It’s Sunday

Time for some godliness.

According to this godly sign, a lot of us ♡ the devil:

god-hates-whatever

Looks like they covered everyone but “gratuitous apostrophe abusers”.

BY THE WAY, what do you think they mean by “High Fullutent”?   “High Flatulent” maybe?

(from God Hates Protesters)

94 Responses to “It’s Sunday”


  1. 1 brebis noire Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 8:23 am

    Hm, godliness is not next to spelliness, apparently.
    I think the high fullutent is an attempt at “high-falutin”. Oy.

  2. 2 J. A. Baker Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 8:30 am

    What the hell are “P.K’s”? “Player-Killers?” “Promise Keepers?” “Playful Kittehs?”

    And “Sport’s Nut’s [sic]?” What’s he got against my wingnut brother?

  3. 3 Cornelius T.Zen Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 8:33 am

    Good morrow, all!
    Let’s see:
    Adulterers: you mean, like Mark Sanford, or Newt Gingrich, or Rudy Giuliani?
    Fornicators: like Eliot Spitzer?
    Homos: like Larry Craig?
    Loud mouth women: like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Michelle Malkin, Anne Coulter?
    Thieves: like Bernie Madoff?
    Gangsters, thieves, gamblers, drunkards, liars, freeloaders,racists, emo’s, wifebeaters:
    WHY DOES THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ❤ THE DEVIL?
    Obviously, education is the devil's playground – CTZEn

  4. 4 J. A. Baker Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 8:37 am

    CTZen – are you absolutely SURE that Ann Coulter is a woman? 😆 😆 😆 😆

  5. 5 Torontonian Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 9:05 am

    for J A Baker

    I believe that P K signifies Promise Keepers.

    Remember them? Came and went about as quickly
    as the daisy wheel typewriters.

  6. 6 mouthyorange Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 9:40 am

    PK = Preachers’ kids. I knew a bunch of preachers’ kids and that’s what they called themselves. PKs.

  7. 7 Dead Men Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 9:44 am

    I’m kind of surprised that they’d mention druggies. One of the fellows who wrote the bible lived on an island that was quite famous for it’s hallucinogenic mushrooms… no wonder he had quite vivid and psychotic ‘visions’.

    Maybe they don’t want any new competition.

  8. 8 Bruce Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 10:05 am

    I’ve seen this sign a few years ago but in a different form. I guess the general level of craziness has brought it back in style.

    I can count 20 things on that sign that I’m “guilty” of, and sports nut isn’t one of them.

  9. 9 JJ Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 11:32 am

    brebis – Ahh, those high-falutin’ sophisticated SWINE. Ha!

  10. 10 JJ Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 11:33 am

    JAB & orange – I’m pretty sure PK means “promise keepers”, another weird religious cult.

  11. 11 JJ Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 11:36 am

    CTZen – Oh, that sounds like too much fun, to go all through that list and find the right-wing offenders.

    Just for starters, Druggies: Rush Limbaugh, come on down!

  12. 12 JJ Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 11:41 am

    Torontonian – DaisyWheel typewriters? 😆 I had one of them… long after people started using word processors, I was terrified of computers and hung on to my typewriter til it fell apart. Things have changed radically, to say the least…

  13. 13 JJ Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 11:43 am

    DM – Well, as you know, with these people there’s no amount of contradictions that can’t be coped with. They are defiant in their cognitive dissonance.

  14. 14 JJ Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 11:44 am

    Bruce – Things are getting scary when the Crazy goes into one-upmanship mode 😯

  15. 15 Bina Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    I think they mean “high-falutins”. In other words, the brainier-than-thous. 😆

  16. 16 Jasper Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 6:28 pm

    wow, they even have Catholics (me) up there…

    It may be funny, but this is really a misrepresentation of religious people..

  17. 17 Dr. Prole Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 6:40 pm

    High-falutin’s = people who can spell and punctuate.

  18. 18 Cornelius T.Zen Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    Good morrow, all!
    Good point, Jasper. Just as the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the witch-hunts of Salem, the Holocaust, were all “misrepresentations” of religious people, even though highly religious people engaged in those atrocities.
    Cae in point: when the Moslem jihadists conquered Jerusalem, they imposed laws that guaranteed the safety and religious freedom of other “People Of The Book”. Christians and Jews were free to worship and do business in the city, as long as they observed the civil laws of the Moslem occupiers. The result: a peaceful and civil city.
    When the Crusaders took the city, they hunted down and slaughtered all surviving Moslems, men, women and children, and imposed restrictive “Christian” laws on Jews and local Christians. The result: bloodshed, violence and the eventual loss of Jerusalem to Salahdin.
    No wonder Jesus wept. – CTZen

  19. 19 JJ Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 9:33 pm

    Jasper – Catholic, eh? Why do you love the devil?

  20. 20 JJ Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 9:36 pm

    CTZen – Nice history lesson for Jasper.

    I think these days conservative Catholics are loathe to admit things like the Inquisition even happened… although the medieval punishment freak mindset certainly lives on in people like Ms. Lila Torquemada Rose.

  21. 21 Jasper Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 10:48 pm

    “Just as the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the witch-hunts of Salem, the Holocaust, were all “misrepresentations” of religious people, even though highly religious people engaged in those atrocities.”

    Cornholeio,

    The crusades happened because Muslims were burning down churches. If it weren’t for the crusades, you’d be kneeling and praying 5 times a day towards mecca….you fool.

    ( Islam; the only religion liberals like…post 9/11)

    Hilter was a Darwinist you idiot.

    Atheists killed 100 million people in the 20th century.

  22. 22 Jasper Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 10:50 pm

    btw: I was raised in Salem, Mass. The women who were hung on Gallows hill did actually exhibit demonic behavior. Of course the hangings never should have taken place, but times were different back then..

  23. 23 mouthyorange Monday, September 28, 2009 at 2:16 am

    Midwives were burned as witches because they held women’s hands and comforted them and gave them nature’s herbs and so on to facilitate their process and ease their pain.

    You see, the bible said that women were to suffer in childbirth.

    Therefore midwives were the devil’s reps.

  24. 24 Dr. Prole Monday, September 28, 2009 at 6:39 am

    Poor Jasper. Were you home schooled? Because you don’t know shit about history.

  25. 25 Jasper Monday, September 28, 2009 at 7:21 am

    Quack Prole,

    All you have is insults. What don’t you try explaining where I’m wrong, you fuckin commie.

  26. 26 Dr. Prole Monday, September 28, 2009 at 7:46 am

    The crusades happened because Muslims were burning down churches. If it weren’t for the crusades, you’d be kneeling and praying 5 times a day towards mecca….you fool.


    Ahem…
    Not exactly a winning campaign, you fuckin troll.

    After the disappointments of the Third Crusade, Western forces would never again threaten the real bases of Muslim power. From that point on, they were only able to gain access to Jerusalem through diplomacy, not arms.

    The tale of the Crusader states, after the mid-13th century, is a sad and short one. Though popes, some zealous princes—including Edward I of England—and various religious and political thinkers continued to call for a Crusade to unite the warring armies of Europe and to deliver a smashing blow to Islam, later efforts were too small and too sporadic to do more than buy time for the Crusader states. With the fall of ‘Akko (Acre) in 1291, the last stronghold on the mainland was lost, though the military religious orders kept garrisons on Cyprus and Rhodes for some centuries. However, the Crusading impulse was not dead. As late as 1396 a large expedition against the Ottoman Turks in the Balkans, summoned by Sigismund of Hungary, drew knights from all over the West. But a crushing defeat at Nicopolis (Nikopol) on the Danube River also showed that the appeal of these ventures far outstripped the political and military support needed for their success.

    So tell me about how I’d be kneeling toward Mecca 5x a day now if it weren’t for the glorious Crusades? Next thing you’ll tell me the Spanish Inquisition was just a big tickle fight.

  27. 27 Dead Men Monday, September 28, 2009 at 8:20 am

    Hitler was a Darwinist? Really? I suppose that’s why his Mein Kampf was so full of religious bleating and prayers to God. I suppose that’s why his army carried about ‘Gott Mit Uns’ on all of their belts. (God’s With Us!)

    Oh wait.

    Do you know what Darwinism even is? Do you know what -SOCIAL Darwinism- is? They aren’t the same thing and while one was named for the other their, the other isn’t even a term that makes sense. ‘Darwinism’? Darwin’s work was evolution, and the discovery of Natural Selection.

    Social Darwinism was thought up about 30 years AFTER Darwin died, so the man had nothing to do with it.

    Where Darwin proposed the way Nature ensures the survival of the fittest through random chance and (neutral) predation, Social Darwinism was a thought process used by people who wanted to take an active hand in ensuring that only THEY survived.

    You know, kind of like how Christians sought to murder every Muslim in the Middle East.
    Darwin was a gentleman and would have spit in the face of anyone who thought to use his name for such things.

    And for ‘atheists killing 100 million people’, yea, that’s a mental fart I hear constantly, and each time laugh at because it’s a complete fabrication.

  28. 28 Jasper Monday, September 28, 2009 at 8:30 am

    Those who wish to bash the Catholic Church do not hesitate to bring up the “Crusades” and the “Inquisition” as evidence of tainted Church history. It’s the common non-catholic apologetic against the Church, and it comes with the admonition: “History proves that organized religion is bound to pillage and plunder the innocent.”

    Do these people have the facts on their side? Or, do they merely parrot bigoted misinformation they were taught from the time of their youth? Does it go deeper than that? Perhaps they wish to believe the accusations against the Church, be they true or false, in order to justify a sinful life that is in rebellion against Church doctrine.

    Did those who lived during the times of the Crusades and shortly thereafter regard the Crusades as necessary and something of virtue? Has the average man on the street with an axe to grind against the Church embraced myths of revisionism without realizing it? Muslims had more respect for Christians during the times of the Crusades than do revisionists in our day. They regarded Christian soldiers as worthy adversaries who fought with piety.

    So then, where does the revisionist view of Church history come from?

    What if it came from none other than Martin Luther? He’d already waged his war against Church indulgences, doctrine and Papal Supremacy. He was the first within Christianity who argued in a forcible way that to fight in the Crusades as a Christian would be the same as fighting Christ Himself. He believed that Christ had sent the Turks to punish the Church for its infidelity to God, but his claim lasted only until Austria was invaded and his own territory had become endangered. He decided it would be “permissible” to fight in the Crusades, but he had to maintain the Crusades were evil in order to save face. For the next two centuries people viewed the crusades through the bigotry of Martin Luther, and Protestants in our day have picked up his banner against the Church.

    http://catholicseries.blogspot.com/2009/05/crusades-and-catholic-church.html

  29. 29 Dr. Prole Monday, September 28, 2009 at 10:20 am

    Hey, papist, you were the one who said that without the Crusades we’d be kneeling towards Mecca 5x per day. I pointed out that the Crusades didn’t end up all that well for the invading and occupying Christians. Which is TRUE, no revising there. So tell me, what’s your point? That the Crusaders thought they were correct? Yeah, so did the Nazis, so did the Fascists, so did the Communists. Every oppressor thinks they’re correct. Again, what’s your point?

    It’s understandable, I guess, that you feel like you have to defend your church’s honor (incidentally my former church) against the horrors of the Crusades and the tortures of the Inquisition, and I’m sure you’ll probably have a great excuse for the epidemic of child-fucking priests who then kept getting shuffled from parish to parish in order to fuck or otherwise sexually assault more children. Sorry, Jasper, there IS NO EXCUSE. Your beloved religion is rotten from the head down. If you want to keep supporting it, giving your hard earned cash each week in the collection plate, and making excuses for the atrocities and slaughter committed by men who claim to know the mind of God and/or Jesus, that is your right. But you’re not going to win any converts here to that den of corruption, and I doubt anyone’s buying your lame excuses or historical revision either.

  30. 30 Phatbiker Monday, September 28, 2009 at 10:49 am

    That sign is an indication of the new american Christian/right-wing hybrid mindset which has little to do with classic church teachings. These people want to turn north america into a fundalmentalist christian theocractic version of Iran, with dirt bags like Dobson, Falwell jr.,Ken Hamm etc. as their ruling Mullahs.

    Darwin and his wife where both deeply religious.He didn’t want his book published untill after his death but his hand was forced when other scientists of the day where publishing papers and coming to the same conclusions.

    Religion, the common people believe in it, the wise ones don’t, and the rulers find it usefull. Senica the younger (Roman historian)

  31. 31 Jasper Monday, September 28, 2009 at 12:36 pm

    Dr. Prole,

    Despite your references, if it were not for the crusades, Europe would have been mostly Muslim, then America. It’s not certain, I’ll give you that, but chances are it would have been.

    “Sorry, Jasper, there IS NO EXCUSE. Your beloved religion is rotten from the head down.”

    No it’s not. The church does many, many good things. Why the hatred towards the catholic church? To have the kind of hatred you have, something must have happened in your past.

    (atheists killed 100 million people in the 20 century)

  32. 32 Calgal Monday, September 28, 2009 at 3:37 pm

    Well at least they differentiate between Feminists and Loud Mouth Women. Loud mouth fundamentalists aren’t usually that discerning.

  33. 33 Phatbiker Monday, September 28, 2009 at 3:40 pm

    “Atheists killed 100 million in the 20th century” fuckin’ bullshit! Pope Pius XII helped legitimize Hitler’s Nazi regime and never spoke out against the holocaust. Pope John Paul 2 condemned millions of Africans to a slow painfull death from AIDS because of his stance against condoms and birth control. Pope Ratzi really was a Nazi.
    Catholic history of abortion http://www.libchrist.com/other/abortion/catholic.html
    They didn’t forbid it untill the 17th century. They forbid it mainly because they wanted to out-number the protestants (hense large catholic familys).

  34. 34 Dead Men Monday, September 28, 2009 at 4:15 pm

    See, what Jasper is dribbling about here with his ‘100 million dead’ concept is one being thrown around by the Religious fuckscoffs. I’ve seen it in quite a few different places, most notably whenever anyone brings up the two-or-three-millenia worth of murder, torture and hate religion has caused.

    They try to make their enemy sound bad, and it works well when the only people listening have a similar outlook and an IQ that settles at about room temperature.

    In Celcius.

    But see… it doesn’t really work, no matter how many times you repeat it, Jasper. The 20th century contains some of the deadliest wars ever fought. Of course it does – at the turn of the century repeating rifles were just being introduced – bolt Action rifles with a 5-round magazine was ridiculously new-fangled. By the start of WW1, Machineguns were in abundance, and before them there was the Howitzer, the Big Daddy of the old flintlock Cannon. By WW2 subachineguns were everywhere, the rifles were phenominal, machineguns were ridiculous, and there were planes, tanks, armoured cars, battleships and everything else you can name that did killin’ quick and easy and at range.

    Crusaders had arrows and swords. It takes a lot of work to kill five people with a sword, compared to five people with a rifle.
    So much easier to kill in the 20th century. Now, let’s see where you are getting your number from…

    There were quite a few wars in the 20th, but I found a good listing with a reasonably accurate listing of casualties here – http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html

    The estimated total runs in at about 160 million dead during the various wars and other issues that really racked up the body count.

    Knowing how you brain damaged pillocks equate things, I suppose we have to blame everything the Nazis did (Despite the overwhelming evidence to Hitler and his buddies being fanatically Christian,) the Soviets did and the Chinese did, oh and the Vietnamese and North Koreans too. Yea, that’s a pretty hefty count there.

    Except… how many of these are the fault of Atheism? How were these CAUSED by atheism?

    None of them. Communism favours no God nor gods, this is true enough but… I don’t see any actions taking place beyond a few particular and tiny movements that was directly targeted at purging the religious. I don’t see any of these events happening because it’s the Atheist Way.

    I don’t see any Massacres done in the Name of Atheism.

    But… if you look at all of recorded history, well… ‘GOD WILLS IT!’ is such a very common phrase, along with ‘In the name of God’ and other various pious bleating that preceeded complete and utter massacring of a people. And hey, a whole lot of that kind of stuff can be found in the bible, your God fucking -loves- having people butchered in his name, men women and children, and even their herds and pets.

    But see, in the Old Dayz, they had to do their killin’ the hard way, with swords and spears and arrows. That’s hard, slow work. Had your Crusdaers gotten their mitts on a couple machineguns and a howitzer? There’d be no brown people left on the face of the Earth, because them Christians in the old days loved nothing better than making the streets run red with the blood of infidels.

    And all because their God said so, because their Church said so, because the Pope and priests and Shaman and medicine men said so because the Great Sky Fairy demands blood.
    Countless massacres have happened in the Name of God. None have happened in the Name of Atheism.
    It’s happened to further totalitarian ideals, it’s happened to seize power and control, it’s happened out of seething hate… but never has it been done in the Name of Atheism.

    Atheists have killed 100 million people in the 20th century? Does that make the crimes of your God somehow seem less?

  35. 35 Jasper Monday, September 28, 2009 at 4:16 pm

    those who assail Pius are not really interested in the history of the Jews, or the tragedy of the Holocaust, but merely want to exploit them for their own ideological agendas. The Hitler’s pope myth has proven quite useful to dissident Catholics who disagree with Catholic teaching. If they can prove that the Vatican was complicit in the Holocaust, then they can weaken papal influence on every issue today, and advance their own agendas.

    In defending the good name of Pius XII, Dalin (Hitlers Pope Myth) does not stand alone. Martin Gilbert, Winston Churchill’s official biographer, and one of the most respected historians of the Holocaust, has been particularly eloquent in his praise of Pius.

    ###

    A prominent Ugandan AIDS activist says that those who are attacking the pope for his stand against the use of condoms in the fight against the disease have “no credibility.” Martin Ssempa thanked Pope Benedict for saying that condoms can exacerbate the problem of HIV/AIDS.

    After twenty years as an AIDS prevention activist in Uganda, Martin Ssempa says he has concluded that the real culprit in the spread of the disease “is sexual promiscuity driven by immorality of the heart.”

    Uganda’s population is mainly Christian, and the message, supported by government-sponsored promotion, that men and women should not engage in extra-marital sex dramatically reduced Uganda’s AIDS rate over the last couple decades. Ssempa and other local AIDS activists have frequently decried the interference of US and Europe-based international organizations who reject abstinence and fidelity principles in favor of condoms

    ###

    “Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Kim Jung Il produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered 100 million people (not to mention abortion, add millions more).The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth. Of course if some people – the Jews, the landowners, the unfit, or the handicapped – have to be eliminated in order to achieve this utopia, this is a price the atheist tyrants and their apologists have shown themselves quite willing to pay. Thus they confirm the truth of Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s dictum, “If God is not, everything is permitted.”

    Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.

  36. 36 Jasper Monday, September 28, 2009 at 4:35 pm

    “I don’t see any Massacres done in the Name of Atheism.”

    Communists leaders were motivated by a strong desire to impose an ideological “package” over the whole world. The package included the eradication of Religion, defined by arch-atheist, Karl Marx, as “The opium of the people.” According to Marx, religion helped keep the masses passive before the abuse of the wealthy and powerful, and the only way to free them from the “stupor,” God and religion had to be eradicated. Lenin embraced Marx’s views and so did Stalin up to the Second World war. The enforcement of Atheism was a “critical” requirement for Communism’s success, and thus it had to be implemented at all costs. This meant oppressive measures, such as brainwashing in state schools, the closing of houses of worship and arresting countless religious leaders

  37. 37 Dead Men Monday, September 28, 2009 at 5:10 pm

    HAH! Arch-Atheist?! I love it!

    You’ve obviously swallowed this drivel from a website devoted to your cause without taking so much as a minute to think it through. If you honestly believe that Lenin and Stalin followed Marx to the letter of his writings, then you really ARE a complete pillock.

    Marx did indeed say that religion was the opiate of the masses, and he was quite correct about it but he -never- EVER demanded the persecution of religion. NEVER. What he said was that with the shift in power going to the people, religion will wither away and die of its own accord, because it would no longer have any means to control their subjects.
    There was no need to go out and hunt them, because they’d go away of their own accord.

    Lenin went a step further and got proactive about it, and Stalin a couple more steps and off a cliff, though everyone can quite freely admit Stalin was a maniac.

    Here’s what Lenin performed against religion:

    1 – The Orthodox Christian Church was officially disbanded.
    2 – Church property was seized and confiscated
    3 – Religious services were allowed only under very restricted conditions. Religious instruction was prohibited in schools, and for groups of children under the age of 18.
    4 – In 1922, the patriarchs of Orthodoxy and many bishops and priests implicated with the crimes of the Czarists were imprisoned. In 1923 they were released.
    5 – From 1923 to 1924, the last year of his life, he carried out an intense campaign against religion based primarily upon propaganda.

    Church shut down (technically), and it’s assets seized, which is a great thing in my own opinion, and a bunch of arrests due to priests and such being in cahoots with the czars… and eventually released.

    Oh and hey, that Brainwashing in State Schools thing — do you mean, kind of like Sunday school? You know, where they read the bible and answer any questions with complete nonsense, ignore anything that disagrees with their view and, in the old days, punished any deviation from the program with corporal punishment?

    You know, like how they brainwash people?

  38. 38 Jasper Monday, September 28, 2009 at 5:42 pm

    “Church shut down (technically), and it’s assets seized, which is a great thing in my own opinion”

    Spoken like a true Marxist.

  39. 40 Frank Frink Monday, September 28, 2009 at 7:49 pm

    Jasper either figures he’s ‘on fire’ or it just hurts when he pees.

  40. 41 Dead Men Monday, September 28, 2009 at 8:03 pm

    Hey, Jasper.

    You gonna, you know, address those points I made?

    Religious propaganda is not an answer to anything I’ve written. Well, not in the real world anyway. I mean, I know that rolling your eyes back in your head, frothing at the mouth and regurgitating what you’re told without actually researching is a good answer in your circles… but out here it doesn’t work.

    It just makes you look like a dim little pillock that should be pitied.

  41. 42 JJ Monday, September 28, 2009 at 8:17 pm

    Jasper – What are you trying to say? Got a Coles Notes version?

  42. 43 Jasper Monday, September 28, 2009 at 8:40 pm

    “You gonna, you know, address those points I made?”

    Dead Men,

    I though I did at my 4:35 pm comment. You were arguing that Atheism was not the direct cause of those atrocities. In my research I would conclude that maybe Atheism wasn’t the direct cause, but for communism to succeed, religion has to be removed.

    Without being sarcastic, the Crusades, Priest abuse, etc were awful events. Humans do fail often.

    “Jasper – What are you trying to say? Got a Coles Notes version?”

    I was just defending my church. I’m trying to bring you all to Christ but I’m realizing my tactics are flawed.

  43. 44 Frank Frink Monday, September 28, 2009 at 8:46 pm

    I’m trying to bring you all to Christ but I’m realizing my tactics are flawed.

    I have no problem with Christ. Really. Said a lot of really good stuff. Unfortunate that a very significant number of those who purport to ‘follow’ him seem to quite easily forget all that ‘good stuff’ he said.

    So, no. You won’t be ‘bringing me’ to them. I don’t pray well with others.

  44. 45 Dr. Prole Monday, September 28, 2009 at 9:05 pm

    Jasper, if Christ wants me, he knows where to find me. He doesn’t need some brainwashed anonymous minion on the internet to bring me around.

    As you said, humans DO fail often. And your whole entire church organization is built on the words and deeds of those failed humans. You put way too much trust in humans, Jasper. Other than the Sermon on the Mount, it’s all just heresay by people 100+ years after the fact, most of whom love money and power. For cryin’ out loud, the gospels even contradict each other! But that’s A-OK, you just have to have faith, WE (men who love power) know what’s best for you, WE (men who love power) decide what you read and what is the truth, WE (men who love power) decide which documents are destroyed, WE (men who love power) decide which archaic and illogical rules you live your life by. Sucker.

    What I don’t understand is, how you can really learn about what the church has done in the name of God – the horrific tortures, the human rights abuses, the stealing, the persecution, the oppression, the absolute totalitarian control that they used to enjoy and wish they still had, the misogyny, the sexual abuse, the Magdalene laundries, the residential schools, etc., and NOT hate it?

  45. 46 JJ Monday, September 28, 2009 at 9:08 pm

    Jasper

    I’m trying to bring you all to Christ but I’m realizing my tactics are flawed.

    What tactics, and why do you think they’re flawed?
    Just curious.

  46. 47 900ft jesus Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 4:13 am

    Jasper said: Quack Prole, All you have is insults. What don’t you try explaining where I’m wrong, you fuckin commie.

    Dr. Prole, you’re a COMMIE?!!?

    Well, that would account for all the red on your blog.

  47. 48 Jasper Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 6:08 am

    “What tactics, and why do you think they’re flawed?
    Just curious.”

    900ft Jesus answered it. If I want to bring somebody to Jesus I can’t go around insulting others.

  48. 49 JJ Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 6:17 am

    Jasper

    If I want to bring somebody to Jesus I can’t go around insulting others.

    Ding ding ding! We have a winnah!

  49. 50 Dr. Prole Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 7:15 am

    No, no, I’m sure Jesus would go around calling people a “fuckin commie”. What you really should do if you want an auto-de-fe though is make like Torquemada, and bring people to Jesus by putting them on a rack and slowly stretching them until their joints come apart. I hear that worked really well, and since I’m half Jewish you could feel especially good about it.

  50. 51 Dead Men Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 7:21 am

    It’s also pretty ineffective to say ‘God loves you’ or other such pious bleating at the end of every post, remember that.

    It’s not hard at all for us to prove otherwise.

  51. 52 Jasper Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 8:04 am

    “What I don’t understand is, how you can really learn about what the church has done in the name of God – the horrific tortures, the human rights abuses, the stealing, the persecution, the oppression, the absolute totalitarian control that they used to enjoy and wish they still had, the misogyny, the sexual abuse, the Magdalene laundries, the residential schools, etc., and NOT hate it?”

    Dr. Prole,

    I’m not really an expert in church history from centuries ago.

    I know that my priest was removed from my church for 2 years during an investigation that he inappropriately touched a kid, there were many cases like his and the secular MSM ate it up, unlike how the MSM is now excusing Roman Polanski for raping a young girl. I’m not making excuses, just saying.

    Again, humans do fail.

    Have you read any of the Catechism, if so, what do you think of it.

  52. 53 Dr. Prole Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 8:23 am

    Jasper, the Magdalene laundries and the residential school are horrors that were still being perpetuated by the church within the last few decades, not centuries ago.

    I’m glad that priest was removed from your church. It wasn’t long ago (2001 in fact) when Pope Benedict was Cardinal Ratzinger, he was still helping to cover up those heinous crimes against children in order to protect the church.
    Nice religion you got there
    .

    Patrick Wall, a former Vatican-approved enforcer of the Crimen Sollicitationis in America, tells the programme: “I found out I wasn’t working for a holy institution, but an institution that was wholly concentrated on protecting itself.”

    And Father Tom Doyle, a Vatican lawyer until he was sacked for criticising the church’s handling of child abuse claims, says: “What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen.

    “When abusive priests are discovered, the response has been not to investigate and prosecute but to move them from one place to another. So there’s total disregard for the victims and for the fact that you are going to have a whole new crop of victims in the next place. This is happening all over the world.”

    How could anyone possibly trust any member of the church hierarchy after learning the history of systemic abuse and oppression?

  53. 54 Bleatmop Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 9:56 am

    After reading Jasper’s comments, I’m just wondering if there was a meme sent out to all the religious folks on stock arguments to include Hitler in any argument, especially when someone brings up an atrocity that can actually be linked to a religion such as the crusades or the inquisition.

  54. 55 toujoursdan Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 11:26 am

    Not all religious folks are like Jasper.

  55. 56 Jasper Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 11:35 am

    Dr. Prole,

    You keep on posting stuff about priest abuse. Ok, It has been addressed and almost bankrupted the church.

    Have you read the Catechism? if so, what do you think of it.

  56. 57 Dr. Prole Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 12:45 pm

    Toujours Dan, yes, I know.

    Jasper, I think it was largely written by a known misogynist, St. Augustine. I think the rules of men, who by your own admission have failings, are suspect. I think that Jesus’ divinity is not a fact but something decided over 300 years after he lived, again by MEN, in order to manipulate people. There you go. Since you never answer any of my questions, that’s all you’ll get out of me on yours.

    I will never go back to a church that despises me because of my gender and gives absolute power to men who don’t deserve it and have proven themselves to be worse sinners than any atheist or agnostic. Ain’t gonna happen.

  57. 58 Dr. Prole Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 12:47 pm

    P.S. almost bankrupted the church MY ASS. The Vatican seems to be doing pretty well for itself, and is sitting on a priceless collection of art and other valuable things. If the church is near bankrupt due to the despicable actions of its clergy, maybe they should have a garage sale.

  58. 59 toujoursdan Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 12:57 pm

    I’m not Catholic, but an Anglican so we have a bit more diversity and latitude in belief and practice. But I wanted to address a couple things:

    Dr. Prole is absolutely correct that the Gospels and other parts of the Bible have contradictions in their details. But I have always found it a bit odd that people point to them and exclaim “Look! The details don’t match” as if we are the first generation to notice them. It makes much more sense to ask “Why did the authors and compilers of the Bible include stories with contradictory details instead of removing the contradictions or harmonizing them?” That seems to me to be a better place to begin an investigation.

    Every modern mainline Protestant acknowledges there are contradictions in Scripture. Those contradictions were written about by Christians when the Bible was compiled in the 3rd Century. So it was those “failed” human beings that included them in the first place! It makes more sense to ask why it didn’t matter to them when they did it.

    We are dealing with a culture where 95% of the people were illiterate and written language had much much less value than it does for us today. These stories circulated in oral form in different communities for decades until they were finally written down. It was ancient practise for the authors to put in all versions of a story so that the reader can draw their own conclusion. A great example of this is the Noah’s Ark story. In Genesis 6:20 God tells Noah to take two of every kind of animal, but in verse 7:1-2 it says that God told Noah to take two of every unclean animal and seven of every clean animal, an obvious contradiction. This happens because two versions of the story were circulating and the Biblical author chose to include both. There are examples of this through the Gospels too. Most Christians don’t think a variance matters any more than different eyewitness accounts of an accident mean that the accident never happened. People perceive the world differently and group dynamics over time leads to some variation.

    On the issue of religious people causing war pain and death. There is absolutely no excuse for this and the statement of “atheists do it too” is not only not historically accurate, it is just pathetic. There is absolutely no excuse. It was wrong and evil, period. The fact that others may or may not have it too doesn’t minimize anything.

    The Ten Commandments, Sermon on the Mount and Paul’s letters make it absolutely clear that we are to treat others as we treat ourselves. There is no place in the religious journey for hatred, murder and abuse. Period. So why do people do it even when a religious text like the Bible makes it absolutely clear that it is forbidden?

    I think it is found in our capacity for rationalization, self delusion and compartmental thinking. And people of any belief system, or none at all, are capable of doing this. We all do it in smaller ways on a daily basis. IMO it’s not a religious thing, it’s a human thing. And while atheists haven’t had the same coercive power of the state that religious people did, it doesn’t mean that it can’t happen. We all carry the capacity to do good or evil and we all have the capacity to rationalize our actions.

    Again, I am not Catholic and as an Anglican we are taught to think for ourselves and can dissent on official teachings and positions yet remain in good standing. My point in bringing this is up is to say please don’t tar us all with the same brush. There are authoritarian and non-authoritarian forms of all religions, including Christianity. Many of us can both look at the past with a sober and critical eye yet still find value in the church community. I respect and often sympathize with your belief system and have no interest in trying to change them. I just think that for humanity to succeed, we need to figure out how to live together instead of beating each other over the head.

  59. 60 Jasper Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 1:04 pm

    “Since you never answer any of my questions”

    what question did I not answer, you are correct about some of the church’s failings…

    “I will never go back to a church that despises me because of my gender”

    Huh? I don’t understand. The church preaches dignity for all people.

    “I think that Jesus’ divinity is not a fact but something decided over 300 years after he lived”

    Constantine could not have had a hand in shaping the New Testament for two reasons: He wasn’t born soon enough and he didn’t live long enough. Based on writings from early church leaders, including documents dated from the year 96 through the year 112, at least 24 of the 27 books that comprise the New Testament were already regarded by early Christians as being authoritative, a full 200 years before Constantine convened the Council of Nicea.

    And, the Council of Nicea didn’t canonize anything. The canonization process actually occurred a full 70 years later, on a different continent (Africa). And it should be understood that the process of canonization wasn’t intended to “create” or “construct” a New Testament, but to reaffirm the books that for centuries had already been acknowledged as authoritative by Christians. In addition, there were several writings by early church leaders, who lived long before Constantine was born, that quote, paraphrase and expound upon all or virtually all of the passages found in the New Testament.

  60. 61 Dr. Prole Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 1:17 pm

    See, Jasper? You could learn a thing or two from toujoursdan about how to talk to us heathens.

    I don’t think I’ve been tarring all religious people with the same brush, though. I’ve specifically gone after Jasper’s Catholic hierarchy, which I have found throughout history to be mostly repugnant, corrupt, and oppressive.

    I don’t really care much about the canonical gospels and their contradictory nature, as far as anyone can tell written down generations after the death of Jesus. Actually the fact that those four were specifically and exclusively chosen, while many others were buried, burned or otherwise destroyed makes me more suspicious of them.

    Btw, for the record, I’m not an atheist. But I’ll never go back to any kind of organized religion.

  61. 62 Dr. Prole Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 1:25 pm

    “I will never go back to a church that despises me because of my gender”

    Huh? I don’t understand. The church preaches dignity for all people.

    Spoken like a Catholic man. Look Jasper until you have lived as a women in the Catholic church, you have NO IDEA what it’s like to deal with that kind of sexism. Your church invented the Madonna/Whore complex. Doctrine of original sin ring a bell? How about the fact that women can’t be ordained?

    Suggested reading: “Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven” by Uta Ranke-Heinemann.

    My issues and problems with the church could keep this thread going for months. I’m sick of talking to you about it. I’m not going back.

  62. 63 Jasper Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    “Madonna/Whore complex.”

    No, I don’t think so. Both husband and wife are suppose to respect each other. Men are held to same standard as women when comes to fidelity.

    “Doctrine of original sin ring a bell?”

    I’m not sure what this has to do with women. Original sin is a result of fallen nature of man.

    “How about the fact that women can’t be ordained?”

    Catholics have always insisted that the ordained ministry has its origin in Jesus’ own choice of the Twelve [Apostles] and that they are the foundation of the Church. Following Jesus’ example of choosing 12 males to be His apostles, the Church from the earliest days has reserved the priesthood to males.
    The church does not believe women are inferior or should be
    subordinate to men.

  63. 64 toujoursdan Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 2:55 pm

    Dr. Prole:

    Btw, for the record, I’m not an atheist. But I’ll never go back to any kind of organized religion.

    I completely understand. I am a gay man and feel like I have a target painted on my back. If I didn’t attend a gay friendly church where my sexuality is a complete non-issue I wouldn’t go back either.

  64. 65 mouthyorange Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 3:27 pm

    “Btw, for the record, I’m not an atheist. But I’ll never go back to any kind of organized religion.”

    Hey, old alter-ego of mine. Alter-ego in more than one way.

  65. 66 Bleatmop Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 3:49 pm

    Toujoursdan: I’m curious as to how you combine your belief in Christianity and being homosexual. I mean no disrespect, but it seems so hateful to anyone who isn’t hetero-normative. I mean, Deuteronomy 23: 17-18 specifically forbid you from even entering a church (knowing that sodomites and dogs are biblical names for being a homosexual man).

    Seriously, no disrespect. I’m just curious because you’re the first person I’ve “met” that has been in this situation. If I’m crossing a line, just let me know and I’ll cease and desist.

  66. 67 toujoursdan Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 5:55 pm

    The Deuteronomy passage says:

    17″None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute. 18″You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the LORD your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.

    In Hebrew the key word here is “qadesh”, which most believe means male cult prostitute nowadays. There is some controversy over what a qadesh really is because the King James Version of the Bible translated it as “sodomite” which is no longer believed to be accurate. You can read more about the controversy here. Religious Tolerance.com: Analysis of Deuteronomy 23:17

    In context though, this revolved around the First Commandment prohibition against worshipping other gods. The command is not to pollute the temple of Yahweh with money gained from serving foreign gods through cult prostitution.

    The usual anti-gay verses are the 6 so-called “clobber passages”: Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Most mainline Christians believe that the OT passages are part of the Mosaic code and don’t apply to Christians and the NT passages condemn different forms of male cult prostitution.

    The mainline Protestant (Anglican, Lutheran, United Church, etc.) churches mostly welcome gay people nowadays. My Anglican priest has in a gay relationship of 10 years and no one bats an eye. His partner is treated like any other spouse. The Episcopal Church in the USA elected a gay bishop a few years ago which caused about 10% of the membership to leave, but the other 90% stuck around. Surveys of lay Catholics show that more believe that gay relationships should be accepted than otherwise and even about 25% of people in right-wing evangelical churches believe that gay relationships should be accepted. So the tide it turning, though sadly, the loudest voices tend to be the most intolerant.

  67. 68 JJ Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 6:38 pm

    toujoursdan

    the loudest voices tend to be the most intolerant.

    That’s always the way with people who find themselves on the wrong side of history.

    (Thanks for taking the time to post these thoughtful comments, BTW. They’re great.)

  68. 69 Bleatmop Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 7:00 pm

    toujoursdan: Thanks for the poignant response. Area’s that I agree with you on is that many chistians are tolerant and that the loudest voices tend to be the most intolerant. Unfortunately, it seems to be the loud voices that seem to have the ear of those in power around the world. I would also suggest that opinions are changing in religious circles because of societal pressures, especially the opinions of the younger generation where homophobia is generally not accepted.

    However, I suspect that after these points we would probably agree on little when it comes to religion. And I’m fine with that. I’m quite happy to let you have your religion and you seem the type to be quite happy to let me not have any. Furthermore, it seems an internet forum is a poor choice to have a deep meaningful discussion. Those types of conversation always seem to be done better in person, preferably over a beer 🙂

  69. 70 Jasper Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 8:47 pm

    “I would also suggest that opinions are changing in religious circles because of societal pressures, especially the opinions of the younger generation where homophobia is generally not accepted.”

    Am I a homophobe if I don’t agree with gay marriage?

    “The mainline Protestant (Anglican, Lutheran, United Church, etc.) churches mostly welcome gay people nowadays.”

    I’m still trying to figure out where my church (Catholic) says gay people are not welcome. The church is a house of sinners not saints..

  70. 72 toujoursdan Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at 7:29 am

    Jasper: If you say that you’re against gay marriage as a religious sacrament, then I respect that. Religious institutions should be able to set the criteria their members meet as they wish. That is how religious freedom works in a free society. If the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t want to recognize gay couples, that is their prerogative. Gay couples can find other ways to meet their spiritual needs.

    If you are saying that you are against gay marriage as a civil matter, then I couldn’t disagree more. From a civil standpoint, marriage is a contract. Gay couples have the same need for legal protections and benefits straight couples do, and they are best met under civil marriage statutes. Civil unions have been tried in places like California and New Jersey and don’t entirely work. Gay people in civil unions have still been denied the same rights straight couples have because even if the state declares civil unions equal to marriage, it doesn’t mean private entities must do the same. To coin a phrase from the U.S. Supreme court’s Brown vs. The Topeka Board of Education: “Separate is never equal”.

    Besides, Canada has had civil gay marriage for several years. It hasn’t hurt straight couples one bit, but has given great benefits to gay couples making our relationships more stable. It’s fair. Part of living in a pluralistic society is allowing others to do things we may not agree with. It’s a Right under the Charter.

  71. 73 Jasper Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at 10:56 am

    “Besides, Canada has had civil gay marriage for several years. It hasn’t hurt straight couples one bit”

    We really don’t after only a few years what the effects will be on society, it make take decades..

    “Part of living in a pluralistic society is allowing others to do things we may not agree with.”

    Do I not have a right to speak up as a Catholic for the things I believe in? What if a minority group believes murder should be legal, should I allow a law to pass legalizing murder? My faith says murder is wrong. How about abortion, street drugs, pornography ? Many people believe all these should be legalized. My faith says these things are wrong, am I allowed to speak up against them?

    where does it end? nowhere in the U.S constitution does it say Abortion, Gay marriage, street drugs or pornography have to be legal, despite what activist courts recently decided, they could justify/twist anything to make it look constitutional..

  72. 74 Dr. Prole Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at 11:47 am

    Jasper I hate to tell you but abortion and porn are already legal. If you think they are wrong, you are 100% FREE to refuse to participate or partake in them.

    Murdering an already-born person will never be legalized (except unfortunately by the State via death penalty), and the vast majority of us don’t consider abortion to be murder. Again, you are 100% free to never ever have an abortion. Just like you are 100% free to never, ever have a homosexual relationship. Ain’t liberty grand?

    The constitution does not specifically enshrine those things as rights, but neither does it specifically say eating saturated fat or drinking pop have to be legal, but they are, because we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We also have civil rights, the right to privacy, the right to NOT have a religion, etc. There’s a whole Bill of Rights. If the constitution were to specifically list everything we had a right to, it would be 1,000,000+ pages long and be updated on an hourly basis. If you don’t like your rights, you can certainly have a go somewhere else. I hear Argentina is a nice Catholic country, it might be a place where you’re more comfortable if you’d prefer a country that adheres more closely to canon law.

    You certainly have a right to speak up for things you believe in, but your rights end at your ability to impose those beliefs on others in our free society. And that’s what it’s really all about – imposition. At some point, though, when you are in unfriendly territory as you are here, your spiel just gets tiresome. Why don’t you get your own blog and exercise your free speech there?

    As for same sex marriage having a negative effect on opposite-sex marriage, nobody can explain how this would happen. My marriage to my opposite-sex husband has not been effected one whit by our same-sex couple friends’ marriages. Besides, hetero couples are doing waaaaay more than their fair share of destroying the institution of marriage – just ask the “chosen” adulterers on C-Street or google “Republican sex scandals”! I believe the bible says somewhere that adulterers should be stoned, doesn’t it?

  73. 76 Jasper Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at 12:29 pm

    “Murdering an already-born person will never be legalized”

    why? what if a minority group thinks it should be? You are 100% free to never murder. Ain’t liberty grand?

    “and the vast majority of us don’t consider abortion to be murder.”

    No in the US, 50% are now pro-life.

    “We also have civil rights, the right to privacy”

    There is no right to privacy, there are many things I cannot do in the privacy of my own home.

    “You certainly have a right to speak up for things you believe in, but your rights end at your ability to impose those beliefs on others in our free society.”

    Really? laws that legislatures make impose beliefs on others all of the time.

    “My marriage to my opposite-sex husband has not been effected one whit by our same-sex couple friends’ marriages”

    You have no clue how homosexual marriage will effect society yet, it’s too early, neither do I. I do that it is not healthy for children, children need a Mother and Father.

  74. 77 Dr. Prole Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at 12:37 pm

    Ok, name me a law imposing a belief on you.

    OH NO the gays are wrecking my marriage! Is that what you’re saying? Are you feeling somehow threatened? Because I’m not.

    I do that it is not healthy for children, children need a Mother and Father.

    Sure Jasper, tell it to all the kids who need adoptive parents that a same-sex couple would be willing to take but can’t because of bigoted people like you. Children need a PARENT or two. The burden of proof is on you to tell me how having a loving parent or two loving parents as opposed to no parent is more healthy for children. You’re just wrong. Again, if you don’t want to marry a man, that’s your right. If you don’t want gays marrying in your church, well I suppose that as a private (and political yet somehow tax exempt, wrongly in my opinion) organization that is the church’s right. But you can’t tell the rest of us how to think, act, love, or live. Live your medieval Catholic values all you want, I couldn’t care less UNTIL you start imposing them on me.

    Seriously, I’m done with you and your archaic Catholic morality. Good day, Jasper.

  75. 78 Jasper Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at 12:38 pm

    “Oh my.”

    hey, what happened to that ‘Right to Privacy’, damn right there is no right to privacy.

    Dr. Prole, do you take joy at this news? you seem gleeful.

  76. 79 Jasper Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at 12:48 pm

    It is the very nature of law to impose particular views on people who don’t want to have those views imposed on them. Car thieves don’t want laws imposed on them which prohibit stealing. Drug dealers don’t want laws imposed on them which make it illegal to sell drugs. Yet our lawmakers are elected precisely to craft and impose such laws all the time. So the question is not whether we will impose something on somebody. The question is instead whether whatever is going to be imposed by the force of law is reasonable, just, and good for society and its members.

    Also, just because religion happens to hold a particular viewpoint, that does not imply that such a viewpoint should never be considered by lawmakers or enacted into law. Religion teaches very clearly that stealing is immoral. Would it follow that if I support laws against stealing, I am imposing my narrow religious viewpoint on society? Clearly not. Rather, the subject of stealing is so important to the order of society that religion also feels compelled to speak about it. Religion teaches many things that can be understood as true by people who aren’t religious at all. Atheists can understand just as well as Catholics how stealing is wrong, and most atheists are just as angry as their Catholic neighbors when their house is broken into and robbed. What is important is not whether a proposed law happens to be taught by religion, but whether that proposal is just, right, and good for society and its members.

    Children have the right to a Mother and a Father. Not 1 parent or 2 Daddies or 2 Mommies, or 3 Mommies or 4 Daddies.

  77. 80 Dead Men Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at 1:23 pm

    Oh ho, so you completely disagree with Divorce then, Jasper?

    Even if the father is beating the mother on a nightly basis? You seem to be saying that parents should be forced to stay together no matter what.

  78. 81 Bleatmop Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at 2:51 pm

    “I would also suggest that opinions are changing in religious circles because of societal pressures, especially the opinions of the younger generation where homophobia is generally not accepted.”

    “Am I a homophobe if I don’t agree with gay marriage?”

    Ummm… ya. Welcome to the new generation. And for the record, you’re a racist if you don’t agree with interracial marriage.

  79. 82 Jasper Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at 3:01 pm

    I;m glad you brought this Dead Men, I am against no fault divorce. It has wrought so much damage on society and the family, the so called ‘feminist’ are responsible. They are ruled by Satan, the father of lies.

    #####
    Myth; No-fault divorce has led men to abandon their wives and children.

    Fact: This does happen (wives more often than children), but it is greatly exaggerated. The vast majority of no-fault divorces — especially those involving children — are filed by wives. In fact, as Judy Parejko, author of Stolen Vows, has shown, the no-fault revolution was engineered largely by feminist lawyers, with the cooperation of the bar associations, as part of the sexual revolution. Overwhelmingly, it has served to separate large numbers of children from their fathers. Sometimes the genders are reversed, so that fathers take children from mothers. But either way, the main effect of no-fault is to make children weapons and pawns to gain power through the courts, not the “abandonment” of them by either parent.

    ###

    Myth: Divorce must be made easy because of domestic violence.

    Fact: Actual physical violence is legitimate grounds for divorce and always has been. So it does not justify dispensing with all standards of justice, which is what no-fault entails. On the contrary, openly false accusations of domestic violence and child abuse have become an industry in themselves, mostly to secure child custody. By dispensing with standards of justice for divorce, we have allowed them to be abandoned for criminal justice too. Thus “domestic violence” and “child abuse” are not adjudicated as criminal assault, and the accused seldom receives a trial or chance to clear his name. Instead he simply loses his children until he can prove his innocence, an impossible standard.

    Most domestic violence and child abuse take place during and after family dissolution; very little occurs in intact families. So domestic violence is a red herring. Federal funds for domestic violence and child abuse now serve effectively as a subsidy on divorce in every state in America, encouraging spouses to bring false accusations and law-enforcement officials to reward them. This shatters another myth: that family law is the province of states.

    No-fault divorce has exacerbated the divorce epidemic on almost every count. We urgently need an extensive public debate on divorce and the connected issues of child custody, domestic violence, child abuse, and child support — precisely the debate that the divorce industry has suppressed for four decades.

  80. 83 Jasper Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    Bleatmop,

    Do you agree with Polygamy?

  81. 84 Rob F Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at 3:36 pm

    Jasper says: “Children have the right to a Mother and a Father. Not 1 parent or 2 Daddies or 2 Mommies, or 3 Mommies or 4 Daddies.”

    Is this why you want to forcibly remarry single parents? After all, according to you, children with single parents are having their rights violated.

  82. 85 Bleatmop Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at 5:15 pm

    Jasper: Are you hitting on me? I’m not interested in your polygamy. Please don’t ask again.

  83. 86 JJ Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at 9:10 pm

    Jasper, you old horndog, stop hitting on everyone. Geeez, ya think? 🙄

  84. 87 Dead Men Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at 10:21 pm

    Ah, so when the vows are taken, then the woman becomes the SLAVE to the man, just like in the Good ‘ole days, eh Jasper?

    The second that knot is tied, she’s fucked in your world. Stuck there until death. Even when the marriage is intolerable, even when both parties have a seething HATE on for eachother, they are stuck together forever in your fucked up little dream world.

    May Aunt did that, for her kids. 18 years she stayed married to my Uncle, until the last of my cousins moved out. Then it was a divorce within the week.
    Know why? Because he was a monster. He never hit her, but he threatened her – from fists to pistols, he tormented her verbally, he did whatever he wanted and ensured that she could never do anything she wanted.

    There’s a happy fucking family for you, Jasper. My Aunt’s half crazy now, after forcing herself to stay with that creep for so long. She can;t sleep at night, terrified that he’s going to come and get her, she’s in her late 50’s, meaning it is damn hard for her to find work, and because she’s so frightened all the fucking time, there’s no way she can hold down stable employment.

    IS THAT A HAPPY FUCKING FAMILY, JASPER? Do you think divorce is a bad fucking thing, Jasper?

    That is what you are wanting to force women into, Jasper.

  85. 88 Jasper Thursday, October 1, 2009 at 2:10 am

    Dead Men,

    First of all, I’m very sorry for your Aunt.

    Under no circumstances are women expected to live under that kind of torment, it is grounds for annulment.

  86. 89 RealityBites Thursday, October 1, 2009 at 7:04 am

    Is Jasper a homophobe?

    Absolutely. And a particularly vile and hate-filled one at that. Nothing more disgusting than a bigot who claims his bigotry is love.

  87. 90 Dead Men Thursday, October 1, 2009 at 7:29 am

    But here’s the fun part, Jasper.

    There’s no way to PROVE that he did anything to her. No way at all. All we have is her word against his.

    And according to you Catlicks, well… women are always wrong.

  88. 91 JJ Saturday, October 3, 2009 at 7:16 pm

    WTF 90 comments for a 3-line post?

    Come on, lets push this pig to 100.

  89. 92 Bleatmop Saturday, October 3, 2009 at 7:29 pm

    Can we do it?? YES WE CAN!!!


Wait. What?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change

Incoming!

  • 630,935
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Archives


%d bloggers like this: