Facing backlash for just growing up…

scott says:

09:46am | 18/10/12

“Why do we allow groups like these fundy cults to prosper? No wait….why do we let them exist at all?? “

For the same reasons we let homosexuals exist….Showing tolerance for other people’s lifestyles, not discriminating against sections of the community and all that other warm fuzzy crap.

Pattem says:

10:20am | 18/10/12

@Scott, @The RealDave

Already the Slippery Slope starts.  If Tolerance is applied without prejudice (as it must by definition), then anyone should be allowed to do what they want to do.  Cory Bernardi is absolutely derided for his comments, yet:

In Jul 2009 it was reported that Emily Mabou, 29 of Ghana married her dog.  Get this, the priest who performed the ceremony told people not to mock the wedding, but instead “rejoice with her, as she has found happiness at last.”

Pattem says:

10:20am | 18/10/12

@Scott, @The RealDave

Already the Slippery Slope starts.  If Tolerance is applied without prejudice (as it must by definition), then anyone should be allowed to do what they want to do.  Cory Bernardi is absolutely derided for his comments, yet:

In Jul 2009 it was reported that Emily Mabou, 29 of Ghana married her dog.  Get this, the priest who performed the ceremony told people not to mock the wedding, but instead “rejoice with her, as she has found happiness at last.”

Nick says:

10:20am | 18/10/12

Dave you are probably one of those from the left defending peoples rights and choices when it comes to homosexuality but when it comes to peoples right to choose religion and have a faith you want to shut them down.You are a complete hypocrite who attacks and trivializes something that is important to many people.You should try practicing what you preach and live and let live without the nastiness and smugness that your kind hides behind..

Hanzel says:

10:37am | 18/10/12

@ Dave,

Historically, people sharing your atheism haven’t “let them exist”. From 1937-1941, over 100,00 Russian clergy we’re executed and almost 500 churches destroyed (A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia by Alexander N. Yakovlev). And we know that Pol Pot banned religion, as did Mao - who even forced Tibetan Buddhists to destroy their houses of worship at the threat of execution.

Don’t feel bad that you don’t know about atheism’s disastrous history, it’s our poor education system and the media not doing their job properly that have let you down, and I fear, Guy Sebastion as well. But Guy still has the best voice in Australia and his dancing is really coming along.

acotrel says:

11:00am | 18/10/12

It is called ‘pluralism’, because there are many of them ! Perhaps their funding could be redirected to help ‘dole bludgers’ ?

Rebecca says:

11:00am | 18/10/12

Nick - an important distinction - homosexuality, like red hair or being left-handed is not a choice, religion/faith/belief is.
People will ridicule what they see as poor choices because it’s based on opinion/philosophy/whatever, but to ridicule people for what they are justifiably invokes terms such as racist or homophobe depending on the issue.

Rebecca says:

11:32am | 18/10/12

Hanzel, you really need to either obtain more information or be more honest.

There is no such thing as ‘atheism’s disastrous history’.

None of the events you cite were undertaken in the name of atheism.
The acts were perpetrated so that the cause - communism or similar - could become the new belief system. They desired all encompassing control of peoples’ lives, just like the churches. Therefore the churches had to be removed.

Since atheism has no construct or desire to control peoples’ lives, it cannot be the cause of such events.

T S says:

11:50am | 18/10/12

@ Rebecca the choice argument is based upon the concept that religion is only about the choice of a belief system. It is partially that but goes a lot further in that religion is integral to a lot of people culturally and in terms of individual identity. To a “believer” religious/cultural identity is just as important as other definitions like race or sexuality.

ZSRenn says:

11:51am | 18/10/12

Wow such a great article and so much hate to follow in the comments.  That such light can produce so much dark is proof, I think, of the major themes of religion. If the battle rages here on earth then surely it must rage in the heavens also, as where else would it come from?

Bruno says:

12:01pm | 18/10/12

i’m assuming the same reason we allow religion hating queers to exist.

scott says:

12:03pm | 18/10/12

@ Rebecca

False.

Homosexuality is a choice.

If they were truly born that way, we wouldn’t have homosexuals coming out of the closet later in life after they have already married and raised children to adulthood.

Rebecca says:

12:10pm | 18/10/12

I hear what you are saying T S. However, there is firstly the basic choice of whether to have a ‘belief system’ or not, rather than just which one.

Secondly, a gay person will still be a gay person whichever country, society or culture they live in beacuse its not a matter of choice; whereas the belief system people choose can vary accordingly.

Nick says:

12:15pm | 18/10/12

@Rebecca..what a load of garbage.You obviously are an atheist who has no concept of what faith means.It is not a choice it is a belief.You don’t just wake up in the morning and choose a religion.It is part of many peoples culture and should be respected whether you believe it or not.

TheRealDave says:

12:24pm | 18/10/12

I have ZERO objections to people doing as they please, it becomes a problem when they try to force their lifestyle choices, morality and primitive dogmas on others.

I am yet to have a homosexual bang on my door at 7am on a Sunday offering me a blowjob.  Maybe I’m living in the wrong suburb? Nor do I have homosexuals trying to legislate what I can do in my bedroom with a consenting adult.

Yep, I despise religion as much as I despise any faction that demands obedience and forfeiture of your rights to be educated and think for yourself. But I have no objections to people beleiving and abiding by their religion. As long as it stops at their front door. Sadly - it never does.

Mattb says:

12:31pm | 18/10/12

“Dave you are probably one of those from the left defending peoples rights and choices when it comes to homosexuality but when it comes to peoples right to choose religion and have a faith you want to shut them down”

problem is nick, it is the religious that try and force their beliefs onto those of us that dont believe in fairy tales that cause the problem in the first place.

Discrimination against gays right to marriage begins with the fundamentalism within the church, even though alot of their flock believe gays should have the right to marry. same goes for other things like abortion and euthenasia. these are things that should be left to the decision of the individual, not decided upon in a way that appeases christian lobby groups.

It’s amazing, after centuries and centuries of religion invading individual rights, someone comes out and criticizes religion and all the religious cry “you want to take our rights away”.

we know who the hypocrites are all right….

Rebecca says:

12:44pm | 18/10/12

Its a shame you are less than well informed scott. Homosexuality is not a choice. The scientific evidence is available if you care to seek the truth.

The reason some people ‘come out’ later in life is because they have suppressed or denied their sexuality due to social, family or religious pressure.

Its like when people undertake ‘conversion therapy’, they may not live a gay lifestyle but they are still gay.
Alcoholics who don’t touch alcohol are still alcoholics.

Rebecca says:

12:53pm | 18/10/12

Like many if not most atheists Nick, I come from a background of faith.

“it is not a choice it is a belief” - really? Are you sure you know what you mean? Belief in god/s is not inherent or intrinsic, it is a choice. Then you choose which brand to believe in. Some people change religions, that would be choice again. Yes, it is a part of culture - just like art and music.

Which one should I respect? Which one can I respect? If I respect islam the methodists will be pissed off, if I respect scientology the mormans might get their noses out of joint - oh the dilemma!

Hanzel says:

12:57pm | 18/10/12

Rebecca,

“Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism” V.I. Lenin.

If communism was the goal then Lenin would see atheism as the cause of the 20th century purges, as well.

TheRealDave says:

01:23pm | 18/10/12

Its sad that in this day and age we have people still grow up believing crap like that Scott, even after a decent modern western education.

Did you choose to be heterosexual?. Did you choose to like chocolate? Did you choose to like the sounds of a good Van Morrison song?

I didn’t. I just like chicks and everything about them. Except the way they throw a ball…thats just unnatural. So is not liking Van Morrison…..

TheRealDave says:

01:26pm | 18/10/12

damnit…I forgot to add one more bit…..

Scott, its attitudes like yours that force homosexual men and women to deny who they are and go into relationships with people they don’t want to be with and have kids they don’t really want to have. Thats why the ‘come out’ as it where later in life when they have the courage to tell the world who they are without fear of ridicule from small minded people like yourself.

Sadly, some people never do find that courage and many do end their own lives.

Rebecca says:

01:31pm | 18/10/12

Is it that you don’t understand Hanzel, or that you choose not to.

“Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism” V.I. Lenin. - yep, just like guns and propaganda. You may recall that I said “The acts were perpetrated so that the cause - communism or similar - could become the new belief system. They desired all encompassing control of peoples’ lives, just like the churches. Therefore the churches had to be removed.”  Atheism was a tool like guns and propaganda, it wasn’t the driver, the cause or the aim.

“If communism was the goal then Lenin would see atheism as the cause of the 20th century purges, as well.” - on what basis? You’ve just informed us of what Lenin said, and it wasn’t that. Atheism isn’t and hasn’t been the ‘cause’ in any action/purges/whatever.

Again - Since atheism has no construct or desire to control peoples’ lives, it cannot be the cause of such events. Unlike religion or communism.

TheRealDave says:

01:34pm | 18/10/12

@Nick

Why do I need to ‘respect religion’ if religion shows no respect at all for me?

Why do I need to respect relgion when religion does not respect or treat equally large segments of the population?

Why do I need to respect something that denigrates anyone who does not subscribe to their newsletter?

Why do I need to respect something that tries to limit my freedoms as a law abiding dult?

Why do I need to respect something that indoctrinates children?

Why do I need to respect something that has caused untold misery in the world for thousands of years for the benefit of a few?

Why?

Religion and its followers - of all flavours, is quick to demand respect but is even faster at denying it to others.

So I respect peoples beliefs and their ability to believe as they want - privately. Its just a pity religion won’t respect my beleifs and those of a large proportion of societies.

scott says:

01:40pm | 18/10/12

@ Rebecca
“Its a shame you are less than well informed scott. Homosexuality is not a choice. The scientific evidence is available if you care to seek the truth.”

False.

There is no scientific evidence available that conclusively proves there is a gay gene.  This is an urban legend that has been made up by gay lobby groups such as GetUp!

“The reason some people ‘come out’ later in life is because they have suppressed or denied their sexuality due to social, family or religious pressure.”

False.

The reason why they come out later in life is because homosexuality is just a bizarre sexual fetish. 

Face it, “homosexuality” is just a phase that some people go through.  You remember the bull dyke you went to high school with?  I’d wager she is married with three kids now.

“Its like when people undertake ‘conversion therapy’, they may not live a gay lifestyle but they are still gay.
Alcoholics who don’t touch alcohol are still alcoholics.”

Can you explain what you mean further?  Alcoholics are addicts, which can be caused by chemical imbalances in the brain.

Are you implying homosexuals are addicts, and their behaviour is caused by chemical imbalances?  If so, they can be treated.

Nick says:

01:51pm | 18/10/12

Mattb ..where is religion trying to force its beliefs on you?
Is anyone telling you that you should go to church or believe in god or say your prayers before dinner? Most Christians go about their daily life trying to do the best they can and to get by.
So basically what you are saying is that you want the right to do anything you want.
Well forget it buddy ,we live in a society governed by laws and rules .
What you are asking for is anarchy.
I now can see your problem as the church represents moral authority which you want to break down.
It seems your attacks on Christianity is purely based around your own personal agenda .

Tubesteak says:

01:57pm | 18/10/12

Nick
People are indoctrinated into a faith from an early age. However, as adults they continue to believe the lies and propaganda despite the overwhelming evidence against it. This is a choice. It is a choice of wilful ignorance and dogged observance of fairytales

TheRealDave says:

02:07pm | 18/10/12

As an atheist - after reading those last two responses…..*shakes head*...dear god…..

Yes, irony intended…..

K2 says:

02:11pm | 18/10/12

@TheRealDave - “Did you choose to be heterosexual?. Did you choose to like chocolate? Did you choose to like the sounds of a good Van Morrison song?”  I know this will be misinterpreted as some kind of homophobia but if we can keep it civil that’d be nice.

You do have a choice to be homosexual or hetrosexual.  What you can’t perhaps control is the “feeling” of “attraction” which even to this day science can not tell us why we are attracted to anyone in particular and not attracted to others.  The term homo/hetro-sexual simply refers to ones sexual preference, not a state of being, not a state of emotion.  Yes, you choose to be one or the other (unless you are raped, and then its rape not a choice)  Whether that means supressing feelings of attraction or not is beside the point - you CHOOSE if you want to sleep with a man or a woman, its a personal CHOICE.

No one holds a gun to their head and forces them to choose one or the other, (at least not any more).  Society and its ideals may INFLUENCE a choice, but at the end of the day, it is still a choice.

Being “gay” perhaps is not a choice - I choose not to pick a side on that one, or was I born not picking an option?

Aux says:

02:31pm | 18/10/12

@ Scott & Nick

Whilst i dont like religion, i dont mind if people practice it - but to put it bluntly, i want religion to fuck off and leave me alone. The problem is, the nature of religion and its followers would NEVER allow that. A prime example is my tax dollars going into your Churches coffers (which seem to be bursting at the seams btw) so you have a place where you can practice YOUR beliefs!!! Why should i pay for that??

Religion over the ages has changed many times - when killing non followers wasnt working out, they became subversive instead, got into postions of power only to abuse that in their favour.

Give me one good rational reason why you think its fair that i should pay so YOU can go to Church?????

CK says:

02:49pm | 18/10/12

Is it a choice or not?:
There is a fundamental difference between a sexual preference (homosexuality/hetrosexuality/bisexuality) and “being gay”.

What I disagree with is people saying “homosexuals are born that way”.
No.  Wrong.  This is a choice - you have options to you, male, female or both.  You pick one out of that list (or both) and you gain the title homosexual/hetrosexual/bisexual.

Being “Gay” on the other hand is a different story AND you do not have to be homosexual and consider yourself “gay” - hence why you have people “coming out of the closet” or the phenomenon of “the beard”.
You can also (arguably) be homosexual, but not be gay.
The terms are not pre-requisite of each other and should be seen seperate of each other - please someone “gay” back me up on this one.

I’ve also heard that “it’s only gay if you make eye contact” so yet more proof…

Rebecca says:

02:56pm | 18/10/12

No K2, you do not have a choice to be homosexual or hetrosexual.  What you can do is choose whether to act or abstain.

“The term homo/hetro-sexual simply refers to ones sexual preference, not a state of being, not a state of emotion.” - really? Where did you get that from? Ones intrinsic sexual preference is a state of being.

scott says:

02:57pm | 18/10/12

“A prime example is my tax dollars going into your Churches coffers (which seem to be bursting at the seams btw) so you have a place where you can practice YOUR beliefs!!! Why should i pay for that??”

I probably pay more tax than you do, and my tax dollars are being used to fund other services that I do not use or care about.  But that is part and parcel of living in a great country such as Australia.

“Give me one good rational reason why you think its fair that i should pay so YOU can go to Church????? “

Read above.

Give me one good reason why my tax dollars are:
- funding welfare benefits so you can stay home and post crap on The Punch all day
- funding art programs that are of no interest me
- funding the construction of roads that I will never drive on
- being used to support a public transport system I have never used
- funding the education system, even though I have no children and was educated overseas
- being sent overseas to aid developing nations
-etc

If you do not like the way your taxes are being spent, write a letter to your MP.

Nick says:

03:01pm | 18/10/12

@Aux,You make a lot of statements like so many others here.Please tell me how religion impacts on you personally in your day to day life?
Or do you just wake up thinking about it?
The government wastes shit loads of money on various things that I don’t support but I don’t go around ranting like a raving lunatic about it.
Please tell me since it is such a big burden for you,how much exactly of your taxes is going to churches?

Nick says:

03:30pm | 18/10/12

@ The Real dave,
I wasn’t saying you should respect religion.I was saying you should respect people’s right to have a faith and a belief and not ridicule them personally just because you don’t agree with the Church.
I like many do not agree with gay marriage ( from a traditionalist point of view) but that does not mean I do not respect gay people and certainly do not resort to ridiculing them personally because of their sexuality.

Danielle says:

03:34pm | 18/10/12

Scott, CK:

As a straight female, I know that I did not choose to be attracted to males. It’s just the way I’m wired. It was certainly not a case of me being attracted to both sexes but choosing to go with men.

However, maybe that was the case for both of you - you were attracted to both men and women but ‘chose’ to have sex with only the opposite sex. Is that why you’re convinced that homosexuals choose their sexuality?? In which case, you’re both incorrect, and bisexual.

CK says:

04:10pm | 18/10/12

@Danielle -
“As a straight female, I know that I did not choose to be attracted to males. It’s just the way I’m wired (Was it though?). It was certainly not a case of me being attracted to both sexes but choosing to go with men. ”
No, I don’t think you really read properly what I said.
Point is, that even tho you would have been acting against your “attraction” you still had a CHOICE to sleep with a female instead.  Until you chose one or the other you were termed “SEXUALLY INACTIVE”  perhaps “homo/bi/hetro curious” depending on which one you feel a ‘preference’ toward but you are still not <any of the above>sexual.  But once you make that choice you become homo-sexual, before then - you are none of those.  You still had a choice whether you slept with a man or woman (or both) the first time, even though for you there may not have been any need to consider your options long because you felt attracted to men, you STILL CHOSE.

“However, maybe that was the case for both of you - you were attracted to both men and women but ‘chose’ to have sex with only the opposite sex.”  I’m not sure if this is supposed to be inflamatory, I’m going to put that aside because I want you to think about the logic of the terminology and not get emotionally attached to the idea of wht you think “homosexual” means (homo - means “same as”)

So if I’m not “gay” but I slept with a person of the same sex as me, does that make me homosexual, or gay, or both?  See the argument needs to work in both directions for it to be logically sound, and unfortunately it does not.  There are plenty of guys out there who are bi, or consider themselves “hetro” that engage in sexual activity with other guys, but want no part of a “gay” lifestyle.

Im saying people may not choose to be “Gay” but there is absolutely a choice to your sexuality - sexual attraction is another terminology all together.

KK says:

04:27pm | 18/10/12

“However, maybe that was the case for both of you - you were attracted to both men and women but ‘chose’ to have sex with only the opposite sex. Is that why you’re convinced that homosexuals choose their sexuality?? In which case, you’re both incorrect, and bisexual. “

So then why have terminology like “curious” instead of “sexual”?  This is to differentiate between those that are “practicing” a particular option, and those that are not yet engaging in any act. 

If we follow the logic that you are “born” homosexual - then why dont we just call everyone from birth homo/hetro or bi?  Because it only becomes applicable from that list AFTER you engage the act.  At 14 years old, you might have been sure you had attractions and sexual feelings towards a certain sex, but before you actually engaged in sexual intercourse, you were none of these options.  Then you made a CHOICE (based on your emotional sensations) and engaged the act which then and only then, made you hetrosexual. 

Its a simple argument of logic, and people get all emotionally attached to their little “label” its just an adjective to describe your “sexual conduct” but you CAN be homo/bi without being gay…or leading a gay lifestyle…plenty out there doing it RIGHT now.

Aux says:

04:59pm | 18/10/12

@ Scott

As far as the taxes go, you may be surprised. I disagree with you so therefore i must earn less money and be on welfare. Not judgemental at all, are you?

As for the examples, i asked for rational ones - not essential services like roads. Is going to church really as important to society and everyone else for that matter as having hospitals, roads and other infrastructure? Come off it. If you earn as much money as you claim, you should have no problem paying donations to keep your church open instead of leeching it from everyone else. But of course, funding it yourself is probably only unfair when it goes against your beliefs.

Aux says:

06:17pm | 18/10/12

@ Nick

Well lets see - I’ve been severely assaulted by avid believers because they thought I was gay (school rumor) - With a principal who tried to cover it up who surprise surprise! attended the same Church as they did.
I’ve been verbally abused by more of the same because I didn’t believe that the only reason I still have my leg is because they prayed for me (and no I didn’t insult them or give them any reason to have a shot at me)
I’ve had friends whose parents disowned them with endorsement from their local church because they refused to go to church with them and share their beliefs (I was the one at hospital with them whilst being treated for suicidal injuries)

Thats to name a few.

Yes the government might waste alot of money on things, all governments do - But those things they waste money on most likely benefit or have the prospect of benefiting society as a whole, I wont deny that some Churches help others, but for the most part I would say they mainly benefit their own. The catholic church in australia supposedly has more than 15 billion in their accounts.

With the above figures and considering around six years ago it was reported that Churches received over 500 million dollars in tax exemptions, (who knows how much it is now?) - Not counting grants they may have received, and the fact that they make money from profitable businesses they own, that also pay very little tax because of who owns them, that could be WAY better spent than sitting in Church accounts, like on new programs for people in need / infrastructure, the list goes on.

Further to all of this is that whilst all this money pours into the coffers of your beloved religious institution - Its being used to fund / hold sermons and fund lobby groups to try and oppress groups in the community, like the gay community with marriage. Hell, a bulk billing doctor just recently prescribed a hormone blood test for a gay man and referred him to a priest for treatment. It’s disgusting that even the gay community themselves essentially fund the churches who are actively trying to exclude them.

But don’t try and suggest that the churches shouldn’t receive free money for all of that, that’s just ridiculous right?

Palzy says:

06:55pm | 18/10/12

@Danielle

I have no idea of you or your lifestyle…but did you ever think you would ever have to ever defend yourself as a heterosexual woman. Scary stuff!!!

simonfromlakemba says:

09:51am | 18/10/12

“isn’t it funny ironic Christians preach tolerance, and acceptance but at the first challenge to their calcified world views, they will turn like a pack of stray dogs to defend something they don’t truly understand.  “

Think that’s any religion really

CC says:

10:23am | 18/10/12

Sure, I’m not denying that at all Simon.  Just aimed it at Christianity in this instance as it was the topic of discussion - I think ‘they’ are all on equal footing in that regard.

acotrel says:

11:03am | 18/10/12

Australian Idle is ‘the way of the future’ !
I wonder who will be the Howard Hughes of the next generation ?

P. Walker says:

12:14pm | 18/10/12

@simonfromlakemba says:  Isn’t it funny ironic Christians preach tolerance, and acceptance but at the first challenge to their calcified world views, they will turn like a pack of stray dogs to defend something they don’t truly understand.  “

Yes Simon, Muslims are the same if not worse, so get of your Lakemba high horse.

No time for any of them.

PJ says:

01:45pm | 18/10/12

This article is entirely dishonest.

It draws a link between Anti Gay sentiments and Christianity. And it suggests persecution by the church of Gays.

However, it fails to reference Islam and other world religious, which also reject sexual acts between men.

Therefore, by singling out one religion only, the article is an act of discrimination.

Had the article addressed intolerance of Gay people within all Religions, it would have won some sympathy from me.

Rose says:

10:04am | 18/10/12

Way to confuse two totally separate topics, or maybe you’ve got a one track mind, completely unable to consider more than one idea at a time!!

Rosie says:

12:11pm | 18/10/12

Rose

Put Rose & Rosie together and I’m assured both have one track minds, the only difference is I am a great supporter of giving my fellow Australians, be it male or female a fair chance in anything they want to achieve and you supporting a female who has abused the power she grabbed when she ousted her predecessor in an overnight coup. Since then she has compounded one deceit after another.

Rose says:

01:00pm | 18/10/12

What does Gillard have to do with Guy Sebastian though?
My support for Labor at the moment isn’t about supporting Gillard though, it’s about my absolute hatred of the idea of Abbott as a PM. I would actually support the ALP replacing Gillard an others with other candidates, in a heartbeat. I do think the broom also needs to go through the Liberal Party too, there is a lot of people on both sides who really need to make room for talented newcomers.
I have supported some of Gillard’s actions, but not all, and I have always said that if there was a viable third option I’d jump at it!

Rosie says:

02:30pm | 18/10/12

Rose

My point is the way someone’s point of view is put across to the people. What Guy said wasn’t to divide the believers from non believers. Gillard, leader of the nation and should be setting the best of examples is a self serving leader whose agenda at everything she does and say is for her to remain the most powerful person in the land. That is my absolute hatred for her - remaining the most powerful person in this country and by doing so has created a division amongst Australians.

Google up Cassandra Wilkison - she is the kind of Labor woman I would love to have replace our first female PM - heart and soul in the Labor brand, stand by her strong beliefs and allows the people to acknowledge what she stands for.

Admiral Ackbar says:

12:49pm | 18/10/12

Oh he was, or something. But look at that, who would have thought that disassociating ones self with with a brainwashing sky wizard organisation could be thought of as growing up.

Oh wait, me, I thought that.

CC says:

01:49pm | 18/10/12

@Admiral Ackbar - careful.  It’s a trap.

Tator says:

10:13am | 18/10/12

Subiotic,
he hasn’t come out of the closet, the article mentions a friend of his who came out and left the country because of the intolerances in his church community.

subotic says:

11:04am | 18/10/12

@Tator

#GAYFAIL

fml says:

11:04am | 18/10/12

So wait,

He isn’t gay?

PeterM says:

10:04am | 18/10/12

You truly are wilfully ignorant and deceptive.

Tator says:

10:15am | 18/10/12

Paul,
It is named the Paradise Community church because it is located in the Adelaide suburb of Paradise.

Shane* says:

10:21am | 18/10/12

G’DAY DARVS!

Cracking to hear from you, mate.

Seeing as how the world is actually many shades of grey (I hear 50 is a popular estimate) rather than the black and white you see it in, I can assure you that a religious person who doesn’t believe the literal translation of a religious text is not an atheist, or even confused! Rest assured, my dear dear friend, that some people boasting rip-roaring levels of faith see Genesis as a lovely metaphor, or view Leviticus as an interesting starting point for discussions of morality… rather than the true word of God.

There’s so much grey in the world, as well as ROYGBV… I suggest you try them sometime!

All the best mate.

St. Michael says:

10:51am | 18/10/12

P. Darvio, I’m still waiting on you to answer me whether you think the Aboriginal religion and the particular native title claims that arise from it also deserve to be called “confused”, “atheist”, and needs to be eradicated from the Western Secular Way Of Life (TM).

Are you unable to answer, or just too gutless?

P. Darvio says:

10:55am | 18/10/12

Quote: It is named the Paradise Community church because it is located in the Adelaide suburb of Paradise.

So are there only 72 Virgins in that Suburb of Adelaide? – that isn’t very many for a suburb of that size because we all know there are only 72 Virgins in Paradise.

subotic says:

11:09am | 18/10/12

@P. Darvio, I totally appreciate your ability to take a piece about Guy Sebastian coming out as a gay man and turning into something to do with your total hatred of all things “religion”.

That right there is a special skill, bro. Even I can’t do that…

Mark says:

11:16am | 18/10/12

Shane - There is actually very little ‘grey’ in the world if you take a scientific approach to working things out. Religion creates ‘grey’ areas by labeling known facts as ‘beliefs’ or ‘theories’ in order to try and put their own supernatural theories on a level pegging.

As for your patronizing attempt to palm of genesis and other fairy tales as ‘lovely metaphors’, this is just a cop out. A metaphor for what exactly? the fact of evolution maybe or perhaps a metaphor for gay rights and incest given that Adam and Eve only had two sons?

The only thing that is metaphorical about these stories, is that they were first developed by the pagans thousands of years before the bible as a metaphorical representation of how the days / seasons / years / astrological ages worked. When looked at in this light I would agree that they are ‘lovely’, but not when some priest tries to twist the literal interpretation in the bible into some twisted unrelated revelation.

P. Darvio says:

11:20am | 18/10/12

Two Miracle Man

I’ve answered your question - if you don’t understand it go back and re-read it until you do.

Now answer my question “Two Miracle Man” – come on lets us all know why you call yourself “St. Michael”

Shane* says:

11:32am | 18/10/12

Cracking response, Darvs. You managed to ignore St Michael and myself AGAIN! You really are a master debater.

Anyhoo, thought you might like to know that the 72 virgins you’re hoping for when you get to paradise are not actually considered gospel (so to speak) by the vast vast majority of Muslims. The reference to the 72 comes from a text that isn’t on the ‘required reading’ list.

You know, kind of like how Christians don’t have to believe a man literally lived inside a whale.

ROYGBV my friend! ROYGBV! The world is not black and white!

P. Darvio says:

11:55am | 18/10/12

Quote: @P. Darvio, I totally appreciate your ability to take a piece about Guy Sebastian coming out as a gay man and turning into something to do with your total hatred of all things “religion”.

WTF !

First - You need to go back and re- read the Article (just like “2 Miracle Man” needs to go back and re-read my posts) – Guy Sebastian hasn’t come out as “gay” – his friend did and Guy discusses the very real fear of the Christian Hate Bible based belief against Gays. My post is entirely relevant, and the fear Guy’s gay friend has about the “72 Virgin” Paradise Church is entirely justified based on their publicly listed beliefs on their website.

From the Authors Article

“In an interview given a week ago with The Daily Telegraph Sebastian claimed the turning point was a friend who moved countries after coming out as gay, for fear of the church’s reaction.”

As far as I can tell (from media reports) Guy is very much “GUY” and not GAY and is married to a WOMEN with a baby that wasn’t produced by a VIRGIN BIRTH.

Second - No wonder you Christian / Religionist bloggers have so many problems – you need to take the time out to read and understand what someone is saying – put your Bibles down, take a deep breath and…….

St. Michael says:

12:11pm | 18/10/12

Actually, no, P, you haven’t answered my question.  All you did was engage in ad hominem attacks against me.  Once again - do you assert that Aboriginal religion should also be erased from the face of the Earth, along with all of the claims to land, funding, and sovereignty that arise from it?

Shane* says:

12:26pm | 18/10/12

@Mark

Metaphor. You keep using this word. I do not think you know what it means.

Pattem says:

01:13pm | 18/10/12

@ P. Darvio. You wrote: “is married to a WOMEN with a baby that wasn’t produced by a VIRGIN BIRTH.”

Actually it was, because Guy is “famously a virgin”

subotic says:

01:17pm | 18/10/12

@P. Darvio, WTF, I think you need to go back and read it.

It’s called a pisstake. Get it right.
I know he’s not gay.
Just like I’m not religious.
Just like you can’t make a comment without attacking religion.

#PISSTAKEFAIL in a massive, massive way….

St. Michael says:

02:14pm | 18/10/12

@ Subotic: P. doesn’t attack all religion, mate.  Just the big ones that don’t fight back.  I’d be more impressed if his copypasting skills extended to Hindu, Druze, Buddhist, and Shinto.  Oh, and to Aboriginal religions, if not all indigenous religions generally.

Tubesteak says:

02:19pm | 18/10/12

I bet these people also believe that a mystical magical thing created everything in the world in 6 days and did this about 8,000 years ago

Bet they don’t believe in evolution

Bet they believe a story about some bloke who fit two of every animal onto a boat because of an impending flood. Where did he find kangaroos since no-one had discovered Australia except for the Aborginals?

Wonder if they think the universe revolves around the Earth?

subotic says:

03:26pm | 18/10/12

@St. Michael, it’s the arrogant & ignorant assumption on P. Darvio’s part that scrolls me the most, not so much the “endless” rant against religion.

True, it does become as boring as batshit at times, but when someone shoots their mouth off and just assumes that because I took a “jab” at their comment I must be on the side of “The Enemy” (ie. religion), it’s just plain ignorant.

Almost like being a religionist, actually….

Honest, the irony is not lost on me.

K2 says:

10:04am | 18/10/12

Mahhrat - the word ‘Belief’ stems from the word Ba’al (The semetic word meaning “lord or master”) and the suffix “ief” - “used in forming adjectives denoting characteristics or qualities”

Ba’al-ief.  The qualities of Ba’al.

Kika says:

10:07am | 18/10/12

Cute? Lord it looks like an alien. Babies at that age are rarely cute. I’m sure Hudson is cute now, but not then! I’ve already told my friends and colleagues - don’t expect baby photos until they look like a human.

Barry says:

10:58am | 18/10/12

“Since the young cannot consent to things and are easily taught everything, one wonders how many people have chosen what they believe in, or have simply had it forced onto them.”

Yes, you could definitely argue this to some degree, but it applies to all areas of society.  Will you teach your children that it is morally and ethically wrong to steal, rape, and kill?  These things may be socially unacceptable, but they are also just arbitrary subjective values of which there is no objective justification for belief in apart from the fact it helps us get along.  Most of the values taught in society are taught as morally objective, whether it be religious or secular teachers.  We are all basically brainwashed as children.  The only difference is the material we are fed.

Chris says:

12:52pm | 18/10/12

K2 - no.  It is a germanic word first used in around the 12th century.

Belief: noun.  late 12c., bileave, replacing O.E. geleafa “belief, faith,” from W.Gmc. *ga-laubon “to hold dear, esteem, trust”

C

OTter says:

01:33pm | 18/10/12

OMG…Nature vs Nurture…classic..

Mahhrat says:

01:58pm | 18/10/12

@Barry:  We need to disassociate morals and religion.  The two actually have precious little in common.

There is a right and wrong separate to religion.  According to some, religion demands they shoot a girl in the face.  That doesn’t make it right.

There is nothing subjective about murder or the other things you describe.  They objectively and negatively impact on the lives of others.  I don’t understand that argument at all.

subotic says:

10:19am | 18/10/12

I like you.

CC says:

10:19am | 18/10/12

You hate someone for their music?  There is a difference between disliking someones musical genre, and hating them. 
What an odd statement to make…it doesn’t make you old fashioned it makes you intolerant and closed minded…

Ohcomeon says:

10:59am | 18/10/12

Ive never understood this. I also hate his music, but I dont care about him or spend time thinking about his terrible music.

Him making bad music doesnt diminish or affect the people making good music for me to enjoy.

It really is terrible music though lols.

TRBNGR says:

11:03am | 18/10/12

@CC

“intolerant and closed minded…”

A badge I wear with pride - just because it pisses you off. Thanks for letting me know what pushes your buttons…

CC says:

11:35am | 18/10/12

@TRBNGR - It doesn’t bother me one iota don’t think yourself that important, I wont be losing any sleep over your ignorance.

TRBNGR says:

02:19pm | 18/10/12

@CC

So why reply? Twice.

Yeah, you clearly don’t care. Bwahahahahahaha.

Tubesteak says:

03:01pm | 18/10/12

“Him making bad music doesnt diminish or affect the people making good music for me to enjoy”

You could argue that music companies pouring a lot of money into marketing campaigns (including Oz Idol) does diminish the talents and air-time received by real artists. Also, hyping up the likes of GS means that real artists go unnoticed. Effectively, this sort of stuff distorts the market.

Chris says:

12:31pm | 18/10/12

I guess most people would call me a fundamentalist Christian.

However, I agree with what you say.

Unfortunately, your idealistic view of what “tolerance” actually encompasses these days doesn’t accord with my experience.

Tolerance, now, apparently means that not only am I to accept that other people make different choices (and not arrange a firing squad if they do), but also apparently means that I am not longer allowed to have and express the view that something is morally wrong unless it is also illegal.

The concept of there being a “right” and “wrong” is not exactly a popular one.

C

Rebecca says:

01:08pm | 18/10/12

Chris, I think that the concept of there being a “right” and “wrong” is quite a popular one.

The problem is whose ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.
Some things I see as ‘right’, you would see as ‘wrong’ and vice versa.
The same thing goes for ‘morals’.

Pattem says:

01:52pm | 18/10/12

@Chris, I certainly would not classify myself as tolerant (in the modern sense of the word) as there are many things I stand against on a moralistic ground, or on a Principle - a number of which are informed by Scripture. 

What puzzles me is:  if I am Pro-Family, does that automatically make me Homophobic?  I think not, but many would say that it does.  A Phobia by definition is an irrational fear.  Even being Anti-Gay does not make you Homophobic, but many would say that it does.

What intrigues me most is that if you say you are Pro-Family, you are labelled as Homophobic and Intolerant, whereas if you say you are Anti-Christian then everyone seems to be cool with that.  Intolerance is a two-way street, as is Tolerance.

It is clear that the church no longer has the moral sway over society that it once had.  Good thing, bad thing?  I know which way I lean.  And many people, Christians, Non-Christians, Jwes, Non-Jews, Muslims, Non-Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, etc etc., seem to wonder why Society is the way it is now.

Finally, any religion is designed to proclaim itself as the one true Faith.  If it doesn’t, it is fundamentally flawed.  Even if you believe you are right, and that other belief systems are wrong, it doesn’t justify vilification, torture, terrorism, or even intolerance.  Theoretically you can be “right”, but you don’t have to pronounce that everyone else is “wrong”.

@Rebecca,  Thanks, that is more or less what I was trying to say.

Chris says:

05:01pm | 18/10/12

“What intrigues me most is that if you say you are Pro-Family, you are labelled as Homophobic and Intolerant, whereas if you say you are Anti-Christian then everyone seems to be cool with that.  Intolerance is a two-way street, as is Tolerance.”

I think that sums up what I was trying to get at by way of specific example of the general principle.

C

Len says:

10:10am | 18/10/12

Whats a lost soul to do…if i observe catholicism i will be amongst child molesting priests.
If i observe islam, i could be beheaded at any moment for not turning the pages of koran properly, worse still i could be stoned to death for getting my east and west mixed up at prayer time.
If i observe one of the many christian cults springing up in this country i have to become a social reject blindly following some preacher who is more interested in my hip pocket than my spiritual salvation.
If i observe hinduism I cant eat daisy cow.
If i observe judaism, no more pork on my fork.
If i observe the AFL i have to listen to Eddie Maguire.
Why dont i just make up my own religion and see if Tom Cruise and John Tavolta are available to promote it for me.

Admiral Ackbar says:

01:06pm | 18/10/12

“People who think Hard Core Christianity is not in the same league as Fundamental Islam are deluded.”

Ah, what? How many ‘Hard Core Christian’ people have been shot in the face this week for daring to be educated? How many terrorist attacks in recent years have been conducted in the name of christianity? How many violent protests have been organised by raidcal christians in past weeks in response to a simple picture? And finally, how many people in recent years have recieved death threats from leaders of ‘radical christianity’ in response to a work of fiction or ones views? Have fun.

Ren says:

03:21pm | 18/10/12

The one comment I have read today that I totally agree with.

stephen says:

04:29pm | 18/10/12

Yeah I agree with that too.
His latest song playing on the radio is pretty good, but I’ll wait for another couple of goodies before I buy his record.

Mark says:

12:29pm | 18/10/12

I think what you’ll find is he is now doing is “thinking for himself”. You know, utilizing that brain he has inherited following millions of years of evolution…

TheRealDave says:

02:15pm | 18/10/12

“So who is in the best position to teach on Christ’s Gospel.  Paul or Guy”

Given that Saul of Tarsis aka Paul the Apostle never actually met Jesus, given that Saul of Tarsus started rabidly spruiking about Jesus and his divinity AFTER suffering a massive brain injury after falling from his horse and given that even the actual disciples of Jesus wanted nothing to do with him….....I’m guessing both of them are equally valid….

Sorry, your point was?

Roll out your Prejudice says:

02:37pm | 18/10/12

Elsewhere timing has been noted with this public comment from Guy.  It’s hard to sell a new album without publicity.  Heah presto!
Enter your publicity angle. 
Problem solved… Is this too clinical, too calculated?

Man can’t serve two (conflicting) masters…

Mik says:

11:30am | 18/10/12

In the end, be it one generation or a few, we just end up as Aussies. Most noticeable when visiting country/countries of forebearer origin.

subotic says:

11:52am | 18/10/12

@St. Mick

“the Hero’s Journey”?

#YAAAAAWN….

Chris says:

12:13pm | 18/10/12

“the literalists and fundamentalists we hate so much are, spiritually, children: they’ve never had the courage or opportunity to walk away from the rulebook and allow their own consciences to flourish”

What a condescending statement, although given the history of the Catholic Church in particular it might be understandable.

I might similarly suggest that the “it doesn’t really matter what you believe - just believe it genuinely and deeply” brigade are those who are too gutless or stupid to actually stand by a position.  Rather they just waft along saying “it’s all OK”, thus giving themselves a wonderful opportunity of getting to avoid having to deal with some of life’s most important issues.

If your summary of his view is accurate, Michael, Richard Rohr sounds like a post-modernist philosopher, rather than a Priest. 

People don’t return to the church because they understand the “mythology and symbols”.  They return to the Church because they are convicted of the Godhood of Jesus Christ and the salvation that is available through His death and the forgiveness of sins.

If that’s not the reason - then they aren’t returning to the Church at all, they are just attending the service.

C

Pattem says:

12:18pm | 18/10/12

Hear, Hear.  But didn’t you know St. Michael, there is no such thing as a healthy religious faith, because it is never reported in Mainstream Media, who would have us believe that Christians are whack-jobs, hand-clapping lunatics, intolerant Fundamentalists, and so on.  Conservative or evangelical churches never get mention, which I am certain is where 90% of Christians’ faith can be found.

The MSM do that with Islam as well.  We rarely (if ever) see a day in the live of a non-fundamentalist, non-jihadist Muslim.

Admiral Ackbar says:

01:16pm | 18/10/12

“I might similarly suggest that the “it doesn’t really matter what you believe - just believe it genuinely and deeply” brigade are those who are too gutless or stupid to actually stand by a position.”

I group these people with the “oh it’s not supposed to be taken literally” brigade, and those who cherry pick parts they like from religious texts and excuse the rest (you know, the rape, genocide, torture and slavery in gods name) and call it all metaphorical.

Yuri says:

01:45pm | 18/10/12

Interesting theory, I will have to look into Rohr’s work.
I guess it is like learning the 3 Rs at school - once you have learned the rules/fundamentals, you move on to in-depth and self-directed learning - you don’t spend the rest of your life reciting the times tables.
And just as we wouldn’t have advances in literature if no-one questioned grammatical/linguistic convention, so too would we ALL still be condemning/killing each other for breaking insignificant religious regulations if no-one questioned them.

St. Michael says:

01:59pm | 18/10/12

@ Chris:“What a condescending statement, although given the history of the Catholic Church in particular it might be understandable.”

Purported condescension does not make the statement untrue.  Biblical literalists and fundamentalists don’t ask in their hearts what the right thing is in a given set of criteria: they delegate their consciences to words which in our age have vastly more meaning as metaphors, symbols, and guiding precepts than literalistic commands.  Christ always said substance and intent counted over form and gesture.

“I might similarly suggest that the “it doesn’t really matter what you believe - just believe it genuinely and deeply” brigade are those who are too gutless or stupid to actually stand by a position.”

I reject that is my position, as Rohr also does.  I also reject it as a general proposition.  The definition of integrity means acting according to one’s deeply-held principles.  So you either act on the beliefs you genuinely hold or you are a hypocrite, whether theist or atheist.

As it is, you are mischaracterising a Franciscan priest’s views after decades of study and thought as those held by Kevin Smith.  Rohr is saying is that the Catholic Church in particular has adopted the symbols as the reality, when the truth and the teaching to be taken from them arises from contemplation of the meaning of the symbol rather than its dimensions.  Being a Biblical literalist and/or fundamentalist can be analogised with starting wars over the colour of the rabbit’s fur in the fable of ‘The Tortoise and the Hare’.  Tell me now, what matters more: the colour of the fur, or the various moral principles that arise from the tortoise’s victory?

This much rings true from Rohr’s book, particularly given the Catholic Church’s own catechismic acknolwedgment that people not in the Christian faith can still achieve salvation: “It is like a finger pointing at God.  We argue a lot about who has the right finger.  Does your finger save, or does mine? The answer is: none.  God alone saves.”

“People don’t return to the church because they understand the “mythology and symbols”.:

You misread my post.  I said people return because they understand the mythology and symbols at an unconscious level, and they return because they find that what they sought in the world was there in their religion all along - but not in the childish, literalist, fundamentalist way they understood it when they were young.

St. Michael says:

02:11pm | 18/10/12

@ Admiral Ackbar: I expect a lot better analysis from you than a sneering generalisation.  Virtually all analyses of documents from the distant past are contextual, and allowances made for the age and the times they were written in.
That is to say, cherry picking.
Most thinking Christianity similarly does so as well in the modern era.  As I keep saying: it is literalism and fundamentalism that does not, and therefore requires condemnation.

Admiral Ackbar says:

03:08pm | 18/10/12

I get that, but the thing that confuses me St Michael, is that people believe the scripture, interpret it as metaphorical or what have you, all the while surely knowing full well that at the time it was written at least that it was all meant to be taken literally. What, out of interset, is the metaphor for god commanding Moses to carry out genocide and the enslavement of women and children?

I’m not trying to be a shit stirrer, as much as I dislike religion it still interests me genuinely. I find it very confusing that people will submit to something that is so intangible. To me, this shows great weakness of spirit and will in those that submit themselves in this way.

St. Michael says:

04:09pm | 18/10/12

“What, out of interset, is the metaphor for god commanding Moses to carry out genocide and the enslavement of women and children?”

The shortest answer (and I don’t pretend to have a complete answer, anymore than anyone else does) I can give you for that is to at least consider the context and the message beneath.

As an example, look at the sequence in which the Ten Commandments are handed down to Israel.  Those commandments, according to the text, are given to Moses in God’s own voice—it’s God who says “These are my commandments”.  The rest of the law—all of the stonings for witchery, homosexuality, and the eating of shellfish—is explicitly prefaced by Moses saying “This is what God says”.  The take-home from that is that man always has an incomplete answer to life’s questions, that he always has to interpret what’s given to him in the divine experience that I believe lies at the heart of at least the Christian faith.  Man isn’t perfect; that theme resonates in all Judaeo-Christian tradition back to Genesis, and to underline it, Moses is not seen by any of the Abrahamic faiths as perfect or underserving of criticism: in the stories, he so offended God he was not permitted to cross over into Israel with the rest of the Israelites.  So possibly the lesson to be taken from it is not that God authorises genocide so much that people can misinterpret what they get from a divine experience.

Another thing to add is that that the laws as handed down to Israel can be regarded as a survival manual for the Jews: they’d just left Egypt, they were a wandering people, they weren’t due in the Promised Land for a while to come.  The law was intended to discipline the Israelites sufficiently to survive in the wilderness without losing their humanity.  Discipline requires hard measures.  Consider Christ’s words when he was questioned about why Moses allowed divorce: “It was because you were so unteachable that Moses gave you this law, but it was not so from the beginning.”  Again, human (mis?)interpretation at work.

And it is a part of Christian religion that sometimes God takes measures he otherwise would not as a result of human demands or human free will; Jacob (I think) persuading God to relent from destroying Sodom for the sake of ten good men who live within it.

And let’s also be frank: most of the early Biblical accounts—in OT, and probably not NT—are highly unlikely to be eyewitness accounts of what took place.  For the most part—Genesis and the early books especially—they would have been recognised as teaching stories, just as fables are now, but all containing essential psychological lessons.

Do I think God commanded genocide to be carried out? Probably not, but the solution’s not as simple as saying “Well, it’s not truthful, and there’s nothing useful to be gained from that verse other than that, so religion sucks.”  Pointing at a few isolated verses of the OT as justification for the entire condemnation of religion is like pointing at the Model T Ford and saying “Automobiles LOL, this sucker ain’t got aircon or a muffler.”  And I think most healthy religion understands that.

St. Michael says:

04:28pm | 18/10/12

Also, brief P.S., Ackbar:

“I find it very confusing that people will submit to something that is so intangible. To me, this shows great weakness of spirit and will in those that submit themselves in this way.”

Everyone submits to intangibles, every day, outside religious life.  Show me love’s account book.  Can you put a price on a democracy?  As I’ve argued before, what’s a greater act of faith: “I believe in One God”, or “I believe our politicians take their oaths of office seriously upon principle rather than pain of humiliation?”

As far as strength of will or weakness of spirit is concerned, you might look into the history of the Franciscans, and Francis of Assisi in particular.  Consider the history of the first hospital in Western Europe—Jonathan Riley-Smith’s book “The Crusades” mentions it.

Or the reason for the beatification and sainthood of Father Maximillian Kolbe, a Catholic priest (and Franciscan, as it turns out) interned in Auschwitz.  When a random set of executions was ordered carried out, and a man with children singled out for killing, Kolbe stepped forward and offered his life in place of the man with the children, when no other person did despite the likelihood of death or suffering.  He led psalms, singing, in the death cells.  The man he saved lived to see his children again—and Kolbe canonised by the Catholic Church in 1981.

That is strength of will beyond imagining, and a greatness of spirit difficult to emulate in our times.

Kiddo says:

11:27am | 18/10/12

@Rebecca - no, not just you. I did a search earlier this morning and couldnt really find much backlash.

Nessa says:

03:41pm | 18/10/12

The main ‘backlash’ was from the first media article, and on Twitter - which led to Guy’s statement on Facebook yesterday.

TheRealDave says:

02:04pm | 18/10/12

Thats it of course!

He couldn’t possibly have had any new ideas or thoughts for himself after getting married, having a child, seeing a bit of the word, ‘growing up’ a bit etc

Guy4ever says:

05:33pm | 18/10/12

Thank you Nessa - I have been a Guy fan since day one and always will be.  As you say those of us who know him already knew of his change of direction ages ago.  He has always been open and honest . To quote from Guy’s song
Maybe if we were together
We’d already have a heaven here on earth
He just wants everyone to Get along

Gomez12 says:

03:18pm | 18/10/12

No Athiests manning the counters at St Vinnies?

You mean the Saint Vincent De Paul Society, a faith-based Christian organisation who (being faith-based) have the legal right to discriminate against those not of their faith? And you aren’t seeing Athiests there?
Wowsers. Compelling evidence Athiests are terrible people….

Next week Lostinperth addresses the national shame of how few men are buying and using tampons.

I did find this one particularly amusing in a comment whining about Athiests telling people what they think:
“The atheists insist that their interpretation of the Boble/Koran/Torah is correct and that believers must believe what the athiests say they must believe, and then criticise those same beliefs as fundamentalist”
Go Lostinperth, charge hard, the hypocrisy crown is within reach! Just a little more!

Thanks for the laugh Lostinperth! I’d list the non-faith based charities for you, but I wouldn’t want to challenge your “beliefs”. We can’t have that now can we? Beliefs being sacred and all….

subotic says:

03:52pm | 18/10/12

Mmmhmmm, the Boble.

Looking for a copy at the library even as we speak….

St. Michael says:

05:18pm | 18/10/12

Subotic, you’ll find it next to the Qurin, same aisle as the Tilmud.