Okay, we’re moving in the right direction…

If you think the right direction is Paganism and Christainity is an evil, hate mongering rligion then yes. But to be fair, Pagans are winnign baseed on the same underhanded tactics they claim Christians use. Lies, deceit, and hypocricy isz rampent in Paganism, as they claim Christians are evil, bigoted and intolerent, then refuse to let Christaisn say or do anyhting.

Paganism nowaadays is a :"Do as you feel “ relighion that leads inevitavbley to a shallow, meaningless life, that resembles nothign of the paggan worship of old and lacks the unity and love of the CHristian m,essage when implemented.

I am a Chroistians, and personally do not like modfern Paganism presisely because the philosophy doesnt work and is hypocritical.

Your syntax is to say the least...hypnotic. I am not a pagan but I suspect paganism is no more hypocritical than christianity and probably a lot less dangerous. When was the last time you heard about a pagan assasinating an abortion doctor? When was the last time a pagan picketed a funeral holding a sign saying “god hates fags”? When in history was a crusade mounted by pagans who killed and tortured those who would not renounce christianity and accept paganism as the true faith?

I would respect christians more if they spent a little more time tending their own shortcomings than pointing out everyone elses...and then whining about how they are so persecuted.

I just love how Christians are so quick to point their finger at other people, yet they forget “And why worry about a speck in the eye of your brother when you have a board in your own?” - Matthew 7:3

I also love how billions of Christians eat pork, yet overlook “Pigs may not be eaten because although they have cloven hooves, they don’t chew the cud.  You may not even touch the dead bodies of such animals” - Deuteronomy 14:8

These same stupid Christians have the audicity to scream “God hates fags!” Most Christians have probably never even read the Bible.  I’ll bet more atheists know the Bible better than looney-toon Christians do!

AHEM, I am Dyslexic so forgive the spelling.

However Christainity is not only not evil, Paganism has more blood on its hands than Christainity. We all know Christainity spread with violebce and oppression, but thats also a myth, as histroy reveals a slower, gentler growth with few wars, aminly fought over land not theology./

Pagans in the past treated women worse that Christainity, yet now we think they treated them as equels and Christinity came along and changed that.

Oh, I am a vegitarian, however on that Pork reference, please note, thats part fo the Jewish Old Testement, there is a passage in the New that states we mau eat anyhtign we desire. So Christains are Hypocritical how?

ALSO...to say you just love how Chriostains love pointign their findger is another unfair comment. When somoen posts a derogetory anti-Chrisatain mesage, yoiu are OK with it, if I defend my faith, its somehow me pointing fingers.

Lets face facts, it was in no uncertain tersms called a step inb the right direction when peopel saw Christainity on the decline in Scotland.
This is good why? Can anyone name the benifits of this decline, which happens to coincide with the moral declien and increase in an aleinated society?

Can anyone really tell me whats wrong with Chriastain theolopgy, and for that matter hwy Paganism is such a good idea?

ITS UNFAIR TO INCLUDE ALL CHRISTIANS IN THE POINTING FINGER STATEMENT.  GOD ONLY, IS OUR JUDGE.  HE IS THE ONLY ONE WE ANSWER TO.  OUR CONSCIENCE IS GOD SPEAKING TO US TELLING US WHEN WE’VE DONE SOMETHING WRONG, AND NO ONE NEEDS ANOTHER PERSON TO BRING THAT TO THEIR ATTENTION, BECAUSE GOD ALLOWS US TO ALREADY KNOW WHAT IS WRONG AND RIGHT.  GUILT, DOES IT SOUND FAMILIAR?
WE’RE THIRSTY FOR A CLEAN CONSCIENCE.  WE CRAVE A CLEAN SLATE.  WE YEARN FOR A FRESH START.  WE PRAY FOR A HAND THAT WILL ENTER THE DARK CAVERN OF OUR WORLD AND DO FOR US THE ONE THING WE CAN’T DO FOR OURSELVES--MAKE US RIGHT AGAIN.  WE USUALLY GET WHAT WE HUNGER AND THIRST FOR.  THE PROBLEM IS, THE TREASURES OF EARTH DON’T SATISFY.  THE PROMISE IS, THE TREASURES OF HEAVEN DO.  READ LUKE 18:9-14.  GOD EXISTS.  PLEASE BE READY WHEN HE COMES AGAIN.

I’ve been meaning to respond to a couple of comments in this entry for awhile now. Suppose I should get to it.

ITS UNFAIR TO INCLUDE ALL CHRISTIANS IN THE POINTING FINGER STATEMENT. GOD ONLY, IS OUR JUDGE. HE IS THE ONLY ONE WE ANSWER TO. OUR CONSCIENCE IS GOD SPEAKING TO US TELLING US WHEN WE’VE DONE SOMETHING WRONG, AND NO ONE NEEDS ANOTHER PERSON TO BRING THAT TO THEIR ATTENTION, BECAUSE GOD ALLOWS US TO ALREADY KNOW WHAT IS WRONG AND RIGHT. GUILT, DOES IT SOUND FAMILIAR?

Ah, the curse of the Caps Lock key. I better answer in kind or this person will never understand me. Okay, here goes: WHAT FINGER-POINTING STATEMENT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? AS FOR GUILT BEING THE VOICE OF GOD, IF THAT’S TRUE, THEN WHY DO I NOT FEEL ANY GUILT ABOUT NOT BELIEVING IN GOD? YOU’D THINK IF BELIEF IN A GOD WERE SOMETHING HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT THAT HE’D MAKE ME FEEL GUILTY FOR NOT BELIEVING IN HIM. SEEING AS I DON’T THEN HE EITHER MUST NOT EXIST OR DOESN’T CARE IF WE BELIEVE IN HIM.

WE’RE THIRSTY FOR A CLEAN CONSCIENCE. WE CRAVE A CLEAN SLATE. WE YEARN FOR A FRESH START. WE PRAY FOR A HAND THAT WILL ENTER THE DARK CAVERN OF OUR WORLD AND DO FOR US THE ONE THING WE CAN’T DO FOR OURSELVES—MAKE US RIGHT AGAIN. WE USUALLY GET WHAT WE HUNGER AND THIRST FOR. THE PROBLEM IS, THE TREASURES OF EARTH DON’T SATISFY. THE PROMISE IS, THE TREASURES OF HEAVEN DO. READ LUKE 18:9-14. GOD EXISTS. PLEASE BE READY WHEN HE COMES AGAIN.

WHY DO SO MANY CHRISTIANS TELL PEOPLE TO READ A SINGLE PASSAGE IN THE BIBLE AS IF THAT SINGLE PASSAGE WILL BRING TOTAL UNDERSTANDING AND CONVINCE THEM TO CONVERT TO CHRISTIANITY? DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT AFTER READING ONE PASSAGE WE’RE GOING TO SAY “HOLY SHIT! IT’S ALL SO CLEAR TO ME NOW! HOW COULD I EVER HAVE DOUBTED THE TRUTH OF THIS RELIGION?!?”

I’VE READ THE BIBLE FRONT TO BACK 4 TIMES NOW. IF THAT’S NOT ENOUGH TO BRING UNDERSTANDING THEN HOW IS READING A SINGLE PASSAGE GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE? ALSO, IF YOU’VE NEVER BEEN TO HEAVEN THEN HOW DO YOU KNOW THE TREASURES OF HEAVEN WILL SATISFY? IF YOU’RE NOT HAPPY WITH THE TREASURES OF EARTH THEN CAN I HAVE YOUR STUFF? FEEL FREE TO SEND ME ALL YOUR EVIL MONEY BEFORE IT TAINTS YOUR SOUL!

Heh heh, that’s a great response towards Zarove (Or should I say SHEL? What is it with Zarove and Caps lock?). Zarove is always good for a good laugh, rather than arguing with him.

Zarove I didn’t know you were a ‘Chroistian’. Is that some sort new religion I’ve never heard about?

“I am Dyslexic”
If your Dyslexic, how can you claim to be a British journalist for a Tennessee newspaper? 

I agree with Eric’s statement on the topic.

1: I am not Shel. So drop that line.
2: No matter how often peopel form OLS claim me to be stupid, and evil, and other things, Nothign will be served by it aside fom further pain inflicted, which i your goal.
3: Edotors and assistance staff helped out my articles to-gather.
4: Nothing I have said in any way is affressed by you, only another cheap shot, which is how you tend to work. I mean relaly you actively use Google searhc engines to gind my last posts, and then post where I have posted just to harrass me, come off it.
As tot he cheap shot at a spellign error, you can shove it.

If the majority of us were totally honest with ourselves we would admit that we have absolutely no idea which religion is the true one or for that matter what happens to us when this life is over and lets face it, isn’t that what scares us the most. On some weird t.v programme I saw a few years back, some bloke said “the world may destroy itself completely, but the laws of the cosmos would still remain”. This is the ultimate truth. The universe will exist with or without us.

I am not concenred with religion so much as bogotry. The claims that Christianity is an evil religion, and shoudl be stopped, is based on lies and misocnceptions. Mpst peopel misrepresent, or distory, what Christianity teaches, then throw examples of evil deeds in the past that either dodnt happen the way peopel said they did, or are soley Roman Catholic and denounced, even while happening, by the rest of the christain world.

Christainity gets a bad reputation, and its not wholey deserved.

I’m guessing English isn’t your first language.

Christianity’s bad reputation is one it earned fully and deservedly.

BAM!! shut down by the master himself!
whew…

christianity on this website is continually represented by weaker and weaker people, suggesting that christianity is infact weak.
However I’m starting to realize that any christian who realizes how stubborn and willfully dismissive of the facts of christianity the atheists on this site are, would cease to bother reasoning with them. How can one reason with those that have a brick-wall preconcieved bias towards the truth?
Fair enough?

You would know best DB, it’s the tactic you’ve employed since day one.

“How can one reason with those that have a brick-wall preconceived bias towards the truth?”

1).  That’s a little unclear.  I thought “favoring the truth” or having a “bias toward the truth” was a GOOD thing.  I’m betting that your intent was closer to “bias AGAINST the truth.”

2). Damn.  I totally didn’t realize what a close-minded bigot I was.

I really TRIED to engage in meaningful debate with Hires.  I did, really.  I addressed every point that he made, read his posts word for word, subjected them to critical analysis and pointed out the logical flaws in his arguments.  I, by engaging with the suppositions that he presented, attempted to draw closer to a recognition of the “truth.”

In return, he didn’t read a damn thing I wrote-- Just cut-n-paste from CS Lewis’ “Mere Christianity.”

Also, I recall quite a few scientific “facts” (primarily accredited to Mr. Hovind) being summoned forth in defense of Christianity, only to be fairly thoroughly debunked.  If even a few of Mr. Hovind’s claims were true he would be an exalted member of the scientific community, and his work would be changing the face of science as we know it.

But whenever someone points to the flaws in logic, (Hovind, Lewis, pick your apologist), fundies simply accuse the pointer of being “close-minded” and reassert the infallibility of Biblical revelation.

Two people in a room:  one attempting to engage in debate, the other with his fingers buried in his ears to the third knuckle, wildly shaking his head back and forth while screaming “I can’t HEAR you!”

Which “side” is being “close-minded” here? 

Pot, Kettle, black.

Yeah, that’s fair enough.

What master cut me down, exactly?And is that the value tyou espouse, insult and cut downs?

Can you name, in history, an example of Christain evil that exceeds the evils of other cultures?

Popular on the list, we find the Crusades. They where denounced bu the eastern orthedox and independant churches, so are only RCC. Further, theyw here politically motivated, and woudl ahve happened reardless of religious backing. The Muslims further where hardly nice people in the ordeal, themselves repsoncible for killing ANY nonmuslim Pilgrim to Jerusalem, be theu Jewish or Christain. No one complains baout the Islamic community, not should they are htis event is H-I-S-T-O-R-Y.

How aboutthe “Burnign times.” witches talk about? Never happened. Combination of the crusades, fought elsewhere than in europe agaisnt Islam, or witchtrials that had nohtign to do with Paganism and where the result of Superstition. Similar waves of histeria had fripped Pagan nations liek Greece and Rome before.That was just the las titme it happened.

Inquesition? Sorry, thats not “Christain” ts Catholic. Yes, catholics are Christain, but who where the victims of the Inquesition. Protestants. So you will blame protestants for the Inqauesition which was worked agaisnt them?

Lets talk about other facts of Christain history, as Christainity is clearly weak, as stated.

Another common charge levied agaisn the faith is sexism. It is said Pagans treated women with equel repsect as men, and Christainity came along to make it a second class citisien role for women to live in. Thats a lie. Pagans treated women like crapola and Christaimnity, though not far by todays standards, was far more progressive. Women who had been raped where expected to commit suicide for “The shame brought on by themselves” in the “ Enlightened” pagan times. All this is verifiable, htough few will.

Incedentally, English is my first language, as sttated above, I am dyslexic. Open minded and tolerent though you are, you seem to want to attack my bad spelling as a sign my od intellegence Being low. This after I told of my condition.

This is strength to you? An ad Homonim attack?

Christainity isnt being defended by weaker and weaker people, rather,you use weaker and weaker tactics, those of attackign individual people like myself on personal failings.

Again, I ask you, can you name any histoical event happenign as a direct result of Chrisyainity that was evil?

( Let me guess, Hitler… a facist, will soemhow be added, dispite his clearl lack of reverence for the Church. Also of nore how the Soviets, stalin especially , are ignored as atfhist monsters, and Pagans included Caligula, Alexander, and a host of other “ Conquering heroes” who worked barbary long before Christs time.)

Tell me hiw weak is Christainity, when its attackers use low blows to attack peopel who defend the faith from unkind attacks?

Zarove, take a deep breath and think for a second about what you have said. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the European and American witch trials...Christian religious belief is at the core of each of those events. Remove the religious belief and there would have been no reason for any of them to have occurred. The Crusades do have an arguably political motivation as well but the Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfillment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny. Since it was the church that decided to send these holy warriors off in a religion inspired land grab that goes against Christianity.

The Inquisition was indefensible terrorist action directed against anyone who did not follow the church. Murder, torture, rape, false imprisonment, theft, arson, destruction of property - all in the name of god. That also goes against this loving and tolerant religion you defend.

Burnings of people accused of witchcraft never happened? I suppose that Hitlers final solution never happened either? Nice attempt at historical revisionism but men and women accused of witchcraft were burned mostly in Europe, although at least one incidence of burning at the stake happened in the American colonies. Are you arguing that it would have been okay if they were only pressed to death with stones? Anyhow, I do agree that it was superstition that condemned these people to death, but it was church inspired superstition. Remove Christianity from the equation and just who was this ‘Satan’ the witches were accused of cavorting with?

Your argument that Catholicism is not christian rings false since they believe that Jesus was the savior same as you. Their practices and rituals do not define them as christian, it is this believe in Jesus that does. Follower of Christ (or king), do you need me to draw you a picture?

The rest of your screed is a mish-mash of look at the evil pagans - they were sexist, or look at the Soviets - they were evil and Atheists. So is your argument that Christianity may be wallowing in the mud but look at all the other pigs in here with us? Are you not supposed to strive to be better than the rest of us instead of trying to hide your shortcomings behind revisionism? The first step in fixing a problem is admitting that you have one.

I wish you and your church luck.

Revisionism is the tale of the Burnign tomes. I didnt say peopel wherent Burned, I denied the existance of the Burning times themselves.( The Burning times is when the “Christain Church decided to wipe put Paganism.” Paganism was dead already.

( An an aisde, its God, not god. All Proper nouns get capped, save god, who is ultimatley devalued in modern society.)

Firther, the Muhammadans ( As they where then called) wherent nice either, so you missed the whole point. ( The Christains, who where all Roman Catholic, where not just bad hiys tryign to kill people. The motivation was complexe. Further, saying this si when Christauns ( in general) attacked another religion is fale sence the crusades where denounced by the Eastern Chruches.)

History isnt so cut-and-Dry on this matter. Yet I am weak and behind a brick wall because I want them to open a history book and think.

also, sthe witch trials, they didnt attack Pagans, that was my central point.( Many still think 9 million pagans where killed. Which is riiculously high for the time, thats 1/3 of all of europe’s popylation during the middle ages.)

Speakign of which, in many areas the Church officials OPPOSED witchtrials. That, too , is part of History, that peopel seem to forget. The bulkm of th witch trials where tried in secularm not religious cpurts.
Further, punishment was hanging, not burning alive, in most cases.
Catfholics Burned Heretics ( You know, like me, I am also protestant. which means Inquuisitions and crusades are NOT part of my spiritual lineage.)Not witches.

Also, the idea that attrocities woudlnt have hapened had Christainity not arisen ignores the bloodshed doen under Pagan empires like rome, Greece, Asstria, Egypt, Babylon, ect… and often those wars had rleigious beleifs at their core. Why do we praise Paganism, and hate Christainity? Its the same roadmap.

Peopel instead assume their religions where OK but Christainity has doen more evil than any other.That alone is ridiculpus.

History is far more complexe than people seem to realise on these matters to begin with.

On the Inquesition, you also ignored the poitn made. That was that Chridtains didnt work these actions agisnt nonChristains, but rather the Roman Catholic Church worked them agaisnt protestants. So if you do complain, why say “Christaisn did it” when ots obvious that the bulk of the peopel who suffered where themselves Christains?

Laying the whoel religion at fault because of the actiosn of a single denomination is absurd. its like claiming All Islamic adherents are at blame for 9/11. Instead we welcome Islam with open arms, for a recent terrorist attack, yet persecute ( and this is an acucrate word, considering the amount of hate liturature producd here ) agaisnt Christains is allowed.

This is itsself a doubte standard.( Not that I want peopel to speak disparingly agaisnt slam, but only to show, Chrisyainity is not the only rleigion who had problems in its past, ans yet it is the only oen I see attacked routinely.)

even the few bad examples peope; throw around arent as bad as peopel claim they are.( Inquesition doesnt ffect Protestant denominations. So thus baptists, Chruch of Christ, Pentacostals, ect, shoudl not be made to feel guilty over soemthign they didnt do.)
Further, the motivatiosn themselves wher eoften more complexe than simpley’They where Christan and evil and forced peopel to convert.”

Indeed, claimign everyone who defends the faith is living behind a brick wall and callign them, and the relaigion weak, is not a way to present any logical points. Its only an insult game, and proves not strength form my oponants, but rather tired games of tryign to feel superior.
Righeous indignation asid, have any of you actually studied real hisotry? Or theology?

Do you know what CHristaisn exactly did go ont he crusades? If it was universal to all Chrisyains?

What do you know aboutthe divisions in Chrisytainity?

What attrocities where the Meathodists associated with?

HNow about thise nice Pagans we hear about, what whre their cultures really like?

This is more my point.

Indeed there are two.

1: History is more complexed than is assumed here. Not all Chrisyaisn did the attricoties most peoepl talkabout, or where they general to Chrisatinity, or nessisarily part fo the beelif system. Further, other attricoties where commited by nonchritains, and yet their rleigions arent compaliend about , nor seen as “Weak” or “Stupid” or” The greatest wvils of all time.”
Islam stands as a prime example. Many died because “There is no god but allah” , and faced murder and persecution id they didnt convert to islam. Islamic extremeists recently bombed the US and continue a terror coampagn.
All of this is seen as a small fringe group, not represntign the whole religion. Yet hisotry also hows Muslims attackign people, and all of it is dismissed as an abuse ofthe religion.( Not on this board, but I have seen it.) Yet use the same lien of reasonign with Christainity, that only one denomination, and a small number in those, are guilty, and that peopel abused the religion, and you ar elaughed off the board and accused of living in denial.
Is this rleigious tolerence? A doubel standard?( Again I repeat, I do not wish to aggitate desctimination of Islam. But had Christaisn blown uip the WTC you woudl bet it owudl show how evil Chrisyainity is.)

2: Religious toelrence, and overall freedom, is not secured by attackign a religion you disagree with, and singling out CHrisyaimity for abuse is itself persecution AGAISNT Chrisytainity, which itsself is wrong.

Is that air? And be honest. I have presented more a case than any detractor, and yet all they can do is call me weak and stupid.

Also, I wanst tryign to show how bad everyone else was. When I showed howSexist Paggans where back then it was an illustration of a point, not an attack.

When I cited Stalins atheism, I was illustrating a point, not attakcign Atheists.

I am not sayign Christainity is wallowiugn in the mud but look at everyone else.

What I was saying is that peopel who claim Chrisyainity is the purest form of evil that has ever existed, and that no other religious beleif has ever caused so much suffering, is wrong.

The main point there is that peopel assume Christainity is worse than the others, when in fac tit can be better, and we all can be better.

No, I wasnt sayign its all wallowing in the mud, and so to hide any shortcomings, I was showing that Christainity is not the only oen with shortcomings, which is implicit in the attacks agaisnt it.

So many things to address, so little time…

That was that Chridtains didnt work these actions agisnt nonChristains, but rather the Roman Catholic Church worked them agaisnt protestants. So if you do complain, why say “Christaisn did it” when ots obvious that the bulk of the peopel who suffered where themselves Christains?

Actually the Inquisition DID include non-Christians, unless you want us to ignore the Spanish Inquisition. The Roman Inquisition dealt only with the Protestant faith, while the Medieval Inquisition was directed at ALL Christian heresy. The Spanish inquisition attacked Jews, Moslems, Protestants, and Native American tribal religions so were a little more active in the whole spreading the hate.

Now more to the point, You cant have your cake and eat it to by saying that sure they persecuted people but they were only other Christians so no harm no foul. If a white man carjacks a white woman and her child from a Kroger parking lot does that nullify the crime because it was white on white crime? How about a black woman who shoots an abusive black boyfriend in her apartment, should she get a free pass because it was between members of the same race so no crime actually occurred?

The Inquisitions still occurred and people died as a result no matter their faith.

The Burning times is when the “Christain Church decided to wipe put Paganism.” Paganism was dead already.

I guess that must be news to Pagans, but I think that you are confusing the quiet practice of Pagan rituals so you would not be fined, tortured, or killed as the death of Paganism. If you knew that the Camere Rouge were sweeping through your city and that they killed all intellectuals they found (and eye glasses are apparently a sign of intelligence to them) would you not hide your glasses in some deep dark hole in an attempt to blend in? I sure as hell would.

Anyhow I agree the 9 million number is a bit out there but the numbers I did find on several different sites are :

17,000+ killed in Scotland from 1563 to 1603
70,000 killed in England after 1573
40,000 executed between 1600-1680 in Great Britain
22,000 executed in Bamberg, Germany 1610-1840
30,000 burned by the Inquisition
300+ killed in South Africa between 1986 and 1996
100+ killed in Indonesia, 1998

Nobody has exact numbers because records were not kept in many cases but I do not think that approximately 179,400 is an insignificant number, that is about 60 times the number of people who died on 9/11. I think the most interesting numbers are the ones from 1986-2003 (although not reflected in the above stats the killing of suspected witches and wizards still goes on in Africa and Indonisia, apparently by men who think the suspected witch has stolen his penis).

The bulkm of th witch trials where tried in secularm not religious cpurts.
Further, punishment was hanging, not burning alive, in most cases.

Hanging is still killing, if done badly only marginally less painful than immolation. You can’t excuse wholesale slaughter by parsing language. Well it wasn’t the “burning” times if they were mostly hanged. That is dishonest - G. W. Bush dishonest.

And back in the day secular courts WERE religious courts. There was little if any distinction between church and state and an offense to god was an offense to the court and people died based on sins, which sadly doubled as laws. When the Pilgrims landed in America they were horribly repressive people, this was not the time of Martin Luther King this was before the time of Martin Luther! This comes from the first paragraph at this link:

Under this head are grouped all the New England colonies, with the exception of Rhode Island. In them all the Congregational Church was established by law, with more or less of proscription of other forms of worship. This establishment was not by charter or by imposition of external authority, but by act of the colonial legislature at the beginning of the colonies, in conformity with the will of the great majority of the people. Each colony had a spirit of its own in its regard for the established order, in some instances sharply contrasting it with its neighbors. Theocratic Massachusetts and New Haven reverenced the order as the chosen instrument of God, with which a man could interfere only to his peril, and on conformity to which all civil rights depended. Plymouth and Connecticut loved it as a seemly thing and as conducive to religious and social prosperity, but at the same time recognized the claims of charity toward men of other minds. Of this spirit also was New Hampshire, though for half a century merged with Massachusetts, and afterward vexed by foolish royal governors attempting forcible conversion to the Church of England.

Does not sound very secular to me.

Peopel instead assume their religions where OK but Christainity has doen more evil than any other.That alone is ridiculpus.

That may be, but I don’t think anyone here was arguing that Christianity is the root of ALL evil, I agree that possibly all faiths have blood on their hands, but I don’t hear too many Zoroastrians calling for the government to pass laws based on their moral code, I don’t see any mainstream Muslims pointing their finger at me in condemnation (no more so than Christians anyhow), and where are the Atheist judges sneaking two ton monuments into the courthouse in the middle of the night saying ‘god is dead’ in four foot high granite letters?

Christianity is not the most awful thing the world has ever seen, but that said their shit stinks just like everyone elses. When most Christians want to deny the right of marriage to gays you can’t say “but it wasn’t 100% of them so don’t blame Christianity”. Church sponsored bigotry is just as offensive as Klan inspired racism.

What attrocities where the Meathodists associated with?

I got this one nailed - Long, dull, boring sermons and severe pinchings from my mother when I wouldn’t sit still or listen. I was a kid dammit! Methodist Church was even more boring than the news.

Religious toelrence, and overall freedom, is not secured by attackign a religion you disagree with, and singling out CHrisyaimity for abuse is itself persecution AGAISNT Chrisytainity, which itsself is wrong.

Definition:  Per`se*cu"tion, n. [F. pers[’e]cution, L.
persecutio.]
1. The act or practice of persecuting; especially, the
infliction of loss, pain, or death for adherence to a
particular creed or mode of worship.

Persecution produces no sincere conviction. --Paley.

2. The state or condition of being persecuted. --Locke.

3. A carrying on; prosecution. [Obs.]

********************

I agree that the dafamatory things said about Christianity on this site might be hurtful to some but it does not fit the definition of persecution. Have my words harmed you, robbed you of anything, or threatened to kill you? You may not like what I say but at least at the time I wrote this (pre-Patriot II) I have the right of free speech.

I personally find all religions to be nothing more than cults, all of them performing rituals and worshiping gods (or people who say they are gods ie: David Koresh) in the hopes that they will escape death. Just because your cult has a larger membership than let’s say the Aum Shrinko cult that does not give you more legitimacy in my eyes. I fear the Christian idea of a perfect America no less than I fear the Osama Bin Laden idea of a perfect America - either way it will turn into an oppressive Theocracy with no place for Americans like me.

I do not have a problem with your religion as long as you don’t try to force it down my throat with new laws legislating morals. Your faith is a great thing but it is my right not to believe as you do so thanks, but I am not shopping for salvation today. If you are preaching to me I have the right to ask you to please stop…

and that is not persecution.

Bedtime! :sleepy:

I’ve been meaning to chime in on this one for ahwile, but Eric seems to be doing a pretty good job of it so I’ll hold off until I have more time.

1: Mulsims do, in fact, try to dictate laws. Just not in the west where they ar ein a Minority. Many antions do follow Muslim Law, and currently in Iraq Muslim leaders want to cease controle.

2: Homosexual marriage is opposed by Many rleigions, not just CHristainity.

3: opposition to a behaviour is not racism, and I am pretty derned sick of Homosexuality beign linked to race. Its not proven to be genetic, and in fact the research indicates the oposite. its just popular to claim its genetic to win the morality argument and create a false persecuted Minority. ( In this vein, there is more link between my Vegitarianism to Homosexual because of it beign a behaviour, than to differences between black and white.)

4: Callign everyone who is against Homosexuality a Homophobe and bogot is wrong. There are reasonable reasons to oppose, its another of thise complexe issues which people assume is simple, and its easy to villify one side or the other. On a board liek this, villifying peoiple who oppose ( Who are all 100% Christains , by the way, in many peopels minds. They cant fathom the concept of Atheists agaisnt Homosexuality, though many are.) as all Bigots who are irrational is goign to be common. But what about peopel who legitimately CARE about the issue and oppose it based on a mroal styand, and because they honesyly think it the best thing to do? Not based on gear or a desire to controle, but who think sincerely that Homosexuality is morally wsrong?

The issue deserves more consideration than simpley saying these peopel are all Bifots.

The Church also opposes Sex outside of marriage. Vlaimign its Bigotry to be opposed to Homosexuality is the same as sahyign its Bigotry to say that sex outside of marriage os wrong.

5: Again, those “ Quiet practicing” pagans didnt really exist. Or at leats no evidence has occured. There i no histrical evidence for persecution of Pagans in the middle afes.
An aside to that is, witchcraft and Paganism are not the saem thing. Modern day usage has them linked, btu again I repeat, the majority of Pagan cultures also banned witchcrafct. Witches where not the preists and preistesses of the old religion, and Rome summerily kill.ed suspected witches without trial for centuries before Jesus was even Born. And I doubt they cared about Moses’s law concernign witches.

Those killed for witchcraft where not killed for practicing an ancient Pagan religion, nor where they killed because it was beleived they where. in fact the vast majority where Christain themselves.

As to the cause, it was ggenerated by mass hysteria and superstition, not religious persecution.

6: You need to open your midn to the benigits of religion. As a Chrisytain, the net users I encouter asusme I am automaticlaly anti-everyone else. I am not. Religion has been shown to imrpove lives in many Psycoogical studies. Granted, nto all rleigions do. ( Cults, as you mentioned.) But many, such as ( using a Ninchristain example) Buddhism have shown to reduce stress is practices. As well as to help focus life.

Religion is a tool, not designed to be oppressive.

Saying Christains woudl turn America into an oppressive theocracy if given the chance doesnt gove enough crfedit to Christaisn liek me, who often fights chrisyaisn and nonbeleivers because both seem irrational.

7: As to your “ Dont preach to me” conclusion, again, I am defending historacity and the faiths potential for good. I did not address you sapcifically with lines such as “ You are damned to Hell, repent now.” did I?

Why assume I am doign anythign other than addressign the cruelties aimed againt the faith?Swhy assume this is a prosltrising mission?

8:

I have to sat this, but dull services arent really sych a tradefy. Besides, you coudl have had worse, coudl have had Church of Christ like I did.  So dotn complain.

9: As tot he definition ot Persecution, you knwo vert well I was usign the term in a looser definition than you where., All i need do is flip the proverbial switch and the net goes off. Or not visit this site.

My pronciple motivation is to eliviate hatred and ignorance. Not to promote the faith, as you and other sseem tothink, nor to tear into other people.

Historically, Christainity did less damage than it is beelived.( Please do not cite spacific examples, i said less than is beleived, not none.) Other groups have doen lots of damage on their own.( No, I am not just tryign ti hide shortcomigns of Christyainity by blamign others, but makign a point.)

Nothign is served by hating soemthign that, by and large peopel ahve demonstrated no knowlege or understanding of. ( The theology they seem to understand is primitive and often wrong, thoug mucg is based on their predetermined hatred distorting the theologu.)

So why cast disparagy agaisnt one faith adn not others? Muslims woudl take the political reigns of they could, and have in many nations. So woudl Buddhisst. All religions have that as an operative agenda, why hate one for it?

There is no need for firther hatred, and my last poitn is that c,aiming Christainity is a force of hatred is not proven by beign a forc of hatred Agaisnt HCirstainity, and takign cheap shots isnt wlecomes.

Dude, you really need to start using a spell checker or something. This is just getting silly. It makes it very hard to take anything you say seriously.

1: Mulsims do, in fact, try to dictate laws. Just not in the west where they ar ein a Minority. Many antions do follow Muslim Law, and currently in Iraq Muslim leaders want to cease controle.

OK, so what’s your point? That because the Muslims try to do it that makes it OK for the Christians and everyone else to do it as well? If all your Christian buddies jumped off a bridge, would you follow them? (Please say yes.)

2: Homosexual marriage is opposed by Many rleigions, not just CHristainity.

And again your point is, what? I thought Christianity was supposed to be the religion of love and tolerance?

3: opposition to a behaviour is not racism, and I am pretty derned sick of Homosexuality beign linked to race. Its not proven to be genetic, and in fact the research indicates the oposite. its just popular to claim its genetic to win the morality argument and create a false persecuted Minority. ( In this vein, there is more link between my Vegitarianism to Homosexual because of it beign a behaviour, than to differences between black and white.)

I suppose whether the research supports the idea of homosexuality being genetic depends on who’s research you’ve been reading. Most of what I’ve seen by those involved in genetics as a science indicates that it does have a genetic basis whereas most of the research I’ve seen from various religious groups tend to suggest it isn’t genetic. If it is genetic then a good argument can be made that persecuting homosexuals is racism.

Regardless of whether it’s genetic or not, people who are homosexual are still a minority by definition. Race and genetics aren’t requirements for establishing a certain class as a minority.

4: Callign everyone who is against Homosexuality a Homophobe and bogot is wrong. There are reasonable reasons to oppose, its another of thise complexe issues which people assume is simple, and its easy to villify one side or the other. On a board liek this, villifying peoiple who oppose ( Who are all 100% Christains , by the way, in many peopels minds. They cant fathom the concept of Atheists agaisnt Homosexuality, though many are.) as all Bigots who are irrational is goign to be common. But what about peopel who legitimately CARE about the issue and oppose it based on a mroal styand, and because they honesyly think it the best thing to do? Not based on gear or a desire to controle, but who think sincerely that Homosexuality is morally wsrong?

I agree that not everyone who opposes homosexuality is a homophobe or bigot in the most literal definition of those words. I would like to hear what you consider to be reasonable reasons for opposing homosexuality.

As for the people who think homosexuality is morally wrong, fine, don’t engage in it then. No one said you had to participate in it. But that’s not what you want, you want to go further and not allow others to participate in it either.

Say, I think Christianity is a pretty stupid, pointless and harmful religion to participate in. Should I be allowed to pass laws that restrict your right to get married if you’re an admitted Christian? How about laws allowing me to fire you over it or not rent an apartment to you? What? You say that’s not fair? Well that’s what you’re proposing here with the homosexuals.

5: Again, those ” Quiet practicing” pagans didnt really exist. Or at leats no evidence has occured. There i no histrical evidence for persecution of Pagans in the middle afes.

The hell there isn’t any evidence. Anyone not a Christian is, by definition, a Pagan as it’s a Christian word invented to describe just such a class of people. Christian history is rife with examples of the religion being used as a justification for all manner of atrocities. You need to study up on your world history a bit more.

An aside to that is, witchcraft and Paganism are not the saem thing. Modern day usage has them linked, btu again I repeat, the majority of Pagan cultures also banned witchcrafct. Witches where not the preists and preistesses of the old religion, and Rome summerily kill.ed suspected witches without trial for centuries before Jesus was even Born. And I doubt they cared about Moses’s law concernign witches.

Those killed for witchcraft where not killed for practicing an ancient Pagan religion, nor where they killed because it was beleived they where. in fact the vast majority where Christain themselves.

As to the cause, it was ggenerated by mass hysteria and superstition, not religious persecution.

You make a lot of claims without providing anything to back them up. Religion is often the cause of superstition and mass hysteria.

6: You need to open your midn to the benigits of religion. As a Chrisytain, the net users I encouter asusme I am automaticlaly anti-everyone else. I am not. Religion has been shown to imrpove lives in many Psycoogical studies. Granted, nto all rleigions do. ( Cults, as you mentioned.) But many, such as ( using a Ninchristain example) Buddhism have shown to reduce stress is practices. As well as to help focus life.

There are certianly some benefits to religion. The question is: Are the few benefits that religion provides worth the evil it also generates? I’m of the opinion it doesn’t balance out in the end.

Religion is a tool, not designed to be oppressive.

Right. All those rules in the Bible that people are supposed to follow under pain of death by stoning, no, those aren’t oppressive at all…

Saying Christains woudl turn America into an oppressive theocracy if given the chance doesnt gove enough crfedit to Christaisn liek me, who often fights chrisyaisn and nonbeleivers because both seem irrational.

One need only look at history to see the truth of how turning America into a theocracy, Christian or otherwise, would be its ruin. The Founding Fathers set up the wall of separation specifically because of history’s examples.

7: As to your ” Dont preach to me” conclusion, again, I am defending historacity and the faiths potential for good. I did not address you sapcifically with lines such as ” You are damned to Hell, repent now.” did I?

Why assume I am doign anythign other than addressign the cruelties aimed againt the faith?Swhy assume this is a prosltrising mission?

If the shoe fits…

Historically, Christainity did less damage than it is beelived.( Please do not cite spacific examples, i said less than is beleived, not none.) Other groups have doen lots of damage on their own.( No, I am not just tryign ti hide shortcomigns of Christyainity by blamign others, but makign a point.)

Christianity’s crimes are legion and well documented. There’s no need to fabricate more when there is already plenty for them to be ashamed of.

Nothign is served by hating soemthign that, by and large peopel ahve demonstrated no knowlege or understanding of. ( The theology they seem to understand is primitive and often wrong, thoug mucg is based on their predetermined hatred distorting the theologu.)

So why cast disparagy agaisnt one faith adn not others? Muslims woudl take the political reigns of they could, and have in many nations. So woudl Buddhisst. All religions have that as an operative agenda, why hate one for it?

There is no need for firther hatred, and my last poitn is that c,aiming Christainity is a force of hatred is not proven by beign a forc of hatred Agaisnt HCirstainity, and takign cheap shots isnt wlecomes.

Who said we limit our dislike to one particular religion? You appear to have read one entry on this website and concluded all of it is directed towards bashing the Christian religion. The truth is we generally tend to think there are a number of major religions worthy of our disdain. That said, there are others that seem to be much more benign and as such aren’t as problematic to try and live with.

When was the last time I had a Pagan trying to impose his religious views on me through legistlation? Ummmm, can’t think of one. How about the Buddhists? Nopes, can’t think of a single time for them either. Christians? Lots of times. Muslims? Not as much as Christians, but still up there a bit. The fact remains that Christians are a majority in this country and thusly are the most likely to have had an impact on me and thusly will earn the majority of my scorn.

Should the Muslism or the Pagans or one of the other groups rise up and suplant the Christians as the majority and then goes about trying to legislate their viewpoints onto me then they will end up taking the majority of my scorn, but as long as Christians are number one here things will continue as they have…

Dude, you really need to start using a spell checker or something. This is just getting silly. It makes it very hard to take anything you say seriously.

{Having explained my Dyslexia already, I am shown your open mindedness and tolerence.}

1: Mulsims do, in fact, try to dictate laws. Just not in the west where they ar ein a Minority. Many antions do follow Muslim Law, and currently in Iraq Muslim leaders want to cease controle.
OK, so what’s your point? That because the Muslims try to do it that makes it OK for the Christians and everyone else to do it as well? If all your Christian buddies jumped off a bridge, would you follow them? (Please say yes.)

{"Please say yes.”?Tjis is tolerence to you? I am a Chrisyain. I dont liek you bashign my rleigion. Thereofre I am an idiot who deserves to die. Tht sort of humour is far form prodictive and causes no respect, even fro,m those who wll give you lip service of respect. Ad Homonim puns arent really valid points.Especially since I already said i woudl be aaisnt any unfair position, if Chrisytain or no. You give little reason to respect your veiw, as you want to tyranically impose your seclarianism by deconstricting yout oponant.}

2: Homosexual marriage is opposed by Many rleigions, not just CHristainity.
And again your point is, what? I thought Christianity was supposed to be the religion of love and tolerance?

3: opposition to a behaviour is not racism, and I am pretty derned sick of Homosexuality beign linked to race. Its not proven to be genetic, and in fact the research indicates the oposite. its just popular to claim its genetic to win the morality argument and create a false persecuted Minority. ( In this vein, there is more link between my Vegitarianism to Homosexual because of it beign a behaviour, than to differences between black and white.)

I suppose whether the research supports the idea of homosexuality being genetic depends on who’s research you’ve been reading. Most of what I’ve seen by those involved in genetics as a science indicates that it does have a genetic basis whereas most of the research I’ve seen from various religious groups tend to suggest it isn’t genetic. If it is genetic then a good argument can be made that persecuting homosexuals is racism.

{Actually most fo my research isnt Religious. Most of it comes form the same peopel who initially said that its not a mental illness, andclaim today its immutable dispite evidence tot he contrary in their own Jorunal. I am addressign the CURRENT APA journals, form 1995-2003. Those rleigious sources?
Most of the scientists I have spoeken to, or read papers by, will nto go so far as to claim an extant link. Most of the research you find on the net that does show a link is from faulty research, Like Dean Hammer, which has since been discresited, and yet still makes comon rounds.To date scintrists are far less than willing to clim Genetic linkage to Homosexuality.}

Regardless of whether it’s genetic or not, people who are homosexual are still a minority by definition. Race and genetics aren’t requirements for establishing a certain class as a minority.

{So are peopel who engauge in Incest. thus Incestuous coupoles are a Minority. Therefore they need protection. There is much too much an issue when dealing with Hiomosexuality than to dismiss it by a catch phase of “inority protection” which by logicval extension woudl over many acts you woudl consifer also criminal.}

4: Callign everyone who is against Homosexuality a Homophobe and bogot is wrong. There are reasonable reasons to oppose, its another of thise complexe issues which people assume is simple, and its easy to villify one side or the other. On a board liek this, villifying peoiple who oppose ( Who are all 100% Christains , by the way, in many peopels minds. They cant fathom the concept of Atheists agaisnt Homosexuality, though many are.) as all Bigots who are irrational is goign to be common. But what about peopel who legitimately CARE about the issue and oppose it based on a mroal styand, and because they honesyly think it the best thing to do? Not based on gear or a desire to controle, but who think sincerely that Homosexuality is morally wsrong?
I agree that not everyone who opposes homosexuality is a homophobe or bigot in the most literal definition of those words. I would like to hear what you consider to be reasonable reasons for opposing homosexuality.

As for the people who think homosexuality is morally wrong, fine, don’t engage in it then. No one said you had to participate in it. But that’s not what you want, you want to go further and not allow others to participate in it either.

{Had it ever occured to you tht the restriction may be for a reason? Bothublic and private? Homosexuality has been shown to lower life expectancy, cause MORE disease ( and this si not to be shrugged off as religiosu research, its nto all form fundy sites.A lot of it is from the national Boar of Health report. Freely available if you write to Washington DC.) Also, stress rates are higher.( let me guess, stress is cused by Persecution. Such is the extend of your ability to listen) Other features of Homosexuality, which woudl be long, soeak volumes as to why it shoudl peprevented.

Do you support legalising Incest as well? Form a social standpoint, both Homosexuality and Incest provide the same risk, blurrign the lines and creatign confusion in society. On aprovate level, it invovles health risks both physically and mentlaly. ( I types this in a hurry, but its true nonetheless.)

Its a false prescept to assume that just because I think its morally wrong doesnt give me the right to claim its wrong for othes and prevent it. it is destructive to the peopel who engause in it and society as a whole. }

Say, I think Christianity is a pretty stupid, pointless and harmful religion to participate in. Should I be allowed to pass laws that restrict your right to get married if you’re an admitted Christian? How about laws allowing me to fire you over it or not rent an apartment to you? What? You say that’s not fair? Well that’s what you’re proposing here with the homosexuals.

{You do not even have a case agaisnt it. Indeed, Chrisyainity has doen a lot of good int he world. Charities, hopsitals, missions to educate, not to mention broken lives repaired. Homosexuality on the other hand has had a long, and well acknowledged, legacy of confusion and dispare which makes any claim agaisnt Christainity pale in comparrison.}

5: Again, those ” Quiet practicing” pagans didnt really exist. Or at leats no evidence has occured. There i no histrical evidence for persecution of Pagans in the middle afes.
The hell there isn’t any evidence. Anyone not a Christian is, by definition, a Pagan as it’s a Christian word invented to describe just such a class of people. Christian history is rife with examples of the religion being used as a justification for all manner of atrocities. You need to study up on your world history a bit more.

An aside to that is, witchcraft and Paganism are not the saem thing. Modern day usage has them linked, btu again I repeat, the majority of Pagan cultures also banned witchcrafct. Witches where not the preists and preistesses of the old religion, and Rome summerily kill.ed suspected witches without trial for centuries before Jesus was even Born. And I doubt they cared about Moses’s law concernign witches.
Those killed for witchcraft where not killed for practicing an ancient Pagan religion, nor where they killed because it was beleived they where. in fact the vast majority where Christain themselves.

As to the cause, it was ggenerated by mass hysteria and superstition, not religious persecution.

You make a lot of claims without providing anything to back them up. Religion is often the cause of superstition and mass hysteria.

6: You need to open your midn to the benigits of religion. As a Chrisytain, the net users I encouter asusme I am automaticlaly anti-everyone else. I am not. Religion has been shown to imrpove lives in many Psycoogical studies. Granted, nto all rleigions do. ( Cults, as you mentioned.) But many, such as ( using a Ninchristain example) Buddhism have shown to reduce stress is practices. As well as to help focus life.

There are certianly some benefits to religion. The question is: Are the few benefits that religion provides worth the evil it also generates? I’m of the opinion it doesn’t balance out in the end.

{You accuse me of makign statements wihtout backign them up, and here you are makign statements without backign them up.
Chrisainity has not been shown by you or anyone else to hbe harmful. Religion doesnt aurtomatically generate evil. Thats just an assumption you make. One that you dotn even try to support.No matter what your opinion is, you havent supported it with anyhtign but cheap shors agaisnt me, and by blind accusations and assumption.}

Religion is a tool, not designed to be oppressive.
Right. All those rules in the Bible that people are supposed to follow under pain of death by stoning, no, those aren’t oppressive at all…

Saying Christains woudl turn America into an oppressive theocracy if given the chance doesnt gove enough crfedit to Christaisn liek me, who often fights chrisyaisn and nonbeleivers because both seem irrational.

One need only look at history to see the truth of how turning America into a theocracy, Christian or otherwise, would be its ruin. The Founding Fathers set up the wall of separation specifically because of history’s examples.

{Yet many theocracies are peaceful. Some islands in the pacific ocean are theocracies ( And Christain) and have a much lower crime rate than america, or even europe. One doesnt even have any Jails.
Tibet was a theocracy until it was overthrown by Communist China.

Sorry, this is just casting stones. You make anothe runsupported claim. “Theocracy is evil” wihtout backign it up. Not that I am for an all out theocracy, btu this si bad form, especially since you blame me for the same.}

7: As to your ” Dont preach to me” conclusion, again, I am defending historacity and the faiths potential for good. I did not address you sapcifically with lines such as ” You are damned to Hell, repent now.” did I?
Why assume I am doign anythign other than addressign the cruelties aimed againt the faith?Swhy assume this is a prosltrising mission?

If the shoe fits…

{Another ad Homonm? You have no reason to speak venhem agaisnt CHristainity, and the evil you geenrate far exceeds any harm I have spoken to you.}

Historically, Christainity did less damage than it is beelived.( Please do not cite spacific examples, i said less than is beleived, not none.) Other groups have doen lots of damage on their own.( No, I am not just tryign ti hide shortcomigns of Christyainity by blamign others, but makign a point.)

Christianity’s crimes are legion and well documented. There’s no need to fabricate more when there is already plenty for them to be ashamed of.

{Another baseless accusation. Nothign you habe said supports this claim, its just assumed.}

Nothign is served by hating soemthign that, by and large peopel ahve demonstrated no knowlege or understanding of. ( The theology they seem to understand is primitive and often wrong, thoug mucg is based on their predetermined hatred distorting the theologu.)
So why cast disparagy agaisnt one faith adn not others? Muslims woudl take the political reigns of they could, and have in many nations. So woudl Buddhisst. All religions have that as an operative agenda, why hate one for it?

There is no need for firther hatred, and my last poitn is that c,aiming Christainity is a force of hatred is not proven by beign a forc of hatred Agaisnt HCirstainity, and takign cheap shots isnt wlecomes.

Who said we limit our dislike to one particular religion? You appear to have read one entry on this website and concluded all of it is directed towards bashing the Christian religion. The truth is we generally tend to think there are a number of major religions worthy of our disdain. That said, there are others that seem to be much more benign and as such aren’t as problematic to try and live with.

{I have read mor ehtan one entry. Beleive me, its mainly AntiChristain. Do you really want me to cite spacifics?}

When was the last time I had a Pagan trying to impose his religious views on me through legistlation? Ummmm, can’t think of one.

{Since paganism isnt much of a majority and has no cnetral unity, this is a bad example.}

How about the Buddhists? Nopes, can’t think of a single time for them either.

{Plenty of times in Asian nations, oh but we arent in those coutnries so it doesnt apply...} Christians? Lots of times. Muslims? Not as much as Christians, but still up there a bit. The fact remains that Christians are a majority in this country and thusly are the most likely to have had an impact on me and thusly will earn the majority of my scorn.

{In other words, you will hate somethign because you disagree with it and tell people who want to voice their opinion, if its based on their religion, that thy are tyrants. Thus you deny the voice of soem peopel and impose your own secularist veiw by default. This is good how?}

Should the Muslism or the Pagans or one of the other groups rise up and suplant the Christians as the majority and then goes about trying to legislate their viewpoints onto me then they will end up taking the majority of my scorn, but as long as Christians are number one here things will continue as they have…

{On other words, all you can do is scorn, and be a hypocrite. You claim that religion does a little good and generates a lot fo evil. That is supported by nothing. You also make baseless accusations and assume thigns without really backign them up.}