Child suspended for his religious beliefs

[Serge A. Storms]

1) Depends on how you define "bad thing." Like I said, I personally believe anyone that believes the Bible should be taken literally is out of their fucking mind, but the Bible is also supposed to represent God's word for Christians. If a Christian believes that the Bible is more than just a bunch of sand people scribbling commands for idiot followers, than it would be a very bad thing to ignore the Bible.

2) Whoa, hold on there just a minute, "a few" Christians being homophobic would not be enough to prevent legalization of gay marriage. And the Bible does directly state that homosexuality is wrong. Many people believe that, and that's why gay marriage is where it's at right now instead of being legalized after the giant controversy in it (that really started up during the end of Bush's first term, which was no coincidence)

3) It wouldn't take that much "legal shakeup", unless Congress decided that they needed to arbitrarily change every tax code in the books to suit same-sex marriage. As it is, it will get messy with same-sex divorce, but it always gets messy, anyway. I'm of the opinion that marriage as a religious ceremony shouldn't be an institution of the government and the tax benefits should be taken out of the books, personally (I'm not optimistic about any of that coming to be, of course), and part of that is because it always gets messy.

1) No True Scotsman fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman].

2) You are back to blaming Christians exclusively for opposition to gay issues. As I have proven, all creeds and cultures demonstrate opposition to gay issues, including atheists. Quite simply, voting against gay marriage does not make someone a Christian. So you have now fallen foul of the Fallacy of the False Cause [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29].

1) That's a little loose, don't you think? You defined "Modern Christianity" and stated that it was real Christianity updated for the present, and I pointed out numerous examples of people that were Christians in the modern era that didn't believe in that version of Christianity, preferring to stick to the Bible. I also mentioned in the post you're quoting that it would be a bad thing for Christians to ignore the Bible if they believed that it was the truth. I never said they had to believe it was the truth, and I don't think any Christians alive really believe all of it to be the truth, anyway, it's more of varying degrees of how much they believe.

2) I'm blaming Christians because Christians make up the majority of the population and the vast majority of our representatives in the House, and representatives in the House and presidential candidates regularly appeal to Christians by arguing against gay marriage and abortion rights. If it wasn't working, the House would look much different than it does now, seeing as how all of the conservatives and some of the democrats got there by appealing to the Christian vote. As far as minorities that are also against gay marriage and abortion, they alone couldn't swing the vote one way or the other. It will be a Christian majority voting one way or the other.

 

[jpoon]

Who the fuck believes in a Flying Spagetti Monster who thinks Pirates are devine beings?!

I think the real question is, who doesn't?!
FSM is real!

PS - About all the clamoring for gay marriage, why not just do as the geniuses of South Park suggested and instead of getting "married" the gay ones could get "butt buddied"?
And the lezzies, they could get "fur tradered" maybe!

 

[Serge A. Storms]

Oh, this is bogus. There is no way that they actually believe that the flying spagetti monster created the universe. This is all just a joke and half the people in this religion are in it just to have fun, while the other half are just in it to spite the school.

You know what's even sillier? Believing a giant invisible man in the clouds created the universe, and then made Man in his own image.

How is believing in an invisible man sillier than believing in an omnipotent food...thing? And where do pirates come into the picture? This isn't about how improbable it is, this is about the fact that he's putting us on! The kid is just doing it for fun/attention and, even if he isn't, you can bet that not one single other person in the religion actually agrees with him.

It's not just believing in an omnipotent food, it's believing that the figure that rules the universe resembles a male human, made humans in his own image, and everything else in Genesis. You think dressing up as a pirate is silly, wait until you here the story of the naked lady and the talking snake.

And you talk about putting you on, I'd love it if you could look me in the face and tell me that Genesis might have some merit to it. A naked lady talked to a fucking snake that told her to eat a magic fruit, which made God become so angry that he banished the only two people alive from paradise, gave the man the burden of hard labor, the woman the burden of painful childbirth, and created the concept of "original sin" just to fuck with people

 

[Serge A. Storms]

Another thing I want to point out is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster made the universe in a way that would suggest that it was actually much older than it really was, and would not suggest an omniscient, omnipotent designer. According to all of the religions of Abraham, we were put here not long ago by an omnipotent intelligence that somehow fucked up living organisms so bad that 99.999999% of them have gone extinct, even though they aren't supposed to go extinct. Even if they're both just stories, one of them makes more sense.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

1) Depends on how you define "bad thing." Like I said, I personally believe anyone that believes the Bible should be taken literally is out of their fucking mind, but the Bible is also supposed to represent God's word for Christians. If a Christian believes that the Bible is more than just a bunch of sand people scribbling commands for idiot followers, than it would be a very bad thing to ignore the Bible.

2) Whoa, hold on there just a minute, "a few" Christians being homophobic would not be enough to prevent legalization of gay marriage. And the Bible does directly state that homosexuality is wrong. Many people believe that, and that's why gay marriage is where it's at right now instead of being legalized after the giant controversy in it (that really started up during the end of Bush's first term, which was no coincidence)

3) It wouldn't take that much "legal shakeup", unless Congress decided that they needed to arbitrarily change every tax code in the books to suit same-sex marriage. As it is, it will get messy with same-sex divorce, but it always gets messy, anyway. I'm of the opinion that marriage as a religious ceremony shouldn't be an institution of the government and the tax benefits should be taken out of the books, personally (I'm not optimistic about any of that coming to be, of course), and part of that is because it always gets messy.

1) No True Scotsman fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman].

2) You are back to blaming Christians exclusively for opposition to gay issues. As I have proven, all creeds and cultures demonstrate opposition to gay issues, including atheists. Quite simply, voting against gay marriage does not make someone a Christian. So you have now fallen foul of the Fallacy of the False Cause [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29].

1) That's a little loose, don't you think? You defined "Modern Christianity" and stated that it was real Christianity updated for the present, and I pointed out numerous examples of people that were Christians in the modern era that didn't believe in that version of Christianity, preferring to stick to the Bible. I also mentioned in the post you're quoting that it would be a bad thing for Christians to ignore the Bible if they believed that it was the truth. I never said they had to believe it was the truth, and I don't think any Christians alive really believe all of it to be the truth, anyway, it's more of varying degrees of how much they believe.

2) I'm blaming Christians because Christians make up the majority of the population and the vast majority of our representatives in the House, and representatives in the House and presidential candidates regularly appeal to Christians by arguing against gay marriage and abortion rights. If it wasn't working, the House would look much different than it does now, seeing as how all of the conservatives and some of the democrats got there by appealing to the Christian vote. As far as minorities that are also against gay marriage and abortion, they alone couldn't swing the vote one way or the other. It will be a Christian majority voting one way or the other.

1) No, it's the other way around. I never said the extremists were not Christians, in fact I never mentioned them in the context you are asserting. I spoke about the prevailing tendancies in contemporary Christianity, which you said wasn't Christianity because they never followed the Bible closely enough for you. Total no true Scotsman fallacy.

2) So you blame them as Christians rather than blame them as individuals? Can't you see how bigoted that is? Should I blame America in it's entirety for the massacre at Fallujah? Or just the despotic administration of the day? Also, this is another logical fallacy. You are saying that the majority of the house are Christians. The house voted down gay unions. Therefore, the house voted against it because they are Christians and hate gays. By that logic, the house at one point voted for abortion in the united states. The house were Christian. Therefore, by your own logic, Christians are pro-choice.

 

[Rokar333]

A naked lady talked to a fucking snake that told her to eat a magic fruit,

A snake with legs no less, that was his punishment to the serpent, to remove his legs. However if you have a problem with the Genesis why do you have such a problem with Christians? Shouldn't you be directing your hatred toward the Jews? I think you just keep going back to this point because you're upset that you can't beat cuddly_tomato, an understandable reaction. However he has proven that just about every culture everywhere hates homosexuals, and that out of all the religious cultures the Christian ones tend to be more accepting (Okay so the secular cultures beat us on that one.)

It's funny that you are replying to my posts with such hostility, as I'm just highlighting his arguments that you conveniently skip over. I'm also hoping for an eventual misquote. Obviously I am getting under your skin, otherwise you wouldn't be telling me to kill myself. However none of this is report worthy until you start making some death threats.

I'm waiting.

 

[Rokar333]

Keep this up please, I'll make it to 50 by the end of the night.

 

[gremily]

?

 

[Serge A. Storms]

1) Depends on how you define "bad thing." Like I said, I personally believe anyone that believes the Bible should be taken literally is out of their fucking mind, but the Bible is also supposed to represent God's word for Christians. If a Christian believes that the Bible is more than just a bunch of sand people scribbling commands for idiot followers, than it would be a very bad thing to ignore the Bible.

2) Whoa, hold on there just a minute, "a few" Christians being homophobic would not be enough to prevent legalization of gay marriage. And the Bible does directly state that homosexuality is wrong. Many people believe that, and that's why gay marriage is where it's at right now instead of being legalized after the giant controversy in it (that really started up during the end of Bush's first term, which was no coincidence)

3) It wouldn't take that much "legal shakeup", unless Congress decided that they needed to arbitrarily change every tax code in the books to suit same-sex marriage. As it is, it will get messy with same-sex divorce, but it always gets messy, anyway. I'm of the opinion that marriage as a religious ceremony shouldn't be an institution of the government and the tax benefits should be taken out of the books, personally (I'm not optimistic about any of that coming to be, of course), and part of that is because it always gets messy.

1) No True Scotsman fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman].

2) You are back to blaming Christians exclusively for opposition to gay issues. As I have proven, all creeds and cultures demonstrate opposition to gay issues, including atheists. Quite simply, voting against gay marriage does not make someone a Christian. So you have now fallen foul of the Fallacy of the False Cause [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29].

1) That's a little loose, don't you think? You defined "Modern Christianity" and stated that it was real Christianity updated for the present, and I pointed out numerous examples of people that were Christians in the modern era that didn't believe in that version of Christianity, preferring to stick to the Bible. I also mentioned in the post you're quoting that it would be a bad thing for Christians to ignore the Bible if they believed that it was the truth. I never said they had to believe it was the truth, and I don't think any Christians alive really believe all of it to be the truth, anyway, it's more of varying degrees of how much they believe.

2) I'm blaming Christians because Christians make up the majority of the population and the vast majority of our representatives in the House, and representatives in the House and presidential candidates regularly appeal to Christians by arguing against gay marriage and abortion rights. If it wasn't working, the House would look much different than it does now, seeing as how all of the conservatives and some of the democrats got there by appealing to the Christian vote. As far as minorities that are also against gay marriage and abortion, they alone couldn't swing the vote one way or the other. It will be a Christian majority voting one way or the other.

1) No, it's the other way around. I never said the extremists were not Christians, in fact I never mentioned them in the context you are asserting. I spoke about the prevailing tendancies in contemporary Christianity, which you said wasn't Christianity because they never followed the Bible closely enough for you. Total no true Scotsman fallacy.

2) So you blame them as Christians rather than blame them as individuals? Can't you see how bigoted that is? Should I blame America in it's entirety for the massacre at Fallujah? Or just the despotic administration of the day? Also, this is another logical fallacy. You are saying that the majority of the house are Christians. The house voted down gay unions. Therefore, the house voted against it because they are Christians and hate gays. By that logic, the house at one point voted for abortion in the united states. The house were Christian. Therefore, Christians are pro-choice.

1) You spoke about the prevailing tendencies of "Modern Christianity," yes, and I was pointing out that "Modern Christianity" by your definition left a bunch of other people that identified themselves as Christians out. As far as them not following the Bible "closely enough," that's true in the sense that the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong. That doesn't mean that it's an ever-shrinking definition for what "true" Christianity is, the Bible has a finite number of words and statements, and homosexuality is addressed in the Bible. The bigger question would be whether the Christian believes that the Bible is the word of God or not. If not, then they wouldn't be a "true" Christian according to the Bible's definition, as well as the definition of a large number of people in the modern age, but they would still define themselves as Christian

2) I only blame them as Christians because the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong, if someone takes any of the Bible outside of the New Testament seriously, that's definitely pointed out. Would you say that half the country is just homophobic, including most of many states, and it has nothing to do with their religion? That would be a tough sell.

As far as the House being Christian, they are, but they're also politicians, they're not making policies because they're so Christian that they care, they're doing it to pander to the voters. If gay marriage was extremely popular in most states, and the members of the House could help their cause to get re-elected if they voted for it, then it would have become legal back in 2004 when it was the most heated issue in politics.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

A naked lady talked to a fucking snake that told her to eat a magic fruit,

A snake with legs no less, that was his punishment to the serpent, to remove his legs. However if you have a problem with the Genesis why do you have such a problem with Christians? Shouldn't you be directing your hatred toward the Jews? I think you just keep going back to this point because you're upset that you can't beat cuddly_tomato, an understandable reaction. However he has proven that just about every culture everywhere hates homosexuals, and that out of all the religious cultures the Christian ones tend to be more accepting (Okay so the secular cultures beat us on that one.)

It's funny that you are replying to my posts with such hostility, as I'm just highlighting his arguments that you conveniently skip over. I'm also hoping for an eventual misquote. Obviously I am getting under your skin, otherwise you wouldn't be telling me to kill myself. However none of this is report worthy until you start making some death threats.

I'm waiting.

I don't actually read troll comments that are more than a few sentences in length, especially after you've already identified yourself as a troll.

 

[Aptspire]

if he'd shown up as a ninja, they would've thought he was absent XD

 

[jpoon]

RAmen!

 

[Rokar333]

I don't actually read troll comments that are more than a few sentences in length, especially after you've already identified yourself as a troll.

Well there are a lot better ways to troll a video game forum. Anybody up for another ODST thread?

if he'd shown up as a ninja, they would've thought he was absent XD

huh?

 

[Serge A. Storms]

if he'd shown up as a ninja, they would've thought he was absent XD

lulz

 

[cuddly_tomato]

1) You spoke about the prevailing tendencies of "Modern Christianity," yes, and I was pointing out that "Modern Christianity" by your definition left a bunch of other people that identified themselves as Christians out. As far as them not following the Bible "closely enough," that's true in the sense that the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong. That doesn't mean that it's an ever-shrinking definition for what "true" Christianity is, the Bible has a finite number of words and statements, and homosexuality is addressed in the Bible. The bigger question would be whether the Christian believes that the Bible is the word of God or not. If not, then they wouldn't be a "true" Christian according to the Bible's definition, as well as the definition of a large number of people in the modern age, but they would still define themselves as Christian

2) I only blame them as Christians because the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong, if someone takes any of the Bible outside of the New Testament seriously, that's definitely pointed out. Would you say that half the country is just homophobic, including most of many states, and it has nothing to do with their religion? That would be a tough sell.

As far as the House being Christian, they are, but they're also politicians, they're not making policies because they're so Christian that they care, they're doing it to pander to the voters. If gay marriage was extremely popular in most states, and the members of the House could help their cause to get re-elected if they voted for it, then it would have become legal back in 2004 when it was the most heated issue in politics.

1) You made a no true Scotsman fallacy. Accept it. You are saying that anyone who calls themself a Christian has to hate gay people, just so you can hold that up as proof of how bigoted they are. Well the reverse has happened in this case.

2) You just made a MASSIVE leap, and done it again. You said "I only blame them as Christians because the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong", then you said, in the same sentence "if someone takes any of the Bible outside of the New Testament seriously"... no. You can't do that. Just because it is the Bible doesn't mean that a Christian has to agree with 100% of all of it, nor does it mean it needs to be taken literally by Christians. Even atheists and non-Christians find words of worth in the Bible. Does that make them homophobic or Christians? Not at all.

Would I say that half of a country is homophobic? Well yes, yes I would. Half of the country was racist 50 years ago. Black people weren't even allowed to vote or sit down on buses 60 years ago. Look at it now. Gays have only recently started to become accepted, it is going to take time, especially for the older generations. That isn't a tough sell, it isn't even a medium sell, it's a piss easy sell. Age is a greater deciding factor in homophobia than religion is.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

1) You spoke about the prevailing tendencies of "Modern Christianity," yes, and I was pointing out that "Modern Christianity" by your definition left a bunch of other people that identified themselves as Christians out. As far as them not following the Bible "closely enough," that's true in the sense that the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong. That doesn't mean that it's an ever-shrinking definition for what "true" Christianity is, the Bible has a finite number of words and statements, and homosexuality is addressed in the Bible. The bigger question would be whether the Christian believes that the Bible is the word of God or not. If not, then they wouldn't be a "true" Christian according to the Bible's definition, as well as the definition of a large number of people in the modern age, but they would still define themselves as Christian

2) I only blame them as Christians because the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong, if someone takes any of the Bible outside of the New Testament seriously, that's definitely pointed out. Would you say that half the country is just homophobic, including most of many states, and it has nothing to do with their religion? That would be a tough sell.

As far as the House being Christian, they are, but they're also politicians, they're not making policies because they're so Christian that they care, they're doing it to pander to the voters. If gay marriage was extremely popular in most states, and the members of the House could help their cause to get re-elected if they voted for it, then it would have become legal back in 2004 when it was the most heated issue in politics.

1) You made a no true Scotsman fallacy. Accept it. You are saying that anyone who calls themself a Christian has to hate gay people, just so you can hold that up as proof of how bigoted they are. Well the reverse has happened in this case.

2) You just made a MASSIVE leap, and done it again. You said "I only blame them as Christians because the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong", then you said, in the same sentence "if someone takes any of the Bible outside of the New Testament seriously"... no. You can't do that. Just because it is the Bible doesn't mean that a Christian has to agree with 100% of all of it, nor does it mean it needs to be taken literally by Christians. Even atheists and non-Christians find words of worth in the Bible. Does that make them homophobic or Christians? Not at all.

Would I say that half of a country is homophobic? Well yes, yes I would. Half of the country was racist 50 years ago. Black people weren't even allowed to vote or sit down on buses 60 years ago. Look at it now. Gays have only recently started to become accepted, it is going to take time, especially for the older generations. That isn't a tough sell, it isn't even a medium sell, it's a piss easy sell. Age is a greater deciding factor in homophobia than religion is.

1) Now that is not true. I've clearly said on at least half a dozen occasions that anyone can call themselves a Christian and that only Christians that actually follow the Old Testament should be against homosexuality.

2) I could see where you're coming from, except that it's clearly stated as the word of God that homosexuality is wrong in the Bible. Many people, including your definition of "Modern Christians" don't agree with large portions of the Bible, but as I've mentioned before, that's discounting a very large portion of Christians that don't ignore the Old Testament and don't ignore the specific parts condemning homosexuality. With your logic, the vast majority of Christians are "Modern Christians" using your definition for that term, which is what I've disputed from the beginning. And as far as "leaps" go, making the leap that homophobia is more a result of age than religion is a huge leap in itself. Do the red states contain more old, homophobic people? Is Vermont packed with hip young "Modern Christians?" That's making a massive assumption.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

1) Now that is not true. I've clearly said on at least half a dozen occasions that anyone can call themselves a Christian and that only Christians that actually follow the Old Testament should be against homosexuality.

2) I could see where you're coming from, except that it's clearly stated as the word of God that homosexuality is wrong in the Bible. Many people, including your definition of "Modern Christians" don't agree with large portions of the Bible, but as I've mentioned before, that's discounting a very large portion of Christians that don't ignore the Old Testament and don't ignore the specific parts condemning homosexuality. With your logic, the vast majority of Christians are "Modern Christians" using your definition for that term, which is what I've disputed from the beginning. And as far as "leaps" go, making the leap that homophobia is more a result of age than religion is a huge leap in itself. Do the red states contain more old, homophobic people? Is Vermont packed with hip young "Modern Christians?" That's making a massive assumption.

1) Yep. It's true. And you are doing it now. You are telling other people what they have to believe. This wasn't even about homosexuality until you blurbed in with "and Christians hate gays!".

2) Being clearly stated in the Bible does not mean that anyone has to take it as the absolute literal truth. Even if it did that does not mean that people who believe it feel the need to push that belief onto other people. I am pretty solid in my beliefs (which are not Christian), that doesn't mean I feel any need to go around telling everyone else what they can and can't do. Nowhere does it say in the Bible "Thou shalt go mind everyone elses business for them". The only kind of people who do that are people with a massively over inflated opinion of themselves who see themselves as some kind of messiah or saviour... Sounds strangely familiar... And...

Oh for the love of... this isn't rocket science.

I HATE techno music.
My dad is homophobic.
HIS dad was racist.
HIS dad wouldn't let his wife out of the kitchen.
HIS mother was a sufferagette and wasn't even allowed to vote.
HER father thought that trains were the work of the devil and that people going over 5mph on Stephensons Rocket would die.

Yes. The current hostility to gays in the west is one of backwards culture from the older generations who have yet to die. It takes longer for cultures to evolve in rural areas, hence the reason "red states" are slower to change to meet the differences in the new world.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

1) Now that is not true. I've clearly said on at least half a dozen occasions that anyone can call themselves a Christian and that only Christians that actually follow the Old Testament should be against homosexuality.

2) I could see where you're coming from, except that it's clearly stated as the word of God that homosexuality is wrong in the Bible. Many people, including your definition of "Modern Christians" don't agree with large portions of the Bible, but as I've mentioned before, that's discounting a very large portion of Christians that don't ignore the Old Testament and don't ignore the specific parts condemning homosexuality. With your logic, the vast majority of Christians are "Modern Christians" using your definition for that term, which is what I've disputed from the beginning. And as far as "leaps" go, making the leap that homophobia is more a result of age than religion is a huge leap in itself. Do the red states contain more old, homophobic people? Is Vermont packed with hip young "Modern Christians?" That's making a massive assumption.

1) Yep. It's true. And you are doing it now. You are telling other people what they have to believe. This wasn't even about homosexuality until you blurbed in with "and Christians hate gays!".

2) Being clearly stated in the Bible does not mean that anyone has to take it as the absolute literal truth. Even if it did that does not mean that people who believe it feel the need to push that belief onto other people. I am pretty solid in my beliefs (which are not Christian), that doesn't mean I feel any need to go around telling everyone else what they can and can't do. Nowhere does it say in the Bible "Thou shalt go mind everyone elses business for them". The only kind of people who do that are people with a massively over inflated opinion of themselves who see themselves as some kind of messiah or saviour... Sounds strangely familiar... And...

Oh for the love of... this isn't rocket science.

I HATE techno music.
My dad is homophobic.
HIS dad was racist.
HIS dad wouldn't let his wife out of the kitchen.
HIS mother was a sufferagette and wasn't even allowed to vote.
HER father thought that trains were the work of the devil and that people going over 5mph on Stephensons Rocket would die.

Yes. The current hostility to gays in the west is one of backwards culture from the older generations who have yet to die. It takes longer for cultures to evolve in rural areas, hence the reason "red states" are slower to change to meet the differences in the new world.

1) You said that I said that everyone that calls themselves Christian must be against gays, and that is completely false. I said that you had to believe in the Old Testament to believe that God is against gays, and that would be the minimum.

2) I didn't say that it did, I said that, according to the Bible, you should believe in the Bible (which is a logical fallacy, one that I didn't invent, that's what it actually says), and the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong several times (I should also point out that it was not under any uncertain terms, the Bible explicitly states that homosexuality is wrong, you don't have to believe that the entire thing is meant to be taken literally to see that it's a direct statement). And many, many people think and vote as Christian people, not just a few people with inflated opinions of themselves, which goes back to you not recognizing that many people take the Bible seriously.

As far as "red states" being slower to change, that doesn't appear to be related to age alone, and what of states such as Georgia with large cities and a population of minorities and immigrants quickly becoming the majority? If this really is just an issue with some parts of society being slower to change than others, you would think a massive infusion of people from other cultures would change the political landscape some.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

They should either ban all religious attire from schools, or none of it. Sure, you can point and laugh at the "silly little boy with his pirate costume and made up religion", but it's just as valid as any other religion in the end.

I completely agree. I got told to put my pentacle away and I just ignored the teacher. If she had pressed the issue I would have made a complaint for every cross I saw and would probably have ended up suing her for religious discrimination. Luckily for her she didn't press the issue and I left my pentacle out.

It doesn't matter how ridiculous your religion sounds, if a mainstream religion gets privileges so should all fringe religions.

This post has win