I'm sorry moderate Christians, but your right wing 'brothers' are pretty fucking scary

The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour

Um... wow.

I just hope they're thinking and speaking in metaphor, but the cynic in me believs otherwise--unfortunately.

[edit] Oh fuck, the reverse "D" in reference to Lieberman, classic, and the fact that he relates/accepts this organization--God help us all.

[edit] The most damning thing is that they try to censure opposite beliefs (having security kick him out) which goes against Mill's notion of the marketplace of ideas. Meh... what should we expect?

i love how they believe the person who brings peace to the middle east, will be the son of satan...

that's so exiting to know...

So it's not about WMD's or Sadam or Oil or Democracy or....................
It's about Killing All The Muslims?

Yes, that's what is smart for the U.S. - more empire-like activity in the middle east.

Have these people heard of the Crusades? You know, the ten or twelve major and minor campaigns by European monarchs, both Pope and Kings alike? Where they aimed to "liberate" the Holy Land from the Muslims?

That went well for them, as I recall.

Well if it weren't for the Democrats, it would have!

It's not. It's the same guy who did Generation chickenhawk.

Isn't the only reason they need to make sure to keep Israel around is because Jesus is supposed to come back and destroy the temple in Jerusalem during the Second Coming or something like that? I seem to recall that being what the Evangelical and Fundamentalist support for Israel is all about. They need to keep Israel around so Jesus can come and destroy it or some shit.

Pfft. Jesus destroying a temple. He couldn't even escape two planks of wood.

They would be smarter to bank on David Blaine or Cris Angel to destroy the temple.

Why do you hate Europe?

Generalizing about Muslims. Good call.

No wonder the staff didn't want that guy asking questions.

It's because of the French.

http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx

They're just taken from internet forums. There are links to the forum in question under the comment.

Holy crap...

I saw the one on the BBC about female "circumcision". The rest, I don't know about, and I don't want them to know about me. Damn, those people are stupid and dangerous.

Anybody else get a mental picture of Jack Handey reading some of those?

No one appreciates being told that they are believers in a false religion or are made out to be the enemy for not being Christian. Sigh. I'm weary of self-righteous, fear-mongering, Armageddon-hungry zealots. Humankind can be so ugly.

There's no such thing as moderate religion. You can't "moderately" believe in the Tooth Fairy. It's the ability to believe in obviously false ideas without (or even despite) evidence that makes religion dangerous.

Fixed.

Thoughtcrime?

OK, and I still believe that when you allow yourself to believe absolutely in things for which you have no evidence -- or even things that contradict the evidence you actually do have -- is when the trouble starts.

If you can make someone believe that the Son of the Invisible Omnipotent Omniscient Man Who Lives in the Sky was born as a human in an immaculate conception, was killed and brought back to life, then went back to A Magical Kingdom in Space to be with his Father -- who is also Himself -- in order to redeem humanity's sins in the eyes of his Father/Himself, thus sacrificing himself to redeem us from... himself... you can make them do anything. And this is what all Christians believe, including so-called "moderates".

Keith, you can't fault a person who is raised religious and doesn't leave it. Nor can you fault them for choosing and/or accepting it later in life.

First of all, it isn't difficult to make people believe just a bout anything - especially when others around you support it. One example is Santa Claus. I thought for sure that tubby bastard somehow came down our chimney without exfoliating his penis off in the process and there was lots of people who fed into that belief. My grandparents asked what Santa got me for Christmas - the television showed stories and images of him. The difference is, at some point in time we either are told or find out that Santa doesn't exist.

In religion, it's plausible to think that people don't want to explore the possibilities that their religion is based on nothing more than folklore.

We're talking about something that has been around for thousands and thousands of years. The fact that it's been around so long makes it easier for people to accept as fact.

I was raised believing all of that stuff. Hell, my parents still believe it. I don't think they are stupid for it - they have this "faith" thing that I have lost and have never looked for again.

I guess most people want to believe that this isn't the extent of our existence and that there is some sort of place in the afterlife that doesn't have the ugliness found in the here and now. I can't blame them.

I don't believe that all people who follow religion wish harm on others. I think a lot of them actually have good intentions and want to be better people. Some may need that religion to find that drive.

I realize there are people inflict their religion on others - which is wrong. Or, they use it as a tool for control or influence over others and dictate morals onto them. That I have a problem with.

P.S. we're drinking so I'm pretty sure this doesn't flow well at all.

If I may be so bold, the belief itself is not the problem. Believing that, say, Bernoulli's Principle of Fluid Motion is bunk and that God's heavenly hosts hold up airplanes is stupid, but it's not malicious. Likewise, there are a great many people who believe the irrational things you cite but nevertheless act courteously, considerately, and compassionately towards their fellow man. I don't see this as a bad thing, and if it's the useful myths that bring men to believe they should be courteous, considerate, and compassionate, then I for one think the world could do with more useful myths.

The problem, rather, is the fairly consistent theme of allowing bad things to happen to people for no other reason than the fact that they must have it coming. Rather than help a child with Down Syndrome, you must convince him or her to seek repentence for sins committed in the womb, and then God will help her. Rather than help a Democrat with cancer, you let him suffer alone because those Dems are obviously against Jesus. Of course a woman raped should not be forced to have the baby; she should never have left the kitchen where she'd be safe. Each of those reflects the basic train of logic in one of the posts written in the 100 instances of "Christian" thinking.

Obviously, that is completely anathema to real Christianity; apparently, the Good Samaritan parable and the phrase "What you do to the least of men you do to me" must be the "inconceivable"s of the Bible, in that they must not mean what we think they mean. But that at present is merely a side note. What is more important in my eyes is how closely that kind of thinking corresponds with conversion by the sword; put generally, the threat of very bad things happening to drive men into the fold. In this case, rather than forcing yourself, you simply allow terrible things to happen to another. That, Keith, is the real problem, and it's problematic for two reasons. First, there's the obvious (and obviously unChristian) fact that you allow people to come to harm through your own inaction. The second is the fact that belief because you fear the consequences of non-belief is a terribly unChristian rationale for believing.

Now I've probably wandered not a little bit from the original thread line, but at least one element of my meanderings is important here. And that element is the fact that beliefs, in and of themselves and whether true or false, are not by nature the problem. The problem, at the risk of sounding like a libertarian, is the attempt to coerce proper belief through the threat of terrible consequences. Such coercion is immoral in it's own right; it's also completely anathema to true Christianity.