Though I understand where the idea has come from – namely a section of Dawkins’ book on muslim child, marxist child, being akin to child abuse – I fail to see what is atheist about this very noble message.

Hmmm – the issue is not quite so simple, is it?

There are any number of runaway and outspoken ex-Jews and outspoken ex-Catholics but you don’t encounter to many e-x-you-know-who ‘cos their eminent religious scholars say they ought to be crucified and allowed to bleed to death …

To which a response is “Mind your own business”.

This is fantastic (although it could just as easily be a Baptist advert as an atheist one).

Agree with Tim F, this is grand, one of my favourite strands of Dawkins thought is the idea that ‘forcing’ religion onto a your child is akin to brainwashing and child abuse, it also sets the precedent of lying to children pretty early on in the life cycle.

But as it is to do with kids, I think it will kick p and even bigger shit storm that the last one with that bus driver refusing to drive his bus.

If being a christian child amounted to a form of brainwashing, you wouldn’t see congregations at record lows, would you? Children grow up and choose for themselves anyway. Waste of money if you ask me. They might just as usefully promote the belief that people should breathe in and out.

You might agree with me, but I’m not convinced I agree with you!

There’s a difference between not labelling your child as a Christian (or of any particular religion) when they haven’t made their own mind up/not baptising them/not sending them to a religious school on the one hand, and people of faith refusing to teach their children what they believe to be true on the other.

Parents should teach their children what they believe to be true, but allow them to make their own mind up.

As for “lying”: it’s only lying if it’s untrue. Unless you can provide clear proof one way or the other that will suddenly convince everyone, opinion on the existence of God will continue to be divided, so to accuse parents who believe in God of “setting a precedent for lying” is a bit silly. (I would agree with you if you were suggesting parents shouldn’t pretend Santa Claus exists, though.)

(sorry, that was aimed at DHG – and bring back the edit feature!)

Clarice:

Not as simple as that it is? Christians aren’t the only religious denomination in the UK and it’s about children being fed lies re: heaven and whatnot so not really a waste at all.

tim f:

“Parents should teach their children what they believe to be true, but allow them to make their own mind up.”

Trouble is parents are a heavy influence on their children, as you’d expect, so it is hard to separate the two when it comes to rising them in a faith. And as Dawkins points out, that is how religion get’s its claws into humanity via parental indoctrination.

Also, I see no difference in he Santa Claus myth and that of Christ or any of the other religious figures, they are all myths.

I like the ads a lot, but I’m differentiating them from their origins in Dawkins’ work (if that is indeed where they come from). Dawkins is a fantastic advert for Christianity in the same way that many fundamentalist evangelicals in America act as a turn-off.

If you see no difference between Santa Claus and Christ, then teach your children that. But to argue that other people shouldn’t teach their Christians what they believe to be true because of your own prejudices? Daft. Parents can’t be neutral in how they bring up their kids, but they can give them the critical tools to question their beliefs, and they can make it clear to their kids that if they make a faith commitment it has to be their own to be meaningful.

Similarly an adult had to believe it first, to to argue that the only reason religion “got its claws into humanity” was through parental indoctrination is a little silly. Neither does it account for people who convert to Christianity who were not brought up that way.

I like the ads a lot, but I’m differentiating them from their origins in Dawkins’ work (if that is indeed where they come from). Dawkins is a fantastic advert for Christianity in the same way that many fundamentalist evangelicals in America act as a turn-off.

If you see no difference between Santa Claus and Christ, then teach your children that. But to argue that other people shouldn’t teach their kids what they believe to be true because of your own prejudices? Daft. Parents can’t be neutral in how they bring up their kids, but they can give them the critical tools to question their beliefs, and they can make it clear to their kids that if they make a faith commitment it has to be their own to be meaningful.

Similarly an adult had to believe it first, to to argue that the only reason religion “got its claws into humanity” was through parental indoctrination is a little silly. Neither does it account for people who convert to Christianity who were not brought up that way.

can someone delete the first of those two posts – which has a typo in, thanks! (and this one too)

tim f:

On a side note I also miss the edit function being very cack-handed indeed.

I see the ads having an origin in Dawkins ideas and he is a big funder of this particular movement.

As for Dawkins being a turn-off and your comparison to Christian Right in the US, well, as you expect I can’t agree, how you can correlate reasoned thought with hysterical faith I’ve no idea and having someone stand-up and speak some truths regarding the special place religion holds in humanity and the terrible things this has brought about is a worthwhile and much needed role.

I won’t be teaching my kid’s about Santa or Christ, they can find out about all that stuff themselves, I’ll be too busy trying to make them kind, decent and open-hearted people who are hopefully happy.

And you can’t stop a parent teaching their kids any old stuff, I often teach in Muslim schools where the young females are meek, deferred humans with no aspirations other to be whatever their parents want them to be and I have no control over that and nor do I want it but I do have the right to say that it is wrong and it is holding back humanity.

This campaign for me is about that, flagging something we all take for granted and accept and to think about challenging that kind of behaviour and thought. A reframing of religious parental indoctrination. If that’s daft to you then fair play.

And I didn’t argue it is the only reason, making out I did is silly Tim, it is one of the key reasons that plays on a weakness for passed down know;edge written in our DNA that was originally used to share survival techniques. And I’m paraphrasing Dawkins badly there.

And as for people to have late onset conversation, that is still tied in with the same reason it is attractive to a formative mind; that and many people turn to God in crisis and fraught emotional states and a traumatised mind is not a reasoned one.

But the science on this is far too complex to bandy around here without me doing some more reading.

The Dawkins/US fundie evangelical comparison is primarily because of his absolute certainty that he is right, and the aggressive way he puts across his arguments. These are unattractive traits to many people. Of course, if you believe one of them is right and one of them is wrong, you are liable to be more sympathetic to one than the other. But people who are unsure, or take middle-ground can find them both off-putting.

Fair enough if the limits of your argument are that having religious parents makes you more likely to be religious, but that there are plenty of other ways that people come to faith. The statement “as Dawkins points out, that is how religion get’s its claws into humanity via parental indoctrination” seemed to be stronger and more exclusive than that.

I’m absolutely happy for parents to be challenged about whether their actions are giving their children freedom of conscience/belief or forcing their beliefs down their throat (although it does seem you would be very unhappy if your children chose religion for themselves). I just don’t think that means parents should abstain from telling their kids what they believe to be true. Deliberately refraining from teaching their kids about God is also framing their beliefs in a particular way, so it all comes down to what you believe is true.

My primary motivation in all this is the belief that faith is only meaningful if it is a personal commitment, btw. Hence my support from the ads as they appear, as opposed to the context from which they have arisen (if you’re right, which sounds likely).

You’ve mis-read Dawkins then Tim because he never states he is utterly right, he avoids such statements for the same reason you point out.

And as for the aggression, I love how it is acceptable that religions can be all very aggressive in communicating their agenda but when an atheist does it, it is to be looked down upon. Again, don’t buy it, it is not aggression, it is firm conviction based on evidence.

As for these people in the middle ground, they are something that Dawkins and I both feel very strongly about…

As I said in the previous comment, the reason people turn to faith are complex, the key factor (which you’ve now replaced with limited instead of only which is better but still not at all right or reflective of what I am saying but whatever) is parental intervention, other factors, such as late onset are either connected to that, cultural and environmental factors and as I said trauma. If you choose to mis-rad that statement, as you’ve mis-read Dawkins, than that is your prerogative.

And also, unless this exchange is going to get nasty, I’d avoid making assumptions about my feelings regarding my own children unless you are intentionally fishing to be outed as a twat.

And again, I never said parents should abstain from sharing their thoughts with their children (I’m growing weary of refuting points I’ve not even made) but it is abut recognising the weight of those ideas and how many parents do not merely share their thoughts but construct them into the only option with regards to religious belief.

And with regards to my primary motivation, I have no time at al for religion or faith in the context of religion, whether personal or not.

Above advert might as well say:

‘We know better than you how to bring up your child – now stop whining and let us get on with it’.

Which is obviously why it strikes a chord with lefties.

I’d like to raise funds for a bus ad that says:

‘How about f*ck off, Ariane?’

Anyone like to donate let me know and let’s sort it!

‘The Dawkins/US fundie evangelical comparison is primarily because of his absolute certainty that he is right, and the aggressive way he puts across his arguments. ‘

Depends on how you define ‘aggressive’. If you mean ‘writing books’ then he’s ‘aggressive’. If you mean shooting doctors in the USA, snatching kids in the Orkneys or stoning ‘witches’ in Nigeria, then he isn’t.

I’ve yet to hear anyone say they find Dawkins so objectionable they now believe in sky-pixies just to spite him.

Personally I’d prefer Jimmy Carr’s more direct ‘HE DOESN’T EXIST – GROW UP!’

I’ll steer clear of questions about the decisions you would make for your own children, then, although I think it’s valid especially in the context. (For what it’s worth, I would be disappointed if I had children and they didn’t become Christians, although as per above I would not send them to religious schools, would make sure they had the critical tools to question the beliefs they’d been brought up with and would want any decision about faith to be owned by them rather than simply inherited. Of course my disappointment would not mean I was disappointed in them, or that I didn’t love and respect them.)

On “I never said parents should abstain from sharing their thoughts with their children… but it is abut recognising the weight of those ideas and how many parents do not merely share their thoughts but construct them into the only option with regards to religious belief”, of course I agree entirely with that statement. For me that is equally as wrong if they construct them into atheistic belief. I hope you’d agree with that, though I’m not 100% certain, on the grounds that you don’t seem to see atheistic belief as belief per se, just as an extension of reason. (Happy to be corrected there.)

I’m still unconvinced that the “key factor” is parental intervention, although I accept that people with religious parents are more likely to have religious faith themselves than people who don’t. In the places where Christianity is growing the fastest, parental intervention isn’t the primary reason. The psychological factors you’ve identified are difficult to verify so it’s practically impossible to argue successfully for or against them. I would however be wary of arguing that people believe a certain thing because they are damaged in some way.

On aggression, I stand by what I said before. I’m not in favour of aggressive evangelisation of either religious belief or atheism, so there’s no double standard on my part. Fundamentalist evangelicals would argue that their statements are based on firm conviction based on the evidence of faith, but many people find their methods aggressive, and with good cause.

#18

Clearly I don’t think he’s close to being on the level of people who kill other people. If that’s who people think of when I use the phrase “US fundamentalist evangelicals” then no, the comparison doesn’t work at all. I thought that people would have some of the more gas-bag types in mind rather than people who commit acts of violence.

tim f:

I do not classify atheism as a belief system. It is the control sample so to speak.

And i do believe that the key factor is environment and parental influence to guiding religious belief.

And our definitions of aggression are wildly different.

But shatterface, Dawkins often puts on an frowning, angry face and speaks in clipped tones. It’s a verbal pogrom, I tell you.

Thing is, it’s an statement most people agree with.

That is: Don’t label your child as Christian or Muslim or Jewish or Atheist. They’re not truly any of those things until they decide to be themselves.

It’s not telling people to bring up their children according to their own beliefs – it’s just asking for a small attitudinal shift so that more people to recognise that it’s not ultimately their choice what their children will later decide for themselves.

And if you read Dawkins that’s pretty much what he says on the matter – along with faith schools perpetuating segregation. He’s not aggressive about his arguments – he’s quite clear that his own beliefs are based on overwhelming evidence, and that if he were to be presented with evidence for something different, he would rethink his position. There is nothing that equates to fundamentalism in that.

I find myself in full agreement with DHG – and if that isn’t proof in itself of the non-existance of God I don’t know what is.

This is excellent, though it also avoids the millions upon millions of cases of bodily mutilation which take place to children in the interests of religion.

Very interesting debate on here btw. My tuppence (though it’s probably worth even less) Children should not be taught that a religion (or lack thereof) is correct, just be taught what the options are.

I also, as someone that veers as close to atheism as someone can who believes that I’m actually rather insignificant and know very little about the universe, find Dawkins to be a pushy offensive twat who certainly acts like he knows absolute truth, just as annoying as every other religion.

Atheism is no more a religion than ‘not playing football’ is a sport.

Although I am rather good at the latter.

Who said it *was* a religion?

he Dawkins/US fundie evangelical comparison is primarily because of his absolute certainty that he is right, and the aggressive way he puts across his arguments.

“There is absolutely no rational basis to believe in God. Your arguments are absurd.” != “You are going to burn in hell for all eternity.”

Personally, I find threats of eternal torture by far the more aggressive of the two.

I completely agree with most of the posters here.

As someone who was brought with religion before I even understood what poverty is, this advert makes me smile, jump up and give Dawkinsa hug.

I don’t like Dawkins. I think he’s an egotistical prick who hasn’t got the best empathy skills going round but who does? All those religions that judge, judge and judge you to hate gays, or believe in the devil??

Give me Dawkins any day than some American evangelist nut case who goes to a tea bagger gathering with a gun in his hand and a picture of Obama as the devil in his other hand. And you compare these people to Dawkins??

Atheists may argue their point until they are blue in the face but I’ve never had one force me to wear a burka, question me if I have an abortion or whether I’m a “good girl”.

But all I’ve felt from religion-Christianity-has been oppression. But I count my lucky stars. Yes, it effed me up and I constantly have guilt for simply breathing but at least I wasn’t brought up by fundies. Phew.

@23 I was thinking of a way to frame this, but yours is perfect “I find myself in full agreement with DHG – and if that isn’t proof in itself of the non-existance of God I don’t know what is.”

@13 “it is one of the key reasons that plays on a weakness for passed down know;edge written in our DNA that was originally used to share survival techniques. And I’m paraphrasing Dawkins badly there.” No you’re not, you’re paraphrasing him rather well, actually.

Tim F, difficult to decide which of your statements to bother refuting, so here are a few highlights:

“Unless you can provide clear proof one way or the other that will suddenly convince everyone, opinion on the existence of God will continue to be divided, so to accuse parents who believe in God of “setting a precedent for lying” is a bit silly.” This is pretty much the “Yes, I may not have any actual evidence that there is a god, but you don’t have any that there isn’t, so we’re equal” argument. It doesn’t stand up. Ever heard of Bertrand Russell’s “Giant Teapot Hypothesis”?

“Fundamentalist evangelicals would argue that their statements are based on firm conviction based on the evidence of faith” The evidence of faith? “The fact that I believe something exists is evidence for it’s existence” Is that what you mean by evidence?

“For me that is equally as wrong if they construct them into atheistic belief. I hope you’d agree with that, though I’m not 100% certain, on the grounds that you don’t seem to see atheistic belief as belief per se, just as an extension of reason.”
I don’t see “atheist belief” as “belief per se” and I don’t see any evidence, from his posts that DHG does either. There is no “atheist belief.” Atheism is essentially the position that, because there is no objective evidence and no basis in logic to support the hypothesis that a god or gods exist, “philosophies” based on such an hypothesis (primarily religions) are untenable. This is not a “belief” in the same sense as “faith in god.”

I wonder whether anyone agrees with me that the intensity of the debate about religion has become a lot more fierce in the noughties?

Laying my cards on the table, I am an atheist and have been for forty odd years. It really didn’t seem to me that it was important to proselytise my opinion, although I did, perhaps take a little pleasure in watching church attendances plummet. Was that so wrong of me? I kind of assumed that my ideas about theology were going mainstream. And I still think that they are.

But there has been retrenchment, and it is based on a Muslim -v- Christian dichotomy. I recall, inter alia, Nick Griffin saying “this is a Christian Country” and saying to myself, “no it’s not, not on any honest measure”. (And Census figures do not count!). And some Muslims chanting about the coming Ummah.

The largest group of people that this nation has seem to fall into the category of ‘not bothered’. Rather than facing each other across a religious divide that only really suits the relatively small numbers of people who could realistically be describes as god fearing. A dispute that atheists should just turn their noses up at.

@ 30 “The largest group of people that this nation has seem to fall into the category of ‘not bothered’. Rather than facing each other across a religious divide that only really suits the relatively small numbers of people who could realistically be describes as god fearing. A dispute that atheists should just turn their noses up at.”

I see your point, but I think that while we’ve been “turning our noses up” the superstitious, sloppy mindset that allows religion to flourish has been allowed to creep back into acceptability in a number of guises. I’m all for a bit of “proselytising” (wouldn’t have been my choice of word) of the atheist bus kind.

@ Mr F “but I think that while we’ve been “turning our noses up” the superstitious, sloppy mindset that allows religion to flourish has been allowed to creep back into acceptability in a number of guises.”

Yep. Where I live, they are the only ‘youth centre’ or ‘play centre’….

So sad but what does it say about us for letting it become like some crazy religous nut jub country.

The more we’re progressing in terms of ideas/tech, the more communities are being indictrinated by people who see things in a black and white way with a little bow on the top.

I know this is really pedantic but the poster includes ‘Sikh child’. As far as I am aware Sikhs are considered a race, not just a religion in the same way as Jews are. So there really are Sikh children.

I’m not an expert on the matter but I don’t think Sikhs are a race at all but an ethnoreligious group.

@33 I’m not sure that’s true. To begin with “race” is a pretty dodgy cocept in any circumstances. I think DHG is right about Sikhs and calling Jews a race is really stretching things – sephardic Jews are Southern European, Ashkenazy Jews are North and Eastern European, Mizrahi Jews are from Asia Minor and Arabia, Falasha (or Kayla because Falasha is considered by some to be derogatory) are Ethiopian and the Lemba come from Southern Africa. So referring to a Jewish “race” is as nonsensical as referring to christian or muslim races.

‘The more we’re progressing in terms of ideas/tech, the more communities are being indictrinated by people who see things in a black and white way with a little bow on the top.’

And they are very likely to get their loony ideas protected by the UN if they get their way, so make the best of the atheist bus now because future generations may not be so lucky.

Although this probably does not further the debate, Mr F@35 is quite right, labelling Jews as a race is quite recent and favours the Hitler argument. But in most countries religious belief determines the dominant culture, UK culture is strongly underpinned by Judea/Christianity, so it is really quite difficult to avoid references to religion, even for parents who are atheist.

@ steveb

Jews are a race.

A race very or more similar to middle eastern arabs. Jews in the middle east are semites like the rabs in the middle east. Which is why, this whole ‘middleeastern’ fight is so complexed.

@ Shatterface

I agreed with you until now. I’m trying to work within the UN….

Oh, for goodness sake!

If Jews want to see themselves as a race, let them. If Sikhs want to see themselves as a race, let them.

It should give neither group priveleges, I’d have thought.

It seems to me that we are all stuck on a fairly small island and race is irrelevant.

@38 Ethiopian Jews are the same race as Ashkenazy Jews? And they’re both the same race as Sephardim and Mizrahim? What definition of race are you using?

@39 Sorry, you’re right. Ignore my last post, I was being a pedantic twat.

38
In the UK anyone can convert to the religion of their choice, the term ‘Jew’, to denote a race’ is quite recent. If Jews are really a race then it would be impossible to convert to Judaeism. I do not deny that originally, a group of people,who happened to share the same gene pool, also created a particular religion/culture, but equally any one of that original group could have converted to any other religious belief/culture.

This is merely more atheist propaganda as Richard Dawkins wonders whether there is occasion for “society stepping in” and hopes that such efforts “might lead children to choose no religion at all.” Dawkins also supports the atheist summer camp “Camp Quest.”

Phillip Pullman states the following about his “fictional” books for children, “I don’t think I’m writing fantasy. I think I’m writing realism. My books are psychologically real.” But what does he really write about? As he has admitted, “My books are about killing God” and “I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.”

More evidence here:
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/11/deceptive-manipulative-propagandist.html

Yet again, atheists are collecting “amazing sums” during a time of worldwide recession not in order to help anyone in real material need but in order to attempt to demonstrate just how clever they consider themselves to be—while actually loudly, proudly and expensively demonstrating their ignorance and arrogance—need any more be said?

We seem to have lost the point somewhat with the diversion to Sikhs and Jews but thankfully, mentalist Mariano wades in linking to his/her own blog catchily entitled atheism is dead.

Well it’s not, you odd shaped Christian.

Well done, Mariano, you have managed to group people together in one category on the basis of an absence of a certain characteristic.

I find it interesting that you consider “spending a “significant amount of time” praying for poor people” to be an act of charity.

Well, if there really was a God, I’d be first in line for trying to murder the bastard.

Someone at Teh Times really doesn’t get it.

DHG,
It is personage such as yourself who ignore evidence when it is inconvenient to your point, in this case the underlying facts behind atheist propaganda, that make such hypocritical propaganda successful.

Phil H,
I categorized those to whom I referred as they both support the latest propaganda and admit their underlying motives. Your misrepresentation of the studies I cite is embarrassing.

Douglas Clark,
It’s been done. Although, your argument from outrage is just that.

you sad religious sod, coming back to a dead thread to spew your nonsense

Hi Mariano. What are you talking about?

“Yet again, atheists are collecting “amazing sums” during a time of worldwide recession not in order to help anyone in real material need but in order to attempt to demonstrate just how clever they consider themselves to be—while actually loudly, proudly and expensively demonstrating their ignorance and arrogance—need any more be said?”

Demonstrating their ignorance of what?

Lemmy,
I prefer reasoned discourse rather than arguments to ridicule, arguments from outrage and arguments from arbitrary comment section “ethics.” Please note that there is a consistent discussion which began on the 19th and which, due to loss of interest and now, in my case having experienced a long holiday weekend, becomes more and more sparse. Why are you coming back to an un-dead thread to spew your belligerence?

Mr. F,
Thank you for the logical question; the propagandists are ignorant (or perhaps simply ignoring the facts in order to facilitate their propaganda) that, for example, Jews refer to children as Jewish due to cultural- race-peoplehood-heritage-genealogy based considerations and later have a bar/bat mitzvah when the child is consider to become an adult (my was at the age of 18) and only then becomes Jewish in a religious sense. Another example; Catholics baptize babies and have the godparents speak for them by proxy but later have confirmation. Again: culture versus religion.

Loath as I am to return to long dead threads resurrected by idiots Mariano, you hide here behind the exact same tactics you accuse others of, which seems a bit weird.

Your only comment of ‘weight’ and I use that loosely is 43, which has already been debunked and is so riddled with your prejudice it’s amusing.

And to repeat, atheism, as much as you would wish it away, is not dead. Is your faith so weak that you have to declare such nonsense as fact?

Let us see if we can follow the bouncing ball and comment the dots of atheist propaganda:

1) Atheist activists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, etc. condemn the overwhelming majority of parents who have ever lives as “child abusers,” “brainwashers,” etc. for teaching their children their religion. They do this while admitting that they want society to step in and that this will lead to children choosing no religion at all—their goal is to interrupt families in order to encourage atheism in children: evidence here

2) Next, they admit that they teach “science” and “evolution” as being synonymous with atheism, that they smuggle atheism in through the back door of “science” classes in public schools, that they write children’s “fiction” which is really an atheism catechism in disguise, etc.: evidence here and here

3) Next, they seek the support of fellow atheists and the UN in condemning religious parents and pretend to be concerned for free thought and free choice: evidence here

4) Next, we find that some atheist parents and some atheist organizations are not the least bit shy to admit that they do the very same things that other atheists condemn in religious parents, that they want to raise their children to be atheists—sometimes under the very thin disguise of teaching them critical thinking; yet, the evidence is clear, they want to raise atheists: evidence here

5) Lastly, at least thus far, atheists worldwide waste precious money not to help the needy during a time of recession but in order to purchase belligerent bus ads and billboards as they refuse to follow the evidence where it leads and condemn the celebrity atheists for their hypocrisy: evidence here

7) So, how about this for an add: please don’t call us “child abusers,” “brainwashers,” etc. leave us alone and let us choose how to raise our children: evidence here

Moreover, for much more evidence of atheist who seek to dictate child rearing to us all see here

Someone is desperate to prove that atheism is dead methinks? And all your links are to your own blog, hardly a sight for fair and balanced commentary on the issue, you also distort these issues and twist them into something they are not, which is fine but the brazen way you do this suggests some disconnection from reality.

1) you distort this into some nonsense about society stepping in, you have built a straw man

2) That is totally made up madness by you, reflective of your own personal agenda, it is not as simple as science vs religion and if you think it is, then you are way off the mark

3) Not sure how the UN gets drawn into this as a cabal of atheists but again, fiction, I think you are confusing condemning with a desire to remove the protected status of religion as free from critique when its adherents abuse human rights in the name of it.

4) This again is fiction, wildly general and made up, you make out atheists, in order to understand it, into a cult like your faith is but it is not, it is about an open mind, not a closed one.

5) Now that’s funny, you take the ad campaign and then make a odd point that they should give all the money to charity, this point is so flimsy, so poorly thought out, so hypocritical considering the money hoarding that goes in in let’s say the Catholic church or the evangelical movement who spend millions on lobbying not charity to those in need. The point is neither is wrong but by drawing attention to it and considering the values of Christ with regards to money, it makes many Christians look very, very hypocritical and lacking in faith at all.

7) (you skip the devil’s number) Stop linking to your own hate site and leave us alone, how about that?

Seriously, for someone with strong faith, you seem very threatened and if your faith is secure, you should have little need to be so desperate and flimsy in your defence of your cults?