Christians are becoming social pariahs in Britain, claims BBC presenter Jeremy Vine

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by bogomil

 

i could just be tired (a wee bit of dain bramage left over from the coma and many hours of debating with people from another part of the world who think i'm a baaaad person) but i didn't quite understand your post. could you reword it? i'm sorry. i read it and i'm sure you know what you meant, and i'm usually really good with words but i don't know what you are trying to say. : /

Don't want to be rude and interrupt Undo, but may I suggest you write that one down and study it over time when it finally sinks in, you'll probably find your discourse with Bogomil far less challenging.

Originally posted by punctual
reply to post by The Djin

 

might as well be a social pariah for being human then. But this should come as no surprise since wtichcraft, the enemy of christianity has its roots in Britain....

if Britain wants to be a pagan country then so be it.....i am a citizen of the USA anyways...

So anyways, right on high five
Me and you go way, sincere attempt to remain within tandcs back atcha bro

reply to post by The Djin


He is the law. What he says goes. And God can do anything, including destroy the world. So why is it a challenge? If he says something, it is true. End of story. And like the whole quote says, the law of man is not the law of God. The Jews were treated differently to make them different. A picture of dedication. Now God is spreading to all the peoples and all the Earth. So thus the laws of the old covenant aren't so much invalid, as they are like a different chapter of a book. If something happens in the new chapter, and it's different than the first, the most recent is true. God didn't change. God didn't delete it. Man added lots of laws and they were for the covenant. Now there is a new one, because mankind proved he could not live up to it.

Humanity id 50,000 years old. And some would argue God created us with how to not die and do those things. It's not that he decided to come in and change. It's that this whole world, and all the pain, is our own fault. And God is not going to let us off the hook. it is not that evil happened, and then God suddenly felt sad. It is that good happened, and then Man made it evil. We left perfection. That is why we died and suffered for eons.

Then, lets go forward with that. You have no idea what happened in those 40,000 years before recorded history, We just don't know. Nothing survived. The ice age melt down erased it. There are people who lived very long lives before modern times int he Bible. Now. How do we know we did not have a civilization?

There is no proof for God. It's faith. if God was factually there, then there would be no free will. We would either chose to follow, or die in our failures. God helps us in his mystery.

Not only that, but God is suppose to be holy. IE, He is separate. What do you expect, somebody like God being comprehensible to man? Why? That's homocentric. We're less likely to find intelligent aliens we can comprehend, let alone God. So why do you demand he conform to something understandable?

Genisis 1 flat out goes to show God is not understandable. he calls himself "us". We cannot do this. We are one. He is 3 in one. He's not suppose to be understandable. And if I wanted to have some kind of definite proof, it's that he's the only God who is not in some easy to understand format like all the other gods our there.

reply to post by bogomil


oh i see. yeah i am not a masochist.

self flagellation was never my idea of fun (i suppose it might appeal to cutters tho?).
the teaching of bringing the flesh under submission was, in my estimation, talking about
learning to think outside the box, to think of life as more than a series of eating, sex and
sleeping, to use your brain, to seek wisdom, moderation (this part i'm really not very good at),
and thinking before doing and saying things. whereas the old testament focused on outward
evidences of your desire to be a good steward of your life, yeshua taught to bring your
mind under submission, etc. to police your own thoughts. which i try to do but sometimes i admit,
i'm not the greatest steward of my outward life or inward life. lol

reply to post by bogomil


No. Love your neighbor like how you love God. And if you don't know how to do either, pretty sad. Find somebody who does.

Re Gorman91

Quote: ["But to state all slavery in the history of the world is the same thing as cotton pickers in the 1800s South US is simply ignorant."]

If you can point out the person presenting such generalizations, I will have a serious word with him. Ofcourse I agree with you on slavery being different in different parts of the world and in different periods.

Quote: ["Also, the priests in S America were some of the first opponents to Spain's slavery. So you see, for every bad Christian, there is a good one fighting it."]

Counting on my fingers, I can see, that the christianities then are split equally (50/50) between good and bad christians if they are teamed this way.

Quote: ["Christians, like anybody, have gone through bad times and good times. However, we've learned to know what each cases were in those categories. Something you seem not to understand."]

I don't even understand the sentence itself.

Quote: ["But you're talking about the king of the highest turd in the toilet empire."]

I'm not familiar with this entity. Where in the bible does he/it appear?


Quote: ["In fact, the provocative words of Christianity helped end slavery in the western world. And yes it helped create it in some cases. But in the end, it helped end it more than it helped create it."]

The christianities will certainly get a star from me, for exceeding their duty and actually do something good. It doesn't happen so often, so it must be remembered. That is, if your historical information this time is better than it usually is.

Quote: ["No. Masta massa or however you would wish to call it is not relevant to you."]

I'm impressed. You know, what's relevant to me. You psychic, clairvoyant, did D-g tell you?

Quote: [" You are not 150 years old, and therefore slavery did not happen to you. Any desire to use it is some sort of desire to recall back to it."]

So how come you're interested in a 2000 year old fairytale?

Quote: [" Now what does that say to you?"] (This is referring to some embellishment on Abraham and how he got laid.)

To be quite honest: Absolute nothing.

Quote: ["But without any proof, you're just assuming."]

Considering we're talking about a fairytale, assumptions are all we have. But I'm not that interested in the details of this fairytale. I'm more interested in how the present situation of fairytale-believers are in UK. Remember the OP?

Quote: ["And a case built off assumptions doesn't stick up."]

At last we agree on something important. And I'll also agree, that the fairytale exists. But if it's more true than the spaghetti monster remains to be demonstrated. But as you don't rely on assumptions, like I am said to do, this should be easy for you.

Quote: [" The fact that polytheism slowly but surely went away seems to say that God did not agree with it."]

I'm sure an excessive amount of christian violence helped. But then maybe the christian solidiers were just zombis filled with D-g's holy spirit, so the old man really did it himself.

Quote: ["And the fact that Adam and Eve did not have anybody else together, seems to indicate that it's not suppose to be."]

What anybody?

Quote: [" But I'm sure you have a way to corrupt that too."]

No. You're doing quite well alone.

Quote: ["And if you think God is wrong, you're a lot further away than you realize it."]

I would answer thusly. If this alleged 'god' exists, he's not so much 'wrong', as insane. Maybe some demon or ET pretending to be a 'god' and in the end believing it himself.

Quote: ["I am saying some Christians deserve to be bombed. God is not. Can you tell the difference? "]

If I really, really try hard. Yes, I think I almost understand the difference. I'm not used to such intellectual challenges, so it took some time to see this difference.

Quote: ["I think a lot of people in a lot of places deserve to get bombed."]

For some reason I'm not very surprised.

Quote: [" My opinion and what I do are two different things. Once again, your inability to disassociate the two begs to question your intelligence."]

It certainly does 'question my intelligence'. I haven't been that hard pressed for years intellectually, not even when I read quantum-physics (as a layperson), as now with your penetrating observations.

Quote: ["If you want to go by practice, your entire argument collapses."]

yes, I can see it crumbling around me.

Quote: ["See I don't title people. People are people. For instance, your a foolish human who seemingly cannot go one sentence without assuming a bunch of facts about a person which in most cases are not true."]

As you don't title people, I'm NOT a foolish human in fact. Or am I?

Quote: ["I don't think your anyone but a man or woman who has to fix a lot of things"]

The radiator on my car needs to be replaced. But I guess this is not, what you meant.

Quote: ["But you have a lot to learn."]

I'm sitting at your feet.

Quote: ["Can you please just stop embarrassing yourself?"]

I'll do my best.

Quote: ["Do you honestly expect mankind to ever be perfected or true peace to ever occur without some form of divine intervention?"]

Personally I take one step at a time, and in my experience divine intervention usually means trouble, so I leave the gods alone and they leave me alone.

Quote: ["This species slaughtered the first non-human species with intelligence we ever met."]

My endless ignorance prevents me from knowing what you talk about. This is something from your holy manual?

Quote: [" And most of the rest of your sayings is just to ignorant to go on."]

To be honest, I haven't really been saying much in the way of 'sayings'. A great deal of my posts have been questions to you. Being so dumb as I am, I need to learn a lot of things.

And again Religion is used as the excuse to be cruel to each other.

Proves they don't practice what Religion truly is.

reply to post by bogomil


You certainly don't act it. Thus far your argument is based of religious people centuries apart of continents away, but not of our contemporary nation and time that show society would be better without religion. It seems to me it wouldn't be much different. it would just decay faster.

If they're evil then they're not Christians. We're not talking about them. Like I said, most people who title themselves are not actually what they title themselves. Even the Muslim people I know. Most of them are atheists.

Don't understand th sentence? Pretty easy. We've got a lot of bad people with the title of being Christian in our past. Plenty of examples to show what isn't Christian. All you have to do is compare their actions to what God wants you to do.

Parallels are not in the bible. If you can't tell when I talk about the bible or when I use an example in something completely unrelated, then perhaps you should read the bible.

Thus far my historic information has been quite on que. But I am still waiting for you to make the connection between bad people who call themselves Christian and how their actions are justified in the bible. This you have not done yet.

To me it isn't a fairy tale. Proofs all there. It was checked and double checked by it's contemporaries. The core community decided too many people were claiming to be Christian and writing things that simply weren't. 200 years is enough to change Latin into Spanish and French. It isn't enough time to change a whole religion and corrupt it. This is evident by the lack of contradictions thus far in the bible. Now I'm sure you have a long list of them and I'm excited to go down them. But thus far the bible has not changed since it's being made. And even more important, it's core message has never changed. People can take it and corrupt it, and when literacy rates are low they can get away with it for a while. But this is now 2010. So go ahead and try to pick at it.

The rest just goes on garbling your usual rhetoric so it's boring.

Here's the point. The OP is that Christians have a right to preach as they wish. if you don't like it keep walking. The related break off topic is justifying their words. So like I said, if you think it's a fairy tale, prove it.

Re Gorman 91

Quote: ["You certainly don't act it."]

Act what?

Quote: ["Thus far your argument is based of religious people centuries apart of continents away, but not of our contemporary nation and time that show society would be better without religion."]

What argument? What is 'OUR' contemporary nation? Andorra? Are you suggesting, that I've said, that society would be better off without religion?

Quote: ["Like I said, most people who title themselves are not actually what they title themselves. Even the Muslim people I know. Most of them are atheists."]

Are you sure you don't mean arabs e.g.? How can a muslim be an atheist?

Quote: ["All you have to do is compare their actions to what God wants you to do"]

And you know what 'god' wants you to do? How do you know that?

Quote: ["Parallels are not in the bible."]

Parallels to what?

Quote: ["If you can't tell when I talk about the bible or when I use an example in something completely unrelated, then perhaps you should read the bible."]

Have done. But not having you around to tell me what the bible REALLY means, it's a confusing experience.

Quote: ["But I am still waiting for you to make the connection between bad people who call themselves Christian and how their actions are justified in the bible. This you have not done yet."]

Considering the bible as pure and undiluted nonsense, I ofcourse don't use it as a reference point.for anything.

Quote: ["To me it isn't a fairy tale. Proofs all there. It was checked and double checked by it's contemporaries."]

I'm quite sure, that you and I have very different opinions on what 'proof' is. When you have defined your version (to simplify it, mine is much related to scientific methodology), you can explain the checking procedure. Until I know the details, I can't relate to it.

Quote: ["The core community decided too many people were claiming to be Christian and writing things that simply weren't."]

What core community? The alleged original disciples of the alleged Jesus?

Quote: ["This is evident by the lack of contradictions thus far in the bible. Now I'm sure you have a long list of them and I'm excited to go down them."]

I take it you mean self-contradictions. What about two different cosmogonies?

Quote: ["But thus far the bible has not changed since it's being made."]

Some bibles include James epistle. Others don't.

Quote: ["And even more important, it's core message has never changed. People can take it and corrupt it, and when literacy rates are low they can get away with it for a while. But this is now 2010. So go ahead and try to pick at it."]

Fortunately I can read and write, though I must admit, that I have to move my lips, when it comes to long words like 'cat'. To be honest, I'm not very interested in 'picking' at anything fundie-christian. You guys usually end up arguing about how many angels on a pin. I'm more interested in how evidence and that kind of things are verified.

And, by the way .....it's 2011 now.

Quote: ["The rest just goes on garbling your usual rhetoric so it's boring."]

Sorry to hear about that. How can I better entertain you?

Quote: ["Here's the point. The OP is that Christians have a right to preach as they wish. if you don't like it keep walking. The related break off topic is justifying their words."]

So lets try to return to the OP next time, and see if you got it right.

Quote: ["So like I said, if you think it's a fairy tale, prove it."]

Ofcourse. First of all it's a work of fiction, which by itself describes it as a 'tale'. That it's a fairytale depends very much on the elements of talking snakes with legs, burning bushes, dividing rivers, walking on water, turning water into wine, talking in tongues, angels having sex with women, woman having child without sex. Altogether classical elements of fantasy.

That the few controllable elements (cosmology) in it are totally nonsense adds to my conviction.


I live in Europe, and it's late night here now, so finish for today.

reply to post by The Djin


My evidence is that my teachers play catholic music in school.They are not supposed to do that.

reply to post by bogomil


Yea you still did not provide anything to support you claim. As to what's proof? Like I said. There is no proof of God. There's no proof that any of the bible is wrong. After all, an all powerful God outside of time itself could easily pop around a timeline and create every single species in accordance to its day created and be done at the end of the day, but mankind would see eons go by. God can do whatever he likes. And it could even be aliens for all you know. In as much as the stone age isn't the space age, God is not modern civilization. To compare the two is, as previously stated homocentric.

Many bibles have additional books. But the put right on it "this is cannon" "This is not cannon". The book of Maccabees is a good example. In the end, it has not changed its canon for quite a long time. And it's set it pretty well.

The fact is that you cannot prove in any way that anything in the bible did not happen, but there are a few things th t can be proven to have happened. That officially leaves it more true than false in terms of real scientific proof and evidence left behind. Now maybe that's shocking, but its true. It's just about the most beat up book in history, and yet it endures. I'd consider that a good show. And I for one am more than happy to follow a book that has survived from quite literally the most primitive of people, and yet still has not been proven wrong. Anything else is assumption.

And yes, back to the Original topic, people have a right to proclaim that as they want. If you don't like it, proclaim your own truth or keep walking. Just as I've always said. Eagerness to make fun of or suppress beliefs or call it fantasy without trying is nothing more and nothing less than lack of faith in your own beliefs. If you truly believe what you do, then you would have tried to dissect the other person's beliefs instead of just call it all fantasy and never say anymore. Just as I have done to yours

reply to post by zombiesC4


People should play whatever music they desire. If you don't like it then leave a note. In a republic the minority has the right to leave, ignore, or protest such a situation if the majority want it. But they cannot stop it. In a democracy they don't have any rights at all. They got to suck it up.

reply to post by gandalphthegrey


Christians are treated differently in the public eye and you'd have to be blind to deny it. The world is ripe and fresh with hatred and jokes on the Christian but dont ever insult a Jew or Muslim, You'll never hear the end of it. Also calling Jesus ficticious is quite silly and I feel bad for a person who denies the existence of man noted by none other than Tacitus(basically the most accurate historian of the times) . These are my beliefs would you ridicule them?

reply to post by FrancoUn-American


He wasn't the best, he just lied the least. But indeed, he noted Jesus and if he wanted to lie he could and say Jesus never existed.

reply to post by Gorman91


Well I hope my reverence of Tacitus is more than a personal fascination.

Say anything bad about muslims and your a racists and a bigot,but it's ok to # can Christians ? someone wanna explain this to me please,i went to sunday school and church till i was 12 (my choice after that) guess what ? it didn't do me any harm at all,my daughter does religions education at her government primary school,it cost us extra and is not compulsory,oh and by the way she is not forced to do RE it's her choice,and at the end of the day it will do her no harm,

You have to destroy the old order before you can replace it with a new one....Christianity is being deliberately destroyed,ironocally this is phrophecised in the bible...

also, most of the people i know dont believe in God,arnt Christian or religious yet scream in horror when they find out a church has been turned into a mosque...GO TO BLOODY CHURCH THEN!

Re Gorman91

Quote: ["There's no proof that any of the bible is wrong"]

Try genesis.

But on the other hand, there's ABSOLUTELY no proof, that the flying spaghetti monster is wrong.

Quote: ["but there are a few things th t can be proven to have happened."]

Like a few names of cities etc? In 1-2.000 years Harry Potter can be 'proved' true this way also.

Quote: ["That officially leaves it more true than false in terms of real scientific proof and evidence left behind."]

That's why I asked you for what's considered evidence and such. Many christians have very peculiar and individual ideas of what science is, how it's used and what it does. There even exist some home-cooked versions of religionist science, or rather what some religionists call science, which has very little to do with the type you learn in school and is used by professional scientists.

I suspect, that you here refer to one of these pseudo-sciences.

Quote: ["Now maybe that's shocking, but its true."]

Not especially shocking. I've heard many similar claims, based on pseudo-logic and pseudo-science. And as with the rest of the christianities' claims about practically everything, most of them disagree with each other and most anything else, but like yours, they are all 'true'.

Quote: ["It's just about the most beat up book in history, and yet it endures. I'd consider that a good show."]

Considering the violence, propaganda, outright lying, manipulation, machiavellian back-stabbing and other unsavoury methods associated with the bible and the christianities, it's not so surprising. But it's changing now.

Quote: ["And I for one am more than happy to follow a book that has survived from quite literally the most primitive of people, and yet still has not been proven wrong. Anything else is assumption."]

In a more precise language and logic than what you use, your approach is one of faith. And what you choose to have faith in, is your business, if you do it privately or in groups of consenting adults.

If you try to push your faith on other people, the argument of 'not proven wrong' is completely worthless. Then you'll have competition from similar 'faith-systems' all making the same claims as you do, and you'll have to bear the burden of proof.

From a contemporary academic, logic and scientific perspective all of what you're saying (your 'evidence' and your methodology) is utter nonsense.


Quote: ["And yes, back to the Original topic, people have a right to proclaim that as they want."]

There are some restrictions on this, but in principle it's correct and valuable. But by doing it the christian 'proclaimer' will be exposed to the same freedom of speech him/herself from opposition; and as the article from OP tells, people in UK (and in other northern european countries, my comment) consider christians 'nutty'. It's not specified HOW christian you must be to be 'nutty', but the variety you represent would be considered on the other side of nuttiness here.

Quote: ["If you don't like it, proclaim your own truth or keep walking."]

I have proclaimed my own 'truth', and if you don't understand the principles of it or reject it, that's OK with me. As to 'keep walking' I see the regrettable reminiscence from the time when the christianities had power. Your religion is dying, ridiculed and attacked with increasingly intensity, but the old elitist arrogance is still there, and will without doubt hasten the demise of your religion.

You guys PREACH love, pushing it at people, while the truth is that it's very difficult to see any love at all in that kind of christianity. There are even openly fascist attitudes on the christian right. You have fantasies about bombing opponents. I doubt that I and the other 'godless' contributors here would even consider overripe fruit as missiles.

Quote: ["Just as I've always said. Eagerness to make fun of or suppress beliefs or call it fantasy without trying is nothing more and nothing less than lack of faith in your own beliefs."]

My wittycism is a direct response to your preaching. I find your attitudes amusing. And concerning your 'insecurity' gambit, I have app. four years of university in my educational background, which has lead to, that I don't need 'faith', but trust in real knowledge.

Quote: ["If you truly believe what you do, then you would have tried to dissect the other person's beliefs instead of just call it all fantasy and never say anymore. Just as I have done to yours"]

It's meaningless to dissect, what you consider a fantasy. And in any case why should I? I'm not here to mess with your life, but to make it clear to prophets, missionaries and preachers, that society isn't theirs to invade. If you have such a missionary zeal, that you want to be considered the 'victor' in a contest of your own imagination, it's also OK with me. But if I'm to be part of that, then there must be some fair and formalistic rules. Sofar I've just responded humouristically to you most of the time, but that can be changed, if necessary.

Proclaiming yourself 'right' doesn't make you 'right' except in your own fantasies.

reply to post by bogomil


Actually there is. Pasta isn't sentient, nor is it alive. it is a biochemical concoction of yummy. It is in fact quite physical. Because it is physical, it is bound to certain rules. Ergo, a monster cannot be made of pasta. Many things can happen in this universe. A planet made of milk, for instance, is physically possible. A pasta monster is not.

More than just cities. Accurate descriptions and events. Harry Potter cannot be proven true because there are parts of harry potter that can be proven to be quite false. IE, Rapid biological transition from one species to another. Even if you could create a virus to do that, it would take quite a long time. Once again, mankind made something physical, and therefore it must obey the same rules it is made by.

Proof for the bible is quite clear. Histories have long talked about Jesus long before he was a popular fellow. Heretic groups started breaking off no more than 30 years after his death. And they went into the mountains of Syria and cut themselves off from the world until the modern day. and when we look at their bible? Same thing. Oh sure, they added a book, subtracted another. But the same core truth is there, same as always. unchanged. Despite being cut off. What this proves is two things. That Jesus was not some fabricated character created after Christianity "evolved" out of other religions. It proves that Jesus was the founder of a distinct group of people. What it also proves is that the bible has not changed. And that oral tradition barely influenced it. After all, it was only 100-200 years. Again, that's enough time to turn Latin into French and Spanish. But that is not enough time to change a religion or its doctrine.

You cannot simply make a statement. how is it pseudo? Why are you right. You see how I answer with clear answered and references to facts and real sources? You just say something and act like the fact it came from your mouth means it's true, without need for anything else but the fact that you said it. There is no way to debate that way.

Considering all those acts came AFTER Civilization began to collapse, it is not religion's fault. It is the fact that when civilization collapses, people become barbaric, irregardless to what religion or culture is there. Even so, once more I must ask you to support your claims. If it's in the bible, and you can show that God did that, then do it.

Yes. It is faith. And again, I'm more than happy to talk on how you can prove it wrong.

The fact is this. You ARE going to force your beliefs in some way shape and form via the education system. In fact, it's sole purpose is to do that. And in a modern world, a class room should have varying people with varying beliefs all debating and discussion. When it comes to proof, I've already told you. There is no proof for God. But there is proof that the bible is more true than false. Now that fact alone has a number of consequences. But I am more than willing to say I don't have the "most true" religious book. The Muslims do. The Quran was orally kept by many people and written down once Mohammad died. This therefore makes it the most accurate. And being that it is the historic account of one man's opinions and historic actions, it remains as the most true religious article to date. But Islam is more or less a form of Judaism adopted to the desert culture. And heavily relies on Jewish tradition. But this is a bit of a tangent. Proof. Proof is scattered in many places. But like I said, the greatest proof is that the Bible talks about a God not understandable by man. Thus far no other religion has done this. Avery other is in the form of man. In fact, the majority religions of Earth can be proven to be fabrications of man. Pretty much all non-Christian beliefs originating from Spain to Pakistan can be linked to India in what is known as the Indo-European pantheon. And this religious system is more or less mankind giving names to the forces of nature around them. Nothing is beyond the understanding of man. It's just a human face on a force of nature. Next up are the native american belief systems, which more or less are the merger between Asian, European, and Aboriginal beliefs going back eons ago. This reason is quite clear. Native Americans originate from Asian, European, and Australian sources. This all be pre-viking, pre-Columbian. The result is a culture that can find its traces in European ancient stories, which in and of themselves are part of the aforementioned linkage, and with the animalism of the aboriginals and Asians.

This same process can reduce the religions of the world to the Abrahamic faiths, Buddhism, and a couple of isolated African faiths. This now narrowed down, the selection can become pretty clear. Buddhism started from a man preaching what he thought was true, and the African traditions have remained more or less the same blurry undefined local religion it always have. But the Abrahamic faiths? They came from no where. They cannot be linked to any source. Now yes it is true they've taken their fair share from other cultures. But the fact remains that the faith itself begins, in Genesis, with a God calling himself "us" and calling mankind male and female as a single being, with the word being used being the Hebrew word for mankind. This is something too complex for its time period. And before you go "GOD OF THE GAPS" proclamation deceleration, you have to understand. There is no gap. A gap requires two sides. There's just one side. And no other side for a gap to exist in. I don't like saying it just poofed out of existence, but it certainly seems to have. That is my proof. Why can every religion be linked to something that came before it But a few off shoot African ones and the Abrahamic faiths. And again, it isn't a God of the gaps fallacy. For there is no gap to be filled without another side to fill it with.

Now I'll let you think on that before you go say the same old rhetoric again and hate on those you don't like.

For the last day or so I have been chuckling to myself about how I suggested that Christianity, in an effort to reduce some of the criticisms it receives and to lower unreasonable public expectations regarding its performance as an institution, should change its name to The Jesus Christ Fan Club.

I'm such a wit.

Of course all religions could well do the same, just to underline the fact, for the public, that their practitioners might very well aspire to spiritual excellence and admire it, but can hardly be expected to embody it, except in rare instances of individuals, who are largely ignored and marginalized.

Name changes that might well be in order:

Buddhism becomes: The Buddha Fan Club

Islam becomes: The Mohammed Fan Club

Judaism becomes: The Moses Fan Club

Hinduism becomes: The Veda Fan Club

Shinto becomes: The Venerable Ancestor's Fan Club

Voodoo becomes: The Orisha's Fan Club

Shamanism becomes: The Ancient Ways Fan Club

If these changes were instituted there would be a marked drop off in criticism of religion generally. People wouldn't takes its missteps so seriously. Video of Korean Buddhist monks repelling the police in a seige of their monastery wouldn't be regarded as appalling and wouldn't make the minds of the Buddhist public go completely "tilt". ("Tilt" is an old pinball reference. If you tilt the table, it stops functioning.)

People would regard such things as unfortunate but normal, as they do when some rock and roll fans riot because tickets are sold out or because a concert has been cancelled at the last minute. Everyone knows that fans go berserk. These things happen.

If a fan of the Beatles, for example, were to be arrested for pedophilia, no one would blame the Beatles for poor oversight of their fans. Some people might well be inclined to scour Beatle lyrics for hidden messages encouraging pedophilia, but surely the sheer number, undoubtely in the hundreds of millions, of Beatle fans who are not pedophiles, would carry the day in exonerating Beatle fans as a whole from suspicion of pedophilia.

I firmly believe that if religions redesignated themselves as "fan clubs", there might very well be a surge in membership of all religions. Most people, in fact, even if they say that they hate religion or hate a specific religion, will most often acknowledge that they are fans of something. Some sport, some entertainer, some game.

If the intensity level of membership in a religion were to be reduced to that of membership in a fan club, it could be the beginning of a whole new era of spiritual harmony.

I was congratulating myself on how I had solved the problem of intolerance world wide, when I went into a meeting at the meditation center where I live.

It was the usual sort of thing. Humdrum financial matters were discussed, membership figures were noted with the usual mix of apprehension and optimism. Reference was made to upcoming teaching events and social gatherings, maintenance schedules were discussed and stress was laid on getting members to do their house jobs because the impression we make on the public is very important, blah, blah, blah.

Sometimes I find it irksome that an intellect like mine has to sit through all this.

Alright, I know I have my faults and that I can't really hit the sort of spiritual pitching that these other people can, you know, being a goody goody, and never offending anyone and being clean and tidy and nice, etc, etc.

I'm more of a normal person, making an effort, you know.

And then the subject of smoking came up. It was decided we were no longer permitted to smoke on the premises. This has been in the wind for a while. Our members are not immune to the tidal wave of anti-smoking propaganda that has been unceasingly sloshed over the public in this city. Furthermore, none of them smoke, or admit to it.

I'm the only one who smokes in my room, which I am entitled to do, in accordance with the rules of the house, which date back to the 1970s.

This is all changing now. It's been in the wind for a while and I have been trying to be considerate while mounting a counter-offensive, pointing out to people that burning incense in the house, as we do during meditation sessions, etc., is the equivalent to standing beside an idling internal combustion engine. They have done studies on it. It was in the Star, it must be true.

To no avail.

It appears that it is no longer good enough for me to stand up in the chimney in the fireplace in my room to smoke. I now have to walk out to the side walk in front of the house, twenty feet from the door.

Times are tough.

The meeting was just coming to an end when the chair announced that there was one more item, a late addition to the agenda. I sat there fidgeting, in need of a smoke, and thinking to myself, 'don't these people have lives?', when I suddenly came to attention, because I was being addressed.

"Are you Ipsedixit?"

They were all looking at me.

"Uuuuuhhhh . . . . "

"Apparently, somebody using the name Ipsedixit, who lives in a meditation center here in Toronto, has been writing a lot of strange comments on the internet. Do you know anything about that?"

"Uuuuuhhhh . . . ."

The chair person, a reserved, composed, soft spoken, goody goody type, was gathering papers together and putting them into a folder. Everyone was looking at me.

I was trying to think quickly, a la Bill Clinton. "The internet has a lot of strange things on it, uh . . . "

"Some of the comments are extremely odd. Political opinions. Some of it is clearly comic. Some of it might be considered risky, particularly to an apolitical institution like this one."

"Oh", I said.

"There are also some comments on the subject of religion which, on reading them, I had to conclude couldn't possibly have been written by a member of our center."

"Uuuuhhh . . . well that's a relief." I attempted a smile.

Everybody was staring at me. I tried to chuckle but my mouth was dry and my lips stuck together oddly. I tried to moisten them but I wound up looking like a cat trying to vomit a hairball.

"Well, that's all I wanted to say on that subject. We are not interested in the vagaries of politics here and other religions and their activities are none of our business."

There were nods on all faces, including my own. I shared their look of grave concern. I couldn't imagine why they would suspect someone like me of imprudent commentary.

The last thing said to me, as the meeting broke up was, "Good luck cutting down on your smoking."

I guess that's a hint.