I think you'd be remiss if you didn't include catholic school in your tabulations.

Well, the day of the Catholic nun with ruler in hand has long past us, thankfully.

Most of this stems from the charismatic movement in the U.S. which views the devil from an "experience" based perspective. Check out Salon.com's "How Satain is propping up Bush's war on terror" for a good explanation (even if I don't agree with the political message Salon.com thinks they need to imply with every piece of insight they provide).

Oh, and another thing: Often "Ritual Satanic Abuse" is recalled via repressed memories with the aid of a supposed psychologist/psychanalyst, and many in the scientific community think it's a bunch of crap.

I know a woman who claims to have been forced to sacrifice a baby during a traumatic case of RSA. The only problem is that the there were no missing babies reported in the area at the time she supposedly sacrificed this one.

(Oh, and RSA almost always has Satan in mind as the one being celebrated, where Jesus is the one to be desecrated).

I pretty much have to second you on this one, Brian. Ritual religious abuse of any stripe is pretty rare in the US, but there are a lot more Christian fanatics than Satanists of any stripe to worry about.

For starters, I suppose by rights you'd have to include the Branch Davidian kids. They alone would be a far worse Christian children's death count than any possible made up Satanic abuses you could dream up.

Just noticed this interesting article on repressed memory:

The diva of disclosure, memory researcher Elizabeth Loftus

(Via Wiley Wiggins)

Is Glenn Reynolds a fundamentalist Christian?

When I saw this headline I thought you were going to comment on parents who withhold medical care - Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of the Firstborn, etc. I don't know that the people in Atlanta considered themselves Christian. Don't some other religions have exorcism rituals?

There must have been a folie-a-deux, which I find really scary. It means that people share and act on a delusion. Extreme cases would include the Branch Davidians and Jim Jones' cult. It is the utter extension of no one being available to say the emperor has no clothes or this makes no sense. It is a reason why groupthink gives me the willies.

bleudevil,

Yes. As far as I know, no religion has a monopoly on wackiness or child abuse.

I would place the odds that an exorcism committed by a family in Atlanta, Georgia, is not done in the name of Jesus Christ pretty darn low, however. Less than 10%, I would say. Georgia isn't exactly crawling with radical Buddhists. At least, it wasn't the last time I was there.

If you follow the links in the entry above, you'll see that most U.S. exorcisms that end in the death of a child are in fact Christian rituals. There's really no getting around it.

(DISCLAIMER: The vast majority of Christians, including all of the many I personally know, are not totally bonkers and are pretty nice to their children. Except for telling them they might burn in Hell, but that's a lot better than actually setting them on fire, you have to admit. At one time, mainstream Christians did make a fetish of setting people on fire. So one could say that Christians have come a long way in the past several hundred years, and the rest of us should give them a big atta-boy for this progress.)

I think that the way this article was written is pretty unfair. Seriously Brian. You can't take an example of two mentally disturbed people and shine their sick light on Christianity as a whole. It's not only unfair, it's irresponsible.

When you paint with such a broad brush you're going to piss off a lot of innocent people.

Yes, the parents were sick, but seriously... do you think this is somehow represented by Christianity as a whole?

Frost,

No, it does not represent Christianity as a whole (did you read my comment above?), but I think Christianity is protected from being associated with these things by the media--a courtesy they generally DON'T show for other religions.

An example to illustrate: Do you feel that those who worship Satan are unfairly smeared when the press uses the term "Satanic ritual abuse"? Have you ever defended Satanists against this kind of smear?

(For the purpose of this example, imagine that Satanic ritual abuse actually exists.)

Brian, This is horrifying and a tragedy, but I really hope you aren't setting it up as some kind of indictment of Christianity. There are deranged loons of every religion, including no religion, out there. I wouldn't compare the relative danger of Christianity to Satanism, but to Islam - Allah is vastly more bloodthirsty than Yaweh.

Historically or just recently?

Maybe insane people are very likely to grab on to religion as a vehicle because it is so available. The tendency is not limited to something this extreme, either. I don't know the percentage, but many people who are delusional believe odd things about God, or hear, see or talk to God. It is too bad we don't have a psychologist or psychiatrist blogger who could tell us more about this.

One of the eerie aspects of the attack on my blog I went through months ago was that the woman who began it, who is from a fundamentalist Christian background and has Asperger Syndrome, would send me bizarre emails filled with abusive comments wrapped in religion. 'You might be a better blogger than me, but you are going to Hell.' It is not a pleasant experience.

All-time, and especially the last 50 years.

Mac,

...many people who are delusional believe odd things about God...

Now, Eric, come on. You must know better than that. The Muslims did not shadow box during the Crusades. Nor did they 'settle' much of the world with the Bible in one hand and a gun in the other, destroying most of the people in those countries as they spread Christianity. Christianity is likely more blood-soaked than Islam. And, I am not saying that as a partisan since I'm not a religious person.

Much evil has been done in the name of religion, I agree, and Christianity is far from innocent. But Islam did its share of subjugating and slaughtering when it had the upper hand. I will limit my statement to contemporary history, where Islam's culpability is pretty clear. I am talking about violence in the name of religion, not merely violence done by people who happen to adhere to a given religion.

All in all, it's just a personal guess - I should look into the real numbers, if that is possible.

brian: my main beef with your statement is that you assign certain mistakes (sin even) to Christianity rather than saying it was performed by evil men in the name of Christianity. That is like saying that Democracy in all forms is evil based on the fact that some stupid people have made really bad mistakes in the name of Democracy. That's bad logic.
Also... "If belief in the existence of an entity for which there is no proof of existence is not a delusion, I'm not sure the word has much meaning." well that's simply irrational. There are all sorts of proofs for the existance of God, but maybe not the exact thing you are looking for. No, God doesn't provide you with his zip code or SSN, but things like nature, our very existance as rational beings, and science in general (take the human eye for example) provide loads of proofs for the existance of a intelligent designer at a bare minimum.

"There are all sorts of proofs for the existance (sic) of God..."

No, there aren't.

"...but things like nature, our very existance (sic) as rational beings, and science in general (take the human eye for example) provide loads of proofs for the existance (sic) of a (sic) intelligent designer at a bare minimum."

No, they don't.

And there's no such thing as "bad logic."

Duane, have you been eating spinach today? You are making very assertive comments all over the place.

Frost, the conquistadors, as well as other invaders, did colonize much of the world in the name of Christianity. It was their official reason, not ancillary. So, I don't believe there is any way to separate slavery, colonialism and imperialism from Christianity, and all the people whose lives were blighted or lost, from it.

For the record, I am agnostic. But, I understand why people need to be religious. It gives them an anchor in a cold world and hope for something better after they die. But, though I have been through more than my share of suffering, it just never seemed that becoming religious was a way out for someone as given to poking at 'truths' as I am. I do admire many of the heroic Christians in history.

I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam. Toot-toot!

So, because nature exists and also we are rational beings with complex eyes, clearly there is a God.

And not only that, but also this God clearly wants us to cut off the tips of our penises, acknowledge Jesus of Nazareth as His son and drink Jesus's blood every Sunday.

I think I get it.

As presumably mature adults, I would think we would realize that mocking the deist beliefs of about half the world is rather pointless and unlikely to further dialogue.

There is no scientifically verifiable proof for the existence of God, and short of the Rapture, I'm not certain there will ever be. Nor is there scientific proof for the nonexistence of God: just because we can explain things by physical process doesn't mean that an entity didn't set up the process in the first place.

It's pretty simple: either you are a reductionist and if it can't be proved it doesn't exist, or you are willing to leave open the possibility that just because there is no "proof" in the scientific sense, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Mocking the faith of others will never be a fruitful move, will not convince anyone that they are wrong, and makes the mocker look like a cruel child. I have no idea why so many people feel compelled to attack faith with logic and vice versa - they are completely separate modes of operation.

And yes, Christianity has a very ugly and cruel history of forced conversion, which it seems to have generally grown out of over the last few hundred years - I hope that Islam can do the same - grow out of that mindset, that is.

HOW TO GET OUT OF A CORNER

1. Set yourself up as the "adult" and the person who disagrees with you as a "child." (This makes you the authority!)

2. Imply that you are hurt by the "mocking" tone of a reductio ad absurdum argument, so that you don't have to answer it. (Sure, this infantilizes you a little bit and contradicts #1, but this ain't rocket science--it's religion!)

3. Belittle your opponent's argument as "reductionist" because he uses the same principles to determine if there is a god as he does to determine if it is raining outside.

You can't have it both ways, Eric. If you're going to admit that faith is illogical, you'll have to take what naturally comes from having a belief based on faith.

I could believe, for example, that I am the son of God, that all coins should be stamped with "Brian is Lord," that all of my commercial activities should be untaxed, that my ideas about sexual behavior should be adopted by all as rules, and that everyone who does not bow down and worship me should be pitied or, preferably, converted.

And you would be unable to "prove" that I am not the son of God. Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it's not true.

Still, I'd expect to take what comes naturally from my unproven claims and my expectations of everyone else that arise from those claims. I wouldn't ask for special protection because my belief in my own divinity was deeply felt.

That is pretty much a description of David Koresh's delusional behavior. But, I can't let the followers off the hook, either. Just because the guy purposely approximated the appearance of the pictures of Jesus circulated in Western churches, including the hair, beard and sometimes the robe and staff, doesn't mean folks had to buy into his delusion. There was something awry with them, too. Your reasoning leaves an opening for things like this, Eric. If faith is all, why not be a follower of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell or even David Koresh?

Still, I'd expect to take what comes naturally from my unproven claims and my expectations of everyone else that arise from those claims. I wouldn't ask for special protection because my belief in my own divinity was deeply felt.

See, now that's why you wouldn't be able to compete with all the other dieties out there. Why should people believe in a god who doesn't demand special treatment? Successful gods know that it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.

I was neither in a corner nor even a part of the discussion. Sorry: believers absolutely DO NOT use the same processes to determine if there is a deity as they do to determine whether it is raining. Use scientific evidence and logic on everything within the system, but they don't apply outside the closed system. Traditional logic and math don't even work very well at the far edges of THIS system - why would think they would work or be applicable outside the system.

What is it, exactly, that compels nonbelievers to ridicule the intelligence of believers of any kind? Why do you think it is any more "logical" to disbelieve than to believe - you don't have any more proof than believers. I repeat: absence of proof is not necessary and sufficient to prove absense of existence.

You know, in a way it is funny that more folks don't declare themselves gods. It is really easy to do . . . and many people will invariably follow the self-appointed leader. Considering Eric is the big guy over around 400 bloggers (plus Sam Vaknin) I see grounds for a burgeoning godhood here. Well. . . ?

i thought Barger declared himself a god....or maybe he already was a god.

or something.

Hey, if it works for believing deists from mainstream faiths, no one could fault others for doing so and insisting that they be given the same benefit of the doubt.

Someone wrote above: "Well, the day of the Catholic nun with ruler in hand has long past us, thankfully."

Yeah. I wish I confidently could say the same thing about the Catholic priest (or cleric from whatever faith) with penis in hand. Or about his bosses.

Why is it that believers admit their belief system is not logical when they get into a corner, but then turn around cry "Unfair!" when someone says their belief system is not logical?

Eric Olsen vs. Eric Olsen:

Sorry: believers absolutely DO NOT use the same processes to determine if there is a deity as they do to determine whether it is raining. Use scientific evidence and logic on everything within the system, but they don't apply outside the closed system.

Why do you think it is any more "logical" to disbelieve than to believe - you don't have any more proof than believers.

From Frazer's "The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion" (1922):

"Thus, for example, in a village near Dorpat, in Russia, when rain was much wanted, three men used to climb up the fir-trees of an old sacred grove. One of them drummed with a hammer on a kettle or small cask to imitate thunder; the second knocked two fire-brands together and made the sparks fly, to imitate lightning; and the third, who was called "the rain-maker," had a bunch of twigs with which he sprinkled water from a vessel on all sides."

Sounds a little silly, doesn't it? Why don't we climb up in a tree whenever we face drought conditions? What happened? Science happened. Clearly, these people had a faith in the gods whom they propitiated, and you would not be able to prove to them that their gods did not exist. People steeped in ignorance seek supernatural explanations for natural phenomena they do not understand. It has always been thus. The passage of time eventually, but always, exposes their folly. We are ignorant, even in the 21st century. How can the eye be so complex? Is the Universe really filled up with stuff we can't even see? Why is the Earth so perfect for the support of carbon-based life-forms? If we can let history guide our expectations, there is a natural explanation for these and other questions, and they will be found. That we don't know everything RIGHT NOW seems a foolish reason to appeal to the supernatural.

It's just logic... and a recognition of history.

Eric: What is it, exactly, that compels nonbelievers to ridicule the intelligence of believers of any kind?

I dunno. Probably the same thing that compels believers to ridicule nonbelievers of any kind. There really doesn't seem to be any substantial difference between human beings of either persuasion, much as each side would argue otherwise.

VERY true, for the most part, though there is a minority on either side that fully respects those who believe differently.

Uh, there is a key difference.

I don't believe that believers in the supernatural and paranormal are doomed to a place called Hell, where they will suffer for eternity, and that I, the enlightened one, will be welcomed to a place called Heaven.

I just believe that the existence of God can't be proved, and the only sensible default position--especially considering the history of particular religious beliefs' being proved wrong time and time again, as duane points out--is that there is no God. This is precisely the same approach I take to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and David Koresh as the Messiah.

It isn't hostility to state flatly that a belief in God isn't logical. It's often taken that way, but there isn't anything inherently hostile or demeaning or superior about it.

Can't quite say the same about the whole everyone-else-is-doomed-to-Hell bit. That's pretty damned hostile, demeaning and superior.

1) I haven't condemned anyone
2) The Easter Bunny comparison never holds because there IS evidence that such a thing doesn't exist. There is no evidence that God doesn't exist.
3) At the end of time when everything has been explained scientifically - that still will have no bearing on whether or not God created the whole system in the first place. There seems to be the notion that God was invented to explain the unexplainable and that when everything is expalined the need for a god will disappear, wither away like the dictatorship of the proletariat. People conceive of God because they feel an unbreakable, inexorable connection to Him, a personal relationship with whatever name you want to give it. Knowing all there is to know about the system we live in will have no bearing on this relationship whatsoever.

2) The Easter Bunny comparison never holds because there IS evidence that such a thing doesn't exist.

Oh, faith versus fact. There's no resolution. If I remember correctly, Einstein had deep allegiances to both, but did not try to reconcile them. That may be a form of cognitive dissonance, but I think it is the way people manage to both believe in some form of religious transcendence (again, I'm skeptical) and not believe every faith-based claim they hear.

Despite what some people might think looking at this thread, it actually demonstrates people of different perspectives on religion getting along, in my opinion. (Yes, sniping at each other, too. But getting along.) Brian and Duane are atheists. I'm an agnostic. Natalie and Eric are believers, though not necesssarily in agreement about what they believe. I don't thing any of us would refuse the other a drink of water on his or her dying bed because of differing takes on faith. That is probably what matters most in the longrun.

Correction: I don't think. . . .

Well said, MacD. And it's true that Einstein professed faith in a higher power. He even managed to work his belief into some of his pithier sayings, such as "God does not play dice with the Universe." Another example --- Isaac Newton, considered to be the greatest scientist of all time, was more occupied with pursuits having to do with mysticism than he was with physics.

"It isn't hostility to state flatly that a belief in God isn't logical. It's often taken that way, but there isn't anything inherently hostile or demeaning or superior about it.

Can't quite say the same about the whole everyone-else-is-doomed-to-Hell bit. That's pretty damned hostile, demeaning and superior."

Brian, I understand what you are saying, but really what we are saying could both be taken the same way.

-You are saying the concept of God (or gods) is/are not logical. That could offend someone because they (and I) believe God is logical, and faith isn't a blind thing, but a logical process that not only can be, but is rational. (I would highly suggest you purchasing the book Why I am a Christian... it'll either change some views or really piss you off).

-When people like me discuss the theology of hell, I'm not trying to offend... it's just the way the Bible spells things out. If it were up to me I would be a Universalist, but... it's not up to me. It's not a concept that I revel in, but if you choose to reject the open relationship... well, it shouldn't offend you because you don't even believe in hell.

I just get upset when snide comments are thrown around about Christianity and then we are faulted when someone acts stupidly and bites back. There is a double standard at best.

Mac,

I don't thing any of us would refuse the other a drink of water on his or her dying bed because of differing takes on faith.

While I can't claim to speak for Mr.O,
It seems to me that he can "tolerate",
the Muslim faith just fine.From what I
have garnered from his writings,he only
appears to have problems with extremists
and fanatics within the world of Islam
(and other religions,as well)who are
giving the faith a bad name,and seem
dead set to forever keep Islam in the
stone age.Again, I can't claim to speak
for EO or represent his thoughts.

Well, I go out to dinner, come back and discover that in those few hours Frost has taken the thread back to 'I'm okay, but you are going to Hell.' I must agree with Brian (and not just because he is so utterly cool) that therein lies a problem. I can handle the 'I'm special and you're not' claim of some religionists. But, I have to balk when we get to where Frost is.

Not only is he special and non-Christians, agnostics and atheists not, we are to be punished for not believing exactly as he does. And, not that just any punishment. Eternal damnation punctuated by all kinds of sadistic torments. That seems downright meanspirited. Yes, I have been known to pierce a bubble here and there with sharp analysis and the perfect putdown. But, I've done nothing to justify an afterlife of being burned by the devil or sexually compromised by Al Barger (one of the worst things I can think of). Why is thinking I have necessary to anyone's belief in religious transcendence? I'm all virtual ears. Explain why you think I deserve to be treated horribly in an afterlife, Frost.

Where is Frost? Did he just drop back by to tell non-Christians our 'destiny'? He isn't doing a heck of a lot to sell his faith, is he?

Calling "psychologists/psychanalysts" part of the scientific community is a stretch. This is a classic case of paint your wagon. There are those who will use any excuse to disparage religion, but unlike good researchers fail to go the source before shooting the messenger.

Thanks HW, I appreciate the vote of support. Islam is one of the three great deist religions and is practiced to the benefit and comfort of a large majority of Muslims. But there is also a frighteningly large minority who take the dictates of exceptionalism at face value, who believe they are superior as ordained by Allah, and who have no concept of a secular life apart from religious life: believe or die.

While there are still elements of this in Christianity, it is in a much milder form and Christianity has a tradition of separation of church and state that is codified in the teachings of Jesus. No such thing exists in Islam.

There is much to be learned from ALL religion that is practiced with an open and sincere heart and does not preach hate.

I was a religion minor in college and I find Taoism, Buddhism, Hindu, Shinto, Confucianism - Eastern religion in general, fascinating, informative, psychologically penetrating, and cool.

No water for any religious fanatic who preaches hate - period.

"No water for any religious fanatic who preaches hate - period."

Ditto!!!

If I obey your rule, Eric, does that mean I have to deny you water because of the "bearded motherfucker with linen on his head" comment?

Or is calling a Muslim cleric a "motherfucker" and mocking his religious attire somehow not "hate"?

I believe that even you, Brian, can go back to the context and glean the real meaning, which is that no one should have to live under the autocratic rule of a dogmatist whose authority comes from above. The atavistic garb, demeanor, attitude, perspective, and clear hatred of all who do not adhere such as displayed by any of the ruling mullahs deserves no less than my description.

Disparaging comments against any person because of their race, religion or dress code is wrong - period. In the alternative, neither can there be any tolerance for preaching hatred.

BB, you are of course correct. I was not disparaging anyone, however, FOR wearing any particular garb, but describing an odious person who happens to wear a particular garb. He would be no less odious cleanshaven in a Brooks Brothers suit.

Actually, Eric, I think that would make him MORE odious. ;-)

I just watched a segment on the CBS nightly news about Mel Gibson's new movie. It apparently has a very anti-Semitic aspect. In fact, Gibson is showing the movie to Christian audiences only, though a few Jews have slipped in. I think this is the kind of thing one opens the door to when just saying 'It is my faith,' gets people off the hook for taking responsibility for a message.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that the Jewish establishemnt of the time did not treat Jesus honorably. But one must also remember that Jesus and most of his immediate followers were Jewish. The Christian and Jewish destinies are irretrievably intertwined.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that the Jewish establishment of the time did not treat Jesus honorably. But one must also remember that Jesus and most of his immediate followers were Jewish.

Also, what if they hadn't killed Jesus? How would Christianity exist? How would people know what the cross means? Whose blood would Christians be drinking and flesh eating every Sunday? A Christ who died of old age in his sleep? Gross.

"Let me tell you about the Son of God. He was born, he taught people a lot of things, he had a pet donkey and he lived happily ever after until he died at the ripe old age of 110."

Sorry, that story won't travel.

Christianity needs the torture and death of Christ.

Even when I was a Christian I didn't get the whole the-Jews-did-it thing. Well, yeah, some of the Jews in power in that region helped to usher Jesus to Calvary.

Do you really wish they hadn't?

Actually, it was the Romans who killed him. The Jewish leadership was afraid of him and basically sold him out, but they didn't do the deed. So, it could have happened without their complicity, but it didn't.

Hmm...my memory is hazy, but I seem to remember a certain Roman "washing his hands" of the whole thing.

True, Romans were in power. But the Pharisees did have strength and could have rallied the Jews in a rebellion against those who would kill their Messiah.

As I understand it, that's what it boils down to for the Jew-hating wing of the Christian party (NOT a large wing, I know--I grew up a fundie and never heard a bad word spoken against Jews, except that they were doomed to Hell, poor fuckers).

I'm not sure it could have "happened without their complicity."

I don't think it necessarily would have happened without it, just sayng it still could have. The Romans could have easily felt threatened by his growing power down the line if it hadn't been checked, but it wouldn't have happened the way it did without the urging of the Jewish leadership. It is indeed an ironic, contradictory and central role that Jews play in the religious history of the world.

Who among us is not complicit in some foul evil, if only, for some, by being silent?

Natalie Q: Who among us is not complicit in some foul evil, if only, for some, by being silent?

Al A: ME My conscience is clear.

Really?

Yes, Diva, really.

And Alex's, because he's six weeks old today.

Al Barger and a newborn babe-:).

I would say my conscience is clear, but it isn't. Although I AM forgiven - Christianity is a sweet deal.

"Who among us is not complicit in some foul evil, if only, for some, by being silent?"

I might have been complicit in evil once or twice in my life. But "foul" evil? Nah. Mostly just innocuous evil, like sitting silently, not expressing my outrage when disco music was playing in the background. I have been ridden with guilt over this ever since the first time I heard "Boogie Oogie Oogie," and failed to punch out the DJ. Come to think of it, that is a foul evil.

Duane, you would be happier if you surrendered to your inner disco fan.

I believe in the domino theory. If I surrender to disco, next it will be country, and I'll find myself taking line dancing lessons with Roy and Emmy. I hesitate to even speculate what might happen after that. Must... fight ... the ... urge....

"Where is Frost? Did he just drop back by to tell non-Christians our 'destiny'? He isn't doing a heck of a lot to sell his faith, is he?"

Hey Mac: I was at work when I typed that and my home pc is broken, but thanks for the snide remark.

And I don't have to sell my faith to you. you are responsible for you, and I am responsible for me. I was not condemning anyone. Brian brought up hell. I didn't say anyone was going anywhere.

Oh, Brian... you and Eric are both right. The roman Pontius Pilot (prolly spelled his first name wrong) ordered the crucifixion but it was only after the insistance of the Pharisees. Yes, he washed his hands, but that doesn't mean he didn't do something wrong. It was a combo of the two that hold guilt.

You got the Pontius right, but it's Pilate.

Eric,

Although I AM forgiven - Christianity is a sweet deal.

To my reckoning, Alex and young kids would be the only innocent ones. Duane, are you working for equality for all under law? If not -- IMO, of course -- the evil in which you are complicit would count as being foul. If you pay taxes, you are complicit in a foul evil (government extortion makes that possible, so you get some mitigation happening there, but still).

Brian, I hope you are the Messiah. We have much to discuss.

I explicitly reject your theory of what is essentially original sin, Natalie. Speaking for myself, I have never oppressed anyone. I have never been malicious in my personality, and I have tried to understand and properly consider the viewpoints of others.

I reject as specifically LAUGHABLE your apparent contention that someone would have to actively promote your laundry list of pinko nonsense in order to atone for the sin of being born.

i had a completely clear conscience earlier this evening. it lasted through the drive home and dinner.

but then a little while later my wife went to bed and i watched this cooking show with dweezil zappa and lisa loeb.

...there was much lust in my heart.

see you all in hell.

having seen ms. loeb in action, i quite understand. you'll see me down below with the veggieburgers.

Barger, are you sure you don't want to reconsider your position on this? Alex Olsen has good grounds, but an adult. . . .

Quite sure, Diva. Now, I don't claim absolute moral perfection- for all have sinned and fell short of the glory of God. Plus, I reject the common Christian concept that all sin is equal, and that anything short of perfection deserves only eternal damnation. I just don't feel any lingering guilt over stealing a candy bar in 3rd grade, or some such nonsense.

Other than a few things on that order, I have not done very much or severe sinning against others. You'd be hard put to find anyone with any even vaguely credible personal grievance against me. In short, I'm a pretty decent fellow.

For that, I do not expect to get a medal. However, I also do no expect to volunteer to carry an unearned weight of guilt.

To get back to Natalie's point in comment #74, I again reject that it is my inherent moral responsibility to fix the world. I take a little stab at helping out as I can, but I didn't make the problems of the world. I can't fix the world- I don't have the wherewithal. Some of that is that I personally am less than especially powerful, and some of that is that not everything CAN be fixed. Some of it is that I simply do not owe my life to charity.

Indeed, like my hero Mencken, I tend to be most especially morally suspicious of just exactly those who put themselves in charge of fixing people and things. Charged with a sense of moral superiority, do-gooders of all stripes do very much of the worst avoidable damage in the world.

Also, I might suggest that do-gooders take a famous admonition from the Hippocratic oath to heart: First, do no harm.

I just know that I sleep good.

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.

After reading yesterday's articles in the NYT about what Mel Gibson is up to, I am even more wary. Even if the movie is fair, refusing to show it to Jews is wrong, I think. There's a description of the head of the Simon Wiesenthal Center literally sneaking into a screening. Are Gibson and his pals in Opus Dei so removed from the real world they don't see how that looks?

Barger, do you also believe that, even when you haven't bathed, you don't smell bad?