fakeitormakeit2

Ah the good old days... I remember I got lost on my way to Varrock because my friend said me to meet him there and I got lost and ended up in Falador. In my endeavor, a rich player was giving lower level players stuff (I believe I was lv5) he gave me Mithril armor. I was so excited as it was so expensive I couldn't even wear it. I eventually found my way to Varrock and my friend traded me priestly robes, a wizard hat, gloves, boots and a super expensive air staff for the Mithril armor. I thought my mage outfit was so cool. I forget why I was on my way to Falador but I sold my air staff for 2k and I thought I was really rich. I saw my friend's account and it had 186k! More then I ever dreamed to have. he gave me 46k! Then I got killed at the Dark Wizards and I was pissed. The End hahaha. I look back to think 10k was a lot to me, now its like I withdraw money from my bank in mils.

I read watched something interesting on a completely laissez faire scenario, where even the fire fighters were privately owned and someone's house was on fire and they refused to put it out because they hadn't payed their bill hahaha.

What is your thought on the role of a government in regards to its populace? Should it be propping them up with welfare money when the economy is bad or acting more laissez faire? Should they be investing in long term improvements or immediate aid? Are the social programs such as social security, health care, welfare, etc. right or not to have? Should even some of the more conventional service such as police and firefighters be provided by the state? How much should a person's rights be regulated by the government? How true is the title of this thread? Discuss, but remember to remain decent.

If I put "mahjarrati" or "mahjarrat" to Google I only get RuneScape specific results. Is there any confirmation of mahjarrat(i) being an Arabic word? The Mahjarrat are probably based on Dungeons&Dragons "lich" archetype (usually skeletal looking dark mages who have moved their souls to objects), but this is purely speculation. The lich archetype is based on the Russian myth of Koschei the Deathless (who had his soul in a needle) and other similar myths. Interestingly, it has been speculated that the Koschei of RuneScape Fremennik quests is really Kharshai the Mahjarrat. A quote about the Mahjarrat from the quest Temple of Ikov: Glouphrie the Untrusted is based on Dungeons&Dragons gnome illusionist archetype. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnome_%28Dungeons_&_Dragons%29 Yes, mahjarrat (spelt محجرت or mh7jr't) is an arabic word which means someone who is empty in an abandoned sense. I speak Standard Arabic, it is indeed a word. You only get Runescape result because you're searching it in English. Just to prove it I got non-Runescape results when I searched it. If you want to try set your keyboard to arabic and then type L(mim)P(ha)O(gim)V(ra+shaddah)J(ta)

@Romy's pic A good majority of all the pretty girls I've know are usually really stupid, but you're pretty pretty and intelligent, just like my "rival" since like 3rd grade who's always trying to outdo me who's this girl who's attractive and smart... Knowledge isn't for pretty women, get back in the kitchen. Just kidding....maybe.

..and much more, at this link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm It wasn't hell I was denying. It was that you could find a verse that says even if you're a perfectly good atheist you will burn in hell [in the Bible]. I find a particular problem with what you quoted above as well as Limbo was never an official RC teaching, clarified by its official renunciation by Pope Benedict XVI. Where you cited from may be called Catholic Encyclopedia but it is little less then heretical. And you're commentary on holy books is true they are ancient and sadly many tend to mistranslate them, that's why I have studied to read the Bible in Aramaic and Old Greek [with the occasional help of a dictionary] but not Hebrew. It is not the book itself that is vague but the translation as many things are originally written with specific words (a well known example is love as opposed to agape, philia and eros) as well as a poor contextual understanding (i.e. in Isaiah, he predicts the king will have a child with a virgin, a pregnant virgin being a young lady who gives birth not a woman with her virginity who conceives through parthenogenesis).

@qeltar I haven't had he chance to respond to your last post. Your statement of if I wanted to hear you start quoting verses? Yes. Why do I say yes? Because the modern concept of hell was post-cannon, for instance you won't find the seven deadly sins listed together or the circles of hell or the princes of hell. You'll probably find some reference to Sheol in the OT and think its hell and quote that. It's very easy to quote something out of context and it seems to suit an argument. That is why I don't like when people quote the Bible to disprove when they pick from different sources, different books and only sections of an idea and are like look, they contradict, or look it says X.

Actually what you mentioned such as the nose piercing being your choice only pertains to you. You obtaining the nose piercing and wearing it does not hurt anyone else. And plus the argument "it's my body I can do what I want with it" isn't fully valid either because if one were allowed to do what only effected them, then why is it illegal to attempt do certain drugs, attempt suicide, etc. Now for the part were you can't pierce someone else's nose without their consent, you don't have the consent of the would-be child to abort it. It is sad that we treat our offspring like mere possessions. And to 1230abcz I am going to refrain from wholly responding to your response. You spoke with decency until, you know, (1) you accused me of being pompous, when having wisdom of a subject would unquestionably be an advantage to find a solution (philosophy is relevant to all subjects so it wasn't a random allusion, Oprah lived in poverty therefore she had wisdom of poverty therefore she whole-heatedly tries to prevent it), then (2) you mark my commentary as irrelevant, the part were I spoke of genocide I was saying just like Oprah knew poverty and worked against it, someone who knows genocide first hand would work to prevent one, (3) On the last three responses or so you lose all decency and make snide, pompous, condescending remarks. For instance were the "WTF", "Here I'll do it for your" and "you must have a hatred of paragraphs" quite necessary? You're own audacity taints your personal credibility.

My pish posh Hitler comment was all in good humor yet was still relevant as if reason defines a "full" person then mentally handicap people would never be people, and as everyone knows a large practitioner of the implementing of Social Darwinism was Adolf Hitler. I meant when I was speaking about my choice, why the law would restrict my ability to make such a choice when clearly it would just be an extension of the same mindset. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law I personally support abortion, mainly because I do (somewhat surprisingly, I might add). I don't see there being any one-sided discussion for or against abortion just because it's just one of those things that has no one side. I like to think of abortion on a purely economical perspective. About 15 years or so after Roe vs. Wade, the crime rates all over the US plummeted, even though rates were sky rocketing before the verdict passed. There're literally no other ways to account for the drop in crime other than attributing it to the legalization of abortion. One would assume that, after legalizing abortion, all those aborted babies that wouldn't have been aborted probably would've went into a life of crime, which makes perfect sense. Abortion isn't a light topic, and people don't just go about killing off random babies for fun (heh... dead baby jokes...), so it's almost always done in very rare circumstances, a few being that the mother is probably single, poor, or unable to fend for her child. I'd assume that everyone here can imagine what would happen to the baby in these circumstances. A life of crime isn't a big logical step, and having a tormented childhood also probably doesn't help with growing up in society as a stable adult. Considering this, I'd say it's entirely ethical to legalize abortion. Even though the initial act of killing a fetus might be "overwhelming" to say the least, I don't see how it's any less ethical to give birth to a child that will only end up going into a life of crime. Of course, life is important, and, given the choice, I'd choose a life of crime over no life any day, but that's where the big picture comes in. I certainly don't want go about everyday knowing that the crime rate will only up as the population increases in size and more babies are born into the streets, and I doubt anyone else would, either. If anything, I support abortion just so that there's less crime in the world. Also, increasing sex-ed wont do [cabbage]. Teenagers are more likely to follow a trend if it's outlawed (go read a study or something), and something as fun as sex isn't going to go away if kids are taught that doing it will make bad things happen. Humans are instinctively prone to have sex all the damn time, and that's not going to stop. Forcing kids to stay celibate until they're married is a fool's folly, and safe sex doesn't work all the time, either. Godwin's Law is true, but my Hitler reference was directly logically linked so it wasn't irrelevant like some people who link anything perceived as "bad" to Hitler therefore Godwin's Law is irrelevant to my reference as it was not irrelevant. I have been accused of being an elitist and someone who seeks to preserve the wealth for the wealthy, but such generalization that a poor person would logically go to a life of crime is so... I can't even articulate it, it is discrediting all the honest poor men and women who struggle to get by. And ironically, Sotomayor is the exact opposite of your generalization, she went from being poor to a Supreme Court Justice, the ultimate court in our country. And for someone like Oprah who raises out of poverty in turn attempts to help others out of poverty. Abortion effectively eliminates people who could have come out of hardship with the understanding of hardship to eliminate hardship. Wisdom is through experience, not a tome. It is different to read about a genocide then to have been directly effected, for example, by the Armenian genocide. One who was effected would have more zeal to eliminate any future repetitions of this genocide, therefore there would be a safeguard against it as opposed to getting ride of poor people so that there are people less incline to understanding poverty and the problem continues. And the parallel of the legalization of abortion to crime rate decreasing could be coincidental, if you ever take a sociology on the 20th century, you will learn that there were a lot of changes in the 70s and that era, which could easily account for the decrease in crime rate. I do find Sex Ed to be rather useless, I will agree with you on that. That however doesn't justify abortion as a means to eliminate an "inconvenience".

If it is solely the woman's choice and opinion, if the ability to reason constitutes a person and woman has the choice to eliminate a human being [or what is growing into what will be a human being, but nonetheless still living] then with those three items used, a mother should be able to kill her child. Because a baby cannot act fully for itself and is without reason [as magekillr said it does not mean they are persons] and is disposable then the same would go for someone mentally impeded. That would then lead to justified euthanasia as one could say, hey its not that bad as we're limiting the population, plus its the person's choice who ever this "thing"(I refrained from saying person purposely) is dependent on. That is a Nazi-esque mindset. And once something begins to grow, is it not living? I have not heard of rocks that grow or carpets that grow. And the difference between being in the womb and outside of it while being birthed is the difference of magma and lava, substantially the same, but their relativity to the earth is different. And a joke is a joke, although an extension of the "disposablity" of subpersons mindset is rather Hitler like. It was a rather distasteful joke now that I reflect on it, but nonetheless I meant it with no malice. I'm surprised though, the current mindset is so post-modernist and "there is no universal set of evil and good" mindset that the mention of Hitler invokes anything other then the opinion of it was his own choice to kill and if he believed he was right, then he was right. I'm not saying that to anyone specific, it's just what I've come to expect nowadays.

My pish posh Hitler comment was all in good humor yet was still relevant as if reason defines a "full" person then mentally handicap people would never be people, and as everyone knows a large practitioner of the implementing of Social Darwinism was Adolf Hitler. I meant when I was speaking about my choice, why the law would restrict my ability to make such a choice when clearly it would just be an extension of the same mindset.

I remember I needed help with like... Dragon Slayer I think it was. This was when I was new to online games so I had no clue there were such communities. Then my friend who had introduced me to Runescape showed me the magical Tip.It and I've loved it ever since and I never use any other RS help sites... ok well maybe I've cheated on Tip.It a couple times with Zybez and RHQ but only a few times.

I missed this. Does that mean the law is right? Do unborn fetuses get counted in a census? Does your birthday start at conception? That's a foolish argument to make. I am not a woman, but I also don't try and take her rights away. My opinion doesn't matter when she makes her choice; it should be ALL HER choice and opinion. My opinion on the matter, just like yours, is ultimately moot. No, you cannot, as fully born babies are given the rights of persons. This doesn't mean they are persons, however, they have the rights of a person. So when do you truly become a person? At the age of reason? What if one is mentally [developmentally delayed]ed, then one is never a person? Thank you Adolf. An impractical of counting fetuses in the census would be that 1) there is a possibility of miscarriage, 2) you cannot determine an exact conception date. Hypothetically if I was a mother and I decided my child was too much to bear financially, then why can't I kill it before its age of reason? It's my choice, my opinion and my life. My child is holding me back.

Birth control, such as a condom, wouldn't be murderous like abortion at least because a zygote has not started to form and develop. Since there is no organism present and growing it wouldn't be the selection of who lives and who dies. But immediately at conception you start the formation of an organism which you cannot choose to abort it unless it has a direct and large chance of killing its mother as well as dying, because with that mindset for limited resources then we should start euthanizing the fatally sick and old people as well as those who consume resources but do not provide for society, which is just ridiculous. But in such a society, when using birth control, you certainly aren't choosing who lives and who dies. What you're doing is choosing who lives. Not necessarily. There is a chance that a child is not even created if you have sex (not to mention abortion targets one already growing organism while birth control methods other then "flush pills" target un-united key and lock mechanisms to initiate the possible formation of an organism in which only one of millions of sperm will be picked if successful). Planned Parenthood is an example of family planning which does not use a physical contraceptive and does not pick who lives and dies. It is geared towards reproduction but there is a low chance of the formation of a zygote.

Birth control, such as a condom, wouldn't be murderous like abortion at least because a zygote has not started to form and develop. Since there is no organism present and growing it wouldn't be the selection of who lives and who dies. But immediately at conception you start the formation of an organism which you should not choose to abort it unless it has a direct and large chance of killing its mother as well as dying, otherwise we are hypocritical as our right to life would only be a "sometimes right". With that mindset and with the demand for limited resources in mind then we should start euthanizing the fatally sick and old people as well as those who consume resources but do not provide for society, which is just ridiculous. Necessity is the mother of invention, and we will find our ways out of situations, so eliminating people with the possible solution only slows down our political and social evolution.

we have more than enough functioning humans :/ True. Who are you to choose who can live and who can't live? I believe the right to life is an inalienable right, seeing as how I'm sure you're all aware of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It is not only listed amongst the three things that is part of the most well known document of US history but it is the first. Furthermore US law is very inconsistent, because if you were to abort a child because you wanted to it is a medical procedure. If a driver were to hit a pregnant woman and kill both her and her child that would be two counts of manslaughter. Consistency would be nice, is it a human life or not? As I've said in another thread, let war and disease trim down the excess populace, not our own choosing, against our own set of code. And for the argument that the poor will have horrible lives, I scoff your generalizations. Oprah Winfrey, Sotomayor (although I do not like her, I must admit, she is well accomplished), Mozart, Vivaldi, Vincent Van Gogh, Ella Fitzgerald, Abraham Lincoln, Rosa Parks, Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman to name a few of the poor who strove to be great, and their names are now household words.And for those who say adopted kids lives are horrible think about Babe Ruth, Steve Jobs, John Hancock and John Lennon.

Yeah, so the woman should be allowed to kill a fetus who could otherwise be able to survive outside the woman's body for no good reason? I agree if its because she was raped or something, but most people who have abortions weren't. You do know that sometimes the babies survive, or they simply die slowly and painfully outside the mother. Besides- who are you to say a child would be completely unhappy because he's put for adoption and not adopted? Even if that would be the case, but that's not a reason for him to be killed. :thumbup:

Not always. Polliveach is a example of that, all of them are called Ali. This could also be a reference to the fact that, in the real-life Middle East (which the area is based after) 75% of the population has the same few first names. Sadly this is true. Your middle name is always your dad's first name and then your first name is usually like mohammad, ali, bachir, mikhail/michael or george, it has to do with lineage.

Uh, wrong. Sorry. The church was complicit in covering up and whitewashing the entire affair. The cardinal responsible for oversight of the priests at the center of the controversy was never punished. After years of stonewalling he finally gave a limp apology and resigned as archbishop, but retained his rank and then was given a plum job at the Vatican. That's how the Catholic church handles things, and that's why they don't have my respect. It appears so because it is so. We're talking about a church with countless billions of dollars of assets that continues to maintain policies specifically designed to keep the poor impoverished forever. A church with myriad rules and regulations that it invented of whole cloth simply for its own purposes, regardless of their negative impacts (celibacy for priests being one obvious example). A church that allies itself with governments based on expediency. Uh.. hundreds of years of senseles violence, oppression, anti-Semitism, forced conversions, suppression of science and murder. Yes.. 350 years after he died! Very impressive. :) The apologies are nice, but meaningless. Regardless, the point stands. And worse, the church still today stands against science and against important technological advancements. Maybe in 350 years we'll get apologies for those too? I have to wonder how much information you get about your religion from sources other than your instructors. Every single source I have found indicates quite clearly the Catholic belief that hell exists and that non-believers go there. They are more credible than someone who is trying to prop up the church. I find it quite funny how you circumnavigated answering things that hurt your argument such as how we do countless and constant charity specifically aimed at the poor. And if you were to say it is propaganda, then I would be a board member of the propaganda league without even knowing it, and with good intent too. Where do you read? I am not only taught by bishops, priests and theologians. I also take my own time to read the Bible, the catechism, I've read many of the Vatican II documents and I have discussion with laity. Bleak history? You seem to describe only the Latin rite of the Catholics and you omit the other 21 or so rites in communion with the Pope. For instance, the rite I'm from which has been in communion with the Pope for ever consisted of intellects who barricaded themselves in the mountains and deserts who had priests without celibacy and continue to, which would go against your idea that we have faux-regulations to cast a shadow of some sort of guise of holiness. By the way, a lot of the things I understand about my faith is personal insight of it which when I have discussion with my "instructors" as you called them, they find it interesting that I'm not heretical but I have a very unique spin on the understanding of things. Its also very easy to criticize the Catholic Church in the time period were the Italian government as well as most European governments did the same thing, and yet they are not proclaimed evil nations. It was of contemporary thought. Yes they did wrong things, no all Catholics were not involved, and you make it seem like we're focused around money. Tell me, then why do I spend many hours a day organizing other people to help the poor? How does that make me money? How does the Church today still impede science? If the Church morally objects to murdering unborn infants, that is wrong? I will not get into the morality of abortion or anything but how is the gauging of what is moral wrongful impeding of science? Would it have been wrong to stop Hitler's scientists from bleaching babies and practicing other experiments on people because it was for the good of science? Can we truly live if we sell our soul to advance science...for what? Is not the pursuit of science for our own growth? Then should we not contemplate our effects on others by the pursuit of our own interests? And you so "logically" defame the Catholic Church and yet you lack scientific proof and stats for your claim of molestation. I like your generalizations though. Yes, you found me out. I don't believe in a god at all, my involvement in the Church is solely for the acquisition of wealth from the poor and our mob boss is the pope. His regional bosses are bishops, who also run children prostitution rings and every so often we get busted. But luckily our boss, "il Papa" is so rich that he pays off the police and makes it look like it was an isolated molestation. The Catholic Church also controls every third world country, as well as Italy and the former USSR. See, the schism was just a ploy we had 900yrs ago. The eastern patriarchs are actually just associate mob bosses with Il Papa boss. I'm so glad you also didn't find out about how the Catholic Church was behind the black plague, the communists, the fascists, all terrorist attacks and Nancy Pelosi. The terrorists are just illusions as are everything else I named, we pay lots of money to set these things up, but the profit pays off.

Not sure why you are assuming I am a Protestant, but I'm not. I don't really care about Catholic doctrine; it's sillier than some belief sets, less silly than others, but that doesn't really matter. I have a poor opinion of the Catholic Church because everything I have seen of its behavior suggests that it is an organization that is mainly concerned with maintaining its own power, wealth and prestige over all else. In this it is similar to most other large organizations or governments. I also take a dim view of some of the church's policies. I spent the 1990s living in the Boston area and was rather disappointed at seeing how the Cardinal Law scandal was "managed". Finally, the church's history is rather bleak. That said, I do think it has finally taken some steps forward to more enlightened thinking, though it has a long way to go. Yes, and don't forget Gregor Mendel. But these are a tiny handful of exceptions. Overall, when it comes to the suppression of knowledge, science and technological advancement to improve people's lives, there has been no group more responsible over the last 2,000 years than the Catholic Church. I'm sure you're familiar with the story of Galileo, among *many* others. According to what I've read, Catholics do believe that atheists will burn in hell. 1. I am not assuming you are a Protestant. I was stating if you heard negative comments from other Christians, it would most likely be from a Protestant. The whole scandals were terrible and they were dealt with and there's only so much you can do, especially after you've had to pay compensation to all these people. The priests were wrong, yes, but they were not supported and they were reprimanded and many removed for their actions so its not like they were supported by us. Furthermore, the Catholic Church does not look to control anything. It may appear so, but it does not. It has many followers, yes, and so it may appear so. The Church has a set of ideologies, if a follower believes and supports these, economic, social and political decisions will be in tune with what they believe in because you cannot separate a moral that corresponds with religious morals from your secular morals, you'd have to be able to have different persons. I'll have you know, I am a person who frequents Catholic events and we form different charitable and social justice committees, last month we put on a benefit concert for Haiti, this month we're collecting toiletries for a homeless shelter, so I don't see how that has to do with the retention of wealth or power seeing as how those use funds and energy to actually conduct. I don't know why people think Catholics are like what Hitler saw the Jews as. We do not secretly control everything. I was having a conversation about politics and somehow my friend and I got on the topic of JFK. I brought up a caricature I saw once of JFK in the White House on a throne and the Pope was standing next to him whispering in his ear. Really now, is that necessary? I'm pretty sure he never even met the Pope. I'm not quite sure when you say the history is bleak. And there may be Catholics who do bad things, sure. I don't know why people use that as an attack and I find it rather comical seeing as how everyone is flawed and in every religion, race, political party or any group there will always be bad people. 2. The Catholic Church in whatever they have blocked scientific advancement, as in Galileo, was wrong yes. You know about the fault but I'm pretty sure you didn't know that an issue of apology was declared by a later pope. In fact, Pope John Paul II had all the Church's mistakes compiled in a list and he read them out and apologized on behalf of who ever did what. Now I don't know what you've learned about Catholics, but no we are not like the Amish, we use technology. 3. And whatever you read was just wrong. period. I don't need my beliefs and the policy of the Church which I have studied extensively to be told me by someone else.

Ugh, you're lucky. I've gone from like 75-88 in Pyramid Plunder, I'm still to get a Pharaoh's Scepter...

Just for the record I really don't care about this bill at all, but I'm wondering if there is a correlation between the doctors that are coming here, as you say, for innovation in heart disease, cancer, etc. and the doctors this bill will affect. It seems to me that the most affected doctors would be surgeons, physicians, nurses, etc. i.e. the ones you find in normal hospitals across the country. I find it hard to believe that doctors who immigrate to work in the most cutting edge facilities on complex diseases will be seeing any of the new 30 million or so people that will be covered by this bill. I just don't see the correlation because most doctors I have seen throughout my lifetime (albeit 20 years is not a 'lifetime') are pharmaceutical lapdogs and none of them are cutting edge researchers. I believe most Americans see those type of doctors as well. 1. To dispel the misconception that doctors are so overly payed is indeed false. The majority of any profit made by a doctor goes to malpractice insurance because in America you sue if you drop hot coffee on yourself, 2. Which leads me to my next point. Even if you reform an entire system, it effects all related systems, therefore to pass something like health care effectively would require the updating of many many institutions, which won't happen especially because this bill was rushed to the extent were it makes provisions for certain laws but the actual substance of the laws are not even written yet. 3. People think doctors turn these people who can't afford insurance away? Bull crap. When my dad was chairman of St. Joseph Hospital he raised the required amount of free service provided by physicians to people who cannot afford medical service. Many [Catholic] hospitals require that physicians who practice there give free service to those who cannot afford it for nonessential things, and people who enter the ER like dying cannot be rejected to begin with. 4. And just because you tell your doctor to give you antibiotics when you have a virus and they say no and instead try to give you something that will actually work doesn't mean they're "pharmaceutical lapdogs". In fact there was a law passed last year, I'm not sure if it was in NJ or the entire US, that you're unable to receive gifts from drug companies over the price of like, $5. 5. As for the doctors who came here from foreign countries because of new developments, etc. my dad came from Italy, the Gemalli University ( which is pretty decent seeing as how its the hospital that the pope goes to) and lead the initiative of the modern-"clean" feeding tubes (a new thing at the time). He chooses to see people from a city so poor that it is a 50% reduced tax zone. So yes, immigrant doctors who come because of new methods will be effected by the bill. 6. Lastly insurance companies find ways to delay their payments before, now it will be even worse and co-pays will be higher, so for the people who could afford it before, it hurts more.

But their references are highly intelligent, I don't know if these were coincidences but they even reference Standard Arabic (the scholar language) and lore with things such as the Mahjarrati. I mean they even got the adjectival form correct! These people do their research.

This is very true. Plus I was waiting around in my dad's office and I was a laboratory report sheet. There are different results dependent upon the race of the person whose blood, tissue, etc. was tested.

Yes, for a religion that claims to be the One Real Truth, you guys seem to have an awful lot of trouble agreeing on anything. How many thousands of sects, versions and cults do you folks have at this point? ;) I wasn't speaking specifically of the RC church, but that was a nice collection of straw men there! The RCC has its own collection of serious problems, which I don't really want to get into. Most folks already know what they are. The RCC is an interesting curiosity for me, though, largely for its creativity in being dissatisfied with the standard Christian mythology and layering an entire additional set of beliefs on top of it. BTW, I've heard far more derogatory comments about Catholics from other Christians than from atheists... You've probably heard poorly of Catholics because 1 They & Eastern Orthodoxy were the Churches that everyone fractured from so obviously you'll have resentment against those whose mindsets you oppose, 2 Many detest our hierarchical system. By the way, the Catholic Church was not "dissatisfied with the standard Christian mythology" rather Protestants protested many of the Catholic institutions. I did not say the Catholic Church is without fault, it is flawed like all other human institutions, but we don't do what you claim. I also see Catholics as some of the most open minded, tolerant and logic oriented Christians. I particularly find it funny when people have the misconception that Catholics are anti-science when it was a Catholic priest, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, who invented the Big Bang Theory and Pope John Paul II gave like 5 addresses on how science and faith are complimentary and not conflicting. And as a part of Catholic tolerance, we don't say non-believers will burn in hell like some of the absurd sects. Everyone is entitled to their own creed, and as long as they maintain a good life, their religion or lack therefore should not be questioned. Although I do get annoyed by arrogant atheists who scoff at theists (and vice versa). As for the pledge of allegiance, I'm against the entire thing as I find it so foolish that every morning I am subject to swear my loyalty to America. More so, claimed 'under God' and last I checked this is no theocracy and I find it rather inappropriate even though I do swear my allegiance to my God.