Eugene Fitzpatrick Cross Dress to Church Day
17 December 2012 at 08:59 via Mobile ·
This is not going to be helpful for anyone. Its just going to aggravate the issue. No good will be done by transvesting; no real point made.
4 people like this.
Cross Dress to Church Day The point to be made is more for those who aren’t too heavily invested in organized religion. People need to see the extremes in reaction to really understand the harms of clinging excessively to dogma.
17 December 2012 at 11:33 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick But I think that merhod wont achieve your aims; just aggravate the very people you wish to reach.
17 December 2012 at 14:16 via mobile · Like · 1
Cross Dress to Church Day I wish to reach everyone. If people are too stubborn to be reached, valuing themselves and their loved ones more than people they find to be too unlike them, then I will have to respect their agency to remain close-minded and unwilling to understand differing points of view; I can’t force anyone to be Christian.
17 December 2012 at 15:18 · Unlike · 2
Gretchen Spadinski I agree with the principle of advocating tolerance and challenging conventional gender rules and agree that many religions openly oppress people based on their sex, sexual preference, an so on. However, people also choose religion. If they disagree, they can leave. Forcing one’s values and beliefs on others is exactly what bothers me about religion. Basically, it’s the pot calling the kettle black.
22 December 2012 at 21:57 via mobile · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day The Mormon church actively spends tithing money on political campaigns that restrict the rights of others and actively proselytizes.
They have always tried to maintain a reputation of being loving and accepting of all people, especially lately with their seemingly softened tone on sensitive issues like sexuality. An organization that insists on taking such an aggressive approach to increasing its membership and manipulating public policy should be given more opportunities to put its divinely inspired doctrines into practice.
Besides, going to church in drag is not forcing one’s beliefs on others. It’s putting people in a position where they have to face their own prejudices.
If they don’t want to have people popping in on their services, they should stop selling and advertising their religion and refrain from spending their tax-free tithing donations on lobbying the government and voters to limit the rights of others.
22 December 2012 at 23:03 via mobile · Unlike · 2
Gretchen Spadinski You make a lot of good points, and I believe that people should challenge what they are ‘taught’ in church and use their own moral compass to make decisions. But it is hurtful and insulting to some members if the church to try and convince them to adopt practices they are not comfortable with. Like I said before, people make the decision to belong to a particular organization, and no one is forcing them against their will. The way I see it, the church is a positive thing for many people I know and care about, and it seems disrespectful to belittle it. You don’t have to agree with something to tolerate and accept it. (sound familiar? kind of like the negative attitude church memebers have towards the gay community).
23 December 2012 at 09:27 · Like
Gretchen Spadinski I see no harm in wearing non-traditional clothing to church. But you are not going to change the organization overnight. Angering or offending church members is only going to solidify the beliefs and practices that you are opposing (an “us vs. them” situation).
23 December 2012 at 09:31 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Isnt the whole point of religion to teach the truth? I mean, nobody joins a religion because they believe it to teach falsely; each person goes towards or stays with what they believe to be truth (and I say this knowing not all religions are truthful, but I believe mine to be the fountain of truth).
So that said, if a church teaches its wrong to cross-dress, then the people in that ought to believe it. So if you show up to church with the sole intention of flouting the beliefs of that church, you’ll only cause a problem. If you’re upset that they are forcing their views on others, you can’t fix it by forcing your views on others. The people are at church because they already agree with the beliefs of that church and are there to worship God; nobody is there to see theatrics or see people make political statements. It’s a disturbance of the peace you want.
23 December 2012 at 14:37 via mobile · Like · 6
Eugene Fitzpatrick Nobody’s mind is gonna change because some dude shows up irreverently in a dress, and implies that everyone now accept his dress or remain small-minded, backwards change-a-phobes. Reverent people, who want to know and worship God, are there to do just that. Perhaps cross-dressing might not be pleasing to God? Why did God invent gender anyway? Just so those genders could be blurred, mixed and confused? And where do we draw the line? Today you’re imposing cross-dressing because you think it ought to be accepted in a house of worship, but what’s next? Tomorrow will be “go naked to church day” because its not right to tell people to wear clothes to church. How dare they! Next week will be “dress as a clown to church”, followed by “tell everyone in church their beliefs are dumb” day. Is there any religion that’s allowed to practice something you personally don’t agree with? Must every church submit to everyone’s personal whims?
23 December 2012 at 15:04 via mobile · Like · 1
Cross Dress to Church Day It is hurtful and insulting (and should be illegal) when apostatizing members have their children taken from them by “well counseled” family members and church leaders as a result of something as innocent as questioning what you are told.
Like I said before, the Mormon religion and many other religious groups and individuals are not just passively worshiping. They are spending millions of dollars on campaigns intended to mobilize voters in ways that blatantly limit the “god given” rights of others and send their members cold selling their corporate idolatry to lonely and lost souls seeking clarity out of the fucked up mess that we call humanity. They then convince their followers that everything about the doctrine they are preaching is crucial to their eternal success, and demonize those who do not see eye to eye with them.
I’m not looking to change anyone overnight, and I’m not gearing my message solely to members of any organization. If simply showing up to fellowship “Christians” in an outfit far more like Christ’s is all it takes to anger his chosen people, then I guess they’re not as good at that whole “slow to anger” part of his message as they portray themselves either. This criticism isn’t judgement of them or their followers, but their doctrines help convince their followers otherwise. Teaching people that doubt is the greatest sin will do that to a community.
I understand where you are coming from. I know that what I am about to do will shake up the worlds of many of the people we care about in our lives, but preserving their tranquility when all is not “well in Zion” isn’t fair to those who have to our loved ones who have to silently suffer and go through the motions out of fear of becoming an outcast rather than express too unorthodox of a view.
Speaking of censoring dialog, what the hell is truth anyway, Eugene?
23 December 2012 at 15:31 · Like
Erik Kulick Do you know what a hermaphrodite is, Eugene?
23 December 2012 at 15:34 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Truth; yes it exists- and you must think it does, since you’re going to lengths to try to prove it. Hermaphroditism; yes, Erik, I.d hope by adulthood, we’d all know what that it- and it should be implicitly understood that it has nothing whatsoever to do with one’s clothing. (In the Cimarron region of New Mexico, I once had a terrifying encounter with a hermaphroditic grizzly bear, which was only terrifying on account of the creature’s teeth and claws, and not for it’s genitalia; true story. It’s not something to be feared- but neither is a person’s actual gender status to be paraded around or manipulated by others t make a point.)
It is clear that you don’t want to engage others through constructive dialogue, to try kindly to show them the error of their ways. (Who knows? What if your position is the erroneous one? If you even question the validity of truth, as you did above, then why are you trying so hard to prove others wrong?) What you want is to disturb people in their worship. That’s the purpose of people getting together at church. If a church has restrictions on clothing- all they need do is ask the person to abide by respectful codes of conduct. Nothing more. And likewise, if a person sees those codes of conduct as somehow hurtful or not Christlike, then it will not achieve anything by simply disregarding those codes of conduct, since they were first instituted for a reason.
I can see how you think it might help the situation, but please see that your plans for bringing people to a new understanding will likely backfire and produce greater stringency.
23 December 2012 at 17:15 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick I didn’t ask if truth exists, I asked you what it was. You said the point of religion was to teach “truth” (I disagree), and so I want to better understand what you mean by “truth.” Also, how does a religion become a “fountain of truth”, as opposed to a “trickle”, or even “drought of truth?” Please take this last question seriously, because I would like an honest answer.
You glossed past hermaphroditism without even thinking about why I would bring it up.
If a person can be born with their bodies physically possessing a combination of both or neither gender’s sexual reproduction organs, to have a doctrine that arbitrarily restricts even these individuals from attaining “the greatest glories” shows a deficiency in deistic dope delivery. To not even believe people who tell you they honestly feel more like a different gender than their body belies, after having physical proof of other types of ambiguity within human systems, reflects a desire to preserve ignorance for yourself and/or others.
I wouldn’t care at all if I were proven wrong by someone. My goal isn’t to advance “my” truth, it’s to advance dialog, something the LDS leaders actively limited when they formed a human wall to prevent me from speaking to their apostle. I was still able to publicly deliver a new set of epistles (https://emkulick.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/lds-epistles/) to the head goon. He assured me it would be delivered to the brethren after I warned him that I had more copies and was going to publish them either way. If the church was really open to dialog they would be actively trying to bridge gaps with their dissafected members, not treating their leaders like untouchable celebrities.
Telling me what I want implies you are in my head. How about you ask me a question instead?
There are no current explicit restrictions preventing me from entering a LDS meetinghouse in a dress. If the Mormon corporation wants to further restrict people who associate with it after it’s been trying so hard lately to come off as sympathetic to “different sexual feelings”, then I want it to publicly do so. I’m tired of all these companies falsely advertising, nevermind when they purport to have eternally significant keys.LDS Epistles
emkulick.wordpress.comIN THE KOLOBIAN COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TWELFTH CIRCUIT EARTHLY TERM, 2012 CASE…See more
23 December 2012 at 19:13 · Unlike · 1 · Remove Preview
Eugene Fitzpatrick As to your first and second questions, yes, I know Truth, but to be entirely honest, I feel that I should not say what Truth is, but rather Who Truth is. Christ is truth. Christ started but one Church, which can be shown historically to be what is called the Orthodox Church today. That body, which we Christians regard as Christ’s own body, is the fountain of truth; and Christ promised that the gates of hades would never overcome it and that the Holy Spirit would guide that body into all truth..
I know you’ve been burned by the LDS church, but your experiences in Mormonism doesn’t discount the truth within Christianity. We could talk more on that later.
If a person has real gender issues regarding worship, they need to discuss that privately with their priest/pastor/elder along with their family. Cross-dressing probably wont be the solution. If however, a person without any biological anomalies merely wants to dress up in clothes for the sake of making a point to people who are not gathered to discuss politics or dogmatics, nothing but a big argument will ensue- it certainly will not speed along dialogue for what you’re looking to discuss.
24 December 2012 at 00:05 via mobile · Like · 2
Cross Dress to Church Day Those aren’t answers to my questions.
24 December 2012 at 13:58 via mobile · Like
Dominique Equality Storni Interestingly… Christ… or the story of him… is NOT actually truth. It is a religion based upon plagiarized ceremony, pomp and circumstance, historical scriptures from other eras, and created-out-of-thin-air doctrines… created to control political uprisings for the Roman Empire, circa 320 CE, by the Emperor Constantine and the Council of Niccea.
Jesus closely imitates Mithra, Horus, and a bunch of other “virgin birth messiah” mythological cosmologies.
You stating your belief in your version of Christianity does not make it truth. It simply makes it YOUR truth. I will honor your beliefs, if you would kindly honor mine, and not shove yours down my throat.
24 December 2012 at 18:44 · Unlike · 4
Dominique Equality Storni As for speaking with my pastor about what I decide to wear, as kindly as I can put this… GET STUFFED!!!
70 years ago, boys wore pink.. because it was a shade of red, and showed masculinity and all the strength (and even rage) that real men should show. Girls wore blue, because it was soft and pretty like the sky. In the Victorian Era, MEN wore makeup, frills, lace, and makeup.
Who makes up these binary bullshit rules? Obviously someone stuck in dogma who can’t or won’t read history. (Or even worse, rewrites history to suit their dogmatic declarations of self agrandising power grabs)
24 December 2012 at 18:47 · Edited · Unlike · 3
Dominique Equality Storni https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200169445302782&set=a.3282029693519.154338.1350884458&type=3&theaterReligiosity
1.The quality of being religious. 2. Excessive or affected piety. 3. My God is better than your God 4. If I force my religion on you, and you refuse to submit, I’M the victim. I am a spiritual person with a devoted spirit path. It is the forcing of one’s beliefs on others where I draw the line.
by: Dominique Equality Storni
24 December 2012 at 18:58 · Like · Remove Preview
Dominique Equality Storni One more little scientific ditty… (not that True believers have any use for science)
No.. there’s no sex in this…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Bnr3zGX4Qzw#!Cross Dressing | Wild Sex Ep07
http://www.youtube.comWho said gender benders are for humans only? From male snakes that harness the power of oestrogen to girls that moonlight as boys, cross dressers from all co…
24 December 2012 at 19:04 · Edited · Unlike · 1 · Remove Preview
Eugene Fitzpatrick Ok, I’ll expound.
(In my opinion) Not every religion has a lockdown on truth; this includes atheism and agnosticism, which people may assert aren’t religions, but they certainly are statements on religion and statements of faith. (Atheists have faith that there is no God, but lacking concrete proof of this, they often disregard their own belief that they only believe where they have proof. Agnostics have a less self-contradictory approach, but cannot assert that truth exists, which is funny, because they’re asserting that the only truth that exists is that no truth exists- or that if truth does exist, it cannot be known; yet they know that truth, so apparently truth can be known. So, the only position on truth that isn’t self-refuting is that abslute truth exists, absolutely.) But none of that leads to any religion, specifically. It only refutes atheism and agnosticism, if God is truth. But how do I regard my religion as the “fountian of truth”, as I stated earlier?
There are lots of religions and philosophies. If truth exists, how do I know if any such religion is entirely truthful? (In my opinion) I believe that every religion and philosophy has some element of truth; some kernel of concrete divine truth which is self-evident, and for which reason, many adhere to one religion or another. Man has always had religion; there was never a time when man was and religion was not; so society, no tribe, no empire that was purely secular. In fact, religion has been the central focus (the primary obcession, the social glue, the constant thought) for all human societies since humans had societies. It would seem that if anthropology has shown modern Western man but one thing: Humans are religious creatures.
And they haven’t worshiped in vague ways; we can’t speak of “religion” so generally as to assume some general fantasy paganism of bygone eras. Each religion is highly specific, with specifc beliefs and practices. (Come to think of it, atheism and agnosticism are probably the vaguest and fuzziest beliefs held by people, ever.) So each religion states something specific,
(hold on, I gotta drive to ong Island, brb)
24 December 2012 at 19:25 · Like
Dominique Equality Storni Wait… “I know truth” … YOUR WORDS…
“Not every religion has a lockdown on truth”
Do you really listen to yourself?
24 December 2012 at 19:29 · Like
Dominique Equality Storni Difference in religion and atheism/agnosticism.
Religion: Don’t do evil things, or you will go to hell and burn in eternal agony in hellfire and brimstone.
Atheist: Don’t do bad things to people.. because it’s just fucked up, dude.
Just what the H-E-double hockey sticks is so fuzzy about that? Because you don’t know what they believe, that makes YOU fuzzy.
(btw, I’m a recovering Mormon/Christian with a deep and daily spiritual life. I just hate religiosity [the need to prove one’s religion superior to all others])
24 December 2012 at 19:32 · Like · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick Dominique: You most likely haven’t studied the history of Christianity, but you probably have watched Zeitgeist. I, not to sound like a pedant- but to prove to you I know what I’m talking about- have studied the history of Christianity at a major secular university, a university that has a distinctly anti-Christian bent. I have two degrees in history, a BA and an MA in history, with the overwhelming focus of my master’s in Christian history.
Having stated my background, I can say with confidence that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You really do not. You don’t know the first thing about how Christianity started, where its scriptures come from, what its teachings are or how its dogmas came to be.
And you most likely don’t know the history of atheism. You haven’t studied the history of 20th century Europe and Asia, and how militant atheistic regimes have killed more people in modern history than at any other time in human existence. The actions and philosophies of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot mean nothing to you, and somehow, you don’t think of them when you think of the word “atheist”.
But in your ignorance, you should know that the movie Zeitgeist is so full of invented and completely false material, that it would take us days to cover just Part 1 of the movie.
Until you learn about the history of Christianity and atheism, try not to hold such strong and completely outrageous opinions. Keep an open mind on things you don’t possess knowledge on. You have not progressed this conversation about cross-dressing, or truth in the least.
25 December 2012 at 00:15 via mobile · Like · 1
Dominique Equality Storni I could have taught the Zeitgeist people 35 years ago… before the concept of “ZeitgeistMovie” was a twinkle in their mama’s eye.
I first discovered the discrepancy of the foundation of “Christianity” in University history class in 1975. I further studied about it after running into another discrepancy of Mormon theology while studying the gospel on my mission.
Btw.. History minor to go along with my Spanish Literature Major… and couple that with scriptural and historical research with a MA in Sociology/Psychology.
Your ilk just makes me absolutely furious with your mindless bollocks. You go ahead and pray whether or not your mythology is true, and continue ignoring the factual data. Hitler? Mao, Stalin? Pol Pot? ALLLLLL of them used religious mythology to gain power over sheeple who were afraid to research and use critical thinking skills. Hitlers brand of Christianity is why the world is still killing Jews.
OH.. and thanks for playing the “I say stupid stuff and point fingers” game, Eugene… brought to you by Faux Noise.
YOU’RE the one who went off on a tangent, too, btw.
25 December 2012 at 00:28 · Like
Dominique Equality Storni Care to venture a guess on what Jesus said about gender-bending people?
25 December 2012 at 00:29 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Incorrect. I was trying to answer Erik’s question, as he asked. But you’re really into some crazy stuff. I can’t take you through a history of the world class, but I think your latest paragraph should convince others that you opinions are beyond outlandish.
I’m not pointing fingers to embarrass you or call you ignorant; I’m saying you don’t know what you’re speaking of, because people reading this thread need to understand that you have neither the educational background or present understanding of history or religion. You’re just angry at religion in general because of your experience in the Mormon church.
And no words in the four Gospels address transvestites or “gender-bending”, but we do have the teachings of the Orthodox Church, which is the original Christian body, passing Christ’s oral and written teachings down to the present day.
And just to take a small sample of your crazy ranting as an example of your outlandish version of history: Hitler didn’t have a brand of Christianity; he instituted a state-backed neopaganism with incredibly anti-Christian rites. There was nothing even remotely close to Christianity in the heart or mind of Adolph Hitler. And no, the world is not “still killing Jews”, as you state. Sadly common on the internet, you are as uninformed about Christianity as you are opinionated.
Try not to sidetrack us again please.
25 December 2012 at 00:49 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Erik, dude, this is wearisome. We can have a truth chat on truth group page. In short, cross-dressing to church is a surefire way to accomplish nothing.
25 December 2012 at 01:21 via mobile · Like
Dominique Equality Storni Eugene: “I’m not pointing fingers to embarrass you or call you ignorant;”
and Eugene: “But in your ignorance, “
Again.. WTF??? Hypocrite much?
25 December 2012 at 01:25 · Edited · Like
Dominique Equality Storni Doing anything contrary to marching orders in church is a surefire way to accomplish nothing. Hence.. conservative… conserve the vain traditions of their fathers at all cost.
25 December 2012 at 01:26 · Like
Lolcat Wolf “But it is hurtful and insulting to some members if the church to try and convince them to adopt practices they are not comfortable with.”
Um … what practice would that be? The practice of not placing ALL the worth of a person on the color of their clothing and whether or not that clothing is joined or separated between the legs? The practice of ACCEPTING or REJECTING people based on appearance? Surely you’re not trying to say that by someone wearing clothing that isn’t what you’re used to, that a person is trying to convince EVERYONE to wear such clothing?
If this is what you think, you’re missing the point. VASTLY missing the point.
Would you allow someone to wear clothing to church that was accepted by the church in, say, 33 A.D.? In other words, could a man wear a wool or linen robe to church, with no skivvies on underneath? Or has your god dictated the existence of the suit and tie? Is this suit and tie combination dictated in the D&C? Who was god’s tailor?
25 December 2012 at 05:14 · Edited · Unlike · 2
Lolcat Wolf Speaking of god’s tailor, is there a particular set of “revealed” patterns we should be aware of for use in a Mormon building? For example, can Mormon men wear pictures of ducks? What about bunnies? If a man had a tie with kittens on it, would that be acceptable? I realize they wear garments as adults, but if a sixteen year-old boy wanted to wear boxer-shorts with big flowers on it, is this against god’s will? And for women, can one of their not-joined-between-legs clothing items have pictures of “masculine” things such as footballs or front-end loaders? I’ve seen fabric with those printed on them, so I’m just asking …
As for colors, where might I get a copy of god’s color wheel? Did Joey Smith have a color wheel or did this come in later revelation? How exactly did god etch the lines in the Holy Color Wheel so that it was clear which colors were acceptable for boys and which for girls? Was it a process similar to writing on the stone tablets? And was this Holy Color Wheel shared with the toy companies of the 1950’s and 60’s, the original RECENT source of pushing the color pink on girls and blue on boys?
25 December 2012 at 05:22 · Like · 1
Lolcat Wolf I am also curious where you get your definition of atheism, Eugine. We base truth on scientific research. There is NO evidence of god and NO evidence of no-god. We do not, as a rule, have “faith” that there is no god; any atheist worth their salt will tell you that there is no way to prove that there is no god–we simply assume that we can live our lives as if there were no god, because we also live our lives on the assumption that we are not squishing pink fairies underfoot with every step we take, or any number of other POSSIBLE but UNPROVEABLE things.
I base my morality on what is good for other human beings and for myself, and on what is good for my planet–which is also what is good for other human beings and myself, because if someone nuked the planet into a state of sterility, that would be very bad for humans. It hurts other people to steal or lie, and it would hurt me, too, if I want to be trusted by friends. All those other things we consider to be morals also just HAPPEN to be scientifically proveable as “the right thing to do” for all humans–because they increase our success as humans.
Funny thing about that; these morals also happen to be taught to all human children throughout the world (where religion has not perverted these morals, such as in cults that teach boys that they are better than girls and it’s okay to beat girls), not because all religions are right, not because all parents follow the science of how to increase success, but because, like a baby fawn knowing to hide and be still in the bushes, it is a survival trait. You want successful kids? You teach them not to steal.
I dropped everything for the past three days and went to the house of my best friend to care for him after he dislocated his arm. It happened to be his fault that he suffered this injury–he got drunk and got into a fight with a police officer. There are any number of reasons I could have judged him–but I love him enough that I have come to know his reasons for getting drunk, his reasons for being in that fight, and I was just so relieved that he will be okay after his arm heals. I love him so much it made me cry to see him in pain. That’s why atheists do things–same reason you do things, because we love other people. There are a lot of people who would also add a big dose of judgment to that compassion. I see no point in it. I’ve never known a more compassionate, forgiving, sweet man–the dummy just needs to stop drinking, a conclusion he’s reached on his own, without any guilt-trips from me.
Survival-trait morality is not universal. If you were a hummingbird, it would literally kill you to stop what you are doing and help another hummingbird (other than offspring). They’re the most homocidal of all vertebrates we’ve ever studied, because if they stop eating, and stop protecting their own food-source from other hummingbirds (to the point of murdering rivals), long enough to help another of their own species, their metabolism will burn through all their resources and they’ll starve to death in less than a day. In the hummingbird’s world, what I spent my xmas vacation doing would be the most morally absurd thing possible.
25 December 2012 at 05:38 · Unlike · 2
Lolcat Wolf I wouldn’t usually leave so many long posts, but Eugene did so I’m taking a leaf from his book.
Whenever religious people don’t like what you say about their religion, they say you have not studied it. I have not studied Islam or Hindu or Buddhism, but I would say that both Dominique and I have studied Christianity to within an inch of its life, and the history surrounding its origins–Eugene, you have no idea the number of similarities between the Osiris story or the Mithras story and your Jesus mythology, do you? But it’s pretty easy to just say that Dominique must not have studied religion much. WOW. What arrogance.
25 December 2012 at 05:50 · Unlike · 3
Lolcat Wolf Also called agnostics and atheists “probably the vaguest and fuzziest beliefs held by people, ever…” So what you’re saying here is, you have never, ever, sat down with an atheist and asked them what they believe, and listened? You’ve only, ever, told other people what atheist believe, OR listened to what NON-atheists have told you about what atheists believe, OR you’ve gone through a period of your life when you didn’t believe in some specific thing and you thought that THAT was atheism?
I am an atheist, with a clearly defined belief system that holds far fewer internal contradictions than any religion I have encountered. Would you like to know more?
Hey, Dominique! He thinks it’s okay to treat atheists the way he would assume we’re treating Mormons! Not knowing what they believe, or listening to people who make shit up about them … even though we’ve both been inside the Mormon thought-process, and he’s never been inside atheism, obviously …
BTW, just for reference, Dominique and I are not of the same belief system. I am a Happy Atheist. Dominique, you strike me as more of an Animist. Were I to choose something “spiritual,” it would be Animism.
25 December 2012 at 05:57 · Unlike · 3
Lolcat Wolf One GREAT thing to come of wearing the ‘wrong’ clothes to church. Some sweet, innocent little kid who feels different than everyone else might see an adult role-model that they can relate to, and that would avert a suicide in years that follow.
25 December 2012 at 05:58 · Unlike · 3
Dominique Equality Storni Lolcat… you always come to my rescue with such simple, yet elogant and eloquent explanations. I just go to damn blinded by (nice) rage of Eugene’s misogynist, privileged, condescention, that everything you’ve written her was in my head, but couldn’t make it’s way to my fingers.
Thanks again. I love you, sister.
25 December 2012 at 11:18 · Unlike · 1
Dominique Equality Storni http://news.discovery.com/videos/history-christmas-elements-have-pagan-roots.htmlHistory: Christmas Elements Have Pagan Roots : Video : Discovery News
news.discovery.comParts of our Christmas celebrations have roots in Pagan Roman festivals. Discovery News’ James Williams unwraps the details.
25 December 2012 at 20:40 · Like · Remove Preview
Dominique Equality Storni Here’s some more “made up by Zeitgeist” information for our dear Eugene:
Images here were either created, taken, composed, or modifed by Atheist and Rational Thinker Adminis.by: Atheists and Rational Thinkers
25 December 2012 at 22:20 · Like · Remove Preview
Erik Kulick You still haven’t answered my questions, Eugene. You went off on a tangent about the differences between theists and non-theists, morphing the word “god” into the word “truth” as you went along, and then, after changing my second question, explained that you believe every religion and philosophy has some “self-evident” divine truth without bothering to mention how to determine which is a “fountain of truth” and which is a “drought of truth.” Without using god or any other deity euphemism, explain to me what “truth” is, and then tell me how to determine which religions are “fountains of truth” and which are “droughts of truth.”
Just a word of advice, bragging that you have masters degree in a subject, and then telling someone else that your background allows you to state with confidence that they are clueless on the subject doesn’t reflect a whole lot of academic wisdom.
You also forgot to explain how a doctrine prohibiting cross-dressing makes any sense given the fact that hermaphrodites exist in this “god created” world.
26 December 2012 at 01:17 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick You make great points about morality, Lolcat Wolf.
26 December 2012 at 01:18 · Unlike · 3
Eugene Fitzpatrick My second attempt to answer your questions were meant to include more information.
Several things should be said here before we continue.
26 December 2012 at 07:21 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick 1) If you think I was bragging about having two degrees in history, you didn’t read why I stated that information. I made that very clear when I said it. I stated it because I’m speaking about Christianity and atheism from having been educated on them specifically, twice, and from a large university with a secular, if even slightly anti-religious bent, to show that my education was not biased towards my own personal beliefs. Nothing Dominique has said yet shows that she knows anythng about this topic, whatsoever. Her assertions are factually incorrect. She has stated so many things are simply never happened in history, that refuting her would take another thread entirely. This is why it’s important for me to show that I do have two higher-level degrees in this subject. This is not a brag, Erik, and I don’t expect you to be impressed. This is to show that there is a huge gap between the opinions held by Dominique and I; one person who has been educated on this very subject, and the other who hasn’t. Any reader to this thread should understand that this is not a discussion between two people with equal knowledge on the subject. (And simply reading what Dominique has already written shows clearly that she has no understanding of atheism in the 20th century, let alone Christianity for the past 2,000 years.) Stating one’s credentials is not bragging, but helpful for deciding which person’s opinion is the more informed. As far as the above convo went, Dominique simply resorted to ad hominim attacks that don’t even make sense.
2) Erik- The word “God” and “truth” are completely morphable. Nobody believes in a God which they know to be untrue. This is elementary. The God of the Christians, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the Son of God, is believed by them to be Truth incarnate. (This is why I believe my religion to be the “fountain of truth”.) Any God or god that is untruth is no god at all. (Plus, “drought of truth” is your prase; I didn’t use it- and I don’t think anything is existence is entirely devoid of truth; as stated earlier, generally speaking, I see almost everything in existence in possessing some kernel of truth.)
3) Erik, you should know that “your question”- is itself a huge tangent away from your original group in the first place. I could answer your question- and I had started to, before I literally drove to Long Island and back to enjoy a Christmas dinner with my parents, and then needed to deal with the buffoonery written above- but I’m under no obligation to. Just for the record. I will answer your question, but it will be a long answer, and “what is truth” is a huge step away from “cross-dress to church day”.
4) Lolcat Wolf- you have no morality at all that hasn’t already been derived from the Judeo-Christian society that you already live in. And there exists no standard, no creed, no founding figure, no summary of beliefs that bind atheists together and shows how their values stem from atheism. There’s no way to judge if atheist beliefs line up with atheist behavior. This is why I described atheist and agnostic beliefs as “fuzzy”; there’s no saying what code of conduct is permissible within atheism. And history shows this. Atheist regimes in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China and Cambodia killed thousands of millions of people in the 20th century- a century hallmarked by scientific achievement. You might have a different personal standard of atheism, but there’s no telling that your version of atheism is the “real” atheism; in fact, being that you existed after these regimes did their killing, its more arguable that the violent atheism of the 1900’s is the “real” atheism, and your personal philosophy is more accurately called “lolcatwolfism”.
5) The supposed “pagan roots” of Christmas don’t exist, and its poor historical presentation that makes them seem so.
26 December 2012 at 11:53 · Like
Dominique Equality Storni Eugene: “Nothing Dominique has said yet shows that she knows anythng about this topic, whatsoever. Her assertions are factually incorrect.”
typos aside.. show me where I’m factually incorrect, and you are superior in intellect? you have done nothing but assert your irrational emotional beliefs. you have not argued with fact based critical thinking at all.
26 December 2012 at 12:06 · Like · 1
Dominique Equality Storni As for your higher degrees… pity it taught you only to condescend and denigrate in an effort to force your self aggrandized authority. I have 2 BA’s and 1 MA. I also hold 3 PhD’s from the SOHK acadamy. I am auto-didactic. I dare say that I have read more on the subject… for fun… than you did in ALL your academia.
Again, your arguments are emotionally based. Your testimony is “faith based”… meaning, you cannot prove it, nor are you inclined to feel the need to. “Faith”, as defined by Mormonism, is belief in things that cannot be proven. So you feel no need, based solely on your ecclesiastical power and religious dogma, to explain anything critically. Every one of your arguments is emotional based.
Opinions are not facts.
Facts are not opinions.
I agree 100% with Bill Maher (yeah, another godless liberal).. “I can’t have an intelligent conversation with conservatives, because we simply can’t agree on facts.”
26 December 2012 at 12:12 · Edited · Like
Dominique Equality Storni One last question, Eugene… why have you not said anything about the links I’ve posted… FROM OTHER SCHOLARS… who disagree with you?
26 December 2012 at 12:29 · Like
Lolcat Wolf Eugene, once again–where do you get your information on atheism? (It doesn’t seem to be any better than your information about the origins of Judeo-Christianity.)
You’re certain that my version of atheism is only my view, but you have not told me what you think “fuzzy” atheist beliefs are, nor given evidence of where you’ve gathered this information. What book are you citing from? Richard Dawkins? Christopher Hitchens? Sam Harris? (Have you ever heard of any of these men–the current preeminent teachers of atheist thought?) You think that atheist morality is based on Judeo Christian beliefs, yet the basic precepts of human morality are nearly universal across all religions: murder of a kinsman is universally forbidden, one is always supposed to obey ones parents, incest is almost always bad, bravery is good and cowardice is bad, lying and stealing are bad–everywhere. In every religion. These are not Judeo-Christian concepts. These are human concepts, without which no society will succeed.
By the way, while we do not believe in being sheep following one single leader, we do have many common precepts–the primary one being so obvious you and nearly everyone else misses it. SCIENCE. Atheists are fairly universal in their adherence to science as a way of viewing the world. However, if you would like to follow your authority-hungry need for an “organization” to search out an atheist version, here’s one of several organizations that helps solidify and present the atheist point of view.
Hitler was a Catholic, not an atheist, and the fact that you have repeated this oft-repeated myth is NOT good evidence in support of your assertion as Grand High Pubah on all matters we’re discussing. In fact, it seems to support the “I read a pamphlet about atheists that my preacher wrote and I’m sure it’s true” method of fact-collection.
I’m not sure how you have managed to conflate “atheist regimes” with “communist regimes.” The operative word there is regime, not atheism, and communism is not a religious belief, it is a political system. Many communist systems have advocated atheism. That does not mean that atheists were all for communism. Some communist governments have been highly oppressive and violent. Some theocratic dictatorships have been highly oppressive and violent. And of course, disintegrated governments with little ability to function have allowed religious warlords to murder on a grand scale–e.g. Rwanda. Australia is headed by an atheist–Australia is not a regime, it is a well-governed democracy in which madmen cannot commit murder on grand scales for any philosophical reason, and while the PM would not likely WANT to commit murder in the name of atheism, she could not if she wished to. Communism isn’t a bad idea, but it consistently has led to abuse of power, whereas democracy seems less likely to do so. Why? Democracy allows for everyone’s voice to be heard, including people of different religious beliefs. That’s POLITICS. Not religion.
You seem intent on ignoring our core questions and factual information. Please do tell–which books have you read by Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris? Because I can find books that tell me that Christians are barking mad, and say that’s the authoritative voice on the matter, or I could actually go study xianity’s own statements and be able to compare the internal beliefs with the external observations to arrive at a well-considered view of the truth.
Concerning Xianity, I have actually gone through this process, and arrived at the following conclusion:
The average Christian is a sane human being muddling through life with little thought for religion or God except on specific occasions, such as car accidents and Christmas mass. These people are nice and make sense.
The adamant evangelical or missionary-type Xian is barking mad. They are less nice and make less sense the more you ask them to explain themselves.Skeptic » About Us » A Brief Introduction
http://www.skeptic.comThe Skeptics Society is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) scientific and educational organization whose mission is to engage leading experts in investigating the paranormal, fringe science, pseudoscience, and extraordinary claims of all kinds, promote critical thinking, and serve as an educational tool for thos…
26 December 2012 at 15:58 · Unlike · 3 · Remove Preview
Dominique Equality Storni All brilliant points, Lolcat.
May I add, re: books one has, or has not, read. In our efforts to learn and assimilate, we investigate Mormonism and Xianity, as you said, to the Nth degree (ad nauseum even). Lolcat and I have had many a discussion on our theocratic backgrounds.
I find it ironic, sad, distressing.. that I have probably forgotten more about Mormonism than most Mormons know.. yet I can still quote Mormon scripture as good or better than most. THAT is how well versed I was. I had two 4’x8′ shelves full of LDS books, and another full of LDS movies and tapes.
I still have some of my LDS stuff. I also have a Qu’ran, a Torah, a Bhagavad Gita, some interesting JW literature, and a smattering of nearly all philosophical, religious, and spiritual thought.
26 December 2012 at 17:19 · Unlike · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick Well both of you, its difficult for me to respond, not because I cannot, or wish not to, but because doing so would be a supremely time consuming task. As I said earlier, you don’t know the history of Christianity. Hitler was not a Roman Catholic, btw. He fell out of communion in both faith and practice, and he effectively invented a new paganism for Nazi Germany. When i say that I have more education in Christian history than you, its not an intellectual boast- its simply stating what Ive been trained in. Sure, you may have an equivalent degree in some other subject, but between us in this convo, our backgrounds are not equal.
Lolcatwolf- I can’t cite sources here- its a Facebook conversation. Its enough to cite my education. Again, not as a boast. Yes, there are professional historians who take varying opinions, but like any subject, the majority opinion os what usually has the most evidence. The (vast) majority of scholars on Christianity know that it is not an conglomeration of pagan beliefs mixed together. Christianity is Jewish. Its Temple Judaism with a Messiah. This is significant because in the ancient world, the Jews were the anti-pagan. They eschewed pagan association and borrowings from any type of paganism into their religion/culture. Christianity is Judaism fulfilled; the Christian holidays are Jewish holidays celebrated in light of Jesus of Nazareth and his public ministry. There is no pagan basis for Christianity.
Just to make that abundantly clear, let me elucidate: is Easter (properly called Pascha) a pagan vernal festival with bunnies and eggs as symbols for fertility and renewal? No; its the Jewish Passover celebrated with leavened bread and only connected to the public crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Bunnies are a cultural attachment in lands with German peoples, but have no part of the religion. Is Christmas a hodgepodge of pagan festivals, where numerous celebrations of the births of other pagan gods are morphed into the birthday of one fictional Jesus? No. Most of the information concerning the Dec. 25th birthday of other pagan gods is itself a modern fiction. Christmas, or properly called “Nativity” was never a very large holiday on the Christian calendar. Its date of Dec. 25th was chosen by counting 9 months forward from the feast of Annunciation (where The angel Gabriel told Mary she would conceive the Messiah) which is always celebrated on March 25th. It was never regarded as being the exact day on which Jesus was born, so no one cares if Jesus was born in the spring, fall, summer or winter. Other pagan festivals around that time, like Sol Invictus, the festival of the unconquered sun, and associated with the winter solstice, are not the basis for Christmas. Sol Invictus as it turns out, was an attempt to give pagans something to celebrate as the society around them was rapidly converting to Christianity.
We could do this all day- but who has that kind of time? My thumbs are as weary from typing this on an iPhone as my battery life is short.
But from all that you’ve said, its quite clear you don’t know. The “New Atheist”, writers like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are not so spectacular- their works are routinely filled with huge historical misconceptions and shoddy assumptions. Dawkins and Harris are the bigger culprits here; Hitchens a little less so. But books like the God Delusion and Letter to a Christian Nation are not great works. They are quite uninformed, historically; and aren’t convincing to people who know how Christianity began.
How is atheism fuzzy? Yes, Ive answered that twice now- and you, lolcatwolf have actually helped me prove me point- there is no single statement of faith for how atheists should believe and act. Should they kill others? You might say no, but Lenin or Stalin would have disagreed; and there’s no telling who is the more devout atheist since atheists have no standard to guide them. Not even science binds you together, since modern science has shown that our five senses and human minds are NOT well-equipped enough to prove without doubt that our observations about anything are accurate. As it turns out, even believing in our senses takes faith, believing in no god takes even more faith.
If Ive ignored any other question, dont worry about it. I cannot sit here all night and argue with two crones who spout nonsense. This post was about how wearing gender confusing clothing would not be helpful.
This group is not about searching for truth, or who is angrier at the Mormon church. Its about how gender is perceived in Christianity and Mormonism. This is my last post here; my thumbs cant take any more tiresome typing on things I went to college for.
26 December 2012 at 19:11 via mobile · Edited · Like · 1
Lolcat Wolf Where did you go to college? What are your degrees in? I mean, you say you can’t “cite sources” but you can “cite your education.” But to the best of my knowledge, you haven’t cited your education, and I don’t know what would keep you from citing sources … I have, though not in any great degree. You didn’t look at Dominique’s sources so I don’t think going into detail would make much difference.
26 December 2012 at 20:31 · Edited · Like · 1
Lolcat Wolf What do you think atheists believe? You have been asked this numerous times and not answered it.
“Not even science binds you together, since modern science has shown that our five senses and human minds are NOT well-equipped enough to prove without doubt that our observations about anything are accurate.”
This is the most absurd statement I can recall reading for a very long time. No scientist is going to tell you that, because our senses are tuned to perform certain specific tasks very well, but are not tuned to perform other tasks at all (because there is no survival value in my seeing the urine trail of a mouse, I cannot see in ultraviolet), that we cannot test for information or agree on the results of a test. We use X-rays to check luggage for dangerous objects, because machines are perfectly capable of accurately reading the amount of radiation being transferred through or absorbed by an object; you may try to carry a gun through the airport in your luggage with the argument that the screener’s vision is faulty, but it won’t get you very far.
What you are looking for is an “atheist’s bible,” a credo that is universally accepted as being The Truth. The way your view of religion is absolute, the ultimate unchangeable truth. That is the great sin of Christianity and monotheism in general; the rejection of all other people’s points of view as being untrue because YOU are right and no one else can be right and there ARE no shades of gray! BECAUSE! I! SAID! SO!
A scientist is by definition open-minded. Scientists are forced to specialize by virtue of the huge quantity of knowledge required to be at the research-edge of any field. And scientists consider argument about an uncertainty to be a good thing–let’s hash this out, let’s find areas where ideas need to be proven or disproven, so we can nail down our right answers and our WRONG answers and move on to the next cool new curious thing. So in any field, you will find someone way out there at the end of a research specialty arguing with someone else way out there in a similar research specialty. But back at the root of the question, there is so much agreement that no one is arguing the fundamentals.
Should Christians murder other human beings? You may say no, but the Inquisitioners would not even have granted you the humanity to have a say, yes or no. You may say no, but a what Christian dictator might say would be up to the whim of the moment. What Stalin may have said is not relevant. Should I bring up the Mountain Meadows Massacre and call that the entirety of Mormonism? You bring up one or two examples of power-mad dictators and say that they represent all atheists. Hitler not being a Christian–being, instead, a neo-pagan–specifically clarifies that HE WAS NOT AN ATHEIST, AND YOUR “LOGIC” IS BIZARRE!!! The Mormon high priest who raped his daughter–my best friend as a child–does not represent the average Mormon father, and I would not be fair to say so.
You’re looking for an atheist’s prophet, but we don’t believe in revealed knowledge. We believe in research, facts, science, and the possibility that something we think we understand could be proven wrong, back to the drawing board–which doesn’t even vaguely resemble believing in nothing. Do you have any idea how many ideas have been tried on cancer to attempt to kill or suppress it? And how many have failed? Yet the basic theory of cells as the building blocks of life, the idea of cell specialization, concepts of genetic regulation, have not been diminished by those failures.
What do you think your average atheist believes about where we come from, where we go, why we’re here, and how we ought to treat each other? What do you think the average atheist finds inspiring about their lives or the lives of others? Would an atheist point of view keep a person from despair or suicide, and how? When an atheist has a moral conundrum, what do you think they do to resolve it–who do they consult?
26 December 2012 at 20:43 · Unlike · 3
Lolcat Wolf Oh, and Eugene, I can’t remember what the discussion was about different parts of the bible being written in completely different styles by obviously different sects of Jewish society. Was it just sects or subsets of the society, or was it whole different tribal origins? Could you remind me of just the names of the different groups or writing-styles? I’m not even sure where to start to look it up.
26 December 2012 at 20:52 · Like
Dominique Equality Storni And could you, please, answer why you say nothing about the experts I cited.. experts in YOUR field, who disagree with you? Are they as stupid as you insist I am, because they don’t agree with you? Even though they are experts in YOUR field?
27 December 2012 at 01:13 · Like
Dominique Equality Storni Here you go. I’m sure you hate WIKI, too, because it contains factual data. Here’s one.. with all the citations included:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_HitlerReligious views of Adolf Hitler – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.orgAdolf Hitler was raised by a Catholic father and a devout Catholic mother; he ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood and supported the Deutsche Christen church which rejected the Hebrew origins of the Gospel.  In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches he often made statements…
27 December 2012 at 01:14 · Like · Remove Preview
Dominique Equality Storni http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/john_murphy/religionofhitler.htmlThe Religion of Hitler
http://www.infidels.orgHitler was a Christian, not an atheist as the Christians would like everyone to believe.
27 December 2012 at 01:14 · Like · Remove Preview
Dominique Equality Storni http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htmHitler’s religious beliefs and fanaticism
http://www.nobeliefs.comPeople often make the claim that Adolph Hitler adhered to Atheism, Humanism or s…See more
27 December 2012 at 01:15 · Like · Remove Preview
Dominique Equality Storni This is the only one I could find that comes anywhere close to what you say about Hitler. (The search I input was simply, “What religion was Hitler?”)
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699/was-hitler-a-christianThe Straight Dope: Was Hitler a Christian?
http://www.straightdope.comIn my numerous online debates in various chatrooms, I have learned the following…See more
27 December 2012 at 01:18 · Like · Remove Preview
Dominique Equality Storni So 4 articles, all saying that your “expertise” is flawed. I submit that your expertise is flawed, precisely because of what Lolcat has said… you state opinions based upon emotional influence and want us to believe you “BECAUSE! I! SAID! SO!”
I’ve given sources.
You have not.
I don’t believe bullies just because of their feeble attempts to force me to do so. You, sir, are a bully. Just like your religion.
27 December 2012 at 01:22 · Like
Erik Kulick Eugene, I really don’t care why you bragged about your academic background. It wasn’t very convincing anyway, given the way you insisted that it automatically gave you more academic authority on the subject that a person you don’t know.
Telling me that people have historically viewed “God” as “Truth” still doesn’t even come close to answering my question. Of course people who believe in a deity are likely to see it as connected to “Truth.”
Of course you don’t have to answer anything, but you did feel the need to inform me that what I’m doing will have no positive effect and that I don’t really want to engage people with constructive dialog, without even taking the time to actually ask questions in order to better understand what I am doing. If standing for dialog really is important to you, then you should take my questions seriously.
Questions about truth and how one determines where to find it has a lot to do with an event that you are trying to stop because of “truths” you privy to which need to be enforced. You appealed to academic and spiritual authorities, but haven’t shown why those authorities make you more right on the subject than someone else. All your posts have done is make me want to include an orthodox service to attend; if you’re unwilling to have the dialog that explains your belief system, I’d like to find someone else within your faith who is willing to have that conversation instead.
27 December 2012 at 18:02 · Edited · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Sigh. One last post in a futile attempt to snap you guys away from some of your crazier notions. Again, and again, saying that I have an academic background is not a brag; but it does give me more authority than someone who hasn’t had that same background. That’s the point of getting the paper degree.
1) Posting a couple of internet articles is NOT the same thing understanding what the majority of historians would agree upon. Anyone can post a slew of fringe internet pages in support of their side; but that’s not necessarily showing one side is the weightier case. It’s not a bad try, however, provided your sources are reliable. However, in this dialogue (between a person trained in this history, and two or three who are not) I’m not telling you you’re wrong because I’m emotional, or biased, or whatnot; I’m telling you that as of 2012, your statements thus far are outwieghed by more arguments which are not included in those articles. I know you’re wrong, not because “I said so” but because “most other scholars say so”. Sure, there will always be a few here and there who disagree, for any subject. But the existence of dissenters is not proof enough; they’re in the minority, and tend not to get that much credit.
2) Why latch onto the idea that Adolph Hitler was a Christian? Is this where you make your stand? You think you’re gonna win THIS one? (Need I remind you, that as a Christian, I might know a bit more even without the history degrees?) This is so easily disproved; yet your tenacity in clinging to this absurdity, again, is a major indicator of how misinformed/uninformed you are about both 20th century history and Christianity in general. (Yet you’re so adamant, it’s mind-boggling.)
a) You can watch as Hitler’s allegiance to Christian doctrines and principles (not ever well-understood by him in his writings) decline throughout the 30’s into the 40’s. He was always much more a nationalist and an ethnocentrist than a religionist; he was against the Roman Catholic church if it stood against Germany and somehow interpreted Christianity as political force against ethnic Jews. (Despite Christianity being a Semitic religion founded by a Jew, originally composed entirely of Jews, and in its essence, Temple Judaism with a Messiah. In Hitler’s twisted mind, as evidenced by his writings, he considered Jesus of Nazareth to be an Aryan. This is a gigantic indication that his Christianity was already bizzare and unorthodox, even before his rise to power.)
27 December 2012 at 19:35 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick b) If you knew anything about Christian history at all, you’d know that a person just can’t “be a Christian” on their own assertion. They have to be “in communion” with a Church body to be considered “in” Christianity. This means that you can’t just stand up one day and say “I’m a Christian” and have it be so. You need to be baptized, and recieve communion (eucharist) somewhere. But, in order to be baptized and given communion, the person needs to live a certain way. Even after being baptized and having communion, that person needs to keep living a certain way (Christ’s way, to be exact) and to imitate Christ’s character in their daily life. If they fail to continue living like Christ, and if they do not stay “in communion” with a church, they’re no longer living a Christian life. They’ve fallen off the wagon, they have become self-excommunicated. (This is where your hope of Hitler being a Christian falls apart.) In no ways did Hitler imitate Christ. Christ was sinless. He did good to all and loved everyone; even the Jews and Romans who wanted him dead. Jesus eschewed worldly power and violence. Hitler was one of the world’s most notorious murderers. He killed 6.6 million Jews and many more, and he answered to no God or church. He felt accountable to nobody but himself. In fact, his soldiers (Nazi Einstatzgruppen in the Slavic Eastern front) were notorious burners of churches. Very often, the Einstatzgruppen would round everyone in some poor Belarussian or Polish or Russian village, push them inside the local church, lock the doors and burn it down.) What part of Hitler’s campaign included “loving thy neighbor” and “doing good to those who hate and wrong you”? As the war progressed, the Nazis even began locking up and killing German Protestant preachers, and some Roman Catholic clergy. Nothing he did could be considered “Christlike”, nothing he did was pro-Christian; his actions are so against Christian morality and so unlike Jesus, that it is clear (to everyone who knows about Christianity) that Hitler couldn’t be called a Christian by any stretch of the imiagination. (You might yet still disagree, but if you do, it won’t be based on anything real.)
c) Not only did Hitler hold numerous personal beliefs that contradicted Christian beleifs, and not only did he live an abhorrently anti-Christian life (ending in suicide, also against Christianity) but he personally instituted a whole calendar of seasonal festivities which were in essence a wierd neo-pagn national religion, centered around major festivals and parades in Berlin, worshipping the strong Aryan man and fertile Aryan woman living in remembrance of their fallen Volk in an ever-friutful and abundant Vaterland. This new religion and its liturgics were largely the construct of Albert Speer, at Hitler’s request. The festivities were so grand, and the ideology and iconography so broad, that it cannot be seen as anything less than an attempt to create a new religion for Nazi Germany; something OTHER than Christianity, which was mainly present in Germany in it’s Roman Catholic, Lutheran, or Calvinist communions. Nazism had found these lacking, difficult to control, and still containing remnants of/or a connection to Judaism; Hitler’s new religion would solve those problems and promote his godhood.
I could go on. I could tell you about Hitler’s attempt to gain control of Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism in Germany; how many complied or resisted his efforts; how many Christians he killed, or how many churches he destroyed. I could tell you about his obsession with the occult and his plans to loot Christian and pagan holy sites and his lust for power. None of these things are Christian, either. But you don’t have to believe me. You can believe what youi e whatever you want. I’m not going to “bully” you as you’ve said; I’m not “privledged” or a “misogynist” as you’ve labled me. But I did attend a university to earn a BA in European History; and returned for a Master’s in the same subject with the majority of my courseload focusing on Christian history, and graduated this past May (so it’s still fresh in my mind) with a published thesis. (Not a brag.) And I am a Christian, who knows somewhat about the religion that he converted to. (Also not a brag.) I’m just a graduated Grad student, with no PhD and only one published paper; so I’m no heavyweight. Yet, I can tell you haven’t even looked at Nazi Germany or Christianity. You hold such strong and yet such clueless opinions.
Here’s some of the books I had to read about Hitler before writing numerous papers on Nazi Germany. (They’re taken off the second shelf of one bookcase underneath the titles dealing with Christian history.) Cited, MLA style, sorry, no italics; just quotes. (This is Facebook.)
Aly, Gotz, Peter Chroust, and Christian Pross. “Cleansing the Fatherland: Nazi Medicine and Racial Hygiene”. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. Print.
Benz, Wolfgang. “A Concise History of the Third Reich”. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006. Print.
Baronowski, Shelley. “Strength Through Joy: Consumerism and Mass Tourism in the Third Reich”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print.
Fritzche, Peter. “Life and Death in the Third Reich”. The Belknap Press: Cambridge, 2008. Print.
Gellately, Robert. “Backing Hitler: Consent & Coercion in Nazi Germany”. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2001. P.
Hunt, Irmgard. “On Hitler’s Mountain: Overcoming the Legacy of a Nazi Childhood”. New York: Harper Perennial, 2005. Print.
Jantzen, Kyle. “Faith and Fatherland: Parish Politics in Hitler’s Germany”. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008.
Kaplan, Marion. “Between Dignity and Despair: Jewish Life in Nazi Germany”. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Print.
Mazower, Mark. “Hitler’s Empire: How the Nazis Ruled Europe”. New York: Penguin, 2008. Print.
Spotts, Frederic. “Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics”. Woodstock: The overlook Press, 2009. Print.
Wette, Wolfram. “The Wermacht: History, Myth, Reality”. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006. Print.
This concludes my conversation here. DES, Lolcat: you’re uniformed. Erik: Your quest for truth doesn’t involve me, and yes, you CAN speak of God as Truth. Most religions do. This conversation was about clothing. It’s become a stupid defense of my education and sidelined eight ways till Sunday about other topics, revolving around religion, about which you know very little. Good day.
27 December 2012 at 19:35 · Like · 1
Cross Dress to Church Day I asked you simple questions which you made no real attempt at answering, but instead chose to go off on Hitler and Christianity. You steered the conversation right down that track because you were more concerned with proving yourself an authority on a subject than you were with even pondering “Truth”, let alone discussing it. I paraphrase my previous statement:
I look forward to the search for “Christians” willing to have real dialog like any “True” savior would prefer.
28 December 2012 at 02:37 via mobile · Like · 1
Cross Dress to Church Day Orthodox Christianity is a heavy consideration for visitation 1/20/13. If not this time then next; I plan on making this yearly, and I’m really curious about authoritative religions out there like the Mormons and Catholics.
28 December 2012 at 02:42 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Don’t try it Erik; Orthodox Christian churches usually have guards at the doors, and have had such since Roman times. If they see someone walk in for the sole purpose of mockery, you’ll just be asked to leave. Respect our American freedom to practice whatever religion we want; and if you don’t like it, sleep in on Sundays.
Everyone can see that you only want to produce disruption and sacrilege; you have no real good intentions. You don’t really care about truth. You’re not even a cross-dresser in daily life; so this is clearly you attempt to act out on your frustrations at organized religion, you child.
Do something a little more adult with your life besides dressing as a woman and trying to make people stare at you. If you have kids, why not go play baseball or something with them; they probably need more attention than you do.
28 December 2012 at 06:05 via mobile · Like · 2
Dominique Equality Storni I’m going to steal from a post on another thread, and apply it to here:
Eugene, why should we even try to investigate anything from any point of view, when it is abundantly clear that YOU have made up OUR minds on everything, because of your so-called educational and ecclesiastical superiority?
YOU, my friend, and your ilk, are the reason so many are leaving Mormondom for greener pastures. (yes, there are more leaving the church than their missionary force can recruit)
28 December 2012 at 10:14 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Not the Orthodox; Orthodox Christianity has a very high conversion rate. And yes, I’m convinced. Because I’ve been educated.
28 December 2012 at 12:30 · Like
Erik Kulick Are the guards there to protect god’s chosen? Do you even realize the problem with the concept of a birthright?
I will not be there to mock anything. I will be there to seek answers to the questions you were unable to address. You still haven’t even addressed why a god would create hermaphrodites and then doctrines in her church that could prevent some of her children from being permitted in. You also haven’t addressed what “Truth” is or how to determine superior sources to acquire it from.
I’m actively trying to challenge laws and traditions in society that limit the freedom of “gods” children, but that doesn’t equate to an attack on the religious. The religions have very cleverly positioned themselves in way that makes their members feel real pain when doctrines are challenged. This is the glaring proof that the institutions don’t value “Truth”, but rather the salvation of themselves and their “loved ones.”
28 December 2012 at 12:34 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gouzzvyj9tIWhy the Fall?
http://www.youtube.comA question worth asking. My rendition of When We Fell, by David Bazan. That reminds me. Don’t forget to pass this along: https://emkulick.wordpress.com/about/
28 December 2012 at 12:54 · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
Eugene Fitzpatrick Ok, if the convo is going to steer back to its original intent- I’ll happily discuss it from my own view.
First- In Christianity, we have no such concept of a birthright. I presume thats a Mormon thing. (Remember that Mormonism is very far separated from Christianity in doctrine, practice and dogma.). The presence of doorkeepers in an Orthodox Church serves several purposes; the most ancient of which was to usher all unbaptized persons out of the church at a certain point in the service before communion. This kept non-Christians from receiving communion, and also helped to save the lives of unbaptized persons. (in the chance that violent persecutions from the pagan or godless authorities broke out and Christians were being killed for their beliefs, those unbaptized people could be exempted from punishment and death, as they weren’t yet Christians; even then, many unbaptized believers chose martyrdom anyway.) in modern times, the doorkeepers greet people, help parishioners with requests for candles and bread, and help keep order in the church. People are at church to pray and worship God- no other reason. If visitors who aren’t Christian have arrived misclothed to disrupt the worship and ignore people’s freedom to worship, then the doorkeepers will ask them to leave.
But why have standards of dress? Why wear any clothes at all? Because clothing is meaningful to humans.
All societies, (and a religion is a type of society bound together by common belief and practice) place emphasis and meaning on clothing. This is why in Christianity the clergy and laity wear specific clothing. The laity come dressed to church in respectable clothing (hopefully) since it is the ancient Christian belief that Christ Himself as God is present in the bread and wine.
As far as hermaphroditic (intersex) people; don’t you worry about them Erik; you’re not one and probably wouldn’t be a good advocate for their needs. They’ll pick the appropriate clothes to come to church in if they are serious about worshipping God.
Remember: what you’re angry about didn’t happen in a Christian church. You’re bad experiences occurred in Mormonism, and you cannot transfer your angst onto Christianity. The two- while sharing some recognizable similarities- are worlds apart; and its quite poor of you to assume that the ideas and reactions of your old congregation would be exactly the same elsewhere.
Besides- as I stated in the first place; you (or anyone) attending church will not achieve any constructive dialogue. No one is going to take you seriously; any person would think you’ve arrived only to mock them or God. Its not the path towards understanding. If you persist, it demonstrates a childish desire for disturbing people who are just trying to live.
28 December 2012 at 20:52 via mobile · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day Look at you impugning motives again. Im glad the “unbaptized” are being guarded against. I still look forward to seeking someone willing to answer the questions you don’t have the answers to. I was hoping those degrees would give you a little more insight on the subject.
You still don’t get why I bring up hermaphroditism, do you? Do you really think that a god would create people who don’t clearly belong to one sex, but fail to tamper with people’s gender or orientation? How about you stop and listen to those who are different than you and try to understand what they’re actually saying instead of making false accusations concerning the motivations, intelligence, or Moral fiber of those With whom you disagree.
28 December 2012 at 21:23 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Well, if you read my last post, you’d see that the door guards escorting the unbaptized out was for their own protection. At a time when Christians were being violently persecuted, the unbaptized could still avoid being killed, since they had not yet been initiated into Christianity.
And yes, I got your question. But transvesting is not the same as being born intersex. However a person is born, put on some decent clothes and come to church. If you have no real issues, put on some decent clothes, and come to church. I don’t see what your big point is.
Church is about taking our focus away from ourselves and our worldly problems and fights, and laying them aside to focus on worshiping God. Its not about us.
28 December 2012 at 21:30 via mobile · Like · 2
Daniel Patrick O’Leary Classic and epic conclusion. “It’s not about us.” Church never has been, contrary to what we want to believe. I cannot tell you how often I’ve heard “I am just not being fed at that church.” As if church was about us, not about worship. What God did was for us. All else is for Him.
With this issue, if you came to church with pants on, shorts on, or just underwear on just because that is who you are, that is entirely different than disrespectfully and purposely showing up in garments that will piss people off and distract them. I get it, kind of, but it is not helpful.
I will say that a church that actually goes crazy over this misses the point too. No church should see someone walk in and be so distracted that their worship is entirely hindered – unless of course it is a blatant act of disrespect that needs to be addressed immediately (which transvesting to church is hugging that line, simply because you’re doing it on purpose with the reasoning that somehow they will “see the light” and allow any and all sin to be blown off). Where do you draw the line?
No, this will not help. Love to others will. Pissing people off on purpose will not.
But I don’t know. TL;DR?
It’s not about us. Checkmate.
28 December 2012 at 21:45 via mobile · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day I understood what you wrote, but given the apparent unwelcoming nature of the guards toward transvestites, it appears the explanation you gave me for your church preserving this antiquated service is just a poor excuse. If Jesus kicked over a money-changers table, I highly doubt he would stand for his “fountain of truth” church barring reverent and modestly dressed individuals from attending services and inquiring about his truth.
I am really excited about learning more about this religion. Thanks for outing it on my radar, Eugene!
28 December 2012 at 21:53 · Unlike · 1
Cross Dress to Church Day Checkmate? I have honest questions, but you two fine Christians would rather find a reason to discourage me from attending your religious services and impugn malicious intent than attempt to explain to me this “Truth?” If “it’s not about us”, then why do you insist on preserving the individual comfort of closed-minded partitioners, rather than encouraging Christlike love among all humans?
28 December 2012 at 22:06 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Well, because it’s readily apparent you don’t care about truth; that’s not your real motive. And that’s obvious enough just from your goal. If you were truly interested in a dialogue, you’d do it without donning drag on Sunday. You seem just to want to disturb others.
And the doorkeepers are hardly there to turn people away- quite the opposite. But they are doorkeepers- church is not a place for clowning, and if outsiders cause an intentional and malicious interruption, they will kindly ask the interloper to take a hike. Its not about our comfort- the service itself actually makes the Christians uncomfortable- both physically spiritually- but it is more about being quiet and worshipping God than paying attention to earthly distractions. Six days a week we focus on earth- give people one day in Heaven. You never know Erik- a real intersex person might see you faking around in a dress in church messing up their opportunity to worship, and might rightly slap some truth into you. You don’t know if real intersex people share your childish angst.
But again, and again, your quest for truth is beyond the scope of this group Erik. And I can only give you the answers I know. You don’t know much about Christianity; just Mormonism. Relax a bit.
28 December 2012 at 22:22 via mobile · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day Readily apparent… You haven’t stopped pointing fingers about motivation (judgement) and bragging about your superior intellect on Christian and other historical subjects, nor have you stopped making up excuses for not having the answers to the questions I asked or for why your religion has such a manipulative system still in place, and I’m the one who doesn’t care about truth.
Christ said to be like the little children, so I guess “childishly” attempting to challenge Christians to be Christlike is just what I need to do.
Mormons and “Christians” are far more similar than you realize; both ironically Insist belief is necessary for salvation.
28 December 2012 at 22:57 · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day Lets hope the Orhodox, LDS, and Catholic churches, and any other sects fortunate enough to be visited next month are as polite and accepting of their guests as this UK Border Force officer was to this transgendered woman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV-wgZBGfCoUK Border Force – Funniest interview ever with transgender Canadian woman
http://www.youtube.comThis is the funniest interview I have seen on UK Border Force. Transgendered woman ariving at London Heathrow from Canada.
29 December 2012 at 02:09 · Like · 2 · Remove Preview
Eugene Fitzpatrick In all seriousness; No, the Mormon beliefs are very very far from Christianity. You’re constantly lumping the two together in your mind. But that’s a mistake, due likely to the fact that you only know Mormonism.
29 December 2012 at 05:35 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick And you’re also constantly equating transvestites, transsexuals, and interex people, as if they were somehow collectively banned from church, or held the same opinions as yourself. You have no personal experience in either of these categories. If transanything people are serious about going to church, then they’ll do it, respectuflly. But you’re not serious. You incorrectly perceive flaws in Christianity- a religion you’ve never studied or practiced- and have drawn a bunch of half-thought conclusions. Knock it off.
29 December 2012 at 05:49 · Like · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick Have you given thought to people who wear the other gender’s clothing? Perhaps tranvestites might not want you giving them a bad name by causing ruckuses in churches, temples, synagogues and mosques across the coutry. Perhaps this idea of yours (a truly bad idea, btw) might backfire and embarrass real transvestites? Then they might feel obligated to apologize to everyone, for you Erik, an impostor transvestite- for causing increased friction between various religious groups and people who do cross dress in real life. Your simply causing trouble between two groups that you’re not even a part of.
You’re neither religious nor a transvestite. Why don’t you cancel this stupid idea before you cause real problems between real people. You’re ramming your uninformed nose into other people’s business.
29 December 2012 at 09:00 via mobile · Like · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick One more thing, for your edification: Orthodox Christian church services do not just pray for the salvation of the faithful and their loved ones as you’ve incorrectly assumed. Multiple prayers are said everyday in Orthodox churches, monasteries and by individuals for the salvation of the entire world- all peoples and all times. It’s the Orthodox Christian understanding that Christ’s death on the cross ad resurrection has already saved everybody; the whole universe has been redeemed and saved from ignorance and death. But people must embrace that salvation; they can willfully reject it- but its free and for all. We Christians are NOT called to just love ourselves. Everybody does that. But for the past 2,000 years, Orthodox Christian churches have been praying for the salvation f everyone- even as they were being killed for it.
29 December 2012 at 10:28 via mobile · Like · 1
Daniel Patrick O’Leary I have to side with Fitz on this one 100%. You should really knock this off. Cancel the event and delete this page, please. I assure you, proceeding will only do harm.
And to add to this, I need to address that I am a pastor of a very “progressive” non-denominational church. We have the motto “church for people who don’t like church” and “church for people who church people don’t like”.
Here is a snippet of what we once put in our bulletin:
“The Kingdom of God is for the burnouts, the broken, and the broke,
The drug addicts, the divorced, the HIV positive, the herpes-ridden, the hopeless,
For the outcasts that have been created by the church,
And for the outcasts of our society that have been created by us.
The Kingdom of God is for the brain damaged, the incurably ill, for the barren,
For the pregnant too many times, and the pregnant at the wrong time.
This is for the over-employed, the underemployed, the unemployable, and the unemployed.
This is for the swindled, the shoved aside, the left aside,
The replaced, the incompetent, and the stupid.
This is for the emotionally starved and the emotionally dead.
The Kingdom of God is for the bigoted, the murderers, the child molesters, the brutals, the drug lords,
The terrorists, the perverted, the raging alcoholics, over consumers, the incredibly ugly,
The dumb, the ignorant, the starving, the filled, and the filthy rich.
The Kingdom of God is for everyone and the Kingdom of God is for me.”
This is another one:
“We extend a special welcome to those who are single, married, divorced, gay, filthy rich, dirt poor, yo no habla Ingles. We extend a special welcome to those who are crying new-borns, skinny as a rail or could afford to lose a few pounds.
We welcome you if you can sing like Andrea Bocelli or like our pastor who can’t carry a note in a bucket. You’re welcome here if you’re “just browsing,” just woke up or just got out of jail. We don’t care if you’re more Catholic than the Pope, or haven’t been in church since little Joey’s Baptism.
We extend a special welcome to those who are over 60 but not grown up yet, and to teenagers who are growing up too fast. We welcome soccer moms, NASCAR dads, starving artists, tree-huggers, latte-sippers, vegetarians, junk-food eaters. We welcome those who are in recovery or still addicted. We welcome you if you’re having problems or you’re down in the dumps or if you don’t like “organized religion,” we’ve been there too.
If you blew all your offering money at the dog track, you’re welcome here. We offer a special welcome to those who think the earth is flat, work too hard, don’t work, can’t spell, or because grandma is in town and wanted to go to church.
We welcome those who are inked, pierced or both. We offer a special welcome to those who could use a prayer right now, had religion shoved down your throat as a kid or got lost in traffic and wound up here by mistake. We welcome tourists, seekers and doubters, bleeding hearts … and you!”
So please, understand that my heart breaks for those far from God, and I get where you’re coming from, which is why purposefully pissing people off will only do harm.
If you were a sincere transvestite, I wouldn’t give it a second thought. But this is an event. A plan. And it should really be cancelled. I am telling you, you will not teach anybody anything new or bring people closer to accepting different cultures. Since it is merely a shock & awe planned event, I see no way in which this turns out good. What would be good instead would be to enter in serious dialogue and/or respectfully attend a service. Talking with a priest or pastor about this is not a bad idea, either. This will end up being a mockery to both church and transvestites.
For the love of God, cancel this.
29 December 2012 at 16:08 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick And for the love of people, cancel this event.
29 December 2012 at 16:43 via mobile · Like
BradandTina Zarzana How but just don’t cross dress to church. No 15 minutes of fame. Don’t try to make a point. Just leave it alone
29 December 2012 at 16:44 via mobile · Like · 1
Cross Dress to Church Day The love of which people, Eugene? “God’s chosen?”
29 December 2012 at 17:04 via mobile · Like
Daniel Patrick O’Leary Erik, I believe it is? When the heck was “God’s Chosen” ever brought up in this convo with that context? You really aren’t interested at all in dialogue, are you? I’m beginning to think this is all just a stunt to you. Check yourself on this. It really makes no sense. You’re attacking Eugene with some straw man argument about something he actually doesn’t believe in. Stick to the topic – which is this is an INCREDIBLY bad idea.
God loves you too, man. Sorry you had such a terrible experience with church and church people. But this will not help.
29 December 2012 at 17:29 via mobile · Like · 2
Daniel Patrick O’Leary By the way, before you mentioned we were discouraging you from attending a service. That could not be more untrue. Please, come to a service. And if you come in drag, I hope people treat you the way they would treat Jesus, in a kind and loving manner. But to encourage other people to dress drag? There is no point. I know it’s been said 100 times already, so ill leave it alone, but it doesn’t make sense. Cancel it.
29 December 2012 at 17:34 via mobile · Like · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick No Erik, for the love of people. Just people.
Cross-dressers prolly don’t want you hijacking their thing; love them and don’t impersonate something you’re not. Faithful people have gathered at their places of worship; love them by not interrupting their services. Don’t make transvestites look and feel bad; don’t make Christians and Mormons frustrated and feeling like their being mocked in their own home churches.
Its a terrible plan; be sensible ad give it up.
29 December 2012 at 17:50 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick If you want to worship God, good! God deserves nothing less than our utmost. Look presentable, as a serious-minded adult. If you just want to be an annoying teenager and mock people on their weekend, stay home and sleep in like a teenager. Leave the adults alone.
29 December 2012 at 18:04 via mobile · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day Eugene, if you really want to be a successful negotiator, stop telling everyone you disagree with that they don’t know anything of the subjects you discuss. I’m not going to cancel the event, no matter how long or hard you try to falsely paint it’s motivation or insult my intelligence. If you gents really cared about dialog, you’d answer my questions instead of telling me I’m wrong and that I don’t know anything.
I’m not canceling this, and it will be annual.
Keep going, you’re just proving how similar “Christians” and Mormons really are.
29 December 2012 at 21:00 via mobile · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day I hope my LI friends find a nice Orthodox Church in the Sayville area to attend. It sounds like they should be welcome with open arms if Daniel is right about Christians.
29 December 2012 at 21:01 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Ok chess player. Are you prepared to take personal responsibility for all the people who participate in your shenanigans? What is your goal? To start a discussion? You can do that without the drag. What do you want to achieve? To teach people a lesson? You don’t know about the religions you want to teach a lesson to. Do you want to increase church attendance? Aren’t you an atheist?
What if something goes wrong? What if your plan hurts someone? Are you ready to get sued? Are you personally calling yourself the leader of a group seeking to infringe on people’s right to worship peacefully? Have you checked out all 50 state laws regarding unlawful intrusion and disruption of church services? How will you deal with the media, and/or multiple lawsuits? Do you have money for a lawyer? Do you have children? Are you prepared to explain to your son why you were on the evening news in a dress? Are you ready to ruin your own Christmas dinners with your religiously-minded family for the next couple of years? Are you ready to have the Westboro Baptists picketing your grandma’s funeral and your kid’s winter musical?
I noticed you didn’t call the event: “Cross-dress to a Mosque Day”. What if you instigate people to offend other religious groups who don’t show the non-violent self-restraint traditionally demanded in Christianity?
The truth is, you haven’t thought that far ahead. To you this is just a big joke on Facebook- but you really are putting yourself -and others- but mainly yourself- in a very bad position. One of the safest results is that you might get sued. Probably by both religious communities and transvestites. And if this happens, you’ll be personally responsible for making the USA suck a little more for everyone.
It won’t really be bringing people together, because crossdressers can already go to church. There are all sorts of churches these days, many with very little to do with Christ and following His teachings; some churches already have homosexual minority bishops. Are you going to teach a lesson in being a liberal to them? But churches have never ever been in the habit of turning people away. Unless those people have no interest in God or church anyway. So what are you trying to accomplish?
Since you’re an ex-Mormon, and you’re angry at Mormons, and this incident that kicked your brain into revenge mode occurred at a Mormon temple, and since Mormons clearly have their own unique rules regarding clothing….. I fail to see why you’re targeting Christians. Everything you’re angry about is Mormon. Christianity is a different religion. Why are you inviting others to invade Christian churches?
Ok- tell me how you’re not going to get sued/ arrested.
For your own good, and the good of your family, stop your adolecent madness and cancel this stupid event.
29 December 2012 at 21:59 via mobile · Edited · Like · 1
Cross Dress to Church Day That was the craziest rant of a response I’ve read in a while. How about you take a breath, answer my questions, and formulate rational follow-up questions, instead of reflexively telling me what I don’t know and insisting evil intent on my part.
29 December 2012 at 22:08 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick A rant? Rants don’t include that many question marks. But honestly, “your questions” (the ones about truth) are vague, and not really what this group is about.
You started this group. It’s aim appears to be to intrude on any house of worship and disturb those worshiping. That’s probably illegal.
Who cares about your questions if you’re only going to be a public disturbance? Certainly not a judge.
29 December 2012 at 22:13 · Edited · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day No. Attending a service in the clothing of the opposite gender is not illegal.
I’m still not impressed with your excuses for not answering my questions, and hope I luck out and find a more reasonable orthodox fellow to explain what you can’t.
29 December 2012 at 22:14 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick No it’s not illegal to come improperly dressed for church. But that’s not your aim. You want to shake things up a bit, and show these narrow-minded, straight-laced squares how the real world works, don’t you? If you’re there in a dress, fine- but you’d probably have to respect the rules of the house if they think your clothing is in appropriate. (I’ve been asked to leave an Orthodox church once for being improperly dressed, and I was Orthodox! I shudda known bettah. I went back home, changed, and returned.) But if you’re there to cause a disturbance, then THAT’S likely to be illegal.
So what’s your plan Admiral? Let’s see how far you’ve thought ahead. You’re gonna show up to church in a dress? Fine. Then what?
29 December 2012 at 22:24 · Edited · Like
Mandrew George LOL Ryan.
29 December 2012 at 22:27 · Like · 2
Mandrew George All this time you spend arguing with these guys we could be hanging out or something. lol
29 December 2012 at 22:28 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick I’m hanging out with Erik Kulick.
29 December 2012 at 22:31 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick I’m actually helping him; trying to stop a bad idea from happening. Apparently, he’s got nothing better to do than stir up trouble.
29 December 2012 at 22:32 · Like
Mandrew George It’s all good bro, but if someone wants to cause trouble nothing will stop them, and besides if someone walks into a church just to be a tool they’re gonna get kicked out. lol
29 December 2012 at 22:36 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick I’m trying to save him some money so he doesn’t get sued. I’m trying to save his family’s Easter dinner from being totally awkward. I’m doing him a favor, and still he argues with me.
29 December 2012 at 22:36 · Like · 1
Mandrew George Haha thats why I love you man.
29 December 2012 at 22:37 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Backatacha bud. Say hi to the baristas for me.
29 December 2012 at 22:39 · Like
Mandrew George Pfffft. I’m getting out of there man! I’m joining the Army.
29 December 2012 at 22:39 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Oh WHAT! Right on! Congratulations and thank you!
29 December 2012 at 22:40 · Like
Mandrew George If you’re on Long Island before January 14th were hanging out!
29 December 2012 at 22:40 · Like · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick http://www.saintgregoryoutreach.org/2012/02/orthodox-prayer-military-protection-war.htmlOrthodox Prayer for Protection of Soldiers during War
29 December 2012 at 22:43 · Like · Remove Preview
Eugene Fitzpatrick http://www.saintgregoryoutreach.org/p/orthodox-prayers.htmlOrthodox Prayers
29 December 2012 at 22:43 · Like · Remove Preview
Cross Dress to Church Day Ah, more acquisitions and condescension to inspire cooperation and harmony.
Instead of wasting your time repeating your credentials, reading my mind, and reporting your findings, why don’t you answer the simpe questions of this lonely seeker?
29 December 2012 at 22:44 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Ok, what question?
29 December 2012 at 22:44 · Like
Mandrew George LOL
29 December 2012 at 22:45 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Just one.
29 December 2012 at 22:45 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick For now.
29 December 2012 at 22:46 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick A question Erik?
29 December 2012 at 22:49 · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day Accusations*
29 December 2012 at 22:49 via mobile · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day They are at the beginning of this thread if you need refreshing.
29 December 2012 at 22:50 via mobile · Like · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick I need refreshing. Reask it. (Forgive me. It’s a wonder you ask me anything, thinking me so foolish.)
29 December 2012 at 22:52 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Just one; you pick it.
29 December 2012 at 22:56 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Ok, I’m going to bed. Figure out which question you want me to “answer” for you; I’ll give it a shot on Monday.
29 December 2012 at 23:01 · Like
Mandrew George Ain’t nobody got time for that!
29 December 2012 at 23:02 · Like · 1
Cross Dress to Church Day I reiterate my reiteration. You’re not some prophet-genie able to grant me some magical glimpse at “Truth” (aka God). Go back and read my questions if you want to demonstrate your superior religious knowledge.
29 December 2012 at 23:03 via mobile · Unlike · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick You’re darn right I’m not. Here’s what I can tell you: some stuff about church history and some stuff about European history; preferably on Antiquity and the Medieval period. That’s about it.
29 December 2012 at 23:26 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick (And maybe some stuff about why this group’s intent is not a good idea.)
29 December 2012 at 23:27 · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day You also made claims of knowing truth, yet can’t answer simple questions concerning it.
You’ve stated your opinions about me and my event, but haven’t listened to a word I’ve said.
I’ve seen these two behaviors manifested in the same person far more times than I care to remember.
29 December 2012 at 23:39 · Like · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick Yes, I can say I know Truth; at least in part, for what I know.
Jesus Christ is that Truth. He was crucified and rose again on the third day. That is what I know.
29 December 2012 at 23:42 · Like · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick Why am I up so late? It’s already Sunday. To bed!
29 December 2012 at 23:42 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick “There was a time when people put on their “Sunday best” to go to church. By contrast, there is today not an insignificant backlash against such propriety. Many contemporary churches innocently flaunt a “come as you are”; pitch as part of their advertising ploy. Though God does not demand us to “dress up” for Him (as though He is in any way impressed by our external appearance), the fact is, as followers of Christ in all areas of our life, we should offer Christ our “best” and not just our “leftovers” (c.f. Cain and Abel). Our dress should always, especially at church, be becoming of a Christian. We dress modestly, not in a flashy way that merely brings attention to ourselves.
The above guidelines may be adjusted for services outside of Divine Liturgy, i.e. Vespers. It is better to be in church for prayer, than to not come at all for mere lack of a change of clothes — as may be the case when coming from a Saturday outing, or work-party, etc. Finally, this is not a call for someone to buy a whole new wardrobe just to be a part of the church! Use your best judgment and good taste when it comes to church. You don’t go to church to be seen by people — you go to present yourself before, and to worship, God.”
From: http://www.xcsavior.org/churchetiquette.htmChurch Etiquette
http://www.xcsavior.orgIn the Orthodox Church there are numerous customs and traditions that are important parts of our worship. Some of these customs are universal to the Church, while some may vary from parish to parish, or cultural tradition. The following section addresses questions most often asked by those new to th…
29 December 2012 at 23:43 · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
Dominique Equality Storni Oh, c’mon, Eugene.. You can always justify breaking the Sabbath to condescendingly verbally assault those you deem unworthy.
29 December 2012 at 23:44 · Like · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick Eh, sure, I suppose I could. But that’s not what I’m doing.
29 December 2012 at 23:44 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick I don’t deem anyone “unworthy”. (I probably have bigger sins than the both of you put together.)
Unworthy? No; we’re all unworthy. Uneducated? That’s just you two; when it comes to Christian history, or Nazi Germany (cough cough).
29 December 2012 at 23:47 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Alright, good night chaps. Let’s be gently belligerent the day after tomorrow.
29 December 2012 at 23:49 · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=272261239542951&set=pb.113040882131655.-2207520000.1356902754&type=3&theaterTimeline Photos
Press the “SHARE” button to help us grow. Post our URL on your wall and favorite pages: http://www.facebook.com/ReligiousFreeYouthby: Helping Youth Resist Religious Brainwashing Exploitation & Mental Terrorism
30 December 2012 at 13:32 · Like · Remove Preview
Dominique Equality Storni Yup, CDtCD.. gotta love contradictory beliefs.
30 December 2012 at 13:38 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick We could discuss some of the percieved contradictions in Christianity, (or any religion, including atheism) but what makes you think you have the right to start disrupting church services?
31 December 2012 at 09:34 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Also- Erik, if you want to discuss the group of questions you stated at the beginning, fine. But your questions are philosophical in nature, and are not religious. There’s a difference between the two: philosophy is kinda airy and people can speculate with out end. But religion is fairly concrete in comparison because religion takes place within history. For example, people can speculate and disagree on what truth is, and still nenver know; but Jesus Christ was a real person, who really taught publicly in Jerusalem, and was really crucified by a real Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, and was really buried, and really rose from the dead three days later. Those are things that occured in time, and are much more solid than philosophizing.
31 December 2012 at 09:43 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick As always, if you want to go to church fine. But what do you think your cross dressing is going to accomplish. No one’s going to have time for a discussion because the service will be going on. You’re going to have to just sit there and judge people (which is what you already accuse church folk of doing) and then when the service is over, people go home. So what’s going to be accomplished?
31 December 2012 at 09:46 · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day Is that what you do at church, Eugene? Sit there and judge? Or was that another attempt at reading my mind and pre-judging me?
31 December 2012 at 13:11 via mobile · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day I will not be disrupting church services. I will be modestly dressed in a beautiful red dress. If people are so judgmental that they’d rather disrupt their own service because of a prejudice they could easily temper, that’s there fault not mine. I don’t know where you get off blaming me for someone else’s fear, hatred, or ignorance.
31 December 2012 at 13:14 via mobile · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day I don’t dispute tat Jesus is a man who was unjustly killed. I dispute the zombie claim; just because your ancestors tell you it happened, doesn’t make it so. This is a big problem with appealing to history to validate the supernatural.
31 December 2012 at 13:16 via mobile · Like · 1
Cross Dress to Church Day I asked two questions in response to your statements indicating that religion is a place people can go to receive “Truth”, and that your religion, the Orthodox religion, is a “spring of Truth.” Telling me that Jesus is “Truth” is telling me an empty statement without real meaning.
31 December 2012 at 13:25 via mobile · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day Just because Jesus existed historically, doesn’t make him “Truth.” Even if it some how did, the fact that there are numerous interpretations of what that “Truth” is makes it impossible to determine which is a spring, and which is a trickle of “Truth.”
31 December 2012 at 13:28 via mobile · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day I will be at multiple religious services on 1/20/13, in a dress. I will do it every year until its no longer necessary.
31 December 2012 at 13:32 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick If you’re merely arriving in a dress, as a man, and being respectful, most Christian church services will probably continue as normal. People might ask you “why are you in a dress?” But it’s probably not going to cause the stir you might expect in a Mormon temple. If you show up to a mosque, (I don’t think you’re that brave or foolish) you’d likely get assaulted. If you show up to an Orthodox church, you’ll probably be asked to dismiss yourself since your garments show you to be disrespectful of the church. If you bring your son, he’ll probably be confused and embarrassed to see his Dad being a public spectacle.
I beleive Christianity to be true, even the resurrection part. It’s the most plausible explaination.
31 December 2012 at 14:50 · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day Thanks for the profound info. I’ll keep it in mind.
31 December 2012 at 14:59 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick So profound.
31 December 2012 at 15:14 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick But you’re not going to prove anything. Either you’re going to just sit there, or be asked to leave. I don’t know what will happen if you go into a Mormon temple.
Remember, your outrage was initiated by what occured in Mormonism. You consistently forget that your plan has nothing to do with anything except Mormonism.
31 December 2012 at 15:18 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick What is your goal again?
31 December 2012 at 15:19 · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day Organizations that use manipulative doctrines to compel behaviors are all harmful to society. Just because Mormonism tried to compensate for some of the more paradoxical beliefs held by other Christians, doesn’t make them less deserving of the now mostly meaningless title than anyone else.
31 December 2012 at 15:57 via mobile · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day Im glad that your crystal ball has revealed the results of my event; are you sure you haven’t been channeling the spirit of Joseph Smith w/ your prayers?
31 December 2012 at 15:59 via mobile · Unlike · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick I don’t think so.
Organizations that use manipulative doctrines, eh?
So you’re the final authority on this? How do you know a religion’s doctrines are or arent manipulative? You don’t even know what doctrines are in Christianity. You’ve never been a Christian. Just a Mormon with a bad flavor in his mouth; you don’t know any other religion.
31 December 2012 at 22:31 via mobile · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day You don’t know, you don’t know, you don’t know, you don’t know….
31 December 2012 at 23:34 · Like · 2
Cross Dress to Church Day Is that your favorite phrase?
31 December 2012 at 23:34 · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day Here’s one: you don’t know my history, an have assumed I’ve always been Mormon. It’s the same as Christian, BTW. At least as far as the stones they both tend to throw.
31 December 2012 at 23:36 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick So tell me your story.
1 January at 00:02 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick And the stone throwing is the same for everyone. Even enlightened atheists.
1 January at 00:03 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick But, please- tell me your journey through religion.
1 January at 00:19 via mobile · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day The only difference is non-deists don’t try to capitalize on the hopes and fears of others.
1 January at 00:53 · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day Answer my god forsaken questions.
1 January at 00:53 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick You answer mine for a change. What is your religious background and what do you hope to accomplish?
1 January at 01:21 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick (Non-deists? You mean like every politician and commercial marketer selling a product? You mean the secular, atheistic Bolsheviks offering the dream of prosperity? You mean Dawkins and the New Atheist authors offering hope that there is no God? Sir, you’re as sorely mistaken as they.)
Whats your religious background and what do you hope to accomplish?
1 January at 01:24 via mobile · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day “[F]or a change” implies that you’ve actually answered mine in the first place.
I’ve already answered the latter question, and, given the way you’ve thus far spoken to me, I’m not sure you deserve to know the answer your former question.
Why don’t you read the LDS epistles if you want to know more about me.
1 January at 03:18 via mobile · Like · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick Because that’s too much research. I’ve answered a ton of your questions here. The sheer volume of my posts speaks to that.
If you’ve never been a Christian, just say so. It takes only a couple of seconds to type here, for the viewing of all, your religious background.
In fact, you probably owe it to everyone here, reading this, or seeing your CDtCD idea, what your religious beliefs are. You’re inviting anyone in the world to potentially create a big disturbance with a bunch of people they don’t know, and within religions they potentially know nothing about.
Take our friend Dominique Equality, for example. Nothing she’s written in this thread indicates she has the first clue about any type of Christian beliefs, whether Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox. But my gosh, does she have her mind made up about who all these people are and how stupid they are.
You’re doing something similar. You spent the greater number of years in Mormonism, you might have attempted some other religion, but hoever unlikely that is, you’re clearly just a secularist now. Yet you’ve witnessed bad thing in Mormonism, the incident that spawned this group was only in Mormonism, and then you go and blame Christians.
Your justification for this error? You say: “At least as far as the stones they both tend to throw. The only difference is non-deists don’t try to capitalize on the hopes and fears of others.”
How simple-minded. How untrue. Is not your confusion apparent to everyone who reads this thread?
1 January at 09:03 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick If you want to talk about truth Erik Kulick; message me personally. This group is about your plans to “invade” churches, and this particular thread is about what stupid idea the whole plan is.
Let’s stick to the topic at the top of this thread.
What do you think cross dressing to church is going to achieve?
1 January at 09:06 · Like · 1
Damien Pagán figured i’d chime in. religious and secular people are equally guilty throughout history of exploiting peoples’ hopes and fears to attain certain ends. i think one thing most people, regardless of faith or lack thereof, can agree upon is one fundamental maxim which might be phrased thusly: “don’t be a dick”. by that i mean, don’t slight or short-change someone just because you don’t agree with them.
something like “cross dress to church” first of all undercuts any point you might be trying to make because it’s completely ridiculous on its face, and secondly, it insults people who actually do struggle with their gender identity, hijacking a lifestyle which has nothing to do with you (unless you yourself are legitimately transgendered).
so if you really feel like you are a woman living in a man’s body, by all means, go cross dress to church. i don’t believe in god, but if i did, i would posit that he’d still love you even if you were a cross dresser. otherwise you’re just being a dick.
if you want to debate actual issues of the soul, or of church and society, there are few better equipped than Eugene; we have had many spirited debates on the topic(s) without having to resort to douchebaggery.
1 January at 11:08 · Like · 1
Damien Pagán there are many more rational theists than we atheists acknowledge and i think a much better way to learn about one another and to grow in ourselves is to continually ask questions, and to not sacrifice respect for the satisfaction of landing a quick jab.
1 January at 11:11 · Like · 1
Erik Kulick Great advice with that l last post. It’s what I was trying tho get out of Eugene, instead of this week long rant about the poor choice I’m making, filed with insults and derision. Maybe if you guys actually engaged me with questions and answers to my inquiries, this thread wouldn’t be filled with so much “douchebaggery.”
1 January at 12:38 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick So will you cancel this event? Its not the thread that’s full of “douchbaggery” but the whole idea in the first place.
1 January at 12:40 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick You’ve answered none of the questions I sought answers to, Eugene. If you were as educated a scholar as you claim to be, you’d stop with the mind-reader bullshit.
1 January at 12:41 · Edited · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Will you cancel this stinkin event? I’m under no obligation to answer your questions.
1 January at 12:41 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick I’ve told you before, no.
1 January at 12:42 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick We can exchange messages regarding your questions.
1 January at 12:42 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick You and your friends acting like dicks is DEFINITELY not going to change that.
1 January at 12:43 · Like
Erik Kulick Yet you still feel an obligation to waste your breath repeating your arrogant statements…
1 January at 12:44 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick What? We’re not the ones creating events like this. I think you better look in the mirror.
1 January at 12:44 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick I really hope someone finds an Orthodox church in Sayville.
1 January at 12:44 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick There isnt one.
1 January at 12:45 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Then I guess they’ll find the next closest.
1 January at 12:45 · Like
Erik Kulick Childish retorts don’t work either.
1 January at 12:46 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Like that’s going to be especially grievous to me. What are you hoping to achieve?
1 January at 12:46 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Maybe you’ll happen to be visiting folks on that day and you will get an opportunity to explain to them the things you were unable to explain here.
1 January at 12:47 · Edited · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Look- you came up with this idea to try to get back at the Mormons who flipped out over a cross dresser in their temple. Why are you so intent on forming a plan that everyone acknowledges is a bad idea?
1 January at 12:48 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick If you really understood Mormonism (which according to your logic you can’t, given the fact that you never practiced it), you’d understand why I am standing up to ALL harmful ideologies.
1 January at 12:49 · Edited · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick This is between that person and the Mormons. You’re not involved. Other religions are not involved. Other people are not involved.
1 January at 12:50 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Wrong.
1 January at 12:50 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Did the Christians do anything against transvestites? No. Did the Buddhists? No. Did the French? No. You’re turing an isolated incident into a potentially harmful situation by blaming all religions at once.
1 January at 12:53 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Even other atheists can see your plan is ridiculous. Give it up and start asking yourself how you can help other people instead of aggravating this situation.
1 January at 12:54 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Why do you bother continuing to engage me if you’re not willing to change your strategy? Simply answering what “Truth” actually is and why your church is so exceptional in disseminating it would have gone a long way. Instead, you, TL;DR, and Damien feel the need to tell me how wrong I am and to attempt to shame me into shutting this down.
Wait… I think its working! No, sorry, false alarm.
1 January at 13:02 · Edited · Like
Erik Kulick Damien, I never said that other non-religious individuals never use hopes and fears to manipulate others, but rather that groups of non-deists tend not to spend their time doing so.
1 January at 12:59 · Like
Erik Kulick You are missing the point Eugene.
1 January at 13:00 · Like
Erik Kulick So you found me another Christian and an atheist who think this idea is a bad, and I’m supposed to suddenly see the light?
1 January at 13:01 · Like
Erik Kulick Nice try Eugene.
1 January at 13:01 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick No, I’d hope you’d listen because your legally an adult and you have better hopes of achieving your goal through discussion.
You keep getting at the “Truth” idea. I’m all for talking about it, but not here. Message me.
This is idea is not a solution to the problems you percieve.
1 January at 13:04 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick What is your cross dressing going to fix?
1 January at 13:05 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Sorry, I will not discuss things with you privately. Tell me what “Truth” is here.
1 January at 13:05 · Like
Erik Kulick Is your memory really that bad? Insults WILL NOT change my mind.
1 January at 13:06 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick As I said before, Christ’s life is Truth.
Now you answer me: how is your cross dressing going to solve the problem you percieve?
1 January at 13:06 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick You haven’t answered my questions; what makes you think I’m going to answer yours?
1 January at 13:07 · Unlike · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick I just did.
1 January at 13:07 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick That’s not an answer.
1 January at 13:07 · Unlike · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick I believe that Christ’s teachings and actions are truth. That’s my answer.
1 January at 13:08 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick And I said that days ago.
1 January at 13:08 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Oh, NOW that makes sense.
I’m glad we finally cleared that up. Looks like there’s no problem then, as Christ never said anything about cross dressers.
1 January at 13:09 · Like
Damien Pagán for the record, are we distinguishing between deists and theists in this conversation? because there’s a difference.
1 January at 13:09 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick I’m not sure- but I think its a side issue.
But Erik, what do you think your goal in cross dressing is? What is it going to solve or accomplish?
1 January at 13:11 via mobile · Like
Damien Pagán i consider myself nominally a deist because i believe in a higher order fractal symmetry to the universe which to me isn’t indicative necessarily of a personal “God” in the sense which Eugene believes, but in the sense that consciousness is a universal phenomenon, not merely a local one. so, yea. just sayin.
1 January at 13:11 · Like · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick Damien, ask Erik what his goal is.
1 January at 13:13 via mobile · Like · 1
Erik Kulick That will work.
1 January at 13:14 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Just spit it out man!
1 January at 13:14 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick I’m waiting on you.
1 January at 13:14 · Unlike · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick How do you think this plan will help people?
1 January at 13:14 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick 2 real answers to my 2 real questions.
1 January at 13:15 · Unlike · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick We’re not talking about truth! That’s not that point of this thread. Stop being dodgy and face the question.
1 January at 13:15 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick I couldnt have stated my answer to your question more succinctly. No answer mine.
1 January at 13:18 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick BTW, you could have had your answers if you actually read what the event was for in the about section of this fan page.
1 January at 13:19 · Like
Erik Kulick You’re right. Your answer was WAY too succinct.
1 January at 13:19 · Like
Erik Kulick You know, Eugene, instead of trying to convince me to shut the group down for the past week, you could have formulated thoughtful answers to my questions that actually explain what “Truth” means, beyond the Christian cop-out: “It means Jesus!”
1 January at 13:26 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Would that have made you shut this group down? No.
What that what I came here to discuss? No.
1 January at 13:28 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick And this group’s fan page does not address what wearing opposite gender clothing will achieve. That’s why I asked you.
1 January at 13:31 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick See, you didn’t even want to discuss. You’re whole purpose was to simply shut the group down.
I don’t think you really know what “Truth” is, because you seem allergic to the real way of determining it.
1 January at 13:31 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick I’m not here to discuss truth. I’m here to discuss what your plan will accomplish. Stop stonewalling.
1 January at 13:32 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick If people want that answer, I’m willing to give it, but not to people who are trying to manipulate me into doing so. It’s really annoying.
1 January at 13:33 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick You cant reason with the unreasonable.
1 January at 13:33 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Im not manipulating you; Im just asking.
1 January at 13:33 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Reason requires being able to question your own beliefs on an issue.
1 January at 13:34 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Just say it.
1 January at 13:34 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Something you have CERTAINLY displayed here.
1 January at 13:34 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Whats your goal?
1 January at 13:34 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick What is reasonable? A zombie savior compensating for his earthly failures?
1 January at 13:34 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick What will you accomplish?
1 January at 13:35 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick How will cross dressing teach the Mormons a lesson?
1 January at 13:35 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick I’m still waiting for real answers from you before I answer any of your questions. That won’t change, so nagging is pointless.
1 January at 13:35 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick That was a real answer, and you cant dismiss it. Now get to your purpose.
1 January at 13:39 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick No it isn’t. It doesn’t make sense. please explain yourself.
1 January at 13:40 · Like
Erik Kulick https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=543135815705539&set=a.220530961299361.64933.206630642689393&type=1&theaterTimeline Photos
We need parents like this in 2013 too!Conceived this wayby: LGBT News
1 January at 13:40 · Unlike · 2 · Remove Preview
Eugene Fitzpatrick You’re only looking for truth answers from me; no one else. Damien; ask this kid what his purpose is.
1 January at 13:40 via mobile · Like
Damien Pagán what is your purpose?
1 January at 13:41 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick So if you want truth answers from me personally, personally message me. Otherwise, stick to the topic at hand.
1 January at 13:42 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick BTW, you or one of your lovely friends was concerned about what my son would think? He likes wearing girl clothes sometimes. I will love him the same regardless, and unlike those righteous Orthodox guards, will always let him into my house.
1 January at 13:42 · Like
Erik Kulick In that case…
1 January at 13:42 · Like
Erik Kulick No.
1 January at 13:43 · Like
Erik Kulick I’m still waiting….
1 January at 13:43 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick So you refuse to answer Damien’s question?
1 January at 13:43 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Yes, it came from you.
1 January at 13:43 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick I think Damien really wants to know. I think you owe us all an explaination.
1 January at 13:45 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick I won’t answer questions from you, Damien, Mandrew, or Daniel “TL;DR” O’Leary.
1 January at 13:46 · Like
Erik Kulick At the very least until I get my answers.
1 January at 13:47 · Like
1 January at 13:47 · Like · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick So if you’re not willing to discuss this group’s purpose (and I’m at least willing to discuss things with you privately), it becomes clear that your purpose is just to harass others. If you harass others in their own churches, I’m fairly sure thats illegal.
1 January at 13:49 via mobile · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day I’m glad you’re the one in law school.
1 January at 13:50 · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day And I’m perfectly willing to discuss it, but not with trolls like you guys.
1 January at 13:50 · Unlike · 2
Eugene Fitzpatrick Its a bit funny when you log in under your own name to like your own comment. As if the CDtCD account wasnt your own.
We’re not trolling you- We’re asking you directly, and we’re asking you to stay on point.
1 January at 13:54 via mobile · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day Liking posts gets more attention to them, just like all of your pointless rants.
I don’t give a shit what you or anyone else thinks of it. It’s not about popularity for me, it’s about standing against oppressive hypocrisy and manipulation.
1 January at 13:57 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick But will your actions change people’s minds?
1 January at 13:58 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick And how?
1 January at 13:58 via mobile · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day You’re trolling me because you just admitted the whole point was to get me to stop. This means you don’t want dialog, you just want to push your POV.
1 January at 13:58 · Like
Erik Kulick None of your business, troll.
1 January at 13:59 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick How will you wearing a dress change people’s minds?
1 January at 13:59 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick I think the religions you attack are none of your business, troll.
That’s your real purpose: you aim to troll churches.
1 January at 14:00 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Checkmate. (With Danny Daniel Patrick O’Leary)
1 January at 14:01 via mobile · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day No, the difference is I won’t be there to just prove a point. I’m willing to engage with people who show they’re willing to do so with me.
1 January at 14:03 · Unlike · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick That’s trolling. Because you can do that same thing without a dress on a different day of the week.
1 January at 14:04 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Checkmate.
1 January at 14:04 · Like
Erik Kulick No. It’s making a statement without words that can easily be engaged with loving curiosity, rather than insults and derision, which you and your friends have displayed here.
Keep in mind that I haven’t banned you or your thoughtful companions from my page. A move you apparently would feel justified seeing happen to me in your “Christian” church. You don’t value truth, you value being right.
1 January at 14:08 · Unlike · 1
Erik Kulick IF that last statement weren’t so, you’d have come seeking understanding in the first place, not as a cover-up for your intended event snuffing.
1 January at 14:10 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Youre trolling. Offline. In the real world. Its not helpful. Knock it off.
1 January at 14:14 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Nope.
1 January at 14:26 · Like
Michael Ross Olsen If I may insert my one and only comment on this. Arguing like children will not help anyone. That is what you are doing. Eugene, you have not been willing to see things from the other perspective. From what I can tell you will not change. Erik, I am and always will be your friend. You are letting this turn into something that resembles an argument between two elementary school children. Eugene, Erik knows where my beliefs lie, and that they are not always the same as his own. You are doing more damage than good. You both want to be heard, but neither of you are willing to listen. Dialogue will not proceed if none of the involved parties are willing to listen.
1 January at 15:12 · Like
Michael Ross Olsen If I may insert my one and only comment on this. Arguing like children will not help anyone. That is what you are doing. Eugene, you have not been willing to see things from the other perspective. From what I can tell you will not change. Erik, I am and always will be your friend. You are letting this turn into something that resembles an argument between two elementary school children. Eugene, Erik knows where my beliefs lie, and that they are not always the same as his own. You are doing more damage than good. You both want to be heard, but neither of you are willing to listen. Dialogue will not proceed if none of the involved parties are willing to listen.
1 January at 15:15 · Like
Daniel Patrick O’Leary I commented here twice because I wanted to know what you thought you were going to accomplish. The TL;DR was a poke at myself because I wrote a lot. None of my comments were egged on from Eugene. After reading this I now realize you are a child and nee…See More
1 January at 15:33 via mobile · Like · 1
Mandrew George LOL. This is ridiculous. 269 comments. Hahahahaha.
1 January at 17:34 · Like · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick It’s certainly towing a very thin line. From a lawyer friend: “It probably would be a disorerly conduct charge, aka “disturbing the peace.””
New York Penal Law
§ 240.20 Disorderly conduct.
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause
public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk
1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening
2. He makes unreasonable noise; or
3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an
obscene gesture; or
4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or
meeting of persons; or
5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or
6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to
comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or
7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act
which serves no legitimate purpose.
Disorderly conduct is a violation.
It says it is a violation, but if you breach it, the cops come, you ignore the cops, the cops will usually arrest you. Also, they can bring a criminal trespassing charge against you too. If you fight them on the arrest, they usually throw in a resisting arrest for good measure.
1 January at 19:52 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$PEN240.20$$@TXPEN0240.20+&LIST=SEA25+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=55494226+&TARGET=VIEWLaws of New York
1 January at 19:52 via mobile · Like · Remove Preview
Eugene Fitzpatrick I don’t think anything you do will lead to that, if you’re just there in a dress. But if you’re hoping for more, that’s when you are trying to tow the line.
1 January at 19:54 via mobile · Like
Mandrew George “Daddy, why is that man wearing mommies clothes?”
1 January at 20:37 · Like
Frank Bonanno Ew Fitz I can’t believe you took the time to look at the grizzly bears no no bits whilst being attacked. You’re sick. I read some of this, not all 300 odd comments and here’s my 2 cents. First, I say go for it on account of the fact that religious types (not you Fitzy) have certainly never shown any sense of remorse or concern about where I am when they feel the need to start their recruitment speeches. They’ll come up to me on the street or while I’m at work. One time a guy brought his adorable cute as could be 6 year old daughter with him to make her hand me the literature so I definitely wouldn’t refuse it. And lord knows I didn’t want to see those fetus heads on display blown up huge back in the U Albany days. Or even something as benign as the but jobs on the corner of hollywood blvd screaming that were all sinners and must repent. Religious people with a point they just need to convey do not think twice about invading our space and quite honestly as much as it annoys the shit out of me when anyone preaches anything unsolicited its their right to do so and more power to them. But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander and if the rest of us have to put up with it cordially, especially those of us who may or may not think its all a load of cacka any “you” are not imbued with any special authority from an imaginary character, then “you” need to extend the same tolerance. If you’re one of those “heels dug in, wont listen, not interested in change” types, then roll your eyes and look away like we have been doing for you for ever. Let the thing play out though for those who want to take part. As long as no one gets violent then who cares.
1 January at 20:39 via mobile · Unlike · 2
Michelle Olsen Tip: If you don’t like it, ignore it?
1 January at 21:00 · Like · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick Yeah, I think that tip works both ways. If Erik doesn’t like religion, he should ignore it. There are two spheres; the public and private. What goes on in the public sphere is fair game- if Erik wants to wear drag in public, ok. If he wants to enter a religious house of worship to go worship, he (and anyone) should be respectful of the rules of that house. Its pretty straightforward.
1 January at 22:00 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick NY State Law:
240.21 Disruption, or disturbance of religious service, funeral, burial or memorial service.
A person is guilty of disruption or disturbance of a religious service, funeral, burial or memorial service when he or she makes…See More
1 January at 22:02 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Its better if you simply dialogue with church leaders outside of church. You can wear whatever clothes you want. And if you decide to go to church, it should only be to worship God- not to harass others.
1 January at 22:14 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick Michael, Eugene has made it clear that he disapproves of my event. I’ve considered his reasoning, and feel that it is not convincing enough to override my decision. If he want’s to avoid my questions while drawing more attention to my page with his repetitive rants, then I guess that’s his choice.
Daniel, taking a page out of your buddy Eugene’s condescending playbook isn’t going to win any favor, even if you post flowery messages about how inclusive your church is or how much Jesus loves me afterward.
Thanks for the legal advice, Eugene. I’m not going to church with the intent to disrupt anything, so those laws don’t apply to me; I honestly hope everything carries on completely uninterrupted. Maybe then people will start letting go of their prejudices.
2 January at 02:03 · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick That’s at least a little reassuring- that you’re not going there to make a scene.
Although, as an open group event, you may have invited other one-time cross dressers who might participate elsewhere with less constraint.
But your actions start with a presumption: that churches who expect people to wear gender-appropriate clothing are prejudiced. That’s not the case, at least for my church.
For my church, gender is a main point in human identity. “Male and female, God created them in the beginning.” Crossdressing therefore represents some level of confusion on behalf of the person- or it superficially demonstrates the person is intentionally trying to make a scene. But if a person is male or female, dress in appropriate clothing, which is an outward sign of your identity and respectfulness. If a person is born intersex, they can discuss things with the priest and still dress appropriately.
It’s not prejudice.
2 January at 05:55 via mobile · Like
Daniel Patrick O’Leary Erik, have I been condescending? Just matching your attitude, buddy. I have invited you into serious dialogue and gave you the benefit of the doubt when I asked what your purpose was. You refuse to post it other than some vague, “Let’s show the world that religion has rules that I don’t like and some of them make other people feel really, really bad.” And I actually agree with you. Hypocritical religion is what Jesus was sick of most (ie the Pharisees). But this idea you have doesn’t create the enlightenment you desire, just a disturbance. And you’ve been nothing but condescending and rude, refusing to own up to this idea, which is a bad one.
I am totally serious about what I said. I’m not being flowery. But since Mormonism has hurt you so much, I truly am sorry for all of this. It really does stink how much hate they have left you with. I assure you, that is not the love of Christ.
And I’m not looking for your favor. I’m just asking you to be respectful. You don’t have to be. It’s a free country. I just thought I’d reason with you first. These antics don’t scare me at all, nor do they threaten Christianity.
Seriously. Go for it. Have fun. My only request is that you are open to the love of Christ. If you are merely going to get a reaction, you will get one. I just wish you would let us all know what the point is. The vague one you gave earlier doesn’t help. Especially since you have both Christians and atheists telling you it’s not fruitful and won’t do any good.
This has gotten far past the level of childish on both sides. The bickering has just left both sides unhappy and more steadfast in what they were already doing, without actually engaging in real conversation. So if we speak again I want it to be in private message form, if you’re up for it. Let me know and we can talk. i don’t have all the answers, but I think we could help each other in real dialogue. This thread is not helping. At all.
May you find Christ.
2 January at 06:32 via mobile · Like
Daniel Patrick O’Leary And honestly, since you’re encouraging people who don’t normally go to church to go to church, that is a huge plus. Just know that some people won’t be so welcoming. But I think you already know that. And don’t mistake a respectful dismissal (if there is one) for somebody judging you. There is a difference.
2 January at 07:03 via mobile · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day I am not accountable for the actions of others. If anyone chooses to participate, I’ve made it clear that we need to be reverent. Anything otherwise would he legally classified as a disruption or disturbance. If a parishioner makes a scene, then that individual should be charged, not the one peacefully attending a service in modest attire.
2 January at 16:52 · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day Creating an arbitrary rule regarding gender, when we can all acknowledge intersexed people are humans too, is illogical and prejudicial, regardless of the organization appeals to some ancient quote to back it up or not.
2 January at 16:56 · Unlike · 1
Cross Dress to Church Day Daniel, you’re the one coming here w/ your buddy telling me the value of my idea and its outcome w/o engaging ME. I had simple questions that you, the self proclaimed pastor of Christ’s fold, or Eugene could have made half-assed attempts at answering. You didn’t. Instead, all I’ve received was criticism and accusations.
2 January at 17:03 · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day If you guys really sought dialog, you’d engage instead of repeating your assumptions about me. What it seems you really seek is vindication. Read the LDS epistles and stop assuming I “haven’t found Christ” if you really care about “Truth.”
2 January at 17:06 · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day PS, a respectful dismissal is still a judgement being meted out, even if it isn’t personally held by the dismissor.
2 January at 19:22 · Edited · Unlike · 1
Eugene Fitzpatrick Well, we did engage you in dialogue; just not on the subject you were hoping to discuss- but on a more immediate topic- the point of this thread.
As Ive said ten and twenty time already, if you want to discuss truth, fine, just message me personally.
2 January at 19:53 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick And as I’ve said before, I will only have discussions with you and your friends here.
You did not engage me in dialog. You all came to tell me to knock it off without even once attempting to really try to understand what I was doing. You can pretend to redefine words, but it doesn’t change the simple reality.
At the very beginning of this thread you insisted that the whole point of religion is to teach truth. You then indicated that since this is the case, a person should just accept what they’re taught by religious leaders as truth. This was the whole basis for why you felt there was no point in me carrying out the event. As a result of your ludicrous assertions, I need to better understand what “Truth” is and how one can determine the degree to which “Truth” exists in an organization if I’m going to make a rational decision regarding the event. You refuse to cooperate and provide what should be rather clear and straightforward info, so I guess I’ll just have to stop by an Orthodox church on the 20th. After all, the Orthodox church is supposed to be the “Spring of Truth”, but you can’t answer my questions, even though you asserted your academic superiority on the matter, so off to a service I will go.
Sunday at 00:18 · Edited · Like
Erik Kulick BTW, your attetmpt at private messaging me only further convinced me of the similarities between the types of Christianity practiced by the Mormon and Orthodox churches. Trying to squish OT & NT deity together into one being is illogical. That god would be a walking, or flying, paradox.
2 January at 21:40 · Like
Erik Kulick But alas Paul and Matthew were obsessed with solidifying the Jewish link to Christianity, so we have self-contradicting “Christian” groups like the Mormon and Orthodox churches.
3 January at 01:47 · Edited · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick Little of these last three posts makes sense.
I sent you a message- ergo, that demonstrates similarities between Orthodoxy and Mormonism? I fail to see your connection.
No matter how similar or different you correctly or incorrectly compare Mormonism to anything else, two facts regarding this group remain immutable:
1) The trigger-event which inspired you to create this idea took place at a Mormon temple, and only at a Mormon temple.
2) The cross-dressing community, to which you do not belong Erik, and which is full of big grown adult men who can handle their own business, had not responded to this incident in the same manner as you.
You are well-intentioned ( at least you think you are), but you’ve been told by all different types of people with a wide variety of beliefs that your idea is terrible.
Stop trying to be some sort of moral teacher, heroically and quietly exposing hypocrisy and illogic in the world. You haven’t taken the time to study other religions. Stick to the religion you know; stick to religion where this incident took place.
3 January at 07:33 via mobile · Like
Eugene Fitzpatrick And let transvestites speak for themselves. They dont need you doing it for them.
3 January at 07:34 via mobile · Like
Erik Kulick The *content* of your message only further convinced me of the similarities between Mormonism and “Christianity”, Eugene. Yeah, your act of messaging me is what further convinced me…
1) The “trigger event” that inspired this did not take place at a Mormon temple, and even if it did, it doesn’t change the fact that Mormons aren’t the only community infected with paradoxical doctrine.
2) One of my more vocal transgendered friends was scared off by your incessant closed-minded arrogance, but that doesn’t change the fact that I love her as much as I love everyone else on this Flying Spaghetti monster forsaken planet. I am still willing to do something as benign as dressing up as a different gender and respectfully attending multiple church services in honor of all those who’ve been marginalized, oppressed, or harmed in any way by people claiming to communicate with some higher power as justification, no matter how hard you try to convince me to change my plans.
You bringing on a token atheist and hipster pastor to tell me off doesn’t constitute a group of “all different types of people with a wide variety of beliefs” telling me my idea is terrible. Even if it did, I’m not doing this to please anyone, so unless you want to at least pretend to care about “Truth” and discuss it, you’re wasting your time here.
Oh you mean like Jesus? That is why he is purported to have clung to so much of that Judaism in his teachings after all…
Have you counseled with a large segment of the transgendered community before making that determination?
Sunday at 00:38 · Like
Erik Kulick PS, it’s almost time to ask Facebook to help pick the dress! Aren’t you excited?
Sunday at 00:40 · Like
Cross Dress to Church Day https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=543853832300404&set=a.220530961299361.64933.206630642689393&type=1&theaterTimeline Photos
You see?Conceived this wayby: LGBT News
Sunday at 11:30 · Like · Remove Preview
Eugene Fitzpatrick Well, if I’ve never been made to eat my shoe before….
How many posts do I have in this thread? How many minutes spent in fervid key mashing?
And tonight… Well, I’ll just tell you:
So, I found out tonight about a certain man, who is living as a woman. He was married to a woman once; she bore him a child before dying when his daughter was 13. This man would beat his wife and child, and do other loveless acts towards them. After his wife’s death, this man began to don woman’s clothing, and eventually abandoned his daughter to pursue his life as a female. He took a woman’s name, and under NY law, recently married another man. His daughter wants no contact with him, or with the family she’s started.
And this man occasionally attends services at an Orthodox monastery near my house. In drag. In the monastery, which has even stricter regulations about gender than any regular parish church. And what’s more remarkable, he is sometimes communed, although under his baptismal name, which is male.
This is very surprising to me.
The difference here however, is that this man comes to church not to discuss the sins of of others, but simply to pray to a God he believes in. Not to discuss, not to debate, or seek a reaction; and not to just stand there as a disbeliever with nothing to do on a Sunday.
This is my last post here; I won’t be bothering to read any replies.
Lord have mercy on me a sinner.
9 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1
Frank Bonanno Way to end it. Way to end it. Althought we should bat it around till we hit an even 300. Seems sad to fall just short. How was your day you magnificent man.
9 hours ago via mobile · Like · 1
Cross Dress to Church Day Who ever Jesus was, this is why his purported advise to “judge not” is so profound. If a person has done harm to another, then society is under obligation to step in one way or another to rectify the situation. Beyond that, there is no need to criminalize behaviors or assume malicious intention toward anyone unnecessarily. I don’t need to view the man as a savior to gain value from any wisdom attributed to him.
I hope you do read the responses and reply; it would be a shame not to further benefit from this learning experience.
8 hours ago · Unlike · 1