Virulent Religion

April 12, 2012 62 Comments
By

As a follow-on to AK Haart’s piece the other day:

Moving from the UK to the US over 30 years ago was an eye-opener for me, especially in the realm of religion. To someone raised in the relatively timid Church of England culture, the ‘in your face’ style of the Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists and others, was a startling contrast. It was even more surprising that all of the individuals with whom I talked who regularly read the Bible, and constantly thrust their beliefs into conversation, knew less about the Bible than I did.

It became worrisome when the Republican party embraced some of the most fanatic elements of this school. The latest election makes me wonder if we are headed towards the AmeriTaliban.

Now, we have the Conservative Bible Project (http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project ), which, among other things, seeks to expunge any ‘liberal’ ideas from the Bible, presumably so as to set those ‘damn the poor’ ideas into a ‘proper’ context. I suppose that we have to eliminate Matthew and the Beatitudes.

62 Responses to Virulent Religion

  1. April 12, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    The title was red rag to a bull but then it was clear you were addressing the virulent hard line members of Them masquerading as Christians and that’s more than fair enough – I join you in that attack.

    The assault on Christianity is coming from all directions currently, including from the Religious Right, not just from the traditional enemy – the irrational godless left. The former are far harder to counter because they give the appearance of being godly.

    You only need know the gospels to know these people have little to do with the spirit of the gospels. The Religious Right is to Christianity as Anders Breivik to Libertarianism and Conservative Politics – it’s something each group could do without.

    While atheists get themselves into a lather about Religious Right extremists, a glance at the text which supposedly backs them but which they only select bits from shows that they’re anything but Christian.

    • Damo
      April 12, 2012 at 8:11 pm

      I think it was Andrew Sullivan that labelled the religious right extremists as Christianists. I have to agree with him, there is a lot of undesirables that claim to be Christian these days which they are anything but.

  2. Maaarrghk!
    April 13, 2012 at 5:41 am

    I read somewhere recently that the “Bible Belt” includes about a third of US voters. Can anyone confirm? Worrying if true.

    • Voice of Reason
      April 13, 2012 at 1:55 pm

      The numbers that I know (approximately): basically all fundamentalists are republicans, but the hard core is only about 10% of the population. However, add the attendant ‘hangers-on’ and those who refuse to criticize anyone who claims to be a Christian, and it’s probably more than 30%.

      However, it is also true that the most extreme Protestant sects lose about 80% of the children who start with their parents.

  3. Libertarian lost in Scotland
    April 13, 2012 at 7:31 am

    Here we go with the imaginary ”Religious Right” threat manufactured by the left :roll:

    Mark my words, we are more likely to have a world under Islam or with Mandatory gayness and pedophilia than having a Christian Theocracy.

    Actually, when was the last time we had a theocracy Mr Voice of Reason ? You are simply repeating the made up charges of the left against religion and haven’t even though about it.

    Also what is the problem with ”in your face style” ? I find that Atheists are very immature in their reaction to religious people, and should learn from religious people … which is ironic.

    Take a clue from protestants who study in catholic schools, and learn to have thicker skins.

    • April 13, 2012 at 8:36 am

      Also what is the problem with ”in your face style” ?

      Because, perhaps, we don’t want to hear it. Religion should be a private matter between the individual and his god(s). If others do not share his faith, then he should leave well alone.

      • Libertarian lost in Scotland
        April 13, 2012 at 11:06 am

        Then perhaps you could buy a private planet or grow a thicker skin for a change ?

        You are aware that Baptist, Adventists, Mormons, Jeovah Witnesses and Catholics all strongly disagree with each other’s faith pretty strongly (to the point of calling each other’s ”Satan spawn’s” and ”hell convicted sinner”), and yet are able to deal with ”in your face style” more than atheist.

        If the situation is so unbearable for atheists, then we should be hearing about massive religious warfare going on between the various christian churches ?

        If merely hearing about g-d or religion makes your blood boil and irritates you, then maybe the problem is you. If religion is a bunch of fables comparable to Santa Claus, then why not ignore and proceed with what is important with your life ?

        We would all laugh at a dude who would scream in the streets that He was being persecuted by all the ”in your face style” Santa Claus fairy tails pushed on him at a shopping mall … yet we are to take seriously Atheist for complaining about what they believe is a non issue ?

        • April 13, 2012 at 1:28 pm

          I don’t need to grow a thicker skin, nor buy a planet – that is an absurd and very silly response, frankly. What you are defending is rudeness. I am not so impolite to others that I thrust my lack of belief in their faces – indeed, in real life, most of my family, friends and acquaintances have no idea what I believe or don’t believe, because I don’t tell them. I expect the same courtesy in return, not in your face religion.

          Religion is – or should be – a private matter, so one should keep it to oneself. I fail to see why anyone should have to tolerate proselytizing – and, yes, I do acknowledge that this is a core principle of both Christianity and Islam. One that I find repugnant about both.

          Believe what you want to believe and I will support absolutely your right to religious freedom, but do not presume to try and convert me, or witness the word of mythical deities and prophets as I’m simply not interested – that’s not too much to ask, is it?

          • Libertarian lost in Scotland
            April 13, 2012 at 1:45 pm

            You do need a thicker skin indeed, because you are having an hysterical reaction.

            Dealing with proselytism is not some new problem afflicting modern atheist, it is a problem mostly deal with and addressed by most christian churches in very simple terms by either a) Telling him that you are not interested in hearing about it or b) Try to counter proselytize, but in both cases do it in friendly terms.

            I remember my catholic primary school buddies calmly telling me that they didn’t want to hear about religion, and they were 12 … Is it too hard for adults with the supposed higher reasoning ability that atheists claim ?

            why are you irritated If you don’t care about religion ?

            • Voice of Reason
              April 13, 2012 at 2:01 pm

              In reply to much of what you wrote in these comments, check my comments on the other thread. In the US (and not just the deep South, we have: Jewish kids forced to write about Easter, and ridiculed by their teachers; mosques vandalized; christian churches of the ‘wrong’ sects bombed and burnt; students forced out of their home towns by death threats because of complaints about first amendment issues. It was just over a century ago that federal marshalls were quite literally gunning down Mormon families in Kansas City, for the crime of being Mormon. How thick a skin do you need to withstand bullets and lynchings?

              • Libertarian lost in Scotland
                April 13, 2012 at 2:17 pm

                ”Jewish kids forced to write about Easter”

                I was a baptist kid at a catholic school, so I don’t see the ”genocide” here.

                ”, and ridiculed by their teachers;”

                Could you provide a newsource and proof that the teacher wasn’t fired for it please ?

                ”mosques vandalized”

                After 9/11, the Middle East Wars, the underwear bomber, and the BS that goes on with Israel … don’t you think that there are already plenty of non-religious motives for to hate muslims ? just sayin.

                ”christian churches of the ‘wrong’ sects bombed and burnt; students forced out of their home towns by death threats because of complaints about first amendment issues.”

                News sources please.

                ”It was just over a century ago that federal marshalls were quite literally gunning down Mormon families in Kansas City, for the crime of being Mormon”

                A century is at least 2 generations, is it too much to ask for sense of proportions.

                Do you have any actual proof that law enforcement can TODAY gun down a family for religious reasons and get away with it ?

              • April 14, 2012 at 7:33 pm

                You’re doing it again, VofR – ascribing things to people claiming to be Christians when they’re not at all and are not doing anything remotely along scriptural lines [gospels].

                Just because someone wears a cross does not make him a Christian. Just because someone calls himself centre-right or centre-left does not necessarily make him that.

                Take this bus daubing which Boris hypocritically stopped. I say “hypocritically” because he was perfectly happy for atheist signs scrawled all over the buses.

                Actually, to have wanted to put such anti-homosexual signs up I find astounding. If they’d wanted to put Christian signs up, why not “God loves you” or something we’ve come to expect from that side? There’s something really nasty going on today and there seems to be deliberate misconstruction, which is a key propaganda tactic.

                Whatever the arguments one way or the other, there is deep polarization going on from agents-provocateurs and I don’t trust the government and Them appointees. There are trolls everywhere and quislings. False flags abound. Williams is a perfect example who was found wanting when the chips were down.

                A few years back, you and I would not have been at each other’s throats. How come we are in 2012?

            • April 13, 2012 at 2:31 pm

              You do need a thicker skin indeed, because you are having an hysterical reaction.

              Er, no, I’m not. I am responding calmly and politely to your rather silly assertions. I am granting your arguments with more patience and gravitas than they deserve, frankly.

              • Libertarian lost in Scotland
                April 13, 2012 at 2:49 pm

                I didn’t mean thicker skin in relation to my arguments, but thicker skin in relation to things religious.

        • Greg Tingey
          April 13, 2012 at 5:37 pm

          “You are aware that Baptist, Adventists, …., and yet are able to deal with ”in your face style” more than atheist.”

          No
          Wrong
          False
          They are all variations on believers in Bronze-Age camelherders’ myths, and are to be pited – provided they mind their own business.
          Unfortunately, they wont!

          Oh & Strawman as well …

  4. Greg Tingey
    April 13, 2012 at 9:46 am

    Oh dear, haven’t you got it yet?

    “The Bigots are the true believers” – always were, always will be.

    And I suggest that the first respondent actually go back and read the astounding cruelties and intolerance to be found in the bible, before he starts talking about real christianity.

    Famous real christians ( & all murderers, as well.)
    Jean Calvin, Saint Dominic, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Arnoud Amoury ……

    • April 13, 2012 at 1:33 pm

      Quite apart from the cruelties practised by various religions over the centuries, the old testament itself shows us a cruel, vindictive, petty and spiteful deity that is entirely lacking in ethics or morals. We are expected to believe that 2000 years ago it had a sudden change of heart and became all soft and cuddly. This god bears a remarkable similarity with all of the other gods man has worshipped over the centuries – impossible to please and downright nasty, frankly. Even if it were proven to exist, I would not worship it. Spit in its face maybe…

      • Lerxst
        April 13, 2012 at 10:07 pm

        “Even if it were proven to exist, I would not worship it. Spit in its face maybe…”

        Absolutely. I’ve made a similar comment (though I said I’d string up the bastard) to annoyingly born-again Christian friends. It seems to shut them up. :evil:

  5. mikebravo
    April 13, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    Well Greg. It would be a good idea for you to read both old and new teataments and some religious and Roman catholic history.
    It might then dawn on you that the real christian message is to do unto others and love thy neighbour.
    As to astounding cruelties and intolerance. The old testament was written before Jesus by a completely different religion.
    Your opinions about who were real christians shows your ignorance and political slant clearly to all.

    • April 13, 2012 at 2:26 pm

      I have read both testaments – and the old is preached from as is the new by Christianity, and various Christian sects draw from it when justifying their intolerant behaviour – so sorry, the argument that it doesn’t apply to Christianity just doesn’t wash its face. The old testament is the precursor to the new, that sets the scene. The god of the old testament is the same god as the one in the new testament – irrespective of the differences between Judaism and Christianity. we are expected to believe (assuming that we are credulous enough to believe such a thing can exist in the first instance) that it had a sudden change of heart. Nope, sorry, don’t buy it

      Love thy neighbour and treat others as you would yourself is a golden rule that runs throughout man’s civilisations. It is not unique to Christianity and the routine ignoring of it is not unique to Christians either ;)

    • Greg Tingey
      April 13, 2012 at 5:41 pm

      You condescending idot.
      I’m an escaped evangelical Anglican.
      I’ve read almost all of the bible, and ditto the koran.
      Euw.

      The real christian message is contained in the WHOLE BIBLE (The Articles of Faith of Anglicanism, at the back of the Book of Common Prayer say so, at least.
      NOW STOP LYING TO ME.

      The real christians I mentioned are all well post 200AD, and are therefore supposedly real – at least two of them are still saints!
      And one can always read Martin Luther on “Reason”…
      NOW STOP LYING TO ME.
      Again.

    • Voice of Reason
      April 13, 2012 at 8:02 pm

      Actually, most of the Protestants in the US appear to focus on certain select parts of the Old Testament, particularly Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus, and parts of the New Testament like Romans. Most completely ignore Matthew as ‘too liberal’.

  6. April 13, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    I was a baptist kid at a catholic school, so I don’t see the ”genocide” here.

    This is what is known as a strawman argument. A classic logical fallacy. Go to jail, do not pass “Go” do not collect £200.

    • Libertarian lost in Scotland
      April 13, 2012 at 2:27 pm

      How is it a strawman ?

      Is it true that I was a baptist kid at a catholic school – YES.
      Is it true that I had to partake in rituals I didn’t approve – YES.

      I was in comparable situation has the ”Jewish kid writing about Easter” and has such judged that the situation is not that objectionable. I used ”genocide” simply to evoke exaggeration, or is rhetoric now a straw-man too ? :lol:

      • April 13, 2012 at 2:34 pm

        No one mentioned genocide – your mentioning it was a classic strawman and for someone accusing others of hysteria, somewhat ironic.

        • Libertarian lost in Scotland
          April 13, 2012 at 2:45 pm

          I used ”genocide” to imply hysteria and lack of sense of proportions in some one asking me to feel sorry because ”jewish kid are forced to write about easter”.

          Can’t see the difference between strawman and rhetoric ?

          • April 13, 2012 at 2:59 pm

            Oh I can. It is you who cannot. There was no hysteria in the comment you were criticising, merely a statement illustrating the core point being made.

            Your reply was a text book example of the strawman and I’ll probably be inclined to use it when illustrating the fallacy to others in future, so thanks for the free resource ;)

            • Libertarian lost in Scotland
              April 13, 2012 at 3:20 pm

              There was hysteria in presenting ”a jewish kid forced to write about Easter” has a form of persecution.

              Next you will talk about Hitler. :roll:

              You can’t pretend this is a discussion if the one cannot question the sense of proportion of the claim made.

              • April 13, 2012 at 3:32 pm

                Strawman and now Godwin. Well done you.

                The sense of proportion was just fine. it is yours that is not.

  7. Libertarian lost in Scotland
    April 13, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    I am starting to reach the conclusion that modern atheist has nothing to do with whether g-d exist or not, but more to do with a need of certain people to feel and be recognized has superior.

    The idea in itself that divinity don’t exist or have no power over man’s action is not new, and every single religious tradition has a story about the dude who don’t believe, like for example Herodes. So the only new feature of modern atheism is the belief that it is part of the ”rational revolution” brought about by the Renaissance, being that an enlightened humanity will finally ”see” that religion is nonsense and a better world will emerge from that. Every other consideration of supposed persecution against atheist or ”crime of religions” is completely secondary to this Gnosticist trend in atheism.

    If it were only a question of not believe in g-d, then atheist would like the person who could be bothered less by anything religious, instead of the militant to works to make a ”better world”.

    • April 13, 2012 at 3:03 pm

      But for the most part, the vast majority of us cannot be bothered. You are projecting here in a justification of your own need to believe.

      As I said before, believe what you want to believe and I will join you on the barricades if anyone tries to stop you. But please refrain from thrusting your belief onto me as this would be impolite. Which is pretty much the essence of the ATL post.

      • Libertarian lost in Scotland
        April 13, 2012 at 3:16 pm

        It is not a projection, but just a statement of the obvious.

        There is nothing knew about dealing with unwanted proselytism, EVERY single member of ANY religion in the world deals with this problem.

        What real difficulty you as atheist has to face that is different than a Baptist having deal with Jeovah Witnesses on his way to work ? Why are you pretending that proselytism is a unique problem of atheists ?

        • April 13, 2012 at 3:34 pm

          Why are you pretending that proselytism is a unique problem of atheists ?

          I’m not. You are – again, the strawman. I am merely pointing out that it is bad behaviour and as such we should not tolerate it.

          • Libertarian lost in Scotland
            April 13, 2012 at 3:38 pm

            ”I am merely pointing out that it is bad behaviour and as such we should not tolerate it”.

            But yet most Christians, whom you label as intolerant, cope well with such behavior.

            What makes it so difficult for you ?

            • April 13, 2012 at 3:42 pm

              Good grief, but you are obtuse, aren’t you?

              I never said it was difficult (another strawman) – nor did I state that Christians were intolerant (yet another strawman – you do like them, don’t you?), I said it was impolite and as such we should treat it accordingly. That said, I am too polite to tell them to fuck off, which is what they actually deserve.

    • Greg Tingey
      April 13, 2012 at 5:45 pm

      No wrong again
      We are utterly f*ck*d off with the religious crawling out from under their rotting woodpiles in the wke of the islamists, demading “respect” and that we grovel to their power and cruelty-fantasies.
      Lets have it again, shall we?

      A set of testable Propositions

      1. God is not detectable (even if that “god” exists)
      2. All religions are blackmail, and are based on fear and superstition.
      Corollary: 2a ] Marxism is a religion.
      3. Prayer has no effect on third parties.
      Corollary: 3a ] There is no such thing as “Psi”.
      4. All religions kill, or enslave, or torture.
      Corollary: 4a ] The bigots are the true believers.
      5. All religions have been made by men.

      All the above are testable, by both observation and experiment.
      Unless and until they are shown to be false, they must be taken as true, or at least valid, statements.

      Now prove any of those incorrect, or shut up

  8. April 13, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    I didn’t mean thicker skin in relation to my arguments, but thicker skin in relation to things religious.

    Yes, I got that the first time.

    • Tattyfalarr
      April 13, 2012 at 3:17 pm

      Atheist: I’m not interested in discussing religion.

      Religious person: Ok.

      End of conversation.

      How hard can that be….really ? :|

      • Libertarian lost in Scotland
        April 13, 2012 at 3:18 pm

        It is so damn evident I don’t understand how this can be object of complain. :???:

        • Tattyfalarr
          April 14, 2012 at 12:10 pm

          Errr …my comment was not in support of you but in response to your “what is the problem “in your face” style. I’ll quote next time to save confusion.

          Never once has anyone knocking on my door simply said OK and walked away. Your belligerence here suggests you would be unlikely to do so either.

          So yeah…how hard can that be, really ?

      • April 13, 2012 at 3:36 pm

        I expect the conversation not to start as it is impolite to impose one’s belief on others.

        On the rare occasions that the JWs or Mormons catch me off-guard, I politely tell them that I am not interested. However, they should never have knocked on my door in the first instance.

        • Libertarian lost in Scotland
          April 13, 2012 at 3:40 pm

          So you are telling us that you entitled to not enter in contact with anyone who disagree with you ?

          What great tolerance !

          ”I expect the conversation not to start as it is impolite to impose one’s belief on others.”

          Merely talking with you is imposing a belief on you ? Are you sure that ”imposing” is not laxly used here ?

          • April 13, 2012 at 3:45 pm

            So you are telling us that you entitled to not enter in contact with anyone who disagree with you ?

            Fuck me! Another strawman. We will have enough for a CAP subsidy at this rate.

            • Libertarian lost in Scotland
              April 13, 2012 at 3:47 pm

              Why don’t you answer the question at hand ?

              Why ”they should never have knocked on my door in the first instance.” ?

              How come merely talking with you is to imposing something on you sir
              ?

              • April 13, 2012 at 3:50 pm

                I have, You clearly cannot grasp it.

            • Libertarian lost in Scotland
              April 13, 2012 at 3:52 pm

              ”I have, You clearly cannot grasp it.”

              Tell me why :
              1- they should never have knocked on my door in the first instance.

              2- Merely talking with you is imposing a belief on you ? Are you sure that ”imposing” is not laxly used here ?

              • April 13, 2012 at 3:59 pm

                If you cannot understand it then there’s no point trying to explain further as you have managed to warp and twist everything else I’ve said out of all proportion.

                Figure it out for yourself – it’s not too difficult or it shouldn’t be for someone calling themselves a libertarian.

          • Greg Tingey
            April 13, 2012 at 5:46 pm

            L-R SAID “knocking on my door”
            What part of that didn’t you understand?

        • David A. Evans
          April 13, 2012 at 8:00 pm

          JW knocked on my door.
          I invited her in and sat her down.
          ME: Would you like a cup of tea or coffee?
          So I go make coffee and return with coffee, milk & sugar.

          ME: So… what would you like to talk about?

          JW: Firked if I know, I’ve never got this far before!

          ;-)

          • Libertarian lost in Scotland
            April 13, 2012 at 9:30 pm

            No got it wrong, according to our tolerant atheist you should shout : Why did you kill kittens !?!

            • Greg Tingey
              April 13, 2012 at 10:30 pm

              STUPID LIAR

              You are NOT a Libertarian.
              From your posts, you appear (note – appear) to be a supporter of that vilest form of government possible …
              A theocracy.

              • Libertarian lost in Scotland
                April 14, 2012 at 4:03 am

                If not agreeing with Randian Atheism is enough to not be a ”real libertarian”, then maybe that whole freedom-thingy is mostly BS and not the real focal point around here.

    • Libertarian lost in Scotland
      April 13, 2012 at 3:17 pm

      Then why are you pretending that otherwise ?

      • April 13, 2012 at 3:34 pm

        I’m not. You are. Is English your native tongue?

  9. Voice of Reason
    April 14, 2012 at 3:21 am

    @Libertarian lost in Scotland –
    I’ve been down this road before, in similar discussions. You are going from the standard playbook:
    1. Deny there is a problem at all.
    2. When presented with actual examples of a problem, demand specific evidence (strange, given that your own position has zero of same)
    3. When given the evidence, claim that the perpetrators aren’t ‘real’ Christians.
    The bottom line is that you ‘know’ that your beliefs are true, since you believe them. Part of that belief system means that you refuse to condemn any excesses of people who are fellow travelers. That belief system also ignores the law, when convenient. Would you consider the ‘in your face’ behaviour to be acceptable from neighbourhood Muslims, or gays?
    That being said, let’s give you some specifics:
    1. Look up Jennifer Ahlquist, the latest person to request that the Constitution be enforced, against whom there were serious threats made.
    2. In 1958, in Stow, Ohio, the Catholic Church was unable to buy land for a Church, and had to do so by subterfuge.
    3. Last year, Fort Hood held a Christian rock revival, supported by government funds. Soldiers who declined to attend were confined to barracks. When others asked for a non-belief based event, paid by other sponsors, they were refused, until a lawsuit was brought.
    4. A couple of years ago, it was found that there was widespread persecution of Jews and other non-Christians by fundamentalists at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.
    5. And let us not forget David Coppedge, who proselytized so much at JPL that it interfered with his work. He also continued to do so, even when asked by his co-workers and superiors to stop.

    • Libertarian lost in Scotland
      April 14, 2012 at 3:56 am

      So instead of discussing with me, you are discussing with a stereotype with your mind. So let me recap my demands :

      1- Have sense of proportions : I want proof of CURRENT events, for the USA have changed a lot in the last 50 years, so bringing up an example of 1950 or 1900 makes no sense.

      2- Is it so difficult to provide links to your stories?

      ”2. When presented with actual examples of a problem, demand specific evidence (strange, given that your own position has zero of same)”

      Of course I should take your word for every example, not having to put in question its relevance or importance :roll:

      • Greg Tingey
        April 14, 2012 at 8:46 am

        You could TEST his examples – try this thing called “google” – maybe you’ve heard of it?

        You continue to perpetrate the “No true Scotsman” fallacy, every time you write.

        I mentioned a list of REAL christians (admittedly all dead) who are still held up as exemplars of their religion.
        Their respective churches and sects think they were wonderful, and still do.
        All of those listed were either murderers, torturers or inflamers of hatred, that led to deaths later.
        So were thes people proper christians or not?
        The RC church, and the Lutheran churches, and the Calvinst ones think and still think they were proper christians.

        How about a direct answer?

  10. April 14, 2012 at 5:41 pm

    So instead of discussing with me, you are discussing with a stereotype with your mind. So let me recap my demands :

    Wow, now we have a tu-quoque to add to our collection of Strawmen and no true Scotsman fallacies, not to mention a Godwin. Do you plan to go for the full set?

    And those who make demands, don’t get, frankly. learn some manners.

    • Libertarian lost in Scotland
      April 14, 2012 at 5:48 pm

      ”not to mention a Godwin.”

      It wasn’t a Godwin.

      ”learn some manners.”

      The only thing I learned here is that people are rabidly anti-religious for not apparent reason than being Jerks, and hide behind the internet trope of ”strawman” when pressed in any question.

      Saying that ” you use a strawman” as a means to avoid a question is as intelligent as typing ”lolcat moron”, and shows the level of intellectual debate of the supposed master of Libertarian reason around here.

      If it weren’t for meeting Libertarians in person I would have concluded by this thread that this is more a congregation of Jerks than a political movement.

      • April 14, 2012 at 6:10 pm

        The only jerk we have seen on this thread, frankly is you and you have done a fine job of demonstrating it. I usually avoid the use of ad hom, but, frankly, your behaviour on this discussion warrants it.

        You have taken simple statements and twisted them beyond all recognition in an attempt to make someone’s opinion appear what it self-evidently is not. You claim to be a libertarian, yet demonstrate a very weak grasp of both property rights and privacy.

        You do not come on here and make demands because it is as antisocial as in your face witnessing. You are a guest in our house – behave accordingly. Much the same applies to people who knock on my door to sell me their religion. Such behaviour is unwelcome.

        Nothing I have said to you has anything whatever to do with atheism – that is entirely by the by – what I have tried to point out to you is that there are acceptable behaviours in a civilised society – politeness and respecting peoples’ privacy among them, which, if you understood libertarian principles would have been obvious to you and you would not have needed to demand repeatedly that I answer your question – it had already been answered. Witnessing is in clear violation of socially polite behaviour and is one which the vast majority of people whatever their beliefs don’t like.

        My observations regarding your logical fallacies are just that; observations. I do not, and will not defend a straw man, so your demands will go unheeded, not least because I also do not respond positively to petulant foot stamping. And, yes, it was a Godwin as no one here was saying anything that required such hysterical ott hyperbole – we didn’t mention genocide or Hitler you did. Despite several shots across the bows, you have continued to screech and wail at the top of your voice because we will not play the game to your desired rules. If you want someone to back up their argument with evidence, you ask you do not demand.

        As I said, learn some manners, stop behaving like a two-year old throwing a temper tantrum and learn to comprehend plain English and, perhaps, you will not encounter such contempt.

  11. April 14, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    When I got down to STUPID LIAR, I think the thread should have ended. We have a policy here of not going ad hominem and yet this thread got out of hand. I looked up at the top and for the first four or five comments, it was OK but then something happened.

    Having been out of it for a day and a half [working], I didn’t get to see all these comments until just now. Wow. Let’s just leave it that, shall we? Or to put it more forcefully – I hereby give notice that I’m deleting the next ad hominem and will state [in this comment, updated] why.

    • Libertarian lost in Scotland
      April 14, 2012 at 7:45 pm

      Ad hominem deleted.

United Kingdom Time

Subscribe

Email us for now via either James' or Julia's sites until we set up a new email here or follow us on Twitter

Comments policy

No to press regulation

Please sign the petition - click pic: blogoff

Contributors

For more about these renegades, click on the name to go to a short profile:

AK Haart
Angry Exile
Bucko
Chuckles
Churchmouse
James Higham
JuliaM
Sackerson
The Quiet Man
Witterings from Witney

Orphans logo

Feel free to take this for your sidebar.
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux