Thoughts - I'm used to FIrefoxes being second class...

[jack]

I'm used to non-ie protals but see: http://www.repentamerica.com/.

"Christians, enter here.

Others, enter here."

I think they need a footnote to disambiguate people like catholics[1] and jesus...

[1] No, I have no idea why American "ultra"-Xian organisations think catholics aren't Xian, but there you go.

Comments

[enismirdal.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes...the Christians are greeted by a page of news about Gay People versus Christians and how bad homosexuality is; the 'Others' are greeted by an article entitled 'Are you good enough to go to heaven?'

Yet another case where I think, 'If you are the people I meet in heaven, I will actively work not to end up there?'

*chuckles* I can't take that kind of 'Christian' seriously...

...they are a shame, really, as they give a bad name to real, nice Christians...

[saraphale.livejournal.com]

[1] No, I have no idea why American "ultra"-Xian organisations think catholics aren't Xian, but there you go.

I'm coming around to the view that it's because Xian is being treated as synonymous with "good". In thinking about morals recently, I'm coming around to the idea that in general, people seem have a tendency to assume that they are good. They make the fallacy of assuming that anything they do must therefore also be good, and that things they disagree with must be bad. This extends to cover political and religious beliefs.

Or, I'm completely wrong.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

(In fact the footnote was quickly assembled to show that *I* didn't have anything against catholics, and hadn't properly thought about it.)

I'm coming around to the idea that in general, people seem have a tendency to assume that they are good.

It sounds obvious, put like that :) But it sounds a reasonable interpretation. Certainly many of the arguments against catholics seem like justifications, and the absense of the concept of working with and accepting opponents is noticable in, say, politics.

It's a bit of a morass, because some people would say a christian was someone who 'lived in a relationship with god', so lots of people would *think* they were christian, but actually be frauds, which makes it hard to refer to 'apparent christians'.

I was going to say Catholics seem to be singled out, though I guess other christian 'sects' like Mormons get very stereotyped too, though some sects deserve it.

[chess]

As to your footnote - possibly for the same reason as I called a bunch of High Anglicans heretics when I was about five; because they seem to 'worship' saints, which is tantamount to worshipping idols at a glance (especially when they make pictures and statues of the saints then pray to them).

The 'Are you good enough to go to Heaven?' article was actually not as bad as its name suggested; it did actually answer the question correctly (you're not, neither are we, just as well God worked that one out and did something about it then...). Unfortunately then the site went and linked to a page about Bush's Homosexual Agenda and how he apparently isn't really anti-abortion *enough*.

The tale of the baseball-bat abortion (some girl in Macomb County wanted an abortion but didn't want to tell her parents, so she got her boyfriend to hit her with a baseball bat until she miscarried, now he's on trial) makes me think despairingly of To Kill A Mockingbird, too; let's hope it has a happier ending.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

because they seem to 'worship' saints, which is tantamount to worshipping idols at a glance (especially when they make pictures and statues of the saints then pray to them).

True. That *does* make sense. But I generally find the bible at least ambiguous about matters which apparent christians disagree, so for people more like 40 than 4 it seems reckless to dismiss the whole faith. I haven't found anything official, but for instance http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/faq-cc.html#q15 claims catholics don't intend to be idoltrous.

The 'Are you good enough to go to Heaven?' article was actually not as bad as its name suggested; it did actually answer the question correctly

Oh yes. I hadn't actually *read* it yet, oops :)

Bush's Homosexual Agenda

I have no idea: is he supposed to be pro or con?

The tale of the baseball-bat abortion (some girl in Macomb County wanted an abortion but didn't want to tell her parents, so she got her boyfriend to hit her with a baseball bat until she miscarried, now he's on trial) makes me think despairingly of To Kill A Mockingbird, too; let's hope it has a happier ending.

Oh fuck. It is despairing.

It does sound like an extremely potent argument for legal and stigmaless abortions; I'm not sure if that's how they intended the link.

"This is the same kind of approach you would take to cases like football, or boxing, or sadomasochistic sex," Moran explained. "The striking behavior isn't assault because there's an expectation and consent." ...from the article linked. I'm interested that there, apparently, sadomasochism IS ok, as I've definitely heard of one case somewhere where one party was arrested.

[chess]

Under British law, one cannot be considered to have given consent to Actual Bodily Harm (which is loosely defined, but generally consists of 'heavy bruising', 'marks which persist for a week or more' or similar levels of injury) or Grevious Bodily Harm (or 'wounding', but that's oddly defined and generally strange legally) on the grounds of sadomasochism; you can give consent to 'battery', which is any form of physical contact which does not constitute ABH. There is a famous case where a bunch of gay men were convicted of ABH and GBH for consensual acts performed on each other. ('Assault' doesn't actually contain any element of physical contact at all - it's the crime of putting someone in *fear* of violence, and you can also consent to that trivially.)

I think the American legal system has different definitions of all of these terms, and don't know its stance on how much harm can be explained as sadomasochism.

[captain-aj.livejournal.com]

Hahah, fantastic stuff. In a similar vein to Jack Chick, except Chick provides many many more hours of entertainment, with lots of fun comics explaining why homosexuals, Muslims, Catholics, scientists and liberals aren't getting to heaven.

[rochvelleth.livejournal.com]

What annoys me is that a few months back I was told that situation X (shan't go in to it, some of you should be able to guess what it is) had arisen because I'm "non-Christian". I think this must mean that I don't belong to the group of Cambridge-based radical Christian types (who believe *they* are "saved" and it's their mission to save everyone else... or something).

Somehow "Actually, yes, I am a Christian - I'm a f***ing Catholic!" didn't seem to convince them. *shrug* I fail to understand these people.