The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > There shouldn't be one law for religions, another for the rest > Comments

There shouldn't be one law for religions, another for the rest : Comments

By Leslie Cannold, published 30/10/2006

Sexism is just as eviscerating to the dignity, self-esteem, aspirations and opportunities of women as racism is to people of colour.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Well, isn't this calling 'the pot calling the kettle black'.

It is interesting that for example Pru Goward seems to totally unware of her own sexism against men.

Typically this author is just as manipulative.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 30 October 2006 8:54:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, work towards having tax exemptions for religious organizations removed. Governments get away with such things only because voters allow them to. Hilaly’s comment brought howls for the removal of financial help for Muslims to be removed (I wonder if this aid is different from that given to other religions), but that will not happen because voters will not demand the Government do that.

The average Australian is a whinger who will not exercise his/her vote properly, nor advise his/her representatives that his/her vote will be removed from that representative unless certain things are done by the government the local MP represents.

Stop contemplating religious theory, practice and other meaningless claptrap, and do something for yourselves
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 30 October 2006 9:23:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I take it the author would be horrified if Tony Abbot was appointed Minister of Women's Affairs. I take it also that if women had to compete on a level playing field at the Olympics that we would not see to many there. The author's views seem only to hold for selective areas where she perceives women as being disadvantaged.
Posted by runner, Monday, 30 October 2006 9:52:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not quite sure how pregnancy status is equivalent to race in terms of religious discrimination. Many religions, which have existed for thousands of years before Australia's "sexual revolution" of the 60's, celebrate chastity and monogamy as moral values. If someone CHOOSES to break those values, is it really so contentious that a religion might choose to prevent that person from representing that particular religion?
Posted by YngNLuvnIt, Monday, 30 October 2006 10:17:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Sexism is just as eviscerating to the dignity, self-esteem, aspirations and opportunities of women as racism is to people of colour".

IF THERE IS ONE POST YOU READ, LET IT BE THIS.

Let's analyse this statement above, by the writer. I don't have anger towards you for it, for people grow up in different circumstances, but your comment "...as racism is to people of colour" is nothing short of disgusting.

Appalling, in every sense of the word.

It implies that racism is a phenomenon suffered exclusively by coloured people, which reveals your thinking.

Those of us who grew up in areas like Cabramatta, where Asian gangs used to target us for being "skips", that went "Aussie bashing", understand that you mustn't even consider us people.

It's the same as those at Cronulla, who suffered the same racial bashings, sexual harrassment, total intimidation, simply because your not of their tribe, by rampaging hordes.

You are a horrible person.
Posted by Benjamin, Monday, 30 October 2006 10:54:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is extremely depressing to see the return of religion as a political force. Unsurprising, I suppose when you consider the Australian lick-spittle attitude towards the U.S.A.
Research shows that the more religious a country, the more persecution, anti-social behaviour, suicides, crime, violence and so on that occur
As the influence of religion has increased in schools, homophobic bullying and sexism has also increased along with youth depression and suicide.
70% of Commonwealth funding for education goes to religious schools. Another ninety million dollars will go towards putting more chaplains into schools – thus putting more children at risk. What sort of support is a gay boy or pregnant teenager going to get from a fundamentalist chaplain? The mere idea is horrible. All religions persecute women and gays, because religion is about power. And power is achieved by dividing the population.
Its time people realised that religion has nothing to do with morality. Morality is a separate issue, to do with physical survival. Morality has been hijacked by religions to justify their nonsense about supermen in the sky that know your every thought and deed – their claims of supernatural creatures that get their kicks by sending tsunamis and letting us foul our nest to the point of extinction.
The only countries where democracy and human rights truly prevail, are the secular states of Western Europe, New Zealand and Canada. Why is Australia not following that lead? Why are we heading back to the dark ages of religious dictatorship and terrorism from which our forbears extricated themselves with great sacrifice?
Posted by ybgirp, Monday, 30 October 2006 11:12:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benjamin,

You raise good issues and are adept at turning others' weapons back against them. Well done.

It is also worth pointing out that this woman, Leslie Cannold, declares herself as an ethicist. From your writing, you, however, seem to hold a different opinion. I must confess, I strongly tend towards your way of thinking.

Good stuff.
Posted by Maximus, Monday, 30 October 2006 11:58:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ybgirp,

In answer to your question "Why are we heading back to the dark ages of religious dictatorship and terrorism from which our forbears extricated themselves with great sacrifice?"

Could it be, ybgirp, because nobody has noticed the size of the pile of 'proxy' votes in the ballot boxes over the past century? "Forrest! You wicked boy! Go wash your mouth out with soap and water this minute! This is Australia! Such a thing could never happen! Goodness me, if you go around suggesting such things, there's just no telling what might happen...."

Sorry (oops, that word again) ybgirp, got interrupted by my alter-egotist just then. I'm immensely relieved about that research relating 'religiousness' to levels of persecution, anti-social behaviour, suicide, crime, violence and so on, because at any level or by any standard, you'd have to say Australia was one of the least 'religious' countries in the world. She should be right, mate. But hold on, we're copping more of all this rubbish than ever before. Are you sure the research is right? Got to admit it sounds good. Why's it happening?

Tell you what might explain it ybgirp. What if 'the religious' had somehow worked out how to get most of the 'proxy votes' that hang about in the ballot boxes over a century or so, and used them to play both ends against the middle in Australian politics? You know, get the adoption of policies for which there is no enthusiasm at all in the general community (like multiculturalism), first by one major party, and then by the other, such that the whole community loses respect for the political process across the board. Got to go now ybgirp, here comes my alter-egotist with a bar of soap and a toothbrush, and he's got an sociologist academic with him, and......
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Monday, 30 October 2006 12:41:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religion is not illegal in Australia, and if the author and the Pru Goward feel so strongly about males and religion, then they are quite free to start their own religion.

There has never been a male Sex Discrimination Commissioner in Australia, and most of the time there are no males in the Sex Discrimination Commission. There are no males in the Office of Women, and only a few males are ever employed in gender departments of Universities.

Such organizations are now the churches of feminism, and these churches are almost completely gender biased and sexist. Nothing but negativity towards the male gender comes from such organizations, and they are also some of the most discriminatory organizations now operating in Australia.
Posted by HRS, Monday, 30 October 2006 3:42:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is most interesting about Leslie Cannold's contribution, which is moderate, reasonable and non-confronting, is the hatred of women it unleashed in the responses from people like James, Benjamin, Maximus. Thanks Leslie for your thoughtful and logical appeal for the recognition of women's rights as human rights. Imagine the apoplectic hysteria if you'd asked for something really radical.
Posted by anna52, Monday, 30 October 2006 5:28:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes - nothing like a calm and measured article from a feminist to bring on a feeding frenzy from the misogynists among us. Did anybody happen to see "Compass" last night, on the continuing discrimination against women in the Anglican church?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 30 October 2006 6:27:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find it a real conundrum when human rights equate to women's rights, but then I guess more than a few women regard men as less than human therefore not deserving of human rights.

George Rolph on when men are accused of hating women.
"however, criticising female behaviour is not the same as hating females."


Thomas Ellis "When they call you a 'woman hater' they mean
'how dare you disagree with me!' Don't bother getting upset. why waste the energy."

"Women's opinions are automatically awarded more merit than men's opinions."

"But I dont think a man's role in a relationship is simply to validate the veiws of a woman."

As to the shows on TV, treat every single one as fiction until proven otherwise. Latelines sensational story on the abuse of aboringal children was a frabrication by a number of people.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 30 October 2006 8:59:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I cannot belive what i just read, is the author of this article serious.one of the most revered christian icons is marry the mother of jesus to say women are considered second class is ridiculous. Secondly saying women should be given leadership roles in the churches because they are entitled to equall rights, what has gender equality got to do with religon, it should be about your faith in god not about who gives the sermon on sunday morning. should we erase thousands of years of tradition just to satisfy the modern world, as far as i'm concerned its the same as chopping down an ancient forest to put up a theme park, sure it looks good but the cost far outways the benifit.
Posted by geoffro, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 1:48:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ms Cannold wrote:

> "It is also unclear whether a guarantee of more realistic exit rights is a just response to unlawful discrimination by religious orders."

Normally I find the term "pro-choice" so offensive that I cannot use it without feeling angry. It is good, therefore, that Ms Cannold realises that there are limits to my sovereignty of choice; that simply imvoking individual freedom ("The Exclusive Brethren may choose to associate or not to associate with whomever they wish") can't justify every single instance of harm my "choice" imposes on other human beings. It is legitimate to ask whether the harm imposed on others (ie, ex-Brethoes being cut off from their families) is justifiable. I applaud Ms Cannold for taking this conceptual leap. She might be surprised where it leads her if she follows it consistently and with an open mind to re-examining her ideological presuppositions.

> "Would we deem "lump it or leave" an acceptable response to Aboriginal Australians who complained that their church was denying them leadership positions and demanding they sit in pews at the back?"

Would we tolerate public toilets that said "Whites Only" and "Blacks Only"? No. Do we tolerate public toilets that say "Males Only" and "Females Only"? Yes. Would Ms Cannold applaud if I, a male, were arrested and charged for loitering in a female toilet? I assume so.

Race is largely socially constructed. Gender is a biological fact. If I, as a male, tried to pull the Lisa Meldrum trick in reverse by demanding the state fund some willing woman to make me a single father using IVF, I'd be laughed at. Why, that's just... uh... it's not _natural_.

Again, this doesn't mean that "biological gender differences" becomes, like "individual choice", a get-out-of-jail-free card that stops all opposing arguments and trumps any harms it inflicts ("Because some women become debilitated when they're pregnant, no women may serve in the armed forces"). But it does neutralise equally absolutist arguments the other way.
Posted by Friedrich Foresight, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 10:16:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leslie has a point that said it amuses me to read the venom the superstitious and misogynists squirt in this thread as to be expected. Ironically for you who think because you are male you are better than women just because occult superstition says so, you have not considered what a real man is. A real man does not hide behind a god.

The truth is and maybe Leslie is trying to say it or not, is that Christianity is exclusionary. Christians believe only those who evoke god through the occult magic of prayer and share in the crime of murdering Jesus (real or imagined) as a human sacrifice as blood payment will be repaid in immortality. To be saved is to be god like, to be immortal to be god like the believer has to separate themselves from others; to be godlike requires others to be looked down upon from the dizzying heights of righteousness. Women, children, non Christian’s, animals, even other religious sects, everything, you name it are persecuted.

Should god believers be treated with kit gloves? Judging by the Exclusive Brethren, Opus dei, Protestant Evangelism in the U.S, NSW, QLD, VIC , SA, Mormons, Scientologists, Pentecostals, Jehovah Witness, Church of England , Branch Davidian, Catholicism, The Brand and the KKK, the ministry of Jim Jones, many of the Muslim sects and some of the Jewish sects it has been proved that such groups are highly destructive to the wider community left to their own devices. Being superstitious and thus offended by everything is getting far too old for the community to tolerate.

A measure of civilisation is the level of inclusion of women. If religion cannot both view and treat women as equals simply it is not civilised. Such barbaric ideals have no place in the 21st century and so should not be allowed to manifest in civil society. Governments should make them clean up their act or shut them down. If a particular god doesn’t like it, he /she /it /they can say so itself, having ignorant misogynists speaking for god hasn’t helped gods PR
Posted by West, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 10:31:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
anna52

You claim I have hatred? All I did was point out that the writer doesn't consider it possible for victims of racism to be white!

Isn't that racist?

What a bizarre sense of morals you must have to think that...I forgive you.
Posted by Benjamin, Tuesday, 31 October 2006 1:58:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benji Benji Benji - you are in no position to forgive any one - lets get that right from the start - and boy, do you get disgusted easily - perhaps you were a bottle fed baby.

You pointed out that the author linked directly rascism to people of colour - rightly so. That is what she writ. You by no means however proved that at the same time she doesn't concede that rascsim can occur from people of colour to those who arent - she just didnt say so - It reveals nothing about her thinking it merely reveals some room for a question asking her to clarify or expand her thinking on the subject.

You also concluded that the author was a horrible person - based on what? - she might be an intolerable bitch for all I know - but to draw such a conclusion from an essay of about 2,000 words is quite a feat - if it was based on her statement re rascism I you should slide to the edge of the pond coz you're on thin ice where you are standing now.

I think her contentions are well put and reasoned - churches do discriminate - and they are allowed to do so it seems - is that such a horrible truth to swallow?
Posted by sneekeepete, Thursday, 2 November 2006 11:42:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cannold, not my favourite person you understand, writes this article based on her evaluation of justice and equality - "There shouldn't be one law for religions, another for the rest", she writes

She also self declares connection to feminism and from her very own website - http://www.cannold.com/ - she presents a piece about being nominated by the sisterhood as a "feminist icon".

It reads -

"Leslie Nominated as Feminist Icon
25 Sep 2006
In the wake of the deaths of feminist icons Betty Friedan and Wendy Wasserstein, Book Standard reviewer Jessa Crispin nominates Leslie [Cannold], Susan Faludi and Laura Kipnes as likely successors."

Now she also claims to be an ethicist. That's what it says on her website header - "Writer, Commentator, Ethicist, Researcher".

Here is the bit that gets up my nose. How does this woman have the bald-faced temerity to come from both a place of sexist ideology, feminism AND at the same time declare that she is an ethicist? Surely immediately that IS a contradiction in terms. Perhaps she might call herself an ethical feminist, but then that would be an oxymoron.

Next, the final hypocrisy. She dares to challenge religion for having privilege when it comes to legislation and their exclusion from certain requirements of compliance. Yet, and this amazes me, she cannot see, nor realise that as a feminist she is more privileged than any of all the rest of us.

I put it to Cannold in terms she should understand - "There shouldn't be one law for women, another for the rest [men]. But there is, isn't there Leslie? An enormous great Sex Discrimination Act that grants privilege to some Australians over some other Australians. Now there's your law for ONE, but not for the rest.

How is it possible, that this woman, alleged to be learned, fails to see the ethical dilemma of her own position? No Leslie, you can't have it both ways dear.
Posted by Maximus, Thursday, 2 November 2006 5:27:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"to be godlike requires others to be looked down upon from the dizzying heights of righteousness"

couldn't agree less. u obviously haven't read your Bible in a while. just a few off the top of my head...

"12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?" 1 Cor 5:-12

"1Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Matt: 7:1-5

1Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. 2Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. 3If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Galation 6:1-3
Posted by YngNLuvnIt, Thursday, 2 November 2006 6:36:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
and finally

9Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality.
14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.

17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Ro12:9-21
Posted by YngNLuvnIt, Thursday, 2 November 2006 6:36:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Y you prove my point. First of all you are speaking for God, you are not allowing your god to speak for himself and secondly you quote the Bible as if it makes you better than non-Christians. Of course quoting the Bible is meaningless , the Bible is meaningless it is just nothing more than occult fiction. But you believe you are god or god like by quoting the bible because it is a magic charm which elevates you to be above everybody else. If the Bible were magic then Good people who are Christian would be common but it is Bad people who are Christian who are the most common. Which means the Bible is not magic and you are not better than the rest of the human race and people will be good or bad depending on their born nature. I offer friendly advice- many people are magic proof , it is a waste of time quoting the Bible.
Posted by West, Friday, 3 November 2006 9:52:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“First of all you are speaking for God, you are not allowing your god to speak for himself”
Christians have believed for millennia that the Bible is the Word of God. So quoting the Bible is letting God speak for Himself rather than trying to speak for Him.

“and secondly you quote the Bible as if it makes you better than non-Christians”
What an abstract interpretation!
You claimed that religion made/encouraged people to belittle those of no faith. I was showing you, from the Bible and not just from my personal opinion, that Christianity does NOT encourage this. This was to respond to the views which YOU brought up. Perhaps you have certain views about Christians that you’ll continue to believe regardless of how somebody chooses to respond to them.?

“But you believe you are god or god like by quoting the bible because it is a magic charm which elevates you to be above everybody else.”
No I don’t believe I am God, or that I’m God-like by quoting the Bible. I believe I am God-like when I actually LIVE the Bible- e.g. you see that last passage from Romans? Quoting it is meaningless. Living it is Godly (whether you’re a believer or not).

“If the Bible were magic then Good people who are Christian would be common but it is Bad people who are Christian who are the most common.” First of all, we’d have to define “Christian” as those who are born again (John 3) AND seek to live out the claims of the Bible. The Bible says that action is the evidence of faith. So if someone says they’re a Christian and doesn’t live like it you have no reason to believe that they are.

So now that we’ve clarified this to someone actually trying to live the faith they profess to believe, have you actually done some statistical study of the millions/billions of people who have been these sorts of Christians throughout history, and worked out some significant difference between “good Christians” and “bad Christians”? I’d be fascinated to see your data if you have!
Posted by YngNLuvnIt, Saturday, 4 November 2006 12:20:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“You are not better than the rest of the human race”.
Agreed. There’s something I’ve noticed about deeply spiritual Christians- humility. It seems the closer you get to God, the more the outer religious nonsense breaks away and you realise yourself as the Bible describes you- a sinner saved by grace. I’ve heard one man (I think a Salvo) describing evangelism as “one hungry beggar showing another hungry beggar where to find bread”.

The Bible does not teach anybody that they are better than anyone else (it in fact puts us all in the same category as describing EVERYONE as having fallen short of the glory of God). I certainly do not believe I am better than anyone! Would receiving a gift make me a better person than someone who was offered the gift and chose not to take it? Of course not. Receiving this Gift has made me want to be a better person, but of course I realise I am equal to everybody else AND that other people have other inspirations aside from the Gift for wanting to be a better person too.

“and people will be good or bad depending on their born nature”
Ahh, determinism, how interesting that you believe it! I don’t like assigning people as good or bad depending on their “born nature”. I’ve seen many people who society would describe as very bad becoming what society would describe as very good, because they’ve made a decision to do so. Religion would describe it as “repentance”.

(you say, aha! You’re talking about religion making people seem good! No I’m not. Repentance can be secular or religious, in my opinion. Grace/faith  Salvation though is of course only “religious”. The former makes you good in the sight of other people. The latter, coupled with the former, makes you good in the sight of other people AND God).

Now, need... sleep.
Posted by YngNLuvnIt, Saturday, 4 November 2006 12:21:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
YngNLuvnIt No God has ever said the Bible was his words. Only people who speak for god claim the bible is god’s words. God did not write the Bible. To claim the bible as Gods words and then to quote it is to claim oneself as God. To quote the Bible as if the fiction is actually relevant to anything or has some sort of meaning is to try and put yourself above others. The Bible is a book of exploitation and control, it incites followers to seek victims to convert, it inspires (evil) moral judgement. Those who claim the bible is the word of god use the Bible as an occult book of charms and spells rather no different than witches.
Laughably you quote John. No good person would see the need to be born again. Of course nobody is born again. Again those who do not take responsibility for themselves and their actions hide behind superstition and claim to be born again. We all know only bad people claim to be born again and we all know they are still bad people after their rebirth. Like Islam its dizygotic twin Christianity is an extremely negative superstition. The negativity is profound both dark age cults are based on death worship and immoral Judgement , an eternal war against outsiders and the self justification through channelling god, this includes quoting the Bible or Quran. The evil that the Bible and Quran preach means that to be a good Christian or Muslim a person has to be a bad Person. This is why good people who are Christian or muslim are not practicing their faith, Knowing such books are a collection of fairytales.
Lastly both books are quoted as occult spell books. The Bible is not magic, God does not exist you can psychologically convince yourself of both myths by quoting the bible but quoting john has no magic, no god to evoke.
Posted by West, Saturday, 4 November 2006 10:08:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey West,

I rather like this article about the subject, it also gives some pretty good clues as to where you're coming from too.

Atheism
by Darren Blacksmith
http://www.cooltools4men.com/2006/10/atheism.html

Of course, that's only one man's opinion. When it comes to God, no one knows anything apart from an opinion. Sorry West, but you certainly don't know anything more than an opinion either - and neither do I. Each must form their own opinion and respect the other chap's.

Next you'll probably be trying to tell us that Santa Clause doesn't exist and he's just an evil plot to control power over the peoples of the world.

But, yep, I rather like this Blacksmith's take on the subject.
Posted by Maximus, Saturday, 4 November 2006 10:42:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Darren Blacksmith certainly makes an ignorant point and demonstrates no understanding at all. Darren is trying to sound smart but his arguments have not been thought through. Darren is claiming atheists are wrong. We have to take Darrens word for it because he has not included the only justification for his claim- that is proof of God. Unfortunetely for Darren he makes two mistakes, he claims a god without knowing if his fantasy is actually god. It is a remote possibility, almost impossible but Darrens fantasies may just be only fantasies. Don’t get upset I know Christians believe God is more probable than a person forming fantasy. The other is Darren isn’t really saying anything, hes just speaking for god. Darrens god must be hard up if it takes Darren to speak for him and to speak for god is basically saying god does not exist. For if a god existed and created a universe it could easily speak for itself.

Yes Darrens opinion is one mans opinion, an ignorant opinion at that. His views of Atheist discourse are very influenced by American evangelical paranoia and propaganda. As Christianity is a cult well in its death throws this sort of attitude is to be expected. Darren like all of his brethren of superstition avoids confronting the actual issues that atheism raises. Which is Ironic to what Darren says because to honestly confront the issues that atheism raises would take intelligence.

Darren just demonstrates ignorance and confusion. Where Christians come into conflict with atheists is when they are trying to force their Christian superstition onto others. The belief in god is at best petty and pathetic. Many Christians understand that such drivel is annoying to most people; some are even smart enough to accept that Christianity is a harmful cult which has serious effects on people and so keep their superstition to themselves. Most are no more than sheep that are hibernating in a dream world and led by brainwashing.

So you don’t think Santa Claus is a marketing tool? Interesting.
Posted by West, Saturday, 4 November 2006 11:50:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello West,

I can see that you've got a serious passion for this stuff. Let me tell you that I haven't. It's good to have passions, I reckon, but there's a thin line between passion and obsession. All of us have to be a bit careful sometimes.

Anyway, this business (pun) about Santa. It seems you reckon he's for real too - you've given him credibility as a marketing tool. Ergo, he must exist, even as a scumbag marketing tool. He may not be flesh and blood, he may not be a physical entity, but he IS real! He exists as a spirit. The spirit of Christmas and Christmas marketing, and the stuff that kid's dreams are made of. So there is no doubt that the SPIRIT of Santa exists.

Now in that same way, couldn't God exist too?

And if God exists in that way, then God is real. The existence of God's reality, at least in that context, is undeniable, ergo, God exists.
Posted by Maximus, Saturday, 4 November 2006 5:33:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leslie Cannold: "Sexism is just as eviscerating to the dignity, self-esteem, aspirations and opportunities of women as racism is to people of colour."

I am appalled by the sexism inherent in many fundamentalist doctrines but I wonder why no-one ever complains about the sexism in these doctrines against men.

Sheik Hilali's sermon also implied that men were like wild animals with no self-control who couldnt be trusted to go to the beach without raping someone but no-one NO-ONE sees the sexist, denigrating, attitude toward men.

While Hilali said that women were more culpable than men in the crime of adultery - which everyone is spewing about as radically sexist. He also said that men were more culpable than women in the crime of stealing. This is mirror-image sexism of men but not one word of protest from anyone anywhere - now that is sexual discrimination.
Posted by Rob513264, Monday, 6 November 2006 12:56:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximus I have no passion about religion, in reality superstition is a bore. However humanity and civilisation face two serious threats, climate change and religion. Remember God believers flew into the World Trade Centre, branch stacked the liberal party, blew up the Government Building in Oklahoma , Bombed Bali, started Jesus Camp , started Family First , Bombed the London and Madrid transit, committed genocide in Bosnia , started the Iraq war, massacred Russian school children. Banned abortion in Nicaragua and South Dakota, spread the lies of intelligent design, banned gay marriage and much more.
God believers have declared war on humanity and civilisation. There is nobody that has not been touched in some way by the evil that the belief in God results in. I wish people could just be people and not be violently frenzied by superstition. To believe in God is to believe one self is God and that is why everything violently offends god believers so that they feel they must harm society. It is also why god believers have an intense hatred of anybody that criticises superstition. To criticise god is to criticise the god believer’s ego.

Your Santa Claus analogy is too sloppy to take seriously; delusion and fetish do not make the non-existence real. God cannot be claimed without proof of his existence first. It is the same as a con man asking for $1000 to paint your house with no intention to paint.

You say God exists but God does not say he exists. Why should you be believed? If you are right then all the violence committed in the name of your God is right. If you are right then let God speak for himself. If you are wrong and god does not exist , God will not speak up. Your war against humanity is then unjustified and all those acts in the name of your god from conversion to terrorism is wrong
Posted by West, Monday, 6 November 2006 10:39:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
> "Remember God believers flew into the World Trade Centre, branch[[-]stacked the [L]iberal [P]arty, blew up the [g]overnment [b]uilding in Oklahoma, [b]ombed Bali, started Jesus Camp, started Family First, [b]ombed the London and Madrid transit, committed genocide in Bosnia, started the Iraq war, massacred Russian school children[, b]anned abortion in Nicaragua and South Dakota, spread the lies of intelligent design, banned gay marriage and much more." <

Interesting shopping-list of grievances you've assembled there. Targeting a few thousand civilians (or a few dozen school children) for cold-blooded murder, stacking a local Liberal Party branch... it's a real toss-up, isn't it? Those scales are so evenly balanced, aren't they.

Have you tried to break down this list of atrocities further among particular religions? Is it, for example, that Buddhists or Mennonites who are bombing trains in London, while Sufis or Scientologists were founding (the pain! Oooh,, the pain! Danger, Will Robinson, danger!) the Family First Party? Getting a more detailed breakdown might give us some ideas as to <i>which</i> religions are more prone to atrocities.

While you are explaining why murdering children should be condemned in Beslan but applauded in Nicaragua and South Dakota, you might also want to ponder the results of reforming a whole society (one that wasn't even particularly "religious", in Western sense, to begin with) on truly scientific, rationalistic, atheistic basis http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-40,GGLG:en&q=north%2dkorea+triplets. I can guarantee that no one will ever dare utter the horrible blasphemy "int*ll*g*nt d*s*gn", or in any other way profane against the infallible prophet Darwin (peace be upon him), in this society's classrooms.

You're certainly helped confirm my previous observations on the question of whether atheists are more logical and open to fair persuasion than Christians are.
Posted by Friedrich Foresight, Monday, 6 November 2006 11:14:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Friedrich I have not confirmed anything, you have already decided to fight against civilisation and humanity. Banning abortion is itself a form of terrorism. You can not know the circumstances of every woman. Ok you could possibly be forgiven for ignorance; churches have long vilified women as seducers and pathological callous serial egg fertilizers, the Christian mind is not a healthy or rational mind. But you cannot be forgiven for your support of rape in Nicaragua.

If you knew what logic is then you would come to the only conclusion about god and abortion. Most pregnancies naturally terminate so therefore you worship a god which is a master abortionist. The days where Christians can fake caring for unborn children is over. Through the Christian practice of child abuse sexually, violently or psychologically Christians have proved beyond doubt they have no consideration for the child at all. Their hatred of women is based on the occult fiction of the Bible.

Still it is not God who judges women having abortion or atheists or anybody, it is you who is judging women. Friedrich and by doing so you are claiming you your self is god. You are the one speaking, not god. Why should you be believed? On that matter you have no god to persuade people. You have no right to persuade people a god exists. You can only offer lies when claiming God to exist.

On the question of separating different superstitious sects and their crimes, the values of Christians and Muslims are the same; there is no difference between the pope and Bin Laden, The Taliban and Family First. The worship of God is the worship of ones own ego that is what leads god believers to inflict harm onto others. Proof of this is your support against abortion the only motivation for which is to harm women, women who are not you, and where is your justification? What did God say? God said nothing – it is you who spoke as God.

If you are right Friedrich then smite me, I guarantee you lack the magic.
Posted by West, Monday, 6 November 2006 12:43:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, West, but I seem to have missed the logical connection between "rape is an evil act" (which I agree with) and "killing a child because her or his father is a rapist is necessary to expiate the evil of this act". I'm going to go out on a limb here, and assume that you wouldn't agree that "killing an adult because he is a rapist is necessary to expiate the evil of this act". How near the mark is that guess? Death penalty for rapists' children, but not for rapists themselves? This is where un-superstitious Reason gets you?

And yet, if pro-lifers do allow exceptions for rape victims, then (a) these exceptions get stretched to allow de facto abortion on demand (see the lies told by pro-choicers regarding the fictitious rape of Norma Jean McCorvey of "Roe v Wade" fame), and (b) we get lectured about our inconsistency. "If a foetus really is an unborn child, how can you justify killing it regardless of how it was conceived?" The pea is never under the thimble we select.

Now morally, a child is a child. But as far as legality is concerned, with the heavy hand of the state and the court system involved, the fact a pregnancy originated in (proven) rape would be a legitimate ground for legislators making those abortions non-punishable. Not a matter of legal right, but of non-prosecution. Much like provocation: someone insults my mother, I punch him in the face, he dies. No useful purpose is served by prosecuting me for that. On the other hand, that does not mean I can claim a legal right to go hunting him down, or that I can call on the police to restrain any pro-life bigots who want to restrain me.
Posted by Friedrich Foresight, Monday, 6 November 2006 1:07:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the US Larry King programme, about one year ago, a Catholic priest and serious religious scholar, when asked, about female priests, said the real reason, why that Christian church did not have female priests was; that some centuries back, it was thought that male and female might marry, and over time, familial dynasties would arise, within that Church, destablising it.
Posted by Oliver, Monday, 6 November 2006 10:17:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sexism is just as eviscerating to the dignity, self-esteem, aspirations and opportunities of women as racism is to people of colour.

Anyone else noticed the implied sexism is this quote? Apparently, only women are victims of sexism. Interesting but utterly false of course.

Perhaps this feminist quote will serve as an illustration of what I mean: "A husband is just a rapist who buys you flowers."

Nuff said! I don't want to upset the perpetual female victims too much.
Posted by George Rolph, Friday, 10 November 2006 4:37:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Friedrich clearly you have no understanding what logic is. I will let your personal attack go as logic and reason is not a strong point for the superstitious. I assume you are a Christian since you make personal attacks and personal attack is a base trait of that darkage cult.

You obviously have no understanding of biology but its not the cluster of cells or embryo what you care about as you have now clearly demonstrated. Besides nobody these days takes Christian piety seriously we all know by the actions of Christians throughout history and through terrorists who hide behind the politically correct label of ‘pro lifer’ have no credibility.

What you have said is exactly the problem Freidrich. You said “if pro-lifers do allow exceptions for rape victims, then …………” Exacxtly!! You care nothing of cell clusters, embryos or even children, what “if pro-lifers do allow exceptions for rape victims, then …………” means is that your agenda and the agenda of that immoral hate movement “pro- Lifers” is nothing other than the control of other people. Rape victims are not the property of pro lifers. Pro lifers have no right to dictate to others. Pro lifers have no argument and no honest person can deny that all the arguments they put up are either bald faced lies or twisted truth. Pro lifers are nothing but twisted hysterical loonies who ought to be monitored and watched as clearly they threaten violence and spread the hatred of women. They should get on a boat with Hibabi and go and share Bin Ladens cave with the rest of the cave men. Pro Lifers have no place in civilisation.

Even to call them pro-lifers is an oxymoron, not only for their violence but the fact they worship death = god , heaven , hell , salvation and all the other ridiculous magical phantasmagoria of their ignorance based superstition.
Posted by West, Friday, 10 November 2006 10:56:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy