Quote from: Julie Marie on July 16, 2009, 03:50:36 PM

Well I have to go now.  I'm late for my reparative therapy session.

I think you waited a bit too long for that, my dear!

Quote
As far as advocating violence, anyone who incites a person or group into an emotional rage has to accept responsibility for that.  Preaching intolerance, trying to force others to change, comparing innocent acts to violent ones, and all the other falsehoods that result in people hating one another IS WRONG! And from this hatred these fear mongers stir up comes violence.

Nonsense.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving says that underage drinking, and  drinking and driving are WRONG.

Has anyone ever gone out and killed a drunk because they are doing wrong?

Gay rights organization insist that intolerance is WRONG. Has any gay or trans person ever went out and killed a Christian or Muslim because they are intolerant?

In both cases and thousands more, the answer is no.

Heck, even if you confine it to religion - Orthodox Judaism and Islam both forbid the consumption of pork? has either teaching EVER incited someone to kill a man for the bacon on his sandwich?

Likewise, Christianity and Islam says drunkenness is wrong - please point to the long and sordid history of Christians shooting up bars and crack houses.

On and on and on the examples go.

And yet...YET...we are supposed to believe that in the ONE area of sexual behavior....in that and only that one area...perfectly normal people can be incited to violence by the realization that someone around them is doing "wrong" sexually?

Heck even THAT doesn't hold water - Scripture (of all there monotheistic religions) says that adultery is wrong - feel free to point out to be the last time a religious nut attacked a swingers club with violence.

Nope. Doesn't fly. Not at all. Nutters who do nutty things are responsible for their own actions. Period.

Just because a nutter can say this sermon or that book or that song or that game or that movie made me a nutter is, IMO, utter B.S.


Now, all that said, YES conservative Christianity has it wrong when it comes to homosexuality and ->-bleeped-<-. Utterly.

They are applying cultural (i.e. man-made" ideas and calling them God's ideas and they are doing harm (unintentionally) to the well being of the folks they are ostensibly trying to help.

But they are NOT directly in indirectly or accidentally inciting violence any more than a Democrat who says the Republicans are wrong would be responsible if some nut gunned down John McCain.

---

Post Merge: July 16, 2009, 04:23:49 PM

---

Quote
For those of you who speak so well of the James Dobson's of the world, I challenge you to present in your identified gender and approach him and say, "I am transgender and proud of it."  Then let us know who that goes.

I accept.

If we are EVER within a reasonable distance of each other I will do EXACTLY that.

I've already written an e-mail to the one Christian minister I think the most of (one whom I had exchanged several e-mails with in the past) and explained to him my position and my problem with Christian theology on ->-bleeped-<-  and while he did not say "Oh, I see - you have changed my mind" he was VERY gracious and kind to me.

And this is a man who describes himself by saying "politically I'm to the right of Attila the Hun"

I am not REMOTELY afraid to talk to Dobson, or Robertson, or any other Christian leader you care to name.

If you pay for my trip, I'll leave on Monday.

Well, I don't know about you but if I stood before a crowd and got them all worked up about something then one or more of them went out and hurt someone because they took what I said and went berserk, I'd feel pretty bad and partly responsible because I wasn't more careful with my words.

Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia can get the nutsos pretty irate and anyone who doesn't know that is an idiot.  And anyone who believes gays are pedophiles is really, really stupid or severely brainwashed. You have to be responsible about the messages you send and do your best not to hurt others when trying to convey your ideas.

When someone gets up on the podium they are trying to persuade people. And those who spend a lot of time there are usually pretty good at it. They know the power of their words.  They have to accept responsibility for the impact their words have, good or bad.

Julie

Quote from: Laura Hope on July 16, 2009, 04:15:11 PM
Nonsense.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving says that underage drinking, and  drinking and driving are WRONG.

Has anyone ever gone out and killed a drunk because they are doing wrong?

Gay rights organization insist that intolerance is WRONG. Has any gay or trans person ever went out and killed a Christian or Muslim because they are intolerant?

In both cases and thousands more, the answer is no.

Heck, even if you confine it to religion - Orthodox Judaism and Islam both forbid the consumption of pork? has either teaching EVER incited someone to kill a man for the bacon on his sandwich?

Likewise, Christianity and Islam says drunkenness is wrong - please point to the long and sordid history of Christians shooting up bars and crack houses.

On and on and on the examples go.

And yet...YET...we are supposed to believe that in the ONE area of sexual behavior....in that and only that one area...perfectly normal people can be incited to violence by the realization that someone around them is doing "wrong" sexually?

Heck even THAT doesn't hold water - Scripture (of all there monotheistic religions) says that adultery is wrong - feel free to point out to be the last time a religious nut attacked a swingers club with violence.

Nope. Doesn't fly. Not at all. Nutters who do nutty things are responsible for their own actions. Period.

Just because a nutter can say this sermon or that book or that song or that game or that movie made me a nutter is, IMO, utter B.S.


Now, all that said, YES conservative Christianity has it wrong when it comes to homosexuality and ->-bleeped-<-. Utterly.

They are applying cultural (i.e. man-made" ideas and calling them God's ideas and they are doing harm (unintentionally) to the well being of the folks they are ostensibly trying to help.

But they are NOT directly in indirectly or accidentally inciting violence any more than a Democrat who says the Republicans are wrong would be responsible if some nut gunned down John McCain.

I believe what you're ignoring and that she's referring to is the incessant tirades that 1) God punishes sin by delivering the nation into tribulation. 2) Such tribulation particularly comes to a nation that was once "god-fearing" and has come to be somewhat more open to difference and acceptance of difference. 3) That one of the ways God does this is to cause such a nation to lose wars, have it's financial infrastructure collapse. 4) That the "homosexual agenda of which the transsexual/transgender agenda is part and parcel" is undermining the ability of Christians to worship freely and for pastors to condemn sin from the pulpit, possibly even to the closure of churches and a new "last-days" tribulation of Christians so that they are hounded, murdered and generally despised unto the death by that nation.

5) That babies are being slain, the children of the Republic are at-risk from the "evil pedophiles who are gay, lesbian and transsexual/transgender and need protection, whatever it takes ("wouldn't you want to protect your children from a pedophile? Your wife from a rapist?") from those heinously evil characters that push said agenda 6) That one should "take up the sword of righteousness against such behavior." 7) That the language is almost always a) apocalyptic b) fear-mongering with no basis in fact. 8 ) That where such messages are preached are also places that a) are more and more open to guns and those who use them, b) that have always relied on a certain Old Testament version of God demanding that the Amalekites or whomever be destroyed utterly, c) that almost none of those places have viable protective laws for those who are obviously different and precious little willingness among the enforcers to enforce any laws that are there when it comes to such people.

If it were a matter of simply saying "I think you are doing wrong" then perhaps your argument would have better legs on which to stand. But with many there is no stopping there. They try to inject fear and loathing into their campaigns and do so with a rather forceful message.

I am unaware that gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals and transgender people are calling for an "Army of God" to oppose those who hate us and revile us.

I'm not certain, but I'd be willing to bet that is where her post was heading. And I am also willing to bet that you are astute enough to know that and be aware that her points are pretty well-taken, no? You seem very astute and also learned in the art of forensics and rhetoric. Useful learning and you're quite good at them.

Quote from: Nichole on July 16, 2009, 04:40:16 PM
I believe what you're ignoring and that she's referring to is the incessant tirades that 1) God punishes sin by delivering the nation into tribulation. 2) Such tribulation particularly comes to a nation that was once "god-fearing" and has come to be somewhat more open to difference and acceptance of difference. 3) That one of the ways God does this is to cause such a nation to lose wars, have it's financial infrastructure collapse.

And even if this is true, it's also true of all sort of other sins which such churches also preach against including adultery, divorce, drunkenness, and even lying. - yet, I repeat, no nutters take up violence against any of THOSE sins.

Quote
4) That the "homosexual agenda of which the transsexual/transgender agenda is part and parcel" is undermining the ability of Christians to worship freely and for pastors to condemn sin from the pulpit, possibly even to the closure of churches and a new "last-days" tribulation of Christians so that they are hounded, murdered and generally despised unto the death by that nation.

And they advocate POLITICAL solutions to this "problem" - again, if John McCain says we need a political solution to the Democrats "bankrupting" America (and thus costing us all the privileges and freedoms we and out children enjoy) will he be to blame if some nutter assassinates Obama?

Quote
5) That babies are being slain,

We're not really talking about abortion which is a different kettle of fish. I can understand that if you convince someone that babies are being murdered that one in ten thousand would consider it ethical to kill the killer - just as many people would consider it ethical to kill a shooter who had broken into a kindergarten and started shooting it up.

And frankly, when you are talking about late term abortions - they might just have a point. The problem is the ethics of vigilantism.

But in any case, killing in the defense of what you precieve to be innocent life is something I could see a person being provoked to but it's not germane to the rest of this thread.

Quote
the children of the Republic are at-risk from the "evil pedophiles who are gay, lesbian and transsexual/transgender and need protection, whatever it takes ("wouldn't you want to protect your children from a pedophile? Your wife from a rapist?")

Except (a) no one says "whatever it takes" and (b) no one except the VERY extrem Phelps types says that GLBT "are pedophiles"

Quotefrom those heinously evil characters that push said agenda 6) That one should "take up the sword of righteousness against such behavior."

Which, according the the Bible, is the Word of God. Get back to me when someone kills a gay man with a sword.

Quote7) That the language is almost always a) apocalyptic b) fear-mongering with no basis in fact.

Whether or not a claim has a basis in fact is EXACTLY the point I'm trying to make here.

I'm not saying ever claim they make is factual - I'm saying we lose the high moral ground if every claim WE make isn't either.

Quote8 ) That where such messages are preached are also places that a) are more and more open to guns and those who use them, b) that have always relied on a certain Old Testament version of God demanding that the Amalekites or whomever be destroyed utterly

You ACTUALLY BELIEVE that there are American Evangelical Christians (outside Westerboro) who think that all gays should be "utterly destroyed" don't you?

How can there EVER be an understanding between two groups of people who so fundamentally don't have a proper understanding of each other? Yes, i am saying you fail to understand who these people are and what they actually think EVERY BIT as much as they fail to understand what it is to be transgendered.

Quote
c) that almost none of those places have viable protective laws for those who are obviously different and precious little willingness among the enforcers to enforce any laws that are there when it comes to such people.

If it were a matter of simply saying "I think you are doing wrong" then perhaps your argument would have better legs on which to stand. But with many there is no stopping there.

Many? I venture to say there are no more of them, as a percentage of the whole, than there are unbelievers who think that religion is a poison to mankind that should be wiped out.

Quote
They try to inject fear and loathing into their campaigns and do so with a rather forceful message.

I've been on both sides of the fence and I see EVERY BIT as much "fear and loathing" among unbelievers and particularly in the LGBT community towards Christianity as I see among Christians for the LGBT crowd.

Quote
I am unaware that gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals and transgender people are calling for an "Army of God" to oppose those who hate us and revile us.

I'm not certain, but I'd be willing to bet that is where her post was heading. And I am also willing to bet that you are astute enough to know that and be aware that her points are pretty well-taken, no? You seem very astute and also learned in the art of forensics and rhetoric. Useful learning and you're quite good at them.

Meh. I'm just entirely too pig-headed to quit lol. I did not and do not take issue with Janet's larger point - and I thought I was pretty clear in saying I was "quibbling" and isolating specific places where I thought she was supporting a good and valid position with weak arguments based on faulty information.

I'm on your/our side!

I just don't think that we'll ever GET any understanding FROM Christians unless we HAVE some understanding OF Christians. Both sides trying to magnify the villains on the other side is a road that leads to a destination none of us wants to arrive at.

still not convinced it was the wrong side

However, that does not prove it's the right side either.

i can't wait for the dobson sex scandal to come out.  please god let it be a threesome with a leather daddy and his old frat buddy.

Have to admit, Ms. Laura Hope, that that reply was one of the more confusing reads I have yet seen to one of my responses. Something about the layout just makes the eyes boggle.

Yeah, I know a bit about fundamentalist xtians in the South. I was born, raised and indoctrinated into it. Musta read the Bible half a dozen times by the age of 12 and got tested on what I read. And no, I don't think for a second that most fundamentalist xtians are out to slay gay people, to include transsexuals and transgender folk.

At least when my immediate family talks to me about having transitioned they allow that God will send me to Hell when I do die, but they evidence no desire to hasten the event themselves to help God out. Their immediate co-religionists have also not made moves to shoot me or lynch me either. In fact, I cannot think of one TS or TG in my area that has been murdered due to religious influences. They are generally slain because they are available targets: women on the streets (generally African-American and always poor, uneducated and for any number of reasons unemployed) plying their wares to the late-night cruisers who use them and then strangle, shoot, or knife them.

After sexual relations of some sort the cruisers then claim that they were frightened out of their wits and just couldn't stop stabbing, shooting or strangling until the monster was dead. At least one judge in Philly actually bought the story when faced with a man who had gunned down a sister by shooting her in the back as she fled from him. She was, no doubt a threat for simply being alive. But, no religious defense was placed forward.

But, with the possible exception of the Unibomber who managed to kill one I believe, I am having trouble recalling any incidences of Untarians, for instance, shooting up a Southern Baptist church on a Sunday morning. There may be one somewhere that failed to make the headlines though.

OTH, there are more than a few instances of crazies on the right and under the influence of right-wing, fundamentalist religious leaders doing exactly that sort of thing. Which seemed to be Julie Marie's point. And the reference to harming and killing children was to some of the wilder forecasts for what would occur if men and womenof transsexing histories were to be found to be using the bathrooms the most of us have been using for years. Not to abortion, although we could reference a few such wild and wooly slayings of "abortion doctors" by that same sort who have shot cops and Unitarians within the past year or so, couldn't we.

Should people get to know one another better and lose the fear and loathing? Why, of course. We could use a long dose of that amongst ourselves, in fact.

And the use of the "sword of righteousness" doesn't seem to require a sword when rifles and .44s are available, least in practice, no?

You use possibilities and what we see are real live events. Event that you declare are the works of lunatics, plain and simple. Perhaps, but the increase of lunatics on the fundie right in their religio-political views seems to be becoming a regular epidemic.

Tell ya what. When you decide to quote this post paragraph or sentence by sentence and reply to it. Paint my words and use the quote button to enclose the words you wish to question. Take the end quote that the system generates and place it after the first set of words you wish to reply to. That gives you all sorts of empty space to write your replies in and they don't wind up inside some longish quote box of their own.

I like your style, but don't have any desire to further pursue an argument. Like you said, we agree in a lot of areas.

I have to confess I abused my kids.  When I got my PhD I took them to the library with me.  I made them look up, find, and copy stuff that I, and only I needed for my dissertation.  Cruel.

They were very young when they figured out how to get some hotter than hot sorority girls to help them.  Shame on me.  Though it seemed to help them later on.  At the least they were not afraid of pretty girls.  Not too bad.

But they also went to college (really, universities) knowing their way around a major research library like the back of their hand.  And, they knew how to get really pretty girls to do the copy stuff for them too.  Tragic.

Damn their straight A average grades.  Stupid parents for sure.

Quote
And the use of the "sword of righteousness" doesn't seem to require a sword when rifles and .44s are available, least in practice, no?

Of course. Surely that wasn't worth pointing out when we all know I didnt think you meant someone was using a real sword. The point was -and I thought it was clear - that SINCE no one is using a literal sword it's not a huge leap to expect that indoctrinated fundies KNOW what the sword of righteousness actually is (and it ain't a .44 in anyone's view)

Even in your reply, you acknwoeldge that the VAST majority of people who suffer violence for being trans are living in a violent world where people die violently for a wide variety of reasons and further that the killings have no basis in religion and the "trans panic defense" is BS and everyone knows it.

That, IMO, further supports my position that very seldom does a trans person suffer violence because of the words of a religious leader.

Quote
Tell ya what. When you decide to quote this post paragraph or sentence by sentence and reply to it. Paint my words and use the quote button to enclose the words you wish to question.
Take the end quote that the system generates and place it after the first set of words you wish to reply to. That gives you all sorts of empty space to write your replies in and they don't wind up inside some longish quote box of their own.

I fixed that post by moving one misplaced "/" and correcting the spelling of the word "quote" in another place (double-stroked the "u") - I apologize for the confusion...but it was just a couple of typos.

I confess that my first instinct was to take offense that you would imply I don't know how to do this sort of thing.  But you followed it with a compliment so ...i'm unsure your intent in drawing me a picture so I'll assume the best.

Oh, and let me just also say that I do have great sympathy for the reaction of your loved ones (should I call them that?)

It constantly mystifies me that I see so many people describe such blatant ill-treatment at the nads of Christians. not that I don't believe it exists, I'm just amazed that the anecdotes are so pervasive. I know people like that.
The pastor who married me and my wife got judgmental that I was working in a temp job for the census and wearing shorts (as opposed to a suit and tie) that he complained to my team leader...
(who happened to be his daughter in law who happened to have only applied to the census in the first place because I made her aware of the opportunity)
...that I was dressing "indecently" and it almost got me fired (and would have if she hadn't been under pressure to meet her deadline).

When I asked him about it he was rather satisfied with himself...a man who I had considered my good friend for over 20 years. Any day now, maybe tomorrow (i'll be seeing him tomorrow for a reason that I won't get long winded about here), he will figure out or be told about my transition and he'll know doubt give me the fire & brimstone.

And I know worse fundies than him.

BUT they are the distinct minority of all the Christians I know.

I don't know if the internet is just a magnet for those who have been kicked around by Christians (so called) or whether I have just been exceedingly blessed not to have seen more of it around me. But in either case, it's not the sort of religion I was raised in and I can't wrap my head around people who read the same book I do acting like that.

Anyway, what you describe is certainly unacceptable and a stunningly poor reflection on the faith.

Of course they are loved ones. Not as well loved necessarily as my chosen family are loved. But loved they are. They just do not and will not totally accept that aspect of my life. Even though they do now refer to me in the third person as "she" not their historical "he." So, perhaps not as bad as you seem to imagine.

As for the directions, I just thought you had confused what you were trying to do. Thought I might help. Really, nothing else. Promise.

Hating xtians? No. Why bother? They, like me, live in Mother's Universe and many are surely otherwise likeable people, just a bit too set on a masculine deity who somehow managed to give birth. That's always been a puzzle to me. Even when I was a child.  

The religion itself and it's dogmas? Well, people have every right to believe as they wish, but xtianity seems to me to be the fountainhead of a lot of the problems we have in the world. TLBG being a rather minor one, imo. A sort of abhorance of body and matter being perhaps the worst. Makes it all too easy to destroy what gives life seems to me and that is very xtian. Not so much from its Jewish forebearers nor it's Muslim younger brother.

Just my opinion, but a religion that sets a particular sex over another as being inherently better and that manages to discount the value of body in comparison to soul is just trouble when it comes to human activity.   

But that's an argument I won't get into either.

I figure that will not be a point we agree on, but that's fine as well. My family and their immediate co-religionists are all good folks. They believe as they do and trust me, long before I transitioned they had already feared that my soul would be consigned to hell. O, but they do hug me and some even friend me on Facebook! It's all good. Really.

Take a look at this religious backed group specifically formed to foster fear loathing and hatred towards transgender people so as to prevent a hate crime bill in Massachusetts.  Sure they can claim that they themselves don't advocate violence but as a parent if I was convinced that someone was going to harm my child, I am not sure that I wouldn't be prone to violent action to protect her.  It is a slick system, they preach that we are essentially satan's servants and yet we are to believe that they love us.  Right.  That love extends to neglecting us until we starve to death or are murdered. Heck, if we only repented, we would be saved...

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/govt09/tran_law_study/part1.html

My computer wants a rape shower now.  It is actively trying to erase the bits from the harddrive.  Poor thing.

The claim to hate the sin, but love the sinner has never really worked because by definition there is no room for discourse.  That which the "sinner" participates in is repugnant and cannot be argued any other way.

The only comforting thought to any of this is that these cretins are numerically low in number and have very little traction with others.  It doesn't mean that they should be ignored, but that others outside our community also see them as extremists.  I doubt that we could ever completely silence their voices any more than white supremacists can ever be utterly silenced.  But they are viewed by most as anachronisms at best and hatred mongers at worst.

-Sandy

QuoteJust my opinion, but a religion that sets a particular sex over another as being inherently better and that manages to discount the value of body in comparison to soul is just trouble when it comes to human activity.   

And you don't see that as a feature of Judaism and Islam?

Quote
But that's an argument I won't get into either.

I figure that will not be a point we agree on, but that's fine as well. My family and their immediate co-religionists are all good folks. They believe as they do and trust me, long before I transitioned they had already feared that my soul would be consigned to hell. O, but they do hug me and some even friend me on Facebook! It's all good. Really.

I'm glad.
For clarity's sake, do the tell you you are going to hell specifically because you are TG, or more broadly because of your rejection of Christ as a savior?

Quote from: Sandy on July 17, 2009, 10:07:22 AM
My computer wants a rape shower now.  It is actively trying to erase the bits from the harddrive.  Poor thing.

That explains the trembling that my tower is doing.  Creatures like this are using lies and smoke screens to hide their true selves.


Janet

Quote from: Maggie Kay on July 17, 2009, 09:45:14 AM
Take a look at this religious backed group specifically formed to foster fear loathing and hatred towards transgender people so as to prevent a hate crime bill in Massachusetts.

It is logically possible to oppose hate crimes legislation and not have any issue with gays or transgenders.

I am a member of a general interest board and i know gays there who are politically conservative or libertarian and oppose the entire concept of hate crimes getting enhanced sentencing or special charges.

I know a great many there who were perfectly accepting of my status when I came out there, and who have never demonstrated ANY animosity towards gays in any sense, or any other "protected class", who simply disagree with the logic behind hate crime legislation.

Quote
  Sure they can claim that they themselves don't advocate violence but as a parent if I was convinced that someone was going to harm my child, I am not sure that I wouldn't be prone to violent action to protect her.  It is a slick system, they preach that we are essentially satan's servants

They really don't. Not the mainstream evangelicals.

Sure, there are fringe rabble rousers that show up at ANY protest and embarrass the reasonable folks. I'm sure there are folks who show up at the Pride Parade that mainstream gays are a bit embarrassed by.

But I've heard thousands of sermons in my life and never heard sinners referred to directly as "Satan's servants"

(I have heard it applied, rarely, to members of certain religions - not any of the big names - but it's very seldom an Evangelical pastor expresses a view on Wicca or whatever)

I don't know if the internet is just a magnet for those who have been kicked around by Christians (so called) or whether I have just been exceedingly blessed not to have seen more of it around me.

Oh, oh, me, me, I know the answer to that one.

In the beginning, long before it was even the net, or the WWW, back when we were using acoustic couplers and formatting everything we did in DOS, this was pretty much the sole domain of the least religious people on earth: scientists, engineers, DeadHeads, hackers, and phreaks.  One of the first public accesses was created in SF by one of the original hippies, PR person for the Human Be-In (a secular humanist event if there ever was one), and author of the Whole Earth Catalog. Matter of fact, it was even called that The WELL, or Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link.

Its not like a lot of secular humanists just showed up, we were here in the beginning.  And since the real beginning of this was so that the DoE/DoD could link computers to do calcs for nuclear weapons programs (a less Christlike occupation would be hard to find) it was pretty much devoid of religion, unless you count Grateful Dead set lists as some sort of spiritual document - Jerry is my Co-pilot stuff.

Those events were occurring at the same time as the rise of the religious right nationally (never did catch on here) and this was viewed as a means for human to human communication, a lot of which centered on increasing science and technical education and trying to stop the interjection of myth and superstition in its place in public schools by people who weren't even sending their kids to public schools anyway.

Back when I was involved in an 8 year fight over the teaching of myth and superstition in science classes at my kids school I'm sure the opposition was using the bulletin board at church, and we were using the bulletin board on the web courtesy of our local university of science and technology where most of us were employed.

It's not that its a magnet for us, its that it was invented by people like us in the first place. 

Quote from: Laura Hope on July 17, 2009, 10:23:46 AM
It is logically possible to oppose hate crimes legislation and not have any issue with gays or transgenders.

Did you read the stuff on the web page? They are referenced by other religious groups as a leader in the fight against us.  They have gone national to promote lots more than just opposition to hate crime legislation.

Honestly, I have been on their side a decade ago and I would have been one of the standard bearers. I understand them. They cannot come out and say what they really think but I have been in their midst and I can tell you that the fear that they have is palpable. 

As for mainstream religious leaders not inciting hatred against LBGT people, consider their comments that gays are the reason God sent Hurricane Katrina or that 9/11 happened as a punishment for the nation's pro LBGT policies.  This is the linkage that God will kill people over LBGT tolerance.  Now, how much of a mental leap does it take to the next step and have the saint's do it in his name?