Self-righteous: holier-than-thou, sanctimonious, pompous, pretentious, conceited, etc.
Bigot: extremist, dogmatist, hypocrite, terrorist, fanatic, etc.
Passion: zeal, fanaticism, obsession, infatuation, etc.
Confidence: self-belief, assurance, etc.

Boaz, so you want to play semantics. If you write like a sanctimonious hypocrite, sound like a sanctimonious hypocrite and preach like a sanctimonious hypocrite, well … maybe you are.

You take offense, that is your problem – but it is on topic, whether you like it or not.

There are zealots on both sides – be they Muslim or Christian. For many here on OLO you are very much sounding as an example of the latter.

You talk about a ‘truth’ you seek under God to which you want to live, but fundamentalist Islamists can and do say the same – and please, don’t come forth with various text and verse from the Bible or Qur'an, it’s obfuscation at best and mendacious at worst.

Q&A

It is zealots like BD who run these brainwashing outfits like Jesus camp, because only zealots feel they have the right to mind-fock kids.

All BD can achieve is antipathy towards him - he alienates, outright lies, exaggerates and pretends to moral superiority with his relentless gay & mozzie bashing and virtual vomit of religious quotes.

The BD's of this world are the reason that:

Religion should no longer have tax exemption (such a rort)

and

Should be kept completely out of politics (l'il Johnny pretending to be pious always makes me wanna puke).

and

should always by approached with caution, wearing flak jackets and hard copies of the God Delusion and anything by Douglas Adams.

CJ,

I'm cutting this down from 463 words by prioritising but am happy to revisit the bits I chopped if necessary.

Most of your ‘devious means’ seem like a normal part of the political landscape. I don’t recall mainstream political parties claiming to be either secular or religious nor should they. You think parties should discriminate against potential politicians if they are Christians? Would you say the same about other more politically correct people like homosexuals who lobby heavily but enter major parties not single issue parties? If you are not prejudiced against Christians I assume you hold the equally undemocratic view that homosexuals should be excluded because major parties don’t hold themselves out as gay.

I note your label of fundamentalist Christians lobbying “a minority of the electorate”. You appear to imply that they are completely separate to the Christian majority not just the enthusiastic examples of any group who are likely to lobby. That isn’t just a fundamental misrepresentation as a rationalization for your call for Christians to get special discriminatory treatment in our democracy is it? Again apply that to other groups who don’t trigger the Deep South mentality. Homosexual activists are on a whole different planet in political enthusiasm and typically display extreme prejudice toward Christians that my gay friends don’t hold. Indeed I wouldn’t be friends with them. Yet if the majority of people were gay would you seriously subdivide them to pretend activists were a minority group?

”But of course they don't do that generally, because they know they haven't a prayer of succeeding if they're honest about it.”

Of course not any more than any one issue parties. Most people vote for major parties. That doesn’t establish a Christian minority any more than the lack of success of the Greens shows that people hate the environment.

Q&A that was quite a list mate.. all those names.

Does it by any chance occurr to you that calling me a list of names hints.. just a tiny bit.. at 'self righteousness' in you ? :)

Honestly.. you are playing one of the oldest games in the book..."Throw enough mud and some of it must in the end...stick" but what you don't see is the mud sticking to your own hands old son.

How in the world does it benefit a debate, by calling an opponent a heap of names?

JOHNNY.. is that your take on things also ? that you and Q&A wallowing in name calling like a couple-a-pigs in a slop heap...that 'I' am the one causing the alienation?

and Johnny.. what's this about 'outright lying'? That is a bit strong.. sure I've made mistakes but innocently, or based on poor recollection at times, but 'outright' lie ? nope.. I can't claim that one. Needless to say, you will come up with something I've written and 'SPIN' it as an 'outright lie'. Well go right ahead.

Come come :) let's reason together. Both of you can do better.

You and Q&A want the tax free status of religions removed ? no biggy... we 'DONATE' each sunday so it won't effect us much. I'm a great believer anyway in SELF supporting Churches. The further from the State...the better.

mjbp....that last post was quite well argued mate...

I won't call gay activists 'deranged or lunatic' I simply disagree with their moral standpoint and thus will oppose the furtherance of it in every way I can.

I definitely regard the homosexual condition as non normal, and I don't think one needs to argue that too hard because it is patently obvious. The point though is that while I have compassion for an individual struggling with sexual orientation, I have ZERO sympathy for such a person who is trying to impose that moral viewpoint onto children via education from pre-school to University.

I won't call such a person 'deranged', but I will call them 'not normal' because they arn't. We can engage with others without shabby shallow empty name calling.... at least some of us can.

So....which is worse.. a 'Christian camp' where we speak to a small number of people about spiritual things, or a group which seeks to undermine and invade and infect our whole education system in a planned deliberate and to me, immoral way ?

I sympathise for you BD, empathy is another matter – you decide what word games you want to play.