Yet another small-town retard who thinks his/her religion is the big true one just because it’s the closest and loudest.

“Oh look! My holy book says THIS and THIS and THAT!! It just has to be TRUE! (swoon!)”

I really do think the entire world would be better off with a greater number of rational people, and a drastically smaller number of offensively closed-minded, short-sighted, PROVINCIAL shitheads like this.

I really do think the entire world would be better off with a greater number of rational people, and a drastically smaller number of offensively closed-minded, short-sighted, PROVINCIAL shitheads like this.

Yeah, i was thinking the *exact* same thing while reading your text.

I watched this discussion go along, and besides Karen’s multi-post-habit, i don’t find anything more worrisome than watching to ideologically-blinded hordes going at each, over and over.

American society was largely based upon the now seemingly lost art of compromise—and at least the attempt towards unemotional, rational conversation.

Are you people really so sure Western Culture, particularly American society, doesn’t foster serial-killer/sociopathic traits?  Really now?

Seems like a good number of you have quite aptly turned each other into mere objects to be barked at.

I can, and have, disagreed with others—but not so rabidly.  It’s a strange habit.

If that was aimed at me Mr. Fox, I do take offense. 

I have no problems with other religions, and I have no problem with everyone holding their own beliefs, what I did have a problem with, was Karen alligning herself with Christianity when her interpretation of cornerstones of the religion is flawed. 

I think you yourself could use a course in tolerance though.

Nope, it wasn’t aimed at you. However ...

I DO have a problem with every dimwitted clown on the planet having “their own beliefs.”

There are things that are real and true. We have methods for finding out what those things are—methods such as reason and science.

And then there’s this other stuff. Your religion. Your “beliefs.” Your “faith.”

And the only method we have for dealing with that stuff is just to good-naturedly put up with it.

But ... some of that stuff is actually harmful, to those of us who believe it, but also to innocent bystanders in our societies.

I have the very strong conviction that large numbers of people “believing” lies and fantasies is BAD FOR ALL OF US.

No, we’re not all beating and starving our children to drive the demons out of them, or denying them cancer treatments because we expect the Big Magic Juju Guy to “heal” them, as soon as we prove our deep devotion to him by letting them come to the brink of death, but ...

Can y’all really not see that “believing” in lies and fantasies like this has serious REAL impacts?

The least we can do is gently discourage such silly beliefs.

My way of discouraging those beliefs is to make fun of the idiots who hold them.

I have no doubt that at least one person will leap shrieking into this fray, screaming about how bad a person I am for not “respecting� other people’s “faith.� But to me, to “respect� beliefs which harm kids, or neighbors, or innocent bystanders in society, is to hold a deadly confusion about what’s good and right and what’s not.

Hey, Les, how come my gravatar ain’t postin’?

.rob adams said: Seems like a good number of you have quite aptly turned each other into mere objects to be barked at.

.rob, who skipped school and named you Hall Monitor? Geeze guy, quit setting yourself above everyone, or adopt a child to parent.

Wow - despite “high-tide for topic drift”   this is an interesting thread!

Rob said: I watched this discussion go along, and besides Karen’s multi-post-habit, i don’t find anything more worrisome than watching to ideologically-blinded hordes going at each, over and over.

I didn’t find Karen’s multi-post habit so much worrisome as annoying.

Her ideology is quite understandable and this is exactly why the whole abortion thing won’t ever be solved until both sides get to talking about the same issue.  If you think a brainless zygote is a person, then even early-abortion is murder, and you’re going to get pretty worked up about it. 

The pro-choice side, not regarding the brainless zygote as a person, gets worked up on a different issue, personal autonomy. (My imagination strains to grasp what carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term would be like.) Most pictures look different depending on the frame you put around them and the two sides are using different frames.

American society was largely based upon the now seemingly lost art of compromise—and at least the attempt towards unemotional, rational conversation.

I am really, deeply worried about this.  People on both sides of every issue are deeply entrenched.  Since their hot-button issues are all that matters in the whole universe, then it’s essential they grab all power in society.

By the way, my position on abortion is a compromise with no chance of ever making it into law: unrestricted in the first trimester, some restrictions in the second trimester, and more in the third (when brain wave activity really gets organized.) It has the advantage of some tenuous scientific rationale, while simultaneously pissing off people at both extremes of the issue. 

Are you people really so sure Western Culture, particularly American society, doesn’t foster serial-killer/sociopathic traits?  Really now?

Yeah, pretty sure.  A serial killer may have different screws loose than someone who gets worked up over political or philosophical issues.  Notice that both sides of the abortion issue (for example) make appeal to empathy, which is ill-suited to a sociopath.

Seems like a good number of you have quite aptly turned each other into mere objects to be barked at.

I’ve noticed that people who behave like stereotypes are always incensed when treated as a stereotype. 

Hank Fox said: “My way of discouraging those beliefs is to make fun of the idiots who hold them.”

I hope, optimistically, that inside every idiot is an intelligent person trying to get out.  Could it be that they only need a pivotal moment to think; “Hey, wait a moment… if you look through this hole in the facade you see something totally different?!”

Some ‘idiots’ may be provoked to that moment by ridicule, others by reasoned engagement, and still others (the majority?) will go on spouting the talking points of their tribe regardless. 

So I’m OK with making fun of idiocy.  It’s good sport and it may help some individuals poke holes in the facade.  Granted, it won’t work for everyone.  Nor will simple debate. For instance, it’s likely I just bore the living shit out of a lot of people, and that’s OK.

dof said

A serial killer may have different screws loose than someone who gets worked up over political or philosophical issues.

And maybe not. Which agains brings up that Jack the Ripper essay that I’ve been working on and have decided to complete. I’ll probbably send it in to Less sometime in the next week.

shana said:

KPG, you win...a new car!

YAYYY!!!!! Can it be an Aston Martin? Please.....?

By the way, my position on abortion is a compromise with no chance of ever making it into law (...) It has the advantage of some tenuous scientific rationale, while simultaneously pissing off people at both extremes of the issue.

Tenuous is all you’re going get with abortion, DOF.  That’s why it’s so contentious, like euthanasia:  we have on the one hand what’s often considered the most sacred thing in the universe, a human life, and on the other, a continuum back to pain and suffering.

In the case of euthanasia, it’s a continuum between a life still worth living, and a dignified death devoutly to be desired.  In the case of abortion, it’s a continuum between the wonder of a human beings, and the fact that they develop from zygotes, most of which are discarded by the body, and cannot reasonably be considered human.  Not to mention women who would die if they carried to term, and rape victims.  Who presumes to decide for them?

Life and death- powerful forces.  No lines to draw- conflict is unavoidable.  There is no “right” answer: only hard choices.

It is unfortunate that there was some name calling and a bizarre spin into slavery and abortion.  I think it does a disservice to some of the really intelligent posts on the subject.  Specifically, Hank posted a brilliant observation regarding the revolutionary idea of understanding and promoting “goodâ€? over the promotion of religion.  The hypothesis that he postulates is tested and proven by this case entirely. 

And the line about sterotypes. . .awesome!

A good “moralâ€? person would never kill somebody, but a good “spiritualâ€? person can kill in the name of the church.  Now this opens the debate that even though the church has condoned many atrocities the religion still abhors it.  However, It is up to the True Believers to reconcile acts committed by their members not me.

This makes me wonder about the inclusion into the church.  (I say church here to represent any organized religion).  New members mean more resources and influence so the goal is to increase the membership.  I think this is where the problem lies because there is no balancing interest to include only those people that hold the values of the religion.  This could be an easy problem to solve, the church could easily use modern psychology to “selectâ€? it’s members more carefully.  This way there would be two levels of individuals within the organization.  Those that have been “testedâ€? and have proven to represent the values of that religion, and those that are striving to attain that level.  This would protect the true believers out there and get rid of the child molesting priests.  Using this methodology is no different from the current religious structure as I understand it, it is just that in the rush for recruitment nobody enforces the procedure that was in place and the methods are woefully out of date.

I believe Rader would never have been successful if his “soul� was laid bare before god (psychologically tested to see if he was a freak you should not trust your children with).

As far as the abortion issue goes, my belief may be even more controversial.  A basic definition of sapience is the ability to store knowledge, be self aware, and relate new sensation to past experience.  Sentience is the ability to perceive and react to your environment and form a basic consciousness.  Animals exhibit a basic level of consciousness and are able to perceive and react to stimulus making them sentient to some extent.  They are not self aware and are not able to manipulate their environment.  For this reason the law specifically and society in general makes a distinction between humans an animals.  In this example a young child is more akin to an animal, perceiving and aware of the surrounding environment, but not aware of “selfâ€?.  So until a child can pass a simple test for sapience, I don’t consider the child to be “humanâ€?.  I am not advocating we change the law so that killing children is legal, but it is hard not to admit that I have some moral backing if we can kill animals just because they are not sapient.

The obvious argument that comes about is the “potential� for life, but as we have seen in the majority world contraception ( I include abortion here) actually increases the potential for life and increases the health of the community.

What really scares me is that it is now mandatory at most universities to terminate ANY non-human life they manipulate that exhibits sapient qualities.  Now that is murder.

Unfortunately everything but the abortion statement will likely be ignored.

Apologies for continuing the drift, but I didn’t have much to say on the religion issue aside from what had already been said.

By the way, my position on abortion is a compromise with no chance of ever making it into law: unrestricted in the first trimester, some restrictions in the second trimester, and more in the third (when brain wave activity really gets organized.)

I actually agree with you, DOF.  Aside from being really dangerous in the third trimester, it seems silly to abort when you’re so close to being done.  But it’s my understanding that 3rd trimester abortions have been heavily regulated by the doctors who perform them for years.

This goes for Zilch, too--thanks for saying these things more eloquently than myself.

KPG, anything you want.  Even a Delorian.

DOF,

By the way, my position on abortion is a compromise with no chance of ever making it into law: unrestricted in the first trimester, some restrictions in the second trimester, and more in the third (when brain wave activity really gets organized.) It has the advantage of some tenuous scientific rationale, while simultaneously pissing off people at both extremes of the issue. 

I would consider myself pro-choice but I think your proposal sounds completely reasonable.  Indeed, it strikes me that your suggested policy isn’t all that different than what most pro-choice people would suggest as well.  I don’t think that there are all that many people agitating for late term abortions.  Indeed, I’m not sure what the laws are in the States but in Canada there are guidelines for when an abortion is permissble and when it is not.  Moreover, these laws are, as far as I know, uncontroversial for pro-choicers.

Swine - abortion is legal in this country pretty much up til the moment of birth.  This is a direct result of scorched-Earth, absolutist politics with each side defending their positions and giving no quarter.  At the moment “pro-choice” has the upper hand, and if “pro-life” gets the upper hand abortion will become totally illegal with no exceptions.

This is one reason I can’t abide absolutist politics.  If each side in any issue showed some willingness to compromise then something stable could be worked out for the long term.  But as long as no quarter is given, then no quarter can be received either.

The other problem with absolutist thinking is that it disconnects from on-the-street reality.  Shana is right that doctors have been regulating late-term abortions all along.  But in this country “pro-life” pols and activists do not shy from using rare anecdotes to make it sound like women’s health clinics are… well I can’t even finish that description.

Unfortunately compromise has become a dirty word in American political language.  I have been racking my brains to figure out how to change that.  Everyone used to understand that “you give a little, we give a little, we work something out and live with it.”

Sorry about continuing the topic drift, but like Shana said, we pretty much covered that serial killer guy.

KPG - If you go for the DeLorean, get one with the flux-capacitor.  Then you can go back in time and that would be really cool.

shana- if you give me the DeLorean with the flux capacitor, I promise to go back in time and arrange for a little meiotic drive on Mary’s part so that Jesus is Jessica.  That will save us all a lot of trouble.

@ Hank Fox:  There are nuts in every group.  Try hard enough and I bet you could find some atheist nutters.  I believe in science and I believe in religion.  Until such time as science can explain the unexplainable, religion is the best thing I have to believe in.  Being a Thomas though, assuming science explains away the unexplainable before my expiration, I will indeed disavow belief in religion. 

@ DoF:  I love your plan for abortion, however as you said, it will probably never happen unless politics shift to a more moderate focus again. 

I abhor absolutist politics because only Sith deal in absolutes, but your reason was good too. 

@ Bruno:  Though I don’t think they’ll go for it, I’m going to suggest psychological testing to the Elders at my church.  Hell, they wouldn’t even have to pay a shrink, my particular church has a counseling ministry with liscensed MFTs. 

BTW, anyone see The Daily Show last night.  That segment on the Guatanamo hearings was seriously messed.  The senators act like friggin’ kids.  Dude from Wisconsin cuts off the Dems in mid sentence for ‘time allotment’, ends the session before anything’s really accomplished, then carried the gavel out of the room.  To add insult to injury, when the Dems were talking amongst themselves afterwards, they shut off the mics so no one could hear.

Slick said: “Until such time as science can explain the unexplainable, religion is the best thing I have to believe in.”

No it isn’t. “Believing in” it is a dead end, from which it is VERY hard to turn around and head back out onto the road. Because it makes you think you HAVE the answers, you won’t LOOK for the answers.

The “unexplainable” stayed amazingly unexplainable for millennia. Other than inventing progressively more wild fantasies, religion was helpless to get any of it figured out.

Along came science (so to speak), and a mere few hundred years later, some of us are able to tinker with things on the scale of molecules and atoms.

Not a friggin’ word in the Bible—or any other ancient holy book—about atoms, or molecules. Or even ... Australia.

It’s not a popular idea these days, but religion is absolutely antithetical to science. To every rational endeavor, in fact. Science gets done, in individual minds or out in labs, only to the extent that the people doing it give up, for the moment, these fantastic stories, and get really hardheaded and practical.

I want to live in a world full of people who have given it up forever. No telling what we might do. We might even find we could survive as a species, and let everything else live too.

See more about the cost of religion at “Sucking Up To the Virgin Mary” and “Deadline Pressure.”

http://www.hankfox.com/Virgin Mary.htm
http://www.hankfox.com/Deadline Pressure.htm

Crap. Well, if you want to read ‘em, go to http://www.HankFox.com and click on the links on the right side. “Sucking Up to the Virgin Mary” and “Deadline Pressure.”

It is unfortunate that there was some name calling and a bizarre spin into slavery and abortion.  I think it does a disservice to some of the really intelligent posts on the subject.

But yet you just couldn’t help sharing your own really bizarre views on abortion, could you?

So until a child can pass a simple test for sapience, I don’t consider the child to be “human�.

First of all, I don’t know one single person who kills animals because they have an underdeveloped sense of self. This is ludicrous at best.  We kill animals for food, clothing, sport...I know not one butcher that kills a hog or cow simply because the animal has no wisdom or discernment. I know not one hunter who lifts the bow or aims the gun simply because the animal can not apply experience or knowledge-although I think it can be argued that there are some animals that do in fact fir this definition of sapience.

Secondly, who is going to arbitrarily decide when a child fits the definition of “sapience”? You? the government?  Again, this is not a very well thought out argument, my friend. Best to rethink it and then come back and try to apply some basic common sense.

but as we have seen in the majority world contraception ( I include abortion here) actually increases the potential for life and increases the health of the community.

Facts, stats?

On the Levitt study, your only source was the American Conservative.  Hardly an unbiased source, tsk tsk.

So I used a biased response (which by the way included actual statistics, yours did not) to a biased “study”, and I use that term lightly.

When I was born 2.5 months early, I would have died on my own.  I think that viability is a major factor in determining humanity.

Nah, it’s a factor for determining VIABILITY, not humanity.  Your humanity was determined at conception, via the genes of your mother and father.  I will say it again, you were not a cat, dog or chicken when you were born 2.5 months early.  That being said, you didn’t die did you?  I am assuming medical advancements and your parent(s) loving care kept you alive.  I never stated that unborns or newborns don’t need special care to keep them alive. In fact, I have argued the exact opposite. They need protection, from their MOTHER-and then after birth, from all that are able.  Once again, this is only my opinion- to murder is egregious, but to murder the most vulnerable and defenseless among us is especially heinous. Particularly when that murder is committed simply to avoid inconvenience.

And for the record, I do not advocate outlawing abortion.

The ancient Greeks and Romans (among others) used to put unwanted infants out like old furniture to be taken by whoever may have wanted them, or to die from exposure if not.

And this has to do with what? So again, you justify a wrong with a wrong?  Doesn’t fly, sorry.

That’s what it looks like you’re doing when you multi-dip.

Excuse me, but WHY do you give a damn how many times I post or respond to the dozens of people who are slamming ME with posts? Get a life, will you?

Karen, do you really want me to pull my Bible out.  While Jesus submitted to God (the Father) he also claimed to be God multiple times. 

I would LOVE for you to. But not here. I don’t think this thread is the appropriate place to engage in verse wars. Feel free to email me if you have the spine for this argument:

But let me just state right here and now that the messiah never equated himself with the Supreme God.  While there may be some obscure verses than can be twisted and reinterpreted by well meaning trinitarians to fit their own illogical dogma-there are hundreds of verses that are clear and unambiguous in their proof that the messiah subordinated himself to HIS God.  NOnetheless, 1+1+1 may equal 1 to you but basic math states 1+1+1 equals 3.  Trinitarians have 3 gods....count them.  The Jews, and the early Christians also had only 1. Thus, why the Jews reject modern Christianity in it’s completely erroneous form-the Roman Christians, particularly the Constantinians deified the messiah. The Jews had thousands of years of monotheism, it was absolutely unthinkable for them to accept another god next to the Father, let alone 2 more in some “godhead”. It was foreign to them, and to Christ himself, as McDonald’s hamburgers.

The concept of the Trinity was invented as a way to try and explain what is essentially unexplainable.

Aaaah, the oft used mystery ejection statement.  I never cease to be amazed/amused by it.  Just answer me this...if the trinity were scriptural truth, and it being such a fundamental, serious and gravely important foundational block of the Christian religion...WHY is it not stated perfectly clearly and unambiguously throughout the whole of the NT?  WHY didn’t Christ simply come out and state, without equivocation that he was “God himself in the flesh come to earth to take form as his own son”? Why did he beat around the bush and make only a few obscure, loose statements (hence the verses you provided) and leave all of Christendom to debate this one essential issue for the next 2000+ years?

Oh and no need for apologies. I’m a big girl and can take it...if I couldn’t I sure would not have asserted myself on a majority liberal/atheist and apparently unwelcoming(aside from Les) blog.

Is this an unfair construal of your position on the Bible?

No, I guess not. I do believe the Torah was inspired by the words of God. I also believe much of the NT was inspired by the messiah. But that word “inspired” is subjective, isn’t it?  I do think through translation and human corruption much of both parts of the Scriptures should be open to scrutiny. I see more in scrutinizing it on a personal level and coming to your own conclusions you are comfortable with, than with so called scholars picking it apart to suit their own agenda.

Is he in Heaven?

I actually don’t believe anyone is in heaven.  The concept of heaven is once again purely pagan. The Scriptures are pretty clear (and this I accept) that all are in a slumber like state until judgment day. If we all went to our respective here after destinations immediately after death...what would be the point of judgment day?

Suffice to say that it’s practiced in some unindustrialized areas to this day that have no access to healthcare--and I’m not talking about cultures that single out female children.  I’m talking about some largely egalitarian cultures.

Ok, I’ll bite. I agree with you that this indeed happens. But I am not so quick to assume it happens soley because women do not have access to abortion.  I think in many of those cultures, human life has very little value-period. I think poverty has driven many of those women to do desperate, horrible things to their children. But this can’t be equated to this country-where the great majority of women who get abortions are white, come from middle class families and have every advantage open to them to provide for their young.

the pain of abandoning a viable child, or actually carrying a baby to term and giving birth (especially when you don’t want to), I’d say abortion is pretty quick and painless.

Funny you should mention this. Yes, carrying a child to term is hard, painful and leaves your body drastically different than it was before. But it results in a live child. Do you think women who have abortions, or at least some of them, don’t suffer guilt, self loathing and deep regret, thinking back to the child they did away with when say, the child may have been born or birthdays?  Both have drawbacks and both take an emotional toll...but only one option results in a living child.

whereas the risk of death for a woman 35 to 39 years of age who attempts to carry a pregnancy to term is 21 per 100,000 — 35 times as high.

These stats are completely irrelevant considering the stats on abortion are as follows:

This rate is highest for women under 15 (77.5 in 1992) and over 40 (47.0 in 1992); it is lowest among women 30 to 34 (18.3 in 1992). This may reflect differences in the rates of unexpected and unwanted pregnancies among women in these age groups.

-Report from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention

Carrying a fetus to term has always been dangerous to the older woman. But the older women doesn’t represent the majority of abortion cases-and most importantly WHY abortions are being performed.

I have no idea what you mean by ‘uterine insufficiency.’

Inability to carry future pregnancies to term. It may be uncommon but it does happen.

Um, I don’t find that fair at all. The woman didn’t choose her sex or even to be pregnant.

As I said, if we as humans have suddenly begun to asexually reproduce then YOU, my dear, should be the winner of the new car since you can now prove that we can multiply WITHOUT having sex!  When a women engages in sex, knowing the possibilities, she is responsible if those possibilities become a reality.  She wasn’t a helpless, hapless victim unless she was raped or a child herself. Pregnancy results from sex. If you don’t want to end up pregnant then either don’t have sex or make absolutely certain you don’t end up pregnant: get fixed.  Don’t immaturely drift through life refusing to take control of your own destiny or take responsibility for your own actions.

Also, as I’m sure you well know, pregnancy screws your body up. Your organs and bones never go back completely to their original places afterward. I won’t put myself through that if I don’t want to. How is an unviable fetus somehow more important than a productive and healthy adult?

Yes, I am well aware of the toll pregnancy takes on the human body. The difference between you and I, I suppose, is I don’t think it’s fair to place one over the other. I don’t see how the unborn should be punished for it’s mother’s lack of personal responsibility.  I always love it when liberals contradict themselves. They claim equality for all and beat their chests that all humans should be treated equally and fairly......ACCEPT when it comes to the unborn. They have less rights and less respect than ANYONE or ANYTHING on the planet-including ‘rrhoids, tapeworms, careers, self image.  It’s pure selfishness.

They could give it up for adoption, sure, but who’s gonna pay for the vitamins and OB/GYN? What about the time they have to take off from work to give birth?

Oh yes, God forbid any woman have to take responsibility for her own actions and her own unborn child. She will take time off to go on a holiday but the thought of taking time off to give her unborn child a chance at life is unthinkable! Jobs come and go, especially in this society. But the ability to do the right thing and give your child a chance to have a job someday-that may be a once in a lifetime chance!

But there’s no promise that embryo will survive. There’s no promise of anything.

No there isn’t. I never said there was. But I think most people prefer natural death to murder.

Given problems with overpopulation, healthcare funding, and the situations many unwanted children find themselves in today, it’s quite an intelligent and appropriate decision for many women to get abortions.

If all else fails, revert to this tired argument. There’s too many people in the world as it is so why not kill a few BEFORE they are born. Makes sense to me. NOT.  As far as healthcare goes-in this country at least- there is no shortage of healthcare for pregnant women,it’s called Medicaid.  And you constantly speak of unwanted children as though you know them personally. Who ARE all these unwanted children who wish they were dead rather than alive? Where are all these so called unwanted children who sit around and bemoan the fact that they were born and not snuffed out? Do YOU know so many, shana?  Where the hell do you hang out? It’s certainly not abortion survivers groups. LOL

By comparison, babies aborted in the first and second trimesters most likely wouldn’t even survive with surgeries and the best medical care--they’re just not developed enough.

This may be the case with first trimester babies but not second trimester babies anymore.  That said, merely because a baby wouldn’t survive is still not a sound argument for pre-execution of said child.  I’m sorry, shana, but in my opinion all of the arguments you have provided are just weak.  You’ve not given me one reason to change my mind regarding abortion/murder.  We might as well agree to disagree.  This could go on forever and quite frankly I’ve done this so many times it almost puts me to sleep and all of the arguments/points you raise are the same old ones I have seen thousands of times. I will hold firm to my logical conclusions: ending a life is murder. A mother who ends the life of her own child (born or unborn-strong or weak-big or little-viable or not viable) is a murderer.

what I did have a problem with, was Karen alligning herself with Christianity when her interpretation of cornerstones of the religion is flawed. 

Slick, come on! Be fair with me here. I have not attacked one person here, yet have sustained numerous personal attacks-being referred to as a cultist, nutty and now a retard.  I can sit here and laugh at all of that but not when someone intentionally misrepresents me. I have NOT aligned myself with Christianity as it exists today.  If you consider my defense of some Christians as alignment then so be it. But to be fair, I DO have a right to my opinion! You may well take some advice on tolerance yourself.;0)

And the only method we have for dealing with that stuff is just to good-naturedly put up with it.

Then, sir, why don’t you shut up and do just that.  It might have a positive impact on your blood pressure. Geeesh.

But to me, to “respect� beliefs which harm kids, or neighbors, or innocent bystanders in society, is to hold a deadly confusion about what’s good and right and what’s not.

I am not even going to try to interpret this jumbled thought process of an obviously bitter, unhappy psyche. In my opinion, though, this sort of hate and intolerance is at the root of white supremist groups and dangerous ideologues-more dangerous than religious fundamentalism.  It’s almost disturbing.