Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from HVV Sunday, August 27, 2006 - 14:58 (Agree/Disagree?) I love Chuck's Oyster... Leave the seeding goats and pigs. The herd is growing bigger. (reply to this comment)

from Bones Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 13:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Nobody blame's god you schmuck, we know he doesn't exist. We blame christians for the evil they do in his name. There are none that are righteous, no, not one. XXOO (reply to this comment)

from Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 12:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Dear President Bush: The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government." Any religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment to codify marriage on biblical principles: A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5) B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21) C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21) D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh10:30) E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9) F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe. (Gen.38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10) http://www.rawilson.com/jokes.shtml (reply to this comment)

from SeanSwede Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 06:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Cutting to the chase, I would like to say that the christian world as we know it, is coming to an end. I have said in previous articles how they preach the end of the world, but lets take a look at what is happening in the world right now. Christianity came to the world through politics. It is now in a serious crisis considering how the church has to decide their future survival seeing how homosexuals demand equality and want also to be married in church in the God and christian believing way. Christianity is hanging on an icy thread. I know that this has come to Sweden just recently. The church of Sweden has given the OK for homosexual matrimony in the Swedish church. The pastors and priests in the whole country are protesting against it. The fact of the matter is that they are only pawns in the whole political game. It all started with the whole church and christianity belief and traditions diminishing seeing that they are and always have been strict and not so fully liberal to begin with. The swedish government has also officially detached them selves from the church a few years ago. There has been a missinterpretation of the term "end of the world". What they really meant in the bible if you dare to look back at it and see for yourselfs that it was talking about how man will forsake it (Christianity and bible based religions). It will be the end of Christianity as a whole. It has already started and the biggest corner stone in that process has just been turned with the churches making the decision to allow the homosexuals to marry within the church. The church did this for their survival sake. We know that in the Christian way of thinking that it is complete heresy. It all speaks for itself. You know what I mean. Christianity is not at all like it was from 50 years ago. It has slowly diminished. People are realising that they are the masters of their fate. They can provide for themselves. They don`t need a religious drug/psychosis to keep them on their feet through lifes different hardships. They say "don`t do drugs". I say "don`t do religion". Believe in yourself and listen to your heart instead and not to some abstract ramblings however enticing and comfortable it may be or sound. Love and respect eachother cause life is short. Cause after that...nobody knows. (reply to this comment)

From check out this site Tuesday, November 08, 2005, 13:05 (Agree/Disagree?) http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/divinat2.htm SCIENTIFIC PANTHEISM is the belief that the universe and nature are divine. It fuses religion and science, and concern for humans with concern for nature. It provides the most realistic concept of life after death, and the most solid basis for environmental ethics. It is a religion that requires no faith other than common sense, no revelation other than open eyes and a mind open to evidence, no guru other than your own self.(reply to this comment)

From Fish Tuesday, November 08, 2005, 06:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Wow, I actually agree with you for a change.(reply to this comment)

from Zeus Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 01:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey, Prometheus. Do you actually remember what happened to Prometheus? Chain, rock, liver grows back after being eaten daily by the same eagle? And what di you steal that ammounted to the fire of Olympus? (reply to this comment)

From Fish Sunday, November 06, 2005, 04:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Prometheus went against the wishes of "the powerful" to help man rise above the level of animals. For this he was punished by Zeus. Sound familiar? Anyway, if I recall corectly Heracules cut him down from the cliff, as one of his tasks.(reply to this comment)

from \-v-/ Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 15:23 (Agree/Disagree?) "Prometheus like" - ha ...looks like someone has a hard-on for Colon Ferrel in that Alexander flicker (reply to this comment)

from roughneck Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 13:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Just a couple comments, from the perspective of the "rabid atheist", if you don't mind. Speaking for myself, I don't have a grudge against "God" whatsoever (as you point out, it's illogical to simultaneously deny god's existance, yet blame this nonentity for bad things happening), my beef lies mainly with the people who believe in him/her/it, as you so rightly determined. The sad fact is, whether or not "God" exists is of secondary consideration to the actions of the people who (wrongheadedly, IMO) believe in his/her/its existance. For example, care to guess what Nazi Germany's state motto was? That's right, it was "Gott Mit Uns" (God with us). Was "God" to blame for the atrocities perpetrated by that nation? No, it was the idiots who actually believed that silly God-heavy ideology. (if these people as a group constitute "society", I guess you're right.) Similarly, I don't blame "God" for the Spanish Inquisition, as the blame for that lies pretty squarely with the fanatically "godly" Catholic Church. I could ramble tiresomely on and on with more examples, but I won't. Who cares if "God" actually exists so long as people believe that he does? (I highly recommend Terry Pratchett's book "Small Gods" for a humourous yet thought-provoking treatment of the subject of belief and gods, if anyone's interested.) Summed up, what I'm saying is, many if not most believers use "God" at every opportunity to justify being extremely crappy to their fellow-man, and if "God" is going to be their excuse to behave shittily, I'm perfectly happy to blame their belief in "God" for the real-world shitty consequences of putting those beliefs into practice. Not that non-believers aren't horrible to each other, just they generally don't feel like it's their divine right or worse, duty, to do so. So yeah, this atheist's problem is with religion, not "god". Good call. I'll tell you what *really* picks my ass, though: when believers (Christians are particularly bad for this) try to tout their beliefs as intellectually equivalent to views that don't rely on superstition and make-believe. As far as I'm concerned, you are free to believe what you please, be it in Jehovah, Allah, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, just please-please-pretty-please don't try to tell me that such illogical beliefs are just as valid and worthy of the same respect as those that don't involve massive suspension of disbelief. I wonder, though, how exactly is it possible to be a "Christian" and not have at least some literal belief in the Bible? If (say) you're one of the so-called "New Testament" Christians, (discounting the Old Testament in its entirety) I have to ask: whose son would you be worshipping then? The Creator's? Oh wait, that's Genesis. The Destroyer's? Oops, that's most of the Prophets, but also, Old Testament. The "Seed of David"? Gack. Also Old Testament. Shortly put, if you're free to pick and choose through the Bible as to what is fact, what is allegory and what is bald-faced fiction, then aren't you just making shit up as you go along, like what atheists are oft accused of doing? And if you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, why do you trust the catholic bishops who compiled the Bible into the volumes we have today all that much? I wouldn't -and don't! For some inexplicable reason, you're awfully ready to give Christianity as an institution (I suspect you actually mean the Catholic church, somehow) a lot of undeserved credit for our modern way of life. You mentioned something to the effect that Christianity was responsible for the demise of trial by combat, which, last I checked, was actually quite a prevailing feature of the Medieval Catholic church's legal proceedings (See also "trial by ordeal"). Strike one, it just ain't so, Joe. You do of course know that the Roman Empire (with its attendant legal system) was quite a formidable institution before the birth of Christ, don't you? You also mention banks, schools, philosophy, rhetoric, Latin culture, classical literature, gothic architecture, law, chemistry, and genetics. -I guess I'm one of the ones to point out that all of these things (except perhaps gothic architecture and genetics as a study) either pre-date Christianity or were actively fought by institutionalised Christianity for hundreds if not thousands of years (remember Galileo?). In other words, we have our modern civilisation in spite of the best efforts of Christianity (or Catholicism, if you prefer), not thanks to them. However, we do rightly have many Crusades, pogroms, Inquisistions and other too-numerous-to-count atrocities to "thank" Christianity for. -In my book, Christianity as a religion is still seriously in the red as far as being beneficial to mankind overall. It is nonetheless an amusing exercise to speculate on what might have happened in the other leg of the trousers of time (sorry Pratchett :). Overall, I agree with you: Life is basically pointless, and we all have our own ways of dealing with this fact. Incidentally, it's the fanatical godbotherers that don't generally share this view, being prepossessed with the notion that their (paradoxically) omnipresent, omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity created and is solely responsible for everything, so it ain't their problem. Dig hole in sand, insert head, cover over, quote Romans 8:28. What's more, this same breed of believer has the gall to assert that their way is the ONLY way (whee for Fascism!), and all dissenters are damned to eternal torment. -Needless to say, this is not a view terribly consistent with the idea of an omnibenevolent being, but who cares about contradiction, this is theology, not science! That being said, at the end of the day, the true believer is probably "happier" with his lot in life, but much like mainlining heroin, it's a short-term solution to a long-term problem. I say, hey, whatever gets you through the day. -but there'll be none of that Kool-Aid for me, thanks. -Just my $.02. (reply to this comment)

From einechtergrammatiknazi Monday, November 07, 2005, 05:13 (Agree/Disagree?) It would be Gott mit Uns. One doesn't capitalize articles in titles.(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Monday, November 07, 2005, 07:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks!(reply to this comment)

From Fish Sunday, November 06, 2005, 05:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Read nearly any modern history of the middle ages and you will find that the "Church" (which, duh, of course means the Catholics) is given the credit for carrying on and persevering the western tradition. The "civilizing torch" ,if you will, was passed from the Roman empire, to the Roman Church, its child. The Church was responsible for the rapid modernization of the barbarian tribes. If you doubt this, then please explain the "cultural lag" suffered by Russia and a few others, due to the fact that they were never catholisized. (no Latin = no Greek/Roman/Egyptian culture.) The view that the medieval catholic church actively suppressed knowledge is a distinctly outdated one. Most of the great minds of that time resided in the monasteries and convents. Note CONVENTS. The catholic church far from suppressing women (Da Vinchi Code nonsense) provided them with an alternative to the druggery of medieval marriage. The abbeiss of a convent often had considerable political power, most unusual for women of that time. Many of the things which the MEDIEVAL(note)catholic church is blamed for either never occured (like them promoting the idea that the world was flat. They always knew it was round) or occured during the great upheavals of the renaissance, at which time there was a general trend to "return to the past". It had its dark side along with its good. It wasn't all paintings and sculptures. As for the witch craze, the places where it was the strongest were those where the Catholics had little power. Note that is Spain and Italy there was no witch craze. The inquisition, evil as it was, claimed only a small fraction compared to the hundreds of thousands estimated to have perished in the witch hunts. If you honestly believe that the west survived "inspite of the church", please explain how in the absence of it (the catholic church) the western tradition would have continued. As for the crusades, they were nothing but imperialism, perhaps the first instance of it.(By the europe) As a rule the crusaders were more after money than anything else, as demonstrated by the sack of Constantinople. If you read any of the histories left by various Arabs of the time, you will find that many of them were close friends of the crusaders, the templars were particularly popular. And PLEASE don't give me that BS about the evils of the crusades. The Muslims had been at war and were actively invading the west long before the first crusade was launched. The "reason" stated by the pope for the first crusade was a response to the repeated pleas of Byzantium. I am in no way partial to the catholic church, and I am certainly not catholic myself. I am not excusing them for the various evils they have perpetrated on mankind, however I believe you have a rather unrealistic view of the past. Like I said earlier, no system is without its flaws. There is a lot of truth in what you said, but a lot of it has nothing to do with what I wrote. (New testament Christians?) The bottom line is that every human government is inherently evil, or at least flawed. This includes the church. Some Nazi said "god wills it", what the hell does that prove? If they were atheists it would have been "Hitler wills it". People will ALWAYS find excuses for the evils they wish to perpetrate. The French revolution and Stalinism are two perfect examples of enlightenment/atheism gone wrong. Would it be fair to blame enlightenment/atheism for these evils? Of course not. To blame are the people who perpetrated the atrocities, not the ideology they hid behind. Rothspier with his omelets and Stalin with his statistics. The same could be applied to the family. (reply to this comment)

From Baxter Sunday, November 06, 2005, 13:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Russia's 'time-lag' appeared considerably later than the middle-ages, otherwise its cultural experience was influenced by its contact with the Mongols. Russia only felt the lag in the 18th to 20th centuries. It's Christianity was a derivative of Greek orthodox, which was never (certainly not in the Middle-ages) culturally behind the Western Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was largely responsible for distorting historiography of the period to a ridiculous degree, to the extent that other influences like Islam on European culture have been all but erased from contemporary historiography of the period. The Catholic Church certainly fostered some of the greatest academic minds of their time, but they did not give them free rein. Knowledge WAS restricted by the Church, certainly theological knowledge, on account that it did threaten their authority. The Sack of Constantinople happened because by that point nobody cared about Jerusalem, and it happened considerably after the main impetus of crusading in the Levant. The first crusade was heavily motivated by racism, and this racism was largely perpetuated by the Church in its propaganda. It was imperialism (nowhere near the first instance- Merovingian and Karolingian history stands and glows, among other examples), but it had a definite religious flavour. The violence was not perpetuated by the church, but rather by noblemen acting under an espoused, though often not endorsed, clerical sanction. European culture benefitted enormously from its contact with Islam during the crusading period. this was due to noble families with members in the Levant bringing back most of this culture, or indeed getting so used to the good life in Palestine that they didn't want to come back. The Arabs at this time did have periodical wars and minor conflicts of a sort, but in terms of ideology and religion, the bigotry and hatred that came to symbolise the region and that faith was (WAS) largely a product of this same contact. It is not a cliche that the Islamic princes of this time were largely tolerant of relgious diversity. Jews and Christians of non-Catholic varieties enjoyed freedom and protection which they would not see under the Frankish invaders. This does not mean that the Ayyubids were not prone to violence and cruelty when it suited them. Some of the most horrendous pogroms of medieval Europe were perpetrated during the crusades, mostly by Noblemen and local rabble-rousers en route to the Levant. Read Samson Bar Jonah and other Jewish Chroniclers of the period. The Templars were highly respected by the Arabs, particularly the Mamluks, for the martial prowess. That every Templar of any other member of the military monastic orders in attendance was executed by Saladin after the Battle of Hattin goes a long to way to showing how popular they were, especially as Saladin was considerably more leniant with the rest of the captives. It would take too long time to explain the root causes of the 'plea' of Byzantium'. Suffice it to say that both Rome and Constantinople had agendas of their own, and neither were entirely motivated by Arab aggression. (reply to this comment)

From Fish Monday, November 07, 2005, 04:44 (Agree/Disagree?) "Russia's 'time-lag'" (Cultural lag, my dear Baxter) certainly appeared after the middle ages as "Muscovite" Russia wasnt even in existence at the time. Its cause can be traced to them, in my opinion. Originally the greeks were definitely far more advanced than the latins, however, the russians could not read greek. They were taught Cyrillic (not greek) by greek missionaries. Thus, as I clearly mentioned before, they were cut of from the western heritage. The extent of the orthodoxy versus the Tatar incursions in contributing to their backwardness is debatable. Long before the fall of Constantinople the greeks had fallen behind the latins in pretty much every way (besides perhaps diplomacy), as shown by the vast numbers of latins they were forced to employ. We could argue the various points of the crusades till we are blue in the face, what it all comes down to are the sorces we draw from. There are arab records of the templars, among other things, allowing their arab friends to pray in the mosques that were given to them to supervise in Jerusalem. Western coins from the crusades have been found with passages from the Koran inscribed on them. There were many cases of half breeds that were for the most part accepted into western society. This seems point to less rather than more racism. Of course the crusaders were somewhat racist, as were the arabs. To clarify further what I meant as to the crusades, I never said that they were justified or "good" endeavors, far from it. However, without them our civilization would hardly have advanced as it did. They were highly beneficial to western society. Once again thanks to the church. I dont know what your talking about "Merovingian and Carolingian" imperialism. I dont recollect any overseas colonies being created by them. As for suppressing "theological knowledge" who really cares? Of course the church did that, as did everyone else from eygpt onwards. (Amon/Autan conflict etc...) Like you said history is written by the victors. Its also is something so nebulous that we could argue this minor point till we die. I honestly dont care, I was enjoying playing the devils advocate, but am growing bored. Suffice it to say, I respect you and you views, and hope you respect mine. Like Napoleon said "What is history but a fable we agree upon". In this case we dont, not that it matters. (reply to this comment)

From Baxter Monday, November 07, 2005, 08:57 (Agree/Disagree?) The Merovingian and Karolingian dynasties were the respective dynasties of Clovis and Charlemagne, both of the Frankish empire. My point is that these two dynasties are the people largely responsible for the Christianisation of western Europe. they certainly became the conduits of culture and civilisation, but they did it via acts of consummate destruction and genocide. The Frankish principalities of the Levant cannot wholly be called colonies in the traditonal sense. They are much closer to semi-autonomous client-states. Calling it imperialism has definite emotional siginificance for those of us born to the 20th century, but in comparison to the modern determination of the terminology which you imposed it is arguably less than appropriate. Theological knowledge was far more politically significant in that time-period than it is now. much of modern humanism is hugely indebted to the the theological debates of the time. Philosophically, it is not so much the information that was withheld as the implications attached to the policy of withholding it. I did not at any point argue that the crusades did not have a huge cultural impact on the west. My point was that the Church was responsible for creating a predicament the implications of which remain politically relevent to this day in that part of the world, and in a way rarely seen elsewhere, nor to that degree of gravity. It is hugely(though no exclusively ) the fault of the Roman Catholic Church. I NEVER said history is written by the victors. In any case it is often not. History is subjective, but only one who takes no interest in history as either academia or aesthetic would refer to it as nebulous. Historiography can often be refered to as nebulous (depending on the reliability and agenda of the historiographer) but history remains to be discerned regardless. The study of history, my dear fish (fucking ever refer to me in this manner again! (kidding)) is the study of those arguments. (reply to this comment)

From Fish Tuesday, November 08, 2005, 06:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Semantics, my dear Baxter, semantics.(reply to this comment)

From Baxter Friday, November 11, 2005, 05:26 (Agree/Disagree?) It's noly semantics if you don't care about history, which I do (I'm studying it, for goodness' sake). The implications of history are considerably more than semantics. If you don't want to raise a debate about semantics, then -my dear fish- you should not raise questions about history -or indeed any other academic field. You can't just dismiss response to your arguments as semantics. (reply to this comment)

From Fish Friday, November 11, 2005, 08:20 (Agree/Disagree?) I thought I just did. If I want a lecture on the difference between history and histography, I can simply reread any introduction to the "Histories" by Herodutus.(tenth grade?) Like I said semantics. (reply to this comment)

From Baxter Friday, November 11, 2005, 14:20 (Agree/Disagree?) fuck off.(reply to this comment)

From Fist Friday, November 11, 2005, 18:59 (Agree/Disagree?) haha!!! Its Tacitus debating with Cassius Dio. Who would win everytime?(reply to this comment)

From Baxter Saturday, November 12, 2005, 04:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Tacitus, hands down!(reply to this comment)

From Fist Saturday, November 12, 2005, 21:27 (Agree/Disagree?) No shit boyo...(reply to this comment)

From Fish Tuesday, November 08, 2005, 09:29 (Agree/Disagree?) I would love to continue this quibbling, but Im off to Ukraine on the morrow, where thanks to the GREEK ORTHODOX they probably dont have computers yet. Never fear, Ill shall return!(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, November 08, 2005, 06:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Fish, I was the one who said history is written by the victors, and Baxter, while I agree that every side of a given incident will have (and may even write) their own version, it's the one held by the victor which is most likely to be carried forward. Even if it is later replaced by the 'new' victor. There is an incredible amount of prejudice in any given historical account - I mean, every year or so some new documentary comes out alternately depicting Catherine the Great as a despotic sex-crazed dictator, or enlightened monarch (or anything between). Each claiming to have 'solid historical evidence' to support their claim. This is just one example that came to mind, but it is repeated with one character or event after the other.(reply to this comment)

From Fish Tuesday, November 08, 2005, 06:53 (Agree/Disagree?) My bad.(reply to this comment)

From Baxter Monday, November 07, 2005, 08:57 (Agree/Disagree?) The Merovingian and Karolingian dynasties were the respective dynasties of Clovis and Charlemagne, both of the Frankish empire. My point is that these two dynasties are the people largely responsible for the Christianisation of western Europe. they certainly became the conduits of culture and civilisation, but they did it via acts of consummate destruction and genocide. The Frankish principalities of the Levant cannot wholly be called colonies in the traditonal sense. They are much closer to semi-autonomous client-states. Calling it imperialism has definite emotional siginificance for those of us born to the 20th century, but in comparison to the modern determination of the terminology which you imposed it is arguably less than appropriate. Theological knowledge was far more politically significant in that time-period than it is now. much of modern humanism is hugely indebted to the the theological debates of the time. Philosophically, it is not so much the information that was withheld as the implications attached to the policy of withholding it. I did not at any point argue that the crusades did not have a huge cultural impact on the west. My point was that the Church was responsible for creating a predicament the implications of which remain politically relevent to this day in that part of the world, and in a way rarely seen elsewhere, nor to that degree of gravity. It is hugely(though no exclusively ) the fault of the Roman Catholic Church. I NEVER said history is written by the victors. In any case it is often not. History is subjective, but only one who takes no interest in history as either academia or aesthetic would refer to it as nebulous. Historiography can often be refered to as nebulous (depending on the reliability and agenda of the historiographer) but history remains to be discerned regardless. The study of history, my dear fish (fucking ever refer to me in this manner again! (kidding)) is the study of those arguments. (reply to this comment)

From Korpesco Sunday, November 06, 2005, 17:00 (Agree/Disagree?) The portraying of "islamic culture" as intellectually superior is misleading. Islam assimilated heavily from the peoples it conquered such as the parthians, egypt, and most of the ancient world. These peoples guarded most of the ancient knowledge and this was natually assimilated by the islamic invaders who on outset were nothing more than sheep herders. And while some of the culture and civilisation of these lands rubbed off on the muslim invaders, Islam effectually snuffed out the spark of knowledge and innovation in these lands, stunting them. (reply to this comment)

From Fish Sunday, November 06, 2005, 07:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Anyone annoyed by the "Swedeishness" of this reply has my heartfelt apologies. I am simply tired of repeating myself. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Sunday, November 06, 2005, 06:20 (Agree/Disagree?) The fact of the matter is that history has been, and continues to be, re-written by the victors. Last night I watched a very interesting documentary by Bettany Hughes about the Muslim occupation of Spain. It was an interesting history, and challenged many of the hollywood-style stereotypes which have been deliberately disseminated by Spanish authorities since.(reply to this comment)

From Fist Sunday, November 06, 2005, 01:17 (Agree/Disagree?) May I ask which of these numerous pogroms were carried out against the Jewish people in the direct name of Christianity? Im curious?(reply to this comment)

From iain Saturday, November 05, 2005, 18:29 (Agree/Disagree?) The ultimate destination of any extreme point of view is to come to terms with the ultimate inevitability of ones own demise(reply to this comment)

from a mommy alligator Friday, November 04, 2005 - 18:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, I am to blame, and society is to blame, and if we really want to get into it, my parents are to blame. If I had had a nurturing family life, I doubt I would have sought for love and purpose in the arms of a cult. A cult who preys upon the innocence, naivete, and good-heartedness of its victims. So here I am, 30 years later, with nothing to show for my years of servitude but regret, mistakes, and the knowledge I gave years of my life for a sad and sick cause. Yes, I am the one who made the mistake of joining a cult, allowing myself and my children to have been used and abused (like a battered wife - without the guts to leave.) I am glad that finally that day of freedom came for us, and the challenges that lay ahead are formidable. "None of us can change our yesterdays, but all of us can change our tomorrows." (Colin Powell) Life goes on, and I'll just "keep swimming" till I die, doing my utmost to provide a better life for my kids. (reply to this comment)

from conjoined twins Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 07:32 (Agree/Disagree?) You right that most of us think we’re very interesting and important, but paradoxically the same 'most of us' cannot believe that god might be willing to communicate with us directly (not via a prophet or a book or a group). The idea is too fantastic, too incredible, so they don’t really try. How many people in the Family communicate directly to god? - even if they pray over every little thing, the ‘answers’ come from the group not god. Surely god would tell them to get out of the group if they ever did manage to communicate with him. (reply to this comment)

from mia1 Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 03:36 (Agree/Disagree?) dude I love you!!! Can I have ur baby!! You made my day! I think I will take your article and laminate it so I can read it everyday... Sigh! (reply to this comment)

From Fish Thursday, November 03, 2005, 08:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks.(reply to this comment)

from AndyH Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 18:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Love the baby alligator Metaphor. It is silly to be angry at something you dont believe in, but I think the real anger is at the way Christians are so loud and confident, that there is no other way but theirs and you are so completely wrong. Not just wrong but pending eternal punishment. Not to mention the constant bombardment of propaganda from friends, family, TV, billboards, and door to door solicitors, all of them condemning you, and to top it off the fucking chaplain leading the battalion in prayer, Its inescapable. "Hello Fuckface, did it ever occur to you that some of us aren't stupid enough to believe in an invisible man? Much less talk to him? Why must we suffer this constant sweeping generalization? No I will not bow my fucking head." I don't ask anyone to agree with me, I just want to be left the fuck alone, I never want to hear the words jesus god heaven hell bible again for as long as I live, is that too much to ask? Whatever happened to go into thy closet and shut thy door and your father who sees you in secret will reward you in secret? Or however it goes. (reply to this comment)

from Fist Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 17:44 (Agree/Disagree?) I feel a bit better after I bash my head against the wall and then shag a sheep... Only to find Im a little crocodile... Im so sorry dear sheep we are not genetically compatible... But then Im an Atheist... and apparently Atheists dont believe in the God Almightys great laws of nature... It might go as planned lover... (reply to this comment)

from Baxter Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 17:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Attaboy, Neil! Feel better now? (reply to this comment)

From Fish Thursday, November 03, 2005, 08:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Theres a reason I dont use my name on the net. Respect my privacy, King Alfred.(reply to this comment)

From Baxter Saturday, November 05, 2005, 15:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Feel free to use my name whenever you please. (reply to this comment)

From Fish Sunday, November 06, 2005, 07:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Feel free to keep mine to yourself, umkay?(reply to this comment)

from GoldenMic Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 17:17 (Agree/Disagree?) I really enjoyed your comments, thoughtfully and logically written, and I agree with much of what you say. I am also, however, persuaded by Jules' recent comments reminding us to rejoice in the newfound freedom and enthusiasm of those who have finally found the liberty to reject the God and religion of their past. One thing, I am not certain you are being totally logical when you shift the blame away from God or religion and place it on "society". To me, society is just another monolith that is often expected to save us and protect us. I think that it is the parents who are to blame, the psycho's who kept us there and allowed us to be abused, even joining in the abuse. They made us, they were responsible. I just feel that the focus of our angst and anger should be aimed at the bastards who actually did the damage, not so much on those near-mythical figures who we think should have done the job our parents failed to do. I say this respectfully, as an alternative opinion, and appreciate your own right and skill at presenting an alternative opinion. (reply to this comment)

From goldfinger Friday, November 04, 2005, 17:41 (Agree/Disagree?) I disagree that the parents are the one to blame. To be sure the blame lies partially with them. But they were often acting accord to their own perception of the world. My own perception of the world has changed so many times recently, with every change feeling quite like "the truth," that I feel I can empathize with them. I can't help feeling that if I were a young person in the sixties or seventies and had no prior knowledge of cults and the way they operate, I may have joined the children of god myself. No one in those days really knew about cults. There were no ex-cult members to warn people. They just thought that they could "make a difference." Please don't think I am saying that the people who are truly sick (and would be so anywhere else in society) should be let off the hook, but I do think that it is naive and simplistic to blanket the blame of the wrong that happened in our childhood on "the parents." They, so often, simply did not know better.(reply to this comment)

From notgivingmyname Friday, November 04, 2005, 18:08 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't think it's naive and simplistic to put the bulk of the blame on our parents. And no I do not feel sorry for them. How can u come here and make such a cruel comment. What are u thinking? Does feeding ur children out of a trash can because ur to goddamn lazy to find a job or maybe put ur kid in school constitute as "not knowing better"? Does letting ur little girls beg on the streets from the time they could barely walk constitute as "not knowing better"? Where do you get your logic? It's not about whether or not they had someone there to hold them by the hand to tell them right from wrong. When u have a child, a life that u alone are resposible for how can u conciously let them come to harm. (reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Friday, November 04, 2005, 21:37 (Agree/Disagree?) I heard this the other day and thought it surely must be talking about a child's frustration and regret regarding their parents. I don't usually listen to pop music but this one did catch my attention: I will not make the same mistakes that you did I will not let myself Cause my heart so much misery I will not break the way you did, You fell so hard I've learned the hard way To never let it get that far I watched you die I heard you cry every night in your sleep I was so young You should have known better than to lean on me You never thought of anyone else You just saw your pain And now I cry in the middle of the night For the same damn thing Because of you I never stray too far from the sidewalk Because of you I learned to play on the safe side so I don't get hurt Because of you I try my hardest just to forget everything Because of you I don't know how to let anyone else in Because of you I'm ashamed of my life because it's empty Because of you I am afraid(reply to this comment)

From new poster Friday, November 04, 2005, 18:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Not everyone experienced the horrors you mentioned. Nevertheless, I concede your point.(reply to this comment)

From stillnotsayingmyname Friday, November 04, 2005, 18:16 (Agree/Disagree?) the horrors I mentioned are nothing compared to what others have sufferd...(reply to this comment)

From meneither Saturday, November 05, 2005, 15:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Which is why that was such an irresponsible and ignorant comment. Fuck you goldfinger.(reply to this comment)