The christian Nazis opposing same sex marriage.....

This is an example of the all pervasive mind fuck these religious arseholes are spreading through time and the lives of others....

Going back a few thousand years... the "jews" were holocausting the fuck out of the middle east...

All sorts of off springs of that evil cult, were slaughtering millions over the centuries in Europe and where ever they spread their plauge by "missionary".

Then comes the people in Germany..... the most christian country in the world.

Alois Hitler June 7, 1837 – January 3, 1903) was the father of Adolf Hitler. Baptized Roman Catholic at infancy. Remained Roman Catholic his whole life.

Cathoholic / Alcoholic - used to bash the crap out of Adolf when he was a child...

Klara Hitler (August 12, 1860 - December 21, 1907), was the mother of Adolf Hitler by her husband Alois. She was a devout Roman Catholic and went to church regularly.

"I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits", said Hitler... "Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic Church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party... I am going to let you in on a secret... I am founding an Order... In my "Burgs" of the Order, we will raise up a youth which will make the world tremble... Hitler then stopped, saying that he couldn't say any more.." Hermann Rauschning, former national-socialist chief of the government of Dantzig: "Hitler m'a dit", (Ed. Co-operation, Paris 1939, pp.266, 267, 273 ss).

And lately:

http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/8396/Anti-gay-hatemail-hits-Melbou...

Residents of Melbourne (Australia) are disgusted that “nasty, discriminating hatemail” has arrived unsolicited into their mailboxes this week.

The ‘10 Reasons Why homosexual ‘marriage’ is harmful and should be opposed’ pamphlet is courtesy of Catholic group Australian TFP and their new campaign Defending Natural Marriage.

Included among the ‘reasons’ the leaflet details are a number of anti-gay slurs designed to vilify homosexuals as sinful and unnatural.

The fear-mongering ‘slippery slope’ argument has rarely been as nakedly employed as it is here. Quote: “If homosexual ‘marriage’ is universally accepted as the present step in sexual ‘freedom’, what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior?”

It is not known how many properties have received the leaflet this week.

“It’s just wrong that they do a letter drop,” says a concerned Melbourne resident who shared it on Facebook today, prompting several shocked reactions.

“I’m not gay, however my housemate is, and so are many friends of mine,” he tells Same Same. “I have no issue with the church being opposed to gay marriage, it’s a religious ceremony. But do go to these lengths, and to basically go into letterboxes saying how wrong it is to be ‘gay’ is just unfair.”

“Disgusting, discriminating junkmail,” comments about the pamphlet on his Facebook page summed up. “It’s thoughtless nonsense like this that divides society.”

The full text of the pamphlet is shown below.

1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarily in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

“The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people’s view of homosexuality.”

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So this is all of the same mind fuck bullshit used by arseholes like Bill Wilson and the christian cult, and their mind fuck bullshit in the AA "spiritual" program of recovery.

You want to know why AA is so bad, why is so dangerous for the recovering person?

Because it's cult based.

Comments

btnben's picture

No doubt about it.....Save me a seat by the window.

God damn it, get me a whiskey

Bill W, Deathbed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?source=patrick.net&v=Sdn3O6aaMNc

live_free_or_die's picture

...I will try to save ya a window seat but I am a little youger than ya.

oh, wait, there is no hell, 'cept in the rooms of AA.

Alcoholics Anonymous: MyNotGodHasItCovered®
http://www.expaa.org/
http://bereanresearch.com/
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
NOT AA:
Rational Recovery, SOS, HAMS
http://alcoholabusesolutions.com/

avogadno's picture

Seeing that there are roughly only 2 million AA members as opposed to 3 billion people on the planet, I think there will be plenty seats. There is most likely be a never-ending shuttle in place for all of us that are unwilling and incapable of being honest. ;)

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

becket's picture

" . . . all of us that are unwilling and incapable of being honest." Do you include yourself among those? "Us" usually implies inclusion in the group.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

avogadno's picture

Meaning everyone that Bill Wilson describes as dishonest. Those of us that do not completely give ourselves to his religion.

"Rarely have we seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed our path. Those who do not recover are people who cannot or will not completely give themselves to this simple program, usually men and women who are constitutionally incapable of being honest with themselves. There are such unfortunates."

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

becket's picture

Yes. The fact that you did not include "with themselves" was the loophole. I thought that's what you meant, but your not quoting the BB gave me a way in under the door. It made your post appear as though dishonest people were at fault.

It's a little thing. It's a little thing that has the power to be a big thing.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

"as opposed to 3 billion people on the planet".

Latest official current world population estimate is estimated at 6,928,198,253. Almost 7 Billion! Surprised Marietta/Becket/Clara didn't call you on it. Oh, never mind. Beyond "Recoveryism" steppers don't really know much about what concerns the real world.

becket's picture

I never saw it, msafrany. I see you're refining your drive-by scat.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

"I see you're refining your drive-by scat".

Oh. You mean I don't have time to debate "recoveryism" endlessly with trolls?
That is correct.

becket's picture

It's a fine art, msafrany. No culpability, no restrictions, no honor - just squeeze the trigger and floor it. You are a master.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

what a lovely happy song to wake up to.

Brett

avogadno's picture

With sincerity and respect to your position, how do you regard a Christian (being defined by a person that believes in Jesus as their Savior and holds a firm belief in God) but that doesn’t participate or support the the traits you outlined above? To my knowledge there are many, if not more, less Evangelical or Orthodox Christians than extremists.

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

alkieanon's picture

Guilt by association:
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-propaganda.html#association

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy.

Jesus-is-Fraud's picture

I don't.

You can brainwash people into believing almost any fucking thing.

Religion is proof of that.

500 versions of "christianity", 500 versions of books, prayers, songs, masses, ceremonies, rituals - and the old die hard, "We are right, they are wrong - and don't you dare use their shit in our congregation!"

"How dare you dress differently, how dare you think differently, how dare you question our spiritual authority etc"

And not once has ANY of this ever been produced by, and or signed off by, the "common diety".

In fact under the contract, "You have only to ask for it in my name and it shall be given to you."

"Oh Jeezers, Oh Jeezers - please don't let the flood wash away our house / our kids die / end up homeless / go to war / get bombed / murdered / die from nasty diseases etc..."

Sucker! No show - Again!

The flood washed away our house / our kids died / we ended up homeless / we went to war / we got bombed / we were murdered / we died from nasty diseases!

Stupidity is the base level of extremism.

10 different versions of the holey book, and not one of them was produced by the diety.

Damn.....

"You can't say that - outrage, outrage, outrage"

"Oh well arsehole - if you don't like it tell Jeezers and get him to come here and I'll sort that fucker out too - go on, go get him"

"Oh Oh Oh"

"You said this is the house of god - so where is he?"

This is the same methodical brainwashing, controlling and methods of abuse that the organisation of AA uses to control the masses with it's ministry of propoganda.

"You cannot question what we have produced, and you cannot question how we operate, and you are not allowed to examine our records, or have our books independently audited, or have our "scientifically proven faith based model of recovery" questioned.

Don't dare stand up in an AA meeting, a GSO meeting, and speak out of order either or about things we don't want you to speak about either.

avogadno's picture

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I don't think you explained how a person's belief in God could represent their opinions on other matters. It doesn't make them an extremist, this as much as being an atheist doesn't make a person sensible in all other matters.

I know plenty of people that believe in God and have never said any of the above. They also believe in equal rights, same sex marriages, private expression, choice. That is what contributes to the hypocrisy.
The idiots that belong to groups and represent them try to turn it into some sort of proclamation with "we" and "our" and "always".

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

becket's picture

Does this rant mean you endorse alkieanon's and billybudd's and Clara's and becket's right to choose their own beliefs and to be exempt from censure by people on this forum (for starters)?

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

avogadno's picture

If it makes any difference to you or any of the others what I think. Yes of course you have the right to choose your own beliefs. What you call censuring has nothing to do with your beliefs.

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

becket's picture

"What you call censuring has nothing to do with your beliefs."

It has absolutely everything to do with my beliefs on this forum. I disagree with nearly everyone here. Have you been absent while I've been flogged for my beliefs?

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

avogadno's picture

The flogging (your words) has to do with behavior not beliefs.

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

btnben's picture

With all the deft skill of a surgeon wielding a scalpel Marietta is ripped yet another new one...lol

God damn it, get me a whiskey

Bill W, Deathbed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?source=patrick.net&v=Sdn3O6aaMNc

Clara's picture

That is what I don't understand. Why does it have to become flogging simply because you dislike the person? "Principles before personalities" has much merit. No one has to behave like that. It is a choice.

Remember Christopher Stevens when you vote.

becket's picture

Examples, please, of any significant philosophical beliefs I have expressed on this forum that have been endorsed. Thanks.

Oh, wait! I saw one! Cool.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

Examples, please, of any significant philosphical beliefs you have expressed on this forum.

becket's picture

Those would likely be the ones without the cussing, humiliatingspirit.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

And which ones of those did you post, Fecket?

Perhaps I've not been on this forum long enough, but I can't recall at any point your giving any rational defence of the 12 step program. Plenty of sneering and ad hom comments aimed at those who point out its flaws, sure, but please remind us all of why you think it is such a good thing, why you think it has worked for you, and whether you feel (as someone who left AA a long time ago) that it is the 12 step program that is preventing you from drinking again.

becket's picture

I'm not here to give "rational defense to the 12 step program". I advocate for choice in pursuit of sobriety. The 12 steps is one of many methodologies. I bear no ill will toward anyone using any method at hand to achieve sobriety until they insist that theirs is the ONLY WAY to do so. That is a modern version of the Crusades and it is unacceptable.

It has worked for me because I got sober within AA. I did what was suggested and lasting sobriety has been my reward. I do not pretend to work a perfect program. But I'm not drinking today and I credit the discipline of the 12 steps for that. I needed structure and I found it in AA. I do not spew slogans or chant or attend meetings or hand out literature or go prospect hunting. Mine is a private program. If any AA member would take me to taks for not evangelizing, fuck them. I do not buy into the insistence on a Christian God. I do not support mandating by the courts, or 13th stepping, or anyone's opportunism in the midst of vulnerable people. I minded my own business, did the work, ended up dry, clean, sober, abstinent, whatever you want to call it.

Within AA I put distance between myself and my dependance on booze. I am free of obsession and compulsion and have been for over 30 years, so I don't feel any particular pull toward drinking again; so the assertion that the 12-step program is preventing me from drinking again is an erroneous one.

Anything else I can help you with?

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

Jesus-is-Fraud's picture

"I bear no ill will toward anyone using any method at hand to achieve sobriety".

And all you do is fucking evangelising.........................

Every post, "Bill W. said this, Bill W said that".......

"Oh it says on page XYZ of the Big Book that when such and such occurs, there for you must"

Every fucking post......

becket's picture

It's a skill, this lying with impunity. You have it, arsehole. In spades.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

avogadno's picture

Never saw becket quote Bill W. and apply it to her life. The same goes for her suggesting anyone else do the same. I understand your hate of any and all that have anything to do with AA or Christianity but when judging a person directly it should be done fairly. Any other point you try to make loses all credibility.

Directed at JIF

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

becket's picture

Thank you, avogadno.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

live_free_or_die's picture

becket said above, and I quote from above:

"I bear no ill will toward anyone using any method at hand to achieve sobriety until they insist that theirs is the ONLY WAY to do so. That is a modern version of the Crusades and it is unacceptable." Ok, good for you if it is the truth.

"But I'm not drinking today and I credit the discipline of the 12 steps for that. I needed structure and I found it in AA."Ok. Good. To be clear here becket, you are saying that the discipline and structure of the "program" is what got you sober, clean, abstinate. Not a miracle performed by your higher power (read god).

"Within AA I put distance between myself and my dependance on booze. I am free of obsession and compulsion and have been for over 30 years, so I don't feel any particular pull toward drinking again; Ok. Good. So what you are saying here becket is that your obsesson, your compulsion and your dependence on alcohol was "removed" from you as a result of discipline and structure. You are saying, becket, that it is not the 12 step "program" that got you sober, what got you sober was the structure and discipline of the 12 steps. So no miracles from god to get you sober becket? becket you say you are free of your obsession, dependence and compulsion to consume alcohol because of discipline and structure-therefor it follows that you, becket, are saying in your own words that alcohol dependence is not a disease but a choice.

"so the assertion that the 12-step program is preventing me from drinking again is an erroneous one." Sweet, sweet sweet. Ok becket. Thanks for sharing. The 12 steps are not keeping you sober. I get it.

Alcoholics Anonymous: MyNotGodHasItCovered®
http://www.expaa.org/
http://bereanresearch.com/
http://badrecovery.blogspot.com/
NOT AA:
Rational Recovery, SOS, HAMS
http://alcoholabusesolutions.com/

becket's picture

"therefor it follows that you, becket, are saying in your own words that alcohol dependence is not a disease but a choice."

These are not my own words, live_free_or_die. This is a hasty and sloppy conclusion you have drawn on your own. I have repeatedly posted that I believe the jury is out on the question of alcoholism as a disease. I am not convinced beyond any sensible doubt one way or the other.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

avogadno's picture

“Humiliating Spirit”. See Becket, That right there, two posts above, is where you drew first blood. Again. And you wonder why anyone here doesn't want to and/or can't have a reasonable discussion with you. Time and again I've witnessed others take a new approach when addressing you, and see you delve back into your insulting word arsenal and attack. My observation isn't an attempt to start a match with you, one that when it comes to insulting another you have much more experience and expertise with. I point it out only because I for one would like to chat without it turning into a boxing match. You claim to want this yourself but you often come out swinging or at some point take the first jab.

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

becket's picture

So it's all right for people to tell me I'm a crotchety old man with no balls, who lies and whines, etc., ad nauseam, but it's not all right for me to come back at them? I get told my medications aren't working, I get told to go fuck myself. Yes, every new approach brings with it some hidden stiletto, some bear trap, some trip wire. And I come out with "the first jab"?

We're done, avogadno.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

btnben's picture

With all the new ones you've had ripped recently, you obvious problems have come to light.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDhETFcgWTE

God damn it, get me a whiskey

Bill W, Deathbed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?source=patrick.net&v=Sdn3O6aaMNc

avogadno's picture

That's fine. And no it's not alright for the "no ball,s and medications, fuckin this and that". Same with your responses to it (which is why it never ends). That's a constant between you and them, like a tennis match. Impossible to follow and not much care to, nothing gets said that's interesting. I happen to point it out when it was with another commenter that doesn't interact with you regularly in such a way. HS never gets involved with what you mentioned. Sure there have been spats and no love lost, but in your defense to call her HumiliatingSpirit it was because you and others continually bash at each other, she wasn't part of that. It's happened, on both sides in the past as it has with us.

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

causeandeffect's picture

Shouldn't you be looking for your part in it?

Troll free AA critical forum
http://www.expaa.org/

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

becket's picture

Shouldn't you be sleeping in your precious park to protect it?

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

avogadno's picture

.

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

Persephone In Exile's picture

Becket, that would be rather analogous to saying any of the atheists here should be exempt from criticism if we were to go hound people on Christians on a forum specifically for the discussion of Christian beliefs. Don't be absurd. There's a difference between having one's own beliefs and picking fights.

becket's picture

WHAT would be rather analagous . . .? When a post gets away from the point it's responding to, I am less and less inclined to chase it down to make the connection. Sorry.

Whatever it is you're trying to say, I'm pretty sure you are not understanding me. If you want to try again to make your point, please give me some sort of reference. Otherwise, onward and upward.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

Persephone In Exile's picture

My reply was to your comment above:
"Does this rant mean you endorse alkieanon's and billybudd's and Clara's and becket's right to choose their own beliefs and to be exempt from censure by people on this forum (for starters)?"

Yes, they have the right to choose to believe as they do. That's completely different from the context of them coming to a forum against their beliefs to try and rile up people who hold entirely different ones. It would be rather analogous to an atheist going to a specifically Christian forum to pick fights. They're not mandated to be here, they choose to be, and to express their opposing view. You're the one so big on personal responsibility and freedom of choice, that's at least one thing you do make clear in your posts here. If you or anyone else doesn't want any sort of judgment made on you for the beliefs you hold, go over to e-AA and have a blast. But don't come here, pick a fight and then try to play the victim card (especially on behalf of other posters here who AREN'T trying to play that card for themselves).

Is my point a bit clearer now, or do I need to quote you again and then explain it out using very small words, Becket?

avogadno's picture

Good explanation Perse. I wouldn't go into a political forum that opposes my view and expect courtesy and respect if I was to object to their pov while taking cheap shots. I wouldn't mind asking questions of different groups that I oppose (of course in AA I can't do that). If I did, I'd make sure to be polite. I can't expect that in return if all that I did is ask them to listen to and respect me.

Pro Empowerment!
Truth about AA: http://orange-papers.org/menu1.html
Expose AA: http://www.expaa.org/

Persephone In Exile's picture

Well, Becket's over on the Cafe Gratitude thread asking why the employees even applied there in the first place. Not to mention beating that drum generally on this forum, this obsession with people being completely free and in control over their "choices" even when they're not choices or when real abuse (or illegal activities) occur. Yet, somehow, when it comes to people getting their feelings hurt here for endlessly arguing the opposing view, we're supposed to wring our hands?

I actually try to be as nice as I can and give the benefit of the doubt to people here, especially if they're new (accounts). But if we're using Becket's usual logic, my answer would have to be, "Well, if you don't want to be argued against for your PRO AA views, don't sign up for the ANTI-12 step FORUM!" This is really not that hard to figure out, Becket.

becket's picture

You seem to skirt the observation that people apply for work at a place where certain management requirements exist, and they are resentful about management holding the line on the requirements.

So why do they take the jobs? Can it be assumed that being employed is more important than standing by one's convictions? Or do they want the best of both worlds?

By the way, you are the one who brought the Cafe Gratitude thread over here and deposited it for consideration, not me. So when the shit starts to fly about thread contamination, please woman-up. Thanks.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

Persephone In Exile's picture

OMG Becket, so it's all my fault for even posting about it? Your obsession with victim blaming is the fault of the people who post about the plight of people being railroaded into a cult despite employment laws? And their fault as well for trying to get a job? Please.

Which takes me back to my original point, which you conveniently switched the attack around on by trying to change the subject based on a tangental point I had made. If YOU don't want anti 12 steppers to "attack" your views (or those of other pro 12 step people) then don't sign up to post here! By your usual way of thinking, you're the ones to blame for any "shit" that "starts to fly" over the entire overarching topic of the forum. Furthermore, you really seem to have mixed up the AA ideas about personal responsibility and not constantly assigning blame, but that's neither here nor there. Your entire premise on this thread is completely contradictory. At least it is to your usual stated "beliefs" re: personal responsibility.

becket's picture

The format of this forum precludes following a thread from a to b to c. I ask for clarification. And this shit is what it comes down to:

"Is my point a bit clearer now, or do I need to quote you again and then explain it out using very small words, Becket?"

What the FUCK?

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

Persephone In Exile's picture

Apologies, your response had seemed a bit condescending and evasive. And you're still being evasive, btw, you aren't answering the question at all, merely looking for more faults in how I asked it in the first place.

becket's picture

"Is my point a bit clearer now, or do I need to quote you again and then explain it out using very small words, Becket?"

This is your most recent question to me. I responded to this question. If it's another question you're referring to, please re-state it (a comparatively simple task), as I am thoroughly disinclined to sift through pages of non-chronological posts to find it.

“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian

Pages