Anti-Catholicism

Crucifix

Sleepy wrote:

Personally, I believe that any logical Catholic would have (and arguably morally should have) switched to one of the other Christian faiths.

I agree. I've thought about this before when people are going on about how the church should modernise. Really the church shouldn't change it's stances, but rather people should change churchs.

Dades

Gurgle wrote:

Within the hierarchy of the RC church, the church's reputation is more important than the laws of God.

But we're not talking about the hierarchy here, we're talking about the lower level faithful.

Sleepy, I think your feelings about RC beliefs in general are maybe skewing the debate.

Dades

lostexpectation wrote:

that site is really getting some traffic from Ireland these days, Who runs it?

It's not a bullying website anyway, it has love choice.

What are you smoking? :v:

CiaranC

Would you rather suffer the persecution that a priest does walking down the street today or the persecution that a poor single woman who fell pregnant when these papists where in power did? Or an orphan child who was forced into one of their institutions. Or a problem child who encountered them in school. Or just a generally poor illiterate who lived under their oppression.

Yeah, thought so. Debate over.

Gurgle

The Atheist wrote:

But we're not talking about the hierarchy here, we're talking about the lower level faithful.

The lower level faithful are the local representatives of the church.
Thats their job.

How often do you see a bishop walking down the street?

CiaranC wrote:

Yeah, thought so. Debate over.

But we weren't debating whether the RC church is evil (we know it is), but whether the lowest minions of the evil empire deserve to be held accountable.

hepcat

Sleepy wrote:

Can you direct me to a single sane "Catholic" that believes in transubstantiation?

We already live in a world where divorce is normal, women are no longer second class citizens, gay people are free (or at least more free) to practice their sexualities, birth control isn't the devil's own plaything and we don't burn people at the stake for not believing in our particular take on faith. Most "Catholics", or at least those that live by the teachings of Christ believe that these are good things. Their religion, however still preaches these things.

If most Irish "Catholics" were to examine their faith with any degree of logic, they'd see that their beliefs matched the Protestant faith far closer than their "own" church. Unfortunately, since secularism in this state has most "Catholics" in Ireland convinced that Protestants are evil incarnate their ignorance prevents them from discovering this.

I don't think most catholics in modern Ireland think protestants are evil incarnate - that is way too simplictic. While I would agree that the dwindling congregations should now turn on their heels and march out of catholic churches all over ireland, I think that is easier said than done for a number of reasons mainly that it is hard to admit that the religious organisation you have followed for a lifetime is a complete shambles and rotten to the core. There may be a sense as well that bad and all as it is the organisation also belongs to the faithful, and perhaps can be changed from within, I don't know.

BuffyBot

If most Irish "Catholics" were to examine their faith with any degree of logic

You're applying your own standards there. Faith isn't logical. Faith is faith, and logic doesn't always come into it for people.

Dades

CiaranC wrote:

Yeah, thought so. Debate over.

For you hopefully, since it appears to be over your head.

Gurgle wrote:

The lower level faithful are the local representatives of the church.
Thats their job.

Representatives of their faith maybe. Nobody joins the priesthood today out of love of the "church", it would be out of an unerring faith in God, as characterised by RC doctrine. It's because of that faith that they must become members of a church, ran by men, that has a lot to answer for.

Gurgle wrote:

How often do you see a bishop walking down the street?

I don't know. What do bishops look like?
I doubt they wear the big hats and carry big sceptres the whole time.

Rev Hellfire

It seems to me that the Catholic Church has become a convenient target when doling out blame for the sin’s of the past. But it has always struck me as a guilt transferral.

The idea that church somehow forced single mothers into homes and/or the scandals which have surrounded the various institutions is somewhat misleading.
It was the society of the day which did this; the church was but a reflection of that society.

The blame for these actions is with the church but to my mind more with the broader base of Irish society which condoned and encouraged these actions. The abuses where well known but ignored by all.

Freelancer

Rev Hellfire wrote:

It seems to me that the Catholic Church has become a convenient target when doling out blame for the sin’s of the past. But it has always struck me as a guilt transferral.

The idea that church somehow forced single mothers into homes and/or the scandals which have surrounded the various institutions is somewhat misleading.
It was the society of the day which did this; the church was but a reflection of that society.

That simply isn't true. For starts you'll still have church leaders denouncing fornication and sexual promsecutity from the puplit, society is chosing to now ignore it. You're forgottening how powerful the church was at shaping society in its prefered image. People were shuned priests were powerful figures who's sermon's often changed lives.

For example Sean and Sheila Cloney, (dramatised in a "a love divided") who were shunned in their village upon order of the parish priest.

The blame for these actions is with the church but to my mind more with the broader base of Irish society which condoned and encouraged these actions. The abuses where well known but ignored by all.

No sorry its the other way around, easily seen by how society has grown while the church is singing the same old song.

Sleepy

The Atheist wrote:

Sleepy, I think your feelings about RC beliefs in general are maybe skewing the debate.

How so? I've clearly stated that I don't think anyone should be abused on the street for their beliefs but I can understand why someone might want to hurl abuse at a member of the Catholic Church in this country. Surely you could condone someone who had suffered abuse at the institutions hands making the institutions current follower's question the organisation to which they have dedicated their life? In this circumstance, I belive the abuse would be perfectly just. For those of us who haven't suffered the horrors that these people were put through, it would be rude to hurl abuse at a priest but I still don't think it could be considered to be entirely without justification.

BuffyBot wrote:

You're applying your own standards there. Faith isn't logical. Faith is faith, and logic doesn't always come into it for people.

Shouldn't people be expected to base such major decisions (as in how to live their life) on some form of logical thought?

While I can see the argument that Faith isn't logical (clearly any theism defies logic) I can't see how this comes into play when determining the organisation within which one plans to practice their faith. Surely the institution which most closely resembles your own faith is the correct one for you to worship in? And given that the Catholic church are one of the more dogmatic religions, I would imagine that any person with a brain and own interpretations of the Bible (one of the very things the reformers broke away from the Catholic Church over) would find it hard to justify their position in that Church.

fly_agaric

Freelancer wrote:

That simply isn't true. For starts you'll still have church leaders denouncing fornication and sexual promsecutity from the puplit, society is chosing to now ignore it. You're forgottening how powerful the church was at shaping society in its prefered image. People were shuned priests were powerful figures who's sermon's often changed lives.

For example Sean and Sheila Cloney, (dramatised in a "a love divided") who were shunned in their village upon order of the parish priest.

Who did the shunning? They probably enjoyed it too! I bet it was a great buzz, made them feel all sanctimonious - a better class of person, not so unlike the "right-on" types who instruct us daily in correct thought.

These priests were like any other leader - they derived alot of their power from how many willing and eager flunkies they can get to go along with them - or even go beyond them in zealotry. I don't think Irish Society of the past can wriggle out of its share of the blame and say - "Those eevilll priests made us do all that bad stuff".

Rev Hellfire

I certainly agree with you on the influence of the church, but not on the blamelessness of the people.
And while we both agree that society has moved in terms of its thinking so that it is now out of step with the church I still hold to the belief that we now use the churches culpability (and it has much to anwser for) as a means of exonerating ourselves. Somehow it’s not our fault we looked the other way, we where powerless in the face of the almighty church. But that’s a plain nonsense shown by how society disempowered the church in this day in age.

But on this I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree.

Sleepy

fly_agaric wrote:

Who did the shunning? They probably enjoyed it too! I bet it was a great buzz, made them feel all sanctimonious - a better class of person, not so unlike the "right-on" types who instruct us daily in correct thought.

These priests were like any other leader - they derived alot of their power from how many willing and eager flunkies they can get to go along with them - or even go beyond them in zealotry. I don't think Irish Society of the past can wriggle out of its share of the blame and say - "Those eevilll priests made us do all that bad stuff".

Well, unlike any other leader they had the benefit of being able to weild the power of "eternal salvation/damnation". In an ignorant population, which let's face it, Ireland was at the time, and when you control the education system, it's fairly easy to mould people into believing you have that power.

It's akin to the Iraqi people today: the average Iraqi on the street didn't feel persecuted by Saddam Hussein because they'd been brainwashed into believing in his greatness, the only one's feeling persecuted were the political activists (who would have been akin to the non-beleivers in Catholic Ireland). This was a man who's reign lasted a little over 20 years, compared to the Church's stranglehold in Ireland which lasted centuries.

Hippo

That's a debatable point, Hellfire. Did the society form the church or did the church help form the society? A bit chicken and egg maybe, and certainly with its grip on the education system the church was a huge influence on society.
As regards the extent of the abuse being well-known, I disagree. Even when I was growing up in the 60s and 70s priests were regarded as being totally above any kind of suspicion, and while corporal punishment in schools run by the clergy was legendary, there was never any even informal discussion of sexual abuse.

Hippo

Furthermore, as you say society has disenfranchised the church today, but it would have been inconceivable for this to have happened 40 years ago when Ireland was a much more insular, poorer and inward-looking place.

Gurgle

The Atheist wrote:

Representatives of their faith maybe. Nobody joins the priesthood today out of love of the "church", it would be out of an unerring faith in God, as characterised by RC doctrine.

I'll have to argue the toss on that one. Their reason for becoming a priest may be faith, but it is the church they sign up to.

The Atheist wrote:

I doubt they wear the big hats and carry big sceptres the whole time.

But priests wear their uniform all the time.
Wow, you'd almost think the bishops wanted the priests to take the flak.

Freelancer

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I certainly agree with you on the influence of the church, but not on the blamelessness of the people.
And while we both agree that society has moved in terms of its thinking so that it is now out of step with the church I still hold to the belief that we now use the churches culpability (and it has much to anwser for) as a means of exonerating ourselves. Somehow it’s not our fault we looked the other way, we where powerless in the face of the almighty church. But that’s a plain nonsense shown by how society disempowered the church in this day in age.

But on this I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree.

Hmm and I think you're ignoring the level of control the church had over Irish Society, Its only fifty years since a Taoiseach proudly boasted in the Dail,
"I'm a catholic first and an Irishman second".

gurgle wrote:

How often do you see a bishop walking down the street?

You don't, for their own protection they're driven everywhere. They were get cut down in their hundreds.

I'm telling you until someone invents a diagonal traffic lights that really works, no bishop in the land can cross the street.

pretty-in-pink

Oh look a thread about religion and the bigots that more or less run the boards come in with their catholic/Christian/general possession of faith beating sticks, purely to reassure themselves that they really are the kings of the world.

NEWSFLASH: The Internet isn't real life, my god you can't even touch the people here when you're typing. Shocking.

Boards is just that- a message board. Though maybe things are different at the alter of geekery.

For the members who reckon they know it all and believe that anyone with an actual religious faith is an idiot, you're not only vastly outnumbered and wrong- you're also the embodiment of everything that's wrong with society. Which you'd know if you actually had a life as opposed to a job for the daytime hours and a computer where you meet other like-minded bigots and idiots for the long cold lonely nights.

It’s perfectly ok for you to attack anyone who believes in anything different from you- especially if it’s of a Christian persuasion. Hey maybe if I was a non-white, fat, lesbian with no legs it'd be ok if I believed in God? Why don't you go worship at your altar of silicone and science and try to figure out a way to show us "poor misguided fools" -or whatever you want to call your fellow man -that God doesn't exist, that we really are alone, and that faith has no good points at all.

For people who are supposedly smart you guys can really be stupid.

rsynnott

naughty_girl wrote:

It’s perfectly ok for you to attack anyone who believes in anything different from you- especially if it’s of a Christian persuasion. Hey maybe if I was a non-white, fat, lesbian with no legs it'd be ok if I believed in God? Why don't you go worship at your altar of silicone and science and try to figure out a way to show us "poor misguided fools" -or whatever you want to call your fellow man -that God doesn't exist, that we really are alone, and that faith has no good points at all.

For people who are supposedly smart you guys can really be stupid.

I notice you fixed your spelling. Good show that person!

Now, on to your points. I, and I think most people here, have no problem with people believing in god(ess)(e)(s), devils, or invisible pink unicorns. I take issue only when those people try to impose those views on me. Do remember that largely due to the happy, lovely, cuddlable (which my spellcheck informs me is not a word; I will write to the OED immediately) Catholic church, things like condoms and homosexuals were only legalised here in 1993. Not the only legacy of our long and messy love affair with the Vatican, either. People can believe whatever nonsense they like; when it impinges on public policy, that annoys me.

You have failed to convince me that the Catholic church is worthy of respect. For shame! Now, if you'll excuse me, I have work to do.

Oh, and altar of silicone? What have breast implants and shower sealant got to do with this important Christian-bashing thread?

Davei141

rsynnott wrote:

Oh, and altar of silicone? What have breast implants and shower sealant got to do with this important Christian-bashing thread?

I think every sane person reading this thread would love to know the answer to that question.

pretty-in-pink

Why should any church - Christian, Pagan, Islamic etc have to convince anyone to respect them? It's a basic human right.

davei141 and rsynnott you are amongst the few here who actually have a brain and know how to use it. I don't claim to be as book-smart as all you guys but I do know that faith is fundamental to the majority of the world and that certain posters here believe that they have the right to make a mockery of that. It’s downright obnoxious of them, and I'm surprised that anyone who can claim to be smart/logical etc can be so blasé about how they treat people.

Oh yeah the silicone thing, if you cast your mind back I'm sure you'll find that the centre of all things computer-y was called silicone valley, and that memory used to be (and some still use this technology) stored on silicone memory chips. So I'm not boob jobs, or shower sealant or any of the many other things that use silicone.

It's also soulless, and I rather like the comparison. A soulless alter for a self-confessed congregation of atheists/agnostics/whatever.


Footnote: Nobody is denying there are crazies out there, nobody is denying people have done bad things, However the treatment of anyone who has faith in a religon brings to mind the phrase "tar them all with the one brush". Whatever happened to accepting people as individuals?
Oh and peoples views on homosexuality, women, children etc are generally their own and not just what they church the choose to follow tells them to have. If everyone did everything according to the beliefs and actions of a few at the top and at various stages along the way, we might never have developed as a society since the time of Christ, we might even be stuck in a rut a long time before that.

Do you believe everything you see or read? If not then why assume that people with an ounce of faith in anything do? If you do then all I can do is hope you never read mein kampf......

rsynnott

naughty_girl wrote:

Why should any church - Christian, Pagan, Islamic etc have to convince anyone to respect them? It's a basic human right.

Clarification: Christians and so forth should obviously be shown basic human respect, like everyone else. The people shouting at the priest in the street were out of order. But as for the ORGANISATION expecting respect; that's a very different matter. They have done little to earn it; in fact they have done much that could be seen as revoking any right they might have had to it.

naughty_girl wrote:

Oh yeah the silicone thing, if you cast your mind back I'm sure you'll find that the centre of all things computer-y was called silicone valley, and that memory used to be (and some still use this technology) stored on silicone memory chips. So I'm not boob jobs, or shower sealant or any of the many other things that use silicone.

Nope, that's silicon. Silicone is a silicon/oxygen polymer used in rubbers and gels and so forth. Silicon chips would be BOINGY.

naughty_girl wrote:

It's also soulless, and I rather like the comparison. A soulless alter for a self-confessed congregation of atheists/agnostics/whatever.

Assuming we're talking about computers, here, and not fake breasts or condom-safe lubricant or whatever, I think you'll find that even quite sophisticated computer users are allowed believe in god and so forth. Honestly, it's true! Furthermore, people who've never even seen a computer, like Karl Marx, are allowed not believe in gods as well! And what is this 'soul' of which you speak, precisely?

naughty_girl wrote:

Oh and peoples views on homosexuality, women, children etc are generally their own and not just what the church the choose to follow tells them to have. If everyone did everything according to the beliefs and actions of a few at the top and at various stages along the way, we might never have developed as a society since the time of Christ, we might even be stuck in a rut a long time before that.

Really? Even when the the only thing they've ever heard about, say, homosexuality, is the ravings of some priest on the subject? Even when J C McQuaid effectively blackballs the Mother and Child act?

And, erm, people did, after Jesus and so forth, do everything according to the beliefs and actions of the few at the top. They were called bishops, and rather nastier than the previous few at the top. Their beliefs and actions at the time, I believe, generally involved setting fire to people. We only really managed to shake off the legacy of Christian domination of society in this part of the world in this century.

naughty_girl wrote:

Do you believe everything you see or read? If not then why assume that people with an ounce of faith in anything do? If you do then all I can do is hope you never read mein kampf......

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, here.

And, still you have given me no reason to respect the Catholic church. If that rather sinister old gargoyle you call a pope must continue with his nonsense about homosexuality, I see no reason that I should respect him at all. This shouldn't really be a big deal. I'm free to respect or disrespect whatever crazy organisations I prefer.

Sleepy

This may be just too damn easy, but I can't resist.

naughty_girl wrote:

Oh look a thread about religion and the bigots that more or less run the boards come in with their catholic/Christian/general possession of faith beating sticks, purely to reassure themselves that they really are the kings of the world.

I didn't see any of the admins post here. In fact, I haven't even see many mods posting here.

NEWSFLASH: The Internet isn't real life, my god you can't even touch the people here when you're typing. Shocking.

Boards is just that- a message board. Though maybe things are different at the alter of geekery.

Pot, you're black.

For the members who reckon they know it all and believe that anyone with an actual religious faith is an idiot, you're not only vastly outnumbered and wrong- you're also the embodiment of everything that's wrong with society.

"naughty_girl" telling us that agnostics are what's wrong with society :rolleyes:

Now, I can see that you've said I'm wrong, I just haven't seen any argument for your opinion. If you'd care to put one forth, I'm sure I or another poster can demolish it in seconds by directing you to the "logical proof of god" thread here. Quite simply, the existence of a god can neither be proved nor disproved logically (or in any other way) so the only logical statement is "I have seen no evidence for there to be a god but I don't rule out the possibility that one does exist" e.g. agnosticism. Any other belief is simply choosing to ignore the (lack of) available evidence.

Which you'd know if you actually had a life as opposed to a job for the daytime hours and a computer where you meet other like-minded bigots and idiots for the long cold lonely nights.

I have a life I'm perfectly happy with thanks, please leave out the personal attacks, they do nothing to strengthen your argument.

It’s perfectly ok for you to attack anyone who believes in anything different from you- especially if it’s of a Christian persuasion. Hey maybe if I was a non-white, fat, lesbian with no legs it'd be ok if I believed in God?

It's "ok" that you believe in god. You can believe in a fairy named Heblahcahnujick if you like. If you manage to convince another few million people of the existence of Heblahcahnujick and start trying to force that opinion on others, take over the education system and teach Irish children that nonsense then I reserve the right to question the existence of Heblahcahnujick and laugh at you. And if you were a "non-white, fat, lesbian with no legs" your belief in a god would still be illogical.

Why don't you go worship at your altar of silicone and science and try to figure out a way to show us "poor misguided fools" -or whatever you want to call your fellow man -that God doesn't exist, that we really are alone, and that faith has no good points at all.

Like I already said, it's as impossible to prove that your god doesn't exist as it is to prove that he/she/it does. However, using Occam's Razor it makes more sense to be sceptical of the existence of a deity than optimistic.

For people who are supposedly smart you guys can really be stupid.

Ok, we get that you think we're stupid, you've said that already. You've just yet to tell us why it's stupid not to believe in the reincarnation of a man whose birth defied the laws of biology and whose "father" created everything in existence but hasn't left any proof of his own existence (never mind the question of his own origins).

Why should any church - Christian, Pagan, Islamic etc have to convince anyone to respect them? It's a basic human right.

Because respect isn't a right, it's a privilidge. And, as far as I'm aware, organisations aren't entitled to claim anything under the UN Charter of Human Rights.

davei141 and rsynnott you are amongst the few here who actually have a brain and know how to use it. I don't claim to be as book-smart as all you guys but I do know that faith is fundamental to the majority of the world and that certain posters here believe that they have the right to make a mockery of that. It’s downright obnoxious of them, and I'm surprised that anyone who can claim to be smart/logical etc can be so blasé about how they treat people.

I'm assuming this is directed at me because I'm the one who has mentioned logic a number of times. Yes, I am a logical person. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm a smart one though. Think about this though: does the fact that the majority of a group of people believe something make it right?

If we as a race just accepted things, we'd never have progressed beyond hunter-gatherers. The ability to question/challenge things has been far more fundamental to our survival and progression as a race than faith.

I may be obnoxious when I'm talking about religion but which is worse: me being condescending to you because you follow a church or your church killing me because I don't follow it? Yes, I know the chuch hasn't killed anyone in a long time for being a heretic but with the resurgence of extremism in religion in the world today I'm not so sure that they may never do so again. My condescending attitude towards the religious stems from the fact that the faith in and of itself is a form of arrogance. It's whole-heartedly believing your "gut" over all the available evidence, ignoring any questions or arguments that challenge your faith and simply calling people that disagree with you stupid. So, who's really the obnoxious one? Me, who's questioning your faith in a polite and structured fashion, or you who calls me stupid because I disagree with you instead of showing me where I'm wrong?

Oh yeah the silicone thing, if you cast your mind back I'm sure you'll find that the centre of all things computer-y was called silicone valley, and that memory used to be (and some still use this technology) stored on silicone memory chips. So I'm not boob jobs, or shower sealant or any of the many other things that use silicone.

I think rsynott showed you the error of your ways here...

It's also soulless, and I rather like the comparison. A soulless alter for a self-confessed congregation of atheists/agnostics/whatever.

What exactly are we "atheists/agnostics/whatever"s confessing to? Is it immoral to question the existence of your god?

Though I must admit I do like the expression "alter of science", it's a nice turn of phrase.

Footnote: Nobody is denying there are crazies out there, nobody is denying people have done bad things, However the treatment of anyone who has faith in a religon brings to mind the phrase "tar them all with the one brush". Whatever happened to accepting people as individuals?

I don't think anyone has actually condoned the ill-treatment of the priest in question.

Oh and peoples views on homosexuality, women, children etc are generally their own and not just what they church the choose to follow tells them to have. If everyone did everything according to the beliefs and actions of a few at the top and at various stages along the way, we might never have developed as a society since the time of Christ, we might even be stuck in a rut a long time before that.

Don't give your religion so much credit for societies advancement, had it not been for religion we'd never have had the dark ages and would arguably be far more evolved by now. Though, conversely, war has always been a great driver of inovation and if there's one thing religion's good at, it's being the grounds for war.

Incidently, many religions don't allow their followers to have their own views on many topics. This was one of the key reasons for the reformation and the creation of the protestant religions.

Do you believe everything you see or read? If not then why assume that people with an ounce of faith in anything do? If you do then all I can do is hope you never read mein kampf......

This is an interesting question to be posed by a theist because it's one I frequently want to ask myself. No, I do not believe everything I see or read, or like you, I'd believe in a god as that's what was foisted on me by the Irish education system. I don't assume you believe everything you see or read either, though as a theist, I would certainly accuse you of believing what you want to believe in rather than what's observable/provable.

If you want to retort to this post with solid argument, I look forward to the debate. If however you revert to a "you're just stupid" response, don't expect me to reply.

iguana

Sleepy wrote:

Personally, I'm anti-semitic just as much as i'm anti-catholic, anti-muslim, or anti-any-other-religion.

Off topic, but you do realise that Semite doesn't mean Jewish? For some reason in the last 50-60 years it has become commonplace to call anyone who is in anyway anti-jewish, anti-semetic. (Including many Arabs who are themselves Semites.) It is an incorrect term, Sleepy, to be an anti-Semite is the equivelant of being anti-people of the Indian sub-continent.

Semites are peoples who speak Semitic languages; the group includes Arabs, Aramaeans, Jews, and many Ethiopians. The ancient Semitic populations were pastoral Nomads who several centuries before the Christian Era were migrating in large numbers from Arabia to Mesopotamia, the coasts of the Mediterranean Sea, and the Nile River delta. Semites also settled in villages in Judea, southern Palestine. Mythologically Semites are the decendants of Shem, the oldest son of Noah.

Sleepy

Interesting clarification iguana, must bring that one out next time someone is confusing anti-zionist with anti-semitic (or as I now know it should be called anti-jewish).

rsynnott

Sleepy wrote:

Interesting clarification iguana, must bring that one out next time someone is confusing anti-zionist with anti-semitic (or as I now know it should be called anti-jewish).

That's still unclear; are you referring to the people or the religion?

Sleepy

To clarify:

I'm anti-zionist in that I don't agree that the Israelis had a right to a state in the middle of another people's lands.

By extension of my anti-religion beliefs I'm anti-jewish (i.e. the religion).

What I found interesting is the amount of confusion around the terminology here. Most people confuse anti-zionism with anti-semetism, which as pointed out by Iguana is actually being confused with anti-Judaism.

Tar.Aldarion

Sleepy wrote:

Personally, I'm anti-semitic just as much as i'm anti-catholic, anti-muslim, or anti-any-other-religion.

Amen to that brother. And the [strike]meek[/strike] agnostics shall inherit the earth.

Gurgle

naughty_girl wrote:

Oh look a thread about religion and the bigots that more or less run the boards come in with their catholic/Christian/general possession of faith beating sticks, purely to reassure themselves that they really are the kings of the world.
... blah blah I'm right and anyone who says otherwise is wrong blah blah blah

Welcome back to my ignore list!
I'm not sure when (or how) you left, but it has missed you.