A SERVICE celebrating the right to bear arms has taken place in the New Bethel Church in Louisville, Kentucky.
Pastor Ken Pagano
The event, attended by around 200 people who were invited to bring their unloaded weapons into the church, was organised by gun-toting Pastor Ken Pagano.
Pagano, according to this report, said the service was held in response to parishioners’ fears that the new Obama administration intended tightening gun control laws.
Pagano told his congregation:
We are wanting to send a message that there are legal, civil, intelligent and law-abiding citizens who also own guns. If it were not for a deep-seated belief in the right to bear arms, this country would not be here today.
Fears that among America’s gun owners that a new administration might restrict and regulate gun ownership took hold even before Obama’s victory.
Last November the BBC reported that Americans were:
Rushing to buy certain types of weapons in the dying weeks of the Bush years. Sales of military-style assault weapons (like the Russian-designed AK-47) which are considered the likeliest targets for future curbs have increased by 50 percent in some areas.
Among those who attended the service was camouflage-clad Kevin Terrell, a member of a militia group, the Ohio Valley Freedom Fighters, who told Time magazine that he feared that Bush’s expansion of presidential power had resulted in:
Absolute power being passed to a left-winger.
Doreen Rogers, another attendee, added:
I wish more churches did this … For some reason, most people think that carrying guns is sinful. It’s not. I think my life is worth protecting.
The service concluded with a raffle (the prizes: free National Rifle Association membership, gun range time and a pistol), a Lee Greenwood video of God Bless the USA, and an invitation to hang out for hot dogs, chips and bottled water.
But at the other side of Louisville, a coalition of religious groups and campaigners held a rival gun-free event at the same time.
Said organiser Terry Taylor:
The idea of wearing guns to churches or any sacred space I think many people find deeply troubling.
In the US, the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. There are thought to be more than 200 million firearms in private hands.
According to the NRA:
In 2003 alone, 30,136 Americans died by gunfire: 16,907 in firearm suicides, 11,920 in firearm homicides, 730 in unintentional shootings, and 232 in firearm deaths of unknown intent, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Nearly three times that number are treated in emergency rooms each year for nonfatal firearm injuries.
Hat Tip: Robert Stovold
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
June 29th, 2009 at 9:01 am
What sort of gun swould Jesus carry? I suspect a Glock pistol for putting caps in moneylenders' asses, and an Uzi for taking out the Scribes and the Pharisees in one noisy, bloody massacre. Or have i misinterpreted some subtle point of theology?
June 29th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Didn`t he really mean to say: "If it were not for a deep-seated belief in the right to bear arms, this country would not be in the state it is in today"?
(PS For his information, the COUNTRY would still be there, only it would be a nation of American Indians!)
June 29th, 2009 at 10:22 am
I thought the much-claimed consitutional right to bear arms was a selective reading of the Constitution, which actually states this right, but in connection with militias, rather than for use as a private citizen. But since I'm not a US citizen, my grasp of the Constitution will be far from complete.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:40 am
30.000 dead and 90.000 wounded every year, according to the NRA. A recommendation for gun ownership!!
June 29th, 2009 at 11:23 am
You`re absolutely right GrumpyBob, that`s PRECISELY what it originally meant! Like you, I have no idea how it has been transmogrified so as to have its current meaning, but don`t forget that most of these wild-eyed, gun-toting, rootin` tootin` members of the NRA are dyed-in the-wool, FUNDAY – MENTALIST Christians, so their track record for interpreting written documents accurately is not good to say the least!
June 29th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
While I'm generally for strict gun control. Strict gun control can actually have a negative impact.
Take the UK for instance. After the Dunblane incident, the government banned legal ownership of hand guns. Murder rates involving handguns have more than tripled since the ban. It has pushed ownership solely into the black market where it can't be monitored. A move to do the same in the USA is likely to cause similar changes.
Now guns in the hands of crackpot fundies who have invisible friends telling the to do things on blind faith. That is what should be tackled.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I don't believe that stricter gun control can have a negative impact on gun crime. The stats you give for the UK are just not correct.
The UK has one of the lowest levels of gun ownership and one of the lowest rates of intentional gun deaths. The gun crime rate rose between 1997 and 2004 but has since slightly receded, while the number of murders from gun crime has largely remained static over the past decade.
A Home Office study published in 2007 reported that gun crime in England & Wales remains a relatively rare event.
In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. Only 6.6% of homicides involved the use of a firearm.
By way of international comparison, in 2004 the police in the United States reported 9,326 gun homicides. The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales.
June 29th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
I consider myself to be a 'civil, intelligent and law-abiding' person. As I don't own a gun, should it be my 'right' to carry a knife?
June 29th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
There is a critique of America's gun culture on the May column of the Happy Heretic http://www.thehappyheretic.com which discusses the American constitution and the gun lobby's misuse of it.
June 29th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
If I can offer a tweak on a proposal originally made by Ken Kesey, if the constitution prevents banning the gun, maybe they could try banning the bible for a while.
Alternatively, how about if simultaneous possession of a bible and a gun could be taken as evidence of insanity? That would get almost all the nutters off the streets, and if they can only brandish one of two offensive weapons it would be interesting to see which of the two said nutters regarded as more vital!
June 29th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Interesting how the opponents of this Church’s actions only seem to be able to muster up ad-hominems and blatantly bigoted stereotypes to support their opposition.
What sort of gun would Jesus carry?
A cute question to be sure, but really meaningless and demonstrates nothing less than ignorance and bigotry.
Jesus wouldn’t carry a gun, just as he didn’t carry a sword in his day. He didn’t need to because he had the protection of His Father. Unfortunately, the rest of us most decidedly are not the literal Son of God.
The interesting thing is that as Jesus was preparing to be sacrificed, He was sure to warn His disciples that, after He was gone, they would no longer be under His immediate protection and would be well advised to be prepared to provide for their own needs, including the need to be armed in defense against violent criminals.
Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors’ ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)
He was clearly not entreating them to be prepared for a revolution, or to defend Him against the soldiers that would be arresting him later on. He proclaimed two swords to be enough among at least 11 men; enough for what? Obviously enough to defend against criminal predators, nothing more. Furthermore, He rebuked Peter for using a sword to try to prevent His arrest, but notably, He didn’t tell Peter to get rid of the sword, only to “put it back in its place” because its use at that time was inappropriate.
The clear message is that, while to “live by the sword”…i.e. to embrace violence as a way of life – as a way to force your will upon others or to avoid the consequences of your own decisions…is un-Christian, self-defense is perfectly acceptable.
Next point:
The link labeled “NRA” in the column does NOT go to an NRA site, it goes to the virulently anti-freedom, George Soros funded, astroturf organization called the “Violence Policy Center”. Just because the VPC propagandists put “National Rifle Association Information” in the sub-head, does not mean that it is in any way reflective of NRA positions or statements.
The numbers they cite are nothing more than propaganda that not only doesn’t differentiate between criminal violence and suicide, but includes justifiable shootings (law abiding citizens defending themselves against criminals) and even legal interventions (Police shooting criminals).
The gun crime rate rose between 1997 and 2004 but has since slightly receded, while the number of murders from gun crime has largely remained static over the past decade.
In other words: The gun bans in the UK have, at BEST, been ineffective at deterring gun crime and homicide. But what about violent crime in general? Does the UK stack up so well against the US in that category? Not so much…
Apparently, to gun banners, someone killed or injured by a knife, bat, broken bottle, gasoline and matches or any number of other potentially deadly tools is somehow better off than someone killed or injured by gunfire.
I would also add that much of the disparity in homicide rates in the US and other countries (including the UK) may stem more from differences in counting methods than actual differences in rate. For example, the UK only counts a death as a homicide after a CONVICTION. In the US, a death is counted as a homicide as soon as a coroner rules that the death was caused by unlawful human activity.
As far as the “critique” of “America’s gun culture” (I would submit that there are at least two completely separate and unrelated gun cultures in the US, and lumping them together is specious at best) linked by another commenter…the linked post is amazingly bereft of sources and support. It is basically nothing more than a statement of opinion by someone obviously bigoted against gun ownership.
For a look at an in-depth study of the history, context and actual meaning of the Second Amendmen…sourced, well researched and well-documented…I highly recommend the recent SCOTUS Heller decision, in which the Highest court in the land held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms not dependent upon formal militia service.
And, finally:
As I don’t own a gun, should it be my ‘right’ to carry a knife?
As far as I’m concerned, absolutely. The Second Amendment doesn’t protect the right to keep and bear “guns” but the right to keep and bear arms. I would imagine that at least one aspect of this point is going to get some clarification from SCOTUS soon as they address Maloney V. Rice
June 29th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
If I was a self-inflicted brain amputee like"Sailorcurt", I would hide my ignorance behind a pseudonym also. Have you changed the water on your brain lately, or aren't the goldfish fussy?
The Supreme Court Justices who so misinterpreted the intended meaning of the Second Amendment that they thought the authors of the Bill of Rights wanted to give the Neanderthal Rednecks Association and other gangsters the right to own devices that have no function but killing people belong in cages with padded walls like any other mad dog. But what godphuqt Republicanazi doesn't?
June 29th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Christ on a bike, that's a bloody long reply!_
Anyhow, as usual, the stupidity of your religion is actually stated by yourself 'he had the protection of His Father'. Not against the Romans he didn't. The final score on that one was Pilate 1 Junior 0.
As for 'ignorance and bigotry' that's what christianity and the other fuckwit monotheism's are built upon.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Interesting how the opponents of this Church’s actions only seem to be able to muster up ad-hominems and blatantly bigoted stereotypes to support their opposition.
Mr. Harwood, of course, being a case in point. The “courage” he displays by flinging insults while safely sheltered by the isolation of the internet is downright awe-inspiring.
Notably, he didn’t disagree with any of my points. He simply asserted that the Supreme Court got it wrong…with nothing in support of his assertions other than his own implied intellectual superiority.
I must apologize to Tony E that formulating a coherent and substantive reply often requires more than cutesy “sound-bite” type statements.
You are an anti-Christian (anti-monotheistic?) bigot. That’s your right (as protected by one of the Constitutional Amendments that I presume you DON’T oppose). Your disbelief in the tenets of the religion have no bearing on what those tenets are.
And fortunately for me, your belief and/or approval are not required for my faith.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
'The "courage" he displays by flinging insults while safely sheltered by the isolation of the internet is downright awe-inspiring.'
As opposed to the "courage" displayed by those who need to arm with a deadly weapon to venture outdoors?
I can't see anybody suggesting that you require our permission to hold your faith, although it has been documented on this site countless times how religious groups believe that their deeply-held disapprovals of rights for women, homosexuals and the freedom to create 'blasphemous' works should shape the law.
June 29th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Stuart, you neglected to mention those "courageous" zealots in the US who gun down abortion providers, and firebomb clinics.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
I'm sure the dirty little yellow coward who hides behind the pseudonym "Sailorcurt" was not trying to prove that godworship is a form of insanity. That was just the way it turned out.
A historian with a doctorate in the origin and evolution of religion does not dignify incompetent drivel by responding to a gullible ignoramus so unlearned that he quotes from a book of fairy tales that states in 14 places that the earth is flat as if it were nonfiction, any more than an astronomer responds to an astrologer, a mathematician responds to a numerologist, or a geographer responds to a flat-earther. Facts incompatible with the DLYC's interpretation of the Christian gospels are no further away from anyone in the Western world than the nearest university library. My own books have been demolishing the god psychosis for the past 17 years. (Look them up on Amazon.)
June 30th, 2009 at 12:29 am
And one who depends upon arms wielded by others in their stead (Police) are somehow more courageous than those who accept the responsibility for their own safety and security themselves?
Interesting conclusion.
I don’t recall saying anything about requiring permission.
Unfortunately, I’m not responding to the countless times that this site has documented religious groups belief that their deeply-held disapproval of rights for women, homosexuals and the freedom to create “blasphemous” works should shape the law. I found this site through Google news alerts and this is the first time I’ve read it.
As such, what I’m responding to is the belief displayed (primarily by commenters here) that their deeply held disapproval of rights for gun owners should shape the law.
Hmmm.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:44 am
Stuart, you neglected to mention those “courageous” zealots in the US who gun down abortion providers, and firebomb clinics.
Yes, because the Christian community has so consistently and unanimously come out in support of such violence…I mean, everyone knows that all Christians are murderers and fire-bombers at heart right?
Stereotype much?
June 30th, 2009 at 12:54 am
Sailorcurt 9hrs ago
"And fortunately for me, your belief and/or approval are not required for my faith"
Sailorcurt 7hrs ago
"I don't recall saying anything about requiring permission"
Hmmm
Godless not gormless
June 30th, 2009 at 1:04 am
To get back on point:
The implication of the original posting, and the clear premise of the first few subsequent commenters, is that somehow gun ownership and Christianity are incompatible, that gun ownership is not protected by the Second Amendment, and that the UK is safer than the US because of gun control.
I presented my rebuttal to those points.
So far, I’ve not seen one single substantive counter to my points…which is disappointing, if not completely surprising.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:16 am
Let’s say you’re right GNG. For the sake of argument, let’s pretend like those two sentences actually DO bear some resemblance to each other;
Um…So?
What’s that got to do with the point…exactly?
June 30th, 2009 at 3:15 am
I think the humor in this event is that these christians require the use of guns, not god, in order to provide protection. Aren't they in violation of the Kentucky Homeland Security declaration that states quite clearly that the protection of it's citizens is wholly reliant upon Almighty God? Tsk tsk tsk
I'm not a gun owner but I certainly like having the right to buy one if needed. Guns shouldn't be used to kill people, nor should knives, nukes, electricity, bare-hands, ropes, swords, clubs, axe, mace, etc… but us human beings, no matter how rational we want to be, are all capable of doing great violence.
Lastly, the problems in this country are not a result of our right to own guns, it's due to the slowly growing theocratic power, not in the federal government, which most of the world knows of, but of the states. These 'militia' groups that crop up all over this country are the same people that have been promoting the 'tea-parties', the same people that shout that this is a christian nation. They hate the secular nature of the federal government and, I fear, would rather like to see another civil war.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:11 am
Pardon me…as I said before, I’m not a regular reader and only stumbled upon this article through Google News Alerts.
I didn’t realize that this site is just an echo chamber for anti-religion zealots. My bad…I should have paid more attention.
This explains the voluminous juvenile insults and the paucity of actual debate.
I’m sure it came as quite a shock when I interrupted the echo and challenged commenters to actually support their contentions and assertions with factual information.
Isn’t it ironic, how intolerant and hateful anti-religionists can be; and with what religious zeal they defend the faith in their own closely held beliefs?
I’ll keep you all in my prayers.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:17 am
BTW: Kudos to the administrators of this site for allowing the “debate” to occur at all. Comment moderation, deletion and banning are common on many sites on this side of the political spectrum. It’s refreshing to find one that actually allows dissenters to comment…even if the regulars here weren’t able to rise to the occasion and defend their positions coherently.
June 30th, 2009 at 4:24 am
What is the point of this article? Are we trying to paint all gun owners as holy rollers? Surly we're not that ignorant, are we?
June 30th, 2009 at 7:28 am
Sailorboy,
Chist on a space hopper! Can you get to the point in less than 5 pages?
Anyway, lets break it down. Belief in an invisible friend = stupidity and fear of reality And you feel that it is ok that stupid people should carry guns?
And another little point you mention 'I interrupted the echo and challenged commenters to actually support their contentions and assertions with factual information'. Science is fact, the irony being that ,if not for science, you would not have your little glock to wave about. Secondly, if you are about to spout that the bible is fact, I would ask that you put your gun down before someone gets hurt. As we have yet to see the headline 'Athiest kills in the name of reality.'
June 30th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Very informative and thought-provoking comment – thanks! (BTW You do look awfully young to be blogging like this, but then "In my day we didn`t have computers and ipods… blah!blah!blah!.")
June 30th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Thanks for the compliment on the age. I had just tried a new hair-style and the barber did say that it subtracted several years from my face.
…and you're welcome!
June 30th, 2009 at 9:44 am
"That's your right (as protected by one of the Constitutional Amendments that I presume you DON'T oppose)."
Gosh, I never knew that our rights were protected by the constitution of a country of which we're not citizens! Cool!!
June 30th, 2009 at 11:26 am
But no one has even attempted to answer the point raised by GrumpyBob and myself right at the beginning of this post! We are not Americans, so we would like some enlightenment please. How on earth did the right of American citizens to "bear arms" in local militias, as a safeguard to their fledgeling democracy, transmogrify into this ""inalienable right to carry guns at all times"? If you look at the way that the Constitution was drawn up, and the wording in the various drafts which preceded the final version, it becomes apparent that this is NOT what the founding fathers had in mind! It was even said at the time: "You don`t bear arms to shoot rabbits"!! Sadly, this is all so typical of the fundamentalists` similar efforts to make the Bible say precisely what they want it to say, and not what the writers clearly intended in the first place.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
"Google!Google!Google! Does he blog yet?" (Apologies to "Monty Python" again!)
June 30th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Alternative viewpoints should always be welcome. That you were subjected to ad hominem attacks, Sailorcurt, is in my view indefensible. I think you were most gracious in your responses, and I hope you are still around to read this. You have a right to be wrong.
The US has a higher rate (per capita) of accidental gun-related deaths than the UK has of ALL gun-related deaths. The gun murder rate is somewhere between ten and twenty times higher than that of the UK. The overall murder rate is more than double. All these deaths are of "innocent" people (I put innocent in quotes because it doesn't mean that literally, these are just deaths that should not have occurred, i.e. not recognised as self-defense). What the average European cannot understand is how this state of affairs is in any sense beneficial to the American people.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Cont.
That it is more dangerous on average to live in the US (due to murders and weapon accidents) than in Europe is very clear from the numbers. What is not clear is whether the death rate in the US would in fact be higher still if the guns weren't there. This would at least be a validation of the US policy on guns. However, it seems to me that the gun proponents would then need to explain why the murder rate in the US is double that in the UK. If it isn't guns, what is it that makes US citizens more than twice as homicidal as Britons? Is it TV? Is it genetics? Is it economics-related? Provide another answer, as this is clearly a discrepancy that calls for one.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Cont.
I feel very strongly that the issue of gun control in the US is one for the American people to decide. What I don't like is the way that the numbers are distorted to back up the self-defence argument, and distorted they truly are. Cars cause otherwise unnecessary deaths, but we accept that society is nevertheless better for us having them. Guns cause unnecessary deaths also, and one hell of a lot of them. It would be far more honest of the NRA to simply accept that gun control would almost certainly reduce the number of deaths, but then to say that guns are fun so they want them anyway.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
It seems you still don't 'get it' regarding the core of the humour and criticism here. Unless I am resorting to more crass stereotypes that you complained about yesterday I would have thought Christians consider their religion to be entrenched in a desire for peace, harmony and the minimising of bloodshed and pain. Here however, we have one whose ideal world is one in which everybody who wants to may legally walk down the road with a loaded gun or a flick-knife. If my presumption about your moral compass pointing towards peace and healing is correct, then as far as I am concerned, this is a paradox hairs away from self-parody.
You claim that while forcing yourself violently is 'un-Christian' (I do not disagree) self-defence is okay (again, correct). Did it occur to you though that, already, people can have such wildly differing definitions of what constitutes a threatening situation in which force is required that if given carte blache to carry lethal weapons we would likely have people getting shot and stabbed over simple things like heated parking space disputes? What if somebody (legally) carring a gun or knife in the streets has been drinking and a minor fraces occurs? In short, I see your ideal world coming with an arterial-spray of evermore messy court cases and grieving relatives.
Regarding your final point about tolerance – on a personal level I do not especially have a problem with Joe Bloggs choosing to follow a religion. It is your life, you worship whomever you like in your own home, and if it helps you deal with life's ups and downs, good luck to you. However, as I raised in my message yesterday, the control that many religious groups seek to impose over everybody else – all stemming from a belief that they are obeying an invisible higher power; in essense a superstition – can be irritating or very amusing at best and downright shocking at worst. I do not find it too 'ironic' that this inflames passionate opposition to the grip of religion from some quarters, including more jocular sites like this.
Anyway, I'll let you raise anchor, unless you have any parting shots.
June 30th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
There is an inverse correlation between religious belief and intelligence. There is an inverse correlation between religious belief and education. There is an inverse correlation between religious belief and rationality. There is an inverse correlation between religious belief and moral courage. And there is a positive correlation between religious belief and the belief that vigilantes and criminals should be allowed to own devices whose only function is facilitating homicide.
There is a lesson there for anyone willing to see it.
June 30th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Everyone knows that the best way to protect yourself from gun attack is to be armed yourself; I imagine a world where everyone carries four or five firearms – what a peaceful & crime free existence…..
June 30th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
"Alternative viewpoints should always be welcome." Nonsense!
Only reasoned arguments deserve the dignity of a considered rebuttal. Mindless parroting of "The Creed Of The Godphuqt" has no place on a site designed for persons with functioning human brains. It is not "ad hominem" to state that a flat-earther is an ignorumus, since it is true by definition. It is equally true that an incurable who has the pretentious insolence to dispute the educated deserves to be treated as the self-inficted brain amputee he clearly is.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Why on earth would a pastor want to hold a service to "celebrate" the right to own guns? Surely, the fact that people don`t feel safe unless they are armed is a sad indictment on the state of modern society, and perhaps (for Christians) a period of prayer, fasting, and repentance would be more in order!!
June 30th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Him being a Pastor has nothing to do with celebrating the right to own guns. What is your real gripe? Is it the fact that hes believes in a spooky space god, or his right to own weapons for legitimate defense? Sure, we would all love a society of perfect little angles where everyone conducted peaceful business. Bottom line, that society will never exist. It's flaming liberals like you who's hubris has them believing that they can socially engineer society to their ideals. You can call 911 and wait for help, as for me, I'll shoot the fucker dead.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:07 am
This is interesting Val. I have a hairstyle similar to the one you sport in your picture (though not by choice I might add) but I still seem to be looking older by the day. Maybe you can recommend your barber to me to see if he can use his magic scissors to take some years off me? Just as long as he doesn't adopt the same methods as Michael Jackson's barber used on his face. What a mess that ended up!
July 1st, 2009 at 1:07 am
This is interesting Val. I have a hairstyle similar to the one you sport in your picture (though not by choice I might add) but I still seem to be looking older by the day. Maybe you can recommend your barber to me to see if he can use his magic scissors to take some years off me? Just as long as he doesn't adopt the same methods as Michael Jackson's barber used on his face. What a mess that ended up!
Godless not gormless
July 1st, 2009 at 1:45 am
"Isn't it ironic, how intolerant and hateful anti-religionists can be"
Your belief system is based on intolerance and hate. The jews made up a story that an invisible man who made the earth (flat, with a roof with little lights on it plus a big special one for day time and another one for night time even though that one was not always around, but don’t worry about that, that’s a mere detail and most people reading this garbage will be scared of thunder and lightning and nightime and stuff so they’re daft enough to believe it anyway) liked them better than anyone else and liked nothing more than inflicting pain and suffering on non jews or, better still, stepping in and slaughtering anyone who was not a jew, or at the very least handing permission to jews to do it themselves.
Then came the xtians. They decided to adapt the story to include them rather than have a god who only liked jews. After all, the jews killed their beloved messenger who was also the son of this god whilst at the same time actually being him, and a holy ghost too, so he'd more than likely be happy to ditch the jews and start liking xtians instead. xitians made the claim that god loves everyone…as long as they're xtian and not gay, or black.
Next come the koranimals. Now god has changed sides again. Now he has a new religion which accepts the prophets and teachings of old as long as those who want to believe that shit rather than the vile garbage mo was spouting, were prepared to pay a tax (protection money) in order that they might be allowed to live amongst muslims (god's latest fad) though only as third class citizens to be abused as muslims saw fit. They couldn't be second class citizens as that particular status was already reserved for muslim women.
So the koranimals rampaged around slaughtering any non muslims they could find. Plunder, rape and slaughter – all god's work. For doing this, they would get a special place in heaven.
All this boils down to is that some retarded messed up bronze age desert dwelling goat herders used religion as a means to justify, racism, sexism and bigotry. It justified their claim that their tribe was better than the tribe over the next sand dune and with that being the case, and with god on their side, it was perfectly correct for them to attack, slaughter and take what was theirs, and to make slaves of the survivors.
But no, it us, the people who reject this evil shite who are the intolerant and hateful ones.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:50 am
"As we have yet to see the headline 'Athiest kills in the name of reality.'"
Well said Tony!!
July 1st, 2009 at 8:06 am
I`m 63 years old BILLYHOYLE, and society has already been "engineered" much more in line with "my ideals" within my own lifetime, thank you very much! If i`d engaged in gay sex here in Britain when I was a student I could have gone to prison – now I can marry my partner if I wish!! My father was born in 1920, lived through the Great Depression, and had none of the educational advantages that I have had. He had to join the Royal Navy to gain the qualifications he required to become a very successful Engineer and Project Manager. His mother was an extremely intellligent woman who was brought up in a small Dorset town, and whose only "career opportunity" was to "go into service"! If you want to go back further than that read Dickens. You can settle for the status quo if you wish – others of us are trying to build a better society. "Flaming liberals" my ass!!!
July 1st, 2009 at 8:06 am
I`m 63 years old BILLYHOYLE, and society has already been "engineered" much more in line with "my ideals" within my own lifetime, thank you very much! If I`d engaged in gay sex here in Britain when I was a student I could have gone to prison – now I can marry my partner if I wish!! My father was born in 1920, lived through the Great Depression, and had none of the educational advantages that I have had. He had to join the Royal Navy to gain the qualifications he required to become a very successful Engineer and Project Manager. His mother was an extremely intellligent woman who was brought up in a small Dorset town, and whose only "career opportunity" was to "go into service"! If you want to go back further than that read Dickens. You can settle for the status quo if you wish – others of us are trying to build a better society. "Flaming liberals" my ass!!!
July 1st, 2009 at 8:18 am
Absolutely! All points of view do NOT have equal validity, especially where so many are based on ignorance, prejudice and superstition. I know a lot of gullible souls accept all the New Age crap that goes with "Complementary Medicine", but by and large when you go into hospital the consultants do not give equal weight to the views of African Witchdoctors and Crystal Healers! They advise treatment based on verifiable scientific data, and rightly so.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:21 am
Or drives around in a "little tank" like Lt Gruber in `Allo!Allo! Rog. I can just picture it – hahaha!!!
July 1st, 2009 at 8:21 am
Or drives around in a "little tank" like Lt Gruber in `Allo!`Allo! Rog. I can just picture it – hahaha!!!
July 1st, 2009 at 9:58 am
Just one more thought – Thatcher and Reagan did more to "socially engineer society to their (Victorian) ideals" than any other politicians in living memory, destroying the lives of millions in the process. But as they were both right wing, I suppose this is quite acceptable! You need to engage your brain cells before committing your views to print!!
July 1st, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I'm absolutely not trying to suggest that all viewpoints have equal validity, just that whoever expresses them is entitled to some courtesy. You might note that I said that Sailorcurt has a right to be wrong. I think he is wrong, but I prefer to argue the points rather than attack the individual. You will also presumably have noted that calling him a "brain amputee" and a "dirty little yellow coward" simply allowed him to respond with "Notably, he didn't disagree with any of my points", rather than actually challenging him to respond to substantive arguments. In other words, you let him off the hook.
If you genuinely want to convince people that your argument is correct, starting by calling them an idiot is probably not the best way to do it.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:31 pm
There are two kinds of human beings: liberals, and evolutionary throwbacks. "flaming liberals" is as oxymoronic as "fanatically unbiased", "offensively moderate", and "excessively evolved."
Learn the difference between angles and angels, and between whose and who's.
See my note at the bottom of the page.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:13 pm
There is no way to convince an unteachable that the educated are right and the godphuqt are wrong, and only a masochist would attempt to do so. All one can do is demonstrate to third parties that he recognizes the unteachable as a brain amputee (self-inflicted), and a moral coward who needs the mind-deadening opiate of an afterlife belief to overcome his terror of death and get him through the day without having to be institutionalized and diapered.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:01 pm
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/LAtimespiece.html
this guy makes a good argument, but maybe you are right barrie – tanks are the way forwards but then I feel that to be safe I'd want an attack helicopter.
I may be wrong, but at least the Americans are holding the line on civil liberties by allowing some folk to own miniguns, for duck hunting and home defence you understand – when will we ever see such clarity of thought in the UK?
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:23 am
Steve, you do make some good points and I agree with some of what you say but I don't think popeye was being gracious at all. His posts oozed arrogance and contempt for all of us and that is why responded to him in the way I did. He comes across as someone who thinks he's better than us and he likes to let us know that he know some big words and ain't afraid to use them. Fine, but he believes in the bible teachings. What use is it to have an education when you waste your brain on that crap.
I agree that alternative viewpoints should be welcome, but I'm sure you yourself find it more than irritating when someones 'alternative viewpoint' is just shite regurgitated from the bible. We might as well be arguing with someone about whether or not the earth is flat. He's quoting us stuff from the same source as that little gem and he also uses the religiot's favourite method of debate – just ignore what everyone says then pretend they didn't or were not able to respond to your points and claim you won the argument.
That kind of alternative viewpoint is not at all welcome as far as I'm concerned.
Now he'll run away of course and probably brag to all the barren minded xtians he knows about how he took on all us Atheists and slapped us down. Xtians and other religiots are great at hiding ffom the truth.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:26 am
Yes Sailorcurt. Lets say I am right, because I am. There's no need to pretend that these two sentences bear some resemblence to each other because getting/asking for/seeking someones approval for something or getting/asking for/seeking someones permission for something basically mean the same thing.
I understand that as a xtian, it is imperative that you pretend. You pretend there is an invisible man living in the sky, reading all your thoughts. You pretend that science is nonsense and that the creation story has more clout. You pretend that a little red man with horns and a pitchfork is lurking around every corner, eager to lead us all off the path to enlightenment, when in fact religion does this instead. Science will bring you enlightenment. Religion will keep you in the dark.
What's it got to do with the point? I was merely pointing out what a moron you are. You come in here quoting scripture to people who find all that stuff sometimes hilarious and other times downright vile but never impressive. This is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. When will you religiots learn that we don't give a shit about what jesus is suppposed to have said, or what `power` your imaginary friend wields. WE DON'T BELIEVE A WORD OF IT!!! You can spout scripture and demand that we repent till your blue in the face, but we'll still be laughing at you.
Now grow up and try reality for a change. It's really quite…enlightening.
Godless not gormless
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:13 am
I think you`ve got me confused with someone else here Steve! Please check your facts – it was Dr Harwood who made those statements about the correspondent in question, not me!! (He does use rather colourful language at times, but then banging your head against a brick wall all the time doesn`t tend to bring out the best in people!)
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:25 am
He`ll be crowing: "I took them out to the woodshed!" That`s their favourite expression when you eventually realize that any attempt at rational argument is doomed to failure. You`re spot on with your analysis of their methodology there!There`s yet another brilliant cartoon to this effect at http://proudatheists.wordpress.com/ Just scroll down to the one about the "Creationist Science Fair". Experiment: Read the Bible. Conclusion: True! Proof: The Holy Bible!! Brilliant!!!
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Yes, you're right. Sorry about that.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
"All one can do is demonstrate to third parties…"
Option 1 – Agreed. I just have the feeling that this is better achieved by substantive arguments that don't contain insults.
Option 2 – Are you thick or something? Stupid dumb-ass.
Any preferences, anyone? Which is going to convince you third-party-ites best?
(Entirely rhetorical, by the way, William. No offence intended.)
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Personally, I would NOT feel safer if I were armed – I would like any criminal to know that I was unarmed actually! Also, I used to be a teacher, and I would have felt extremely vulnerable if it had been known that I was also "patrolling" the school as an armed guard!! The ban on firearms in the UK was just another "New Labour" stunt, but that apart I feel that we have got it about right, using armed response units as and when required.