King James Bible trumps the Canadian law, claims Canadian Christian crackpot

DOTTY minister Catherine Flamond, of the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International, was none to pleased when she received three traffic tickets last year for driving without a licence plate or insurance, and failing to produce a driver’s licence.

What she calls her “ecclesiastical pursuit chariot” – a 1994 Mercury Sable – was ticketed in February, 2011, but Flamond, in a June 13 letter to Edmonton Police Chief Rod Knecht, claimed she had her own plate — made of paper and bearing the biblical verse Rom. 11:29:

For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

She then mounted a constitutional challenge against the tickets, arguing in a written Charter notice that the provincial civil laws do not apply to her because she is a Christian minister bound only by God, the Queen of England and the Constitution Act of 1982.

But this week Provincial Court Judge John Henderson tossed out her challenge, ruling that:

The Alberta Traffic Safety Act applies to “every single person” who operates a motor vehicle in the province.

Henderson also dismissed several other motions seeking to have the tickets quashed, including ones alleging wrongful prosecution and bias by the Crown and judge, who was also accused of coming close to treason.

The matter was then adjourned for trial on October 23.

In her Charter notice, Flamond included several letters she had written to people in authority.

She also called the car “church property” and accused the officer of stealing it and taking it to the “city pound.”

The Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International is a Christian denomination that does not believe in the authority of the Canadian government and wishes to use the King James Bible as the rule of law.

Flamond is by to means the only unhinged member of the church.  According to this report, in 2006 one of the congregation – Karen Ponto – had to be dragged kicking and screaming from Saskatoon provincial courtroom. She yelled at the judge that her arrest for contempt of court was a violation of her rights as a Christian.

Hat tip: Dog Gone


84 responses to “King James Bible trumps the Canadian law, claims Canadian Christian crackpot”

  1. Lazy Susan says:

    The usual response to this sort of thing is that it is not “real” Christianity. This is just a variant of the “no true Scotsman’ argument. I now use a more Forest Gump-like approach, that “religion is as religion does.” This story is one of the things that religion does, time after time.

  2. Matt Westwood says:

    Worth pointing out that there’s a verse somewhere buried in one of Paul’s epistles (can’t remember which one) which is more specific than this glorified all-get-out clause: something about “respect the laws of the land of the place where you live otherwise people won’t respect you and we followers of Christ aren’t to go out of our way to be deliberately obstreporous.” Obviously there’s also stuff in there about not following laws which are blatantly immoral / unethical, but that doesn’t apply here.

    Bloody fruitcakes the lot of them.

  3. Alan C says:

    Some of these folk really need to be sanctioned if only for their own safety.

  4. Thomas54 says:

    We need a few good Christians in the UK to behave this way. It might lighten the tone and bring a nice twist to the claims of persecution.

  5. Angela_K says:

    Christians who don’t think the law applies to them – who’d have thought it. Apparently bears do their business in the woods and the pope is the leader of the biggest paedophile and crime syndicate.

    Seriously, this is what happens when religion rots your brain and you believe your book of bollocks exempts you from obeying laws and being a reasonable person.

  6. Stuart W says:

    Flamond needs Andrea Williams and Paul Diamond to hop on a plane to Canada and argue in front of the cameras that Christians should be exempt from laws they don’t like as a matter of ‘conscience’ and ‘living out faith’. Actually, given their track record of success, perhaps not.

  7. tony e says:

    I love christians – they make me feel clever……….

  8. john.c says:

    I believe its sectioned for their own safety Alan,though i would rather they were sectioned for everybody elses peace and sanity though.

  9. Jobrag says:

    A good judge would have quoted Matthew 22:21

  10. Scott says:

    Section 1 of the Charter (part of the Constitution Act of 1982, which she claims she is bound by) says “…guarantees the rights & freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law…” which means the Charter can not be used as a defense from any laws in the country, which includes the laws requiring drivers’ license and insurance to drive a car in Canada…

    This woman obviously does not understand any laws in this country…

  11. Fiona says:

    @ Lazy Susan, what do you mean no true Scotsmen. That will put the wind up a few kilts. As for religion, all its followers are as mad as boxes of frogs. Some more than others.

  12. Ken says:

    From the King James Bible itself:

    1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

    2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

    3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

    4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

    Or in more modern English ‘Let every person be subject to the governing authorities … Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed’. Perhaps someone who resists legitimate authority isn’t a true Scotsman after all.

  13. tony e says:


    As usual you are going down the route that all you christians use and that is the pathetic threat of hell – ‘they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.’

    You strike me as a bit of a snake oil salesman – I bet you even have brilliantined hair and clammy hands. You have a product that nobody wants.

    Out of curiosity you were asked in a recent post by Broga whether or not you thought the earth was 6000yrs old or not. As per your slithery character you wormed your way out of answering as usual.

    You blatant dishonesty will serve you well in your career as a christian.

  14. Equality Jack says:

    Ken, that has got to be one of the lamest denials I have ever read.

    You use a “no true scotsman” argument in a bid to justify a “no true scotsman” argument while being in denial over all of it.

    Wow. Just wow.

  15. Ian says:

    Wonderful book is the KJV of the bible. All those great stories. Everybody, and I mean everybody, should have to learn The Song of Solomon by heart, especially the children – it’s the best way of introducing hard core porn. Yes, it’s about S E X, but it tends to specialise in hetero oral and anal S E X.

    There’s an old joke that a camel is a horse designed by a committee, well so was the KJV. Based on the work of the great medieval Dutch philosopher Erasmus who unfortunately only had access to what were consideed second class translations of the early scriptures (Cardinal Jimenez had ‘borrowed’ all the best ones for his work), and look what you get!

  16. Angela_K says:

    @Ken. We are still waiting for your evidence of your god.

    Re. the above post of yours: I should familiarise yourself with the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy,

  17. Matt Westwood says:

    @Jack and @tony: Oh come on, have a heart – that has to be some of the worst bit of ad hominem I’ve seen for ages. In this context Ken is talking perfect sense. Christians are exhorted by their book of rules to obey Earthly authorities. Therefore it is perfectly okay, from where I see it, for one calling himself Christian to upbraid another (also calling herself Christian) for not following the guidelines laid down for good Christian living.

    Granted that all Christians have a view on what it means to be a Christian, the same also applying to non-Christians (although the latter are usually considerably more condemnatory on what they consider to be “non-Christian behaviour”, Ken’s is not a “no true Scotsman” argument so much as a straightforward denouncement: saying “If you want to call yourself a Christian then you need to abide by the rules.” Where’s the dishonesty? Where’s the denial?

    And as for the crack about the “brilliantined hair and clammy hands”, as arguments go that’s pretty lame.

  18. tony e says:


    What irritates me about the man is he will not give a straight answer, a simple yes/no is not much to ask for. At best it’s evasive.

    I thought my quip about “brilliantined hair and clammy hands’ was pretty funny, I’ll try better next time.

  19. Daz says:


    Whilst commending your respect for civil, nay Earthly, authority, I’d be a lot happier if you respected that authority because of a desire for law and order rather than having to worry about whether you and folks like you might one day decide to reinterpret scripture. You still believe that God trumps the mundane; it’s just that in this case God appears, by your interpretation, to agree with the mundane.

    Just because, in this case, the outcomes of our thought processes are the same, doesn’t mean that the thought processes are equally valid.

  20. Stuart H. says:

    I’m more intrigued by her driving a car named after a ‘heathen’ god. If she was so full-on in her beliefs, couldn’t she have driven a Plymouth?
    Yes, I know they stopped making them a few years back, but what better test of faith than seeing if it started on a cold morning?

  21. Daz says:

    Sorry, double posting: a thought occurred.


    What are your thoughts on the civil registrar who refused, for religious reasons involving her interpretation of God’s law, to perform a same-sex marriage, which she was contracted to perform under civil law?

  22. Ken says:

    Matt – you got what I was getting at, namely the irony of a group espousing the KJB in opposition to what it says. They would be better off reading a modern translation which makes it clearer.
    tony – there is no mention of hell here – ‘damnation’ is older KJB English for the more modern ‘condemnation’ or ‘incur judgment’, such as is seen in a Court everyday when a guilty man is sent down for his crime.
    (Age of the earth – YEC when it comes to the age of man, less dogmatic over the age of the universe. Sometimes a bit more nuance is needed than a straight yes/no. But if you ask ‘could God have created the heavens and the earth in 6 days’, then yes is my answer. Why not?)

    Daz – good question, must away, will reply tomorrow!

  23. Har Davids says:

    Mark 12:17 – And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.

    I guess it means you pay your taxes, even if you’re a Christian.

  24. Matt Westwood says:

    I would ask: “Why would he create the hevnsnurth in 6 days anyway when the natural unfolding of the universe over the past 15 billion years is far more beautiful and exciting than any half-arsed 6-day bodge job could ever be?” What I always find myself asking is: granted that 2000 – 3000 years ago (whenever Genesis was actually written, the exact date is immaterial) knowledge of cosmology was more limited than it is now, to posit a big guy doing all this stuff was de rigueur. All cultures around the world had their own more-or-less idiosyncratic tales of How It All Began.

    But to continue to believe that selfsame story in the face of what we now know (as a culture) bespeaks of deliberate ignorance and wilful disregard for truth. Nobody has an excuse for not understanding enough basic science (including astronomy, geology and mathematics) to at least harbour some doubts about whether all the stories in the bible are true.

    Which is why I have ask the question: why (and how) do you believe that the biblical account is true when it goes against all the science you learned at school?

  25. Daz says:

    Matt Westwood

    Which is why I have ask the question: why (and how) do you believe that the biblical account is true when it goes against all the science you learned at school?

    Well it’s obvious innit? Every single non-religious teacher and most of the less-loony religious ones, along with 99.9% of scientists and most historians, are lying! It’s a huge conspiracy, man.

    Please feel free to imagine typos, lack of grammar, several pasted-in out-of-context Bible verses and much misuse of caps-lock in the above. I couldn’t lower myself that far.

  26. Matt Westwood says:

    Why is piss yellow and spunk white? So a Christian can tell whether he’s coming or going.

  27. Ken says:

    “What are your thoughts on the civil registrar who refused, for religious reasons involving her interpretation of God’s law, to perform a same-sex marriage, which she was contracted to perform under civil law?”

    She is confusing God and Caesar. God’s ‘law’ states that adultery or homosexuality is wrong, though neither are illegal in Britain. The only people who are likely to take this seriously are believers, and they cannot expect unbelievers to share their moral outlook. Usually the reverse is the case.

    Christians need to make sure their own house is in order rather than judging those outside the church. Caesar’s authority, however, ends at the church door with regard to what is moral or immoral. So Christians are under the rule of law, the only exception being where they are forced to choose between obeying God or man.

    In practice in the West, this has not been a problem for several generations, but an increasingly intolerant culture of big government might make difficult decisions necessary in this area, especially in the area of conscience.

  28. Equality Jack says:

    Ken, since your “god” does not exist to back you up on anything you say, then any claim that your “god” wants you to do something is demonstrably false.

    Your mere assertion has no legal power, no legitimacy, no authority on this earth at all for the simple reason that it is mere assertion and not worth anything more than any other type of baseless assertion.

    Thus, not even your most “holy” of rules can be legitimately used as a defense for breaking the law. Your “rules” have no basis in fact, reason, common sense, or reality. Your rules are imaginary rules that you have been programmed to follow as mindlessly as possible.

    Such thinking as yours is behind every religion-based violent act that’s been done throughout ALL of history on this planet!
    You could join Charles Manson and talk over your willingness to kill whenever you thought your god wanted you to.

    Now, if you had a “god” that could show, to everyone, that he not only exists and is as powerful as described (logically impossible), and that he not only had some real authority over us, has our best interests at heart, had sane reasons for doing what he supposedly did so far with this universe and us, was intelligent, logical, etc. AND we were then a theocracy as well, THEN the point would be moot.
    We are not in a theocracy. There is no proven basis for any religious assertion or any assertion that is based on anything supernatural.

    In court, you’d lose because you don’t have a god who will testify on your behalf in court. Your old mouldy book won’t count as evidence other than to show why and how you became a murderous psychopath. And maybe you would hear angels singing in prison and have some visions. Which would only continue to prove that you are delusional and not that your god existed or actually said anything to you.

    Follow the secular law no matter what anyone tells you your “god” said.
    Don’t be a patsy for a religious scam artist. They exist. We can prove that, can’t we? Yep.

  29. Equality Jack says:

    @Matt – It’s not ad hominem if I actually explain why his post was lame, innit? Should I have a heart for someone who declares he will break the law if he thinks his god wants him to?
    You want me to respect that? Why, exactly? Could you explain?

  30. Matt Westwood says:

    Sorry, EJ, I re-read your post and have to concur, your argument wasn’t ad hominem, just misdirected.

    Point is I didn’t think Ken’s argument was lame at all. His argument was on the side of sanity, saying (and I paraphrase): “if you want to call yourself a Christian, you need to take on board the rules for being a Christian, and among others they include obeying the laws of the temporal authority.” Whether or not you agree with the central tenets of Christianity (or organised religion of any variety), you may be able to see that the logic of this is valid. The irony of it is: this is one case where the “no true Scotsman” fallacy may legitimately be applied:

    a) She calls herself “Christian”.
    b) She fundamentally flouts some of the more obvious “rules” in the rulebook.
    c) Therefore her credentials for being identified as a “Christian” can be called into question (especially by those who also call themselves Christian).

    It would be like me calling myself a pacifist, and then going out and kicking the consciousness out of a bunch of people who wear clothes I don’t like. Anyone, pacifist or no, would be correct to question my claim to being a pacifist. This truly is a case that “No true pacifist would do such a thing”.

    The “No true Scotsman” fallacy describes a category of entities whose belonging to that category is independent of the subcategory whose membership is under question. To be a “Scotsman” one needs to be born in Scotland, and the wearing of kilts etc. is an invalid way of subcategorising. However, “being a Christian” is bound up with the adherence to a body of religious belief, and acting in a way which contradicts that very adherence is not the same argument. On the other hand, if one were to say “No true Christian would wear a Sunderland football shirt”, then that would be a valid application of the fallacy.

  31. Equality Jack says:

    I love the irony of you doing the same sort of thing as Ken.
    You are essentially arguing that, within the fallacy, the fallacy makes sense and so becomes a non-fallacy.

    Sorry, but I can’t really support that sort of thing.

    From the Wiki definition:
    “No true Scotsman is an informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.
    [1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.
    You are referring to specific rules, old stir stick.
    You’ve completely lost the plot.

  32. Ken says:

    So, Equality Jack, the next time some animal rights activists send letter bombs that maim someone, and an environmental organisation like Greenpeace distances themselves from the act, you will say that ‘all environmental nutters are the same’ and they – Greenpeace – are guilty of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

  33. Equality Jack says:

    @Matt – Let me put this another way:

    Ken made baseless assertions and you sucked them right up.

    I will use your paraphrasing to point out where you have supported Ken’s delusional argument only because it was supported by its own internal logic.
    You said, paraphrasing Ken, “if you want to call yourself a Christian, you need to take on board the rules for being a Christian, and among others they include obeying the laws of the temporal authority.”

    Here the part where it says, “you need to take on board the rules” is a baseless assertion.

    There are many definitions of “Christian” in the dictionary. Some of them include following the rules of the religion. Others do not.
    When the basic definition itself is open to question, then anything that comes after that is going to be a “no true scotsman” argument.

    And I haven’t even touched upon the fact that every religion is fallacious and delusional. We don’t need to go there, do we?

    So with religion, a “no true scotsman” argument is the default position, whereas the definition of a Scotsman in the dictionary has two definitions: a native or inhabitant is considered a Scotsman.

    The fallacy comes about by one person, a native*, and therefore Scotsman, says that Italian immigrant is no true Scotsman, but an Italian. His argument is a logical fallacy because he is conveniently ignoring the fact that there is more than one definition of what a Scotsman is according to the dictionary.

    The immigrant, an inhabitant and therefore Scotsman, says the native* is only the descendant of immigrants from Africa and therefore not a “true” Scotsman for all that, because the native* lives in Canada and not Scotland.
    He has done the same thing as the other fellow.

    And so on. They can go round and round, both Scotsmen, using rhetoric and cherry-picking their definitions to suit them and ignoring all others.

    You were ignoring all the other possible definitions of “Christian” and so fell under the fallacy.
    Ken did the same thing. You ignore all the other definitions that don’t fit your Procrustean argument and become a user of the fallacious argument known as the “no true Scotsman”.

    [sweeping orchestra music][roll credits]

  34. Equality Jack says:

    2/10 for troll attempt. Troll harder.

  35. Daz says:

    Wowsers, but this is getting confused and confuddled. I find myself partly—but only partly—siding with Ken on this.

    EJ, if a law were passed tomorrow that you considered morally wrong in the extreme—say, not the mere legalisation of slavery, but mandatory slave-ownership—would you not do your utmost to break that law? If that sounds far-fetched, I can think of a modern example, though at the risk of someone evoking Godwin: Germans who took in and hid fugitive Jews during WWII.

    Ken, my problem with you is that you see sexuality as something which can be immoral. It isn’t. Your definition of immoral, as something God doesn’t like, is incorrect. An act can only be called immoral if it causes unnecessary harm. You’re not defining ‘moral,’ you’re defining ‘obedience.’ There’s a difference, and that difference is partly what marks the change from childhood to adulthood.

    Oh, and you never quite got around to mentioning, flat-out, whether, in your opinion, the registrar was right to refuse to do her civil duty. You came close, but evaded making a plain yes/no answer.

  36. Ken says:

    An awful lot of verbiage generated by the very tentative sentence “Perhaps someone who resists legitimate authority isn’t a true Scotsman after all”.

    The point is primarily not whether this church is made up of real Christians, but that the very version of the bible they claim exempts them from obeying the law of the land says the opposite. That is, however, enough to put a question mark against them.

  37. Matt Westwood says:

    I’m sorry, I didn’t think we were arguing about marriage registrars, I thought we were squabbling over Ken’s analysis over the particular case in point: the Canadian woman who refuses to abide by the rules of the road.

    My argument relates to that, not that tedious old “marriage registrar” straw man that you intolerant atheistic bigots trot out in order to unfairly beat over the head anyone with the temerity to believe something different from your own pure and unsullied beliefs.

    Your arguments are:
    a) There are several definitions of Christianity, so you’re going to choose the one which most conveniently supports your argument (without of course specifying which one you are deciding to adhere to).
    b) Based on that, you choose deliberately to misinterpret the oh fuck I can’t be bothered.

  38. remigius says:

    Ken, the reason why

    Sod it. Can’t be arsed.

  39. Daz says:

    I can be arsed. Ken seems to actually engaging to a degree, which let’s face it is unusual: most religiots come here to preach at us.

    Ken, the reason I brought the registrar up was that you appeared to state that the nun was in the wrong for disobeying civil authority, and I wanted to see how you’d react to a similar case involving what a Christian might see as a thornier moral issue. She did exactly the same thing as the nun—disobeyed civil law—but over an issue where many Christians see a direct opposition of mundane and Earthly laws.

    So far, you’ve hemmed and hawed around the question, but not quite answered it.

  40. Daz says:

    opposition of mundane and Earthly Godly laws…

  41. Don Johnstone says:

    And this is why I won’t argue with a christian. Ken was asked a simple question, and in true xtian style managed to duck it. That just makes it apparent to me that either someone has something to hide, or they think the truth, or their version of it, is ridiculous. It’s like arguing with a child about the existence of santa claus, and having the arguement degrade into the colour of his suit. We continually let ourselves get dragged into these nonsense discussions, instead of just telling the child to “grow up” As for this woman, What a waste of money and resource the religiots impose on us, I would hope the judge will make her pay all the court costs too. Why do we still even tolerate this nonsense.

  42. Ken says:

    Daz – where there is a clear and unambiguous conflict between the law of God and a State requirement, the answer is to obey God rather than man, and take the consequences. So it is not something to do lightly.

    In the case of a registrar, the State is now allowing civil partnerships, and in my opinion the registar is not ‘sinning’ by performing them. It’s a similar situation with the remarriage of divorcees (where divorce plus remarriage = adultery). I can understand this being a situation of conscience, however, and unless an arrangement can be made to avoid this with the other staff, the registrar should consider changing job. He or she should not violate their conscience.

    This kind of thing requires careful thought, Christianity is not something easy to live out, and there are not always quick, pre-packaged answers (like should a registrar have a conscience about this), and I certainly don’t always claim to have them. It is as I said balancing the absolute claims of God and the legitimate claims of Caesar.

    As God has been increasingly pushed from the public square, Caesar is increasingly taking his place.

  43. Daz says:

    where there is a clear and unambiguous conflict between the law of God and a State requirement, the answer is to obey God rather than man, and take the consequences. So it is not something to do lightly.

    Thank you. A straight answer. And, what’s more, a statement of your willingness to substitute blind obedience to a cosmic bully for morals. Well done, you’re certainly a True Scotsman.™

    It doesn’t really matter that your god doesn’t exist. What matters is your complete misunderstanding of the nature of moral behaviour.

  44. Ken says:

    Daz – in reply, I would say take the 10 commandments or their expansion in the sermon on the mount, and tell me exactly what is wrong with that as a peace-time code of behaviour, or in short, if you are so critical of Christian values, where do you get yours from? How do you know Christians are so wrong?

  45. Daz says:

    Oh Jesus H Christ on a three-masted pogo-stick! The ten bleedin’ commandments? Really?

    1–4 are merely instructions on how to stroke God’s vanity.

    5: Honour your father and your mother etc is hardly unique to Christianity, and bunkum anyway. My father was a complete and utter bastard. I owe him no honour or respect.

    6: You shall not murder. You really think that before Moses’ alleged receipt of this commandment, people were casually running around killing each other for the fun of it?

    7: You shall not commit adultery. Yeah, if you’ve promised to stay faithful, you should stay faithful. That’s a personal contract between you and your spouse, though. It has sod-all to do with curtain-twitching godbots who want to interfere in private matters.

    8: You shall not steal. See #6.

    9: You shall not give false testimony against your neighbour. In other words, no perjury. Well, yeah; goes without saying really, though I’d prefer it to be a little less narrowly defined. Be honest might be better. And again, you think people didn’t value honesty, ante-Moses?

    10: No coveting yada yada. Why not? As long as it’s not overdone to the point of obsession, wanting some of the comforts and conveniences your neighbours have is both natural and a spur to progress. As long as you don’t assuage your covetousness by breaking #8, mind.

    Why on Earth do we need a god to point out such bleedin’ obviousness? And where’s ‘Thou shalt not rape’? Where is ‘If thou have excess, give it to the needy’? Nope, four commandments to kowtow and grovel, including one to make sure not to enjoy yourself on the only day you’re not working from can to can’t, but no ‘no rape’ and no ‘give to the poor’.


    Now, would you like to tell us why you think substituting childish obedience for morals is moral behaviour?

  46. remigius says:

    Ken. Here’s me being arsed again.

    What have The 10 Commandments got to do with Christianity? They were copied from the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead, chapter 125.

  47. Daz says:

    They were copied from the ancient Egyptian Djelibeybian Book of the Dead


  48. Matt Westwood says:

    @Ken: It’s not “Christian values” as such which are the problem. It’s this:

    a) It’s a common trait among Christians (and other religious practitioners) to believe that they, and only they, have an adequate moral compass, and are the only ones who have the ability to lead good lives. (In fact that is the main message of xtianity: that everyone not performing this specific rite of passage is somehow “wanting” in the eyes of their God.) This is deeply offensive to non-theists whose own morals are independently arrived at and are not got from a book of bronze-age superstition, and they don’t need the fear of some afterlife suffering to scare them into living good lives.

    b) Some of what are published as “Christian values” are also actually offensive, intrusive and to a certain extent irrelevant and arbitrary to those who choose not to go along with the Christian religion. The obvious one is the fulmination against homosexuality espoused by a lot of the Christian right-wing, although wiccans and other pagans come in for a lot of stick as well.

    c) Much of the “teaching” that comes from up top of the hierarchies of your organisations is at odds with the practice. We don’t need even to go as far as the paedophile scandal. We just look at the fact that the churches are among the richest organisations on the planet while around them there is still starvation and poverty-based suffering all around. “Sell all you have and give to the poor,” suggests the man whose teachings you allegedly follow.

    This is where the anger comes from. Your religious beliefs do not make you “better” than us humanistic / atheist / heathen / whatever non-theists. In fact we would argue it makes you less socially evolved – if you need a scary big man up in the sky to keep you in line (i.e. you have not worked out the rules for good life yourselves) then something’s wrong.

    Individual Christians are often really good, really sound people who deserve respect for the good works they do. Others are utterly reprehensible pieces of outright unpleasantness who use their profession of religion as a shield to hide behind while they do bad things. Unfortunately it is the latter which we hear about more and more, which gives the lot of you a bad name.

  49. Jim Boomba says:

    “where there is a clear and unambiguous conflict between the law of God and a State requirement, the answer is to obey God rather than man, and take the consequences. So it is not something to do lightly.”
    So you advocate the stoning to death of unruly children and non virgin brides? Do I have to watch my back when I work on the sabbath? If I feel God wants me to gut my son, should I go ahead and do it and take the consequences?
    Let the cherry picking begin!

  50. barriejohn says:

    Why are these pathetic idiots wasting their time trolling an atheist website with their illiterate and illogical views? I’ll tell you why: it’s because, deep down, they know that their beliefs are just a load of primitive, superstitious bullshit. I know this from personal experience. “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” If it’s so obvious that the Wholly Babble is correct, then why the need to keep defending it so vociferously? And why are there literally hundreds of Christian books “proving the truth” of such obvious fiction as Noah’s Flood, The Creation Story, Sodom and Gomorrah, and so on? Why not just say “God said it so it must be true”? Isn’t that what “faith” is all about? Years of biblical archaeology have yielded no evidence of the kingdoms of David and Solomon – at least as spoken of in the Bible – but HAVE thrown up the inconvenient fact that Nazareth didn’t even exist in the time of “Jesus”! Yet still they continue in their vain quest to bolster their own faith in the guise of convincing “unbelievers” that they have been right all along. I wouldn’t give a flying fuck now, personally, were it not for the fact that – especially in “faith schools” – children’s minds are being polluted with this vile and perverse nonsense. I couldn’t tell you how many times as a young Christian I was told, in all sincerity: “There is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than there is for Julius Caesar”. Gawd ‘elp us!