Simulacrum

"The difference" here being that "Charities don't steal money from people like welfare programs do." So, yes; coming to such a realization would require one to agree with you.

Yeah, guys; welfare doesn't help anybody until we all agree with Dr. Brain that taxes are theft.

There is a substantial difference in that Al Qaeda did not try to conceal their responsibility for the attack. The hijacking itself was relatively easy, but it would be relatively difficult to arrange it without exposing the organization's general involvement.

For example, the object of the game is not necessarily to minimize the budget deficit, particularly in the short term. I don't think anyone criticizes FDR for selling war bonds, and Democrats generally don't criticize Obama for the stimulus package.

Now wait a minute — you said this is about method, not outcome. What does it matter if something is divisive or widely-agreed-upon? Where has this ever come up in my posts?

That's nothing. By far the biggest part of the deficit increases* under Bush were tax cuts and Medicare Part D. *I say increases, but Bush was really creating a new deficit after Clinton left with a surplus.

I know plenty of committed, church-going Christians who understand science and are quite liberal. Your definition of "religion" is absurdly specific and biased. Funny you should mention history... And English class? There's a lot of worldview circulating there, to the extent that right-wing churchy types often object to the field as a whole. And that's to say nothing of American Government classes, which inevitably make various assumptions about how people, states, and societies ought to be arranged. And why are you responding to something that I've already modified? We socialize children with political beliefs (both those that you like and those that you don't), social attitudes (both those that you like and those that you don't), hobbies (both those that you like and those that you don't), goals (both those that you like and those that you don't), and so on already. Are these things problems? Should we only raise feral children because you can't stand the thought of anyone being raised into beliefs? I emphasize that parenthesized refrain to again emphasize that this only sounds remotely like a good idea when you ignore all the religious people who already agree with you on the issues that you name. Would I like people to stop opposing abortion, stem-cell research, and LGBT rights? Of course. Would getting rid of religion help? Perhaps. But saying that all religious socialization is wrong because of these issues is like saying that all lighters are wrong because of arson. And getting rid of religion, especially before getting rid of things like homophobia and misogyny, is a pipe dream anyway.

Socialization, then; should all of that be illegal?

Maybe you have a small sample size. Maybe people don't liketo express their doubts about religion. Maybe "doubt," like "faith," does not have a universally accepted definition.

What if they want to learn about religion? In other words, how do you distinguish between religious education and other types of education? Seriously? You think that 13+ years of education are less life-changing than the nominal religious identity than most theists have? It's not a matter of probability. 21 of the children's parents consented, but 12 were never asked, and there's apparently some evidence that the mssionaries were deceptive when asking.

Given that 80-85% of Haitians are Catholic, I don't think this was a conversion attempt. That being said, it's outrageous that they thought they could just pop into another country and pick up a truckload of children of relocation.

Hmm. Can't say I object to your believing whatever. It's when you start interfering in others' lives (e.g. pressuring people to have a particular sexual orientation) that faith isn't a strong enough standard of evidence. Thing is, most religions I know of cross that line sooner or later. Usually sooner.

Which doesn't make it true.

Which, in this context, pretty clearly refers to religion. There is no "Great Santa Claus Debate."

And how are non-religious beliefs relevant to a religion thread?

You make God sound like an abusive SO. Courage's claim is basically that God, if he exists, is acting like an asshole, which is a problem for religions that claim that God is not an asshole. Your response is to point to passages in the Bible where God is described as an asshole. You describe this as an argument, but it's really a bunch of ad hoc redefinitions that reduce certain claims about God (particulary the claim that he is good) to meaninglessness. Is God an asshole or not? If he is, how can he be good? If not... how can you say so while holding up descriptions of him coercing us into submission and false love under duress?

I believe that God doesn't exist. I'm not sure that it makes sense to say that I "know" this.

Both continental naming schemes and the United States' demonym have multiple disputed standards. Get your shit right.

I'm an atheist. It's just that I can't make any sense out of what Anonymous is saying, and the part that I could decipher (what I quoted earlier) just seems to ignore many aspects of religion.

Your post is incomprehensible, but I will at least point out that I merely said that your claim is too narrow*, which is a vastly different thing from narrow-minded. * Though I really meant to say too broad.

Yeah, see — the "prevent one crime at all costs" conclusion is why I can simultaneously think that Lera's position is complete hippie bollocks and that your position is completely fucking nuts. (Pun intentional? We report, you decide!)

Well, you've lost me already. Do religious people have answers — that is, explanations — or not? If I have a theological explanation for something rather than a scientific one, am I not wrapping my mind around it? Your claim is also far too narrow, as it does not apply to the parts of religion that do not involve explaining phenomena (which I would say is most of it).

On the other hand, the KKK isn't just known for its racism. The titles of their leadership do seem to tend toward the silly side, and the same pattern has been noted in Iran. I think this is another one of those cases where a text has more than one valid interpretation.

Then it's just an empty statement. If saying "I don't pay much attention to Iran, much like I don't pay attention to the KKK" just means "I don't pay attention to Iran because they're Bad," he might as well say "I don't pay attention to Iran because they're a bunch of poopy-heads." It's not factually unsupported in the way that other comparisons to the KKK could be, but it's nevertheless an asinine statement for any article claiming to present insightful commentary.

So, Theodore Olson, who was Bush's lawyer in Bush v. Gore and later his Solicitor General, is arguing from his conservative principles that marriage is fundamental to family and community in America, and that it is therefore a right that cannot be denied to gay people. Fucking badass.