I never heard of this arrogant practice before. I think I'll start baptizing by proxy Mormon's who financed the California H8 campaign into gay accepting churches. I'll make sure that LGBT pastors officiate.

Yeah, they are thereby made members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence!

The Mormon Cult has been carrying out this practice for years. It is one of the more curious aspects of delusional belief that started out as a way to let ancestors that lived before Joseph Smith invented his religion to become Church members and gain entrance into whatever fiction that cult has constructed to cheat the finality of death. It is silly, but no more so than the silly practices that other "Ultimate Truths" carry out in service to their made-up deities, just newer and bizarre.

Littel someone who carries so many ultimate truths yet to be proven as you really ought to refrain from talking about anyone else's.

(Fake) Anonymous - I subscribe to the notion that the search for truth is the purpose and goal of the Human experience, and that it may never be fully known, unlike you delusionalist idiots whose ultimate truth devolved from the accumulated superstition and myth your ancestors handed down to you in the form of dogmatized institutionalized religious belief. I have never been afraid to say, "I don't know....YET!", nor do I pretend to have truths I have yet to earn.

I am also curious as to why there is so little comment to the questions that have been posted about the total idiot who plans to put innocent Americans at risk all over the globe by burning the books of the Muslim cultists.

Littel for someone who doesn't know yet you sure enough of your own personal belief to mock the beliefs of others. Well considering the notion you subscribe to is something you kind of made up I guess that's really all you can do.

What would you like said about the idiot who plans on burning the Quran. For that matter since you despise any religion why would you care. If you had your way we'd burn every religions books. He's just a narrower version of you.

(Fake ) Anonymous - I know enough to know that all religious belief is based on nothing but the desire for people to believe something, even if unsupportable and historically simmered in the blood of those who in the past, would not subscribe to those beliefs. Religions are at each others throats everywhere in the world except where secular rule prevails, and even there religions are maneuvering to gain political power to force their will. I am here because someone has to point out how archaic, intrusive and self-serving these institutions of hate (often wearing a cloak of goodness) are harming our country and threatening the very survival of the world.

It is time for Humanity to throw off our delusional superstitions, our mindless crutches, and our justifications to hate our fellow man because they don't worship our false gods. This is a task that hardly could be undertaken by someone infected with religious belief and even less understood by such an unfortunate character.

Robert Littel – You seem to have difficultly differentiating between fact and opinion. Like your claims about religion nothing in your post is based on anything except your own personal beliefs. You are here because you want to push your own intrusive self-serving views. You treat every one who doesn’t share your opinions with distain and contempt. While trying to claim the “cloak of goodness” yourself you push your own hate. As I said you are really no different that the hate monger who wants to see the Quran burned. You have no interest in living in peace with anyone. You want your views to be the only ones. At the end of it all you are no different than the religious you attack except for one things. You claim God doesn’t exist. What humanity needs to do is throw off the arrogant, ignorant notion that their beliefs need to be forced on others and that others beliefs deserve no respect. When you can do that, you might actually have something constructive to say. Until then you are no different than the people and institutions you attack.

(Fake) Anonymous - I understand your need to silence those who do not subscribe to any of the many supposed ultimate truths, and I understand your need to challenge anyone who presents the rational position, but don't try to paint it as anything other than a deliberate attempt to paint those who do not share your deeply held misperceptions as being outside the realm of what is "normal" and in a way every bit as a hateful as the way you try to paint those who take a critical look at institutions that have caused some of the most cruel actions that man has ever committed against man, and all in the name of one unsubstantiable god or another.

We are now seeing an effort to ratchet up the hate levels of Christians, being undertaken by idiots like that Jones jackass in Florida and even Newt Gingrich, who is now leading the Neocon effort (wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross) to push our country into a war against Islam while we are in possession of a nuclear monopoly. Religion may falsely give comfort to an individual, but it is only still around because it is such a convenient mechanism of control, whose continuance insures a population willing to believe anything you can tie to their delusional beliefs. I have every right to point out how religion is being used and why those being used are falling short of making use of their highly evolved but clouded brains. If religion can sell lies like everlasting life, then I can sell the truth about what it is doing for and to the world and you are just going to have to suck it up.

effort to silence you. You are correct I have challenged you and so far you have failed that challenge. Regardless of what you have deluded yourself into believing everything you have said is nothing more than your own personal beliefs or opinion if you prefer. You have supported none of what you have said. Since you have no idea what conceptions or beliefs I hold there is no intelligent way for you to comment on me other than to try and move the focus away from the reality that your own opinions lack of substance. The only hateful thing is someone trying to impose their own views on others and being intolerant towards the beliefs and views of others. If you choose to believe religion is nonsense that’s your right. If someone chooses to believe what a religion says that is their right. You ridiculing religion or people who believe a particular religion is intolerant and hateful. Spin it anyway you like it still ends up the same way. An intolerant person spewing intolerance at something he doesn’t believe without any valid reason.

I’ve never denied that religion has been used, despite what most actually say, to rachet up hate. Then again an atheist ridiculing and name calling a person because the believe a particular religion is also stirring up hate. You’ve deluded yourself into believing your crusade is one of revealing the truth. In reality it’s no different then intolerant religious trying to outshout someone else. We haven’t been in a nuclear monopoly for quite some time. You might want to join the rest of the world in the 21st century. You have every right to say whatever you wish regardless of what anyone thinks about it including myself. I also have the right to point out the flaws and misrepresentations in what you say regardless of what you think about it.

Sorry but something isn’t true just because you keep saying it is truth. It’s someone attacking whatever challenges his own belief of what is normal and true. When you can prove what you say then you can talk about truth. Until then it is not truth, but your opinion.

(Fake) Anonymous - It is clear that you will never tolerate those who do not subscribe to some form of delusional superstitious based rationale for existence, or if you concede we have the right to exist, that we have a responsibility to keep our mouths shut so as not to offend people who do believe such rubbish. What you are arguing for is the right for religionists to evangelize, but that that right must be denied to those who evangelize for rational thought. If you think that is a logical train of thought, then you are not only clueless, but possibly blind stupid.

For somone who does as much insulting and name calling to be lecturing about tolerance is a bit absurd. Your responsibility is to prove what you say rather than ratchet up even more anger and intolerance. You are too ignorant to realize that just as you have the right to spread your message of intolerance, hate andger and even falsehoods others have the same rights to promote whatever their beliefs and views are. The difference between us is I accept that to enjoy my own freedom it means having to put up with others who promote beliefs, views and values I may not share while you see only your own rights and cry when someone suggest you prove what you claim as fact or truth. You questioning my logic is like having the village idiot call you stupid.

Littel - I'm probably going to regret asking this, but why are you calling an Anonymous indvisdual fake Anonymous?

(Fake) Anonymous - I don't have to prove anything to you. Religion is what it is, a system of control that gives comfort to the individual so that they don't have to actually think about anything real. The path charted for them by their less than aware ancestors is fine with them, and that is a cheat and a fraud against reality. As long as religion is used as a weapon to focus hatred amongst and between all those who wish their particular "ultimate truth" to prevail, then we are ALL in danger. As a rational being, I can think of no greater waste of myself, or the totality of Humanity, than to have us all go down in flames fighting over stupid unsupportable illogical and totally improbable god concepts. It is time for Humanity to grow up, evolve beyond the childish need for fairy-tales to give meaning to our lives. Sorry if you think we can somehow all coexist within the framework of forces that consider themselves to possess the "ONLY" truth, but it cannot happen. There will always be fanatics who cannot be reasoned with and they will always pose a threat if we allow the fertile fields provided by tolerating generalized superstitious belief, to produce the errant cancerous infestations of fundamentalism.

rino - (Fake) is used when addressing him to differentiate him from Ravensfan-Anonymous, or any true Anonymous that may occasionally post here. I will continue to use it until he has the common decency to pick some sort of moniker that is identifiable.

What you fail to realize is you opinion about religion is just that an opinion not a fact. You can act like it’s a fact, talk like it’s a fact but that doesn’t change the reality that it’s an opinion. It’s really nothing more than your own “ultimate truth”. You focus your own hate and intolerance through it. If you were a rational being you would make rational arguments and not rely on emotion, ridicule or other fallacies to try and simply out shout the fanatics on the other side. What you are either to ignorant or blind to see is that you are one of those fanatics who can not be reasoned with so sure that your own “ultimate truth” is the only truth and unwilling to accept others believing a different one. The only way humanity can grow up is when it learns to respect the rights of others and someone like you does nothing to move humanity any closer to it.

(Fake) Anonymous - All you have to do to make my argument meaningless is to cough up this god creature of yours and prove that its nature is exactly as it is claimed to be by your particular interpretation of "ultimate truth". My "opinion" on the nature of religion is based on the fact that there is not now, nor has there EVER been a single shred of evidence in the entire history of Humanity, that a god exists, or has EVER existed. Until such time as such evidence is forthcoming, then the opinion based on the available evidence (or lack thereof) holds the high ground and cannot be assailed by feeble attempts to give credence to ideas that have NO BASIS IN FACT.

You can condemn the rational argument all you like, but it is valid, unlike the fairy-tale rationale that you seem to think should carry equal weight in the world of ideas. It does not, and your attempts to give it that weight by belittling anyone who makes the rational case is a form of boneheaded bigotry against logic and reason.

Since I am not trying to change what you believe or disbelieve I am under no obligation to prove anything. As to your assertion “there is not now, nor has there EVER been a single shred of evidence in the entire history of Humanity” that isn’t entirely correct either. There are several books from various faiths written by people who claim differently. While that doesn’t make your argument wrong it does make your premise that nothing exist in the entire history of humanity since it is not out of the realm of possibilities that one or more of those writings are what they claim to be.

What seems to elude you, or you choose to ignore is no matter how rational or irrational your argument is it is still an opinion also with no basis in fact. Your opinion is based on the fact that it has never been proven to your satisfaction God exists. That doesn’t make your opinion right or wrong. The only thing you can say with any certainty is God may not exist.

I don’t condemn rational arguments. I expose irrational ones and opinions held out as fact. What bothers you is you can’t prove what you choose to believe as well. The difference between us is I can accept that not everyone sees things or believes in the same things as me. You need to belittle and attack anyone who doesn’t share your beliefs. At the end of all the discussion that is all it is. Your personal belief and nothing more. All the diatribes and verbose ridiculing doesn’t change that FACT.

I have made the case, many times, for why religion is a threat , not only to individuals (whom so many have already been sacrificed at various and numerous altars, over time) , but why it is a threat to the very survival of Humanity. In as much as religion shows no interest, despite the many professions of peace and brotherhood, in reaching a balance where the many points of belief can coexist and be accepting of those that challenge their own deeply held myths, it is evident that without any proof that these dangerous concepts have any validity, that it is time for the Human species to turn our collective backs on delusional belief, in favor of rational thought. It is not healthy for a species to maintain a set of circumstances that will eventually lead to its destruction and the continuance of these archaic belief systems flies in the face of the natural order. We either evolve beyond this infantile relic of our past, or we succumb to to the downward spiral it is leading us to.

No you have made no case. Most of your posts are nothing more than empty accusations and ridiculing insults or emotional appeals. When you do attempt to provide an agreement you end up drawing irrelevant conclusions from history and used them to paint a distorted picture of all religions and people who follow them which fits your own opinion of them. The problem with humanity is humanity. It’s our own unwillingness to accept others that cause the suffering. If you think simply eliminating religion is the answer then you are the biggest delusional person I’ve encountered. Rather than trash religions we should be challenging people to look at what their religion says and compare it to their actions. You want to see a Christian right winger made speechless. Challenge them with the words of Christ and ask how their actions reflect those words and teachings. They usually end up doing what you do which is to either appeal to emotion or ridicule or try and change the focus. Unfortunately for you nothing in your response changes the reality that the ideas you espouse are your opinion with absolutely no basis in fact. You’re certainly entitled to them and to try and spread them just as I have the right to question them.

(Fake ) Anonymous - Evidently, you do not understand that we as a species are acting little better than a virus that spreads itself throughout its host to the point where the toxins it produces kills that host, and curiously enough the virus itself, provided there is only one host. Humanity has grown in number, mutated to fend off control mechanisms (our medical advances, agricultural manipulation, among other factors) that formerly forced us to live in balance within the finite limitations of our planet (host), and that now have led to nearly 7 billion of us peeing into the collective pool in many nefarious ways. The net effect is that we are starting to make the planet a place that will not support Human life. It may take far longer than your or my life to accomplish, but if steps are not taken now (better yet starting in the 1920s) it will be too late to stop the inevitable. The one factor that will insure that the population of the Earth reaches the tipping point is the fact that we do not care. Even worse, is the tendency for religions to wage a contest to out-breed each other. The Catholic Church has as its central principle that there be no sex before marriage and no birth control after marriage, the message of which is marry young and have as many Catholics as possible, The Muslim religion is no better with the average Muslim woman having six children. Now, if the major challenge facing Humanity is the wasting of the planet in its ever increasing pressure to feed the needs of an ever increasing population, fed in large part by the intractable nature of religions to breed like rutting weasels to "win" in the end, then religion represents a threat to our survivability that cannot be denied by anything less than a complete blithering idiot fool. In as much as religion has no foundation in fact, causes so much hate and dysfunction in the world, and is the driving force standing in the way of dealing with the problem that is going to kill us off in the end, the only sane choice is to dump this rotting albatross from around our necks and start facing reality. Nothing you can say will change the facts above. You can deny them, you can call the opinions, but they are FACTS that can be supported by science and mathematics. Religion has to be eliminated for the good of us all. It is a luxury we can no longer afford and the sooner we are rid of it , the better.

Littel one can always tell when you realize that you can not mount a logical counter argument. That’s the point where you try and change the subject. Population growth wasn’t an issue we were discussing yet you bring it up in an attempt to justify your own delusional beliefs. Since you have no proof for your claims of religions engaged in a contest to out breed one another it can be dismissed as another emotional appeal. The fact that populations are growing is yet another example of your drawing irrelevant conclusions to support your own beliefs. There is in reality more foundation in fact for religion that your continued attacks against it. Even if you could prove your argument that there are no facts supporting religion that wouldn’t justify your tirade against it. The best argument for religion is your comparing humanity to a virus. It shows how little life means to you, yours or anyone else’s. What humanity needs to rid itself of is greed, lust, anger, intolerance and hate for others. By the way philosophy isn’t supported by math or science so using your line of thought we should rid ourselves if that as well. What nothing changes is that everything you said is nothing more than your own opinion and is unsupported by your own standards of math and science. What will kill us is people like you unwilling to accept the rights of others to hold opinions and values different that yours. You might as well get use to the reality that religion is going nowhere. It also doesn’t change the FACT that your opinions don’t become facts because you repeat the same tired logical fallacies over and over again.

(Fake) Anonymous - I wasn't comparing religion to a virus, I was comparing us to a virus. As a virus invades our body and mutates to a point where it will harm us, we have mutated to a point where we are harming our living host, the planet Earth. There is an inherent flaw that does not allow us to exist without harming the planet, and part of that flaw is manifested in our allowing a once relatively harmless (as in not harmful enough to destroy us) part of our nature to rise to the point where it now can destroy us, either by fulfilling any number of end time prophecies, or burying us in numbers we cannot sustain in their contest to will through shear numbers. I am not changing the subject, because the very nature of religious belief is at the core of our impending destruction. This is not just an intellectual exercise where my will is deemed paramount, it is about what we are as a species and how we are to act if we are to endure. Religion has outlived any usefulness it may have once had, and as the threat it now represents, it must be given up. The fact that you cannot see that, or would be amenable to the practical solution that addresses the serious quest ions facing us, IS NOT MY FAULT.

Robert Littel I don't think you will win many converts to your views by comparing humanity to a virus.

rino - Nonetheless, it is a valid analogy. We are living beings subject to all the rules that apply to all other life forms on this planet. The only thing different is that we can affect our surroundings to a degree no other creature has been able to evolve to. We can use this ability to enhance our survivability in the face of rapidly changing conditions, or we can use this highly evolved mind to construct limiting institutions that only speed us toward the fate of other dominant species in the past. That we like to think of ourselves as special creatures, is one of the reasons we invented gods in the first place. Our first sign of sentience was reached when we evolved to the point where we could abstract enough to conceive and invent gods. We will achieve sentient maturity the day we rid ourselves of these silly invented creatures, or carry and be carried by them into oblivion.

Littel I never said you were comparing religion to a virus. If you read my post carefully I said “The best argument for religion is your comparing humanity to a virus. Pay close attention to what comes after the word “your”. While I don’t disagree on the issue of worldwide population I think your virus analogy reveals your own lack of appreciation for human life. How exactly is the nature of religious belief at the core of our destruction? Other than your own misguided deluded belief that the religions of the world are in some sort of breeding race you have offered nothing else. Since the vary core of most religions is self sacrifice, putting the needs of others before ones own need and desires, treating others as you wish to be treated and refraining from violence the problem isn’t religion but it’s misinterpretation by those who claim to follow a particular religion. The problem is also those who wish to apply their own misunderstandings and prejudices against the religions of others such as you do on a fairly regular basis. You make no valid provable by math or science (your rules) to support what you claim. What is your fault is the grossly inaccurate biased and bigoted commentary you make. You seem to want to use your standards when the suit you. You have no trouble using them against another point of view, but make no attempt to follow them when making outrageous accusations and claims and offering no scientific or mathematical evidence or any other kind to prove it. That is also your fault. I’m amenable to practical solutions. What you can not see through the fog of your own bias is you offer none.

Robert Littel - Interesting take on humanity. I don't agree with all of it, but it's interesting none the less.

(Fake) Anonymous - Either pick a damn moniker, or be totally ignored. I'm not responding to anyone who goes by the default name anymore.

Littel what does a moniker or lack of one have to do with anything? What a weak attempt to avoid admitting the obvious. That your commentary on religion is an opinion not supported by your own requirements to be a fact. If my not using a moniker really mattered why wait until now to make such a comment. You don't need to respond. I've already exposed your so called facts for what it really is your own biased belief.

Robert, were you making us a promise when you said you not responding to anyone who goes by the default name anymore?

You won't get rid of me that easily. I will respond to issues, just not to anything they may say about my opinions on those issues. If he can't pick a name of some sort, that allows us all to easily identify who we are talking to, then he should not expect to have his issues addressed, especially when directed at an individual.

Glad to see you admit what you said was your opinion. That was the issue you passing off opinions as somehow factual.

Littel - Again with the we comment. When I address you I am addressing you only. Respond or don't respond that's your choice. It makes no difference to me one way ot the other. I will continue to repsond to issues and comments made when I feel it appropriate.

Comments posted from anyone under the "Anonymous" label will not be addressed.

Robert, the only people you can identify here are the handful who use their real names. Everyone else is anonymous, including you. That said, any of us who want to tear your arguments apart without having to listen to you rants may now post under the "Anonymous" label.

Thanks

And that is supposed to bother me why?

I only use one name in this forum. Having lived in several cities while getting my education and have had several "home town papers" which now have blogs, I use a different name in each one exclusively. I didn't ask our resident rude poster here to go by his name, just a name that would allow us to differentiate and identify whom we are dealing with. If you are so interested in the names I use in other forums, then I'll give you a hint how you can uncover the rest. They are all themed around terms of size like, long, short, big, little and so on. The point you are trying to make makes no sense and my request that he select a name, not necessarily the one his momma picked, is valid.

Littel I told you a long time ago if it bothered you that much come up with an id and as long as it wasn't insulting or offensive I'd use it.

As for rude posts no one is as rude as you on this blog.

If you study the syntax, grammar, vocabulary, and writing "voice" it is pretty easy to tell one anonymous from another, Mr. Small. That's how we do it in the intelligences services that keep track of bad guys. Once we consider a fool a threat we track your IP address, monitor your emails, study the video's you watch, analyze your contact lists to discover your associates, etc.

Tough work that, but somebody's got to do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-NBoUF7eAc

I'll get worried when "Big Brother " comes up with my "E-Trade" ID, or my safety deposit box location and number, until then, I'll just assume he did a simple search of key phrases and picked out a common match in another paper, like maybe in L.A.. Your pitiful attempt at intimidation shows a lot of gall. I however, respect gall, but suspect you are just some twenty year old living in your parents basement harboring delusions of grandeur. Now if you come up with my real name, I'll be impressed.

No Robert, I am not twenty, though I am younger, smarter, and better looking than you. I have no desire to know your real name, but it really is not that difficult to find out if one has the time and the inclination to find out.

My point was that people can be identified by, as I said before, syntax, grammar, vocabulary, and writing "voice." I have shown that by finding you in three cities, and with very little effort. So your incessant whining that you can't tell one anonymous from another in just this one blog points to you lack of deductive skills.

I have written to you under at least five different names other than the four on this thread. I have given you clues for almost a year (even that is a clue). Can you identify who I am?

In deference to your advanced years:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJh5Ed944AE&

If you are using more than one name in any blog, (I've counted four here in the last few days ) then you are being not only rude, but dishonest. I have NEVER used any other name here and can only speculate why someone would need to do so, or why the moterators of this blog would allow it.

Why would it be considered rude or dishonest to use more than one name in a blog? People may have any number of valid reasons to use a variety of different names. There isn't necessarily anything sinister about it.

Just to avoid any confusion with other anonymous posters, this is the first time I've commented on this thread.

It is merely a literary device. Some of the names people use around here are quite entertaining. Rather than taking offense why don't you have some fun sleuthing. As The man from UNCLE pointed out, identities can be discerned by subtle clues in grammar, syntax, and vocabulary. We all have our idiosyncrasies. In some of the stories that Ms. Keene wrote about me it might be a limp or an unusually short finger.

But here we have only words to go by. If we were searching the entire internet it would require the advanced capabilities of ECHELON and NSA. But this is only one blog, and the person you seek is a regular contributor. It is small work to identify speech patterns.

Here is an example. Dana, who uses her real name, uses two phrases often. The first is “that said” and the second is “all of that said.” The first is a much more commonplace phrase. So we will use the second, which is moderately novel, and of course we'll search only this blog. The result is a search string that looks like this:

"all of that said" site:weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/faith

The result, at least at this time of writing, is:

In Good Faith: Gay weddings on hold in California - In Good Faith ...
Aug 17, 2010 ... All of that said the history of our movement began quite opposite from the Civil Rights struggle of Dr. King. We started out with Stonewall. ...
weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/.../proposition_8_gay_marriage.html - Cached

In Good Faith: Pope begs forgiveness, vows action on abuse ...
Jun 11, 2010 ... All of that said, Frank, I agree that dialogue should work both ways. But so far you have mostly listed the same litany of abuses that we ...
weblogs.baltimoresun.com/.../pope_begs_forgiveness_vows_act.html – Cached

If you click on the cached version of each you find one signed by “Dana” and the other signed by “Dana LaRocca.” Perhaps by the time you read this it will also link to this discussion so you'll see one signed by me.

This is just a minor example. More complex investigations may have search strings that are very long. Another method is to create a custom search engine under your Google ID if you want to search among a number of sites.

Your colorful language is much easier to track than Dana's though:

"god creature" site:weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/faith

Happy sleuthing,
Nancy

Mr. Littel. I guess i should provide the links like this so you don't have to copy and paste:

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=%22all+of+that+said%22+site%3Aweblogs.baltimoresun.com%2Fnews%2Ffaith&btnG=Google+Search

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=%22god+creature%22+site%3Aweblogs.baltimoresun.com%2Fnews%2Ffaith&btnG=Google+Search

Why should I even bother? For all I care, you could just be Clay, finally awakening from your long coma and discovering that you can walk and chew gum at the same time.

I miss Clay. He was almost as entertaining as you Bobbles. I hope he's O.K.

Dana - Clay has NEVER been OK.

Neither have you,

rino - Like I give a flying crap about anything you have to say.

Littel I never expected you would. I kind of doubt you care about anything that doesn't fall in line with your extreme left wing BS.