Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
I will no longer be tolerant of
other religions 26%
unwed mothers 11%
single sex familys 5%
drug users 12%
baby kilers 25%
homosexual behavior 19%

Votes: 88

 What shall we give up for Lent?

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Feb 12, 2002
 Comments:
As we approach the holiest season, we will be asked what we intend to give up for Lent. Instead of the usual namby-pamby sacrifices (chocolate, wine, televised sports) let's do something more drastic. For this Lenten season, I ask that you consider giving up tolerance.
religion

More stories about Religion
Holes
Is Catholicism to be tolerated?
Wicca - a scientific, Christian approach to the problem
Winning The Battle Against Pornography
Christianity isn't working in the USA; Is Islam the answer ?
The Scriptural Proof of Extraterrestrial Life
The Revival of the Ancient Ways
The Problem is You - Not Religion
We are all children of Adam and Eve
A Taliban Warlord answers YOUR questions.
Islam: What is it?
Kill Yr Idols: God
Have a Right Halloween!
Religion: The Appendix of Modern Society
The Evil of Harry Potter
Islam is not the enemy
Happy Birthday Christ!
Bloody Sunday, Bloody Right!
Reclaiming St. Patrick's Day
The Proselytizing Atheist
Let us pray for the priests and victims of sexual abuse
The Incontrovertible Existence of God
Tolkien, Star Wars and Jesus Christ
World Youth Day: An Alarming Report

More stories by
Adam Rightmann

My husband wants to do my ass!
Rock Star: Headbanging Nights
Saluting American Heroes on Flight 93
We are all children of Adam and Eve
I'm a teenager, and I want it bad!
I have not had relations for months!
My neighbors are foreigners, and they don't fly a flag
Have a Right Halloween!
Should we circumcize our boy?
My wife hungers for dark meat, and my nephew is a Commie!
My husband wants me shorn!
My inlaws are not fertile!
Help save a baby, and snowballs
Reclaiming St. Patrick's Day
Let us pray for the priests and victims of sexual abuse
Why can't I get a second date?
I want a mistress!
My roommate is gay! My roommate is a drunk.
What, give up tolerance? Isn't the hallmark of our enlightened age a greater appreciation for diversity, an increased tolerance for differences? Well, this enlightened age is really a cess pool of moral turpitude in which we are stading up to our necks, and the feces are rising. For this I blame too much tolerance.

To start with, let's have less tolerance of other religions. As a member of the true Church, you know that all non-Catholics are doomed to eternal agony in the pits of sulforous hellfire, and non-practicing Catholics and Catholics who die in a state of sin need to spend eons in purgatory. So if you really care about your nice agnostic cube mate, your nice Jewish pediatrician, your sister who's obviously using birth control and your swell neighbor who worships at a heretical Baptist church, are you going to sit there and let them head for an eternity of torment, or are you going to try to bring them into the true Church? Offer to bring them to Mass (let them know ahead of time that they have to leave at Communion, of course), explain the history of the true Church, offer to babysit their children Sunday morning, whatever it takes.

How about less tolerance of unwed mothers. Back in the days, an unwed mother would drop her baby off at an orphanage. Sure, it was heartbreaking, but a lot of orphans grew up to be productive citizens, and a lot of people became parents who couldn't. Nowadays, unwed motherhood is practically a career option. Drop out of high school, have a few kids and pull in the government checks. So what if your girls grow up to be immoral sluts, and you boys grow up to be misogynist, irresponsible gang members, it's not your problem. Just subtly talk about the nice people who would love to adopt children, and the irreparable spiritual harm done to a child growing up in a single parent household.

Let's have less tolerance of drug users. George Dubya Bush may be a snake-handling, murdering, cowardly moron, but he hit the nail right on the head when he read the speech his handlers gave him on drug users being terrorists. Did you know that in most major cities, you can buy marijuana smoking materials right on Main Street? For a small fee, you can use the license plate number of one of these dope-head customers and get their address from the DMV. It's but a short step to calling the police for strange odors and loud music coming from their house or apartment. The potheads may hate you at first, but after they've cleaned up and licked the evil weed, they will be grateful.

Let's have less tolerance of baby killers. In addition to the picketing of abortionists and the racists supremacists at Planned Parenthood, how about picketing the pharmacies and groceries that sell the Pill, and condoms and sponges.

Let's have less tolerance of homosexual behavior. Sure, perhaps your cross to bear is a perverted sexual inclination towards a member of the same sex. You are a far greater person if you resist that temptation; and with prayer, cold showers and exercise, you will be able to resist it.

Now, many of you are wondering what chance a small, persecuted minority like us Catholics have of influencing America. Well, you have to start somewhere, why not with us. I say we make our stand at the bottom of this pit of moral relativism, and strive for a more moral America from now on!

See you in Church tomorrow!


Bah (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by westgeof on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 10:19:37 AM PST
I say give up christianity altogether for lent. What the world need is more people willing to think for themselves, to show kindness towards others, and to be open to new ideas; all things prohibited by this religion.

It's sad that something that was begun in the true spirit of idealism and hope has been corrupted by an organization that goes against that idealism in evey way.

(Note that although I speak against christianity here, I don't think much more about any other religion. And for the record, I'm not an atheist, just agnostic. I'm sure there is something out there, but I doubt that whatever that being is, it doesn't need to be filtered through greedy and selfish individuals or organizatons to reach me.)


As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

Brilliant. (1.00 / 1) (#6)
by tkatchev on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 10:52:45 AM PST
So. If I understand what you are trying to say, the best way to start thinking for yourself is to buy wholesale into a suspicous, pervasive ideology. Am I getting the hang of this "free thinking" business? You know, I awfully want to be a free thinker, but I'm afraid I don't have much practise with this activity. Can you give me some instructions on how best to become a free thinker? Thank you very much. I await eagerly.


--
Peace and much love...




Oops. (1.00 / 1) (#7)
by tkatchev on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 10:54:41 AM PST
"Practice", of course. Sorry.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Not at all (none / 0) (#13)
by westgeof on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 11:57:22 AM PST
It seems to me if you'r intelligent enough to put words in my mouth, then surely you are also capable of understanding how to think for yourself. I may be wrong, but I always thought it was rather simple.

Believe it or not, I don't have any conspiracy theories floating around my brain, and I don't conform to anyone's idea of what I should be like. As you so sarcastically put it, many so-called 'free-thinkers' are simply slaves to an alternative brainwashing.

If you weren't being sarcastic, though, and would like some advice on how to think freely, I can give two golden rules.
  • Rule number one, if someone tells you to think something, odds are you shouldn't. There's nothing wrong with a convincing argument, while there is everything wrong with being forced to think something.
  • Rule number two: when in doubt, just don't think. Don't think consciously, that is, and listen instead to your unconscious. Overanalyzing something is often not good for you, and tends to promote crowd following, as it is usually the 'safest' path.



As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

 
Ooh! I got one hint! (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by elenchos on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 12:08:21 PM PST
Free thinkers do not react to labeling, such as "you are a liberalist", as if it were an argument. This means that they don't change their minds just because some guy came along and called them a name. Instead, free thinkers give weight to conclusions that are supported by a logically-related set of points.

Practice that one a bit and maybe later I'll give you another.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Oh. (1.00 / 1) (#18)
by tkatchev on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 12:34:26 PM PST
I see. Effectively, you are saying that logic is the measure of all things.

I'll remember that when I fall in love, or if I happen to be dying of starvation.

Glad you gave so much meaning to my life.


--
Peace and much love...




I said that!? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by elenchos on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 12:42:07 PM PST
I thought I said "give weight to". Is that really the same as "measure of all things by"?

Look, if English really gives you so much trouble, just say so, and we will make some special handicap rule for you, so as to avoid this kind of embarassment. Perhaps you should find someone who is fluent in both Russian and English to review your comments and fix them up before you post them.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Sir, (1.00 / 1) (#32)
by tkatchev on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 09:47:09 PM PST
You are starting to act edgy for some reason.

Perhaps it is your troubled conscience speaking?


--
Peace and much love...




your attack (none / 0) (#75)
by rsknapp on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 04:44:37 PM PST
"ad hominem" is not an argument!


When have I ever argued rationally? (none / 0) (#77)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 03:53:33 AM PST
Really. I consider logical arguments beneath me.

Logic is the crutch of the simple-minded.


--
Peace and much love...




I agree (none / 0) (#80)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 05:37:21 AM PST
Really. I consider logical arguments beneath me.

I agree. No self-respecting politician would use a logical argument when an emotionally loaded, bandwagon-jumping argument would work so much better.

If you want to convince the masses, deception and trickery is the way to go. If that doesn't work, threat of force is the all-curing panacea. History proves this.
An unreformed Aristotlean


yep, we'd all be much wiser if we stopped (none / 0) (#81)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 05:45:04 AM PST
trying to prove stuff with logic.

I agree. No self-respecting politician would use a logical argument

That's because rational argument never convinced anyone of anything they didnt "feel" was true to begin with.


so... (none / 0) (#83)
by derek3000 on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 05:59:38 AM PST
everything that we 'feel' to be right is right? That's the worst foundation for a philosophy I've ever heard.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Philosophy... (none / 0) (#84)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 06:58:14 AM PST
Philosophy is a crutch for those who have serious problems interacting with society. It makes these people feel like they aren't complete failure.

P.S. I don't mean to insult anyone who is involved in philosophy. I merely meant those people who believe that philosophy is an end-all-be-all foundation of life. Everything is good in moderation -- philosophy g**ks can be even more pathetic than software g**ks.


--
Peace and much love...




I agree. (none / 0) (#85)
by derek3000 on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 07:17:28 AM PST
But what does that have to do with what I said?


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
Re: (none / 0) (#86)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 07:40:15 AM PST
What I meant is:

You are correct -- that would be a horrible foundation for a system of philosophy. It would also be a very useful way of leading a balanced, holistic lifestyle.

If I had to choose between philosophy and lifestyle, I would choose lifestyle. I think any healthy person would agree with me, no?


--
Peace and much love...




Getting to know you. (none / 0) (#101)
by derek3000 on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 11:05:54 AM PST
I knew you would say that! I don't mean that in a bad way, either.

Your idea that our conscience is the voice of God is very interesting. But don't you think that it could be shaped/distorted by different cultures and religions? Just a thought.

One more question--and try to 'unload' it, because I can't exactly say it a certain way through this medium: How do you know that the Bible is the word of God? I know a lot of people who post here are hypocritical when it comes to knowing exactly what it is that God 'wants' for us; i.e. a troll saying "How do you know God doesn't like abortions? God would want everyone to accept each other," etc.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

"The word of God". (none / 0) (#102)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 12:00:57 PM PST
But don't you think that it could be shaped/distorted by different cultures and religions?

I don't "think", I know this for a fact. In any case, we are all guilty on some level. Learning to be honest with yourself is just the first step.

As for the second part: if by the phrase "word of God" you mean "literally from God's mouth" than no, that is a ridiculous and satanic concept. Only heretical fundamentalists believe that. (i.e. Snake-handlers and muslims.) I'd be surprised to know how little these people represent true Christianity.

The Bible is a holy book in the sense that it is divinely inspired -- meaning that even though it was written by actual, living people, for actual, living people, it has been imbued with divine grace[1].

[1] Interpret that as you wish; I don't have any intention on making this harder on you than it needs be.


--
Peace and much love...




Substitute: "You'd be..." for "I'd (none / 0) (#103)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 12:03:29 PM PST
Sorry.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Um... (none / 0) (#104)
by derek3000 on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 12:30:11 PM PST
[1] Interpret that as you wish; I don't have any intention on making this harder on you than it needs be.

Are you being condescending? Just wondering. I would be pissed if you were.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

No, not at all. (none / 0) (#105)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 12:52:51 PM PST
I just seriously do not want to sound pedantic.


--
Peace and much love...




 
that's *your* incorrect inference (none / 0) (#90)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 08:15:17 AM PST
It isnt what I wrote.

everything that we 'feel' to be right is right?

No, but "rational argument never convinced anyone of anything they didnt "feel" was true to begin with." (Although I fail to see how any putative truth isnt based on faith.)


Rational argument (none / 0) (#121)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 03:00:37 PM PST
I think I see what you mean. In other words, you couldn't convince me that the earth is flat with any amount of rational argument; the belief (which, as far as I know, happens to be true) that the earth is round is too firmly held by me.


 
can it be? (none / 0) (#25)
by nathan on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 01:56:15 PM PST
I doubt that whatever that being is, it doesn't need to be filtered through greedy and selfish individuals or organizatons to reach me.

Martin Luther! I thought you were dead!



Oh wait. You are.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

My friends call me 'Marty' (none / 0) (#39)
by westgeof on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 05:36:56 AM PST
Actually, I am not the reincarnated spirit of Martin Luther, nor will I be nailing and lists of grievences to and doors. However, I guess you could classify me as a protestant, just in the most extreme sense. I don't believe in any religions, I feel they simply pervert any spiritual nature one might have. I'm a much bigger fan of getting in touch with God on your own. My spirituality is my business, not that of some priest who, odds are, doesn't follow what he preaches.


As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

but! but! (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by nathan on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 06:28:50 AM PST
My spirituality is my business, not that of some priest who, odds are, doesn't follow what he preaches.

Priests are only human too. On the other hand, there are good reasons for there to be an authoritative, historically legitimate body in control of doctrine. The Catholic and Orthodox churches, whatever faults they may have, are repositories of a vital, 2000-year-old philosophical dialogue. It's kind of shocking to watch fundamentalists today rehashing theological issues that was decisively solved[1] such a long time ago.

[1] By 'solved,' I mean that the more repellent or philosophically inept concepts were weeded out of them, leaving solid thinking behind.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

relativism (none / 0) (#45)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:00:22 AM PST
The Catholic and Orthodox churches, whatever faults they may have, are repositories of a vital, 2000-year-old philosophical dialogue.

They certainly are!

It's kind of shocking to watch fundamentalists today rehashing theological issues that was decisively solved[1] such a long time ago.

There's a well known phrase, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it". I mean, you think by now mankind would have tired of wars, but there's always some convincing reason to have another one, and lo and behold, more people are murdered in the name of one power or another.

The main problem people have with churches and movements and religions are not their theological heritage, but their political nature. Perhaps you should explore this aspect as much as you have obviously explored the theological and philosophical aspects.


Sorry (none / 0) (#48)
by Right Hand Man on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:19:15 AM PST
more people are murdered in the name of one power or another

No one is murdered in a war, at least not in the sense you are trying to convey. They are killed, for sure, but not murdered.

The main problem people have with churches and movements and religions are not their theological heritage, but their political nature

Not all churches have a political component. Check out one of the many commonly known as Churches of God with Signs Following. Those I have visited engage in no political activism and generally stay well out of the affairs of government. While you may seem some things as having a political motivations, attacks on abortion providers for instance, they are really just our attempts to do the work asked of us by God.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Politics (none / 0) (#51)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:49:47 AM PST
No one is murdered in a war, at least not in the sense you are trying to convey. They are killed, for sure, but not murdered.

What about civilians, or people forced to draft against their will? These people did not choose to engage in combat, yet their lives were stolen from them by their fellow man. As I'm sure you'll agree, the right to end another's life is a power belonging to God alone.

I have visited engage in no political activism and generally stay well out of the affairs of government.

My dear fellow, politics is found in more places than just goverment. Certainly, the lion's share of politics is found there, but politics can be found in all areas of life, including churches. For example:
  • Who owns the land the church is built on? Who permitted the church to be built? Who owns the church?
  • Who gives the sermons? If that person retires or passes away, who replaces him? Who chooses the replacement?
  • Are their collections taken from the congregation? Who banks the collection? Who chooses what the money is spent on?
I do not know the answers to these questions, as I have not been to the church you mention. But the answers to these questions reveal the political nature of the church.

While you may seem some things as having a political motivations, attacks on abortion providers for instance, they are really just our attempts to do the work asked of us by God.

Yes, that may be the case, but this would still be a political statement. Perhaps the shrewdest faith-based organisation would be the Freemasons. These people have taken the political stance of not officially passing comment on any public matters, thus ensuring their political survival for thousands of years with no bloodshed.


 
Didn't Karl Marx say that? (none / 0) (#57)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 08:24:41 AM PST



the quote is (none / 0) (#58)
by nathan on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 08:40:52 AM PST
Santayana: "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

I may just have been trolled, but that's a risk I will have to live with.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

My Bad (none / 0) (#63)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 10:43:03 AM PST
That sounded suspicially like Historical Materialims, but I would not accuse you of buying into that sin


 
re (1.00 / 1) (#70)
by PotatoError on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 02:46:39 PM PST
"By 'solved,' I mean that the more repellent or philosophically inept concepts were weeded out of them, leaving solid thinking behind."

You mean religion accepts the scientific method??

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

science is not above criticism (1.00 / 1) (#71)
by nathan on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 03:07:44 PM PST
And you are NOT free to continue quoting me out of context for obnoxious trollery. My signature will now reflect this.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

hmm (2.50 / 2) (#89)
by PotatoError on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 08:06:55 AM PST
and

The above post is ©, and the sole and sovereign property of PotatoError, it may not be copied or included in any post in any way without the prior permission of PotatoError.

religion is not above criticism either.

"And you are NOT free to continue quoting me out of context for obnoxious trollery. My signature will now reflect this."


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
very good comment (1.00 / 2) (#69)
by PotatoError on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 02:41:58 PM PST
yes you speak what religion really is.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Not enough! (none / 0) (#93)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 02:51:41 PM PST
Give up religion, tolerance and humanism.
These are the most glorified virtues, and you should not go for anything less on lent. What more could you sacrifice on lent?


 
hell yea (none / 0) (#124)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 12:12:33 AM PST
I agree with you 100%


 
Omission from the article (none / 0) (#3)
by Yossarian on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 10:24:14 AM PST
Excellent and thought-provoking article -- you neglected to mention onanism though. It may be less serious than the other sins you mention above -- an onanist only sends himself to hell, but a Mormon or a single mother can condemn their entire family to eternal damnation. However, it is probably the most overlooked sin in these shameless times that we live in. Having struggled with it myself, I know how insidious it is...


Spelling Error in Subject (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by jvance on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 11:53:56 AM PST
That should read "Emission from the article."

HTH

jvance
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
Beautiful (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Right Hand Man on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 10:44:13 AM PST
With the exception of the entire third paragraph, and the possibility that the second sentence of the fifth paragraph is blasphemous, this is by far the best article I have ever read on this internet, at Adequacy or otherwise.

For years I have spoken out against tolerance. All of this 'open your mind' crap is just marginally disguised newspeak for rolling over and accepting any sort of deviant behavior some mentally impoverished person might think up. I say screw opening your mind, it only serves to allow unfiltered sin to come pouring in. What we all really need is to take a step back and look at things for what they are, then strike back with all of the fury we can muster at the damnable, Godless, heathens. But I'm only restating the points made in this article.

It is high time that right thinking men stood up made their presence known. Your lot might be to take one of the suggestions made by Mr. Rightmann, or it might be to step outside those bourdaries and be a little more hands on, you'll never know unless you make the decision to draw a line in the dirt and defend it.

Also, is it possible to vote for more than one option in a poll? I am unfamiliar with the workings of the thing but I was not able to simultaneously choose every single option and, although I placed my vote against the bottom of the barrel, baby killers, I despise all of them equally.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

 
Less "creative theology" next time, OK? (none / 0) (#5)
by tkatchev on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 10:48:23 AM PST
The Church has very clear guidelines for how to best approach Lent. Our ancestors have perfected the procedure for hundreds of generations before us, so the less you invent yourself, the better for your soul.

Trust me, our ancestors were much smarter than we are today. They knew what they were doing.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Question about Lent. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by hauntedattics on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 10:56:46 AM PST
Mr. Rightmann:

Is it acceptable to talk about what you gave up for Lent? A friend of mine once gave up chocolate for Lent, and reminded me every day what a big sacrifice she'd made and how great she was for making it...usually while I was eating chocolate.

Isn't there some sort of rule against that kind of behavior? It seems rather prideful to me...

Sincerely,
Haunted and Vexed



Prideful, and street cornerish, too (none / 0) (#17)
by Adam Rightmann on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 12:27:00 PM PST
Being a sinful human, I often think cynical thoughts about those who are so fervent in their prayers and sacrifices, almsot a praying on street corner kind of thing. To be charitable, perhaps your friend was looking for spiritual help in avoiding the temptation of chocolate. As for myself, I try to keep my Lenten sacrifices between myslef, the Lord, and a priest.


A. Rightmann

How close are you to your priest Adam? (4.33 / 3) (#27)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 02:26:36 PM PST
It seems that most of your ignorance stems from the fact that you were once (or more often) molested by your priest. Is this possible or do you think I may be off base. The priest molestion thing is very common and I am sure there are many support groups to chose from.

Joe


What?? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by hauntedattics on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 06:03:06 AM PST
Oh, now I get it! Priest...child molester...wow, that's really clever and so unexpected. I never would have thought that some bonehead would automatically equate all Catholic priests with child molesters, just based on what he or she reads in the mainstream press.

For all so-called 'liberal' people talk about tolerance and open-mindedness, it only seems to extend to others who are just like themselves. Convenient. Just like this butthead who makes me embarrassed to call Washington, DC my birthplace. Disgusting.

[Ahem] Done with my rant. Back to smiling, mild-mannered girl. Pardon the interruption.


Adam? was that you? (none / 0) (#49)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:39:49 AM PST
Posing as a girl and using a different name does little to convince me that I am off base. I did not mention all catholic priests nor did I claim I am liberal or openminded. I do believe their is help for you if only you get beyond this denial. Perhaps you have buried the molestation deep into your mind and no longer remember it. Again, seed a group which will help you.


No, hauntedattics is a young woman in Boston (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:49:39 AM PST
I am in upstate New York. Believe it or not, there is more than one person on this site who believes the vast majority of priests are upright, celibate men who can provide you with much spiritual guidance.

Why would I need an alter-ego to push my viewpoints when I could just abuse my editorial privileges and silence you?


A. Rightmann

So you actually believe what you post? (none / 0) (#54)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 08:04:53 AM PST
I thought this was a JOKE! LMAO


Nasty. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by hauntedattics on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 03:14:35 PM PST
Sir or madam, please pick your ass up off the floor or I will step on it. Thank you kindly.



 
Addendum (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by hauntedattics on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 03:23:06 PM PST
Oh, and one more thing - fuck off and die.

Luv,
Haunted




 
True (none / 0) (#56)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 08:20:20 AM PST
Believe it or not, there is more than one person on this site who believes the vast majority of priests are upright, celibate men who can provide you with much spiritual guidance.

Absolutely. It is only the sick, twisted paedophiles who lie and cheat their way into positions of authority (including, but not limited to, the Catholic church) who are the problem here. And so is anyone who covers for these monsters' actions.


 
Thats disgusting (none / 0) (#59)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 09:08:37 AM PST
A feeble wafer of a sun rises through the morning layers of downtown smog, looking like a white aspirin in the sky, encircled by a weirdly cheerful rainbow

That man should be buried up to his neck, smeared with honey, and feasted upon by ants for making me suffer through that sentence.


 
Further explanation (none / 0) (#94)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 03:27:07 PM PST
The true weakness in my argument was my inability to connect 'being molested by a priest' with ignorance. Since I am not an expert on this I can only bring up cases with similar codependant abusive situations like the wife who stays married to the husband who beats her (something else supported by the Catholic church btw.) It apears that like the hostage who builds up an affinity for his/her captive, the ignorant burrow into the catholic church. Its to bad you happened to be born catholic and not muslim, at least as a muslim you would have a halfway respectible religion. (i.e less molestion but with the benefits of wife beating etc.)

Joe


Clue. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
by hauntedattics on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 05:52:01 AM PST
Dear Mr. Troll:

Here's a clue for you - I am not Catholic.

It's a mindbender, eh?

Haunted



Troll? (none / 0) (#111)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 02:32:55 PM PST
Did I say you were? Why then did you decide to take what I said personally?

Joe


Confusion. (none / 0) (#115)
by hauntedattics on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 03:42:02 PM PST
Yes, you did:

Its [sic] to [sic] bad you happened to be born catholic and not muslim...

You may have been being sincere in your comments about priests, Catholics and child molestation. Based on your comments in a previous post about making a joke and laughing your ass off, I assumed that you were making inflammatory statements designed solely to get someone to react to them. If that's not trolling, or if you were sincere, then my apologies for calling you a troll.

I took what you said personally and reacted as I did to get you to think a bit about stereotypes. Not all priests are child-molesters, and not all non-Catholics view that venerable religion with repugnance and hostility.




So you are Adam? (none / 0) (#117)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 05:45:25 AM PST



 
Are you using troll correctly? (none / 0) (#114)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 06:46:48 AM PST
Trolling is a form of a form of fishing*. A person doesn't call a fisherman who trolls a troll, or even a troller. Troll (as you are using it) is a verb, not a noun. Please try to correct your grammar in the future and/or start using words as they were intended. This abuse cannot be tolerated.

Thanks,
Joe

*Trolling is the form of fishing where line is cast from a boat and the boat moves through the water thereby increasing the chance of exposing the lure to a fish. Generally you don't troll for suckers, you spear them or net them, but some times a stupid sucker will bite anyway....


 
wrong (none / 0) (#113)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 04:50:03 AM PST
Spousal abuse as you describe is grounds for an anullment.


 
Schismatic, non heretical (none / 0) (#9)
by ICS Dempsey KBE on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 11:04:43 AM PST
I am pleased that you rightly left Anglicans out of the list of those doomed for eternal torment. We in the schismatic, non-heretical Rites are, to my dismay, often classified with that chaotic band of deluded souls that left the true Church in the Protestant Reformation (as if we could expect more from the Germans).

I thank you for your ecumenical spirit, Mr. Rightmann. I will ask St. Thomas More to pray for you and the ecumenical movement this Lent.


Ahh yes, the Adultican, ^H^H^H^H Anglicans (none / 0) (#42)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 06:42:43 AM PST
Founded when a tinpot despot couldn't keep his codpiece tied, and wanted spiritual power in addition to his material power. The head chosen by the theologically rigorous process of being the first born male of the King. Please, ditch the monarchy, resubmit to the Pope and perhaps you an be brought back into the Catholic fold.


A. Rightmann

History Aside (none / 0) (#52)
by ICS Dempsey KBE on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 07:49:50 AM PST
One would be a fool to deny the Anglican branch's disreputable founding and I do not. However, I believe it is more important to observe present circumstances when choosing a Rite. Personally, I take no issue with the doctrine of Papal primacy, as I have not read particularly strong historical or Scriptural arguments for or against it. Thus, without a strong, clear theological mandate for rejoining the Roman Catholics, I must take other issues into consideration, in particular my oath of allegiance to the Queen. Having sworn that oath, subsequently swearing allegiance to the Pope without her blessing would be treason, a crime I could only commit if Our Lord, who holds my only greater allegiance, demanded it. Perhaps my Queen and your Pope will become reconciled before my life ends. However, this is unlikely as long as those chauvanistic Italians dominate the Magisterium and continue to deny women the ability to answer God's call to the priesthood.


But (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by Right Hand Man on Wed Feb 13th, 2002 at 11:35:57 AM PST
and continue to deny women the ability to answer God's call to the priesthood

Of course, God does not call women to the priesthood, so I don't think anyone is being denied anything.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Have you asked him? (none / 0) (#95)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 03:35:52 PM PST



 
Drop your crutches you mental cripples. (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 11:19:59 AM PST
It's because of people like you that makes organized religion a bad thing. An Evil thing. Your beliefs weren't passed down by God. God didn't come down and tell your precious Pope how to run things. HE MADE THEM UP TO SUIT WHAT HE FEELS IS RIGHT AND GOD BE DAMNED IF HE DOESN"T LIKE IT!!!! It's the same with the Mormons and their prophet, and the rest of that hokey garbage called organized religion! God teaches you to love your fellow man, yet you obviously choose to ignore this because he doesn't share your beliefs or life style. Organized religion stops free thinking, because you are all afraid you will burn if you so much as question. You are all sheep. Not The Lords sheep, but the Pope's sheep, the Prophet's sheep, your religion's sheep. Who made you and your precious Pope gods to decide the fates and actions of Gods children? I'm sure he didn't. But you don't want to hear that huh? Because YOU know the mind of God, and what God feels is right. But you don't think about that, do you? If you do it might pop that over inflated ego of yours and bring you back down to the commoner's level instead of God's right hand side huh? Because HE can't do the job without YOU? Never believe you know what's best for God's children, because you don't, and you never will. Even after reading this you won't question. Because you're afraid to bring down the wrath of God? God won't hate you for questioning. He won't hate you if you search out the truth. Instead you cling desperately to one man's idea of the truth like a man clings to the mast of a ship, afraid that if he lets go his precious ship will sink. Instead of preaching the word of God you preach your word, your beliefs, and if preaching doesn't work you try your damnedest to cram it down an unwilling throat. You try to 'save' people from their God given right to question, and their God given right to live their life as they choose. God put us here to test us. Some will fail, and some will pass, but don't take it upon yourselves to be the one to grade these tests. That's God's job, not yours. So drop your crutches you mental cripples, because all they are doing is slowing you down.


Glad to see (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by hauntedattics on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 11:24:39 AM PST
that you've got the ultimate information on God, even you haven't got a clue about using whitespace.

It's pretty easy...just hit the 'Enter' key.



Wasted electrons (2.00 / 1) (#22)
by iconoclast on Tue Feb 12th, 2002 at 01:23:47 PM PST