digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation

nytimes.com — The founders wanted faith to be one thread in the country’s tapestry, not the whole tapestry.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ChristPissed, on 10/17/2007, -57/+308christain extremists have become a treasonous cancer in the American fabric. They operate in cells, much like communism did, and they have no loyalty to Country or Constitution, their only loyalty is to their version of jesus or who they are told is jesus' proxy on earth.
    • lordtyros, on 10/10/2007, -117/+21Wow, that's talk that makes me fearful for the future. I hope your crazed anti-Christian sentiment never becomes mainstream. I didn't realize atheist fascism was making a comeback.
      • minoss, on 10/10/2007, -11/+82What about the term "christian extremists" is so hard to understand?
      • crichton101, on 10/10/2007, -11/+58hate to tell you but I have to choose between a christian fascist and an athiest fascist, I' think I will go for the latter, at least then I won't have to put up the looney babble about how some invisible diety made you better then me and made it okay for you to slaughter people. Hitler believed in God too.
        • brokenspatula, on 10/10/2007, -65/+7Hitler believed in god, you must be some sort of ***** idiot to even make a statement so low
          • missingnoh4x, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Read a history textbook, why don't you?
          • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10You might believe Hitler-did-not-believe, but all the evidence available to us is that if he was some sort of atheist, he did it wholly in secret.

            Of course, it's always been idiotically easy to call absolutely every negative figure in history a "secret atheist", since that's an argument from ignorance.
        • zephc, on 10/10/2007, -5/+45@brokenspatula:

          "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

          -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
        • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20*Jazz-Hands* Tada, Godwin's Law in action!
        • shadomynd, on 10/10/2007, -18/+6@geminitojanus
          You really have no idea how Godwin's Law is supposed to work.
          • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16Godwin's law: as a discussion grows longer, the chances of a Nazi/Hitler-related reference/analogy goes to one. Explain to me how that *isn't* relevant here.
          • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -8/+10This is what is considered a trivial case. Godwin's law really only means anything in cases of hyperbole. In cases where such a comparison is entirely reasonable, such as this one, Godwin's law is only trivially true.
        • marspidey, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6What about Stalin, did he not kill millions of jews as well and actually he killed much more than Hitler ever did. So fascist are stll fascist what difference does it make they will still try to twist anything to fit their dreadful beliefs?
        • crichton101, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19@brokenspatula
          Read a history book moron. Lots of people who have committed atrocities through out the ages have claimed to be men of faith and used what ever religion they worshipped as a justification for their actions. You're the "***** idiot" if you don't think a Christian or someone who believes in God can be an evil or misguided person. Most of the racists and KKK members that were against the civil rights movement also believed in God.
        • SparklyCrayon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Lots? I think you mean most.
      • 89vision, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13Is this your first time on Digg?
      • masterm1nd, on 10/12/2007, -63/+9Hitler did believe in God at one time. Do you know why he decided to practice ethnic cleansing? Hitler looked at evolution, he concluded that the Aryans were furthest evolved. Thus exterminating everyone else was just 'speeding up' the process of evolution. I believe evolution is the strongest point for atheism, I could be wrong though. The biggest logical fallacy made is that evolution and a divine creator are mutually exclusive... Sorry atheists, but if your not going to set an example and be tolerant, you're no better than theists. Why can't people just form a opinion, and ***** keep it to themselves! No one can prove or disprove the existance of a God, believe what you want and STFU!
        • masterm1nd, on 10/10/2007, -43/+6Ohh, and digg me down so you can prove how intolerant you are.
        • Jakerius, on 10/10/2007, -8/+60Atheism has nothing to do with believing in evolution, you ignoramus. Atheism is about disbelieving in a theistic creator. We're digging you down for your ignorance, not because of our intolerance. Not only that, but relating atheists to Hitler is a ***** travesty.
          • masterm1nd, on 10/10/2007, -34/+2.
          • masterm1nd, on 10/10/2007, -32/+3Then why don''t you say anything to the atheist who brought Hitler up in the first place, relating Christianity to Hitler? I merely corrected him. And I didn't relate Hitler to Atheism, I related him to evolution. Don't blame me for a retard on your side trying to make ignorant arguments that are redundant when historical accuracies are brought into the picture.
          • SuperCow1127, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Relating atheists to Hitler is a travesty, but relating Christians to him isn't? Personally, I think the problem with this discussion is that Hitler is involved in the first place. Your belief's regarding some kind of wacky super power really don't have much to do with the man who committed the most famous genocide in history, everyone here ought to stop trying to associate religion with whatever evil they think of at the time.
        • archimago42, on 10/10/2007, -2/+25Don't get too excited, your comment is just badly written and lacks a solid argument or point. You jump from saying that somehow a scientific theory is responsible for the Holocaust (genocide has been around a lot longer than evolution) to everyone keeping their mouths shut. If that is your stance maybe you shouldn't try to blame legitimate scientific theory for mankind's evils. The point of the article is simply that the USA has a long history of purposely trying to keep all religions from directly influencing governments and McCain directly attacked this basis with a bold faced lie. This is something people should be wary of religious or not.
          Now, I am going to digg you down.
          • masterm1nd, on 10/10/2007, -22/+1I'm not trying to blame scientific theory, I ***** believe in evolution! That was Hitlers explanation for why he did it! What does genocide being around longer than evolution have to do with anything? It doesn't! Although it does mean you're just fishing for a rebuttal, which means I struck a nerve!
        • masterm1nd, on 10/10/2007, -29/+3Jakerius, nice strawman fallacy! These were my words -- "I believe evolution is the strongest point for atheism, I could be wrong though." I said I could be wrong. And am I even wrong, is evolution not what atheists argue 24/7?
          • acl123, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18You're wrong. Very very wrong.
          • masterm1nd, on 10/10/2007, -25/+4acl123, why would you announce that you have no argument? You should stick to your ideology and do nothing. In this case, it would have helped you...
        • masterm1nd, on 10/10/2007, -25/+2Archimago42, that was Hitler's justification, not mine! I didn't even bring it up, you guys did! I would think you ***** would agree with me that everyone should believe whatever the ***** they want, and keep it to them-*****-selves.
        • ShokDoktor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14You are one deluded clown.
          • masterm1nd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1If that's what you have to tell yourself to protect your views from reality, so be it. Ohh, and the name calling only helps my argument.
        • ParaSwarm, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10We'll keep our opinions to ourselves when your medieval religion stops forcing itself upon every person and child on the planet. Do we have a deal?
          • AmusedToDeath, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2This is a completely ludicrous statement. Does anyone force you to go to church? Force you to read the Bible? Force you to agree with any statement made by a Christian? No, I didn't think so.

            I defy you to name one legitimate way in which you have had Christianity "forced down your throat."
          • SpudgeBoy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4The Department of Faoth Based Initiatives. My taxpayer money is being spent, against my will (read forced) to churches and religions that I don't want it going to. That is how.
          • AmusedToDeath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@SpudgeBoy - Well I don't like the fact that the NEA sponsored the portrayal of Christ in a vat of piss with my tax dollars either, but I guess we just have to learn to put up with each other.
        • petewiz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9"Ohh, and digg me down so you can prove how intolerant you are."
          Nah, I'll just digg you down to prove how wrong you are.
          • masterm1nd, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I had a hunch that's how diggers thought processes worked, you just confirmed it!
          • petewiz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I had a hunch that you were a moron. You had confirmed it long before this post.
        • bullhead2007, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Sorry this whole thing about Hitler being a nice religious guy before he heard about evolution is complete *****. If anything besides his insanity influenced him to do ethnic cleansing it was a perverted interpretation of Nietzsche's philosophy which his Sister perverted after he died because she was a Hitler lover and anti-Semitic. If you're going to try to make a counter point at least try not to use misinformed propaganda that Christians like to throw around.
          • bullhead2007, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Dugg Down for truth? wow that's awesome.
      • masterm1nd, on 10/10/2007, -35/+3Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler endorsed a program in Germany to breed a superior race. The scheme was based on a horrific evolutionary theory called “eugenics” that was founded by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. The idea of eugenics was to improve the human race using principles promoted in the theory of evolution.
        The idea was simple: partition the human race into two groups, the “fit” and the “unfit.” Eugenics seemed to be a way to make sure the “fit” had children and the “unfit” did not. In Germany, the leaders of the eugenics movement got monstrous laws enacted that allowed sterilization of people regarded as “unfit,” and restriction of immigrants who were supposedly “biologically inferior.” (The United States and other countries enacted similar laws, but the Nazis took it to the extreme when Jews, blacks, and others were ruthlessly murdered to prop up the theory.)
        The German people were being seduced to accept that they could be the “master race” by exterminating the “unfit.” If evolution was right, they reasoned, and “survival of the fittest” was merely a positive, evolutionary process, then what could be wrong with hastening the deaths of the “unfit”?
        Eugenics could only become popular because the theory of evolution seemed to have quashed the need for the sovereign Creator, God, who had given humankind absolute moral laws. When you do away with moral laws, outrageous racism and crimes like compulsory sterilization, Hitler's death camps, and mass murder on a maniacal scale can no longer be said to be evil.
        Darwin's idea that evolution means "the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life" eventually led to Nazism and the Jewish holocaust - even though Darwin himself would have been appalled at the thought."
        Sir Arthur Keith wrote: "The leader of Germany is an evolutionist, not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him, the 'national front' of Europe is also the 'evolutionary front;' he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people." and "Christianity makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce?"19
        In Mein Kampf, Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) many times, citing "lower human types." He criticized the Jews for bringing "Negroes into the Rhineland" with the aim of "ruining the white race by the necessarily resulting ization." He spoke of "Monstrosities halfway between man and ape" and lamented the fact of Christians going to "Central Africa" to set up "Negro missions," resulting in the turning of "healthy . . . human beings into a rotten brood of s." In his chapter entitled "Nation and Race," he said, "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable." A few pages later, he said, "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."
        The success in breeding cattle, dogs and other animals with certain desired characteristics gave empirical support to the concept of racial breeding as advocated by eugenicists and later Hitler and others.
        Hitler exterminated over 273,000 people even before the Holocaust! "The first to be killed were the aged [those who are an economic burden, who detract from the happiness of society as a whole], the infirm, the senile, the mentally retarded, and defective children [that included epileptics]. Then there were WW I veterans - amputees - still in hospitals. Their reward for giving an arm or leg for Germany was extermination as 'undesirable.' Even bed wetters and children with badly modeled ears were put to death - all part of the euthanasia project of Germany."33

        Instead of letting chance factors dominate reproduction decisions, Hitler proposed that the scientists use the power of the state to influence these decisions so that the gene pool would shift to what "informed conclusions" concluded was the desired direction. Consequently, Hitler encouraged those individuals that he perceived as having Aryan traits to mate, and discouraged "interbreeding," supposing that this policy would gradually cause the Aryan race to evolve "upward". He believed that the Nazi race programs would further evolution by intelligently deciding which traits were not beneficial, and preventing those with them from reproducing.

        An important argument that Hitler used to support his programs of racial genocide of the Jews, Blacks and other groups was that they were genetically "inferior" and that their interbreeding with the superior Aryan race would adversely affect the latter's gene pool, polluting it, and lowering the overall quality of the "pure race."
        "From the ‘Preservation of favored races in the struggle for life' [that is, Darwin 's subtitle to Origin of Species] it was a short step to the preservation of favored individuals, classes or nations - and from their preservation to their glorification . . . Thus, it has become a portmunteau of nationalism, imperialism, militarism, and dictatorship, of the cults of the hero, the superman, and the master race . . . recent expressions of this philosophy, such as Mein Kampf are, unhappily, too familiar to require exposition here." - Gertrude Himmelfarb, Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1962
        • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Threadjack much, do ya?
          • masterm1nd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Ohh, sorry. I didn't know only atheist liberals are allowed to use the reply button.
        • petewiz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10OK "mastermind" let's assumed all of that ***** you just typed had any basis in reality. Hitler still would only be 1 person who believed in evolution, meaning what his warped mind believed doesn't necessarily reflect what other people know about evolution. That would be like me saying "Well the Christians did instigate the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades, they must all be vicious and murderous zealots." What Hitler thought doesn't have anything to do with what everyone else knows about evolution. Please, pull your head out of your ass.
          • LucianSolaris, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2You atheists should be thankful that you too will be saved after YHWH's 5,500 year covenant with Adam.

            Refer to the First Book of Adam and Eve (one of the many books not included in the bible by the pagan roman catholics).
          • AmusedToDeath, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2But pete, that's exactly what a lot of atheists on digg DO say. I don't know how many times I've read the old "what about the Spanish Inquisition an the Crusades?" chestnut.
          • masterm1nd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I didn't type that, and I never implied that's what others believe. I'm not arguing that others who believe in evolution commit genocide, I ***** believe in evolution! That is how Hitler came to the conclusion that genocide was a good thing, and yes, he was insane!
          • petewiz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"and yes, he was insane" That negates your entire argument then. No one is concerned with the mind of a crazy person, it is all about how things are in real life.
        • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2If you have a real argument that you want to type with your own little fingers, then I won't click the report button.

          But instead your copy pasted like an impolitic monkey.
          For whomever might be interested, it seems to be from here:
          http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/tyrants.html
          • masterm1nd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I did type it with my own little fingers first, and I was buried into oblivion because no one believes what they don't want to.
      • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9What I hope becomes mainstream is the senitment that the US is NOT a theocracy. It was not ever, it is not now, and it should NEVER be. You want to beleive in a god, you want to be a Christian? Go right ahead. But you have no right to shove your beliefs down my throat and try to legislate your ideals so that I have to live by your doctrine. If you don't want to be part of a secular society, then don't, no one is forcing you. If you don't like what's on TV, don't watch it. If you don't like what's on the radio, don't listen. You don't like gay bars, then don't go to them. You don't like gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex. You don't like abortions, then don't have one. It's very ***** simple. I don't like lasagna, so I don't eat it. But that doesn't mean I'm going to try to outlaw lasagna so that no one can eat it, just because I don't like it. All I have to do is not eat it and I am content to know that's all that is necessary. I don't need others to follow me to feel validated. I don't feel the need to regulate other's morality or "values".

        We are individuals with free will. You have no right to abridge my freewill by shoving your doctrine on me or anyone else. Do what is right for you, and let others alone to do as they will.
        • bullhead2007, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3All hail his noodly appendage, RAMEN!
      • Lackey10, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm a Christian who has been trying to teach this to my brothers & sisters for years... if you want a direct Bible reference that backs this up, look at 1 Corinthians 5. When we Christians try to force non-believers to to live as we do, we are not actually even doing what our doctrine teaches... but most Christians today don't read their own doctrine, they take it on faith from their preacher (leaders), despite knowing that there are many different teachers out there who teach different things. Even among churches of the Christian religion, we often get into a habit of 'our version is right and everyone else is wrong.'
    • amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -56/+12So I guess in 10 years when the country is mostly athiest, all the christians will start flying 767's into your buildings because they hate your freedoms?

      If you put the word "extremist" after another word, that doesn't mean it represents the actual word you are trying to define as being extreme, just a group of people exploiting that word. You are right though in a way. Christianity has been hijacked, for the past 2000 years, and all of you athiests are falling for it. Christianity didn't hijack the government to oppress your freedoms. Extremists of any group are dangerous and they will exploit the most populous group of people, even if it was athiesm. In 100 years, your great grandson is gonna start spouting crap about how bad "Athiest Extremists" are.

      I think Athiest extremists are trying to take over the world! Luckily for us, they are to busy digging, playing halo3 and watching porn on their super cool scientific inventions like the video iPOD. Maybe athiests should stop wasting their time trying to disprove God, but that is what athiests do nearly by definition. Hey, but maybe that's why athiests don't have their own country yet.... Unless you wanna call the Czech Republic a country. At least it's a start.
      • mmazing, on 10/10/2007, -9/+31The saddest thing about you, is that you won't know you were wrong when you die.
        • archimago42, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Aw ***** I buried you by accident. But what I was gonna say was, hilarious.
        • amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3My reply to you mmazing... was a reply to myself apparently. It gets hard navigating through all of the comments to reply to the correct person sometimes. and it's 4am and smokey in here.
        • Birdoftruth, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1oh ***** I buried you on purpose!
      • Jakerius, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9There's a difference between "extremist" and "terrorist plane-jacker". The fact that you can't tell the difference is only testimony to how blind your faith (and I suppose the MSM, as well) has made you.
        • AnarkeIncarnate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It is not about faith, but lack of education. The blindness is a result of faith, but not the faith itself. I believe in a religion. However, I don't believe it to be exclusive to science and while I may suggest to someone they not do X or do Y (never something like "Go to my place fo worship" but rather "Its not good to do that, you may get hurt in the long run").
          However, their faith demands no scrutiny. They take it for what they are told it is, rather than what they can even see it for. They will not listen to dissent or differing opinions (not all, just the extremists). They demand respect, but don't return it if you are not one of them. They believe in freedom of speech (theirs) but nobody seems to have told them I have freedom of not listening.
      • amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -15/+4I could say the same, but it is personal belief, right? I say you're wrong, you say I'm wrong. blah blah blah. It is faith, which I choose to have faith in. Why do you care so much what I believe in anyways? Like I have somehow mistreated you in someway.

        You will find 2 scientists who disagree on Global Warming, and they are both informed by different sets of beliefs based on the observations they have made, and because they have faith in those observations.
      • Sabretou, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5I was first going to digg you down for that stupid post, but then I decided to digg you down for insulting the Czech Republic. I like the way you present options.
      • Axim, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6the best part is how he categories atheists as 'ipod video using czech republic living god disproving' individuals. here's a mindblowing idea - just because you don't believe in one thing doesn't mean you are actively crusading against the other.
        the irony being that it's usually the people who are the least informed as per the actual teachings of christianity that are the quickest to judge others, shut themselves away from any real information on world issues and act as 'extremists,'

        so good luck with life man, you obviously have it all figured out already!
      • arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5No one has to spend time proving there is no god. That is the default position. Children aren't born with an inherrent belief in a god. If you raise child with no exposure to religion or theology, then they would become adults who find the idea of a god to be absurd. Atheism isn't an ideal, it is a default position. The burden of proof lies with the believers. If you're trying to convince someone that a god exists, then you need some compelling evidence. Faith doesn't cut it. Blind faith is ignorance and allows you to be manipulated and to manipulate others.

        Secondly, if you do believe, why do you feel it necessary for others to believe as well? Do you feel insecure in your beliefs so you need others to believe as you do to validate you? Why can't you just be happy with your own beliefs and leave others alone?

        Oh and the Czech Republic is a country.
      • Cerialthriller, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1how can you extremely believe in nothing? There are no set atheist morals, values, or beliefs. Our one common belief is that god doesn't exist, thats all. I can ***** hookers or guys if i wanted without the fear of some invisible guy shaking a finger at me, threatening to put me in a pit of flames. An atheist can still think being gay is wrong or bad if he wants to, but we dont have books saying if you believe in god, then you must hate the fags. Atheists can have whatever opinions they want about whatever they want without some book saying they are wrong or they cant feel that. So no thanks, I enjoy my free will
    • OswaldKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -9/+78I agree with you, but let's make sure we highlight the correct word. Too many people will read you post as, "christians have become a treasonous cancer in the American fabric" The word to focus on is "extremists." Fundamentalists of any religion, non-religion, or political view are a cancer.
      • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -8/+22The Bible wants you to be an extremist, just like any other organized religion.
        • eskimob, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2uh no.
          • iamafatguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15uh, yeah.

            When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the ***** and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. (Deutronomy 7:1-2)

            “When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God has given you… Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes (Deuteronomy 20:10-17)

            Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)

            “I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence. (Luke 19:26-27)

            "Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matthew 10:34-35)

            "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

            "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

            "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

            "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

            Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.” This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18

            “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

            yadayadayada

            And that's just a smattering. Seems pretty extremist to me.
          • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Actually, I think if you really believed all of it, you would be an extremist. The non-extremists are those who don't *really* believe all of it, or simply dismiss sections of the more extreme parts as allegory.

            As for me, I dismiss the entire thing. It makes things much easier. I used to be a Christian, but now I feel no guilt whatsoever when I sleep in on Sundays.
      • kurtergad87, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4A fundamentalist doesn't necessarily have to be bad for society. The word implies that a person is basing his views of the world on some fixed scripture, but that scripture could just say; "be a good person and try to get along with people who are different from you.".

        What IS a cancer to society however, is the fanatical mindset, where the well-being of society is considered insignificant to the goals of the fanatic.
        • DracoFlameus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5A good example, unfortunately not comparable to reality. In reality fundamentalists are the last ones who do any good for society. They know the truth (the real one, of course) and are willing to kill whoever dares to oppose it.
      • celticcrossfire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I agree to an extent. Non-Religious fundamentalists is a fine line. In fact, I'd contend they don't exist. Take, for example, this hypothetical.
        Everyone in Country A believe that 2+2=5.
        Someone from Country B visits and notices their belief is incorrect; for 2+2=4. This person starts to attack Country A's belief.
        At what point, if any, is the visiting person considered a fundamentalist?

        I would say that he isn't unless he starts using violence.
    • OUChevelleSS, on 10/10/2007, -15/+11I'm sorry, but your comment has nothing to do with the article at hand.
      • 3nd3r5, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4my thoughts exactly
      • Chassit, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Hmm, I read both the comment and the article. Yeah, and the comment is quite apt and appropriate.
    • cmorwhat, on 10/10/2007, -9/+45I agree. My parents fell victim to a "Independent Fundamental Baptist Church" and it came damn close to brain washing them. My own mother told me I was going to burn in hell because I was pro-choice and Pro-gay marriage. In this nation, founded on open-mindedess. there is NO ROOM for any fundamentalism.
      • mikerand, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3So you would like to see laws in place so these people can be imprisoned?
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3There are only 2 things in this world I cannot stand. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures...and the Dutch
        • cmorriss, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0So you saying you are intolerant of people who are intolerant. Doesn't that make you intoler... head asplodes.
    • Konstantino, on 10/10/2007, -8/+20When reading this, let's just remember that not every Christian is necessarily a Christian extremist.
      • ParaSwarm, on 10/10/2007, -10/+16You don't have to be an extremist to have an infantile view of our reality.
        • WNW3, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2The Dinosaurs believed the world was created by a giant potato
        • 3nd3r5, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2You are so smart! I bet you have lots of really cool adult friends that say important things. I wish you would teach a poor christian child like me how to view reality like the adults.
          • iamafatguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Well, you can start with the precept: "Reality is not a democracy."
    • Freetime000, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5It's a conspiracy.. did you know Christians were behind the faking of the moon landing!
    • argeaux, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4A good source of information on the debate between religion and rationality is here:
      http://FreeThoughtPedia.com/

      Most of the common theist arguments are explained in detail. Virtually everything you can think of is there with comments on scripture, philosophy and most importantly, science and where religion fits into the scheme of things.
    • leadingzero, on 10/10/2007, -10/+11I agree. No atrocities have ever been committed under Atheist governments.
      Except the ravages of russian communism
      and the terrors or Pol Pot
      East Germany
      Stalin
      ...

      please remember that atrocities aren't only committed in the name of religion.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9The difference here is that when religion is involved, the atrocities are committed in the NAME of that religion. Under non-theist leaders, the acts are simply carried out without trying to justify them as "holy".
      • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4What? Pol Pot went, "There is no God. Embrace this or die!"? Okay, that's weird.
      • HeavyWaters, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Exactly. A hundred million dead due to Communism is nothing.
      • Mageling, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I'm afraid of becoming Hitler. That's why I believe in god.

        not.
      • SquigglyP, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes, you can't really make that argument. They weren't killing in the name of atheism, tho a couple of them WERE trying to destroy all religion. It's a good idea, but you shouldn't force it onto people. But then, had there been no religion, would they have killed so many people? One must really wonder if the Jews would have been slaughtered had there been no jewish faith. It's really less a religious issue and more an issue of labels. People label other people and then hate them for it. It's an unfounded hatred, irrational and pointless. That's the problem with religion, and why i don't like being called an "atheist". It just gives theists a reason to hate me before they even know me.
    • saltinekracka20, on 10/10/2007, -15/+7A nation of Liberals is not a Liberal ation. Keep your Christian hating to yourself.
      • TeagueSterling, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1When did liberals come into this?
      • Chassit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Pull yer head out, he is NOT 'Christian Hating'
      • SquigglyP, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I hate christianity, but not the believers. I hate the religion, not the people, tho i hate that the people often try to use their religion to corrupt the country. But that's true with all religion.
    • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Do you have some e-mail or mobile notification every time someone posts a front-page candidate story bashing Christianity or Republicans, or do you sit around getting the first comments on all of them so you can be the top douchebag on these stories?

      Yes, extremists are bad. ALL religious extremists are bad, but on Digg, Christianity is the only evil religion. Thanks for the bleeding obvious point that radical Christians do more harm than good. You got your shot in, as always. And WOOO you got FIRST! Tool.
    • ButSeriouslyNow, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6@ChristPissed
      Replace "Christians" in your comment with "Jews", "Jesus" in your comment with "God", and "America" in your comment with "Germany", and you sound exactly like a Nazi in the '30s. You are spreading fear of a religious group, claiming they are undermining the state and claiming they have no loyalty to "the Fatherland." I hope you never take your blind hatred off of Digg and spread it in the streets.
      • RockinRoel, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1I agree to some extent. I'm not saying that ChristPissed was overreacting that much, but he does react rather strongly. And with a nickname like ChristPissed, sheesh.
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2except nobody is rounding up Christians. We just want them to shut up and go about their lives without interfering in ours
      • SquigglyP, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But this is America. There's a difference between the US and Germany in the 30's. There is a constitution and freedom of religion. The point is that Christians are trying to use their positions of power to thrust their morality onto everyone, when it's not necessary. For instance, many of the Republican candidates have stated that they will try to have Roe vs Wade repealed. Granted, Ron Paul wants the States to make that decision, and i can see his logic there. The others simply want to ban abortion, and they want to do that because they want to make a big splash for the religious crowd so they'll all vote for them. But it's not necessary to ban abortion. If you have a moral issue with it, don't get one. If you don't have a moral issue with it, then go right ahead. I fail to see how Christians seem to think they are achieving anything. Christians are the overwhelming majority here. So the majority of people, if they are living their lives according to their faith, will not be getting an abortion, because their religious leaders tell them it's a sin. So what are they worried about?

        They are trying to corrupt the teaching of students, trying to get prayer in schools, etc etc. Christians may not like the fact that people like myself are trying to get overtly christian phrases and things out of the government, such as "in god we trust" on the coinage and by changing the pledge of allegiance. We're not trying to destroy christianity, and it's a shame they think of it as such. We are simply trying to drive a spike between religion and government. Like it or not, Christianity isn't the only religion out there, and the US was built on the idea that anyone here is free to believe whatever they want. To say that is one thing, but when you have a government making it's decisions based on religious belief, as Bush has done with stem cell research, then you are throwing the foundations of the country out the window. Our leaders MUST be able to keep their religion out of the government's policies. The constitution merely protects your religion, it isn't supposed to be advertising it, and no you don't get special treatment just because you're the majority. It does happen, but it's not supposed to.

        And you want blind hatred, try looking up any video or web page where Christian leaders are discussing Atheism. We are basically the army of hell as far as they're concerned. The hatred flows freely from their pens and mouths.
    • Calcularius, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1for your car...
      http://www.dnahelices.com/noreligion/noreligion.jp ...
    • jer2eydevil88, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Religious Extremists have become a treasonous cancer in the American fabric. The largest of these groups are the Evangelical Christians they operate in cells, much like communism did, and they have no loyalty to Country or Constitution, their only loyalty is to their version of Jesus or who they are told is Jesus' proxy on earth.

      -- I fixed it.
  • sputnikv, on 10/10/2007, -22/+32ignorance overwhelms the mind
    • dk911, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4Why the generalized attack on Christians? The title generalizes too much by not spending a few more cents to put "extremists" in it. I'm always saddend that all Christians are lumped in with the whacko religious nuts. I like my religion, I'm not overwhelmed by it, I'm not the best follower of it, but it gives me a sense of belonging. Why atheists feel they must attack me, just for being Christian, is totally beyond me. I don't attack them for not believing, as that is their choice as much as mine TO believe. I feel like most atheists are just schoolyard bullies who get their hardons by picking on people they see as weaker than they are. WHY?
      • wtfpwned98, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Why are you attacking atheists now? Also, he didn't say whose ignorance overwhelms the mind. How can you be so sure he wasn't talking about the same "whacko religious nuts" you are?
    • IKORKYI, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why did dk911 think that when you said ignorance overwhelms the mind you meant Christians? Enough said
      Amen to THAT brother

      Ignorance is when you post a reply to a comment that is irrelevant...either that or you were so obsessed with being heard you just picked it to get at the top of the list
  • str3ama, on 10/10/2007, -22/+59too late the people have have spoken and apparently they refuse to elect a president that does not believe in God. I hate to say it, but this entire planet is ruled by the religious. Everything comes down to whether you believe in God or not, it's political suicide to admit that you're an atheist.
    • codmate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+28Secularism is alive and well in Western Europe.
    • akimbo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7And Turkey
    • MiDri, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Then our only hope is... RAPTURE!
    • argeaux, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3It doesn't have to be this way, and there is evidence that people are coming to their senses. Historically, people have believed in multiple gods, like Apollo, Thor, Zeus, etc. Christianity is a philosophical evolution from our past when people believed in many different gods, so becoming monotheistic, is just a step along the way towards becoming rational and atheistic.
      http://FreeThoughtPedia.com/
      • theroyalweman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1why is believing in one god any more rational than believing in multiple gods?
    • Kinkistyle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Add Japan to that list
    • redwards, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Tell that to Pete Stark. Avowed Atheist. In Congress.
    • dohidied, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He's also from Berkeley.
    • jheathupton, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0qbvb3
  • amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -29/+33Nearly every government in history has hijacked the most popular religion in the region to exploit the people. If you removed all religion, there would be a new excuse and a new group of people, but they would have the same moral values as these people claiming to be christians.

    The road is narrow. Which means very few find the true meaning of being a little christ. This means that in the US, even the majority of people [hundreds of millions] claiming to be christian, are on the wrong road, which isn't that unbelievable.

    Religion isn't exploiting the people. The greedy and power hungry are exploiting you, and you are all falling head over heels over it.

    Move to Saudi Arabia for a few months, and you'll beg to come back to our "christian nation", at least in this decade. People in power are merely exploiting you for their benefit. Believe it or not, the Bible predicted this and predicted a coming Atheistic view and those people would point at christians and say "Where is He now?" End of story [almost].
    • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -10/+39"Believe it or not, the Bible predicted this and predicted a coming Atheistic view and those people would point at christians and say "Where is He now?" End of story [almost]."

      So basically the people who wrote the biggest ***** con piece of literature in all of history not only had the brains back then to fool the masses, who were no smarter than the teenagers of today, but they also were able to figure out that, as humanity advances, a time would come when they would figure out that this book is ***** and call religion out all of its lies? yea man, that sure is something.
      • amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -19/+4At least you gave it some credit as being the biggest. We're still talking about it today, what can I say?

        The Bible predicted it because the natural tendency of mankind is destruction and self devotion. The more mankind sins, the less God does for the sinner, which means that as long as sin is in the world, He knew the path it would take. How old are you? Name one of the 10 commandments that you don't think should be followed for the benefit of all people, not just your own selfish desire.
        • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15There is only one true moral. Do not coerce others or their property. I see many of the ten commandments that don't fit this. Four of them are merely tips on venerating god, that is no use to people at all.
        • purplegecko, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20Which ten? Jewish, Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant? Because they are different. This is because Exodus and Deuteronomy have different versions, and neither have ten - Exodus has 16!

          Anyway, let's assume you mean Protestant for now, to answer your actual question:

          "Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God" and
          "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy"

          Neither of these are followed for the benefit of all people.

          Now don't get me wrong, I'm an atheist, but I agree that the majority of the ten commandments mirror our natural sense of morality. But to say that we need religion for morality is a falsehood - studies show that even a massive cross section of the globe, with multiple religions represented, even people form so called "backward" tribes in deepest, darkest Amazon, etc, have the same sense of morality when it comes to murdering, stealing, etc.
        • jefferygomer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Thou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of thy God" and
          "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy"

          Neither of these are followed for the benefit of all people."
          I don't know, I rather like having a weekend of not working AKA "the Sabbath".
      • Birdoftruth, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Your tinfoil has is showing Quaxon, nice conspiracy. too bad it was written by multiple people of multiple language in different times all contributing their interpretation of events.
    • crichton101, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20And science fiction writers have invariably predicted future technologies long before they were even remotely close to fruition. So really, the bible predicted nothing, it's writer had a good imagination.
    • codmate, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15The Bible also predicted that the world would end about 2000 years ago.
      Check Revelation - it makes it sound as though the 'end of times' is coming almost immediatly.
      Still here aren't we though?

      The Bible's record on prophecy makes for some hilarious reading:
      http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html
      • Hidama, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5What is written in the Bible is that no one will know when the end will come.

        The problem is, people keep counting letters, looking at the sky, writing intense mathematical equations and guessing.
      • Iamthechamp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Ok, that website is pathetic, its hard to take it seriously when even the first one you can prove wrong by just reading the verse:

        God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5). 2:17

        17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." (NIV)

        How does "Surely" translate to "the day that he does"

        Scrolling down and looking at others, about 75% of them are missquotes. You just have to read the verse it mentions to prove it wrong.
        • TheKillDoctor, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1So you have the absolute truth on what bible passages mean, yeah right, you betcha...
        • codmate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

          Seems pretty clear to me.
          That's straight from the New American Standard Bible (©1995).

          Here are many versions of the same verse that say mostly the very same thing:
          http://bible.cc/genesis/2-17.htm

          The literal translation from Hebrew is:
          "and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'"
    • 3nd3r5, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nostradamus pwnz revelations!
  • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -42/+46The christian religion has held humanity back for centuries. From suppressing scientific research and killing any who dared report any findings that went against the bible to the religious whackos in kansas today who stopped teaching science in favor of fairy tale stories. religion is anti-knowledge and has taken an anti-knowledge stance throughout history. look at all the religious lobbying groups in washington and all the religious nuts in congress and senate who are trying to get roe over-turned, get creationism in every classroom, ban porn and strip clubs, hell just turn on the ***** tv and see what religion has done to free speech, where in america (supposedly the free-est country) you cant even hear a swear word on cable (that you pay for) yet in every other country even basic cable isnt censored, you get true free speech (not the watered down american version that masquerades around as free speech) and even nudity. you got people like fred phelps on your side spreading his hate (although not too many of you will admit that you support him i know many christians hold the same views as him against gays from first hand accounts). ***** dude the list goes on and on, seriously if you dont think this is a problem then you are blind. there is so much that christians are doing wrong in this country, now i know not all of you are bad and i have had many christian friends but the bad ones (which happens to be the majority) have left a horrible taste in my mouth and the mouth of many other non-theist americans. christianity has been hi-jacked and im sorry to say the ones of you who dont support all this religious ***** going on in this country are in the minority. i remember going on a roadtrip through the midwest last year and in and driving through Pennsylvania or ohio or one of those random middle states to get to NYC i saw countless signs and billboards stating that youre going to hell if you dont follow the ten commandments or love christ etc. (dont believe me i have the pictures to prove it). honestly i have nothing against those who want to believe in whatever silliness they want as long as they dont hurt any body and stop ruining this country to fit their retarded beliefs, but unfortunately the majority of you are set on completely transforming this country into some retarded bibleland.
    • mmazing, on 10/10/2007, -9/+12Dugg up, regardless of grammar. You know your stuff :)
      • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5meh, i know the grammar/spelling might be a bit off but it's late at night, im stoned and was more worried about getting my point across than getting a grade, hopefully it's not too mangled.
    • leuksho, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0You know, the only problem with your comment is your idea on how free speech should be dealt with. As long as we have children, I highly doubt you're ever going to see a girl ***** a donkey on public cable. It just won't happen. Other than that, you still have to look at other things that will hold science back. If it isn't one thing, it will be another. Personally, it was the general public that left a bad taste in my mouth. As long as "power" exists, there is nothing we can really do.
      • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Dude, where the ***** did i ever say it should be ok for a chick to ***** a donkey on tv? there is a HUGE difference between nudity (the kind in movies and HBO shows) vs hardcore porn, much less bestiality. If you have spent any time abroad and watched TV in any other country you would notice that virtually nothing is censored, they have 'bad' words, and nudity, and their children grow up just fine. I am not saying that porn should be publicly broadcast, but i am saying that religion has made television awful, through the MPAA they have killed many great films, and they treat the average viewer like a child. Let us decide what we want to watch or listen to, that should be a staple of every country that is truley free.

        Also I cannot think of a system of beliefs or any entity other than religion that has retarded science for so long (two+ millennium), we are finally just begining to break free of religions clench on knowledge, but they are still a major fighting force against things like stem cells which could/most likely will lead to the discovery of cures for many diseases. The fact that religion has been the tool for suppressing science makes your argument invalid, until there is something else holding it back we cannot make guesses. My hypothesis is that without religion we could get more people educated on things such as sex, science and the like, and thus people will be able to practice safe sex having less babies, and people will generally be more educated on what is going on in the world around them which would make it a lot more difficult for people like Bush and Reagan to come to power.
        • leuksho, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0Sorry if I over referenced it, but still, you have to understand as long as mothers exist, you won't see it. Sorry, I know you want to say that religion has something to do with it, but even without it, you still will not see it. Its literally a fact. You have every right to express your opinions on things, but either way, it will not change things.

          And yes, I agree with you that religion has been suppressing science, but certain discoveries will still continue to get held back for various other reasons. Even though I semi-support abortion and fully support stem cell research, you don't need religion to go against it. You'll still have someone who opposes it.

          Secondly, one certain thing about some religions (like Christianity) is that it encourages most (not all though) to wait after marriage to have sex. I don't know how this would improve by getting rid of religion. I mean, our planet is over populated as it is. Take a look at Japan. As one of my professors in college always told us, Japan is a country of happy atheists, yet, Tokyo is probably the largest city in the entire world in terms of population.

          Religion has its problems yes. I do firmly believe that it shouldn't interfere with our education system. But the entire idea of "the world would be a better place without it" is biased.
        • DracoFlameus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2U ignore the fact, that the population in West Europe is falling... even without religion (usually). "Sex after marriage" is something u will most likely see in some US-movies.
          Which leads me to another fact... which country has the highest teenage pregnancy in the developed world? USA.
          Seems all this "sex after marriage" stuff isn't helping :)
    • WRXFiles, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Please, please, please use line breaks in your comments. Dugg regardless. :-)
    • codmate, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7Your heart's in the right place, but you make some statements that are false.
      The most blatent is that "Religion is anti-knowledge".

      Many elements of organized religion have been, and are, anti-knowledge; but you should also acknowledge that Islam kept the science and wisdom of the Greeks alive throughout the European 'Dark Ages', and that common people learned to read because of the English translations of the Bible.
      • isaactwito, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Those aren't examples of religion supporting knowledge, those are instances of religion supporting education. Religion has been known to dispute facts that go against it's teachings, which is, in my book, anti-knowledge.
    • Chumbuh1, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Christianity does a lot of good in the world that never makes the headlines. I've lived in several big cities and small towns across north america and some of the kindest, most generous, and most loving people I've met have been Christian or Jewish. They don't do anything big, just thoughtful random acts of kindness. After all, it was Mother Theresa who said you can do no great things, only small things with great love. I have yet to meet a self proclaimed atheist who is as loving as some of the Christians I know.
      • g76monte, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5nice comment. i'm not a christian, but i think christians are much better for this country than some people want to believe. there's plenty of 'fake christians', but there's also a lot of very good people in this country who get punished by media and god haters, because they aspouse to something better.
      • jefferygomer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Agreed,
        When I was growing up, we had some pretty hard times, where my Dad was having a hard time getting a job to support a family of 6, and on Christmas Eve, we had a surprise visit of two vans pull into our drive way. One was full of gifts for us to have, and us to give, and the other had a bunch of food that people bought and made for us.
        While I know there are a lot of bad examples of Christians out there, but a lot of them really do help out people in need.
        To all you Christian hating folks, shut the ***** up, and be a good example yourselves before bitching about someone believing in something you don't.
      • yfguitarist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Christians do big things, too ;-)
      • iamafatguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I am an Athiest, and I am far more loving than mother teresa ever was.

        And, I can prove it.

        For one, I will never, ever, ask you for money, and then give it to the vatican to build nunneries. Not places to care for the poor, but nunneries. She never used any money to build hospitals, clinics, hospices, etc.... it went to building nunneries.

        I will never, ever, tell you to deal with your pain by believing it is "gods kisses". (Yes, she actually said that). I will help you seek proper medical attention, if you need me to. I will give you a buffered analgesic, if you need one. In short, if you need me to, I will help you in any way I can, because I think it's the right thing to do. Without asking for money, and without telling you you need to suffer because it's the will of any supernatural deity.

        mother teresa was not a saint, she was not a force for good. She was a zealot that raised millions for the catholic church, and caused untold suffering while people thought she was "caring" for the poor.

        That is not to say that she didn't inspire others, who may have actually done some good, like Princess Diana, but as for the woman herself, she was not a good person, by any reasoned definition. But there again, it's a good illustration how "mythology" can develop and be 180' from reality.
    • RabidAngel, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Logic, and thereby knowledge, is the antithesis of religion. Tolerance and religion are mutually exclusive; if you believe the teachings of your religion, that it is the one true way, then you cannot accept that another belief system could be right. With regard to the mention of Mother Theresa and her compassion... perhaps you should read about her life-long crisis of faith.
      • avengingturnip, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You obviously have never read Aquinas if you think logic is the antithesis of religion. And as for Mother Theresa, you cannot miss something that is not there. All faith is tested and the saints have theirs tested even more so. You should read about her long dark night of the soul with a more open mind.
        • lord2800, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Aquinas was not only wrong, he used the wrong means to get there. His arguments are the stuff that intro philosophy students use as a gauge of bad arguments.

          As far as tolerance and religion being mutually exclusive, I call *****. You can tolerate, even respect, someone of another religion without it affecting your own beliefs.
    • lukedinan, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4dugg for the words "retarded bibleland" hahaha
    • HeavyWaters, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Christianity is what has held UP civilization for centuries ignoramus. Go back to your porn and stop trying to formulate thoughts in that nutrient-starved brain of yours.
    • miyagi01, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Ok so here is a comment on a guy from a non-christian country living in USA. If you go to my country, there is no basic nature of humanity left. People dont care for each other. no basic courtesy left. People are selfish and have learnt to live without helping each other. I wont want to go into philosophical and complex theological things but as a common man when I go to a store or driving on the road, I see how people just lack the basic human trust and sympathy. The country is in chaos but the people are very "smart". Now, every country is driven and motivated by some fundamental foundation and belief. My country's belief system(religion) doesnt stress on helping each other or being selfless. The only reason I came to US was because I was tired of this. I wanted to live in a country where there is value to human beings. I came to US and as fate would have it, landed in a 'retarded bible land' and was overwhelmed by people and their basic good nature. I soon realized what drives them and motivates them- its their religion. Then I moved to a state which is very 'liberal' but has highly technologically advanced people. In this state I found the same human nature which I found in my country- everyone just thinks about themselves. They lack the courtesy and kindness of the 'bible land'. I have decided to move back to the 'crazy and re tarted bible land' to raise my family. I would rather have my kid raised in a 'bible land'. Americans please dont lose the only thing that makes you different and better - being better human beings. And I repeat - the basic society we live in is driven my its belief. You can have 'no belief' but thats a seed for chaos. You got a good religion that helps a social structure.. dont lose it. I warn you.
    • murf43143, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well said, not well spoken (typed).
  • ssn697, on 10/10/2007, -6/+17"The only acknowledgment of religion in the original Constitution is a utilitarian one: the document is dated “in the year of our Lord 1787.” Even the religion clause of the First Amendment is framed dryly and without reference to any particular faith. The Connecticut ratifying convention debated rewriting the preamble to take note of God’s authority, but the effort failed.

    A pseudonymous opponent of the Connecticut proposal had some fun with the notion of a deity who would, in a sense, be checking the index for his name: “A low mind may imagine that God, like a foolish old man, will think himself slighted and dishonored if he is not complimented with a seat or a prologue of recognition in the Constitution.” Instead, the framers, the opponent wrote in The American Mercury, “come to us in the plain language of common sense and propose to our understanding a system of government as the invention of mere human wisdom; no deity comes down to dictate it, not a God appears in a dream to propose any part of it.”"


    Sigh... If only it were so. Technology has surpassed societal evolution at too great a pace, I fear.
  • ShokDoktor, on 10/10/2007, -8/+151You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion.
    • mmazing, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18You are exactly right my good sir, and whoever dug you down has no comprehension of logic.
      • ShokDoktor, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13I don't believe logic comes with the religionist show bag.
    • GADave, on 10/10/2007, -16/+1Yes, you are correct. But, also, freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion, either.
      • Turambar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7yes it does! the only person I'd trust to not favor one religion over another is a person who's realized that all religions are *****.
      • ShokDoktor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Eh? So you say I'm correct then you say what I said is not the case? Anyway, I'll assume you mean to say that you disagree - but think about it for a minute. What does freedom to choose and practice whichever religion you wish actually mean? It means having a CHOICE. And choosing NO religion is a CHOICE. You can't have freedom of choice if you don't allow the freedom to NOT CHOOSE. You can;t force a population to choose only if the choice is restricted, it makes no sense and is anathema to the notion of freedom. Think about it.

        Freedom is freedom, to choose or not, otherwise it is not freedom, even if you choose the safe option.
    • chrispr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Simple summation of a much debated concept. Kudos.
    • proseandpromise, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12I agree, and I'm a Christian (and a pastor, actually). I don't want my faith anywhere near the political offices or rulings of our nation, because I don't want the government messing with my faith anymore than I want my faith messing with the government.

      In my mind both sides benefit greatly when they remain organizationally autonimous.
      • HeavyWaters, on 10/10/2007, -12/+0Oh yeah, you're a Christian and a pastor. Right. More like a 16 year old atheist. Learn how to spell. The maybe you'll be more believable.
        • Shabonkerz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5You spelled "Then" wrong. I'll be taking your high horse from ya. Time to get off.
      • ronaldinho, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wow a pastor on Digg. Reverend you got balls here. I'm a Christian myself, and I just want to say, the religion itself is fine. It's the people (especially political leaders) that perverted it to their own use and making every other Christian/Muslim/any other religious person look bad because of their selfish ends. I have nothing against people believing whatever they want, but I get quite pissed when people just generalize and say Christians are ignorant dumbasses who are backward in their thinking and that we are destroying this country
    • HeavyWaters, on 10/10/2007, -10/+0The most ignorant comment I have heard yet on Digg. Go read a book fool.
      • psyjoniz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3i'm curious why you think it's ignorant. seriously.
  • ozahariev, on 10/10/2007, -22/+0is it quite true? How knows. But I trully new that my phone call to graphcards.com, taken from Bulgaria was a christianic step.
  • StingerMS, on 10/12/2007, -8/+165I'm almost embarrassed to call myself a Christian.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not ashamed of my God.

    I'm ashamed of being put in the same category with people like Rudy Giuliani and Jack Thompson.

    Telling people about your passion for Christ is one thing. If they listen, awesome. If they don't, it's their choice.

    FORCING your religion on ANYONE is downright intrusive and ignorant.
    • amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+27Agreed 100%
    • eviscero, on 10/10/2007, -27/+10Also Agree

      It is also ignorant to say people who follow the teachings of Christ are destroying this country. They created it and because of Christianity, the nation prospered.

      • AceLy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Idiot.
      • Tanyanika, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11You really were missing the whole point, weren't you? I refer you to the article if you would like to join the discussion. It may make you less of a fool. Then again, it may not.
      • BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Christianity" or more often Fundamentalism has nothing to do with the supposed teachings of Christ.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 10/22/2007, -0/+9Incorrect - this nation was founded by Deists and Atheists/Agnostics. All attempts by Christians to get God references put in The Constitution were shot down. Without the strong influence of the Church of England in the colonies, there was a sort of free-thinker renaissance during that time period.
    • silveravnt, on 10/22/2007, -0/+14I feel the exact same way

      - a Christian
      • HeavyWaters, on 10/22/2007, -6/+0Sure you're a Christian. You liberals need to get a new playbook.
    • argeaux, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Unfortunately, the bible mandates a whole bunch of things, not the least of which is vigilant evangelism, that many modern day christians (I call them "Cafeterians") pick and choose to ignore/believe based on their personal interests.

      Sam Harris has made some very strong points in his book, "The End of Faith" about how the liberal/moderate christians are just as bad as the extremists, because they protect and nurture the fundamentalist factions, and all flavors of christians are generally vehemently opposed towards any open dialogue on the validity of their beliefs. For example, you'd never see Richard Dawkins' excellent documentary, "The Root of all Evil?" shown in America. This was aired in England, but the moderates and liberal Christians in the US would have absolutely no tolerance for anyone questioning whether or not their beliefs were mythological, regardless of the overwhelming evidence
      • leadingzero, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6where to begin....

        "the bible mandates a whole bunch of things, not the least of which is vigilant evangelism"
        - vigilant evangelism? I hope you don't mean militant evangelism. Jesus taught to spread the gospel out of love and humility. You certainly can be vigilant without being militant.

        "all flavors of christians are generally vehemently opposed towards any open dialogue on the validity of their beliefs"
        -wow, that's certainly quite a generalization. I'm a Christian and would love to have an open dialog about my beliefs with you. you can question any aspect of my faith and I won't be offended. email: leadingzero AT gmail.com

        "you'd never see Richard Dawkins' excellent documentary"
        - you think that Dawkins would be censored in America? Last week I went to a debate about "The God Delusion" between Dr. Lennox (a Christian professor at Cambridge) and, guess who, Richard Dawkins himself. And this was in Alabama. And it was the utmost of respectable. Honestly, it was Dawkins who had the most trouble under the scrutiny.
      • HugoNaught, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2 Ah, here is where you can watch Dawkins' Root of All Evil? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-432157495 ...
    • condeh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2amen to that
    • tikigod311, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2i have listened to multiple interviews from both Rudy Giuliani and Jack Thompson and not ONCE have I heard anything about forcing any religion down anyones throats. p.s. i dont really like those guys, i just hate the KNEE JERK REACTIONS on digg.

      you worried about people forcing Christianity down people's throats? How bout the guy who wants to "create a Kingdom right here on Earth" - Barack Obama http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/08/obama.faith ...

      we all know that if that was a republican saying that, everyone would be going bat ***** crazy on digg.
    • HeavyWaters, on 10/10/2007, -11/+0I'm embarrassed you call yourself a Christian too. Because if you knew anythng about the religion you claim to believe, you would know that Christians DO NOT force religion on anyone. I think you're thinking of the peaceful religion of Islam that converts or kills non-believers. Go read Modern Times and learn something.
      • psyjoniz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3/many/ personal experiences beg to differ.

        i'm starting to notice a very funny trend in your posts - they all get buried
    • psyjoniz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1but these heathens need saving!!!
    • NewOntario, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I get pissed off by all those who say that they're "Pro-life" but do nothing to combat poverty, famine, and child abuse.
  • OUChevelleSS, on 10/10/2007, -10/+42You know, this article was very well written. It did not attack either religion or lack thereof, but put things into their true perspective. Leave it to the run-of-the-mill Digger to start with the 'religion is nonsense' comments without even reading the article. That too is ignorance.
    • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Either you're superstitious or you're not. Even the superstitious make a habit of decrying other people's superstitions.
      WTF is wrong with decrying *all* superstition?
      • TheKillDoctor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It's bad luck to be superstitious.
      • duality, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"WTF is wrong with decrying *all* superstition?"

        That, in and of itself, is also a form of superstition. Everyone is superstitious; it's simply a matter of what kinds of superstition you believe are worthy of your thoughts.

        "Believing in things only if they can be proven" is a superstition, and usually a very healthy one. However, left to its own devices, it is quite dangerous. It is like trying to say that "unknown", "impossible to answer", and "patently false" are all interchangeable statements.
    • yfguitarist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It's ridiculous how most of the comments have nothing to do with the article, it's just your average digger venting about how he's right and religion is wrong. Even cranium's reply to your point has nothing to do with yours.
  • archimago42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I personally think this stems from McCain losing in the elections. He's hoping to stir up a bit more support so he can be taken seriously again. While the country has been scarily shifting to very extreme religious fundamentalist views over the last years I do feel like it is shifting back. Christianity in itself is not evil but it can, like everything else, be perverted for various reasons. I look forward to the next few years with less meaningless debate about "moral" issues becoming law and nonsense like the attacks on evolution and perhaps something important getting done. Hopefully religion will return to a very important part of many people's lives in their churches, communities, and families (private schools if they so desire) but the talk of basically scrapping the entire constitution and establishing a theocracy where one religion affects United States law will be pushed far to the sidelines where it belongs with the other tin-foil hat wearers.
  • sirjimbob, on 10/10/2007, -6/+43"A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation"

    BRAVO!
    • SiNN4R, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Yeah its so profound it should go into the matrix trilogy. Maybe they could work it into a Pepsi commercial.
    • RockinRoel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1/sarcasm for being obvious?
  • LoneRanger85, on 10/15/2007, -29/+6I don't think the Founders would have wanted a thread of 42 million slaughtered unborn babies either.
    • archimago42, on 10/22/2007, -3/+11They were staunchly freedom and science minded people I doubt they would want abortion outlawed once they knew the science. But we'll never know.
    • ShokDoktor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Most pregnancies actually terminate/fail naturally even before the mother is aware she was even pregnant. Don't believe me? Do some research, it's an intriguing fact. "god" is the greatest abortionist there is. I believe Mr Hitchens covers this topic in his book, and no doubt puts it more cunningly than I have.
      • leadingzero, on 10/22/2007, -7/+1why is that fact intriguing? "OMG, there's suffering in the world - God must be evil. I stubbed my toe, God must hate me."
        Your argument is terrible and quoting Hitchens doesn't help give you any credibility.
        • bullhead2007, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3You demonstrate a clear lack of logic. Doesn't surprise me though.
        • IKORKYI, on 10/22/2007, -1/+3you'd think if you thought it was terrible you would have a reason why.
        • iamafatguy, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3I believe that archimago42 was replying to the "anti-abortion" statement my loneranger85, which is:

          A) having nothing to do with the article
          B) illogical

          And I think it was in "Religion is Not Great", and the argument was something like, god, who created our bodies, is responsible for more terminated pregnancies than people who choose to abort a fetus, because of the fact that most pregnancies terminate naturally, rather than by choice of the mother. It was a statement, iirc, that was referring to the hypocrisy of religious pro-lifers, because it is in fact their god that does the majority of the killing.

          The argument from evil is a whole 'nuther ball of wax.
      • IKORKYI, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1isn't the devil responsible for all bad and God only gets credit for the good stuff?
    • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Stop, you're going to make your Blackwater buddies hungry!
  • bunnybash, on 10/15/2007, -8/+51The article is quite different to the personal rants of people on this board.

    Most anthropologists will tell you that Christianity has brought positives to civilizations too, yes there are negatives, but jeez, talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water.

    People who go on mad rants about how Christianity has held back civilization are just as bad as religious extremists. Greed, self interest, hatred and self righteousness are what holds civilisation back, of which Jesus actually spoke against, so meh, blame religion if you want, but it is a really superficial reaction, go deeper and you will find the real causes hiding behind the mask of religion.

    The religious hide behind their religion and you fall for it, blaming religion too, instead blame the individuals and their own motivations and selfishness...
    • amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Someone else sees it how it is.
    • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11Yes, religions could have been useful at times. However, those times are long over.
      • runCMD, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Guess you're not watching the evening news.
      • silveravnt, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Because the world is perfect now. People no longer need hope. An morals are stupid anyway.
        • bullhead2007, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Hope and good morals have nothing to do with Religion.
        • iamafatguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4religion is not a prerequisite for morality.
          religion is not a prerequisite for hope.
    • argeaux, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6"What about all the good things the Nazis did?"

      I hate to Godwin this thread, but let's be honest, trying to suggest that Christianity should be respected based on the balance between positive and negative influence demands such an analogy. Hitler himself couldn't shine God's shoes when it came to genocide and murder of random/innocent people.
    • tikigod311, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1i dont think digg can handle that much rational thought there, bunnybash. so for the average digg user, heres how you are supposed to reply...

      "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." (Hillary Clinton, 1993) It takes too much thought to look at people as an individual, so lets use Hillary's simplified method of thinking and group everything together.
    • Rsulliv1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Do you really think that those things that Religion touted wouldn't have come along without it? However, perhaps the age of reason would have been pushed up 500 years if intellectuals were allowed to speak without fear of punishment.
  • Babazoz, on 10/12/2007, -28/+7And yet, most of the same people bashing Christianity here will keep their little mouths shut when it comes to Islam or anything "exotic" that doesn't allow them to say "***** YOU MOMMY AND DADDY I REJECT YOUR BELIEFS LOL", and will get butthurt when called on it.
    • cranium, on 10/22/2007, -1/+9Sorry, all superstitions are equally asinine. Your attempts to play the victim are amateurish.
      • Babazoz, on 10/22/2007, -4/+2No victim playing here. Just an observation.
  • danielcjtodd, on 10/15/2007, -3/+35I apologize for this self righteous outburst.

    /rant

    I'm so sick of hearing about bickering of religion this, religion that. If the WHOLE PLANET was any one single denominated religion or race, would we all get along without violence, crime, hatred, rape or murder? Of course not. Being a "religious" person does NOT make you a "good" person, otherwise there would be no religious criminals. Unlawful and immoral behavior occurs both within and without the Christian faith. (and any faith/ non faith)

    So hypothetically..."Hey, Christian dude. the world has been to Christianity... now what?!"

    We SHOULD be focusing on things that we all agree on and can actually IMPROVE right now. Better education, better standards of living, less debt, satiation, water, food, sustainable environment. These are things that I think EVERY person can agree on.

    So stop reading article after article in digg (like I am guilty of) and think that clicking the "digg it" will make things better. Go do the small stuff to start making things a bit better.

    Here are some REALLY easy things to do.

    Put yourself on the no junkmail list
    Go paperless with your bills
    Recycle what you can
    buy energy efficient from now on.
    Put yourself on the no marketing call list
    Cut up your credit card and just use the Debit card. (i.e, just the money you have)
    donate your clothes and extra house junk to a charity (or maybe even a church, heaven forbid!)

    Do you really need 300 channels that only play until 1am when they all become 'paid programming'? The 'extra' channels on your cable/dish tv could pay for child sponsorship.

    What I'm trying to say is, instead of spending our days feeling oppressed and defensive about peoples various religions... just think what can I do that would help out. (and dint expect praise for it!)

    /end rant

    • Intangible360, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Ah, but what you describe is a world where religion plays no part, which the Christians and other religious individuals must reject (well if they plan on remaining religious anyway). While I agree with the sentiment, the problem comes from the fact that the religious continue to be influenced by their religion and as such your world view cannot be realized without the removal of religion from the world.
    • ikarimaru, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You obviously share the same opinion I do. I just happen to be Atheist, and while this doesn't have much to do with the article, I think it is a good addition to your post. So many people misunderstand what being an atheist means. From the American Atheists website (http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/):

      The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.

      “Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

      An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

      An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

      He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

      He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

      He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”
    • SquigglyP, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes it's hard to work with religious people if they refuse to make any decisions without consulting their Holy Book of Morality to find out what it is we should be forcing the whole of the nation to be doing. here in the US, there should never be a moment where religion plays into things like public education, etc. It's supposed to be a government of logic and reason, where religion plays no part. Unfortunately, our leaders know they can keep getting elected if they pander to the religious.
  • earnold, on 10/10/2007, -30/+4When oh when will all you losers, including the high and mighty New York Times, read the actual history and writings you purport to know and understand. These same "founding fathers" set up official state "denominations," attended colleges that REQUIRED a confession of faith in Christ as Lord and Savior and founded colleges that required these same confessions of faith and the teaching of the Bible as the central pillar of all learning, knowledge and wisdom. These founding fathers abhorred statism and did all they could to ham-string the federal government and empower states, even in matters of "religion."
    • ShokDoktor, on 10/22/2007, -1/+16Talk about revisionism.
    • SydeffeX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8The founding fathers were of more than one mind. It even says in this article that some of them wanted to include christianity in the constitution, but they were over-ruled. So even though what you say is true, the founding fathers you speak of were simply over-ruled by the numerous more logical thinking ones.
    • SquigglyP, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1the reason people even came here was to get away from religious states. The founding fathers knew enough to separate the church and the state because they knew that a state based in religious beliefs would end badly. Just because people USED to be forced to be christian doesn't mean it was right for them to have done so. It used to be fine for people to keep slaves and beat their wives too. Now we're all smarter. Well, most of us.
      • ShokDoktor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Spot on. The war of independence was fought to liberate the republic from the colonial British oppressors, who were ruled by a King who is HEAD OF THE CHURCH.
  • smacksaw, on 10/10/2007, -19/+1I would say that our nation was founded upon the ideas of the Native Americans, persecuted Christians who wished to be free and the idea of choice. Where you choose to be Christian, that fundamental liberty often reminds me of the liberties we're supposed to have as Americans.

    I think we are founded by Christians, we just didn't say it because we were smart enough to know what sort of problems it entails. But if you stop to think about it, you see it right there.
  • databoy, on 10/10/2007, -10/+14The trouble with Christianity is that "TRUE BELIEVERS" think that Christianity is the reason for the advancement of society.
    WELL THEY ARE WRONG.

    Humanity was advanced by individuals having the guts and putting their lives in jeopardy by standing up to the BISHOP OF ROME.
    There is nothing in Christianity that you will not find in any other religion. It fact Christianity consists of over 33,000 denominations all claiming that they are the only true source of the faith.

    A wise man once said:

    MANKIND WILL BE FREE WHEN THE LAST CHURCH STONE FALLS ON THE LAST PREACHER.

    For all the "True Believers"; unless you can read and converse in Ancient Aramaic, Latin, Greek, Hebrew and have access to the ancient and original texts then you are only a believer of English translated texts and not a real "Christian Scholar".
    • IckyChris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'm pretty sure that Diderot said, "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
      Much more graphic, and better because it includes kings as well as priests.
      • silveravnt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Makes more sense as alot of the suffering in the world is at the hands of non-religious dictators.
    • cjhandley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nope, that was written by Jean Meslier, not Diderot.
    • buggles, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2buried, for spewing the same stereotypical diatribe you're bitching about.
  • jkbowman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19The press is as much to blame as the fundamental right. They consistently allow this comment to go unchallenged.
  • codmate, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21I'm not American - so I really don't understand why the founding fathers are so revered?
    Shouldn't you be constantly questioning things - trying to better society and yourselves rather than worshiping documents written by people who were alive when it was still common belief that maggots came from rotting meat and mice appeared magically in old clothes?

    Knowledge, technology and society move forward. Keep up guys.

    We acknowledge people like Robert Walpole in Britain - but we don't worship them and think they could say or think no wrong, like you do with your guys.
    • nick111, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2insecurity
    • m3t00, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11We just don't have many politicians with that same level of common sense. Most are driven by greed and won't do anything that can be considered altruistic if it means losing some campaign money.
    • AceLy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Everyone has their own idea of how the country should be, but saying your ideals are valid because you said so is too simple to be taken seriously and giving elaborate reasons based on logic and fairness is too hard or too damning to your emotional and irrational ideals. So the easiest way is to find a way to bring the founding fathers to your side -- everyone will listen to that.
    • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Basically, here's the deal. The USA has the most long-running government on the planet. The reason it has made it so long is that the people who designed our system of government were among the preeminent political philosophers of the day. Even today, there is widespread support of the constitution among the populace, which is why our politicians pretend to support it as well.

      Because of our general commitment to our form of government, politicians and extremists consider an appeal to the intent of the founders to be of high propaganda value. As time goes on, this tactic because even more powerful because more and more americans are bothered by the observation that we're not sticking to the "plan". Both parties have essentially gutted the Bill of Rights at this point, which is the supposed guarantor of american liberty. We have a strong sense of urgency to get back on track, and that kind of argumentative tactic attempts to tap into those emotions.
      • cphelps, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5We don't have the longest-running government on the planet you twit. It's the longest-running democracy.
        • Veritate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5"you twit" was uncalled for as a correction to a post that was otherwise a positive addition to a discussion. You could have just noted it rather than throwing a gratuitous insult.
          I don't entirely agree with cranium on whether the BOR has actually been "gutted", but he's right that it's a common political rhetorica