Bloody Mary Candyman

Longtime readers of this blog may have noticed that illiterately literal interpretations of the Bible are one of my pet peeves.

Especially when these readings involve interpreting a passage without any regard for context.

Especially when those promoting these clumsily crypto-literal interpretations maintain a proud and determined ignorance of how the passage in question has been interpreted by others, living and dead, for two thousand years.

Especially when those promoting such readings seem to think that the word "God" refers to some kind of lesser djinni who responds with the granting of wishes or the dispensing of vengeance depending on which magic words we incant.

And most especially when those ahistoric, illiterate, countertextual, anti-intellectual readings are used to market a product or to support the kind of dishonest, hard-sell proselytization that amounts to the same thing as marketing a product.

That's one reason why I don't like Tim LaHaye. It's also why I don't like the "Blasphemy Challenge."

I do not believe that saying "Bloody Mary" or "Candyman" three times while looking into a mirror will result in my imminent death. Despite what both LaHaye and the promoters of the Blasphemy Challenge seem to think, this does not make me an atheist.

Comments

[Daniel]

Exactly.

I had this exact conversation with a friend a week or two ago. Some Christians (of the "radio orthodoxy" variety) are all up in arms, as if Blasphemy Challenge is a huge threat to Christianity.

If we reduce the road to damnation to a set of words (”I deny the Holy Spirit”), or likewise the road to salvation (e.g. “the sinner’s prayer”), that’s not spirituality - that’s incantation. If God’s hands are tied unless we say The Right Words, that is spell-casting.

I’m not endorsing the site by any means, but it’s no more insidious than Richard Dawkins. If all you see is “Christians” who do more harm than good, doesn’t it follow to want to disassociate from them as dramatically as possible?

[Simon St.Laurent]

I ran into the Blasphemy Challenge a few weeks ago in a link from a blog somewhere. They don't seem like atheists so much as anti-theists, a weird mirror image of the hard right church's proselytization and literal-when-convenient interpretation.

They both seem to thrive on criticism, too.

[ScottDaly]

I have to admit my first response is 'What the F@#&'? If they don't believe in God why are they citing scripture? If they don't believe in God why have people blaspheme against something that doesn't exist?(from their viewpoint) It's like having someone blaspheme against Toucan Sam on a box of Fruit Loops. It is an exercise in mental masturbation that proves nothing, signifies nothing, and is a waste of everyones time. As best I can tell the only purpose of this site is to get a rise out of the fundamentalists. And lets be honest, getting a rise out of those folks is about as easy as getting a rock to sink in water. Heck, just breathing and living in certain parts of the country is enough to do that. That site, on a scale of 1 to 10, ranks as about a 15 on the childish meter.

[David]

Wow. Pretty bizarre -- and yes, it does look like just something to get a rise out of fundamentalists (their email address is waronchristmas@hotmail.com, for crying out loud).

They don't seem like atheists so much as anti-theists, a weird mirror image of the hard right church's proselytization and literal-when-convenient interpretation.

Ah, but that's not true at all -- from their FAQ:

"Isn't this just "fundamentalist atheism"?

That is a remarkably stupid question. The Rational Response Squad encourages people to inquire, argue, reason and doubt -- not to believe something because they are told to."

Hee. They aren't fundamentalist, because they encourage you to inquire and doubt. Unless you inquire and doubt them, then it's a remarkably stupid question.

Yeah, it's a troll site.

[Thomas Reynolds]

While I do think the challenge is childish, I am happy to see such a young audience rejecting superstition so outwardly.

ScottDaly, the idea of nonbelievers citing scripture is to prove that they have truly rejected it. I have several friends who were raised in the church, but don't consider themselves "real true christians" anymore. However, the fear of damnation still impacts their lives. They would be unwilling to throw away any chance of redemption, which is what the challenge demands.

I'd also like to say hello. I enjoy the blog. I'm a religious studies student with an emphasis on the apocalyptic genre. Also I'm an atheist, though I consider myself too old (23) to be declaring so on YouTube.

[Rob H.]

I ran into this awhile back from some of the science/atheist blogs I read. I'm an atheist and I don't like the challenge. Though it is primarily a site designed to get a rise out of creationists, ID supporters and hardcore fundies, but I know that it'll be viewed by regular non-political religious folk who'll have yet another negative view of atheists presented to them.

[Bugmaster]

I don't know. The "challenge" seems quite silly to me, but I also rememer what Richard Dawkins said: religion has a unique status in our society, because unlike any other belief, it's automatically accorded a great amount respect. The Blasphemy Challenge works only because of this automatic level of respect; as Fred pointed out, it wouldn't work if they replaced "God" with "Candyman" or whatever. Yes, these people are visual trolls (vrolls ?), but sometimes, you need trolls too.

[Zzyzx]

I'm a little fascinated by this, just because I had never heard the theory that saying the wrong sentence condemms you even if you later say the right sentence. If I kidnapped you and forced you to say it at knifepoint, would that be enough? What if I asked you to read something that translated to the forbidden sentence?

You might be able to get out of those if you say that you have to believe it for the sentence to have an effect, but that's also pretty bizarre. You raped and murdered thousands before repenting? Enjoy Heaven! You had a moment of doubt and said the wrong phrase? Sorry, burn forever.

Then again, the Mark of the Beast isn't much different than this. Even if you take the Mark in order to buy food for hundreds of people who would then be free to not take it, you're still condemmed. Sorry parents, let your kids starve.

[Beth]

Especially when those promoting these clumsily crypto-literal interpretations maintain a proud and determined ignorance of how the passage in question has been interpreted by others, living and dead, for two thousand years.... And most especially when those ahistoric, illiterate, countertextual, anti-intellectual readings...

Fred, could you expand on that, please? The 'say the wrong thing and go to Hell' interpretation seems totally out of character for Jesus -- he wasn't a 'magic words' kind of guy and taught that salvation was available to anyone who "knocked" -- but I'm not finding the context much help.

the idea of nonbelievers citing scripture is to prove that they have truly rejected it. I have several friends who were raised in the church, but don't consider themselves "real true christians" anymore. However, the fear of damnation still impacts their lives.

I guess I don't see the value in proving it to other people. If they said something like, "God, if you exist, strike me dead right now," that could be useful in proving to themselves that God does not exist (at least not that silly, superstition-laden God), and so help liberate them from their fears. The "curse" from this Blasphemy Challenge doesn't fall due until they're dead. It's not going to help them overcome their fears. If anything, it will just increase their fears of damnation and make them more neurotic than they already are. If, on the other hand, they have no trace of fear or belief, then reciting the phrase seems like nothing but childish showing off.

[ako]

The whole thing strikes me as basically goofy, but there's something that seems a bit ugly about it.

I mean it's one thing for someone to go, "I deny the Holy Spirit," or whatever formula will prove to themselves or someone they're trying to demonstrate the level of atheist dedication they want to show. But trying to push people to do something they might imagine will lead to an eternity in hell gives me the willies.

I think atheism is the most accurate viewpoint on religion (otherwise I wouldn't hold it), but I wouldn't want someone who was atheist and later changed their mind to suffer the upset of thinking they're irrevocably doomed to eternal damnation. Especially for something that's basically pointless. The only people who are going to think it means anything are the "Words have magic power," believers, and most of them will just see it as another reason to think their enemies are atheists and need to be defeated, which is the last thing we need to encourage.

[Jeff Weskamp]

The "Bloody Mary" and "Candyman" superstitions remind me of the Medieval belief that saying a demon's name three times in a row would summon that demon to you.

[A. Kennedy]

The "Bloody Mary" and "Candyman" superstitions remind me of the Medieval belief that saying a demon's name three times in a row would summon that demon to you.

I say this with the utmost respect, believe me, but did anyone in Medieval Times (not the restaurant) actually believe this? What (again, respectfully) is your source?

[Zzyzx]

ako - I don't know if it's completely pointless. It taught this agnostic Jew about The Wrong Magic Words Doctrine which is one more barrier to me ever converting to that branch of Christianity.

[VorJack]

I agree that the Challenge is largely to get a rise out of fundies, but it's also calculated to get attention from everyone else. There have been several news stories about it already, and it may garner more attention as it expands. The reactions of the fundies only increase its visibility. Brain Flemming, one of its founders and maker of "The God Who Wasn't There" documentary, loves attention grabbing stunts. The fact that we're talking about it here indicates that it has at least partially worked.

A lot of atheists, myself included, tend to think of themselves as an invisible minority. A lot of believers have strange notions about atheists, like the old "atheists are all amoral" bit. One way to deal with that is to take a page out of the infamous Gay Agenda and increase your visibility. Come out of the closet, so to speak. Make it clear to believers that they've some of their neighbors and co-workers are atheists, and they haven't gone on a shooting spree yet. Granted, the Challenge may be a very provocative way of doing that, and it may backfire to some degree, but Flemming and the rest aren't known for their subtlety.

[the opoponax]

such a young audience rejecting superstition so outwardly.

yeah, because believing in this Say The Magic Words crap is definitely not superstitious at all. the Blasphemy Challenge comes off to me as people who are stunted either by having been raised fundamentalist christian or growing up in that environment (i wonder how many of the videos are from people in the Bible Belt?), who while they may want so much to reject the idea of god, the deeply entrenched fundie mindest prevents them from abandoning the superstitious parts of religious belief.

real atheists think the bible is no more valid than a back issue of Archie comics.

oh, and i've always assumed that the bloody mary urban legend is a leftover version of that same medieval idea.

[the opoponax]

i really, really don't understand the idea that atheists are some kind of invisible persecuted minority. maybe this is just because i live in a large secular urban area? but compared to 30-40 years ago, the US is incredibly, incredibly secular. almost everyone i know who i've talked to on the subject is an atheist or an agnostic. outside of my family who live down south, even the people i know who believe in god are by and large not religiously observant, especially if they are christians. here in new york, churches are closing by the dozens. i don't know anyone who is raising their child as an observant christian, or even anyone who has small children they've baptized or plan to baptize.

get over it, people. you are not the only atheist in the whole world. i promise.

[Hopea]

How is simply stating that "the holy spirit does not exist" blasphemy? I'm a bit hazy on the theology on this one.

[Kate]

Hopea,

Well, if blaspheming is saying something against God, then denying part of the Holy Trinity that is God would certainly count as a blasphemous statement.

all parts of the holy trinity are god.

that's why it's called the Holy Trinity.

[A. Kennedy]

Hopea,

Well, if blaspheming is saying something against God, then denying part of the Holy Trinity that is God would certainly count as a blasphemous statement.

Well, I've asked priests and pastors, and looked in textbooks and on the internet, and have not yet found an interpretation of the passage about blasphemy against the holy spirit that I find even reasonably convincing. Perhaps if I could read ancient Greek...

The point is, the passage is a lot more complicated than the utterly childish reading that if you say (or perhaps even type) "The Holy Spirit is a doo-doo head" that Our Lord will never forgive you.

One interpretation I heard, which I don't think is sufficient, but is still thought-provoking, is that "blasphemy against the holy spirit" is despair... so in order to be saved, you must cease despairing. That doesn't seem exactly right, but it seems like it may be on the right track (to me).

[the opoponax]

that was me up there, by the way.

[PepperjackCandy]

My favorite teacher from high school (a school related to, but not affiliated with, the Christian Reformed Church) believed that refusing to hold the light of Christ in your heart was the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

And since the Holy Spirit is supposed to be the part of God that dwells within us (for trinitarians (I think that the Trinity was invented by people who wouldn't've been able to talk on the phone and play Minesweeper at the same time, and thus can't conceive of one being literally being everywhere, and paying attention to everyone, at once)), that explanation makes sense to me.

[wintermute]

opponax: Almost every single person I know in this area (Cincinnati) attends church at least three times a week, listens exclusively to "Christian" music, and are quite stunned by the idea that I might not be religious. At least four different people have bought Winterdaughter My First Bible or The Big Book Of Bible Stories, or some such, without it ever crossing their mind that we might not be planning on bringing her up as a Christian. All the children I know around here (mostly my wife's cousins') know nursery rhymes like "The Bible is the Book for me" and not "Jack and Jill" - because who'd want their kids learning songs that don't affirm the divinity of Jesus? It's frankly going to be very difficult to let her make up her own mind about religion without her grandparents getting very upset that she doesn't attend church from birth.

In short, I'm glad that life is so easy for atheists and agnostics in New York, but please don't assume that means it is so everywhere.

[the opoponax]

well, considering that scripture says Christ is the begotten son of God, clearly this is a distinction that needs to be made. it's a way of establishing both monotheism AND the belief that Christ is both divine and the son of God. as for why three and not just two, that's probably something a more theologically minded poster could explain. the only idea that occurs to me is that quite a few pre-christian faiths placed a significance on the number three, and certain pagan traditions have triple gods and goddesses and the number three as a divine aspect, so maybe those traditions carried over and influenced a trinity as opposed to a binary form of godhead. but three gods in one is FAR more complex than just a construction of simple people who didn't see how god could possibly be omniscient.

[cjmr's husband]

I hadn't thought of that, the Trinity means that God can't be implemented in TTL.

[the opoponax]

i never said life is easy for atheists and agnostics everywhere, and i definitely know that some communities are downright hostile. but in my experience and understanding, those communities are relatively few and far between, especially nowadays when, let's face it, most people don't go to church. obviously deeply religious people are out there -- i went to a high school where most of my teenaged peers were completely unaware that there existed religions besides catholic christianity. and yet, did any of those people actually go to church on sunday once they were 18 and their parents couldn't force them to? not really.

[bulbul]

I agree that the Challenge is largely to get a rise out of fundies, but it's also calculated to get attention from everyone else.
It sure as hell got mine. Did you see all the hot chicks on YouTube denying the existence of the Holy Spirit? Wow.

[VorJack]

the opponax: To be fair, I said invisible minority, not persecuted minority. That would be foolish. Being told by my mother-in-law that she cannot see how people that do not believe in God can have any morality is not persecution, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. But I, too, live in New York (upstate), and my experiences are very different from yours. Yes, churches have been closing, but these are primarily Catholic churches. Evangelical churches continue to thrive in this area, and a new one has just opened up down the road from me. There are right-wing Christian stations on the dial, and while they have to beg for money just as NPR does, they remain on the air.

This is not persecution. We are simply a minority that is frequently misunderstood. Case in point, from a blog called "Atheist in a minivan," the bloggers daughter was given an assignment to write an essay about what she wanter for Christmas. The child produced an essay that would make a vein pop out of Bill O'Reailly's head.

(http://possummomma.blogspot.com/2007/01/possum-1-makes-us-proud.html)

The teacher gave her an A+, but told her she wasn't an atheist because the "ability to care for others feelings isn't an atheist trait." This is clearly a misunderstanding of atheists, and it's this that I hope greater exposure can fix.

[the opoponax]

i also think there's a HUGE difference between the occasional run-in with someone who makes assumptions about you and any kind of real persecution. i'm sure that when i have kids, the news that i won't baptize them or raise them christian will be a shock to my parents, and that they'll get Noah's Ark playsets and Children's Illustrated Bibles at the holiday my parents will still vociferously call Christmas and not Solstice regardless of how often i protest. and i'm familiar with the proselytizing and invitations to church and to be prayed for that come along with devoutly christian families and communities -- i know if i ever move back to the bible belt, i'll have to deal with it again.

but i also know that i'm not even remotely close to being alone in my non-christianity. and while that's probably more true in a secular left enclave like NYC, i don't know that the rest of the country is necessarily as hegemonic as Fox News would like us to think.

[Stephen]

Regarding the discussion about what "blasphemy" really is - at least in terms of what Jesus was talking about in Mark 3 - it is not simply unbelief, nor is it a magic spell that you recite. So pointing a stick at the sky and shouting, "arvada kedavra!" isn't going to get you a ticket on the Hell Express, nor will filming yourself saying some other dumb thing.

The Jewish religious leaders of the 1st century C.E. accused Jesus of blasphemy, we are told, because he claimed the authority to forgive sins, which was the province of God alone. They also said that Jesus claimed to be able to destroy the Temple - the dwelling place of YHWH - and rebuild it in three days, which was blasphemy, as was his claim that he was the Christ, the Son of God who would be seated next to the Mighty One and riding on the clouds of heaven.

That last bit is pretty important, because YHWH is the one who rides the clouds, a metaphor for Baal that the Hebrews appropriated for YHWH as a claim of YHWH's superiority over the gods of Canaan.

So I guess the attention-whores at The Blasphemy Challenge could have people videotape themselves claiming to be the Holy Spirit. But since they don't actually believe in the Holy Spirit, it's hard then to make the claim sincere. So even if we could recite a magic spell and damn our souls to hell, which we of course can't, there isn't any way for the poor fools to actually accomplish their goal.

[Joshua]

To be fair, I'm pretty sure the Blasphemy Challenge is intended more to mock certain "illiterately literal" (a lovely and appropriate turn of phrase!) brands of fundamentalist Christianity as much as it is an open affirmation of atheism. I do, as an atheist myself, tend to think it's all a bit silly, though.

[the opoponax]

sorry, that was a response for wintermute, not vorjack.

and vorjack, while YOU didn't say it in your post, it's something i see all the time. weirdly enough, often from people who live in NYC where seriously there are so few religious people at all that it's almost funny when you hear this stuff.

these evangelical churches that are springing up all over, you know, i've noticed a few things about them. first off, considering the catholic church closings and pretty much vacant pews at a lot of mainline protestant churches means these churches are often the only ones in town. as much as i hate the fundies, it doesn't matter much whether there are 2 catholic churches, 3 episcopals, a prebyterian, and a dutch reformed, or whether there's one catholic church and 3 fundie ones. that's still LESS churches.

also, most of the fundie churches i'm aware of are either teensy storefront jobbers or big megachurches. in the first case, they have much, much less capacity than your typical church, which leads to something like what i mentioned above -- more churches doesn't necessarily mean more believers. in the latter case, yes, the buildings are bigger and the congregations are larger, but A) how many of those people go every week, and B) they're usually supported by much larger areas and people drive much farther to attend them than your typical neighborhood church. which means, again, i'm not sure that a bigger building necessarily equals more believers.

in fact, i'd argue that the evangelical movements have moved to either lots of small churches or a few really huge and imposing churches to make people like us think that we are in fact in the minority, when there are statistically a lot fewer practicing christians in the US than there were 30 years ago, and even then the term "practicing" means something quite different as most people really don't go every single week.

[James]

The purpose of the Blasphemy Challenge is mainly to tweak uptight fundamentalists (like Tim LaHaye and his fans) while making a point about superstitious thinking. And it worked well -- people who participated immediately got emails from people berating them for being so reckless as to say such a thing, thereby condemning themselves for eternity.

[wintermute]

oppoponax: I agree that I'm not being persecuted, and I'm not sure what I said that made you bring persecution up.

As I say, I'm glad that things are easier for you than they are for me, but claiming that this is a non-issue because no-one you know is a practising Christian is dangerously close to saying that your experiences are more valid than mine, and I'm sure that's not what you meant.

But I repeat: It is going to be (probably literally) impossible to convince my friends and (wife's) family that we don't want Winterdaughter indoctrinated into literalistic Christianity by default. This is not persecution, but I do think its important that she sees that not everyone in the world is a Christian, and that she's free to choose her own beliefs. In this community (and bear in mind that I'm mere miles from Ken Ham's Flintstones-O-Rama), that is not an option that she will see, without some effort on the part of atheists to become more visible.

Many of the participants in the Blasphemer's Challenge have stated that one of the reasons they participated is that atheism is so rare, or so invisible in their community that they felt the need to make their voice heard, that others will know they're not alone. I can fully understand that motivation.

Again, I'm very glad that this is not needed in your part of the world. But telling me that, in fact, the practising Christians I know don't go to church on a regular basis is really not very helpful, given that I know for a fact that attending church three times a week is not seen as anything out of the ordinary, and a good proportion of these people go to church every single day.

[hapax]

I dunno. Obviously, I'm not an atheist, and (I hope!) just as obviously I'm not one of the "illiterate literalists," yet I would be enormously uncomfortable taking up the Blasphemy Challenge, even though I don't believe it would "damn me to Hell." It's just... I dunno... *rude*, like walking up to a nice old lady and shouting "Pee-pee! Bum! Poopy!" in her face.

Sort of like the whole "Darwin Fish" and associated rip-offs. The whole point of it seems to be "Look at me, I can be nasty about something other people take seriously!" It's just juvenile, self-congratulatory, bad manners.

(btw, I love the little girl's Christmas essay. I would be bursting with pride if my children had written a similar essay for their inevitable Christmas assignments. A much better response to pushy, inappropriate evangelism than anything Sam Harris ever wrote.)

[the opoponax]

for what it's worth, statistically only something like 30% of americans reported as denominations that are commonly considered evangelical on the 2000 census (baptist accounting for 17% of that). 26% reported as catholic, and 17% reported in one of the mainline denominations (that last 10% being people who reported nonchristian). considering that catholic churches all over the country are closing and mainline churches show a marked lack of activity (i grew up alternately attending either episcopal or methodist church, and man those pews were EMPTY!), this basically means that something like 30% of americans are likely to espouse the kind of ubiquitous christianity you're talking about.

30% of americans is not really that many.

also, numbers of people reporting as christian of any stripe fell almost 10% between 1990 and 2000. which is pretty significant.

[cjmr]

You say that like there's something inherently wrong with going to church every single day.

[wintermute]

> Sort of like the whole "Darwin Fish" and associated rip-offs. The whole point of it seems to be "Look at me, I can be nasty about something other people take seriously!" It's just juvenile, self-congratulatory, bad manners.

I know a few people who use the DarwinFish to indicate that they are Christian, but see no need to dispose of modern science. Even for those people who use it to denote an acceptance of biology alone, I've never known anyone who intended it to be nasty, just as I'm sure the early Christians didn't mean to be nasty when they appropriated the Mithraist's fish symbol.

[the opoponax]

another "for what it's worth" -- more people on the 2000 census reported as atheist than as any one mainline protestant denomination, and almost half as much as the baptists. that's 8%, btw.

[the opoponax]

i would add that you don't see a whole lot of Methodists (7%) running around complaining about what an invisible minority they are and doing silly stunts to gain more visibility.

[cjmr]

Hmmm, my last post may have come out slightly more cross than I intended. This happens to be a week when I will be at 'a' church (although not necessarily my own) 6 days out of 7.

[bulbul]

I know a few people who use the DarwinFish to indicate that they are Christian, but see no need to dispose of modern science.
And I have a Darwinfish sticker, so now it's few+1 I guess :o)

One small nitpick, wintermute: while it is generally accepted that even orthodox (i.e. non-gnostic) Christianity shows at least some amount of influence of Zoroastrianism/Mithraism, no mainstream scholar accepts the hypothesis of major influence including the appropriation of iconography. And the fish wasn't a major symbol in Mithraism.

[wintermute]

> 30% of americans is not really that many.

No, but 90% of people living within 50 mile of you is.

also, numbers of people reporting as christian of any stripe fell almost 10% between 1990 and 2000. which is pretty significant.

Agreed, but I'm still not sure what your point is. Are you trying to imply that the churches around here are standing empty? That attendance in my local area could not possibly be greater than the national average? That no-one will try to drag my daughter to church against my explicit wishes?

You say that like there's something inherently wrong with going to church every single day.

I don't think there is. I'm just trying to convince opoponax that while the statement "most people really don't go every single week" may be true on a national level, it's very definitely false here.

[Beth]

Thanks, Stephan, that makes a lot sense. So what Jesus was in effect saying was that the only real blasphemers are the ones who go around accusing others of blasphemy.

VorJack,
One way to deal with that is to take a page out of the infamous Gay Agenda and increase your visibility. Come out of the closet, so to speak.

I don't buy the analogy. One of the things that made homosexuals -- especially drag queens -- such attractive victims was that they were afraid to go to the police or to complain when the police did nothing. They were acceding to a conspiracy of silence that was literally killing them. By outing themselves so publicly, they put the world on notice that they weren't going to play that game any more and demonstrated to other homosexuals that they didn't have to play either. None of this holds true for atheists.

This is clearly a misunderstanding of atheists, and it's this that I hope greater exposure can fix.

I don't see how, not when they've chosen a type of exposure that reinforces those very prejudices. They're accused of being amoral. How is encouraging people to do something which -- as ako and I both noted -- may result in harm going to change that? They're accused of not really being atheists, but just in rebellion against church or family. This action lends a lot of credence to that theory. People say that "secularism" is just another religion. Doesn't asking atheists to make this public statement of faith in No-God just prove those people right?

There's one other aspect of this stunt that bothers me. At various times in history, certain groups have been required to blaspheme against their own religion or contravene its laws on pain of death. Now I realize these guys aren't trying to force anyone to do anything, but if you really want to agitate for tolerance and respect, it's probably not a good idea to associate yourself with symbols of oppression.

[wintermute]

> another "for what it's worth" -- more people on the 2000 census reported as atheist than as any one mainline protestant denomination, and almost half as much as the baptists. that's 8%, btw.

Baptists aren't mainline? Or aren't Protestant?

But you know what? I'm fed up with this. You're right. Atheists in my local community are common, and the churches all stand empty. The local demographics exactly match those of the nation as a whole. I made it all up just to annoy you.

Are you happy now?

[Tom]

I still haven't seen an answer to the question, What is the historic, literate, textual, intellectual reading/interpretation of the passage in question by those living and dead for two thousand years?

[Been There Duane]

Are you happy now?

Baby keeping you up all hours?

[wintermute]

Not all hours, but definitely some hours.

[the opoponax]

i said nothing about your local community. i'm sorry that you are forced to be surrounded by annoying fundies. maybe you should move or try to make some new friends if it's such a big deal for you. but, no, actually, not every town, community, or social circle in the country is like yours. not even close to a majority, actually. of course they're not all like mine, either, but if you look at the numbers, you will surely see what i'm talking about.

[wintermute]

> but, no, actually, not every town, community, or social circle in the country is like yours. not even close to a majority, actually. of course they're not all like mine, either, but if you look at the numbers, you will surely see what i'm talking about.

Didn't I agree with that from the beginning? Wasn't my very first comment simply pointing out that not every community is like yours? Didn't I continually make it clear that I was specifically talking about my local community, every time you told me I must be wrong, because your personal experience and statistics on the national level say something different?