The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Okay; it's now nearly April 2005. The US Presidential elections were held back in November 2004. I think I've just about calmed down enough to talk about what that unbelievably christawful result might now mean for the rest of us. Why did I need so long to cool my enflamed hate gland? Well, because the aspect of Dubya's election victory that I'm going to talk about is the increasing power of the Christian Right.
The first thing that needs to be said about the Christian Right (apart from the fact that they're a bunch of joyless f**ksocks with all the personal charm of a Nazi on a sightseeing tour of Israel...hey, I may have calmed down, but that doesn't mean I'm not still furious...) is that their name is...well, a lie. They're not very Christian, and they're never right.
So why do I so utterly despise these Evangelically minded morons, and am I insisting that they're about as far removed from the spirit of Christianity as it's possible to be without donning a horn and hoof ensemble, painting themselves red, and singing hymns to Mephistopheles? Probably because their actions since the election give them away for the totalitarian, freedom-hating, backward bigots that they are.
One of the biggest giveaways to this mindset is their approach to abortion. A woman's right to an abortion in the US is enshrined in the case of Roe vs. Wade, which was decided by the Supreme Court back in 1973. Ever since then (and particularly under the Republican regimes of the 80's), the Supreme Court has been packed with increasingly conservative judges, and Pro-Life lobbyists (almost without exception members of the Christian Right) have been pushing for the case to be reviewed and overhauled (and, if they had their way, burnt). However, as the recent Right To Die case of Terri Schiavo has shown, the US Judiciary has done a decent job of maintaining its independence from populist, rabble-rousing "moral issues". And so, Roe vs. Wade remains law.
And the reaction of the Christian Right? It's been very balanced. All they've done is encourage the murder of abortion doctors. And demonise any and every member of government and judiciary who isn't messianically opposed to abortion as a baby-killer. And demand that the church-dwelling chimp in the White House outlaws abortion altogether. And pretty much gone out of their way to dismiss any debate over this highly contentious issue, and demand that their view be accepted as the unvarnished truth and implemented without delay.
Is it just me, or is their attitude that of a spoilt brat who has thrown an epic huff at not being allowed to play with their favourite toy? I don't recall Jesus saying "Deliver unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Unless you don't want to; in which case, stand like a placard-waving, glassy-eyed automaton chanting ill-conceived slogans and threats at anyone who doesn't go to the same church as you". Yet the Christian Right seem to have taken His message of humility, love, tolerance, and brotherhood, and turned it into "Love thy neighbour. Unless he's funny lookin'. And doesn't think exactly like you do." It's sweet that they assume that, if they say abortions shouldn't happen, then they won't. But when one bears in mind the number of backstreet abortionists who flourished back in the days when it was illegal (which also caused 15% of maternal deaths back in those happy-go-lucky days of prim insanity), I'm rather inclined to think that their prurient wishful thinking will lead to misery and pain for countless women.
It's not as if Evangelical churches don't have a good track record in using their influence to do make changes that benefit everyone; during the time of the British Empire, the Victorian Evangelical Churches campaigned fearlessly against slavery. They can take pretty much all of the credit for the abolition of this hideous practice which in turn enabled civilisation to genuinely lay claim to being civilised. What have the Christian Right spent their time campaigning against? The right of a woman to choose what to do with her body. Oh, and Spongebob Squarepants.
I'm serious; this mighty, monolithic collection of Holy Warriors has spent months campaigning against Spongebob Squarepants because "he's clearly gay". Apparently, because he holds the hand of his best friend in the cartoon, he encourages homosexuality amongst children. It takes a very special kind of mind to see homosexual propaganda in a kids show. In fact, it sounds like the sort of thing a stoned student would say at 3am (having once claimed that Mr. Benn was an allegory of the battle between Good and Evil, I know what I'm talking about...).
If anything shows that the Christian Right are an organisation interested in controlling the thoughts, words, and deeds of everyone, a mean-minded crusade against a cartoon character (a f**king CARTOON CHARACTER for f**ks sake...mind you, they tried to claim that one of the teletubbies was less than manly cos he carried a handbag, so...) should do it. I shudder to think how they'd react to the prospect of primary schoolkids holding hands when they go on a school trip.
What really concerns me is that, since the US Election was decided on "Moral issues", and since the President is a member of the Christian Right himself, the assumption is that it should be the Christian Right who set the moral agenda on all issues from now. After the downfall of televangelists such as Swaggart and Bakker in the 90's, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch of the imagination to realise that the US is trying to appoint a gang of hypocrites, liars, and thieves as their moral guardians.
What is even more worrying is that the arrogance of the Evangelists seems to be spreading here. 2 weeks ago, most people on the street couldn't have given the faintest hint of a damn about the 24-week limit on abortion. Thanks to the grinning charlatan living at Number 10 and his slithering insistence that he's a good Christian, we have church leaders trying to make it an election issue. Nothing too troubling in that, because everyone has the right to raise their concerns. But I'm never in favour of allowing Religious groups trying to set political agendas; as we can see in Iran, Afghanistan, America, and most recently in Iraq, it leads to a minority forcing their will on the majority. More than that, it leads to intolerance, and persecution of anyone who can't or won't conform with their will.
So then; the Christian Right of America, who constantly bray about how the freedoms of America are the best in the world, are trying to dictate how the law should develop. They're trying to say what is acceptable in culture. They're trying to subvert democratic process. They're trying to tell us all what we're allowed to do, what we're allowed to see, and how we're allowed to think. They're causing honest-to-God Christians to be viewed as equally intolerant and hateful as the Evangelicals. And they're doing all of this in the name of God.
The only other organisation I can think of that did this was the Taliban. And they were ostensibly ousted by the US Military for being an undemocratic organisation who sheltered terrorists. By my reckoning, the sh!theels who shoot doctors and bomb abortion clinics at the behest of the undemocratic Christian Right are terrorists. Might I suggest that, if Dubya is serious about spreading democracy, he declares his next war on them?
The first thing that needs to be said about the Christian Right (apart from the fact that they're a bunch of joyless f**ksocks with all the personal charm of a Nazi on a sightseeing tour of Israel...hey, I may have calmed down, but that doesn't mean I'm not still furious...) is that their name is...well, a lie. They're not very Christian, and they're never right.
So why do I so utterly despise these Evangelically minded morons, and am I insisting that they're about as far removed from the spirit of Christianity as it's possible to be without donning a horn and hoof ensemble, painting themselves red, and singing hymns to Mephistopheles? Probably because their actions since the election give them away for the totalitarian, freedom-hating, backward bigots that they are.
One of the biggest giveaways to this mindset is their approach to abortion. A woman's right to an abortion in the US is enshrined in the case of Roe vs. Wade, which was decided by the Supreme Court back in 1973. Ever since then (and particularly under the Republican regimes of the 80's), the Supreme Court has been packed with increasingly conservative judges, and Pro-Life lobbyists (almost without exception members of the Christian Right) have been pushing for the case to be reviewed and overhauled (and, if they had their way, burnt). However, as the recent Right To Die case of Terri Schiavo has shown, the US Judiciary has done a decent job of maintaining its independence from populist, rabble-rousing "moral issues". And so, Roe vs. Wade remains law.
And the reaction of the Christian Right? It's been very balanced. All they've done is encourage the murder of abortion doctors. And demonise any and every member of government and judiciary who isn't messianically opposed to abortion as a baby-killer. And demand that the church-dwelling chimp in the White House outlaws abortion altogether. And pretty much gone out of their way to dismiss any debate over this highly contentious issue, and demand that their view be accepted as the unvarnished truth and implemented without delay.
Is it just me, or is their attitude that of a spoilt brat who has thrown an epic huff at not being allowed to play with their favourite toy? I don't recall Jesus saying "Deliver unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. Unless you don't want to; in which case, stand like a placard-waving, glassy-eyed automaton chanting ill-conceived slogans and threats at anyone who doesn't go to the same church as you". Yet the Christian Right seem to have taken His message of humility, love, tolerance, and brotherhood, and turned it into "Love thy neighbour. Unless he's funny lookin'. And doesn't think exactly like you do." It's sweet that they assume that, if they say abortions shouldn't happen, then they won't. But when one bears in mind the number of backstreet abortionists who flourished back in the days when it was illegal (which also caused 15% of maternal deaths back in those happy-go-lucky days of prim insanity), I'm rather inclined to think that their prurient wishful thinking will lead to misery and pain for countless women.
It's not as if Evangelical churches don't have a good track record in using their influence to do make changes that benefit everyone; during the time of the British Empire, the Victorian Evangelical Churches campaigned fearlessly against slavery. They can take pretty much all of the credit for the abolition of this hideous practice which in turn enabled civilisation to genuinely lay claim to being civilised. What have the Christian Right spent their time campaigning against? The right of a woman to choose what to do with her body. Oh, and Spongebob Squarepants.
I'm serious; this mighty, monolithic collection of Holy Warriors has spent months campaigning against Spongebob Squarepants because "he's clearly gay". Apparently, because he holds the hand of his best friend in the cartoon, he encourages homosexuality amongst children. It takes a very special kind of mind to see homosexual propaganda in a kids show. In fact, it sounds like the sort of thing a stoned student would say at 3am (having once claimed that Mr. Benn was an allegory of the battle between Good and Evil, I know what I'm talking about...).
If anything shows that the Christian Right are an organisation interested in controlling the thoughts, words, and deeds of everyone, a mean-minded crusade against a cartoon character (a f**king CARTOON CHARACTER for f**ks sake...mind you, they tried to claim that one of the teletubbies was less than manly cos he carried a handbag, so...) should do it. I shudder to think how they'd react to the prospect of primary schoolkids holding hands when they go on a school trip.
What really concerns me is that, since the US Election was decided on "Moral issues", and since the President is a member of the Christian Right himself, the assumption is that it should be the Christian Right who set the moral agenda on all issues from now. After the downfall of televangelists such as Swaggart and Bakker in the 90's, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch of the imagination to realise that the US is trying to appoint a gang of hypocrites, liars, and thieves as their moral guardians.
What is even more worrying is that the arrogance of the Evangelists seems to be spreading here. 2 weeks ago, most people on the street couldn't have given the faintest hint of a damn about the 24-week limit on abortion. Thanks to the grinning charlatan living at Number 10 and his slithering insistence that he's a good Christian, we have church leaders trying to make it an election issue. Nothing too troubling in that, because everyone has the right to raise their concerns. But I'm never in favour of allowing Religious groups trying to set political agendas; as we can see in Iran, Afghanistan, America, and most recently in Iraq, it leads to a minority forcing their will on the majority. More than that, it leads to intolerance, and persecution of anyone who can't or won't conform with their will.
So then; the Christian Right of America, who constantly bray about how the freedoms of America are the best in the world, are trying to dictate how the law should develop. They're trying to say what is acceptable in culture. They're trying to subvert democratic process. They're trying to tell us all what we're allowed to do, what we're allowed to see, and how we're allowed to think. They're causing honest-to-God Christians to be viewed as equally intolerant and hateful as the Evangelicals. And they're doing all of this in the name of God.
The only other organisation I can think of that did this was the Taliban. And they were ostensibly ousted by the US Military for being an undemocratic organisation who sheltered terrorists. By my reckoning, the sh!theels who shoot doctors and bomb abortion clinics at the behest of the undemocratic Christian Right are terrorists. Might I suggest that, if Dubya is serious about spreading democracy, he declares his next war on them?
Page:
This is just so you know, I'm not avoiding this. I'll consult with you in a few. Real life calls..
Celestine wrote:
> Believe it or not, I am also in agreement with your overall view in
> this ranty thread. It's just, you over-did it..became a mad,
> over-generalising radical.
Okay; then show me where I over-did it. That's what this is meant to be about; an exchange of ideas.
> Believe it or not, I am also in agreement with your overall view in
> this ranty thread. It's just, you over-did it..became a mad,
> over-generalising radical.
Okay; then show me where I over-did it. That's what this is meant to be about; an exchange of ideas.
Light wrote:
> Celestine wrote:
> Aha! My point exactly. :P I lurrve you guys. You're so easy to
> rile up.
>
>
> Admissions of trolling; the last gasp of the truly inane.
>
> If you were able to phrase your distaste for people who commit the
> heinous crime of disagreeing with you in a way that made you sound
> like less of a petulant cockwasp who has more in common with the gym
> teacher from Donnie Darko than a follower of Christ, I'd have all the
> time in the world for you.
Funny, my sentiment toward you exactly. Hm.
> As is, you sound like a typical evangelical; all happy smiley
> sentiments, and shallow as a tinkers bath...right up until someone
> disagrees with you. At which point your "Persecute! Kill the
> Heretic!" gland comes into play.
>
> Incidentally, my fiancee is a Catholic. Yet she manages to phrase her
> beliefs (beliefs that I entirely disagree with) in a way that
> actually leads people to feel she really believes them. She doesn't
> trot out a party line designed to make her feel like a better
> person.
>
> If you have something to contribute, do so. Otherwise, stick to
> wailing that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow less of a
> person. I apologise for my outburst at you in General Chat; I should
> have pulled you up about your lobal vomit long before I lost my
> temper.
I have different ways of expressing myself, because I suppose I prefer to remain real and not put on some aire that I'm "holier than thou." I find that people are in disgust with the religious because of that very demeanor they encounter. When they meet Christian's like me, they know that they can be human, too, and it's alright. Metaphorically speaking, they'd prefer to sit under a shadier tree. When I have conviction, I assure you, you will know.
Believe it or not, I am also in agreement with your overall view in this ranty thread. It's just, you over-did it..became a mad, over-generalising radical. I'll admit I was angry with you for singling me out and being condescending. You deserved what Grix said in that regard.
Apology accepted. *hugs*
> Celestine wrote:
> Aha! My point exactly. :P I lurrve you guys. You're so easy to
> rile up.
>
>
> Admissions of trolling; the last gasp of the truly inane.
>
> If you were able to phrase your distaste for people who commit the
> heinous crime of disagreeing with you in a way that made you sound
> like less of a petulant cockwasp who has more in common with the gym
> teacher from Donnie Darko than a follower of Christ, I'd have all the
> time in the world for you.
Funny, my sentiment toward you exactly. Hm.
> As is, you sound like a typical evangelical; all happy smiley
> sentiments, and shallow as a tinkers bath...right up until someone
> disagrees with you. At which point your "Persecute! Kill the
> Heretic!" gland comes into play.
>
> Incidentally, my fiancee is a Catholic. Yet she manages to phrase her
> beliefs (beliefs that I entirely disagree with) in a way that
> actually leads people to feel she really believes them. She doesn't
> trot out a party line designed to make her feel like a better
> person.
>
> If you have something to contribute, do so. Otherwise, stick to
> wailing that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow less of a
> person. I apologise for my outburst at you in General Chat; I should
> have pulled you up about your lobal vomit long before I lost my
> temper.
I have different ways of expressing myself, because I suppose I prefer to remain real and not put on some aire that I'm "holier than thou." I find that people are in disgust with the religious because of that very demeanor they encounter. When they meet Christian's like me, they know that they can be human, too, and it's alright. Metaphorically speaking, they'd prefer to sit under a shadier tree. When I have conviction, I assure you, you will know.
Believe it or not, I am also in agreement with your overall view in this ranty thread. It's just, you over-did it..became a mad, over-generalising radical. I'll admit I was angry with you for singling me out and being condescending. You deserved what Grix said in that regard.
Apology accepted. *hugs*
Celestine wrote:
> Aha! My point exactly. :P I lurrve you guys. You're so easy to
> rile up.
Admissions of trolling; the last gasp of the truly inane.
If you were able to phrase your distaste for people who commit the heinous crime of disagreeing with you in a way that made you sound like less of a petulant cockwasp who has more in common with the gym teacher from Donnie Darko than a follower of Christ, I'd have all the time in the world for you.
As is, you sound like a typical evangelical; all happy smiley sentiments, and shallow as a tinkers bath...right up until someone disagrees with you. At which point your "Persecute! Kill the Heretic!" gland comes into play.
Incidentally, my fiancee is a Catholic. Yet she manages to phrase her beliefs (beliefs that I entirely disagree with) in a way that actually leads people to feel she really believes them. She doesn't trot out a party line designed to make her feel like a better person.
If you have something to contribute, do so. Otherwise, stick to wailing that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow less of a person. I apologise for my outburst at you in General Chat; I should have pulled you up about your lobal vomit long before I lost my temper.
> Aha! My point exactly. :P I lurrve you guys. You're so easy to
> rile up.
Admissions of trolling; the last gasp of the truly inane.
If you were able to phrase your distaste for people who commit the heinous crime of disagreeing with you in a way that made you sound like less of a petulant cockwasp who has more in common with the gym teacher from Donnie Darko than a follower of Christ, I'd have all the time in the world for you.
As is, you sound like a typical evangelical; all happy smiley sentiments, and shallow as a tinkers bath...right up until someone disagrees with you. At which point your "Persecute! Kill the Heretic!" gland comes into play.
Incidentally, my fiancee is a Catholic. Yet she manages to phrase her beliefs (beliefs that I entirely disagree with) in a way that actually leads people to feel she really believes them. She doesn't trot out a party line designed to make her feel like a better person.
If you have something to contribute, do so. Otherwise, stick to wailing that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow less of a person. I apologise for my outburst at you in General Chat; I should have pulled you up about your lobal vomit long before I lost my temper.
Not bothered.
Don't suggest it's Grix though. It's just insulting Grix.
Don't suggest it's Grix though. It's just insulting Grix.
Hedfix wrote:
> Single-braincelestine I haven't taken a single thing you've said
> seriously. You're the light relief in this thread: a figure that's
> just there to be laughed at whether you're serious or not.
I've still got a suspicion this is Grix, whoever "she" is, she's not stupid from what i've been reading hence the "Treat With Caution", i thought it was a bit out of character, she seemed to have too much of the devil about her to be godly but i just accepted it because she's new, i still dont know whether she's serious or not. :)
Fooled me, wont be so trusting again.
> Single-braincelestine I haven't taken a single thing you've said
> seriously. You're the light relief in this thread: a figure that's
> just there to be laughed at whether you're serious or not.
I've still got a suspicion this is Grix, whoever "she" is, she's not stupid from what i've been reading hence the "Treat With Caution", i thought it was a bit out of character, she seemed to have too much of the devil about her to be godly but i just accepted it because she's new, i still dont know whether she's serious or not. :)
Fooled me, wont be so trusting again.
Single-braincelestine I haven't taken a single thing you've said seriously. You're the light relief in this thread: a figure that's just there to be laughed at whether you're serious or not.
Celestine wrote:
> Aha! My point exactly. :P I lurrve you guys. You're so easy to
> rile up.
* Stamps with "Treat With Caution" inky thing *
> Aha! My point exactly. :P I lurrve you guys. You're so easy to
> rile up.
* Stamps with "Treat With Caution" inky thing *
Aha! My point exactly. :P I lurrve you guys. You're so easy to rile up.
Celestine wrote:
> Hehehe. I'm not your "glassy-eyed happy-clapping
> evangelist" now, am I..
>
> Yeah, I can play biatch too. Depending on my mood. I think I've
> done enough damage here. *sighs*
By all means make your point but the problem is you didn't, you effectively called us idiots who couldn't think for ourselves which isn't too much of a stretch from the original post which you attacked for hypocrisy.
Too much generalisation going on in this thread as a whole, not just you.
> Hehehe. I'm not your "glassy-eyed happy-clapping
> evangelist" now, am I..
>
> Yeah, I can play biatch too. Depending on my mood. I think I've
> done enough damage here. *sighs*
By all means make your point but the problem is you didn't, you effectively called us idiots who couldn't think for ourselves which isn't too much of a stretch from the original post which you attacked for hypocrisy.
Too much generalisation going on in this thread as a whole, not just you.
Page: