Freedom of Speech

The term freedom of speech is oft bandied about in our society, yet many do not appreciate what it really means. Freedom of speech means not only the freedom of each of us to make our opinion known, it is also the obligation to let others say as they will about us. Our laws protect only against statements of defamatory imputation and no more. To limit the ability of others to criticise us is, in reality, an open move against the freedom of speech.

Religion is known for limiting freedom of speech. Emperor Justinian burnt all opposing (non-christian) temples and schools of study and made the crime of heresy punishable by death. They moved against freedom of speech. Hitlers first command when he obtained Chancellory was to limit press freedoms and then silence the Courts. They moved against freedom of speech.

Why do people that hold themselves out to be true, right and correct, fear the criticisms of others? Could it be that they know they are not right at all.

We know only that limiting the Freedom of Speech is a step towards darkness and recklessness. A man who has courage and honour will brook any words made against him. A tyrant and coward, one and the same, will always seek to limit freedom of speech. Shame on that tyrant and coward alike.

Calvinism, hating the poor and working hard

Josh,

I remember where I heard about Calvinism! It was during my studies of criminology and the early modern philosopher, Max Weber, who penned a study of protestant churches in Europe, a note from the commentary:

Weber traced the origins of the Protestant ethic to the Reformation, though he acknowledged some respect for secular everyday labor as early as the Middle Ages. The Roman Catholic Church assured salvation to individuals who accepted the church's sacraments and submitted to the clerical authority. However, the Reformation had effectively removed such assurances. From a psychological viewpoint, the average person had difficulty adjusting to this new worldview, and only the most devout believers or "religious geniuses" within Protestanism, such as Martin Luther, were able to make this adjustment, according to Weber.

In the absence of such assurances from religious authority, Weber argued that Protestants began to look for other "signs" that they were saved. Calvin and his followers taught a doctrine of double predestination, in which from the beginning God chose some people for salvation and others for damnation. The inability to influence one's own salvation presented a very difficult problem for Calvin's followers. It became an absolute duty to believe that one was chosen for salvation, and to dispel any doubt about that: lack of self-confidence was evidence of insufficient faith and a sign of damnation. So, self-confidence took the place of priestly assurance of God's grace.

Worldly success became one measure of that self-confidence. Luther made an early endorsement of Europe's emerging labor divisions. Weber identifies the applicability of Luther's conclusions, noting that a "vocation" from God was no longer limited to the clergy or church, but applied to any occupation or trade.

However, Weber saw the fulfillment of the Protestant ethic not in Lutheranism, which was too concerned with the reception of divine spirit in the soul, but in Calvinistic forms of Christianity. The trend was carried further still in Pietism. Baptism diluted the concept of the calling relative to Calvinists, but other aspects made its congregants fertile soil for the development of capitalism--namely, a lack of paralyzing ascetism, the refusal to accept state office and thereby develop unpolitically, and the doctrine of control by conscience which caused rigorous honesty.

The "paradox" Weber found was, in simple terms:

* According to the new Protestant religions, an individual was religiously compelled to follow a secular vocation with as much zeal as possible. A person living according to this world view was more likely to accumulate money.
* The new religions (in particular, Calvinism and other more austere Protestant sects) effectively forbade wastefully using hard earned money and identified the purchase of luxuries a sin. Donations to an individual's church or congregation was limited due to the rejection by certain Protestant sects of icons. Finally, donation of money to the poor or to charity was generally frowned on as it was seen as furthering beggary. This social condition was perceived as laziness, burdening their fellow man, and an affront to God; by not working, one failed to glorify God.

As per usual, it seems you know less about your own theology than the atheist.

William Lane Craig is a douche

The God Challenge

If you wish to enter into a written agreement to formalise this Offer then please email me on acstewart81@hotmail.com

Contradictions in the Bible

Im still trying to get Movie Maker to work, tell me if this is too fast.

If you are going to preach, then preach like this

No need to talk of Hell or judgement here. That is not what was needed.



It is perhaps the most powerful and beautiful speech of the last century.

Fear and the darkside, why the religious must stay out of politics

When one group in society can destroy the reputation of an individual based on superstition then it has gone too far.

This is why we can't allow theism to gain control of society ever again

Vile anti-abortion lobby

I was sickened when I saw this article:-

Last Abortion Clinic in South Dakota Closes after Law Requires Patients be Informed of Possible Side Effects

SIOUX FALLS, SD,
July 24, 2008 - On Monday, July 21, eight women arrived at the Planned Parenthood office in Sioux Falls in South Dakota for abortions, but were instead met with locked doors and a hand-written note indicating the only abortion clinic in South Dakota was closed.

Planned Parenthood closed its doors after their abortionists, who are flown in from other states, refused to work under the new law that went into effect last Friday. The law orders abortionists to inform patients of the humanity of their babies and that the procedure could affect their mental health two hours before the abortion is set to be performed. The law also provides that abortionists can be sued if they do not comply.

This is typical of theists, they use laws to impose their own moral standing on other people. These laws are an affront to common sense. After all, legal abortions in the United States (pursuant to the decision in Roe v Wade) are permitted while the embryo is in very early development, ie before the 20th week of the pregnancy. A foetus (shown below) does not have potassium ions present in its brain - thus it cannot think.

There is no actual cruelty in the abortion of that foetus. Recent studies show that thalamcortical connections (ie the circuits that allow for neural reaction to physical pain) do not form in the feotus until the 26th week of gestation (Lee, Susan (August 24/31, 2005). "Fetal Pain A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence". The Journal of the American Medical Association 294 (8): 947. the American Medical Association. doi:10.1001/jama.294.8.947).

Accordingly, the laws in South Dakota that require abortionists to state that the foetus has "humanity" rely on gross untruths. Clearly this law is designed to evade the decision in Roe v Wade which allows a female the right to terminate a pregnancy.

But what about the costs? Readers may not be aware that there is significant evidence that societies that do not allow for termination of unwanted pregnancy experience higher levels of crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect). The work of Donahue and Levitt in the study showed that there was a significant decrease in crime rates 18 years after the decriminalisation of abortion in the United States in 1973. They postulated that the only cause which could be identified for the decrease in crime rates was the earlier decriminalistion of abortion.

Why are theists so eager to see more unhappiness, poverty and pain in the world? Do they not realise the forseeable outcome of preventing abortion is going to be unwanted children living in poor conditions?

I would argue that theists impose this moral rule in order to make people avoid sex out of wedlock. Clearly pregnancy is a potential outcome from sexual relations and that, by restricting a methods of controlling that potential outcome, theists are actually attempting to control the sex lives of other people. Why theists can't just stay out of other people's business is unclear - but it is clear that they have not given up on their fairy tales and that we have much work to do before humans are truly free.

Religion should stay out of politics

Southern Christian Organisation endorses Obama

The race for the United States Presidency is one of the toughest electoral races in the world. After 18 months of campaigning it appears that Barrack Obama will now be the voice of the Democratic Party, but he didnt get there alone. Strong support from religious groups is necessary to win the Southern States, and there is no better Southern Christian Organisation to get on your side than the KKK which openly endorsed Barrack Obama over Hillary Clinton.

Unbeknownst to many, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK or Klan) has had three incarnations since the American Civil War. It was during the second incarnation between 1915 and 1942 that the group reached its peak membership of 6,000,000. The Klan were homogenously Protestants and the large membership between 1915 and 1942 was primarily a response to the increasing social mobility of ethnic catholic and african americans, who had previously been seen as an underclass. The Klan claimed to be the defender of the protestant faith against foreign races, Catholics and Jews.

Ministers in the United Church, and other churches, in Canada and the United States supported the Klan and its efforts to homogenise society. When some United Ministers sought to criticise the Klan in 1928 they received a strong rebuke from the churches hierarchy:-

"Although the writer is not a member of the Klan, he has done thatwhich Dr. Endicott and Rev. Donell would do well to follow. Namely studycarefully the principles of this organization. They are such that any man professing the name of Christian can have no hesitation in accepting."

CASE considers the Klan to be one of the lowest forms of scum on the planet and does not support or accept any of their principles in anyway. Furthermore, CASE rejects all KKK activities - except for cross burning. Cross burning is a favourite passtime of CASE employees, burning churches is also a fun passtime (particularly when the theists are still inside). Of course, while CASE considers this to be purely for the purpose of ridding the world of idiotic icons of a corrupt faith, the KKK believed "that it is not destroying the cross, but "lighting" it, as a symbol of the members' faith" - What a smart bunch they were.

Above: Christians demonstrating their faith

and cooking marshmellows