25,000 Evangelical Christian Youth rally against promiscuity and corporate culture

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well, quite obviously, you have difficulty telling a believer from a fanatic. Those that scream and shout at (or even attack, injure and kill) others that happen to believe differently or not at all are not "sharing" their views. They are fanatics. Once one enters my personal space with whatever ####### one happens to believe, one went too far.

I didn't say shouting I said sharing

So, the 25,000 fanatics went to SF to "share"? You crack me up!

Now, now. Are we saying that if there is a large group of religious people that they automatically, by virtue of nothing other than their numbers, become fanatics? Surely there has to be more to it than that.

Yeah, sure. They picked SF by throwing darts at a map, I'm sure...

Once one enters my personal space with whatever ####### one happens to believe, one went too far.

What if you only think it's your personal space but the space actually belongs to God?

In my space, I am God!

Don't look up.

Don't need to, the mirror works fine.

Edited June 6, 2006 by ET-US2004

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Well, quite obviously, you have difficulty telling a believer from a fanatic. Those that scream and shout at (or even attack, injure and kill) others that happen to believe differently or not at all are not "sharing" their views. They are fanatics. Once one enters my personal space with whatever ####### one happens to believe, one went too far.

I didn't say shouting I said sharing

So, the 25,000 fanatics went to SF to "share"? You crack me up!

Now, now. Are we saying that if there is a large group of religious people that they automatically, by virtue of nothing other than their numbers, become fanatics? Surely there has to be more to it than that.

Yeah, sure. They picked SF by throwing darts at a map, I'm sure...

So any rally of religious people in a town with a large homosexual population makes them fanatics? Don't they have to do something fanatical to be labelled that? Like attack someone or ban/burn a book or something? The mere act of peaceful assembly should not be enough to label them as fanatics.

[Mirorgate 0]

seriously though... freedom of religion here in USA, and I will support that.. for bhudist, muslim, christian, catholic, agnostic, etc...

Yeah, but that includes freedom of freedom of religion (as in not following any religion), too. And these idiotic freaks seem to forget that a little too often for my comfort.

yeah, some, but not all are this bad.

Well, they've been pushing a good bit of faith based legilature lately. That's fanatism as that is invading my right to believe differently or not at all. The faith based laws would apply to me whether I share the faith or not. That's where "religous freedom" becomes a farce. And, thanks to the loud freaks, that's where we seem to be heading. I'll be damned if I sit idly by letting them dictate their freaky morals on me and my family. Ain't happening.

Oh, you specifically meant the freaks in political power, well that is different then yes, I agree. But since it's all about the $$ .... which is sad in and of itself.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Once one enters my personal space with whatever ####### one happens to believe, one went too far.

What if you only think it's your personal space but the space actually belongs to God?

What if God doesn't care?

I would "share" my feelings on that but I'll just keep it to myself.

My view is that its somewhat self-indulgent to imagine that an omnipotent being would care overmuch about every speck of dust in the multiverse

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well, quite obviously, you have difficulty telling a believer from a fanatic. Those that scream and shout at (or even attack, injure and kill) others that happen to believe differently or not at all are not "sharing" their views. They are fanatics. Once one enters my personal space with whatever ####### one happens to believe, one went too far.

I didn't say shouting I said sharing

So, the 25,000 fanatics went to SF to "share"? You crack me up!

Now, now. Are we saying that if there is a large group of religious people that they automatically, by virtue of nothing other than their numbers, become fanatics? Surely there has to be more to it than that.

Yeah, sure. They picked SF by throwing darts at a map, I'm sure...

So any rally of religious people in a town with a large homosexual population makes them fanatics? Don't they have to do something fanatical to be labelled that? Like attack someone or ban/burn a book or something? The mere act of peaceful assembly should not be enough to label them as fanatics.

So, what about that Kansas (or thereabout) Church of Imbreds that goes to soldier funerals to "share" their belief? They're just "sharing" their views, too, aren't they?

[Veiled Princess 1]

So, what about that Kansas (or thereabout) Church of Imbreds that goes to soldier funerals to "share" their belief? They're just "sharing" their views, too, aren't they?

Oh I read about that... what's their beef? That soldiers are dying because there are homosexuals here? I mean the soldiers themselves are not homosexuals right?

[PlatyPius 5]

So, what about that Kansas (or thereabout) Church of Imbreds that goes to soldier funerals to "share" their belief? They're just "sharing" their views, too, aren't they?

Ah, the good ole Westboro Baptist Church. I'd post a link to their site, but it's rather offensive. How about most of the URL? .... www.godhatesf*gs.com I think you can all figure it out from there.

Fred Phelps makes most other fanatics look "undecided". The world would be a better place if him and his progeny were to suddenly disappear.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, what about that Kansas (or thereabout) Church of Imbreds that goes to soldier funerals to "share" their belief? They're just "sharing" their views, too, aren't they?

Oh I read about that... what's their beef? That soldiers are dying because there are homosexuals here? I mean the soldiers themselves are not homosexuals right?

No, but they apparently fight for a country that harbors and sometimes even promotes them...

[Veiled Princess 1]

So, what about that Kansas (or thereabout) Church of Imbreds that goes to soldier funerals to "share" their belief? They're just "sharing" their views, too, aren't they?

Oh I read about that... what's their beef? That soldiers are dying because there are homosexuals here? I mean the soldiers themselves are not homosexuals right?

No, but they apparently fight for a country that harbors and sometimes even promotes them...

That guys an idiot. There was another one on TV a while back who condemed an entire town to hell and instructed them to not ever ask God for help again because they don't teach the bible in public schools...

OK I would agree that classifies as fanaticism... are they attacking people at the funerals?

[ual777 0]

Well, quite obviously, you have difficulty telling a believer from a fanatic. Those that scream and shout at (or even attack, injure and kill) others that happen to believe differently or not at all are not "sharing" their views. They are fanatics. Once one enters my personal space with whatever ####### one happens to believe, one went too far.

I didn't say shouting I said sharing

So, the 25,000 fanatics went to SF to "share"? You crack me up!

Now, now. Are we saying that if there is a large group of religious people that they automatically, by virtue of nothing other than their numbers, become fanatics? Surely there has to be more to it than that.

Yeah, sure. They picked SF by throwing darts at a map, I'm sure...

So any rally of religious people in a town with a large homosexual population makes them fanatics? Don't they have to do something fanatical to be labelled that? Like attack someone or ban/burn a book or something? The mere act of peaceful assembly should not be enough to label them as fanatics.

So, what about that Kansas (or thereabout) Church of Imbreds that goes to soldier funerals to "share" their belief? They're just "sharing" their views, too, aren't they?

So what if these people want to have a rally? Gay people have rallies, athiests have rallies, illegal immigrants have rallies, but Christians can't?

BTW if you look at the photos, the anti-Christian protestors look extremely hostile. They say it is supposed to be the most 'liberal' and 'accepting' city, but they are just as bigoted.

I don't really care if they want to have a rally or not. Its protected by this little thing called the Constitution. I didn't see any signs or anything saying you will all burn in Hell if you don't believe....besides the cause of trying to stem the tide of teen promiscuity is NOT a bad thing.

I have been to mosque, I have been to synagauge, and I have been to church. 99.9 percent of the people that I have met who are religiously affiliated do not try to shove religion off in your face. Granted, once in a while you might see a Morman or Jihova's witness at the door, or perhaps someone handing out small pamphlets, but if you politely decline they dont tell you to get used to hot weather.

In fact, when has the government ever imposed ANYONES 'freaky morals' on you? These days people are tearing down crosses and taking away Christmas. I dont think you have anything to worry about.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Personally speaking I think at some point you have to question whether or not some of these people are true to the faith that they profess to believe in.

Those funeral protester for instance...

At which point does religiosity become a substitute for religion?

[Veiled Princess 1]

So what if these people want to have a rally? Gay people have rallies, athiests have rallies, illegal immigrants have rallies, but Christians can't?

BTW if you look at the photos, the anti-Christian protestors look extremely hostile. They say it is supposed to be the most 'liberal' and 'accepting' city, but they are just as bigoted.

I don't really care if they want to have a rally or not. Its protected by this little thing called the Constitution. I didn't see any signs or anything saying you will all burn in Hell if you don't believe....besides the cause of trying to stem the tide of teen promiscuity is NOT a bad thing.

I have been to mosque, I have been to synagauge, and I have been to church. 99.9 percent of the people that I have met who are religiously affiliated do not try to shove religion off in your face. Granted, once in a while you might see a Morman or Jihova's witness at the door, or perhaps someone handing out small pamphlets, but if you politely decline they dont tell you to get used to hot weather.

In fact, when has the government ever imposed ANYONES 'freaky morals' on you? These days people are tearing down crosses and taking away Christmas. I dont think you have anything to worry about.

[Veiled Princess 1]

Personally speaking I think at some point you have to question whether or not some of these people are true to the faith that they profess to believe in.

Those funeral protester for instance...

At which point does religiosity become a substitute for religion?

There are people in EVERY religion that don't actually follow that religion correctly... I don't know of any religion that instructs it's followers to force others into that particular belief but it hasn't stopped people from doing it in the name of that religion for thousands of years.

I don't see anything wrong with people wanting to share their beliefs with others though or have friendly debates about why they believe their religion is the correct path if it's not in the form of harrassing the other party.

It's not cool though, when they are stalking people and disrupting an already painful event like those funerals.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Personally speaking I think at some point you have to question whether or not some of these people are true to the faith that they profess to believe in.

Those funeral protester for instance...

At which point does religiosity become a substitute for religion?

There are people in EVERY religion that don't actually follow that religion correctly... I don't know of any religion that instructs it's followers to force others into that particular belief but it hasn't stopped people from doing it in the name of that religion for thousands of years.

I don't see anything wrong with people wanting to share their beliefs with others though or have friendly debates about why they believe their religion is the correct path if it's not in the form of harrassing the other party.

It's not cool though, when they are stalking people and disrupting an already painful event like those funerals.

I mean - there are a lot of of people out there who think that slavishly following traditions and religious rituals, makes them good christians/muslims whatever, yet in their outward behaviour towards others they fail to reflect the core values of their belief. The 'process' of religion becomes a substitute for the 'meaning' of religion.

For instance, the kind 'christians' who laid dead flowers on Michael Schiavo's lawn last year.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

In fact, when has the government ever imposed ANYONES 'freaky morals' on you?

Not on me personally (yet). But what would you call the gay marriage ban that has been legislated in a number of states and is about to be brought up (yet again) on the federal level? That's legislating freaky morals based on some people's faith. Nothing more and nothing less.