the procedure room." (Clinic Administrator, Alberta)

"Recently, we had a patient who had given a history of being a 'pro-life' activist, but who had decided to have an abortion. She was pleasant to me and our initial discussion was mutually respectful. Later, she told someone on my staff that she thought abortion is murder, that she is a murderer, and that she is murdering her baby. So before doing her procedure, I asked her if she thought abortion is murder -- the answer was yes. I asked her if she thought I am a murderer, and if she thought I would be murdering her baby, and she said yes. But murder is a crime, and murderers are executed. Is this a crime? Well, it should be, she said. At that point, she became angry and hostile, and the summary of the conversation was that she regarded me as an abortion-dispensing machine, and how dare I ask her what she thinks. After explaining to her that I do not perform abortions for people who think I am a murderer or people who are angry at me, I declined to provide her with medical care. I do not know whether she found someone else to do her abortion." (Physician, Colorado)

"In 1973, after Roe v. Wade, abortion became legal but had to be performed in a hospital. That of course was changed later. For the first 'legal abortion day' I had scheduled five procedures. While scrubbing between cases, I was accosted by the Chief of the OB/Gyn service. He asked me, 'How many children are you going to kill today?' My response, out of anger, was a familiar vulgar retort. About three months later, this born-again Christian called me to explain that he was against abortion but his daughter was only a junior in high school and was too young to have a baby and he was also afraid that if she did have a baby she would not want to put it up for adoption. I told him he did not need to explain the situation to me. 'All I need to know', I said, 'is that SHE wants an abortion.' Two years later I performed a second abortion on her during her college break. She thanked me and pleaded, 'Please don't tell my dad, he is still anti-abortion.'" (Physician, Washington State)

"The sister of a Dutch bishop in Limburg once visited the abortion clinic in Beek where I used to work in the seventies. After entering the full waiting room she said to me, 'My dear Lord, what are all those young girls doing here?' 'Same as you', I replied. 'Dirty little dames,' she said." (Physician, The Netherlands)

"I had a patient about ten years ago who traveled up to New York City from South Carolina for an abortion. I asked her why she went such a long way to get the procedure. Her answer was that she was a member of a church group that didn't believe in abortion and she didn't want anyone to know she was having one. She planned to return to the group when she went back to South Carolina." (Physician, New York)

"I once had a German client who greatly thanked me at the door, leaving after a difficult 22-week abortion. With a gleaming smile, she added: 'Und doch sind Sie ein Mörderer.' ('And you're still a murderer.')" (Physician, The Netherlands)

"My first encounter with this phenomenon came when I was doing a 2-week follow-up at a family planning clinic. The woman's anti-choice values spoke indirectly through her expression and body language. She told me that she had been offended by the other women in the abortion clinic waiting room because they were using abortion as a form of birth control, but her condom had broken so she had no choice! I had real difficulty not pointing out that she did have a choice, and she had made it! Just like the other women in the waiting room." (Physician, Ontario)

"A 21 year old woman and her mother drove three hours to come to their appointment for an abortion. They were surprised to find the clinic a 'nice' place with friendly, personable staff. While going over contraceptive options, they shared that they were Pro-Life and disagreed with abortion, but that the patient could not afford to raise a child right now. Also, she wouldn't need contraception since she wasn't going to have sex until she got married, because of her religious beliefs. Rather than argue with them, I saw this as an opportunity for dialogue, and in the end, my hope was that I had planted a 'healing seed' to help resolve the conflict between their beliefs and their realities." (Physician, Washington State)

"I had a 37 year old woman just yesterday who was 13 weeks. She said she and her husband had been discussing this pregnancy for 2-3 months. She was strongly opposed to abortion, 'but my husband is forcing me to do it.' Naturally, I told her that no one could force her into an abortion, and that she had to choose whether the pregnancy or her husband were more important. I told her I only wanted what was best for her, and I would not do the abortion unless she agreed that it was in her best interest. Once she was faced with actually having to voice her own choice, she said 'Well, I made the appointment and I came here, so go ahead and do it. It's what's best.' At last I think she came to grips with the fact that it really was her decision after all." (Physician, Nevada)

"We have anti-choice women in for abortions all the time. Many of them are just naive and ignorant until they find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. Many of them are not malicious. They just haven't given it the proper amount of thought until it completely affects them. They can be judgmental about their friends, family, and other women. Then suddenly they become pregnant. Suddenly they see the truth. That it should only be their own choice. Unfortunately, many also think that somehow they are different than everyone else and they deserve to have an abortion, while no one else does." (Physician, Washington State)

Although few studies have been made of this phenomenon, a study done in 1981 (1) found that 24% of women who had abortions considered the procedure morally wrong, and 7% of women who'd had abortions disagreed with the statement, "Any woman who wants an abortion should be permitted to obtain it legally." A 1994/95 survey (2,3) of nearly 10,000 abortion patients showed 18% of women having abortions are born-again or Evangelical Christians. Many of these women are likely anti-choice. The survey also showed that Catholic women have an abortion rate 29% higher than Protestant women. A Planned Parenthood handbook on abortion notes that nearly half of all abortions are for women who describe themselves as born-again Christian, Evangelical Christian, or Catholic. (4)

According to a 1987 article, Abortion Clinics' Toughest Cases,(5) "Physicians and clinics frequently terminate pregnancies for women who believe abortion is 'murder' and 'a sin' but who are not anti-abortion activists. Demonstrators, organizers, and leaders in the [anti-abortion] movement are seen less frequently, ranging from perhaps once or twice a month to a few times in the course of a professional career." The article contained the following anecdotes:

An administrator at a Missouri clinic recalled a woman blurting out in the recovery room, "It should be illegal." The other women's mouths fell open, said the administrator. "They couldn't believe it."

The medical director of an Indianapolis clinic recalled one prospective patient who phoned to ask whether the clinic had a back door. He said no. How, she asked, could she get inside without being seen by fellow picketers outside? Pointing out that two orthopedists practiced with him, the doctor told the woman "she could limp and say she was coming to see the orthopods."

The medical director at a Dallas abortion clinic told this story: A white woman from an affluent north Dallas neighborhood brought her black maid in for an abortion and paid for it. While the maid was in a counseling session, a commotion was heard in the waiting room outside. The maid's employer was handing out anti-abortion leaflets to other women waiting for abortions.

From a clinic director in a mid-western state: "One of the most remarkable cases was a woman who came [from another part of the state] and said she was the Right-to-Life president in her county. 'But,' she said, she 'had become pregnant and had to have an abortion.'"

From a counselor in Virginia: "[The patient] was disturbed and upset and insisted she couldn't carry the pregnancy to term. She opposed abortion -- and in fact had picketed this very clinic -- [but] felt the abortion was something she had to do."

Many anti-choice women are convinced that their need for abortion is unique -- not like those "other" women -- even though they have abortions for the same sorts of reasons. Anti-choice women often expect special treatment from clinic staff. Some demand an abortion immediately, wanting to skip important preliminaries such as taking a history or waiting for blood test results. Frequently, anti-abortion women will refuse counseling (such women are generally turned away or referred to an outside counselor because counseling at clinics is mandatory). Some women insist on sneaking in the back door and hiding in a room away from other patients. Others refuse to sit in the waiting room with women they call "sluts" and "trash." Or if they do, they get angry when other patients in the waiting room talk or laugh, because it proves to them that women get abortions casually, for "convenience".

A few behave in a very hostile manner, such as calling clinic staff "murderers." Years ago, a clinic counselor in British Columbia told me that one of her patients went into the procedure room apparently fine with her decision to have an abortion. During the abortion, at a stage when it was too late to stop the procedure, the woman started screaming "You murderers!" and other invectives at everyone in the room.

A few doctors actually refuse to provide abortions to anti-choice women for liability reasons. In the words of a Kansas physician:

"Early in my career, I thought I was obligated to provide an abortion for every woman who arrived at my doorstep requesting an abortion. My experience in general medicine, surgery, and abortion has led me to believe differently. Not inadvertently, women give either me or my staff an uneasy feeling about their ambivalence or their anxiety about the abortion process. Since I have never been sued for an abortion I did not perform, my policy is to acknowledge my gut feeling, which is more often right than wrong."

A clinic counselor from Georgia stated:

"I have long felt that anti-abortionism is a psychological contraindication to the abortion procedure. And that we don't have to give everyone who asks an abortion. An anti-abortion woman is likely to be uncooperative and will probably not follow post-op instructions or instructions on how to deal with complications. There is actually a case where an anti-abortion patient failed to go as directed to Emergency for an unrelated complication. She ended up dying, and her family sued the physician and badgered him publicly. Additionally, if you have a complication that day, it will be the anti-abortionist. I'm not talking about the patient who says, 'I was against abortion until it happened to me', or 'I'm really against abortion, but I have to do this'. I'm talking about the picketer, the activist, the totally anti-creature who will come back to haunt us."

In fact, an anti-abortion organization called Life Dynamics Inc., of Denton Texas, specializes in malpractice suits against abortion providers. They advertise for and exploit women who regret their abortion decision or who had complications, and try and persuade them to file suit against the doctor or clinic. Many of these women are vulnerable and suffer from emotional problems, but others are anti-abortion, or at least very ambivalent about their decision to have an abortion. The message that abortion is murder has had a profound influence on them, and it may leave them with a legacy of guilt and shame after their abortion, too often borne alone and in silence. When these women find themselves unable to cope with their abortions, they may look for somebody else to blame, and doctors become a convenient scapegoat.

At times, clinic staff understandably become frustrated and angry when they have to deal with abusive, hostile, or hypocritical patients. And it is rare for anti-choice women to express appreciation for the service they've received. But most clinics perform abortions on anti-abortion women because they feel it's their obligation to help all women. They provide more thorough and specialized counseling to these women to ensure they take ownership of their decision, as far as possible. Here's a couple of examples of counseling techniques:

"When a patient comes in with my 'favorite' sentiment: 'The only moral abortion is my abortion,' I try to expand her understanding that a few more of us have had and deserve a 'moral' abortion. When a woman expands her need for care beyond herself, you no longer have an 'anti'." (Clinic Administrator, Louisiana)

"Sometimes I say to patients who have that 'I have no choice, I know I'll regret it, just do me' attitude: 'You may not care, but we do. We only do abortions on women who want our services. We will not knowingly contribute to any possible trauma of any woman.' They seem surprised that we care how we do our work, but they also accept it." (Counselor, New York)

Some anti-choice women who have abortions do make peace with their decision and even become pro-choice, or at least more forgiving of other women seeking abortions. A Louisiana patient who was anti-choice before her abortion, wrote a warm and grateful thank-you letter to the clinic, admitting that she had been a hypocrite:

"I never dreamed, in my wildest nightmares, that there would ever be a situation where I personally would choose such an act. Of course, we would each like to think that our reasons for a termination are the exception to the rule. But the bottom line is that you people spend your lives, reputations, careers and energy fighting for, maintaining, and providing an option that I needed, while I spent my energy lambasting you. Yet you still allowed me to make use of your services even though I had been one of your enemies. You treated us as kindly and warmly as you did all of your patients and never once pointed an 'I told you so' finger in our direction. I got the impression that you cared equally about each woman in the facility and what each woman was going through, regardless of her reasons for choosing the procedure. I have never met a group of purely non-judgmental people like yourselves."

On occasion, an abortion turns out to be a momentous, life-affirming experience for an anti-choice woman. A doctor from a north-western state shared the following personal story with me:

"I was born into a very Catholic family, and was politically pro-life during college. After dating my first real boyfriend for three years, we broke up, and the day my boyfriend moved out, I discovered I was pregnant. It was an agonizing decision, and something I never thought I would do, but I decided an abortion was the only realistic option. Thanks to Planned Parenthood counseling, I worked through some very tough conflicts within myself. I had to learn that my decision was a loving one. That 'my god' was actually a loving and supportive god. And that men don't have to make this decision, only women do. That it is a very personal, individual decision. I had to own it. I became much more compassionate towards myself and others as a result of my experience. Two years later I began medical school. When it came time to choose a practice, an abortion clinic opportunity came up. In working there, I began to feel that this was my calling. Having been in my patients' shoes, and coming from an unforgiving background, I could honestly say to patients, 'I know how you feel.' Deciding to have an abortion was THE hardest decision I've ever made in my life. Yet it has brought me the greatest transformation, fulfillment, and now joy. I am a more loving person because of it, and a better doctor for having experienced it. I love the work that I do, and the opportunity to support women seeking to end an unwanted pregnancy. My patients and my work are life's gifts to me, and I think my compassion and support are my gifts in return."

---

1. Henshaw, S.K. and G. Martire. 1982. Abortion and the Public Opinion Polls: 1. Morality and Legality. Family Planning Perspectives. 14:2, pp 53-60, March/April.

2. The Alan Guttmacher Institute. 1996. Abortion Common Among All Women, Even Those Thought to Oppose Abortion. http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/archives/prabort2.html

3. Henshaw, S.K. and K. Kost. 1996. Abortion Patients in 1994-1995: Characteristics and Contraceptive Use. Family Planning Perspectives. 28:4, July/August. http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/2814096.html

4. Planned Parenthood of America. Pro-Choice Debate Handbook. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/politicalarena/Pro-Choice_Debate_Handbook.html#4

5. Medical World News. 1987. Abortion Clinic's Toughest Cases. pp 55-61. March 9.

Biblical ways to get a wife

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/07/top-16-ways-to-get-woman-wife-according.html

TOP 16 WAYS TO GET A WOMAN/ WIFE ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE

By John W. Loftus at 7/30/2010

This list was sent to me by Ed Babinski:
1) Find an attractive prisoner of war, bring her home, shave her head, trim her nails, and give her new clothes. Then she’s yours. (Deut. 21:11-13) [About the command that her nails be trimmed, you wouldn’t want her to scratch your eyes out, would you? "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and they Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou has taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldst have her to wife, Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare [trim] her nails." (Deut. 21:10,11,12)]
2) “Lay hold on” a virgin who is not betrothed to another man, and have sex with her, but afterwards pay her father a sum of money. Then she’s yours. (Deut. 22:28-29)
3) Find a prostitute and marry her. (Hosea 1:1-3)
4) Find a man with seven daughters, and impress him by watering his flock.--Moses (Ex. 2:16-21)
5) Purchase a piece of property, and get a woman as part of the deal.--Boaz (Ruth 4:5-10)
6) Go to a party and hide. When the women come out to dance, grab one and carry her off to be your wife.--Benjaminites (Judges 21:19-25)
7) Have God create a wife for you while you sleep.Note: this will cost you a rib.--Adam (Gen. 2:19-24)
8) Agree to work seven years in exchange for a woman’s hand in marriage. Get tricked into marrying the wrong woman. Then work another seven years for the woman you wanted to marry in the first place. That’s right. Fourteen years of toil for a wife.--Jacob (Gen. 29:15-30)
9) Cut 200 foreskins off of your future father-in-law’s enemies and get his daughter for a wife.--David (1 Sam. 18:27)
10) Even if no one is out there, just wander around a bit and you’ll definitely find someone.--Cain (Gen. 4:16-17)
11) Become the emperor of a huge nation and hold a beauty contest.--Xerxes or Ahasuerus (Esther 2:3-4)
12) When you see someone you like, go home and tell your parents, “I have seen a woman; now get her for me.” If your parents question your decision, simply say, “Get her for me. She’s the one for me.”--Samson (Judges 14:1-3)
13) Kill any husband and take HIS wife. (Prepare to lose four sons though.)--David (2 Sam. 11)
14) Wait for your brother to die. Take his widow. (It’s not just a good idea, it’s the law!)--Onan and Boaz (Deut. or Lev., example in Ruth)
15) Don’t be so picky. Make up for quality with quantity.--Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-3)
16) A wife?--Paul (1st Corinthians, chapter 7, see below)
It is good for a man not to touch a woman … For I would that all men were even as I myself… I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I… But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn… I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be… Are you loosed from a wife? seek not a wife… The time is short: it remains that they that have wives be as though they had none… He that is unmarried cares for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married cares for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married cares for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your own profit… that you may attend upon the Lord without distraction. - 1 Corinthians 7:1,7,8-9,26-27,29,32-35

The bible is not a historical textbook

http://atheistclimber.wordpress.com/2010/08/01/the-bible-is-not-a-historical-textbook/

I’m scared for the future of Australia, and I’ll tell you why.

Recently I have been reading reports of education in Queensland that sugest that people who believe the logical fallacies of the Bible have been teaching biblical writings as historical fact. I don’t need to break the bible down piece by piece to show you why it is illogical or why the stories in it are ludicrous, but I do want to point you at this article which states that “Primary school students are being taught that man and dinosaurs walked the Earth together and that there is fossil evidence to prove it.” At first I thought it was a joke, and checked my calendar to ensure it wasn’t April 1st and not August 1st.

I admit, I have no problem with teaching Religious Studies in schools. In fact I think we should present all sides of the religious picture, tell the children that every religions claims to be the “one true religion”, point out all the similarities and differences between the theistic writings, and let the kids work it out for themselves that religion is nonsensical. This knowledge would also be excellent in that it would teach the children about the history of humanity, and about this seemingly natural propensity that all humans have to want to believe in something outside the physical world. And I think all religions should be taught, not just the popular ones. How different would our opinions of religious texts be if we were to teach them as simply works of litereature, and not divine words from above?

I agree with Sam Harris when he says “I view religions as essentially failed sciences.” We naturally want to try and explain everything that happens to us and around us, and when we didn’t know the answer we would try and fill this viod with something. If you fill this void with God, then you don’t need to wonder about the causes of things, and you can move on to more  important things in your life, and leave godly matters God to worry about. If we had stayed as ignorant about our world as we were when religions were formed we would neve have progressed to the point we have now. We would have never questioned why the sun rose, or why water turns to ice, or what causes volcanoes. We would have simply just been happy with the unfounded knowledge that God did it. Whereas once we would ascribe natural disasters to an angry deity, we now know the causes of these disasters, and yet we still hold on to God.

Fundamentalism seems to be on the rise in Australia, which is very alarming. Earlier this year there was a report saying that Creationism was going to be included in the National Curriculum in Queensland schools. Now we hear that some teachers have been making things up to support the information of the Bible. It is a worrying trend, and I really think that if this kind of teaching is allowed, not only are we going to raise our children as ignorant and unquestioning, but that we as a nation will eventually be dumbed-down because of it.

This is not the time to be teaching our children badly. From a bad education comes bad decisions. We have already proven as a species that our uninformed decisions can be the cause of some of the most disastrous situtions and consequences. Let’s move forward with what we have learned, and not fall back on the mysticism and magic from our historical ignorance.

How the dumbing down of America plays out online

Perhaps I'm a glutton for punishment, or maybe I just like swimming upstream, but for whatever reason, I enjoy walking into the lion's den to debate hot-button issues with those who I know from the outset are not natural political allies.  Nearly every day, I engage others on their Facebook profiles, Twitter accounts and other forums to debate serious issues that tend to divide Americans along religious, ethnic, cultural or sexual divides. I do this because of a hope that I can appeal to the intellectual honesty of anyone participating in such a conversation so as to find some sort of common ground.  All too often in our partisan, "us vs. them" political discourse, we listen only to those who validate and reinforce what we already believe to be true and ignore all those whose points of view differ. I truly enjoy the challenge of doing just the opposite because, frankly, I find conversations only with people who agree with me to be exceedingly boring.

In my various conversations with those who I would consider to be part of the religious and regressive right, I’ve noticed a number of disturbing patterns in their argument styles that I believe to be at the core of our political gridlock and utter lack of bipartisanship in America today. I wish I could say that such patterns are just a byproduct of simple, easily-cured ignorance, however, the more I engage in political debates with those on the far-right fringe, the more I’m convinced that these argument styles are the intended effect of years of indoctrination by the religious and regressive right. It’s a lot easier to continue to peddle your failed ideology and ridiculous religious beliefs if your target audience is completely ill-equipped intellectually to challenge any assertions made by those who purport to lead them.

First and foremost among these disturbing argumentative patterns is the tendency to regurgitate statements from ideologues and demagogues without bothering to process the information first. Those who simply parrot Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh don’t stop for even a moment to consider the veracity of the statements or the context in which they’re made. Rather, what Beck and Limbaugh, among many others in the right wing echo chamber, have to say on any issue is accepted as absolute, indisputable fact and then simply repeated in the course of a debate on that topic. Just as Beck and Limbaugh do with such expertise, the rank and file of the religious and regressive right seem to believe that repeating something over and over, regardless of truth, somehow lends credence to the assertion being made. In any other context, it would be absurd – I could claim the sky is green ad naseum, it would never make it true. Nevertheless, repeating the verifiably false assertions over and over that President Obama wasn’t born in America or that he is a secret Muslim, to name but two examples, to the regressives, somehow makes those assertions true.

Beyond non-stop repetition of falsehoods in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the regressives also tend to reject any form of evidence that doesn’t comport neatly with the text of the bible. While I try my best to be respectful of others’ religious beliefs, I find it more than frustrating that modern, verified, duplicated scientific evidence is so casually rejected by those who cling to the belief that the earth was created 6000 years ago. Rather than consider the possibility that the bible might not be a literal account of history, science or even creation, the scientific evidence is discarded and no attempt is made to reconcile the bible’s inherent inconsistencies with the indisputable and overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. Carbon dating, astronomical observations, fossil records, ice core samples, seabed samples and archeological evidence notwithstanding, they’d prefer to believe that counting the number of “begets” in the bible is a more accurate way to determine the age of the earth. Therefore, rather than consider that the bible’s account may be incomplete, we get abominations like the Creation Museum where cavemen are depicted as having lived with dinosaurs.

Another tried and true method of regressive debating includes what I like to call the “I’m-rubber-you’re-glue” strategy of argument. Instead of addressing issues head on with an open mind and a modicum of intellectual honesty, the regressives will accuse the opposition of doing precisely what they’re doing in a pathetic attempt to hide the obvious lack of knowledge behind their beliefs. Take Fox “News’s” obsession with the New Black Panther Party, for instance. Instead of addressing the very real issue of racism within the ranks of the tea parties and the GOP, they try to obfuscate the deserved accusations of racism by referring to other, usually inconsequential, always incongruent, instances of bigotry and stupidity by some on the left in a curious attempt at shirking responsibility for their own words and actions. Anyone who dares call them out on this tactic is called a racist, as if calling someone out for making bigoted remarks is the same as actually making bigoted remarks. It’s not.

When all else fails, rather than considering the possibility that they might not have all the answers, they then stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes tightly and wait for the conversation to go away. With a click of a button, a political opponent is simply erased from the regressives’ universe by blocking anyone with whom they have a disagreement. Any and all conversations posted on their profiles that include even slightly divergent points of view are whitewashed to remove all evidence that a critical thinker with contrary opinions ever paid a visit and tried to come to some sort of common ground.

How pathetic.

FOLLOW LINK TO VIEW COMMENTS ON THIS POST

http://www.robertapplebaum.com/content/how-dumbing-down-america-plays-out-online

sex ed=fundy freakout

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/147593/right-wingers_freak_out_over_montana_sex_ed_curriculum?page=entire

This article is talking about the Helena school district and the recent push for comprehensive sex ed for fifth graders. I learned about sex when I was in fifth grade but my parents taught my brother and I before either of us had to take it, so this can’t be an uncommon age to start learning and discussing sexual relationships.

The conservatives and Christians are, shockingly, pissed off because the sexual curriculum goes beyond abstinence-only programs. So much so that they are encouraging parents to remove their children from school.

The comprehensive sex ed isn’t the only thing that the conservatives and Christians are vehemently pissed off about. They are pissed off because in the second grade, children will be discouraged to use gay slurs, like fag, homo, etc. and taught why they are hurtful. In addition, kindergartners will be taught that there is more than one type of family structure: two moms, two dads, one mom-one dad, step parents, single parents, etc.

They feel that by teaching children that other types of families exist it will make kindergarteners gay…because that is a completely reasonable assumption compared to the idea that kindergartners will simply become more tolerant of different lifestyles. Read the article if you want to read Muslim-hating (how Muslims play into this is really a stretch, but the good reverend quoted in the article is clearly trying to fear-monger and paint them all as terrorists), sex-shaming (it’s vile!) freak outs by a conservative Christian.

Love,

Rabble

http://rabbleprochoice.tumblr.com/post/863377636/montana-schools-propose-comprehensive-sex-ed

Faith Healing in Oregon

 http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/susan_nielsen/index.ssf/2010/07/faith_healing_in_oregon_a_pict.html#incart_mce

Clackamas County Sheriff's OfficeThe Clackamas County Sheriff's Office obtained photographs of 8-month-old Alayna May Wyland that show the fast-growing mass of blood vessels that may cause blindness in her left eye. Her parents, Timothy and Rebecca Wyland, were ordered to hand Alayna over to state officials, and could also face criminal charges.

We've talked long enough about faith healing in Oregon. We've shared countless earnest conversations about religious liberty and parental rights.
The time for words is over. Now it's time for pictures.
Another couple from the Followers of Christ church in Oregon City stand accused of criminal mistreatment for deliberately withholding medical care from their child. Timothy and Rebecca Wyland of Beavercreek believe in treating sickness with prayer rather than medicine, even when prayer doesn't work.
Their infant daughter, Alayna, has a serious eye problem, which they chose not to treat. Someone notified authorities and the state intervened, and now the Wylands are trying to regain custody of their daughter.
Those are the words, wholly inadequate.
Only the pictures do the story justice.
Photographs obtained from the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office show Alayna as a sweetly chubby baby with a grotesque protrusion on her face, distorting her eye. The mass is angry and purplish red and painful-looking with the radius of a tennis ball. In the grocery store, it would be visible from five aisles away.
A reasonable person wouldn't keep this child from a doctor.
A reasonable person would break down doors to find a doctor.
Medical experts describe the eye problem as a hemangioma, a fast-growing mass of blood vessels. Normally the condition could be diagnosed and easily treated at the first signs of swelling or discoloration. Left untreated, the mass pushed Alayna's eye down and out, placing profound pressure on her eyeball and eye socket, as The Oregonian's Steve Mayes reported.
It's not clear whether Alayna will go blind in that eye or somehow recover. The only certain thing is that the Wylands deliberately withheld medical care, and admitted in court to doing so, from a baby whose injury was painfully obvious.
This is a not a sad instance of an unanswered prayer. This is a textbook case of medical mistreatment and neglect, with photographs to answer the questions that words cannot.
Over the past three decades, more than 20 Oregon children whose parents belong to the Followers of Christ church have died of treatable illnesses, according to the state medical examiner's office. Yet Oregon grants special leniency to faith-healing parents, singling them out favorably in state policy and protecting them from being charged with certain crimes.
In a 1999 compromise, the Oregon Legislature stripped away some of those legal protections but gave judges the authority to give lighter sentences to faith-healing parents. In recent years, Clackamas County authorities have successfully prosecuted two couples for the preventable deaths of their children. Things are moving in the right direction.
Still, Oregon remains a national outlier for its level of deference toward faith-based crime.
Oregon should get rid of its remaining double standards. Juries have proved themselves to be fully capable of taking faith into account as they weigh criminal intent, much as they consider addiction and other factors in other sad cases involving children.
Meanwhile, maybe we should spend more time studying the photographs of these kids. The smiling ones, now gone. The injured ones, now recovering.
These children might not fully appreciate Oregon's treatment of faith healing as an abstract intellectual issue, one requiring lots of discussion plus the perfect blend of libertarian distance and liberal tolerance.
Given a choice, they might prefer more action, fewer words.

I have a simple solution to nip this kind of abuse in the bud. Don't wait for parents to neglect their children when they follow misguided religious practices. Prosecute anyone who preaches that prayer may be used as an acceptable alternative for medical treatment of a child under the age of majority.

FGM

Female circumcision will be inflicted on up to 2,000 British schoolgirls during the summer holidays – leaving brutal physical and emotional scars. Yet there have been no prosecutions against the practice

Like any 12-year-old, Jamelia was excited at the prospect of a plane journey and a long summer holiday in the sun. An avid reader, she had filled her suitcases with books and was reading Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban when her mother came for her. “She said, ‘You know it’s going to be today?’ I didn’t know exactly what it would entail but I knew something was going to be cut. I was made to believe it was genuinely part of our religion.”

She went on: “I came to the living room and there were loads of women. I later found out it was to hold me down, they bring lots of women to hold the girl down. I thought I was going to be brave so I didn’t really need that. I just lay down and I remember looking at the ceiling and staring at the fan.

“I don’t remember screaming, I remember the ridiculous amount of pain, I remember the blood everywhere, one of the maids, I actually saw her pick up the bit of flesh that they cut away ’cause she was mopping up the blood. There was blood everywhere.”

Some 500 to 2,000 British schoolgirls will be genitally mutilated over the summer holidays. Some will be taken abroad, others will be “cut” or circumcised and sewn closed here in the UK by women already living here or who are flown in and brought to “cutting parties” for a few girls at a time in a cost-saving exercise.

Then the girls will return to their schools and try to get on with their lives, scarred mentally and physically by female genital mutilation (FGM), a practice that serves as a social and cultural bonding exercise and, among those who are stitched up, to ensure that chastity can be proved to a future husband.

Even girls who suffer less extreme forms of FGM are unlikely to be promiscuous. One study among Egyptian women found 50% of women who had undergone FGM “endured” rather than enjoyed sex.

Cleanliness, neatness of appearance and the increased sexual pleasure for the man are all motivations for the practice. But the desire to conform to tradition is the most powerful motive. The rite of passage, condemned by many Islamic scholars, predates both the Koran and the Bible and possibly even Judaism, appearing in the 2nd century BC.

Although unable to give consent, many girls are compliant when they have the prodecure carried out, believing they will be outcasts if they are not cut. The mothers believe they are doing the best for their daughters. Few have any idea of the lifetime of hurt it can involve or the medical implications.

Jamelia, now 20, who says her whole personality changed afterwards.”I felt a lot older. It was odd because nobody says this is a secret, keep your mouth shut but that’s the message you get loud and clear.” She stopped the sports and swimming she used to love and became “strangely disconnected with her own body”. Other girls have died, of shock or blood loss; some have picked up infections from dirty tools. Jamelia’s mother paid extra for the woman to use a clean razor. It is thought that in the UK there are one or two doctors who can be bribed by the very rich to to carry out FGM using anaesthetic and sterilised instruments.

Comfort Momoh works at Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital in London, in one of the 16 clinics up and down the country who deal with FGM and its health repercusssions. Women who have had much of their external genitalia sliced off and their vaginas stitched closed, but for a tiny hole, also come to be cut open in order to give birth.

There are four types of female circumcision identified by the World Health Organisation, ranging from partial to total removal of the external female genitalia. Some 140 million women worldwide have been subjected to FGM and an estimated further two million are at risk every year. Most live in 28 African countries while others are in Yemen, Kurdistan, the US, Saudi Arabia, Australia and Canada.

The UK Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 makes it an offence to carry out FGM or to aid, abet or procure the service of another person. The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, makes it against the law for FGM to be performed anywhere in the world on UK permanent residents of any age and carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment. To date, no prosecutions have been made under UK legislation.

“Obviously in summer we get really anxious. All activists and professionals working around FGM get anxious because this is the time that families take their children back home. This is the time when all the professionals need to be really alert,” said Momoh.

“There is no hard evidence in figures about what is happening in the UK because it’s a hush-hush thing. It’s only now that a few people are beginning to talk about it, which is good because change will only come from within and the numbers coming forward are rising. But there is a lot of family pressure. When I first started in 1997 we had two clinics in the country, now we have 16.”

One woman told the Observer how a midwife examining her had raced retching and crying from the room. She had no idea she was “abnormal” before that happened. There is a clear need for women who have suffered FGM to be able to visit health professionals who understand what has happened to them. Momoh said that for those who wanted it, some surgical reversal work could sometimes be done on women with the most severe FGM procedure, Type III. For those with other types, counselling and support is all that can offered.

“Periods are agony – you get a lot of women who are determined to have reversals while they are having their period but then when the pain has stopped they lose their nerve again,” said Leyla Hussein, 29, who has had to have years of counselling to cope with her own anger and distress at what was done to her as a child. It has helped her forgive her own mother’s complicity in the mutilation she endured, though the older woman could not understand why Hussein would not have her own child, now aged seven, cut. But Hussein has vowed that she will be the last generation of women in her family to suffer.

“It was my husband who said on our honeymoon, ‘We are not going to do this thing to any child of ours.’ I was quite shocked, I hadn’t questioned it. But I now realise a lot of men are not in favour of FGM, not when you tell them the woman is not going to enjoy herself.”

Hussein is among a slowly but steadily growing band of women who have reacted against what happened to them with courage and a determination to stamp out FGM. Hussein has run support and discussion groups for affected women and for men, and formerly worked at the African Well Women’s Centre in Leyton, east London.

“I can really relate to some of the women who are very angry, but how do you blame your mother, who loves you yet planned this for you? There is a lot of anger and resentment. Many women blame themselves and of course there are flashbacks to deal with. I had blackouts – anytime I had to have a smear test, I would pass out because lying in that position brought it back to me, but the nurse is used to me now and allows a little more time with the appointment.”

“The new generation, born and raised here in Britain, they are used to expressing their views and it will be a lot harder to shut them up. Last month was the first ever march against FGM [in Bristol where 15 to 16 mothers protested] and that is a sign of something new.”

Asha-Kin Duale is a community partnership adviser in Camden, London. She talks to schools and to families about safeguarding children. “Culture has positive and negative issues for every immigrant community. We value some traditions, and most are largely good.

“FGM is not confined to African countries. It has no basis in Christianity, it has no basis in Islam; none of Muhammad’s daughters had it done. For some parents it is enough to let them know that and they will drop it completely. Everyone needs to understand that every child, no matter what the background or creed, is protected by this law in this land.”

She said there needed to be an understanding of why FGM took place, although that was not the same as accepting that the practice had a cultural justification.

“FGM has a social function and until this is understood by social services and other bodies they will never stop it. It is a power negotiation mechanism, that women use to ensure respect from men. It prevents rape of daughters and is a social tool to allow women to regain some power in patriarchal societies. With girls living in the UK there is no need to gain the power – it has to be understood that girls can be good girls without FGM.”

For Jason Morgan, a detective constable in the Met’s FGM unit, Project Azure, the solution lies with those girls themselves: “Empowering youth, giving them the information, is the way forward. They are coming from predominantly caring and loving families, who genuinely believe this is the right thing to do. Many are under a great deal of pressure from the extended families.

“Sometimes it might be as simple as delivering the message of what the legal position is; sometimes we even give them an official letter, a document that they can show to the extended family that states quite firmly what will happen if the procedure goes ahead. The focus has to be on prevention.”

Project Azure made 38 interventions in 2008, 59 in 2009 and 25 so far this year. For Morgan those statistics are just as important as getting a conviction. “We know it happens here although we have no official statistics, but we have seen very successful partnerships and we don’t want to alienate communities through heavy-handed tactics.

“While a prosecution would send out a very clear message to practising communities, really it is very difficult and you would be relying on medical evidence, and in turn that would all hinge or whether the child consents to an examination.”

But Naana Otoo-Oyortey is not so content with the softly-softly approach: “We have anecdotal evidence that it is being done here. So someone is not doing their job: it’s an indication that the government has been failing to protect children. The commitment is hollow.”

Head of the leading anti-FGM charity Forward UK, Otoo-Oyortey said people value the FGM tradition as something which holds a community together and gives it structure. “It’s seen as a party, a cutting party because it’s a celebration – people expect it as a way of welcoming a girl. A lot of women will mention to us that there have been no prosecutions here so why do we worry about the law? At the end of the day who will know?

“And we cannot just blame the women as the men are silently supporting it by paying for it. The new government’s lack of a position on FGM is very worrying. We don’t know what they will do, but we do know that the summer holidays are here again and we will be left to pick up the pieces in a few weeks’ time.”

And for those who will be “cut” this summer, the effects will be lifelong. Miriam was six when she had her cutting party at her home in Somalia, two years before war arrived to force her family out.

When she was 12, doctors were horrified to find that what they thought was a cyst in her body was actually several years of period blood that had been blocked from leaving her body. Unable to have children, she now lives and works in England and worries about other girls. “I’d seen so many people circumcised, all my neighbours, so I knew one day it was going to happen to me. We knew what was happening,” Miriam said.

“The little girls who were born in Europe have no clue. They will be traumatised a lot more. The only thing they know is that they are going away – that’s what they say, ‘We’re going on a holiday’.

“Then her life and her head are going to be messed up. It’s amazing how many people are in mental health care because of their culture. Don’t get me wrong, I have religion and culture and I love where I’m from and I love what I stand for. But culture should not be about torture.

“Why would anyone want to go and cut up a seven- or eight-year-old child? People need to wake up — you are hurting your child, you are hurting your daughter, you’re not going to have a grandchild, so wake up.”

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/25/female-circumcision-children-british-law

Anti-Gay student claims school forced her to accept homosexuality

http://www.towleroad.com/2010/07/antigay-student-claims-school-forced-her-to-accept-homosexuality.html

A female graduate student at Augusta State University is suing the school because she claims the public institution has violated her First Amendment rights by forcing her to accept homosexuality in order to graduate from her program in counselor education.

Jennifer Keeton, a Christian who believes that being gay is a choice (she thinks gays suffer from "identity confusion"), is represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal defense organization. WRDW reports:  

At the end of the first year, she was presented with a remediation plan, or courses to improve in certain areas. That plan includes classes to improve writing and grammar skills, as well as workshops to make her more sensitive to the gay population -- something her instructors say is necessary for her to be an effective counselor.
"The school counseling faculty has decided that my views are not acceptable for me or to share with other students," she says in a video statement produced by the Alliance Defense Fund. "They have required a remediation plan in which the end result would be me altering my beliefs or being dismissed from the program."
In a letter to Keeton, program directors say that is not the case.
In the letter, associate director Mary Jane Anderson-Wiley points to what she calls Keeton's "belief that you possess a special knowledge about the way that other people should live their lives, and that others need to adopt a similar set of values."
The letter goes on to say that "the content of [Keeton's] moral or religious beliefs is not in question."
According to the remediation plan, program directors are concerned about Keeton's ability to effectively council people who are gay or lesbian, citing class papers and comments where Keeton has disagreed with the gay "lifestyle."
The letter also cites an email from Keeton in which she says: "my Christian moral views are not just about me. I think the Bible's teaching is true for all people and it shows the right way to live."

Watch a news clip on the controversy, which includes interviews with students from Augusta State University who have varying opinions on the matter, AFTER THE JUMP.

Also, watch the short clip put together by the Alliance Defense Fund in which Keeton is interviewed and talks about being forced to her ditch her "biblical beliefs."

(VIDEO ON THE LINKED SITE BELOW.)

http://vimeo.com/13397121

Now I understand…

So, Them telling me I'm going to Hell, as their Moral Inferior= GOOD • Me telling them they're full of shit, PROVE IT! = HATEFUL!

“Thou Shall Not Ignore the Old Testament!”

New Testament Verses Which Demand Following the Old Testament and Law Contradictions:

    I hear so many Christians now a days claim that the Old Testament is defunct for Jesus was the “lamb” to clear away its rules and regulations.  This is just another bullshit scapegoat that Christians use to ignore the atrocities and bizarre laws commanded by their god.  Their preachers spoon feed them that the Old Testament is no longer binding so that they can excuse the majority of evil that the bible promotes.  I am so tired of Christians manipulating the scriptures so that they can assign a kinder nature to their God, that I have assembled a BRIEF list of verses which clearly show that the Old Testament is not to be ignored.  Its laws should indeed be adhered to, for the New Testament demands it!  After this section I shall list where the Bible contradicts itself concerning other laws.

1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”  (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)  Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself.  None other then Jesus said so.

2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever.  "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets.  He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament.  "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."  (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.  Mark.7:9-13  "Whoever curses father or mother shall die"  (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating.  He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”  (Matthew 15:4-7)

6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole.  The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell.  (Matthew 5:27)

7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.”  This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18

8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

9) “...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

Law Contradictions of the Bible:

10) Shall we obey the law?  Romans 13:1-7 says quite clearly that Christians are to submit to the law and regard it as the institution of God.  1 Peter 2:13-14  “Submit your self to every ordinance of man ... to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors.”  Matthew 22:21 “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s.” Also see Titus 3:1. Matthew 23:2-3 & Ecclesiastes 8:2 This leads one to assume that Christians must and should obey the law, yet look at these verses which contradicts what I just sited.  Acts 5:29  “We ought to obey God rather then men.”  Exodus 1:17-20 shows God punishing the midwives for following their rulers instead of God.  Also see Daniel 3:16-18, 6:7-10, Acts 4:26 & 27, Mark 12:38-40, Luke 23:11, 24 & 33-35 which all say the law should be ignored.  Now we know why Christians get away with their selective morality so often.

11) Should we steal?  (Exodus 20:15 & Leviticus 19:13)  Stealing is absolutely forbidden.  Yet, Exodus 3:21-22, 12:35-36 & Luke 19:29-34 all promote stealing.

12) Should we judge?  Jesus is quoted in Matthew 7:1-2: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.”  Also see Luke 6:37 & 1 Corinthians 5:12.  Now take a look at “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment”  (John 7:24).  Also note 1 Corinthians 5:12 & 6:2-4.

1 3) Should we covet?  Exodus 20:17 says, “Thou shalt not covet . . . anything that is thy neighbor’s,” while 1 Corinthians 12:31 says, “Covet earnestly the best gifts.”  So, are we or are we not to covet?

14) Is lying okay?  Exodus 20:16.  Proverbs 12:22 & Revelations 21:8 all say lying is forbidden.  Joshua 2:4-6, Exodus 1:18-20 & 1 Kings 22:21-22 all support lying.

15) Can we kill?  Exodus 20:13 says “thou shalt not kill”.  Exodus 32:27, Numbers 31, and THOUSANDS of other verses show God commanding us to kill.

16) Can we own slaves?  Leviticus 25:45 “Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy … and they shall be your possession… they shall be your bondmen forever.”  Genesis 9:25 “And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.”  Exodus 21:2 & 7 “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing…  And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.”  Joel 3:8 “And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it.”  Luke 12:47-48 [Jesus speaking] “And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.  But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.”  Colossians 3:22

    “Servants, obey in all things your masters.”  So obviously the Biblical God thinks slavery is right, right?  Just look at these: Isaiah 58:6  “Undo the heavy burdens... let the oppressed go free, ... break every yoke.”  Matthew 23:10 “Neither be ye called Masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.”  (Also see Exodus 22:21 & 21:16) Let it be known here that pro-slavery Bible verses were cited by many churches in the South during the Civil War, and were used by some theologians in the Dutch Reformed Church to justify apartheid in South Africa.  There are more pro-slavery verses than cited here.  I simply do not have the room to post all of them.

17) What about Improvidence?  Improvidence is enjoined in Luke 12:3 “Sell that ye have and give alms.” also in Luke 6:30 & 35 “Give to every man that asketh of thee, and of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again ... And lend, hoping for nothing again, and your reward shall be great.” Also note Matthew 6:28, 31 & 34. Improvidence is condemned in I Timothy 5:8 “But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. “ Also see Proverbs 13:22.

18) What does the law say about anger?  Ephesians 4:26 says “Be ye angry and sin not not.”  Anger is disapproved in Ecciesiastes 7:9 “Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry; for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.” Proverbs 22:24 “Make no friendship with an angry man.”  Also see James 1:20.

19) Are we to let our good works be seen?  Matthew 5:16 “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.”  This contradicts verse Matthew 6:1 , “Take heed that you do not your alms before men, to be seen of them.”

20) Should we pray in public? 1 Kings 2:22, 54 & 9:3 shows the Lord is joyed by public prayer and listens intently.  Matthew 6:5-6 condemn public prayer and command people keep it a secret.

21) Can we wear long hair?  Judges 13:5 & Numbers 6:5 encourages people to grow their hair and insists it is a source of strength.  1 Corinthians 11:14 calls long hair a “shame”.

22) Should we circumcise males?  Genesis 17:10  “This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee: Every man and child among you shall be circumcised.  Clearly this demands circumcision, yet Galatians 5:2 says “Behold, I Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.”

23) Are there certain kinds of foods we should not eat?  Deuteronomy 14:2-8 lists several animals that we are NOT to eat because they are “unclean”, “chew the cud” and “divide the hoof”. Yet Genesis 9:3 & 1 Corinthians 10:25 insists there is nothing we can’t eat. Romans 14:14 says: “There is nothing unclean of itself.”

24) Can we take oaths?  Numbers 30:2, Genesis 21:23-24, 31, 31:53 & Hebrews 6:13 says that we can take oaths and encourages it.  Matthew 5:34 says “swear (make an oath) not at all.”

25) Can we get married?  Genesis 2:18, 1:28, Matthew 19:5 & Hebrews 13:4 all insist marriage is honorable.  Marriage is disapproved and scorned in 1 Corinthians 7:1 & 7:7-8.

26) Can we commit adultery?  Exodus 20: 14 “thou shalt not commit adultery.”  Also see Hebrews 13:4.  Now look at Numbers 31:18, Hosea 1:2 & 2:1-3 where adultery is advocated by God.

27) Can we drink alcohol?  Proverbs 31:6-7, 1 Timothy 5:23 & Psalms 104:15 all encourage drinking and intoxication.  Proverbs 20:1 & 23:31-32 discourage drinking and intoxication.

28) Do women have rights?  Genesis 3:16 “And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”  1 Timothy 2:12 says a woman must not teach, remain silent and must be subjugated to her man.  1 Corinthians 14:34 & 1 Peter 3:6 both say that women have limited rights and are under control of their men.  Judges 4:4, 14-15, 5:7, Acts 2:18 & 21:9 all tell of powerful women who were not subjugated by men and were not punished for their authority of men.

29) Should we obey our masters with usurped authority?  Colossians 3:22-23 & 1 Peter 2:18 says we should. 1 Corinthians 7:23 “Be not ye the servants of men.”  Also see Matthew 4:10 & 23:10 which say we should not submit usurped to our masters.

30) Was the law of the Old Testament destroyed by Christ’s crucification?  Luke16:16, Ephesians 2:15 & Romans 7:6 says that the old law is no longer binding.  Yet Matthew 5:17-19 and MANY other verses say that the old law is forever binding.  If you want to see the many verses that command we follow the old law please consult the upper portion of this page.

31) Should we swear an oath?  Numbers 30:2 “If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath…he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.”  Genesis 21:22-24 & 31 “…swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me…And Abraham said, I will swear…Wherefore he called that place Beersheba [“Well of the oath”]; because there they sware both of them.”  Hebrews 6:13-17 “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself…for men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.  Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability ofhis counsel, confirmed it by an oath.” See also Genesis 22:15- 19, Genesis 31 :53, & Judges I 1 :30-39.  So apparently it is okay to swear an oath, we even do this on the Bible in American courts.  Just try and forget these verses: Matthew 5:34-37 “But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven…nor by the earth…Neither shalt thou swear by thy head…But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”

James 5:12 “…swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.”

32) Do we keep the Sabbath?  Exodus 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Exodus 31:15 “Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.”  Numbers 15:32-36  “And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day…And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.”  Each of these contradict Isaiah 1:13  “The new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity.“  John 5:16 “And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the Sabbath day.  “Colossians 2:16 “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days.”

33) Should we make graven images?  Exodus 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven…earth ... water.”  Leviticus 26:1 “Ye shall make ye no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone.”  Deuteronomy 27:15 “Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image.”  Okay, I got it I shouldn’t produce a thing in fear of making a graven image, but wait: Exodus 25:18 “And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them.”  I Kings 7:15-16 & 23-25 “For he [Solomon] cast two pillars of brass…and two chapiters of molten brass…And he made a molten sea…it stood upon twelve oxen ... [and so on]”

 

http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm

Do your morals come from god or within?

One of the most common arguments from the religious is that without God there would be no morality. Non-believers reject this, and there’s an easy though experiment way to see which side you fall on. So, to those who do subscribe to a mainstream religion such as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, consider this:

Imagine that one day God comes to earth and announces a new rule that says it’s a moral responsibility of all believers to kill anyone who doesn’t have a copy of your religion’s Holy book in his/her house.¹.

The question is: would you instantly accept this as morally acceptable because it came from God, or would you reject it because it’s wrong to kill someone for such a thing?

And here are the results. If you would immediately start killing people because God told you to (and therefore the command was “moral” by definition), then your morality comes from God. But if you would question and/or reject this command because it feels “wrong” to you, then your morality comes from somewhere else.

Which are you?

Notes

¹ Forget the silliness of this particular rule; it doesn’t matter. Besides, God asked Moses to kill a man for gathering wood on the Sabbath, so strange requests aren’t without precedent. And don’t cop out by saying, “My God would never make such a rule, so it’s pointless to discuss.” This is the whole point of a hypothetical–to see what you would do. You don’t have to accept it as an actual possibility.

The Good Atheist

We know that the Family Research Council are a bunch of lying bigots who hate homosexuals, but they’ve really been taking it up a notch lately. Just last week they released a bogus ’study’ claiming that if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed, straight soldiers would be at a heightened risk of being raped by gay soldiers. Now comes word that the FRC didn’t only lobby Congress against DADT legislature and same sex marriage, but against a bill voicing America’s disgust at Uganda’s death penalty for homosexuals.

It’s time for the Southern Poverty Law Center to reclassify the Family Research Council as an official hate group, not merely anti-gay as they are now listed. According to the FRC’s official lobbying report for the first quarter of 2010, they paid two of their henchmen $25,000 to lobby Congress against approving a resolution denouncing Uganda’s plan to execute homosexuals. The resolution passed in the Senate on April 13th, but remains languishing in the House almost four months after being referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Did the FRC’s lobbying kill it? As we learned last week with Malawi, international pressure CAN sway even the most virulently anti-gay government.

Below are three screencaps of the 20-page Family Research Council lobbying report supplied to me by Duncan Osbourne at Gay City News. Among the other items they lobbied against are the overturn of DADT and DOMA, which is to be expected. But it’s almost astounding, almost, that they would lobby the members of Congress against denouncing the death penalty for LGBT people.

Maybe if Christians would just leave everyone the fuck alone, I wouldn’t piss on them so much. But stuff like this just highlights how involved fundamentalists are in the political process and how they’ll do whatever it takes to force their exclusionary and divisive beliefs on everyone. Honestly, I just don’t understand why religious people are so obsessed about who’s sticking what in which hole. There’s a great documentary out there I recommend everyone watch called Outrage which basically makes the argument that a lot of the most vicious opponents of homosexuality are closeted men. Considering how many people fighting this stuff have been caught with their members in the chocolate cookie jar, it doesn’t surprise me.

http://www.thegoodatheist.net/2010/06/frc-lobbied-us-congress-against-gay-death-penalty-denouncement/

No, Jesus Did Not Soften the Old Testament–In Fact He Did the Opposite, and Here’s What That Means

Moderate Christians love to talk about how Jesus fixed the Old Testament, or, in other words, obsoleted the horribly offensive parts about slavery, keeping women in their place, killing gays, etc. In fact, he did no such thing.

I’ll be doing two things here:

1. Show you that Jesus fully supported everything in the Old Testament
2. Show you exactly how horrible that is.

So first, here is Jesus speaking specifically on the topic of Old Testament teachings:

The Law Stands

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)

Keep in mind, this is Jesus Christ saying this–in the Bible that all Christians own and cherish. Don’t take my word for it; look it up–it’s all there.

So now that we understand that he fully supported what’s in the Old Testament, let’s take a look at what he actually just commanded us to uphold.

The Law That Stands

Blasphemy is Punishable by Death

One who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death; the whole congregation shall stone the blasphemer. Aliens as well as citizens, when they blaspheme the Name, shall be put to death. (NRSV) — Leviticus 24:16

Cheaters Must Die

If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. (NIV) — Leviticus 20:10

Dishonoring Your Mother or Father is Punishable by Death

Anyone who dishonors father or mother must be put to death. Such a person is guilty of a capital offense. (NLT) — Leviticus 20:9

People Who Work on Sunday Should be Killed

You have six days each week for your ordinary work, but the seventh day must be a Sabbath day of complete rest, a holy day dedicated to the LORD. Anyone who works on that day must be put to death. (NLT) — Exodus 35:2

If a Woman is Not a Virgin When She Gets Married, She Has to Die

“If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,’ … and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones … (NKJV) — Deuteronomy 22:13-14,20-21

There’s Nothing Wrong With Slavery

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. (NIV) — Leviticus 25:44

Gays Should be Put to Death

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. (NRSV) — Leviticus 20:13

Women Should Shut the Hell Up and Do as They’re Told

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (NIV) — Timothy 2:11-12

Keep in mind, these aren’t suggestions. They’re not optional. Remember what Jesus said, “Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven…” He also said they’re not open to any personal interpretation. It’s all very clear to anyone willing to actually read their Bible.

But don’t listen to an atheist, we’re the last people you should trust. Read your own Bible. All the references are there for you. It is you who must reconcile this evil.

But luckily there’s an easy solution: Ask yourself which is more likely:

1. God and Jesus really are evil (which the Bible’s own text proves, if you open yours and look)
   or…
2. It’s actually all made up, so there’s nothing to worry about.

The answer is #2. God is not evil, and neither is Jesus. Man made them up in order to control other men. Few things offer better proof of this than the actual teachings in the Bible. You, my kind and thoughtful Christian friends, do not need this. You are above it. ::

http://danielmiessler.com/blog/no-jesus-did-not-soften-the-old-testament-in-fact-he-did-the-opposite-and-heres-what-that-means

Why do you believe in the bible?

Guest Blog by Kenny Wyland

I used to believe in the Bible. When I went to college, started learning about the world, and began to really think critically about my beliefs I started questioning the Bible. I eventually came to the question: Why do I believe in the Bible? After much thought, I realized it was because my parents told me it was true. So, I removed their influence from my equation and thought about it again… and wasn’t really left with anything. Sure, real events and real places are referenced in the Bible but that is obviously isn’t proof of anything. Plenty of fiction is grounded in real places or real events.

The Odyssey and the Iliad were written long before the New Testament, hundreds of years before Jesus was supposedly born. That mentions Greek Gods as well as real places, but no one today considers it to be real. It’s considered myth. So, why does the Bible get a different treatment? Either you were introduced to the Bible as a child or you came to it later in life. As a child you probably just believed your parents when they told you it was true, just like you believed that Santa was real. Eventually though you stopped beliving in Santa, but didn’t stop believing in Jesus. Why is that? Because other adults don’t believe in Santa, but other adults still DO believe in Jesus. It’s a type of group-think in which people feel comfortable holding irrational beliefs as long as other people around them also believe it.

What caused you to believe in the Bible? Why do you believe fantastical stories in the Bible are real events, but you don’t believe the fantastical stories in the Iliad are real events?

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/GodlessBlogger/~3/FG6WQUzgkgc/

The ugly history

The Religious Right likes to pant after the “good ol’ days” of “Christian America”. They are a bit imprecise as to when that was but they seem to think it was sometime around the founding of the country.
Of course, what one means by founding is important to define. I would generally place the founding of the country between the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the Constitution. Clearly after that period the nation had been founded. Prior to the Declaration there was no nation either, just separate colonies, often very dissimilar from one another.
But our Founders, those men who were key figures in the period, were not, for the most part, what one could call orthodox Christians. The term deist is often used to describe them and it is not entirely inaccurate. Perhaps “deist light” is a better term. In their view of Christianity, they did tend to be deists. But neither were they strict deists. Even Benjamin Franklin, who wrote that he was a “thorough deist,” still saw a more active god than most deists. The founders did think there was a deity who cared about people. But they didn’t think the Bible was his word, they didn’t think Jesus was god in the flesh, they tended to ridicule the virgin birth, miracles, the atonement and a host of other orthodox doctrines. These men tend to inhabit that area of religious belief between Unitarianism, deism and atheism.
Where on a religious spectrum each of them fell is open to debate. What really is not open to debate was that they were not on the Christian side of the spectrum, not if you define Christian in theological terms. Some of these men, however, defined Christianity almost wholly in moral terms. And they would use “Christian “as a label to describe their moral intuitions.
Often great confusion arises when one fails to realize that a reference to Christianity as a moral system is not a reference to Christianity as a set of doctrines. John Adams said of the Puritans, “ye will say I am no Christian,” referring to the theological doctrines of Christianity. He added, “I say Ye are no Christians,” referring to Christianity as a system of morals. Adams elucidate: “Yet I believe all the honest men among you, are Christians in my sense of the word.” Christian, in his sense of the word, was more found in how one acted toward others, and less in what doctrines one embraced.
Jefferson, like many of the founders, saw the theology of Christianity a “corruption” of the system. He wrote: “To the corruptions of Christianity, I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other.” For Christian it was the traits of “human excellence” that he saw Jesus teaching. As for the miraculous or divine realm, it was what he said that Jesus never claimed for himself. For this reason Jefferson took scissors to the Bible and cut out of the gospels, all references to the supernatural. He felt such a purge left the pure moral teachings of Jesus and said he was he was happy to embrace that, once all claims of godhood, a trinity, miracles, resurrections, etc., had been exorcised.
Between the arrival of Columbus in the West Indies and the American Revolution there were numerous colonies, which tended to differ from one another. It was during this period that Christianity, or more precisely, specific strains of Christianity, did hold political power. If ever there was a time when there was a “Christian America” this was it. It is also a time that most Americans know nothing about. Perhaps because it was a very ugly period in American history, which contradicts the rosy view of America held by most citizens today.
Consider the Pilgrims as an example. Most people heard the story that the Pilgrims came to America to enjoy religious freedom. That most certainly is not the case, not if you mean freedom for everyone. Their desire was freedom for themselves and tyrannical control over others. Puritan divine Richard Mather said the Pilgrims came to the colonies in order “to censure those who ought to be censured.” Steven Waldman, in Founding Faith, says that “it might be more precise to say most [Pilgrims] were avoiding the harassment of a government that wanted the Puritans to be more liberal. He mentions how the Puritans had banned games and amusement in areas under their control in England. Certainly when they had control of England, under Cromwell, they went so far as make Christmas illegal. Yes, the first real war on Christmas was conducted by fundamentalist Calvinists against all other Christians.
They were most unhappy, later, when King James overturned their bans and granted more liberty to the people. The liberty the Puritans sought was to be able to wield the whip in God’s name, and wield it they did. Quite literally.
This yearning for authoritarianism even inspired some Puritans to rebel against the King when the Revolution came along. Rev. James Mayhew, of Boston, said that rebellion against the King is justified when the King commits crimes against God. Since the King had allowed sports on Sunday and “encouraged papists and popishly effect clergymen,” he was against God and thus oppressing the people. For the Puritan, one reason to overthrow the throne, and seek independence from England, was in order to erect a repressive moral regime far stricter than what the lax monarch had allowed.
During the early years of colonies the Calvinists saw larger and larger percentages of the colonialists leave their church, or be excommunicated from it, which was not uncommon. In 1684 King Charles II rescinded the part of the charter for the Massachusetts colony, which restricted immigration to Puritans. He allowed Anglicans to have church services, which did not please the Puritans. He also told the Puritans to end their violent, often deadly, persecution of Quakers, something some saw the King interfering with their liberty to kill heretics.
The case of Mary Dyer illustrates Puritan authoritarianism well. Dyer believed that God spoke to individual Christians. She joined with Anne Hutchinson, to form a Bible study group. This act of religious freedom was not tolerated by the Calvinist Puritans especially since she sometimes disagreed with the local cleric. The Puritans informed Hutchinson that Bible forbade women teaching. And in 1638 she was put on trial. She was found guilty of heresy and imprisoned until she could be banished from the colony. Both Dyer and Hutchinson suffered miscarriages at the hands of their tormentors. The godly Pilgrims gloated about the miscarriages saying they showed God’s wrath on the women. Hutchinson went to Rhode Island, which did have some religious freedom.
Dyer, along with her husband, travelled to England with Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island. There Dyer converted to the Quaker faith, believing it to be similar to what she and Hutchinson had believed. From England she want to Boston, where she was arrested again and expelled, this time for being a Quaker. In 1658 she was arrested again for being a Quaker. After her release she went to Massachusetts to visit two Quaker friends and was again banished from the “shining city on the hill.” Once again she traveled through Massachusetts and this time she was arrested and sentenced to death, along with two other Quakers.
Her husband, who was not a Quaker, was friends with the governor and secured a reprieve for Mary but the two Quakers arrested with her were executed. In 1660 she returned to Massachusetts to oppose the laws, which persecuted Quakers. She was arrested and refused to renounce her faith. The good Christian Puritans of Massachusetts hung her for being the wrong kind of Christian.
Under Puritan rule only members in good standing of the Congregational Church, the church of the Pilgrims, had voting rights in the colony. When one colonist suggested that this measure be repealed his suggestion was turned down and he was arrested for daring suggest it.
The Puritans dominated in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire. But the Anglicans dominated Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia. Rhode Island was unique, in that it was founded by Roger Williams, a Baptist. Williams had been persecuted by the Pilgrims and forced into the wilderness, since being a Baptist was also considered a crime. Pennsylvania tended to be controlled by Quakers. New Amsterdam, the New York City area, was controlled by the Dutch West India Company and never got around to establishing a church, as it was more commercially motivated. But it did find time to persecute Jews and mistreat them.
In Virginia the Anglicans who controlled the colony kept out Puritan preachers, Catholics, Quakers and Jews. Jefferson wrote that "the poor Quakers were flying from persecution in England. They cast their eyes on these new countries as asylums of civil and religious freedom; but they found them free only for the reigning sect. As for his Virginia home he said: "If no execution [of Quakers] took place here, as did in New England, it was not owing to the moderation of the church, or spirit of the legislature... but to historical circumstances which have not been handed down to us."
Maryland, founded for Catholics, was slightly more tolerant, allowing Protestants. But it decreed the death penalty for anyone who challenged orthodox Christian beliefs. Puritans from Virginia fled to Maryland ,seeking refuge from Anglican persecution, and then helped overthrow the Catholic government that granted them refuge. Once in power the Protestants stripped Catholics of rights, sentenced Catholic priests to life imprisonment, decreed that only Anglicans could hold office and stripped Catholics of the right to vote.
During the heyday of Christian American, the one thing Christians were “at liberty” to do, was oppress one another. And this they did with great relish. The founders had lived through much of this era and were fully aware of how the combination of church and state fostered intolerance, violence, persecution, and totalitarianism. They consciously separated church and state to try to avoid such conflicts in the future.
The “Christian America,” to which the Religious Right, wishes to return, is an illusion. There was never a time when Christian sects were united in governance. Instead they each occupied areas of control and used what control they could assert to oppress, if not kill, other Christians. There is an illusionary unity amongst the Religious Right even today. The animosity that these sects hold for one another has barely lessened over the years. What they lack is the political power to inflict their intolerance on society as a whole.
The Religious Right is made up of some very distinct religious groupings, for the most part. Fundamentalist Christians believe that only those who are “born again” are true Christians. Their Catholic allies, they see as members of the sect of the Anti-Christ, while their Mormon co-conspirators are nothing more than a fraudulent cult. Orthodox Catholics believe that only those confirmed in the Roman church are members of the true Church. Mormons believe that only those who embrace the fantasies of the mountebank Joseph Smith are part of the real Christian faith.
To a large extent the only reason they are not at each other’s throats is that they agree there are other throats to slit first: gays, Muslims, and illegal immigrants, for instance. They are willing to set aside their animosity for one another only so long as a more worthy targets of their acrimony exist. If they were to succeed in wiping out the “evil” people of the nation, or at least to force them in hiding, they would soon return to conniving new means for oppressing one another. The founders knew enough about their recent history to consciously separate church and state at the federal level and begin working to separate them at the state level as well—a process that would take a bit longer to accomplish.
Illustrations: 1.) John Adams; 2.) Mary Dyer being led to her execution. The drummers were to prevent bystanders from hearing her speak.

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2010/03/ugly-history-of-christian-america.html