AN EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH AN ANGRY LIBERAL.greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
I wrote to an angry Liberal who speaks out agaisn tht evil that is Chrsainity.Below is his repsonce, fillied wihthte usual Vitorol and anger and false charges I ha come to excpet frmt he sceptical Community.
Nonetheless, as I read and formulate a responce, which I must be careful of since he limits his repsonces, I will ask for soem advice.
I do, however, find it amusing how he tend to think that, since he fought in the armed forces and is agaisnt the " Ontoelrent Christan faith", that he assumes I have not served. Though poitn of fact is I havent served ( Medical reasons) I know many fine Christains who HAVE, even some in Iraq now.
Below is the email he sent me, thoughts and suggestiosn are welcomed.
To whomever wrote this email: Hello. Thank you for your response. My policy is to limit my email exchanges to 2-3 exchanges to conserve my time. To help me frame my response better, please tell me why you had to write a hurried response. What bad thing would have happened if you took your time? I distinguish between the false belief called Christianity (in all its varieties) and those who want to be deceived by it. We should not tolerate intolerance which is why I speak out against Christianity and those who use it against others. There is nothing wrong with speaking out against views, even religious views. This is appropriate in the marketplace of ideas but not in the workplace for example. This is not intolerance. We got into World War II in Europe because people did not speak out against Nazi Christians, both Protestant and Catholic. The church bells rang, both Protestant and Catholic, when Hitler invaded Poland. The Vatican was a major supporter of Hitler and has admitted it. Come now, which religious people incorrectly blamed the Jews for the death of the mythological Jesus? The founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, was one of the worst anti-Semitic writers ever. Speaking harshly against slavery beliefs and slave owners was the right thing to do. To tolerate and respect this practice and belief was wrong. You seem confused about what tolerance really is. We should not respect that which is abusive and untrue. I accept and respect all rights of those who hold these beliefs. I joined the military to defend those rights. I'm curious, did you? You seem to have forgotten even the early history of America and the persecution of Christian sects against other Christian sects. Are you in denial of the Mormons or the Quakers for example? Experienced writers and editors advise others to write about what they know and have experienced. I let others write about their former religions. It is more revealing to note that you offer nothing about your supernatural beliefs nor any evidence to try to support it. Wayne Orgar
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 06, 2004
Bump
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 06, 2004.
Re the Nazis, you could point out that “Nazi Christians” is an oxymoron. Although the Nazis at times pretended they were supporting German Christian culture in order to keep most of the population onside, Nazism is essentially atheist. Nazis had their own “religious” rallies where they worshipped their own “Aryan” gods. Every member of the Nazi S.S. had to sign a solemn declaration of atheism. As for “The Vatican was a major supporter of Hitler and has admitted it.” - This statement is so fantastically false that I wonder whether it’s even worthwhile talking to this guy, as he probably won’t listen to anything that interferes with his prejudices.Why do you describe this fellow as a “Liberal”? He sounds more like a neo-conservative.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 06, 2004.
Correction, I contradicted myself there didn’t I? I meant they held atheist but religious –type ceremonies where they celebrated their “Aryan” heroes and principles. Yes we must be careful of our responses musn't we? :-)I assume he means GERMAN church bells rang when Hitler invaded Poland. Implying they rang in celebration. I don't know if they did but perhaps it was in mourning for the war which had begun; I know church bells rang in Poland for this reason.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 06, 2004.
Guy just sounds like an idiot to me. Somebody who takes snipets of inteligent conversations, distorts them, and then uses them as arguing points like he actualy knows what he's talking about. When pressed for a more in-depth explanation of some of the accusations he made, I bet he'll back down.
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 07, 2004.
Actuall the German chruches DID ring in Celebration of the invasion of Poland... which is Understandable since the Chruches where controled by the Nazi elite and the Brownshorts rang the Bells personally. But he overlooks the fact that several Ministers where arrested for refusign to preach the German version of the Gospel, and set to Concentration Camps. One is a very notable Baptist Preacher.The Vatican supported Naziism to a limited extent while spiriting away Jews and others in underground railroad sort of meathods. To this end , in the public front, they did not intent to rock the boat with Hitler, they instead sought to save lives in a less obvious way.
However, early on Rome was the only voice of deccent toward Naziism, which won Admiration form then Atheistic Albert einstein.
The man is a Liberal, he holds Liberal veiws and describes himself as a Liberal, this is why I called him such.
In reality, he is a hatemonger who selects argumets to support his Anti-Christain veiws ( All his essays are about how bad christaisn are, and his responce is that Christaisn are evil and deserve it, so he isnt relaly intlerent but a fighter of freedom...)
He isn't intereste din truth at all, but I will mail him. I predict I wil be insulted, called an idiot who doesnt knwo anyhting, and then he will stop respindign because I lakc intellegence and the ability to convers ein a civil manner. Happens all the time.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 07, 2004.
It wasn’t only “early on” that the Catholic Church was the only voice of dissent against the Nazis. I quote Albert Einstein from American Jewish Yearbook 1944-1945:"Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty."
What do you mean “The Vatican supported Naziism to a limited extent … they did not intent to rock the boat with Hitler, they instead sought to save lives in a less obvious way.” ? This is rubbish. It was “obvious” to everybody at the time that the Vatican was totally opposed to Nazism. The first suggestion that it was not came in a work of FICTION by a German playwright seeking to assuage German guilt in the 1960s. Subsequently some bigots took and built on this fiction and presented it as fact. I’m disappointed to see you echoing it. What else did you want the Vatican to do? Send the Swiss Guard to fight the Wehrmacht? OK, not many priests in Germany itself vehemently denounced Nazism from the pulpit. Those that did were dragged off to concentration camps. The church had just seen how Christians doing this against the Bolsheviks in Russia had resulted in the Church being almost obliterated. Is this what you wanted them to do, to deprive all Europe of the sacraments? Hitler and Mussolini had attempted to stop Pius XII from being elected in 1939 because they knew he was the cardinal most opposed to them and would vigorously “rock their boat”.
I would ask this bigot why he thinks that having “served” (that word makes it sound like he did it for no pay) in the military somehow automatically makes correct whatever irrational arguments he comes up with. People join the military for all sorts of reasons. I'm sure in his case it wasn't to defend religious liberty, but probably because he likes fighting.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 07, 2004.
What I meant by early on was that the Cahtolic Chruch was the ONLY voice of oppostion to Naziism. I did nt mean to imply that this changed and they ceased to oppose, ratherothers joined the opposition later on.What I emant by support in a limited way was that they agreed to allow German rule over Germany while Germans agreed to allow the Cahtolic chruch its free excersise in Germany at the time. This was used then to smuggle out Jews and other people to safety.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 07, 2004.
My answer to him.--------------
My answers shall be in {} Brackets.My spelliug is bad as I am dyslexic, with appologies. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To whomever wrote this email: {My name is Zarove Eternius, you may call mne Zarove.}-Zarove
Hello. Thank you for your response. My policy is to limit my email exchanges to 2-3 exchanges to conserve my time. {Pity. I prefer more in deapth discussions on suhc matters, however, limited timing will prevent such. I shall endeavour to make my points accordingly. Howevr, I shall compose another address to you later, so before you remark on this mail, please consider the words in it carefully in addition to my second address, this mail simpley addresses the spacific things you say , as you said them.}-Zarove
To help me frame my response better, please tell me why you had to write a hurried response. What bad thing would have happened if you took your time? { Thank you for asking. It was minor, but personally serious. I had developed a splittign headache and was in a rush to end my work online and go lat down on my couch. Nohtign earth shattering or life altering, but signifigant to me for the time being , enough so that I had to attend to the matter. But thank you again for your concern.}- Zarove
I distinguish between the false belief called Christianity (in all its varieties) and those who want to be deceived by it. {Not only is the above statement extremely arrogant and rather narrow minded, it is also disproven in this very letter, let alone your website, as you remark on various evils of Christain Hisry ( well, misrepresentation of said history at any rate). You make no clear distinction between the beleif system itsself and the adherance of the beleif system neither on your site or in this exchange, and the reserve is emenantly evident. It is also important to note how you use such disparagences, such as calling Chrisainity a false beelif and then saying people want to be decieved by it. Isn't this presumptuous? Isn;t it possible, even in your narrow world veiw, that sem peopel actually beleive it, not because they seek to be deceived by it, but because htey find some merit in it? Is it not possibel that they can sincerely beleive it is true and not be so decieved as you claim? Tgis brigns up the other point, you call Christainity a falsed beleif, this is spurious, as it is queasion begging. whereas I have not actually presented evidence to show it is true, that was never my intent, as I am simpley inquiring about your own hatred.( This I cover later, in your closing address) You, on the other hand, have made a positive assertion that chrisainity IS false, without any evidence to back up this claim. ( Yes,I have read your essays, none are particularly invested in presentign anyhting other than editorial drivel and tired old charges that have been easily dispelled long before either of us where Born.) You may indeed think Chrisainity is false, however, and especiallu in regards bnoth to your website and the overlal tone of this email, it seems less an honest statement of beleif, and more the result of your inability to eve consider allowing Christains any sort of fair treatment. You do not call Christainity a false beleif because you actually think it is false, you call it a false beleif because you personally hate it, and not for any good reason, but for soem deep rooted personal reason. I must ask you to reconsider your claims and your presentation as you seem yourself willignly decieved by your own anti- Chrisyain rhetoric to the poitn of fanatisism.}-Zarove We should not tolerate intolerance which is why I speak out against Christianity and those who use it against others. {As with above, this is mere queastion Begging. You assume the beleif is false, without any real evidnece htta it is false, and then procceed to claim it is intolerence. The basic theology of Christianity is not intolerence. Indeed, the Universal applicability of the rleigion , that all are created equel before God, and all can optain salvation and reconciliation with God, and inherit an eternal Kingdom, is rathe rinclusive. The Ideals set by Jesus about Loving ones neighbour, ones enemies, and ones freinds, eqielly, and Loving God, are certainly not intolerent. But alas, you are a bigot I am afraid. Rather than actually anylise the tehology of christainity, you instead simpley seek to undermine it for your own selfish personal reasons. You hate Christianity, so you will employ any argument youfind that is agaisnt it, and gnore any for it as some sort of dilusional thinking. You lable Christainity as Intilerent, and say we shoudl nto be tlerent of intolerence, however, you have not shown how the theology of Christanity is, in and of itsself, intolerent. ( And note, I said the theology, not the spacific actions of spacific individuals.) As such you undermine your own credibility by makign suhc claism that are transparent in motivation. We all know you hate Christanity, but can you offer anythign more substansive than mere accusation?}-Zarove There is nothing wrong with speaking out against views, even religious views. {But their is somethign wrogn about lying. You lie both about how evil Chrisyainity is, and about differentiatign between the beleif itsself and the peopel who adhere to said beleif. You clearly don't , as your email indicates below. Likewise, you misrepresent the faith, and disparage it to such an extent that no one coudl call you impartial or fair when dealign withthe subject matter. ou began with your premise, and now form statements to support tour suppositions that Chrisanity is false, and tha i is intolerent and evil. This is the root of Propoganda, as well as the root of all Bigotry and intolerence, and a great deal of intolerence comes form you while you brazenly claim to be fiting intolerence. You do nothign but poject upon Chrisytainity what you yourself are guilty of. Intolerence, hatred, and poor ability to represent beleifs that differ from yours fairly.}-Zarove This is appropriate in the marketplace of ideas but not in the workplace for example. {It is innappropriate anywhere to slander and lie, as you have done.}- Zarove This is not intolerance. {Yes, it is. Any time you brazenly speak out in oppositio to anothers way of life, this is Intolerence. }-Zarove We got into World War II in Europe because people did not speak out against Nazi Christians, both Protestant and Catholic. {This is a lie. Calling the Nazi's Christian is a blatant lie. Saying no one spoke out agaisn thtem is a lie. One orginisation was very outspoken agaisnt them. From the beginning, before anyone else outside of Jewery spoke in opposiiton tot hem, this orginisation sought to oppose the radism and anti-semetism of the Nazi Regime. The Orginisation was the Catholic Chruch. pope Pius the 12th spoke in complete objection to the Nazi Regime. He, and his Church, saved more Jewish Lives than any secular orginisation in existance. Note, the cahtolics whom you villify where the first, and loudest, opsition to Naziism and Facism. Interestignly, so where most Protestant chruches. Many Ministers indeed where either shot on sight or else sent to concentration camps for not preachign Nazi indoctornation in their chruches, and also opposed the Nazi Regime when it became more militant. One Baptist Minister in particular was very outspoken, and sent to austwitz. His name eludes me, but he objected on the grounds of his faith. The "Christain" Nazi's closed down Cahtolic Schools, stores, and even Chruches, removed the Bible form the schools and replaced them with Mein Kempt, and denounced any free worship that was not state sanctioned. The Nazi's where far form Christain, and indeed where oponants of Christainity. Do you know of many Christains who woidl so forbid these things? Here is a link to a NonChristain source on these claims. http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlerchristian.html Likewise, on the " No one spoke out agaisn the Chrisyain Nazi's" claim, let me show you another page. http://users.binary.net/polycarp/piusxii.html The facts speak agianr you that the Nazi's where intronsically Christain or that no one opposed them. Even Albert Einstein rote of his appriciation and admiration of the Chruch after its heroic efforts to save so many and its opposition to Facism. At his Funeral, several Jewish Leaders lamented the passing of Pope Pius the 12th, for his efforts to rpeserve them, an soem of them personally. I am not so ill learend to beleive your drivel about how evil Chrisyaisn are or the old charge that Naziism is basedon Christainity, its a canard that has little real meanign to the hisotry of the events. Beside these meager references I present ehre, their are literlaly volumes of hisotry I have read whihc confirms the Cahtolic Chruhces initial opposition to Naziism, and its final conforntations over St.Peters Square.Do you deny the Nazi Tanks rollign intot he Bassilica? How do you explain this attemt at Military takeover by the nazi's if they where allies with this group? And again, you are failign to distinguish between the actiosn of adherents and the beelif system tisself even if you had been correct.} The church bells rang, both Protestant and Catholic, when Hitler invaded Poland. {If they did, can I see proof that they rang because of approval form the Chruhces themselves? Polish Churhc bells rang to announce that the war had begun, and to moun the loss of life. I woudl not be surprised if German chruch bells rang in celebration, since Brownshorts now controled most of the chruhces which wher elittle better than indoctornation centres for Facism. However, and again overlooked by you in your zeal to hate Chrisyains, many Ministers swhere sent to Concentration camps for beign Christain and refusing the reich, and the Pope was outspoken agaisnt this regime.}-Zarove The Vatican was a major supporter of Hitler and has admitted it. {No, it wasn't, and n, it hasn't.}-Zarove Come now, which religious people incorrectly blamed the Jews for the death of the mythological Jesus? {Interesting chice of words. Mythological Jesus. Am I to understand you beleive Jesus did not exist at all? f so, it shall be frther indicatin that you aren;t relaly interested in rational points of discussion, but are rather only interested in presentign anti- Christain arguments to support your own prejudices agaisn the religion. Ues, I am aware of Earl Doughtery and Acharya S. Both are flawed in their work. Both date the Gopsels to well after the accepted date assigned even the most generous of scholars. Both overlook the fact that the movement of Chrisainity began well too fast to ahv origionated with a nonesistant founder. Both overlook the fact that the numerous Critics of the Young faith never once themselves doubted Jesus's existance, eve thse who lived iN Gerusalem in the first century. Myhtologucal Jesus? You must jest at this. Of course, if Jesus never existed it invalidates Christainity, an thats all the proof it shoudl seem nessisary to convence you of its accuracy as a theory. You cannot brign yourself to even grant Chrisyanity any leway, can't even admit Jesus existed at all. A fact not in dispute among the most reputable, or even the majority, of Scholars in related fields. Many reject hisdivinity, but none reject his existance, save a few rouges who arent taken seriosuly because htier work is nonsence. }-Zarove The founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, was one of the worst anti-Semitic writers ever. {Not oe o the worst ever. Beleive me, their where far worse, including man atheistic writers. He was anti-Semetic, however, this doesn't prove that all Christains are, or that Christainity as a whole is. You are either judgeign the whoel based on the actiosn of one, or else you are judging the religion based on the actions of a single adherent and his inital followers. either way, you are not beign hoest in this argument either, as it is designed soley for } Speaking harshly against slavery beliefs and slave owners was the right thing to do. To tolerate and respect this practice and belief was wrong. {Yes. This is why the Church of england spoke out agaisn he slave trade and was instrumental in ablishing Slavery throgou thte British empire. But I suspect I was suppose to asusme Chrisytains ( As in all Christians) supported slvery, and the rleigion itsself endorses it, as per usual with such people as you and claism aagsint Christainity. The trouble is that you aren;t being hoenst again. For starters you assume only an American Perspective Christains around the world where fighting slavery. Likewise, one also forgets the loudest and earliest objection to slavery in the USA did nto coem from the irreigious, for most Athests where utilitarian and prefered slavery, rather, the Aboliitonist Preachers began the move to morlaly oppose slavery. A movement even the Federal Government was content to not begin. Rather, they allowed slavery to exist in slave states. You may seek to point out a few passages in the Bible, but will be reminded that slavery as an instetution was different in the Biblical history than in the America's. You will also be reminded that, although some ministers where pro-slavery, many, many more where oposed to it. Just because modern books on Hisotry prsent hisotry wth a strong anti- Christain slant doesnt negate the fact that the matter was first broguht to the attention fo the world by aolitionist preachers who where firm, Bible beleiving protestant Christains. }-Zarove You seem confused about what tolerance really is. {No , I don't. You seem confused as to history, instead repeatign myths and innaccuracies tha support your assertion that Christainity is evil. Let me guess, no good has ever come from Christainity,but all vil is its fault, right?}-Zarove We should not respect that which is abusive and untrue. {Yet you have neither proven Christainity is abusive or untrue. You have accused it as such, btu even takign at face value your claism of historical acitosn done by Chrisains, it does not prove the theology itsself is abusive or an advicate of abuse. Likewise, you cannot show MOdern Christain practices to be abusive. Nor can you relaly how the past to be abusive it seems. As to it beign untrue, you beleive it is untrue, but have not exaclty gone out of your way to present evidence to support this claim, makign it unsubstantiated. Am I expected to beelive it is untrue because you said so?}-Zarove I accept and respect all rights of those who hold these beliefs. I joined the military to defend those rights. I'm curious, did you? {As a matter of fact, I did not. I have a strign aversion to firearms, and killing other living hings was not soemthign that I shoudl feel particularly capable of excellgn at. This is not to say I have disrespect for the amred forces, as I know their nessesity and apprciate the efort of our soldiers, bt it is not what I was deisgned to be. However, I know soldienrs, and most of them are deou Christains. They DO risk their lives. I know one in Iraq now, and two I know went to Aphganistan. Rhus, one cannot play bravery cards on me. I myself am no coward and have risked my life before for what I beelive in, and so have many others, you are nto unique here in that. Nor does it have any bearign on the fact that you spread haeful, innacurate propoganda designed to disparage another faith that you happen not to share.}-Zarove
You seem to have forgotten even the early history of America and the persecution of Christian sects against other Christian sects. {what even makes you think I am American? Likewise, no, I haven't, but we are notw in for more misrepresentation...}-Zarove Are you in denial of the Mormons or the Quakers for example? {The Mormon's were not persecuted for their beleifs however. You may want to present them as a Christain Sect ( Another disparagent word, sect...) who was pursied, chased out, persecuted, and killed for its beleifs by anoher sect, however, the reality is that the Mormons where often run out of one area or another for their practices and behaviours, not for their religious beleifs. Indeed, behaviours ranging form lewed behaviour, to Joseph smith's affairs with married women, to Polygamy, to attemts to userp local, and later federal, auhtority lead to the Mormon persecutions, not their religious beleifs. This was not a matter of one Christain sect saing " They dont beleive just exaclty what we do, so they have to die", this is a matter of the Mormons conducting immoral and often illegal activities and beign run out of town because of it. You may want to pretend I am the oen ignorant of Histry, but the reality seems you are. Or more precicely, you are diluddd, because yo want to be decieved by your own beleif system, just as you axuse the Christains of. As to the quakers, yes they had a hard tim wihhte Puritains, but not wih everyone. In 1681 in england the Toleration act allowed free worhdsp, and even before then they where only relaly persecuted for their odd practices, such as not removign their hat before an autority ( A break of civil conduct back then) and not for their religious beleifs on the whole. Why should I beleive you have vlaid poitns about how intolerent Chrisaisn are when you cannot even get the hisotry correct?}-Zarove
Experienced writers and editors advise others to write about what they know and have experienced. I let others write about their former religions. {But form just this email one can deduce you know nothign of the acutal teology or hisotry, and merley clect anti-Christain a rguments to present that spport the veiw you want to promote. Again, this sin't fighting intolerence, it beign intolerent.}-Zarive It is more revealing to note that you offer nothing about your supernatural beliefs nor any evidence to try to support it. {Why shoudl I? My main point if address is not to promote any beleifs I have, but to ask you why you have to be so intolerent an bigoted. For all you knwo I am an atheist. My beleifs arent relaly relevant, I merely disliked your dishonest and propegandistic rantigns about Chriyainity, which are flase and promote nothign btu Hatred. You say we must not tolersate intolerence, then where oes this leave you and your body of work? Since my own veiws on relgion ard not beign discussed, I felt no need to even try to descienbe them and even less to prove them valid. Nor wil i discuss the with you in this exchange with th limitaitosn you imposed.The simpley arent relevant to your hatred and bigorty I woudl liek to address.}-Zarove
Wayne Orgar
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 07, 2004.
Paragraphs, Zarove, paragraphs. Nobody has that long an attention span, dude.
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 07, 2004.
Refer that liberal to the Micheal Savage Show "The Savage Nation!" Ask him to call up and talk to good old Mike hehe. I'de love to hear the debate they would have. Mike may be a little too angry most of the time, and he may be pretty offensive at times, yet as you get to know him he's a really cool man and has written two great books. "The Savage Nation" and "The Enemy Within." LOL!
-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), July 07, 2004.
Great job Zarove!
-- Jacob R. (jacobrainey@hotmail.com), July 08, 2004.
Michael Savage is a lunatic, a racist, a hypocrit, and a moron. Here are some of the awful things he said:"Just be careful. One day, when you and your family are cooking hot dogs in the backyard, just be careful, because your Korean neighbor might actualy be cooking his dog. That's how they do it over there, you know."
"You and all your sodomite friends should all get AIDS and die"--to a caller who said that gays should be allowed to get married.
"You are the liberal scum who should be rounded up from within and put in camps for what you are doing to this country. The problem is that you have no love in your life and you have no orgasms, and I realize that none of you liberals can experience orgasms, or else you wouldn't be this way. If you could acheive a sexual orgasm, your repressed anger would be gone and you wouldn;t be such a fool."-- to a caller who disagreed with Savage's views on Ritalin.
Maybe he should write a book called "Savage Stupidity".
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 08, 2004.
Anti-I have to agree with you about Savage. I think he may be mentally ill. If its not all "schtick," then it must be "show biz" otherwise, it's almost unbelievable.
He is however, placated like an alligator getting his tummy rubbed if he's given any kind of complement. A major narcissist...
-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), July 08, 2004.
I agree, Savae isn't one of my Favourites either...
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 08, 2004.
I read that some kid in high school decided to start a conservative club, and used Savage's slogan "borders, language, culture" as the official motto. Now, you'd think Savage would be honored, right? Wrong. He up and sues the kid for "copyright violations", even though he had never copyrighted the phrase AND it was actualy coined by a Senator back in the 70's.
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 09, 2004.
Again, I don liek savage. Their are Jerk comnservitives and Jerk Liberals. And is savage cnservitive? I thought he was more of a self stylesd Political activist with soem right wing tendancies mixed in with radical deccentsion.I mean, he isn;t Liberal, but then, neither is Operah for all her weird New age stuff.
At any rate, een i he is conservitive, hes still a Jerk.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 09, 2004.
I classify him as a conservative because he applauds Bush with every chance he gets, and denounces anyone who criticises him as a "gay sodomite with AIDS", a "fascist", a "racist" (kind of ironic, as Savage refers to the nations in Africa as "turd-world countries"), or a "communist".
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 10, 2004.
You are incorrect in many ways ant-Bush. First off, Savage doesn't praise and give glory to Bush in every way in fact he has alot of problems with Bush and has even said he's not sure if he wants to vote at all. Also, Savage did not and does not wish that all "sodomites" get aids and dies. LOL, about the korean eating dogs, you are mis-understanding what Micheal is saying. Instead of having a (as it seems) bias against him or going by hear say or just hearing what you "want" to hear, why don't you read his two books "The Savage Nation" or "The Enemy Within." Maybee he'll surprise you, or maybee if you met him personaly, sat down and had a cup of coffe with him you'd see what I mean. He really is a great guy, and he's not some "phony" he's a well respected scientist and a down to earth fellow. No I don't agree with everything he says and yes he seems to lose his temper easily (on certain subjects, like when someone who wants to portray the Virgin Mary in a bottle of urine and call it "art"). You don't seem to understand him and take his quotations (which are not exact) out of context. God bless him, he needs it. :)
-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), July 10, 2004.
I have read Savage Nation. A couple hundred pages of pure crap. I've got no interest in throwing away $20 on another one of his so-called books. I listen to him in the car about once a week. Just to get a feel for the other side. I really hope conservatives don't idolize him as much as you do. I've heard every one of those quotes myself. There's not much "context" to justify telling a caller to go get AIDS and die, or saying that all Korean-Americans eat dogs.
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 11, 2004.
His book is a real book, not a so-called book. It has bindign and typeface and everything... heck even "The Christ Conspiracy" is a real boook. Just not worht anyhting.As to Savage Himself, I tend to agree that he is an overblown windbag,however, it seems the outrageous are the famous, simpley because they can draw attention to themselves that normal peopel canot.
All this siad, perhas we shoudl drop Savage, as he is no the main point of thisthread.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 11, 2004.
I think I can honestly say that when I first listened to Savage, I had no intentional bias. I had no expectations. I can't say I disagree with every point he makes, and still listen to bits and pieces of his show from time to time. Now however, its mostly to see what he's "gonna do." He's very unkind to "outsiders."I'm often surprised by the vitriol of his rants. I've heard some that really make him sound unbalanced. He can't tolerate callers or anyone else who disagrees with him. He really becomes quite vicious. At least that's how it sounds to me.
I wouldn't mind having lunch with him though, to see if his demeanor is all an act, or if he's truely a bit of a lunatic. He seems to speak for the... "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" faction.
-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), July 11, 2004.
So much for skippimg Savage...
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 11, 2004.
I wrote mine while you were writing yours. You were quicker on the "submit." I agree, the horse has had enough of a beating.
-- Jim (furst@flash.net), July 11, 2004.
Welp, wayne has emailed me. And it shoud appear he was amused by my ddisparagies of him... can anyone tell me, form the above retrns, how I insutked him, exaclty? Below is hiw new mail.-----------
Zarove, I just returned from a short and refreshing camping trip. I have read your two disparaging emails with some amusement. I see nothing new here and am very able to respond to your points. In fact, I look forward to doing so. Alas, I have a full time job, am engaged in a musical project that requires that I practice two hours a day, do some consulting work on the side, and have serious correspondence to deal with first as well as other activities. Thus, I may start to draft my response on the weekend but I really can't say when I will complete it and get it to you. Be patient. Wayne Orgar
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 12, 2004.
wAUNS LAST REPLY.---------
Zarove,
This will be my final correspondence with you. After reading your initial hurried knee-jerk reactions with referrals to headaches and tears as well as your follow-up email, I prefer to avoid your emotional issues that could be exacerbated by continued emails. I have reviewed some of your postings on Internet boards as well as the observations of your Christian peers. There are concerns about how you deal with others, even Christians, over the Internet.
Although you said my atheism didn’t bother you, your other writings indicate that atheism/humanism does bother you. That is understandable but why you would say it doesn’t in itself does not ring true. You said you weren’t a fundamentalist, yet you are the most fervent person that has contacted me except for the fundamentalist Christian who ranted against democracy. Yes, anti- democracy and Christianity are compatible. Many Christians with all shades of beliefs - from Jesus as a son of a god to Jesus is just an ideal - have written to me. You are the first to take the tact you have. It’s interesting but not effective.
I will make my evangelical pitch in the beginning, rather than at the end. I encourage you to abandon your Christian, Bible-based beliefs. You are completely able to stop tormenting yourself over Biblical supernatural tales. You can learn to enjoy a responsible life, free from oppressive paranoia or sin and retribution and 2,000 year-old rules written by people who knew nothing about the world.
Now, I need to clarify a point about context of human behavior that helps guide us in looking at history as well as individual’s and institutional behavior and policy. Humans and their institutions do not always act or speak consistently on any given issue, religious or non-religious. It is paramount to not focus on the actions or speeches that confirm our desires. You can always find an incident that conflicts with the overall pattern of behavior. Even the most rabid racist can be found exhibiting some sort of unexplainable kindness or sacrifice to the object of the racism. Politics, status, and money often influence us look rather untidy at times. Thus, it is necessary to look at a continuum of behavior and all the facts over a long period of time to get the most accurate picture possible. We make conclusions by detecting patterns of behavior over time with the understanding that some behaviors will not fit the pattern. You probably have a good background in mathematics. This is similar to determining the best formula for a line from a bunch of data points. No one expects all the dots to fall on the line. This is true of the history of the Christian faith or a more focused issue such as the long-term role of Christianity in the rise of Nazism and anti- Semitism.
Thoughts in response
The source of Christian belief and philosophy is the Bible. All other ideas from extra-Biblical sources are not Christian ideas even if they are followed by Christians. Where in the world did you get the idea that equality is a Christian idea? You have not made the case. It’s not in the Bible. Please read my essay: What’s Wrong with Equality? Read my essay, Our Great Non-Christian Nation, where I point out that: "Democracy is not a Judeo/Christian idea. The Greeks were the first to promote democratic principles. The Greek philosopher Solon (638-558 BCE) was the first to write a civil constitution, to create a trial by jury, and to advocate for voting rights among other democratic ideas (5). There is nothing in the Bible that supports or even mentions democracy. The stories of Jesus show no knowledge of democracy. How could he have missed such an important concept? Why are there no parables about the benefits and morality of democracy? Instead, we get a story of a nobleman who says, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them" (6). The Jesus character says nothing about how wrong it is to needlessly kill innocent people who only did not want a nobleman to reign over them, the basis for the American Revolution. Keep this parable in mind when I discuss the concept of the consent of those governed."
2. Welcome to America where speaking out against Christianity and its participants has a long history by respected individuals. You may have read these from my essay: Our Great Non-Christian Nation.
Of course, the document that our nation was founded upon was the United States Constitution. The Declaration of Independence was simply a document signed by colonial representatives to announce their separation from England. Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration. The person considered by his peers to be the" Father of the Constitution" was James Madison. Consider what Jefferson and Madison had to say regarding Christianity.
"And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson, our third president and the founder of the University of Virginia (2).
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion to all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects?__ During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution" - James Madison, our fourth president and author of the Bill of Rights (3)…
*William Lee Miller,#3 above, pp.236-237, points out that Washington's autobiographer James Flexner calls him a deist although a conventional Anglican by observance. Washington's attendance at church was infrequent. Interestingly, Miller also quotes John Adams later in life as saying: "Would it not be better, to apply these pious subscriptions (referring to missionary efforts abroad), to purify Christendom from the corruptions of Christianity, rather than to propagate these corruptions in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America." John Adams was our second President.
"One of the latest Englishmen to immigrate to the colonies, Thomas Paine, by himself has been given the greatest credit for getting the support of the general people in the colonies for the Revolution through the unprecedented distribution of his pamphlet, Common Sense (15). He was the most radical Deist of all and an outspoken anti- Christian. Consider this from the Age of Reason: "Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics."
Speaking out against Christianity and its participants does not make one a bigot.
3. You point out supposed Christian values of love and peace. Are you claiming that others on the planet do no not think these are important values, no matter how impossible they are to define? Do you claim that Christianity is necessary for these values to exist, whatever they may mean? The stories of the Jesus character show someone who is promoting inner peace, not social peace. "For I have not come to bring peace but a sword," etc.
4. Killing is not necessary for persecution to occur. I was tickled by your defense of oppression of the Mormons. "Those folks aren’t like us" is always the cry for oppression. That they used the patriarchs of the Bible to justify their contentious practices is why they embarrassed Christians. If it is killing by Christians you want against other Christians, just remember the Puritan Americans who killed innocent young women (witches) and a minister. Speaking of the global witch hunt, this lasted between 1500-1780 and took tens of thousands of victims. Refresh my memory, which religion was it that did this? Oh yes, it was the Christians. You are from England. You probably know that Puritan Christians had no problems killing a king or clergyman to achieve their ends. Once again, read my essay, Our Great Non-Christian Nation. They also oppressed noted religious people such as Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams. Many people chose to live in the wilderness or with the Indians, rather than to experience Puritan "Christian love."
Speaking of the Indians, if it is more slaughter by Christians justified by Christianity and the Bible that you want, read my essay, The Arrogance of the Manifest Destiny. Christians have been doing this sort of stuff over and over again throughout history, justified by their religion. Read the story of Hawaii. Read about the Indians of central California’s coast who thrived until the Christian missionaries brought their religious misery and forced labor. Need I mention the institutional cover-up of child abuse by priests? Protestant clergy and laypersons have similar problems only they do not have a single recognizable "church." Read the monthly two- page "Black Collar Crimes" section in the Freedom From Religion Foundation newspaper for this sort of information. Christopher Hitchens has shown that even Mother Teresa was a pious fraud and was not highly regarded in India by people who really knew her actions. Christians are hardly known around the world for bringing peace and love wherever they go.
5. The harm of Christianity – The basic premise of Christianity is that our species will be thrown into the torments of hell for eternity. This is the embarrassing equality of Christianity. If you didn’t believe in hell, you would not need Christianity or a belief in a supernatural Christ-Jesus at all. This philosophy is nothing more than hatred for the species. It is the purest form of hatred imaginable. To scare children and emotionally vulnerable adults with this belief is needless and harmful. The oppression and abuse from Christianity and the Bible is an historical pattern from Constantine forward to today where it is still used against homosexuals, women, and non-believers. How dare you ask what harm comes from Christianity? This is like the slave owner asking what harm comes from slavery since he is not harmed and possibly gets benefits from it. After all, slavery was for the slaves’ own good! They just didn’t realize it!
This is an institutional pattern of almost 2,000 years. The charity that some Christians perform does not diminish this pattern in the least. Good works will exist without the oppression from Christianity and the Bible. As Noble scientist Stephen Weinberg said, "Good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion." I am loosely quoting.
From my essay, "If Christianity is True" I elaborate:
You have plenty to lose with Christianity.
You lose a lot of time and money on religious organizations and icons, time and money that could be better spent on real problems.
You have to worry about guilt and shame from the imaginary concept of sin. Big brother is watching.
You have to stand on your head and do verbal gymnastics to "apologize" for ridiculous Bible stories and verses.
You have to worry about the increasing knowledge of the facts of the universe and try to rectify them with the Bible, written by people who knew nothing about their universe.
You have to worry about the increasing civil rights of women and other minorities such as homosexuals, atheists, ethnic groups, and other religious groups that are increasing in this country.
You have to constantly worry about non-believers watching your behavior as Christians and pointing out that you do not behave any better than non-believers.
You have to worry about your friends and family going to hell for an eternity. If you don't worry about this, you either don't truly believe or are a very callous individual.
You have to worry about breaking arbitrary "rules of men" that were attributed to a supposed deity thousands of years ago.
You have to worry about those secular humanists (all 20 of them) that have taken over every school, government body, university, media outlet, and ice cream stand in the country.
You have to worry about which side god is on at football games.
6. The Jesus Did Exist Theory - Of course lack of originality does not in itself indicate lack of truth. I am familiar with this apologetic attempt to support the Jesus Did Exist Theory. The issue of originality does not exist in isolation however and is a significant element in determining the truth of any story or supernatural tale as best we can.
Let me try to simply illustrate how with a common story in America. Back in the late 60’s, a favorite sitcom on TV was called the Beverly Hillbillies. The story was that Uncle Jed was out in the woods in the hicks somewhere when he was shooting at an animal for food. His rifle shot missed the animal but the bullet plunged into the ground. Crude oil started oozing out on his land. So he, his nephew Jethro, his daughter Ellie Mae, and Granny packed there few belongings on the old truck and moved to the upscale Beverly Hills, much to Granny’s disgust. This was fiction although we can recognize the theme of a poor family who strikes it rich for some reason or another and moves to a better neighborhood with expected social difficulties. This show was regarded as an insult to some, particularly from your neck of the woods.
Now let’s say that you ask me how my deceased father came to live in Marietta, GA, in a huge mansion. I tell you that his Uncle Billy Boy was out with his rifle hunting. He shot at a feral hog but missed. As hard as it might be to believe, the strange result was that crude oil started to ooze out of the ground. He sold the land for a fortune. So Billy Boy and my father along with his cousin Betsy and his grandmother called Nanny moved to into an upscale area of Marietta from the Smokies. Some people knew him and believed his stories about the past. They had no reason to think he would lie.
Now, suppose you are old enough or watch reruns on Nick at Night. This story line sound suspiciously familiar plus the idea of finding oil with a rifle sounds like a tall tale. To make sure you review some episodes of the Beverly Hillbillies. You research any possible oil finds from this manner and any possible principle of physics and force that would allow for such a thing. Without evidence, you know that to believe that oil can be found with a rifle is not supported (Jeez, I hope I’m right about that!). There might be some unusual circumstances that caused the oozing but the original story didn’t mention these and anybody could change the story later to try to explain it. That is not evidence however.
You don’t stop there however. You access public and private records and find out that my father never had an Uncle Billy. His father was an only child and he had no step-brothers. You discover that both his grandmothers died before he was born. There wasn’t any record of his cousin Betsy. Furthermore, you can’t get confirmation that he really lived in the mansion as a family member or as a paid live-in housekeeper. This is in doubt.
Without historical confirmation for a tale that seems to violate physical principles and without historical confirmation of the existence of major characters of the story as well as the story itself, you would conclude that this story is fiction, especially since this seems to be a story retold with different names, subtle differences, and times. Unfortunately, my father was lynched by a mob of angry secular humanists so you can’t even interview him about Billy Bob and everyone else who know him from that time is dead. Lack of originality in conjunction with no good historical support for the story equals lack of truth until the evidence is put forward. To believe my story of Billy Bob is incredibly naïve and unjustified.
I don’t reinvent the wheel so I don’t bother to repeat the work of others. I have provided plenty of references on my site regarding the lack of evidence for Jesus. (See my essay "Tell Me the Story of Jesus" again). I don’t do other people’s homework. I did say that it is possible for a person named Jesus to have existed and to have been partly responsible for these stories but I think it unlikely. Now that Dennis MacDonald, theologian, has shown that the underlying themes in the first gospel Mark have been derived from the very common writings of Homer (the source of learning to read and write Greek in these times) similar to the Acts of Andrew, it is most appropriate to treat Jesus as a myth. The theology and story themes are not original and there is no historical record from this time to support his existence. If the Council of Nicea couldn’t accept the Acts of Andrew, than the first gospel called Mark should not be accepted either. Toss out the other gospels that were copied from it.
I am familiar with the song and dance of apologetics around the rapid spread of Christianity to Rome. I think it was Moreland’s idea mostly. This is not evidence for the existence of Jesus. There are problems with this thinking.
We have no objective guidelines about what a fast spread of religion is for any context. This is subjective. Has someone really evaluated all the tens of thousands of religions to determine the speed and distance that they moved? How about only 50 religions? 25? What valid sample of religions is this principle based on? It only looks at the first 20 years of the Christian religion or so. A larger scope shows no particular knowledge of the stories of Jesus for the first 100 years or so. Big deal. The case has not been made that a rapid spread of a story indicates the truth of the story. Even in our modern times, urban legends spread quickly. There are no alligators in the sewers of NY City. The case has not been made that the rapid spread of a story indicates that a character in the story, even the major character, existed. This argument takes the desired conclusion, a specific, and makes it into a broader generalization as an unsupported premise. There is a difference between the spread of Christianity and the spread of the belief in an earthly Jesus. The spread of Christianity is not the same thing as the spread of the belief in Jesus. Christianity was founded on the Christ. It would not need a Jesus as a founder initially. With regard to gospel dating, most scholars and concordances agree that Mark was the first gospel dating from after 70 CE. The epistles predated the gospels. I’ll let theologians dispute the dating of others. Doherty does date some later than most. I know that some apologists try to slip Acts in earlier but I don’t think most theologians agree.
I understand that historians have jumped on the bandwagon for the existence of Jesus but that is changing and I can understand why you find this scholarly approach threatening. This change is occurring based on much more than the writings of Doherty or Acharya S. By the way, the Journal of Higher Criticism from Drew University does not find Doherty flawed in any major way. Historians admit they have no historical records to examine and that they know nothing about an historical Jesus. This means the stories are a myth even if he existed in some way. You do not accept other religious stories as true without evidence. Most of the time when the media, even Peter Jennings, makes the point about the historical Jesus, they say, "most scholars think that he existed." They don’t usually say what scholars they are referring to or if they are really historians or merely theologians who would loose their job if the truth about Jesus got out.
At the most basic level, if you accept the Bible as evidence about Jesus, clearly Jesus is a myth. The premise is that Jesus is a god who came to earth to save the world from hell. He didn’t. He never saved the world. He left before he hardly got started. Read my essay "The Worst Story Ever Told" again. If you respond to nothing else, hit me as hard as you can on why you think this story of Jesus isn’t a ridiculous story. Pretend that you are not a Christian.
No, the Jesus Did Exist Theory is unsupported by historical evidence similar to the Krishna Did Exist Theory. They are both myths. Saying that Lord Krishna is a myth is neither bigotry nor hatred. The same is true of saying that Jesus is a myth.
7. Martin Luther – This is a glaring example of Christian complicity for anti-Semitism and the atrocities that been conducted as a result. Why don’t Christians of all kinds formally renounce him and his writings? Why does the Lutheran church continue to call itself Lutheran and why don’t other Christian denominations or sects call them out on this nomenclature? Why do Christians sing Luther’s hymns? This is disgusting. Your comment about his not being as bad as others is not a defense even if it were true. The existence of a greater evil does not justify a lesser evil.
8. Slavery – I am familiar with apologetic attempts to whitewash Biblical slavery as a voluntarily negotiated servitude. That is poppycock. Every child in Sunday School learns from the Old Testament that if you want to invade another country and take its people as slaves, it’s fine if you say your god told you could.
Look at Exodus 21:7-11. It has slavery, polygamy, and sexism all rolled up into one. This is right after the popular version of the Ten Commandments. You know that verses 2-6 are just as bad.
21:7 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out (be freed) as the male slaves do. 21:8 If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. 21:9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 21:10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. 21:11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money. NRS How can Christians read this sort of perversity and not gag? There is nothing voluntary about this. Even in Jesus’ time, the Romans and the Jewish High Temple had slaves. Even the Roman Gaius Musonius Rufus (30-100 CE) spoke out against slavery. He wasn’t referring to a voluntary financial arrangement. Yet, your god or Jesus said nothing against slavery, Biblical or extra-Biblical, fully knowing what a global problem it was then, what a global problem it would become, and still is today in parts of the world. It would have taken nothing for Jesus or your God to say: "Hey folks, no selling or buying of human flesh. It is an abomination." Why does your god always have to catch up? This guy Jesus was a useless, powerless, son of a god. 9. The role of Christianity in the rise of Nazism - I was referring to facts such as the Concordat of 1933, an idea originating with the Vatican. I was referring to the isolationism of America after WWI. I was referring to the acknowledgment by the German and French Bishops of the church’s guilt in the Holocaust in 1995 and 1997 respectively. I was referring to the apology from the Vatican on March 1998 for its silence. I was referring to the Vatican saying it would open its records from this era after refusing to for decades but it still hasn’t. What are they hiding? Thinking about facts hardly makes me a liar. Keep in mind what I said above about patterns of behavior vs. isolated behaviors.
I have reviewed the sites you mentioned. They are incomplete and outdated. I suggest for starters, you review a discussion by an historian, a Vatican representative (see how he dances falsely around neo-pagan ideas), and clergy on NPR: The Vatican issued a 14-page report that apologized for the Catholic Church's silence during the Holocaust. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan- june98/vatican_4-8.html.
I will point out that in February 2000 another controversial apology was offered by the Pope: EFFORT BEGINS TO RETAIN VATICAN'S SPECIAL STATUS AT U.N. Timing Of "Apology" For Past Deeds, Maneuvering At European Union Raise Questions Over Holy See's Participation…The controversy over the Vatican's U.S. standing comes amidst a well- publicized "apology" for past transgressions issued last Sunday amidst the pomp and ceremony of a mass held at St. Peters in Rome. The Pope and several key Cardinals all asked for "forgiveness" over the church's persecution of women, Jews and other groups. http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/vatican7.htm
For a broader historical perspective, go to: The Great Scandal: Christianity's Role in the Rise of the Nazis. http://secularhumanism.org/library/fi/paul_23_4.html. This more current study is the first of a two-part article that removes all doubt of the blame that is to be fairly placed on Christianity. The second part is not on-line but Free Inquiry magazine is found in most large public libraries, probably even in the Bible-Belt Chattanooga library. These articles put the final nail on the coffin that buries the idea that Christianity is not mostly responsible for Nazism.
10. You said you were not a fundamentalist. Do you have the courage and conviction to tell me how you decide which Biblical teachings are good and which are bad? Why, as a non-fundamentalist, would issues of virginity concern you? What’s wrong with sex outside of marriage? This is not the same thing as promiscuity with its inherent dangers. 11. Get real. With all the different religions that have existed, all of them can’t be true. People typically adhere to the religion that they were brought up in. Obviously, they want to be deceived by their religion or we wouldn’t have so many false religions. To leave Christians out of this would be unfairly discriminating. Are you claiming that only Christians examine their faith and all other religious people don’t? Take this idea to all those highly intelligent Jews, Muslims, and Hindus. Knowledge is irrelevant in religion. 12. I have worked a lot with people who came out of an abusive relationship or who are still in an abusive relationship. Typically, they initially have to have someone tell them repeatedly that they are being abused. Similar to religion, the abused person says things like: "but I love her" or "I know he loves me even though he threatens me" or "but she gives me nice things too" or "but he makes me feel secure" or "I like being dominated" or especially "I can’t make it on my own." People often don’t recognize that they are being abused. A lot of time and money lost is one form of abuse. Tithing had to be one of the best scams ever. 13. Closing- Finally, I will point out that the word atheism means "without a god belief." It says nothing else. The human rights violations you mentioned did not come about as a result of a specific atheist institution or lack of belief in a deity. The Chinese government officials can hardly be considered secular humanists! Well, I have a concert coming up in October and must spend my extra time practicing for that for the next two months. I probably haven’t responded to every specific point in your email, but this is all the time I am willing to spend. The Parthian shot is yours if you wish. Wayne Orgar
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 24, 2004.