Quote:
Originally Posted by eracer
I'm more concerned about the breakdown in morals among the religious.
Christian leaders smoking meth and having sexual affairs, all while preaching the horrors of such things, Catholic priests buggering young boys, Muslim leaders advocating violence against innocent civilians...
The need (or desire) for personal freedom should never be confused with immorality.
And when the supposedly 'moral' leaders stray so far, what does that tell young people about integrity? That 'sin' is God's great test?
Also, the thought that capitalism is somehow 'moral' is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a long, long time.
|
The victims of a "con man" are called "marks".
The victims of a "religious leader" are called "the faithful"
The only difference between a "religious leader" and a "con man" is that a "religious leader" may, I repeat MAY actually believe that the superstitious twaddle he peddles to his mark/faithful victims is the
literal truth. Although, he can never
prove that his particular brand of superstitious twaddle is in fact, true.
"You
must blindly accept what I say is the truth "on faith". And oh by the way, you need to tithe me 10% of your income because I say God insists that you do so. So pay up, sucka. "
Bah. Humbug.
A con man
knows he is peddling lies to his marks.
However, a significant percentage of "religious leaders" know full well that the superstitious twaddle they peddle is, in fact,
just superstitious twaddle.
Such "religious leaders" are in fact, "con men", are probably those who are most often caught in the act of "do as I say, not as I do".
