jazzypaul

The Smoke Daddy is awesome, but I'm a bigger fan of Moonshine (about 8 doors down), and Mac's (across the street). As for BBQ, I've been spoiled by growing up on the south side. A couple of dudes with an oil can and a recipe to die for did their thing right up the street from us (near "The Cell") and BBQ has never, ever, ever been the same for me since I moved when I was 12. Sigh.... Now, when it comes to music, if you're lookin for grease, the Smoke Daddy can't be beat. And the Reckless is in Wicker Park, on the 1400 N. block of Milwaukee.

oh....RDK is right...well, Jesus never ate instant grits. Of this I am certain. better?

I wish I had a written transcript of Bill Hicks' take on waffle house. You'd probably all hang me for my sentiments, but hell, they don't have 'em in Northern Illinois, and after doing Phish tour in 1995-7, I experienced too many of them for my own good. There's like what, 6 items on that menu, with the opportunity to douse them in either cheese or sausage gravy? ewwwwwww....

Why order from the bastards when I can go see them? New place is 8 blocks doorstep to doorstep. I get my healthy two mile walk in (well, it'd be healthy if I didn't stop at Moonshine for a Haacker-Pschorr) and some cool atavistic sides all in one Saturday afternoon!! Actually, the new place is awful for keeping money in my wallet. Dusty Groove (the bespectacled girl behind the counter is too cute for me to refer to them as bastards) is down the street, Reckless is up the street, the JRM is a Blue Line trip away, as is Virgin and Tower. This doesn't even mention the fact that Myopic Books is right by Reckless, and...shit, I'm gonna be broke by November...

See, and these are the moments in life that make me smile...people finding new and interesting ways to enjoy themselves. it's never too late.

Jim, you and I are totally cool. I ducked out for the same reasons that Al said he was...I found myself getting away from the very message that I was trying to get out there...that not all Christians are assholes. Then I was being an asshole. At that point, it's time to step back and say, "you know, people are going to think what they're going to think. who am I to stop them?" As for Alexander and Take 5, I am reminded of the great Shakespeare quote: "The woman doth protest too much!!" But yeah, I'm out of the religious discussions too. No good is coming of these, from my point of view.

Maybe I am misremembering, but I don't recall you being so subtle, or charitable, in your characterizations of 'real atheists' and 'bad atheists'. Mostly because most atheists try to butt their way into my business. I won't witness to anyone unless they ask me about my beliefs, and I am pretty sure that most of the Christians on the board (Shrdlu excluded) will do likewise. However, every day I am bombarded by atheists preaching their religion of no god at me. Want me to be charitable and subtle to the atheists around here, do likewise. While I will gladly exchange viewpoints with you if you wish to discuss things, don't go around telling me that my God doesn't exist (a pretty heavy thing to say), if you don't want a little bit of it thrown back at you. Respect commands respect, after all, doesn't it? Fair enough. If more than 90 percent of Americans rate themselves as believing in God and something over half going to church, where do you live or what circles do you travel in where "most atheists try to butt their way into my business"? If people disrepect your faith, obviously that's not cool. But when you say "don't go around telling me that my God doesn't exist (a pretty heavy thing to say), if you don't want a little bit of it thrown back at you", you're not equating someone simply stating their belief that God doesn't exists as disrepecting your faith, are you? Take 5, Alexander and Shawn have been downright nasty about it. That's what I am talking about. I have absolutely no problem with someone saying that they don't believe in God. That's their thing, and who am I to take that away from them, unless they ask for my testimony. But, when people put up articles that are so poorly written as to be chided by even the other atheists on the board to goad me and other Christians, that's where I draw the line, and I will fight for what I believe in. When those veiled attacks become outright, I will be more than willing to fight just as hard as they'd like to. As for the circles I travel in, I see more atheists than the average person, I can assure you. Or maybe I just notice them more. I dunno. But they're out there, and when they get militant about it, I can too.

Once again, you prove you have a god. Once again, you prove you have a religion. Once again, you prove that you are willing to worship your god. I haven't seen that much passion and faith in a long, long time. You've got a lot of Bible banging Christians beat, Alexander. I just wonder how much different your opium tastes than mine. And, I gotta say, that inspires me, Alexander. When I see someone with that much passion about something, I am moved. When I see someone with that much faith in an idea, I am touched. And when I see someone so devoted to their cause that they're willing to evangelize, even to the point of annoying their neighbors, just like a jehovah's witness, I am impressed. And I want that kind of faith in my life. So, thank you Alexander. You have made me stronger in my walk for the day. And this, once again, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that atheists are satanists. If there is no good and there is no evil, then do what thou wilt shall be the extent of the law. Right Mr. Crowley? And in proving your satanism, you have proved the existance of God to me. You see, no one argues this hard about something that they actually don't believe. Nobody has ever gone to court to prove that Elvis is dead or that aliens don't exist. No one here has started a thread discrediting the guy who bought the lost Buddy Bolden cylander on e-bay, and no one has ever tried to put up a fight to prove that Wynton Marsalis never hired a Rhodes Player. If you know something in your heart of hearts, you believe it, and you move on. You, on the other hand, Alexander, fight so very hard to prove that there is no god, that you end up sounding like you're trying to convince yourself more than you're trying to convince anyone else. **Note** If anyone has a problem with me saying this, talk to Alexander. He was the one who said that there is no good and evil, and therefore, by definition, no moral code of ethics. **End of Note** Who says I'm in it for the death game? Death is a long way off for me, brother. And face it, there's a hell of a lot more comfort in your game than in mine. With you, you die, that's it. You're done. Really, not a bad way to go. Don't worry about hell, don't worry about whether or not Heaven will get boring just worshipping God all the time, don't worry about coming back as a cockroach (if hinduism is your game...), don't worry about whether you did enough good works to justify Allah letting you into paradise. Just die. I wish I was foolish enough to play that game. That's a lot less of a crapshoot. See, I'm in it for the life game. Can you think of a better way to live than to follow Jesus' teachings? Compassion, giving, love and strength are at the core of his teachings. When we see people that followed Christ's example we see Martin Luther King, Jr, Mother Theresa, Thomas Merton, Bono (who, while a pompous ass, is trying to do good throughout the world, you must hand it to him), Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, and even Gandhi (who kept a picture of Christ in his office and always spoke highly of Jesus, even if he didn't speak well of Christianity...). I would think that those would be people that we would want as role models. If I can live a life comparable to any of them, do I have anything to fret about when I die? Even if I find out that there isn't an afterlife, wouldn't I be able to sit there on my deathbed and look back saying, I think I did alright? We all have role models. Jesus is mine. And along with Jesus comes his divinity. I love the fact that my God is a loving and caring and compassionate God, not a god who is quick to anger or vengance. If I'm wrong, I can live with it at the end of the day. Can you? As for your question about God not intervening, all I can say is I don't know. I don't know why God allowed 9/11. I don't know why God doesn't allow dollars to fall out of the sky and onto my porch, either. But I accept it. I figure it will all come into focus one day. And on that day, I'll be glad that I wasn't swayed by other people's rants and raves. We'll see I guess. There is more to be said, but I am getting too tired to type. I will be back.

Maybe I am misremembering, but I don't recall you being so subtle, or charitable, in your characterizations of 'real atheists' and 'bad atheists'. Mostly because most atheists try to butt their way into my business. I won't witness to anyone unless they ask me about my beliefs, and I am pretty sure that most of the Christians on the board (Shrdlu excluded) will do likewise. However, every day I am bombarded by atheists preaching their religion of no god at me. Want me to be charitable and subtle to the atheists around here, do likewise. While I will gladly exchange viewpoints with you if you wish to discuss things, don't go around telling me that my God doesn't exist (a pretty heavy thing to say), if you don't want a little bit of it thrown back at you. Respect commands respect, after all, doesn't it?

Totally agreed, to a point. Don't punish me for my father's sins, and don't tell me that my faith is bad or corrupted or the like because other people (wrongfully) did horrible things in the name of that faith. Yes, people who called themselves Christians killed off the Jewish population in Spain, killed off the American Indians and had a hand in hundreds or thousands of other disgusting atrocities. But the real Christians of the world have always been a good lot, trying to do good by their fellow man while preaching the good news to those who will listen. Anyone and everyone should be able to tell the difference between words and action. Boney James says he's a jazz musician. Dave Holland actually is one. Same difference.

You know, we're told to be meek, but I can't just sit around and watch people take cheap pot shots at my faith when they obviously aren't even close to knowing what they're talking about... Yes, Jim, you're missing something huge. Two things actually... 1) These letters were written to CHURCHES. They were also meant to be codes of conduct WITHIN CHURCH WALLS. How were women supposed to act during church, that's it. Women can still be presidents, queens, bosses, CEO's, musicians, ice cream truck drivers, you name it. They just can't preach in church. 2) These were also written around the societal norms of 2000 years ago. Appearance was huge in the new testament. Not just giving God lip service, but also acting in such a way that everyone around you would say, "wow, these Christians really have it together!" (For proof of this, look throughout Corinthians and Romans, where it talks of acting like Christ and acting in such a way as to not be a stumbling block) Sadly, we've let that one slip through the cracks pretty badly. So, is Christianity degrading to women? Nope. Are people that take the Bible out of context one verse at a time degrading to the very notions of human thought and logic? Yep. Next time, quote entire passages, and read them for yourself instead of taking them from the "we're atheists and we'll take anything out of context to prove our point" website. Please. And Alexander, no, I haven't had enough. Please, bring it on... edited to say thanks to Big Al for keeping his cool way better than I can. And that quote in Peter ties it all nicely together. See how much better things look IN CONTEXT?

degradation of women, Jim? Hopefully you can back that up with some verses, not just what people tell you to think about the Bible. I know some that you will think of, and I can refute them pretty easily... And, where, oh, where, oh where do you find support of racism? This I've gotta see, because you are most definitely reading a different Bible than I am.

Spy, if I'm not mistaken, was done by the same guys that brought us National Lampoon, which was truly mad magazine for big kids in its prime. Why do all of the great humor magazines have to die such long horrible deaths?

Chrome, you're right. Not only do you still have to deal with your consequences here, but you'll also have to deal with them in Heaven. Let's face it, I'm probably not going to be nearly as close to God as Mother Theresa or Billy Graham. There is still reward (or the lack thereof) for your actions here in heaven. As it should be.

yeppers.

I used to get Details, back when it was the GQ of Gen-X. I could be dapper, get decent articles about a multitude of things, it was a great magazine. Then it tried to be the new Maxim, and intelligent hipsters throughout the world lose out. I used to get the UTNE Reader, and to tell you truth, I have yet to figure out why. Good reading, though. If nothing else, I was always engaged, even if I ended up spending half of my reading time rolling my eyes.

What is your stance on magic leprachauns? I personally believe in magic leprechauns. I can give you my reasons for thinking that magic leprechauns exists, and you can tell me why they don't, but at the end of the day, we'll come to an impasse. You take it on faith that there are no magic leprechauns. If this seems silly to you, understand that asking someone to prove the non-existence of something is absurd because you cannot prove the non-existance of magic leprechauns. Hey, if you want to believe in magic leprechauns, who am I to stop you? Revel in your faith, dude. You can't be serious. Do people expect articles and pledges to save their soul, help their spirits, or what-have-you? The fact that you're likening passion for faith exposes your own disrespect for logic, faith, or both. Does anyone expect an article or pledge to save a soul? Of course not, and I wasn't even going there. And passion and faith are not one in the same, but passion and worship are kind of intrinsically linked. Without passion, worship is just lip service, and with it, it is a very powerful thing. Your worship of no god is indeed a quite powerful thing. It's done some good things (keeping religion out of the public sector, for one...), just as the worship of the Judeo-Christian God by his followers has done some good things as well. The only logic that my ideas don't fit is a logic that bends and sways to fit your viewpoint. Your whole take on greed proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. We're having a conversation. Stop projecting. Evangelism is spreading ideas and trying to get people to convert or conform. This is different than discussion, debate, and sharing information. I feel sorry for you if you can't see the difference. In a debate, you are trying to share your side of the issue, whilst trying to either pull the other side to your side, or the people watching in the audience to your side. That's pretty much the same thing as your very own definition of evangelism. Yes, there is some discussion and sharing of differing of viewpoints going on here, but you've been far too passionate about your ideas to simply call it a discussion. You're trying to disprove and discredit Christianity. And for what? Certainly not for simply the fun of doing it. Even from a humanist point of view, it certainly wins you no points to break the spirit of a person by discrediting their faith, right? So, what's the only other reason that you would bring up the issue with as much venom as you've mustered? I can't think of any other reason than atheistic evangelism...trying to convince others to join you and your point of view. And given what others have said about atheism in this discussion, isn't the better plan of action to sit back and laugh at us silly religious types? Instead, you jump up and down whining like a little girl who just got her Barbie taken away from her about the evils of Christianity. The same way that Jerry Falwell does when things don't go his way. And while Jerry Falwell is an embarrasment to America and Christianity both in his fundametalism, he is what, again? Oh, that's right, he's an evangelist. I never said that the ideas were alike at all. You do know the english language, do you not? I said that we were alike because we both had faith, both worship and both evangelize. I never said that our belief systems were even remotely close. You got any Grant Green that I haven't heard before? B-)

Dude! Ganesh (like all those Hundu dietys) is just another of the many faces of God. Just like Jesus and many others. It's the way they see cosmos. God is everywhere, a concept that I haven't heard in the Christian world since I was in Bible class as a child. speak for yourself. I totally believe in the idea that God is everywhere. He's everywhere that you can find unadulterated joy: In Ronnie Foster's solo on It's Your Thing, in the roar of an old Vette when you step on the gas, in the sky when you can see stars for miles and miles, in the fields when you see flowers in colors you didn't know existed... The way that the hindi dieties had been described to me (by a hindi) was much along the same line as the catholic saints: there is one big god that we all know and love, and then you pray to certain deities for certain things. That would make Ganesh his own bad self, among a crowded field of other dieties.

Wow, I get to respond to a few at once here... 1) Atheism isn't a religion? Hmmm, let's try this again, shall we? What are the fundamental points of religion? Faith, worship and evangelism, right? a) Faith is believing in something without totally being able to prove it. You cannot prove that there isn't a god anymore than I can really prove that there is one. I can give you my reasons for thinking that God exists, and you can tell me why He doesn't, but at the end of the day, we'll come to an impasse. You take it on faith that there is no god. (the circular logic that the guy in that article attempted was just that. Circular logic.) side note: that article mentions Ganesh. Is Ganesh a god? Yes. People pray to it, we know what Ganesh looks like, there is no doubting that there is a Ganesh. I can point to Ganesh in a book and say, that's Ganesh. But, do I believe that Ganesh is anything more than a "god with wooden legs?" Nope. Just because it's a god doesn't make it GOD. That's the difference. b) When you worship something, you give it praise, you exclaim it mightier or better than all else. Look at the way Alexander drooled over a poorly written article that is not backed up by modern historical thinking! (Even the two atheists on the panel of the Jesus Seminar acknowledge the existence of a "historical Christ") Look at the fervor that is exuded trying to get something as inane as the Pledge of Allegiance modified. Anybody expending that kind of energy to banish God is, in essence, worshipping their no god in the same way that we as Christian are worshipping God when we do things that are pleasing to Him. And your efforts to demean Christianity are just as pleasing to your no god, I promise you. c) Evangelism is taking your beliefs to the streets. Ask Alexander and his article on whether or not Christ existed about that one. Reading it and keeping it to yourself is one thing; trying to put it out there with the idea in mind that you might bring someone to your side of the table is evangelism. So, you're trying to spread your unprovable faith that there is no god through evangelism. So, Skid, we're probably a lot more alike than you think. Our gods might be different, but make no mistake, man, we're still doing what we feel is right by our gods. You'll preach here about the virtues of Humanism, and I'll preach about My God being a mighty and powerful God who is great in all ways, to whom I am grateful for his blessings, and that I get them even though I am certainly not the best Christian on the planet, or the best human on the planet, or even my block. So, being that we are so alike, we should most certainly work on being more unified, shouldn't we? Got any Grant Green that I haven't heard yet? B-)

Skid, I think you missed a few of the points I was trying to make. Some of them simple, and some of them not so much... "insert name of real atheist organization here" was simply put in because I know there is no charitable organization called "atheists international." That's all. Reading Earthward's website, I got the distinct feeling that if a church was burning down in their neighborhood (for example), they wouldn't exactly be doing anything to help. That's what a charity does, it helps where help is needed, not where you deem help necessary. What I meant by a real atheist organization however is an organization that functions in the same realm as a Red Cross, United Way, March of Dimes or Salvation Army that gathers themselves under the flag of atheism. Not a "charitable organization" that only helps out likeminded causes. Yes, those exist in the Christian world as well, and I think just as little of them. And a good cause by a non-religious person was not what I was getting at. Chrome seemed upset that I mentioned that there are Christian organizations doing good throughout the world, and I simply wanted to know where their atheist counterparts were. So, an organization that is simply non-religious as opposed to atheist doesn't answer my question. (as I have stated before, non-religious simply means a lack of acknowledgement of God, atheism is the religion of no god. There is a difference...) And, you know what, I might have possibly completely missed his/her point. It happens, you know. And I'll always be the first to admit it when I'm wrong. But one thing that really drove me up a wall was this... What this essentially says is, "if they were preaching to the homeless, I wouldn't give to them." Really? Some place is offering food and shelter to those who are less fortunate, and you're going to withhold funds from them because they're teaching the word of God? That's mighty heartless, isn't it? If they're doing good for a community, and doing even the smallest amount of good to raise their community up, then it's worthy. End of story. No argument. Any argument of the issue says more about you than it ever could about the charity in question.

From my perspective, fighting religion is very low on my list of organizing principles. If I was a militant atheist, well, perhaps I would spent time setting up an atheist hospital and an atheist school system. But to me that very militancy is a sign that religion has a disproportionate impact on your life. I would think about religion very little if it weren't for the success of the religious right in trying to impose their views on me. Again, from my perspective, I simply don't see the point in setting up competing charities so long as there is a reasonably good charity out there that seems to come from a secular humanist base (which many do), or a progressive base (Hull House for example) or even a big-tent approach to Christianity. Do I really need to set up Atheists for the Environment to compete with the Sierra Club? I give regularly to a Chicago soup kitchen; since they do not proselytize while handing out food, it doesn't concern me if some of the workers are Christian. Now the exception I would make would be if I lived in an area where there were only Catholic hospitals and health care providers. Then I would feel an obligation to build a non-Catholic hospital that had a broader range of services. Competing charities? Are you kidding me? Are there still hungry people in the world? If so, then one, or two, or ten charities are not enough. Is AIDS still rampant in Africa? Then there's not enough being done. Is poaching of endangered species still a problem? Then there's not enough being done. It's not like there's a Hull House in every city, or even a Pacific Garden Mission or Rainbow Center. There's still a need for more charity and giving in the world. I would like to see the majority of that charity done by Christian organizations, not to be missionaries and force our beliefs upon others, but rather so that people can see faith in action. But that's me. Different Strokes for different folks, right? Funny how the libertarian around here is the one talking about the increased need for charity, and the liberals are saying that there's no need for more charity. It's funny that so many here feel no problems with calling Christianity any number of things, but as soon as the atheists get called to the mat, I'm a hypocrite. It's quite strange that good deeds done with the most divisive of all motives are supposed to be applauded, but Christians that provide real charity to people in need are scumbags trying to trap the poor and defenseless. It's time to look around people. It's time to start thinking about the wedges that we're driving between us. It's time to start doing more listening and less talking. I agree that the fundamental branch of Christianity is doing irrepairable damage to itself, Christianity at large and the country. But trying to get any of the atheists here to simply acknowledge that the teachings of Jesus do indeed have merit is like pulling teeth. It's time for everyone to shut up and think before opening one's mouth (or post). Shrdlu's constant preaching is completely annoying. My ranting probably gets on quite a few people's nerves as well. But that's no worse than cheap shots being taken by Alexander and Take 5 and others. If there is to be an open dialogue, questions and answers are one thing, but thoughtless swipes are another. If we want an open dialogue, I'm down, but if this is just going to be a parade of people trying to prove that they're smarter than their religious counterparts, this is going to get tired really fast.

Earthward The Fred Hollows Foundation And of course (as Chrome already pointed out), there's a whole bunch of secular charities that do wonderful work as well. Points to make here: 1) Earthward is doing some good work. I will agree with them that the Islamic countries would be better governed by secular governments. All countries should be governed by secular governments. And I will agree that stepping in to thwart congregations who believe that children should only be allowed to be healed by supernatural powers is necessary. But, the original question was this: when have we seen "atheists international" (obviously, insert name of real atheist organization here) up and go to Africa, or Alabama for that matter, to go feed the hungry and heal the sick? Earthbound certainly isn't doing that. Instead, they're calling what they do charity when what it really amounts to is PR for the atheist movement. Everything that they're undertaking has an alterior motive. That's not really awe inspiring. They may be good works, but it's not charity for charity's sake. At which point, it's empty anyway. 2) Fred Hollows is indeed doing some great work in Australia. And it's great that his foundation is. But they're not exactly putting their atheism at the top of their webpage. 3) Secular foundations and atheist foundations are two separate things. When something is secular, they're simply not bringing God to the table. Atheist foundations are basing the cornerstone of their existence on the idea that God does not exist. There's a huge difference there. So, please, keep bringing them out. But, in the meantime, you've still yet to show me an organization whose very cornerstone is atheism that is out there doing charitable work for the simple purpose of helping mankind.

I don't have time for a full repsonse, but I guess it depends on how you're looking at things ... you weren't, in fact, JUST pointing out the good that Christians are doing ... you also had to take a "mean-spirited" swipe at atheists, too. I didn't mean to actually defend Take 5 so much as point out your apparent hypocrisy here. here is the difference my dear Chrome... Take 5 says some downright cruel things which cannot be proven about Christianity. They were cruel on their face, cruel in their spirit and cruel in their intention. I counter with something that is VERY true: when have we ever seen a group united under the flag of atheism with the singular cause of helping out the world's poor, sick and hungry? Umm, that would be never. That makes me a hypocrite? That's strange. There's nothing hypocritical about it. if anything, it makes you far more of a hypocrite than me. Why? Simple. As an atheist, you're supposed to be smarter, fairer and more balanced than me, a simpleton that believes in a big God up in the sky that made everything. Yet, with all of your supposed balance, you get upset when somebody points out the very real fact that we've yet to see a charity that gathers its troops under the idea of atheism. Instead of jumping up and down defending someone that has the cuth of a swarm of angry hornets, you should be attempting to prove me wrong. But you haven't. Instead, you feel the need to label my statement in a way that is most certainly, at the very least, misleading. So, once again, learn to read what I write instead of what you think. Then let's debate.

There are plenty of people of all religions AND no religion who do good in this world ... no one group should get any special billing. Why do you feel the need to take a swipe at people who have different beliefs than you (atheists)? Aren't you doing just what you're castigating Take 5 for? Chrome, I don't see how you could get that out of what I said. Let me clarify, to make sure that you understand... Take 5 said... and Should I not defend my faith? And that is, sir, MY faith. I cannot speak for the muslims or hindus or buddhists, as I am not one, and I would be out of place to do so. However, I am a Christian, and yes, I will point out that when we follow Christ's teachings and keep our focus on what Christ did and why Christ did it, that we, as a group, are capable of some pretty cool stuff, through Him. Isn't it funny that Take 5 can take a downright mean spirited swipe at my religion and my God, and the good that we attempt to do, and it's fine. But when I point out that we are indeed doing good in the world, Chrome is there within 10 minutes to decry the points that I make? Chrome, when you come to my defense as quickly as you came to Take 5's, we'll talk about the fairness of the issue. Until then, learn to read what people type before you attack it, please.

Way to build bridges and form communities Take 5. Your argument is as tired as the song that your nickname honors. Seriously...what's the point of your post? You're yet another guy taking an empty swipe at Christianity. Because you only look at the harm that has been done by legalistic chumps that do more to harm us than help us, you forget that there are Christians that follow The Bible that do much good, day in and day out. But what about the Christians that run food pantries, homeless shelters and drug treatment centers? Are they evil scumbags, too? How about all of the white churches that joined the fight for civil rights throughout the south in the late 50's and early 60's? I am assuming that they're evil too, right? And those missionaries that you so quickly take aim at ARE indeed helping people, giving them shelter, food and education. When was the last time that "Athiests International" got together and did such things? For those of us who take the Word of God seriously, we bristle at the idea of the Falwells, Robertsons and Bushes of the world. They do God no favors, they do their religion no favors, and they do humanity at large no favors. And yet, you, in your blindness to the world around you, seem quite willing to lump anyone that respects Jesus Christ as their lord and savior together. I might be dumb for following, as you call it, a cult, but you're twice as dumb for not knowing the whole of that which you criticize. You would do well to read the book that you're so willing to slam. You would do well to seek out the Christians (few as they are, sadly) that shine with the light of Christ, as the quakers might put it. See if that doesn't at least run somewhat contrary to what you're so quick to think about us. And, this might be of help to you as well...liberal christians...yes, we exist... If you're going to say you disagree with something, at least do it with some class. We should expect better of each other here, shouldn't we?