Why are some people who claim to be Christians so hateful?

These people claim to be Christians, but they're quite OK with hating homosexuals, liberals, people who don't believe the voice of the government in power is the voice of God, etc. In fact, it appears that they think hating certain groups makes them a better Christian. :shrug:

It troubles me greatly when they attempt to codify their hate in the land of the free based on their religious beliefs.

and intolerance is, in my opinion, a natural state that we have to consciously fight against. The "Christian" label (again in my opinion) gives some folks a very convenient excuse.

Conservatives Without Conscience. Many Christians bow to authority, almost blindly. If their pastor tells them something or someone is bad, that's it - it's bad. That is how the word liberal got turned into a dirty word - it was equated with socialism and communism and America hating. The language framing issue is covered in a book called Talking Right (huge subtitle).

is that religion doesn't make a person one way or another, that person is just one way or another and then he or she blames it on religion. Jimmy Carter would be a great soul without his religion, James Dobson would be an evil man without his religion. They'd just blame it on something else. Christianity doesn't change anyone. Although, Christianity, like any faith, can become a powerful inspiration and a strong support group to give a person the courage to change if that person wants to.

Just my thoughts. Not trying to belittle any religion. A believer would say that a bad person who claims to be Christian really isn't a Christian.

Don't tell me you are a christian, let me figure it out for myself.

:)

I've been several things since I was last a Christian. I believe disco was still tops on the chart.

you can go to church and tell people God talks to you and a lot of those people will think you are cool.

If you miss that little word "if" in your subject line... :(

You are right. My grandmother was nuts, literally. She used to go to church and pretend to talk in tongues, and everyone thought she was a wonderful person touched by God, rather than a schizophrenic touched by a genetic disorder. That may have been the beginning of my atheism, come to think of it. It's hard to believe in magic when you see the strings and mirrors.

...is a history of out-group exclusion. It doesn't surprise me at all that the religious right is so hateful.

Pat Robertson. Jerry Falwell. Hal Lindsay. The guys who wrote the "Left Behind" books. The leadership of the Southern Baptist Association and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The Pope and most of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Self proclaimed "true believing" politicians who use their Christian beliefs to very publicly work against equal rights.

I am willing to consider the possibility that most Christians are not hateful. But I can not accept it as an assertion without evidence, and the preponderance of evidence shows otherwise.

The poor persecuted Christians don't like it when you wave reality in front of their faces. Makes them think you're a bigot.

most Christians are not hateful, you're not looking very hard for it.

Most mainstream Christian churches spend a great amount of time on social justice issues. They're out there, quietly manning the soup kitchens, building housing for low income people, fighting the war and poverty.

Because they don't scream "LOOK AT ME!" the way the small but loud number of haters do, they don't get much attention for it -- nor do they want attention.

When the war started, the mainstream churches condemned it. They have often condemned the Bush budgets for its horrible stance on those in need.

Christians were in the forefront of the civil rights movement in the 60s.

I think it's unfortunate to dismiss a large group of people based on a few media hogs with a hateful message.

I've done work in hospices and soup kitchens, even several technically run by religious groups. The majority of employees and volunteers were people with little, if any, religious affiliation at all.

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. (Matthew 7:15-18)"

I have not seen much good fruit, whereas rotten fruit is very common in my experience.

sectors. I know, I used to work in one. There are often hybrids programs that are interwoven with government programs.

http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/about/faqs.cfm

Let's talk about the very biggest:

The Catholic Charities network is made up of numerous independent, local Catholic Charities agencies and institutions across the nation. Their community-based programs and services provide help and create hope in need each year, regardless of religious, social, or economic backgrounds.

In 2000, Catholic Charities agencies touched the lives of more than nine million people through services such as adoptions, emergency food and shelter, day care, and refugee resettlement.

Overall, Catholic Charities agencies have about 51,000 paid staff (51,004) and more than 168,000 (168,548) volunteers-nearly four times as many as paid staff. Another 7,335 individuals serve as volunteer members of local boards.

The collective income for Catholic Charities agencies is $2.69 billion, with expenditures of $2.58 billion

(jump)

Q: Where do Catholic Charities agencies receive their funding?
In 2000, about 67 percent of funding for Catholic Charities agencies programs comes from state, local, and federal government grants and contracts to provide services such as day care or welfare-to-work programs. Another 14 percent of Catholic Charities funding comes from private support-the church, donors, United Way, and CFC funds. In addition, program fees (10%), investment income (6%), and in-kind income (3%) support Catholic Charities agency programs.

Q: Has the need for different types of services provided by Catholic Charities agencies changed over time?
Catholic Charities agencies have seen a marked increase over time in the need for emergency food and shelter. Two decades ago, one out of four people who came to Catholic Charities needed emergency food and shelter. But starting in 1986, the number of people receiving the basics of food and shelter exceeded the number of recipients of social services. Today, more than half of the people helped by Catholic Charities need emergency services.

Most of the people actually doing the day-to-day work in these "religious institutions" serving those in need have NOT been members of the sponsoring institution and have been, in fact, atheists, agnostics and other flavors of non-believer.

What happens across the world in social service?

You seem to know very little about the field, in my opinion. You may have had your experience, but it indicates next to nothing about the entire field. In MY experience, people doing the work don't engage in religious discussions, but do the work. There is no way to know WHAT their personal religious beliefs are.

and where are the great atheist social service organizations?????????????????

I have been doing volunteer work in social justice and social service areas since the age of 14. That is some 25 years of dedication, two and a half decades. I would assert that my experiences can not be blithely dismissed as irrelevant.

In addition to my own observations, I have accounts from others who do similar work, some with less experience than me, some with much more. They have said the same. Things were different 20 and 30 years ago, yes, but today.... There are fewer and fewer religious people doing social work, a trend that seems to coincide closely with the decline of liberal denominations and the strong growth of Talibangelical denominations. I do not have enough information to provide analysis on why this is happening; I can only offer my observations that this indeed seems to be the trend.

As for "atheist social service organizations," you are ignoring the great many secular social service organizations. Look in any city or large town, and you will find far more social service organizations providing help with no agenda of saving anyone's soul or converting people from their presumed life of sin. Organizations set up by atheists and other non-believers do not have an ideology to push, unlike organizations set up by religious groups. That in no way detracts the work these secular social service groups do. I find it sad you would dismiss their work, especially when they have come to out number the religious social service groups in many areas.

because it appears mythical.

There are fewer and fewer religious people doing social work, a trend that seems to coincide closely with the decline of liberal denominations and the strong growth of Talibangelical denominations. I do not have enough information to provide analysis on why this is happening; I can only offer my observations that this indeed seems to be the trend.

You assert a social trend exists. Do you have any proof for this at all?

My research comes from actually being involved in social justice and social service work.

This study also proves, unfortunately, that conservatives give slightly more to charities than liberals.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/298992_givemoney10.html

This week we consider the fundamentals of charitable giving in the U.S. -- who gives how much to whom and why? It's the subject of a stunning new book, "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism," by Arthur C. Brooks, an economist at Syracuse University.

(jump)

"And the chief determinant here is religious practice. People who regularly attend houses of worship -- or even participate regularly in spiritual exercises such as yoga -- are far more charitable than people who don't. More than 90 percent of self-identified religious people give to charity; 66 percent of non-religious people do.

Some critics charge that this skews Brooks' numbers: Religious people often tithe to their churches, which is a rather specialized form of charity. Yet Brooks says religious people are far more likely to support secular charities, too.

"It's down the line," he says. "Religious people are 21 percent more likely to volunteer in explicitly secular causes. They're even twice as likely to donate blood."

While adamant about his book's statistical rigor, Brooks also frankly admits that "Who Really Cares" is "a values book."

"I believe charity is good, for both the giver and the receiver," he says. "I want more of it."

Yet he also knows that he can't encourage charity by mandating attendance at the local church or yoga workshop. What people can do, though, is foster a culture of giving within their own communities and families -- by teaching their own children the value of charity and supporting local concerns that support volunteerism."

of these secular services. I'm sure they are out there, but I want to know who they are.

I don't like the idea of giving a starving man food only if he takes some sort of religious vow or test. I believe that Buddhists, Hindus, and some Sufi groups give food to the poor without asking anything about a person's faith.

Good Shepherd Services, Catholic Charities in Brooklyn and Queens, and Collier Services are all Catholic organizations in NYC and NJ. They offer their various services to anybody, regardless of religious affiliation. Other religious organizations include Aslan Youth Ministries, LOVE, Inc, Interfaith Neighbors, The Healthcare Chaplaincy, and they, also, do not limit their aid to anybody of any religious affiliation.

There are some secular charities that I've worked with, as well: Association to Benefit Children, City Harvest, NYC Rescue Misison. They each have outreach with some churches, synagogues, and other places of worship, but none of them are affiliated with religious institutions.

All of these charities are located in NYC or NJ. They all do good work. They all include volunteers and employees who are both religious and non-religious. I don't see any particular trend. Whenever I've gone on site visits, unless I'm meeting with a priest or a nun, nobody discusses their religious affiliation. When I volunteer, nobody focuses on faith. It's all about getting the work done.

and I think you are right--the point is doing the work.

I run a non-profit that gives grants to charities that deal with poverty in the Monmouth County/NYC area. So, I know of many various organizations with many various missions who all do good work. Many are faith based, many are not. I don't have a preference for either, but it is disingenuous to say that religious charities solely provide services to people who are of that religion. I know of NONE that do that. None that I work closely with, at least.

I've read posts here and at other places where it has been implied that some sort of religious test was needed to get help. Glad to know that in Monmouth (hello, Freehold!) and NYC this isn't the case.

Not everyone does! :)

I don't know any charities that would require one to convert or commit to a religious belief before helping. Oh, there may be some Born Again Christian relief organizations that may require it, but I don't know them nor do I do work with them, so....... they're out of my sphere of knowledge.

any sort of religious agenda to push. Unless you consider their private religious agenda, by which I mean that they feel called to do this work because of their beliefs.

There is most definitely no quid pro quo, no preaching going on whatsoever. I'd have nothing to do with them if there was.

If I knew of a charity that refused services to someone in need based upon religious affiliation, they wouldn't get one cent out of the foundation for which I work.

What atheist organization has started a soup kitchen, an education program for poor people, etc, etc?

Are atheists interested in helping others? Or is it like religion--some are, some aren't? Those that are interested--what organizations do they support?

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2704

"Fred Hollows Foundation... This Foundation has worked in 29 countries and has restored sight to more than a million people. Even after he was diagnosed with cancer Fred continued with his work. He died 11 years ago. Fred was very outspoken on his atheist beliefs. His widow, Gabi Hollows took over the Foundation after his death.


S.H.A.R.E....Secular Humanist Aid and Relief Effort, a 25-year old organization.


Food banks... such as Second Harvest


Toy-for-Tots


Habitat for Humanity


The Nature Conservancy


Planned Parenthood


The American Cancer Society


Project Gutenberg.....they distribute free books (free knowledge, essentially) online, and have a Paypal link for donations.


The Zoological Society of San Diego..... which has done great things such as help to reintroduce the extinct-in-the-wild Arabian Oryx and is in progress on a successful-looking program to reintroduce California Condors.


The World Wildlife Fund..... a good one. Only 5% of funds go to admin costs. Committed to working with the many indigenous peoples of the world.


Rethink..... Working together to help everyone affected by severe mental illness recover a better quality of life.


The American Foundation for AIDS Research


Heifer Project International..... which provides income-producing animals to promote self-reliance for families and communities in poverty-stricken areas. Families that receive gifts of animals are required to pass on one or more of their animal's offspring to other needy families. Only 6% goes to admin costs, although fund raising costs are a healthy chunk at nearly 20%.


Mama's Kitchen..... "Nurturing the heart, one meal at a time."


This is on the third post....I have not checked the veracity of his claims, but you can follow the links on his post if you'd like. This literally took 1 minute of google searching.

In addition, I think Doctors without Borders and the United Way are more or less secular, but again, I'm not sure. Of course, the religous nature of an organization is irrelevant if the people working for it are not. I have some atheist friends who have worked for all kinds of charitable organizations...I myself have worked with more than a couple. Strangely enough, my experience is much like Techbears (however, I fully realize that anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all, so I will not attempt to take my experience as being particularly common).

I checked - here's the first paragraph of their fact sheet:

What is Habitat for Humanity International?
Habitat for Humanity International is a nonprofit, ecumenical Christian housing ministry. HFHI seeks to eliminate poverty housing and homelessness from the world, and to make decent shelter a matter of conscience and action.


They were most definitely founded by people following their call as Christians.

Of course, like most social service organizations, religiously affiliated or not, they provide their services regardless of a person's beliefs.

I think some organizations are secular so that they are welcoming to all people-including those who are atheists but also those of various faiths.

And you're right about Doctors Without Borders.

You may find this disturbing but the Marines are a very christian group. Catholic and Protestant being in the majority.

I've worked in human services my entire adult life, and while I get paid it's certainly not a living wage. I've had to work substantial overtime or a second job to stay afloat the entire time. I also do a fair amount of work on my own time over the year to help improve the quality of my clients' lives.

I donate to Action Against Hunger, Doctors Without Borders, The Red Cross, my local volunteer fire department, the SPCA and other organizations. I also give cash sometimes to various causes that solicit in person and to homeless individuals who, sadly, seem to be all to common in this area.

Frankly (and this is not directed specifically at you as it is a common misperception) I find the notion that atheists are selfish and uncharitable quite irritating.

you wrote: "Frankly (and this is not directed specifically at you as it is a common misperception) I find the notion that atheists are selfish and uncharitable quite irritating."


Of course you do! Just as I find the notion that Christians don't give or are uncharitable to be just as irritating. Neither is true, nor should those sweeping generalizations be stated on a board like this.

As derrived from some standpoint of belief, whilst offering little action is support of that.

As I have said before atheism implies very little but when people say they are Christian they generally mean to imply to a person some more specific information which would include the subject at hand.

In short there are hypocrites in the world. It is unfortunate that your choice of primarially delineator places you in the same group as them.

I didn't do that. It annoys me when people do. It also annoys me when people make sweeing generalizations about any other people. It's wrong and it's obnoxious.

It's wrong and it's obnoxious.

No, it's often innaccurate and fallicious. However unless you would like to propose that the term 'Christian' is essentially meaningless then you are going to have to accept that it as least implies some sort of sweeping generalisation. That's why we have abstractions in the first place. It is hardly convient to cover the individual circumstances of some 2 billion people who call themselves 'Christian'.

There is a difference in saying "Most Christians believe that Christ is God" vs. "Most Christians are obnoxious assholes."

Also, if I were to say "African Americans have had a more difficult time getting ahead than White Americans," I'm also making a sort of sweeping generalization. But it's also a far cry from "Black people are criminals." Negative stereotypes ARE wrong and obnoxious.

Where are the atheist charities??? What did the atheists do to help after disaster XYZ??? This study showed that the religious are X% more likely to give than the non-religious.


Just because we don't have television spots with Sally Struthers and shots of pitiful looking children entreating people to send money doesn't mean we aren't doing anything. Just because we don't gather in big buildings where we put money into collection plates in front of each other doesn't mean we don't do anything. We do it just like everybody else, it's just ignored much more than when everybody else does it because we aren't as public about it as some people are.

mainstream Christians are.

We get the same treatment. And then deal with accusations from both sides.

It's either: Christians are evil (Just like Jerry Falwell!)
or: You're so secular (You're not discriminating enough to suit us)

Much of the good work that many people do isn't noticed. That's because the good people doing that work aren't in it for attention. That goes for religious folk and non-religious folk alike.

Another example of why stereotyping is so dangerous.

:banghead:

:-)

Feels like either spend time blowing your own horn, or the nasty big mouth people like Falwell get all the attention and start to think they speak for everyone...

Absolutely, I'll join you -- is the brick wall big enough for two?

Though the bricks are getting a bit worn in places. ;-)

I do think it means that since atheism isn't a centralized system of belief (pretty much there is only one thing most atheists have in common, and that's the general idea that there is not enough proof to believe in God), there are not really any centralized atheistic institutions that are charitable. Of course there are groups that are comprised of atheists. There are also many secular charities. Of course there are. I wouldn't begin to believe that there aren't. It's not so much about being public about giving, it's the idea that there isn't so much a centralized authority under whose mantle you can give. So rather, I would imagine that you would choose amongst a slew of secular organizations that provide services in which your heart believes are necessary in society.

Which is pretty much how I give, though many of the charities in which I give have some sort of religious affiliation, though not necessarily to any that I ascribe to. Even the secular organziations that I give to seem to have some sort of loose partnership with congregations of some sort. I think that charities often have some sort of outreach to schools and or churches/synagogues/houses of worship because they are community centers in which they can get their mission across.

I do think it means that since atheism isn't a centralized system of belief (pretty much there is only one thing most atheists have in common, and that's the general idea that there is not enough proof to believe in God), there are not really any centralized atheistic institutions that are charitable.

Atheist charities would likely fold rather quickly. Imagine a couple discussing where to spend their charitable donations. "Martha, we couldn't possibly donate to Atheist Childrens' Fund. Those immoral bastards would likely steal all of the money or use it to teach the children about Evolution." ;-)

And it's not from media blow hards that I base that opinion on. Experience has taught me that anyone who goes out of their way to tell me they are a Christian should not be trusted. You're right about the "look at me!" kind, but from where I stand, that's just about every Christian I know. Wish you were the majority, but not where I live.

of many social issues. Methodists invented Sunday School, not for religious instruction, but so poor children who worked 6 days a week would have a chance to learn to read and write. The Quakers and other churches were instrumental in the Abolitionist movement in Britain and the US.

Many Methodist churches supported slavery and Jim Crow. Many Methodist churches opposed equal rights for women to the extent of actively preaching against ratification of the 20th Amendment. Many Methodist congregations today oppose equal rights for gay people; even relatively liberal Methodist denominations such as the United Methodists actively persecute gay men and women who would excercise a calling to the pulpit. And don't get me started on how many denominations (such as the Free Methodists) are extremely conservative.

That some churches do some good some of the time does not change the general perception of Christianity as a whole. If anything, they serve as a counterpoint, the exceptions that prove the general rule.

So I'm not going to try.

Show that my statements are incorrect, and I will retract them.

but it is really nothing more than your personal opinion, which as strongly as you assert it, is nothing more than opinion at the end of the day.

You're ignoring counter-examples to your argument, precisely because they are counter-examples, in order to claim that "No True Christian" is good.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/notruescotsman.html

of the leaders of our civil rights movement in the 60s and beyond. Or the number of American Jews who felt pulled to assist them.

I think you would have been hard pressed to find anybody during the past who would ADMIT that they were atheist, let alone promote it. Those who did would have a hate campaign started against them (Einstein was deist and he was a subject of hate letters, let alone someone who comes out an admits to being...gasp...ATHEIST).

It seems clear to me that if you want to be influential, you need a power base. Unfortunately, an atheist who wanted to make these sorts of changes doesn't have the easy power base that comes with being a reverend. That "Rev" confers instead credibility, warranted or not. At the same time, weren't many of the people who vocally opposed civil right movements also "reverends"?

So, really, when you make statements like this, the question is, "Where's the beef?" Whats the point? That religious people can be good? Thats already known. That religious people can you use the churchs power for good? Okay...but its a zero sum game, because just as many have use that power for evil.

in which he said:

"I am willing to consider the possibility that most Christians are not hateful. But I can not accept it as an assertion without evidence, and the preponderance of evidence shows otherwise."


To which some of us have replied with ample evidence to refute his statement. Unfortunately, the only evidence that is acceptable, apparently, is what is contained within his personal experience.

(shrug)

You know I'd no more say that being Christian confers on a person immediate "goodness" or that being an atheist confers the opposite. As you've said, there's good ones and not so good ones in every group you'd like to choose. Being Christian isn't meant to be a badge of honor; it's meant to be an obligation. Unfortunately, plenty of us do not live up to the obligation -- in fact probably most of us.

There's a man with a big axe to grind.

He doesn't exactly have the arms open to the world stance of his predecessor. In fact, he reminds me a great deal of Cheney.

And his stance toward women and homosexuals... well, maybe hateful is always too strong a word, but it's not exactly loving.

are just as wrong, if your atheist, thats fine, if your christian thats fine, but leave the bashing out of the discussion, live and let live, and tolerance is what being liberal is all about.

I get so tired of the snarky comments that always happen whenever religion is discussed. And you are right on--the comments show a lack of tolerance.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

Nicely done. :)

which is one of tolerance of others and work on purifying oneself.

Please, Ayeshahaqqiqa. I know you are intelligent and thoughtful enough not to grasp at logical fallacies. :hug:

You don't like tolerance? You think that the Beatitudes are bunk? I don't get you or what you are trying to say. Make it clear.

But here we go again:



This is colloquially called the "True Scotsman" fallacy. This is where one starts with a preconceived notion ("Scotsmen never put butter on their porridge") and dismisses any claims counter to this notion by saying "they are not a true Scotsman."

In terms of logic, this is what you did in your post. You started with a preconceived notion about the "real message" of Jesus ("tolerance of others and work on purifying oneself") and using it dismiss any claims (in this case, by people who describe themselves as Christians) that run counter to your preconceived notion. It is an application of circular logic, of using a premise with no supporting evidence to dismiss everything that does not support your premise. It is a logical fallacy. And I know you know better.

I'm just a stupid person who believes in tolerance and respect. And no, I hadn't heard that nice little logic story before. Thank you so much for being so condescending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scots...

This form of argument is a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge" or "doing such a thing ") is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work

Using the context of culture, religious individuals, for example, sometimes employ this fallacy. The statement "no true Christian" would do some such thing is often a fallacy, since the term "Christian" is used by a wide and disparate variety of people. This broad nature of the category is such that its use has very little meaning when it comes to defining a narrow property or behaviour. If there is no one accepted definition of the subject, then the definition must be understood in context, or defined in the initial argument for the discussion at hand.

As there is no one accepted definition of the subject by all who claim to be Christian, then the definition must be understood in context. In context, one can be described as being Christian or not being Christian if the behavior doesn't resemble the behavior Christ would advocate.

Therefore, no fallacy.

:sarcasm:

Thus, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy doesn't come into play. He's saying they're bad Christians, because Christians should pay more attention to what Christ actually taught.

Who is Ayeshahaqqiqa to decide who is a "bad" Christian and who is a "good" Christian? Why should she be allowed to use an unsupported assertion of the "real message of Jesus" to knock down self-described Christians who do not agree with that unsupported assertion? Especially since, by her own admission, she is not a Christian? What makes her non-Christian evaluation more correct than my non-Christian evaluation?

In her estimation, that's what Christianity is about, and a fair number of people are missing the point. Others are free to disagree.

You're over-applying the "No True Scotsman" fallacy; the true "No True Scotsman" fallacy is about moving the goalposts, not about applying a static definition.

I fully anticipate you telling me that my definition of the fallacy is itself an example of the fallacy, but I don't care.

Entry for No True Scotsman:


I assert that Ayeshahaqqiqa used the True Scotsman fallacy when she took a narrow property (specifically, a perception of the "true message" of Jesus) and applied it to a very broad category and thus presenting her own, personal perception as if it were only possible way things could be.

Thank you for having me look this up :hi:

She said that the reason so many Christians are "hateful" is because they're not paying attention to Jesus' teachings.

tolerance of others and working on purifying oneself? If yes, then would you be commiting ayeshahaqqiqa's "fallacy"? If no, then focus on that rather than looking for problems that don't exist. I didn't take ayeshahaqqiqa's post as defining who is Christian, much less who is a "bad" or "good" Christian. Let her commit the sin before accusing.

and it makes their lives a little more bearable if they're making other miserable too, because in the end it just boils down to misery loving company.

to actually follow the tenets of Jesus. He makes it look easy, but it really isn't. He who is without sin, cast the first stone. Render unto Caesar which belongs to Caesar, render unto God which belongs to God. Turn the other cheek. Love thy neighbor.

Humans are born with great potential but are inherently plagued by personal flaws and defects, some ingrained and others learned from family and society. I admit that the ideal vision of christianity offers concepts of generosity, patience, tolerance, and acceptance of others otherwise shunned, but IMO it isn't easy. When I've seen some of the better intentioned individuals try to practice this ideal, it's been piecemeal versus a regular part of their personalities. I'm not criticizing them as inconsistent; they are just humans doing the best they can under the circumstances.

and one that would work for any faith in the world, I think.

probably raised by people who are hateful. They are human beings who would probably be hateful regardless of which religious beliefs they espoused. Some people are just hateful.

all the little kids in my neighborhood managed to play together fairly nicely.

Then around age 6 or 7, some of them started going to Catholic school. They came home and started telling the rest of us that we were going to hell because we weren't Catholic. And I replied, "Who says?" And they said "The Pope." And I said "The Pope is a poop." They really freaked out and yelled that I was really going to hell and that I'd committed a mortal sin. And I said I didn't know what a mortal sin was and I didn't care.

The neighborhood was sharply divided into two groups of kids after that. You can imagine that some of the mothers didn't want me anywhere near their sweet little darlings.

How the phone should be answered......

Rules for the phone.

How ALL business phones SHOULD be answered!

"GOOD MORNING,
WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" ..

Press "1"
for English.

Press "2"
to disconnect until you learn to speak English

And remember only two defining forces
have ever offered to die for you,

Jesus Christ
and the American Soldier.

One died for your soul,
the other for your freedom.

If you agree......keep it going

Not only does she she believe that you should speak english to live in this country but you must also believe in Jesus Christ, but the true hypocrisy is in the fact that our father came to this country as an immigrant. He was oppressed by this kind of bigotry when he first came to the United States for the color of his skin. This email really disturbed me and her religion and extreme rightwing political views are seriously affecting her cognitive abilities.

This isn't rocket science. It doesn't matter what religion you belong to...you could be the best christian around, and you could still be a hateful, piece of shit bigot.

Christian DOES NOT MEAN good.

Christian DOES NOT MEAN bad.

Honestly, I don't expect any christian I meet to be any nicer than anybody else. I've lived too long to believe that bullshit.

Hate is easy when you're absolutely convinced that your way is unquestionably right and every other way is wrong, and absolutism is commonly fostered by religion, including Christianity. Religion also does a great job of dividing the world into US and THEM, believers and non-believers, conformists and heretics, the saved and the damned, the loved by god and the hated by god. A healthy part of the Bible is about fostering these kinds of divisions, so it's no accident that there are still strong strains of hate in many Christian denominations.

And they use their religion as justification for their hate, bigotry and even cruelty.

some people make the claim to gain status: "I'm really down with the majority belief system." They can still be assholes just like everybody else.

Lots of street-level good work is done very quietly by Christians in this country, by the way, and Jesus' message really DOES sort of sum things up nicely.

Buddha was a pretty cool fellow.

I've been on the receiving end of their insults and disapproval and my response to them is "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "As you did it to the least of them, so also you did it unto me." They don't like that.


And the No True Scotsman fallacy is part of it.

Like the folks who say that Hitler was not a true Christian even though he said he was inspired by God, he talked to God and God told him what to do, and Nazi belt buckles said "Gott Mit Uns" (God is With Us).

Mark Twain already said everything that needs to be said about how ridiculous Christianity is. It's in a book called "LETTERS FROM THE EARTH" and "THE MYSTERIOUS STRANGER" and even in his autobiography.