Running an established religion is also very profitable. At that point it is only a matter of picking out potential franchisees with earning potential.
As organised religion is nothing but that; a franchise. You get given the rights to market the product in a given district. You have to expand your customer base to maximise profit, and at the same time make sure that other 'Franchisees for Jesus' lose their market appeal. At the end of the month, you send a cut of the take to corporate headquarters and keep enough to reward you and keep the operation going.
If you lose customers or meddle with the franchise's product mix you are in big fucking trouble. Over history we have seen that organised religions carry out 'crusades' or 'jihad' against anyone foolish enough to insist that.. say... their religion abandons accumulating wealth and influence and tries out some of the core beliefs that their founder wanted.
So apparently the DPS guy who testified at the hearing yesterday addressed this. "We got an officer whose wife called him and said she'd been shot and she's dying," McCraw said. "He tried to move forward into the hallway. He was detained, and they took his gun away from him and escorted him off the scene." https://www.khou.com/articl...
Imagine being the kind of shining human being who advocates for your abuser's release from prison because he was imprisoned for bullshit political crimes and then having Franklin Fucking Graham accuse you of cheating.
But I'm not the one who said he "probably changed". You did. Your position is that he was a good guy and then after he became successful, he "probably changed". You're the one who diverted to a new position with no evidence.
People in general probably are, but a lot are very concerned about abortion and women's rights in general. Inflation will eventually go down. Loss of rights could be with us for a very long time.
Running an established religion is also very profitable. At that point it is only a matter of picking out potential franchisees with earning potential.
As organised religion is nothing but that; a franchise. You get given the rights to market the product in a given district. You have to expand your customer base to maximise profit, and at the same time make sure that other 'Franchisees for Jesus' lose their market appeal. At the end of the month, you send a cut of the take to corporate headquarters and keep enough to reward you and keep the operation going.
If you lose customers or meddle with the franchise's product mix you are in big fucking trouble. Over history we have seen that organised religions carry out 'crusades' or 'jihad' against anyone foolish enough to insist that.. say... their religion abandons accumulating wealth and influence and tries out some of the core beliefs that their founder wanted.
Religion corrupts; absolute religion corrupts absolutely.
Billy Graham's taped conversations with President Richard Nixon prove that both of them were anti-Semitic.
My dad used to say, "You can always put on more clothes if you're cold, but you can only take so many off before they throw you in the funny farm."
As I said before, Graham apologized for that and was horrified that he ever said it.
Normalizing the life I grew up with. It was hell and I still have nightmares from it. This type of shit has been going on for far too long.
Sounds like good reading.
So apparently the DPS guy who testified at the hearing yesterday addressed this. "We got an officer whose wife called him and said she'd been shot and she's dying," McCraw said. "He tried to move forward into the hallway. He was detained, and they took his gun away from him and escorted him off the scene." https://www.khou.com/articl...
I can't agree with you. Well said!
Imagine being the kind of shining human being who advocates for your abuser's release from prison because he was imprisoned for bullshit political crimes and then having Franklin Fucking Graham accuse you of cheating.
"A Study in Scarlet" is fiction, so I don't see how Doyle could get the facts wrong.
His father was better than Franklin is, but he had a bad side.
Any patriarchal/fundamentalist religion, really.
Maybe.
But I'm not the one who said he "probably changed". You did. Your position is that he was a good guy and then after he became successful, he "probably changed". You're the one who diverted to a new position with no evidence.
People in general probably are, but a lot are very concerned about abortion and women's rights in general. Inflation will eventually go down. Loss of rights could be with us for a very long time.
Why?