When Is It OK To Be Disrespectful Of Someone’s Faith?

There are people who say we should never be disrespectful of anyone’s faith.  But, what if their beliefs seem just plain nuts to you?  What if someone claims Joe Blow is the Messiah?

Frankly, I’m disrespectful of ideas that seem nuts to me.  There are a lot of them right around me and I see them in the news regularly.

Recently there was a presentation by a local Catholic priest at a weekly NDSU seminar.  The priest’s talk was about the training in exorcism.  The talk went into a serious discussion of demons, how to recognize demons and how to remove them.

The host of the seminar told me the couple dozen people present were stunned.  There was not much reaction during the discussion period because, the host thought,  people just wanted to say, “Father, that is weird.”  But, no one would just say something so blunt.

Weirdness is well established in the Catholic Church.  Another one I read about this  morning was a policy of the Vatican about “sightings” of the Virgin Mary.

There are thousands of sightings of the Virgin Mary each year.  Local priests are directed to do a “serious investigation” of each one, disregarding those where there is mental illness or someone is profiteering.  Others, apparently, are to be considered real sightings.

I am disrespectful of exorcism and sightings of the Virgin Mary.  Any institution that assigns paid staff to do this stuff should be ashamed.


49 Responses

  1. entech

    I think the question is the wrong way around. It should be presented as “When should someones beliefs be given automatic respect simply because they are held on faith ?”. The answer to that is never.
    This is not meant to imply that overt and insulting behavior is always justifiable or desirable.
    Stan who writes here frequently, for example, presents his arguments cogently and reasonably. Much of what he says is held on faith, I don’t think a lot of what he says is valid, he himself deserves respect and this can and should be shown, this does not need to extend to his faith as such.
    So no respect for faith as faith, but no need for offensive behavior towards it simply because you don’t agree. This should be applied to lack of faith as well, There are comments that start “The atheist” and then carry on with whatever, but the main point often seems to be that the person or idea can not be respectable or worthy of respect simply because it is not part of faith.

    1. Stan

      I know you discount personal experience entech because you were not here to see or hear it. But When I am almost run down twice in the same year the day after I finish a retreat and two of the people who work for me are also almost killed in accidents requiring hospitalization I have a tendency to think something more then coincidence is happening.

      1. entech

        Sorry Stan, I can’t follow your thought on this point.

        I don’t discount personal experience at all, just the interpretation of some people. It is close to winter her, actually I wish for a few more posts today as it is cold and raining, although the other day it was one of those cool but bright and sunny days and sitting at my favourite coffee shop, outside as i prefer, I was looking over the park with the sun shining through the remaining leaves, the bright green of the grass and clean fresh air after early morning rain, and I was filled with a certain sense of awe and majesty but no thought of any transcendent being entered into it just joy at the wonders of the universe and being a small part of it all.

        1. Stan

          Sorry, let me explain. Not only these incidences but others have threatened the life and happiness of the people who help me at Christian retreats. Add in several others in which my life has been threatened quite credibly by people under the influence of drugs and alcohol takes it past coincidence to a feeling of attacks. We have been very affective in the last several years helping people find peace in both the outside world and in jails and I think we have gotten the Devils attention.

          1. entech

            I did think your 5:07 am could have been talking of something personal, wasn’t quite sure what. This is where we must start to drift apart, I have said before I could move towards a fairly weak deistic position. A God that takes a personal interest is doubtful to me, to extend that to a position that has a God with a personal adversary that will take a personal interest in human beings is pushing the boundaries, it is a position which I could not respect.
            I hope you can accept that this is not intended as an attack on your honesty or integrity, it is simply that I believe your position on this point to be untenable. Yes, I finally used the believe word.

          2. Stan 6:24 I like to hear about what you find your faith has done for you and those around you. But, I must also point out your reasoning is probably influenced by the way you and those around you interpret events.

            These days, those closest to my family no longer believe. Our family and circle of friends experience joyful, tragic, beautiful, hurtful, optimistic and pesimistic events and states of mind. We don’t attribute them to gods or devils, just our good or bad fortunes in life. It seems rational to us, just as your attributing things to God and the Devil seems rational to you.

            The big difference between our rationalities is there is no way science can attribute a God/Devil responsibility to events.

    2. Bob

      Its always okay to be disrespectful of people who believe in fairytales and want you to believe in them too.

    1. pk

      Coming from the guy who posts poor disinformation videos that site a scientific journal article to validate their point, when the article actually says the complete opposite of what the video is claiming. There’s a thing called a mirror, look in it for once.

  2. pk

    Jon, mainline science claims there are many dimensions of this creation we call the universe, but the thought of possible extra dimensional intelligence is crazy and should be disrespected? Or is it the thought that this intelligence wants to enslave humans and destroy our relationship with God is to be disrespected? People who claim they’re 99.9999% sure of something(that there is no God), but really don’t know .000000001%(jack shit) of how the universe works or how it got here, should be disrespected more than anybody in my view.

    1. PK 2:52 I don’t disrespect your absolute certainty the universe was created by God. But, if you believe in exorcising demons and Virgin Mary sitings, I don’t respect that.

      1. pk

        So you’re saying yes, you disrespect the idea of possible extra dimensional intelligence, or some higher intelligence that can use our space-time against us? Or is it a yes to the second question i asked from my previous post? Most of the questions i ask aren’t rhetorical. I thought i would just tell you that since many go unanswered.

        1. entech

          If you listen to some of the scientists that talk of multiple dimensions, they are actually called theoretical physicists which should give you a clue, you will here them all say that it is speculation. Observation of the universe show quite a lot of anomalies, things that don’t match up with some of the “mainline” theories. Much of this stuff is invisible to us, many say we will never have the technology to “see” it some say that it is not a matter of technology but that it is too far removed to be seen, much of it can’t be detected as a measurable quantity, it can only be detected by its effects.
          For example, we know that the inner planets circle the sun at a greater speed than the outer planets because of the effects of gravity, if it were not for gravity the planets would shoot off in a straight line. Observation of the galaxies has shown that this should be the case there as well, that the stars further from the centre should rotate more slowly. But the observations are that the outer stars are circling much faster than they should; indicating that there is far more gravity involved than can be accounted for by the known material and observable items, the actual stars. This leads to the speculation s about dark matter, the existence of which would account for the anomaly. It is called dark because it doesn’t absorb or reflect light. I just love the way a mature science like cosmology uses words, when stars use up all their fuel and start to expand and appear red in the light spectrum, they are called red giants, compare this to theology that seems to consist of words and concepts that no one but Wanna can even spell, let alone know what they mean. To me this is very similar to your idea of God, can’t be seen or detected and known only by apparent effects. You are not quite right when you describe the knowledge of the universe by that quaint vulgarism (is the jack variety any different from the other) we actually know huge amounts about the ‘known’ universe, the problem is that as more has become known it is now become apparent that the bit we know so much about is only 4% of everything, the rest is the speculative dark energy and matter.
          The reason it should be respected is that it is honest about what it doesn’t know and keeps looking. The reason your religion doesn’t get the same respect is because it declared as absolute truth based on very old stories, the stories are backed by the likes of Eusebius, who has been mentioned recently, who writes of why other interpretations are wrong and his are right – this is taken as proof that what he is trying to justify is true.

          … thought of possible extra dimensional intelligence is crazy and should be disrespected? Or is it the thought that this intelligence wants to enslave humans and destroy our relationship with God is to be disrespected? there seems to be a little confusion here, the only extra dimensional intelligence I have ever heard of is the creator of the universe from nothing, an intelligence which is outside of the dimensions of time and space. You seem to be saying that this intelligence, this entity, this God wants to destroy our relationship with itself.
          I don’t pretend to speak for Jon, I know your questions are rarely rhetorical, and we have had some interesting discussions in the past. In this case I invite you to think again as multi-dimensions are highly speculative and not by any means mainstream, and no scientist I know of talks of extra dimensional intelligence except perhaps in the even stranger universe of creation science.

          1. pk

            “but the THOUGHT of possible extra dimensional intelligence is crazy and should be disrespected?”

            “you disrespect the idea of POSSIBLE extra dimensional intelligence, OR some higher intelligence that can use our space-time against us?

            Much of your post confuses me.

          2. entech

            I was quoting your words.

            I don’t disrespect the idea of an extra dimensional or higher intelligence, I simply don’t believe such things exist. But must remain open to being proved wrong.

          3. entech

            PK 5:22 am. OK. I have just had another look at this little thread of ours and I must confess that I was rambling a little there. A bit of separation into paragraphs may have helped. So here is the short version.

            I had some difficulty deciphering the first part of your 2:52, my confusion came from misinterpretation. I thought you were saying that an extra dimensional intelligence was part of the multidimensional scheme, I see that I was wrong. I think you meant it be sarcastic in the sense of saying, “You believe in multiple dimensions in this (created) universe, but, you think that the idea that there is a creator of this universe is crazy and not worthy of respect, really?!?”. I cannot follow the second sentence, the OR part, it seems, to me, that your ‘intelligence” is your God, which makes a nonsense of the proposition.

            Multi dimensions and universes are not part of mainline science, they are speculative and hypothesize, explore possibilities to explain phenomena that does not fit mainline science. These ideas have not and at this time cannot be validated, even the most enthusiastic supporters and proponents agree about this.

            There is about 96% of “stuff” that is required to explain the observed phenomena. The hypothesising and speculation are attempts to discover, to explain what we don’t know.
            Of the 4 % that is visible, measurable etc. a lot is known.

            That there are people who say that they are almost certain there is no God and at the same time continue to search for truth about the universe: Who are slowly building knowledge so that they will eventually know more than Jack: That do not discount the possibility of God: no matter how small they consider the possibility.
            You say that these people should be shown the ultimate disrespect ( should be disrespected more than anybody in my view.) well my view is that the opposite is true.
            The ultimate irony is that if is such an extra dimensional intelligence exists it will be science with its searching that discovers the truth. The search continues while the people of faith stagnate in a lot of dubious words from humanity’s childhood.

          4. pk

            I think there is still some confusion. I maybe wasn’t too clear on my questioning, it was late. I wasn’t being sarcastic, i was just asking if the thought of an extra dimensional intelligence or some other life form of much higher intelligence and technology than ours is to be disrespected. Then i asked if it was the idea that this potential intelligence has the desire to control humanity and deceive us into worshiping them as gods, was to be disrespected. Biblically angels/demons/the devil are created beings and different to us and not of this planet with the ability to manipulate what we see and think, aliens you could say.

            You imply as though “mainline” science is all proven fact and not speculative and hypothesized, when in reality most of it is unproven. When there are anomalies that go against an accepted theory, the theory isn’t reworked, an even more speculative and unproven explanation is created to save the original. Then there is a snowball effect. I stand that we really don’t know jack about how the universe works and how it got here, and for someone to claim they’re 99.99999% sure there is no God, coming to this conclusion based on science, is quite arrogant and misled. You can reciprocate and say believing in God is arrogant as well, but you don’t have much of a rock to stand on and we both have to rely on faith. It’s always a pleasure speaking with you. It’s rather funny to me that you seem to be the one who answers questions directed towards what Jon wrote, his thoughts, much of the time. Then he’s always like, “thank you entech for that marvelous explanation, i couldn’t have said it better myself”, completely avoiding the questions.

          5. entech

            I am sure we will get there.

            Should the thought of some form of higher intelligence should be disrespected. No.
            There is some speculation about whether such a thing might exist. There is speculation about whether the intelligence could be natural or supernatural. Because it has not been demonstrated does not mean it is right or wrong.

            If this potential intelligence was demonstrated to exist and shown to be malevolent then it would demand respect (and fear).

            Personally, if you have a coherent concept of a supernatural entity that has its helpers and opponents, angels/demons/devil, I would need to respect your ideas even though I cannot think of them as having any validity at all, this description is starting to sound a bit like Zoroaster, I don’t believe that either.
            The point is you can respect someone’s viewpoint, someone’s world view without agreeing with it, the person does not deserve respect simply for having them. Being a Christian does not, in itself and of itself, engender any special respect, anymore than being a Hindu or Zoroastrian.

            Para 2.
            Sorry if I appear to be claiming too much for mainline science it is all speculation and hypothesis, it is the best description that we have at the moment.
            Observation gives rise to hypothesis, to a description of how and what should happen if the hypothesis is correct.
            If experiments designed to test this hypothesis show consistent results that conform to expectations, then the hypothesis is given some validity.

            If consistent correct results from predictions and experiments to test the predictions are achieved then you can start to talk about laws of nature and facts, one error or failed prediction and you are wrong and need to start again (perhaps salvage something, but essentially a failed hypothesis).

            I don’t accept your statement that an accepted theory is embellished to make it acceptable, to add more speculation to try and maintain the original. That actually sounds more like theology, theology adds layers of strangeness.
            When anomalies are found in accepted theories it is true that the theory is thought of as ‘incomplete’, that something is missing. That it may hang on longer than it should is the result of a human failing, it is difficult to accept that your life’s work was based on a wrong idea – but the young up and comers have no investment in old ideas and soon displace the old and worn out science.
            The steady state universe gave way to the big bang, Einstein had to be convinced by a Belgian Catholic Priest that the steady state did not work, a big bang was necessary.
            Actually there are at least half a dozen ideas about the origin of the known universe, yours is just one of them. A scientist will tell you that they could all be wrong. Some are more plausible than others, some are quite outlandish, most must eventually be proved wrong.

            God, science, arrogance?
            Science can have nothing to say about the supernatural, science can only deal with what can be measured and tested, science does not try to prove or disprove the existence of God. When most of the scientists in the various societies and institutes say they do not believe in God they are speaking as individuals not as scientists.
            It is only preachers that say they speak with the absolute authority of the creator of the universe, who arrogate to themselves perfect knowledge of the mind of God. Belief or lack of it is not arrogance, to claim perfect knowledge is.

            I thought this was a public forum, I respond to anything that interests me. A few respond to what I say, a few ignore me, it is all part of it. Jon, or anyone can respond or not.

          6. entech 1:10 It’s sobering to see otherwise intelligent people reject the basic premise of science, along with what it finds, in favor of the unseen and spiritual.

            The parody figure, Giant Spaghetti Monster, said he had the choice between being a “real” physical being that we could talk to face to face, or, an invisible being. His research showed people were more likely to believe he was real if he remained invisible.

            I don’t know why things work that way, but they just do.

          7. pk

            “I thought this was a public forum”

            I thought i was clear that i welcome your comments and like to read your opinion. I get a laugh from Jon’s lack of responses of any substance to questions directed towards him. Not just from me, but most others on here. I was just stating an observation and my reaction, that’s all. You two should team up and co-blog. You two would be unstoppable if you strategized and brainstormed.
            I agree that a person doesn’t deserves respect just for having a particular belief, but why would one disrespect someone’s belief just because it sounds a little crazy like Jon does? Look around Jon, it’s all crazy. Life is crazy.

            Jon 1:35: Were you referring to me as “reject[ing] the basic premise of science, along with what it finds, in favor of the unseen and spiritual.”? I don’t understand this comment if you were.

          8. entech

            but why would one disrespect someone’s belief just because it sounds a little crazy like Jon does?. PK, think about some of the early religions, Fire Gods of the Volcano, for example, and the need to appease them with the blood of virgin girls. Does this idea deserve respect. funny that it always seems to be virgin girls, rarely boys, even the pre-Biblical inventions were made by men, for men. You could make a case that the god of Abraham was originally a fire God, burning bushes, human sacrifices etc.

            There are so many horrors in history it would be impossible to respect all the ideas,

          9. pk

            “but why would one disrespect someone’s belief just because it sounds a little crazy like Jon does?”

            It’s true the belief as well as the person doesn’t deserve automatic respect, but why would one disrespect, or show contempt for, someone’s belief just because it sounds nuts? Jon disrespects belief in exorcisms, possibly the existence or what we call demons/angels(don’t know because i never got an answer), and virgin Mary sightings just because they sound crazy. Why wouldn’t a freethinker remain neutral on all things they don’t understand or think is true? I’m not sure why pagan blood rituals got brought into this discussion, but i respect your “example”. We can talk forever about all the atrocities committed by the sun worshiping empires and the similar Roman Catholic Church. All that doesn’t really tie into the context of what Jon wrote.

          10. entech

            PK. been thinking about this one for a day or so. Pagan sacrifice came into it and is relevant in the context of what can and should be respected, of what deserves respect and that which is simply so far beyond any possibility of acceptance that it can never have respect. In this context ideas that lead directly to the slaughter of innocent children to appease some imagined deity is not under any circumstances deserving of even being considered and reasonable and worthy of respect.

            People like me are often accused of relativism, not necessarily true, I do think some things are just wrong under any circumstance. To suggest that an idea is to be respected just because someone honestly holds that idea or belief is moral relativism take to the extreme.

          11. entech 2:09 Great point about relativism. The stoning of harlots and children in the OT, I’ve got no respect for that. The literal casting out of demons–I guess I’ve covered that before.

  3. Doubtful

    How does this question differ from “When is it OK to be disrespectful of someone”? If you feel that a person is nothing but a chemical system and the other has no value to you why not be disrespectful of her? Why not do anything you want to such a person?

  4. Stan

    Nice thing about being a Christian, at least for me, is that I can say that what you believe is up to you. Then I can decide to pray for them later. I know I do argue here, but isn’t that the format? If Jon were to ask me, i would shake the dust from my feet and disappear.

    1. Demosthenes

      “Nice thing about being a Christian, at least for me, is that I can say that what you believe is up to you.” – You know Stan, if it just stopped there I too would be fine with faith in a Christian god, for yourself of course. Unfortunately Stan it doesn’t stop there. You and others of your ilk perpetuate your beliefs onto those who never get to choose(children), weasel your beliefs into the US goverment(In god we trust, gay marriage, abortion, creationism in public schools), these are just small portions of going over the boundaries your belief does as do others.

      Your are more then welcome to believe in what ever you want(Respect). Do NOT though tell me what to respect, what to teach my children, or what to believe based on your beliefs.

      I think faith can be benign or malignant, I just never have experienced a benign one yet or even ever heard of one.

      1. Stan

        Quick question again, Is your moniker from the Ender Book series?

        I do wish people would take a little closer look into the instructions for the Apostles about where not welcome to just leave. Argument outside of a forum such as this is not productive.

        As far as children, I will raise mine as I see fit, you raise yours as you see fit. The 10 Commandments are not a bad beginning for ethical behavior. But if a child past the age of reason asks me about Christ I would not refuse to answer them.

        I am not the one who put “In God we trust” on money, maybe you should talk to the government about that.

        Civil unions for everybody by the state, marriage reserved for the churches. If you can find a church that marries gays that is fine. Just don’t demand my church perform the ceremony in it’s building.

        I will push on creationism, there is more then one theory of creationism. My children will learn both the Big Bang and Evolution, but they will also be taught to question what was the initil start for both of them. You will NOT call them stupid or uneducated because of this or I MAY forget that I generally believe in non-violence.

        1. Demosthenes

          Quick Question Answer…. it isn’t a moniker, it is a pseudonym. There is an important difference.

          10 commandments – I am fairly certain ethical behavior existed before Moses came down off his ant hill. Or are you actually under the impression that right up until that moment he shared these commandment Rape, Murder and thievery where all thought off as ethical behavior?

          Civil Union – I agree, the problem is that the churches are also demanding from the goverment to stop such acts even if they won’t “have a dog in the fight” so to speak. Also why is it ok with you for the church to discriminate based on sex?

          Creationism – ? There isn’t any science done by scientist’s based on this what so ever. This isn’t a theory of science it’s the last breaths of religion. Go a head and teach your IDiot children what you will just don’t bring fiction into public schools and teach it as fact. Put it it next to all the other Myths, you want to them to learn about creationism have them learn it in history next to all the other silly stuff we use to think.

  5. Bob

    Its stupid, retarded, and really really annoying that in this day and age these dummies still believe what’s written in the bible. Magically turning water into wine, walking on water, BRINGING THE DEAD BACK TO LIFE (Zombies) Jesus returning and flying down magically from the sky like Gandolf.
    Fucking retarded Bible Believers. And you want us to respect that? Not a chance.

  6. Bob

    And Doubtful 1:06, as usual, you’ve given me nothing to defute the bible saying, “Magically turning water into wine, walking on water, BRINGING THE DEAD BACK TO LIFE (Zombies) Jesus returning and flying down magically from the sky like Gandolf.”
    As usual, Bible Believers don’t refute the crazy stuff in the bible can’t be true. Why don’t you address that, Doubtful? Don’t worry, some other fool who believes that fairy crap is true will step in for you. LMAO.

    1. Doubtful

      Where have you ever seen any indication that I am a literal believer in the Bible? You have not. The problem is you do not think for yourself, you only spout what you have been taught. That leaves you arguing against what you assume people think rather than what someone says or writes. If you think that is freethinking you have been listening to Jon too much. Learn to think for yourself and you will realize that the people who claim that science refutes the Bible are not the best scientists, people who interpret the Bible literally and do not believe it understand the Bible just as little as people who interpret the Bible literally and believe it, and that anyone who interprets the Bible literally is not well versed in any aspect of religion. The religion vs. science argument is not being conducted by the best scientists or the people with the best understanding of religion.

      1. Bob

        The bible is vomit to me Doubt 4:14 I hate loathe shudder at that book and all the criminal violence its done.
        Burn them all and be done with it.
        Its everyone’s choice though, but how disgusting.

      2. Demosthenes

        Doubtful @ May 25, 2012 at 4:14 pm

        Unfortunately Doubtful, if you are Christian parts of the bible HAVE to be taken literally or thus if the entire book could be taken on as pure metaphor it would be a fable. This poses a problem for all Christians in that if it is a fable then parts can not be the literal truth. I am fairly comfortable saying that you literally believe in a god of thee god. You may also believe other parts are pure metaphor, which is fine if you understand the type of dissonance your own mind is then going through.

        You are then resolving certain parts of the bible as being metaphor most likely on the absurdity of it (e.g. Water to Wine). You then though are also literally believing in a god, why is this to be taken literally but the later a metaphor; You pick and choose what to believe is literal based on what you can resolve in your own mind. If you can see that you do have cognitive dissonance going on in your mind in regards to the bible, religion, or faith. Then I am perfectly fine with you believing what you do.

        Lastly, do not tell me though or my children what to believe. It is also laughable that you think that religion and Science are even on the same plane let alone the same playing field. Last I looked religion tells you why things are the way they are and Science wants to figure out why things are they way they are…

        1. Stan

          Have you ever read the Bible Demosthenes? Not just the bits and pieces but at least the New Testament? There are stories called parables in the Bible, here is the definition of a parable

          [ párr?b’l ]

          moral or religious story: a short simple story intended to illustrate a moral or religious lesson.

          So how is a parable to be taken literally? By definition it is a story. The Bible is many books and it contains history, allegory and other traditional methods of passing on information from generation to generation.

          Just because you onkly get the talking point doesn’t mean you know what the rest of the Bible says. In fact most of your talking points are taken from Bob’s posts done earlier such as the “Water into Wine” comment. Don’t you have anything of your own to say? Are you a sock puppet?

          1. Demosthenes

            Stan –

            I have read several versions of the bible. front to back.

            “So how is a parable to be taken literally?” No Stan, wrong question. How do you tell what is a parable and what is not? What are you using to judge the difference? THAT IS WHAT I ASKED. And with the evidence from his talking points he does not apply the same judgement throughout the entirety of the bible and neither do you.

            I used Bob’s point as it was the main POST, I like to stay on topic with it, you should too.

  7. Bob

    Stan, 5:02 That would be true Stan, except Christians don’t keep their fairy believing noses out of government, or anything. Its a lie to say christians don’t detrimentally to all try spread their mind disease everywhere they go.

    1. Stan

      “Its a lie to say christians don’t detrimentally to all try spread their mind disease everywhere they go.”

      Need some punctuation, I am not sure what is being said here. If you mean ALL Christians, there are exceptions to your rule. Good debating tactics say using absolutes such as ALL is not a good tactic.

        1. Stan

          I will not force my faith on anyone Bob, if asked or when asked questions by seekers I will answer. Or when people attend a retreat I am part of voluntarily I definitely will help them.

          If they disagree with me I DO NOT insult them or call them names. That is for people like you.

  8. Bob

    Its always okay to be disrespectful of people who believe in fairytales and want you to believe in the too.

    1. pk

      What’s the matter Bobby, don’t want to play with me? How come? Is it because i can pick apart everything you say and turn it around on you? It’s funny because most of the time nobody has to even respond to your comments to make you look like a fool, you do that to yourself. Is it alright if i pray for you?

  9. Bob

    Our Rational Thinkers

    “Our rational thinking,
    who art in science labs and freethinking individuals,
    hallowed be thy minds.
    Thy illumination come,
    our thinking be never done,
    on earth as it is in wondering minds,
    Give us this day our daily questioning,
    and lead us not into religious ignorance,
    and lets still be nice to those believers in fairytales,
    despite however nuts they are,
    For freethinkers have freethinking
    thus are not indoctrinated,
    for ever and ever,
    Right on!

  10. Pierre l'pleau

    It is not okay to disrespect someone based on religion, sex, race, or culture. You are always saying ” atheists are always picked on ect” but what are you doing huh? Are you bias? Yes. You ” freethinkers” are merely a cult, you don’t know it. Wake up and stop being a hypocrite!

Comments are closed.