Good news: Urged by their youth, faith groups flocked to the March for Our Lives

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

Come Saturday morning, Catterall and her friends joined a broad swath of faith groups from across the religious spectrum who participated in the Washington protest, each making the religious case for ending gun violence — often at the urging of their youth.

To read more:

https://www.religionnews.com/2018/03/24/urged-by-their-youth-faith-groups-flock-to-the-march-for-our-lives/

[guillaumeb]

2. This was a protest by children.

Do you doubt their sincerity?

[Act_of_Reparation]

6. Do you have difficulty reading?

Or are you deliberately twisting Cartoonist's words?

[guillaumeb]

36. See #10

Are you calling Cartoonist's #10 a lie?

[trotsky]

8. That's a dishonest and hateful smear.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Key words: SHOULD BE.

[Cartoonist]

10. I repent

No sarcasm. I was mean.

[trotsky]

12. No, you made a valid point.

gil attacked a straw man position that your post did not even imply. It is he who should be ashamed.

[guillaumeb]

13. Right!!

[guillaumeb]

18. #10 disproves your defense.

Sorry.

[trotsky]

20. Nope, it doesn't.

He misunderstood, and your attack is still shameful. The atheist definitely showed better behavior than the Christian on this thread.

Delete your attack post and I'll reconsider.

[guillaumeb]

23. So you are calling Cartoonist a liar?

Cartoonist admitted to being sarcastic and mean. Accept that you were in error and move on.

[trotsky]

25. Nope.

I read his original post and disagree.

Regardless, he chose to be a better person than you and delete what you took offense to.

The very LEAST you could do is delete your attack in response. The LEAST.

Will you? Prove you're a better person than you let on. Delete your attack.

[guillaumeb]

27. Misframing on your part,

and now you are insisting that you know better than the original poster what that poster meant. Interesting.

[trotsky]

29. I see that you refuse to be a better person, and delete your response.

Interesting indeed. So "Christian" of you.

[guillaumeb]

30. And you refuse to admit that Cartoonist knew what was the intent of Cartoonist's own post.

That is beyond interesting. Are you claiming the power to read minds?

[trotsky]

32. I already told you. I'll tell you once more.

I read his original post, and I disagree with his assessment to self-delete.

But I stand my the assertion that if he was noble enough to delete his post, then you should too.

The fact that you steadfastly refuse to behave as nicely as Cartoonist did is all the proof anyone needs of your true motives here.

[guillaumeb]

34. Do you agree that Cartoonist's intent was to be sarcastic and mean?

And if you do, was it not more conducive to dialogue on Cartoonist's part to delete the post?

[trotsky]

35. Delete YOUR post and we can talk further.

If you refuse, then I refuse to give you any more responses on this topic.

Your move, gil. Show that you can become a better person. Demonstrate you are capable of the dialog you claim to want. I bet you can't though, and you'll reply to this with yet another attempt to make this about me.

[guillaumeb]

37. You are demonstrating something.

And that is all that needs to be said about this behavior.

[trotsky]

39. We agree. I have successfully demonstrated something.

I will allow anyone reading this thread to decide for themselves what that was. You had a chance to stand up and be accountable, to raise the level of dialog. You refused. Such behavior is noted.

[guillaumeb]

42. And I will say that you are consistent.

Congratulations.

[trotsky]

43. Consistently exposing your behavior, yep I am.

Happy to!

[guillaumeb]

17. We are all mean and sarcastic at times.

Even me.

[trotsky]

40. Then delete your mean and sarcastic post.

It's the very least you could do.

[guillaumeb]

44. It was neither.

And if you think it is, that is your affair. But Cartoonist and I disagree with you on this. Which makes your points somewhat confusing.

[trotsky]

45. Don't you dare presume to speak for Cartoonist.

Don't you fucking dare. You have some fucking nerve.

[guillaumeb]

55. See #10.

Cartoonist's own words. Written for all to see. Speaking of nerve..........

[Cartoonist]

65. My retraction in #10

After giving it some thought, I realized I was in a grumpy mood when I posted. I salute all who participated in the march, even theists.

I was not responding to G or anyone else when I deleted my post.

[guillaumeb]

66. I understand, and still I congratulate you on your move.

I join you in saluting all who marched. Our church group marched in Chicago, but we did not identify as a church group. We marched (our group) as people uniting against a culture of violence and in support of our children.

[MineralMan]

47. There is only one person in this thread whose sincerity I doubt.

Just one.

[yallerdawg]

3. ?

Faith groups are hardly newcomers to the gun control debate. In addition to longstanding activism on the local level, religious leaders emerged as prominent voices pushing for gun control legislation in the aftermath of the December 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in which a gunman fatally shot 20 children and six adults. At the time, then-dean of the Washington National Cathedral the Very Rev. Gary Hall proclaimed from the pulpit that “the gun lobby is no match for the cross lobby.”

In addition to prayers from Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and other faith leaders, the liturgy included short reflections from those touched by recent tragedies, such as a pastor who lost her mother in the 2015 Charleston church shooting that resulted in the deaths of nine black churchgoers.

?

[LiberalLovinLug]

33. The problem is the MSM's love of celebrity

And their adoration of power and money as the means to decide who speaks for religious leadership in the country. The quiet Conservative Christian I suspect does not grovel at the feet of such a ville man and fake Christian. At least a lot of them are not amused.

[Historic NY]

7. Pope Francis: After U.S. Gun Control Marches, Church Leader Wants Youth to Keep Shouting

[link:http://www.newsweek.com/pope-francis-after-march-our-lives-church-leader-wants-youth-keep-shouting-859735|]

[link:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/03/25/pope-palm-sunday-march-our-lives-youth/456761002/|]

It was also World Youth Day....

[edhopper]

4. I am all for

any and every group to be involved.

[guillaumeb]

5. Agreed.

The goal is shared by many, and we do not need to agree on everything to agree on some things.

[trotsky]

9. Then why introduce a dividing factor like religion?

Why can't we just agree on the issue, and not shove your personal religious beliefs into the mix?

[guillaumeb]

15. So we should ignore the fact that religion is a cause for good?

That explains much.

[trotsky]

19. Why not? You want to ignore when it's a cause for bad.

Regardless, my point remains. Why shove your beliefs into it? Isn't it enough to agree on an issue?

[guillaumeb]

21. Why do you post in religion?

Accept that I also have reasons, and apply your response to your own posts.

[trotsky]

22. I post mainly to counter religious bigots.

They really get annoyed by me.

[guillaumeb]

24. I post to counter one-sided narratives.

And it obviously annoys those who engage in such behavior.

[trotsky]

28. So you annoy yourself then?

Weird. Whatever gil, you gotta be you!

[Mariana]

60. His adoring masses demand no less, I'm sure. nt.

[longship]

58. There is only one person in this thread whose purpose I want to ignore.

The one who seems to want to put their religion into just everything, who seemingly cannot stop the constant witnessing.

That's a problem.

Sorry, my friend. That's how I see it.

[guillaumeb]

59. You have that right.

As to my motivation, I see some few who appear to be offended by any positive mention of religion by me or any other poster here.
And THAT, in my view, is also a problem, and a problem that I hope to balance by my posts that include positive and negative news.

[longship]

61. I have no problem with positive mention.

I have a real problem with proselytizing here, however.

I will not be one of your converts. Nor will many others here.

Rather let's discuss religion from an intelligent perspective.

My position:
Arguments in favor of theism always have the same issues. They are always based on faith, which amounts solely to empty promises. Theists cannot even describe coherently the characteristics of their gods. Yet they demand that non-believers supply proof that those gods do not exist. That's credibly called unbridled hubris.

Now do you see the problem?

[guillaumeb]

64. I do not seek to convert anyone.

Simply to present my perspective, and items about religion and faith.

As to your position, faith is based on belief, not proof. If it were provable, no faith would be needed.

I do not demand that you prove your position, whatever that position might be, but I ask that you respect mine as I respect yours.

Edited to add: looking at the first page of this category, 39 of the 80 posts are from 2 atheists. So when we speak of a presence here, what does this say about the group?

[longship]

69. That is fine, then.

I certainly do understand what your position is, as you seem to present it here a lot. I imagine that you could say the same thing about some of us atheists.

I would only ask that you respect our non-belief, just as you would ask us to respect your belief. Things might certainly be quieter here if we would all do that.

It might be fun to have religious discussions without all the acrimony.

Don't know if this will work, but I suggest it hoping that it will.

My best to you.

[guillaumeb]

79. I agree that non-acrimonious discussions would be a change.

But on nearly every issue discussed at DU, there are strong opinions on both sides.

My best to you also.

[thucythucy]

49. This is the "religion" group, is it not?

You're suggesting that someone not post, in a group expressly called "Religion," an article about how various religious communities are responding to this issue? Seriously?

This seems rather strange to me, especially after reading the piece, which includes discussion of the victims of the Charleston church massacre. It's obvious those people in particular have a very direct and visceral relationship to the issue.

I want to be informed. If there are religious groups siding with me on this or any other issue, I want to know about it, and I welcome that support.

Why this need to denigrate the messenger for posting an informative (and to my mind fairly innocuous) article on this particular aspect of what was an amazing and empowering event for those of us arguing for a sane policy on guns?

But perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe I'm reading this screen wrong, and this isn't the "Religion" group. It's just that on my screen it says "Forum or Group: Religion (Group)." If I do have this wrong I'll self-delete.

[trotsky]

52. Because it's not a religious cause.

There is no point in making the fight against gun violence a religious issue. People of all faiths or none at all are united.

Post all you want about people having religious motivation to do good things, but don't try and steal a different topic to promote your religion.

[thucythucy]

53. First of all, it's not my religion.

I'm an agnostic. At least I am now. Used to be an atheist, but have become less dogmatic with age.

Secondly, if people come at this from a religious perspective, who am I to argue with them about it? If people tell me their motivation for opposing gun violence, and supporting sane gun policy, is religious, then for them it is indeed "a religious issue." Why get all snooty about it? I don't get the point. I certainly don't see the need for all this hostility.

Thirdly, isn't it rather presumptuous of you to dictate, or attempt to dictate, what can or cannot be discussed in a forum specifically designated as the "Religion Group?" To quote an old cliché: who elected you Pope?

And I'm not trying to "steal" anything. I found the article informative and encouraging. If Black clergy, responding to the slaughter of Black parishioners in Charleston, want to be part of this movement, I'm certainly not going to suggest turning them away. If Jewish students cite their faith (as they did in this article) as a reason for participating, again, not for me to decide who can or cannot be a part of this movement, or which reasons are acceptable, and which are not. I'm just happy to have them on my side. Especially since, as I gather from the article, much of their other politics seems also to be progressive.

Did you actually read the article?

[trotsky]

71. I understand that. I used "you" in the hypothetical sense.

I have no beef with you. I have a beef with guillaumeb and his efforts to put religion in front of all issues, as the source of everything that is good.

You can take your lecturing elsewhere, thanks.

[thucythucy]

73. You have "no beef" with me

but at the same time you want me to "take my lecturing elsewhere." I'm raising questions about the wisdom of alienating progressives of faith who are aligned with us on gun control, which I ask in response to your posts which seem to be critical of any and all progressive activism motivated by faith. I'm doing this in the context of the "Religion" group. Where else, pray tell, should I take my "lecturing?"

And pardon me if I'm not able to read between the lines of your posts to discern which rhetorical salvos are meant to be personal, and which are "hypothetical." The tone of your posts here seems to be one of general hostility, directed at anyone who dares disagree with your views. They come off as quite personal indeed.

If guillaumeb posts screeds about Jesus in the Atheist or Pastafarian groups, or even articles as innocuous as this one, I'd make clear my own strong objection. But that wasn't the case, was it? You inserted yourself here to continue what you admit is a personal grudge, regardless of the merits or demerits of the article in question, which I found informative and encouraging. Again, I ask, did you even read the article?

The flip side of "efforts to put religion in front of all issues" are efforts to disparage religion and people of faith in any and all contexts,, even if those folks are our allies in progressive causes. I remind you, again, that this is the "Religion" group, and that posting an article about how progressives of faith see the issue of gun violence seems to me to be entirely appropriate, while efforts to stifle or suppress such information less so.

That said, I'll lecture anywhere I want, thanks, with or without your permission, though I try to show some respect for and awareness of the contexts in which I lecture.

[trotsky]

74. OK, let's do this then.

As you so expertly noted, this is the Religion forum. *All views are permitted* - including those of atheists like myself. In fact, if you are so concerned about gil having to deal with opposing viewpoints, perhaps you should suggest he post in one of the many protected groups for liberal believers. THIS ISN'T ONE OF THEM.

I am sick of people putting their religion in front of issues. In fact, I think that causes more division and makes religious people on the other side dig in their heels more. guillaumeb is currently the worst offender when it comes to this, and you're damn right I'm going to deal with it.

Lecture away. I've said my piece.

[MineralMan]

11. Why would they not? All youngsters concerned

with this participated. All are threatened. Everyone was represented.

[Mariana]

14. Well, that isn't the same.

When religious people and groups conjure up a religious reason to attend an event like this (after being nagged by their kids), they deserve special attention and praise. They are much more important and noteworthy than the people who participated for mundane secular reasons.

[guillaumeb]

16. Not to belabor the obvious,

but this is the religion group.

[MineralMan]

38. Her point stands. Are the organized religious kids

more important to this movement than the unorganized kids whose religious beliefs you don't know? How about Emma Gonzales? What is her religious affiliation?

For whatever reason people participated, that reason is equally valid.

[guillaumeb]

41. There was no point that I saw.

Other than the obvious commonality of position.

[MineralMan]

46. Frankly, guillaumeb, religion has zip to do with

these protests. Nothing at all. It's just an attempt on your part to tie it to religion. It reminds me of every other post made here about religious people doing something good, as though it is the religion doing it. There used to be a poster here who did that again and again.

There is no connection between religion and protesting school shootings. I'm not posting stories about religions groups who are vehement supporters of carrying guns everywhere. There are tons of such stories. There are stories of churches giving away AR-15 rifles in raffles, as well.

Your point was not made. Your post served only to point out your habit of posting stories of religious people doing something good, but never posting stories about them doing bad.

Do you know what Emma Gonzalez's religious beliefs are? Neither do I. It's completely irrelevant, as was your post.

[guillaumeb]

56. Tell the youth from the churches that you have decided for them

that religion had nothing to do with their personal decisions to march.

Do you presume to speak for them?

And as to my supposed habit, a look through my past posts will show many titled Bad News.

[MineralMan]

78. You know, I took your advice and looked for your posts

that had "Bad News" in the title. So, here's a question for you: When did you post the most recent of those? It has been quite a while, indeed. Do you know?

[guillaumeb]

81. Assuming that you found them,

my point stands. But I could point to others who post a constant stream of negative items about religion. So what is your point?

[MineralMan]

83. Well, you suggested that I look, so I did.

[guillaumeb]

84. Personally, I am surprised at the number of negative comments in this thread.

Perhaps I should not have been.

[MineralMan]

48. OK, so tell us what parts of the Bible you believe

describe actual events that actually occurred. It's the religion group. That should be an easy question. It would help establish what religion you actually follow.

[thucythucy]

50. I don't follow all these groups day by day

so obviously I'm missing something.

But why all this hostility to an article about various religious communities' response to the March for Our Lives, posted in a group called "Religion"?

If such a subject can't be discussed here, where can it be discussed? Honestly, I'm amazed at this response.

[marylandblue]

54. It has more to do with the poster than the post

In the view of many here, this particular OP posts a lot of articles intended to show a very slanted view of religion. He heads these articles with "good news." It's not clear why he thinks these articles are particularly good or newsworthy. The answer is often "It's good news because my opinion is that it's good news," which frustrates other posters because instead of talking about the article itself or why it might be significant, we end up in a fruitless tangential discussion.

[thucythucy]

62. Okay, so it's a personal thing.

This particular article though IS good news, is it not? I mean, shouldn't we be happy that various religious groups are taking a stand in support of the March, and what these students are doing?

I can't speak to other threads or discussions. It just seems to me here, scrolling down this particular thread, that there are some folks who seem offended at the very notion of religion. Which is their right, of course, but to see this sort of visceral hostility to an article pointing out that there are religious groups taking on the NRA, posted in the "Religion" forum no less, is rather unsettling. Not to mention self-defeating, if what we're trying to do is see a more sane policy on guns enacted into law. Can we really afford to toss would-be allies under the bus, because we don't like their religion? Isn't that rather--well--intolerant?

I'd rather see people discuss and debate the actual article/issue at hand, rather than indulge in what look to be personal vendettas.

Just my opinion.

[marylandblue]

67. I agree with you

Last edited Wed Mar 28, 2018, 12:07 AM - Edit history (2)

I am agnostic like you are. Progressive religious groups are our political allies. An ally is someone you work with toward a common goal, not your friend or your philosophical buddy. But there is a modern trend among atheists to view religion as something that does more harm than good. A lot of people in this group take that view, so they are suspicious of even progressive religion.

[thucythucy]

68. I wonder if the persons who are so suspicious of progressive religious people

actually know any on a personal basis. I know quite a few--having met them in my days as a disability rights activist (the Rev. Wade Blank was a major figure in ADAPT--the folks who sat in McConnell's office and were arrested defending the Affordable Care Act) and also in anti-Nuke advocacy, and in human rights work among immigrants and the homeless. Some of the most courageous people I know are members of the Metropolitan Community Church, a Christian denomination organized by and for the LGBT community back in the 1960s, which has now spread to much of the country. I mean, talk about courage--imagine being an out Lesbian progressive Christian in rural Texas. And then there was the Sanctuary Movement of the 1980s--religious folks willing to risk prison time and the loss of everything they had to shelter "illegal" refugees fleeing the murderous regimes of El Salvador and Guatemala.

Even the Jehovah's Witnesses garner a certain amount of respect from me, since they are absolutely committed to NOT serving in the military or pledging allegiance to any government, During World War II they refused to salute the flag, and were arrested, tortured, some even lynched in this country. In Nazi Germany the vast majority preferred to die in the gas chambers, rather than be in any way complicit with the Hitler regime. I wonder how many atheists took that same route. And of course the White Rose Christian group, and the "Confessing Church" under Dietrich Bonheoffer, also opposed the Nazis, and also paid with their lives. I doubt I would ever have that kind of courage, am in awe of people who do--martyrs such as Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, Malcolm X, Oscar Romero.

So, even though I'm an agnostic, I certainly am glad we have allies in the religious community. And I have to wonder, again, how many of the more vehement anti-theists here at DU actually know and have interacted with progressive Christians, Jews, Muslims. It's always easier to condemn people whom you see as abstractions, rather than as nuanced human beings.

Anyway, thanks for explaining what's happening here. It really threw me for something of a loop.

Best wishes. I hope we have other chances to talk in other threads,

[Mariana]

70. You know, most of us were raised in religious families

and have religious relatives and friends. Many religious people are wonderful and the world is better for them being in it, that's a fact. Some religious people, including some who identify themselves as "progressive" are dishonest, hateful, and abusive. That includes a few of the "progressive" Christians who post on DU.

[thucythucy]

72. I was raised in a very regressive, stifling

and reactionary church. I quit going as soon as I was old enough to assert myself and tell my parents, no. As they themselves were pretty much ambivalent church goers, it wasn't such a big deal, but now I see my church experience as a child as being entirely detrimental to my mental health. If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't.

That said, I now know lots of good, progressive religious folk, and their kids and grandkids are, by and large, pretty amazing. They accept my agnosticism, and I accept their having faith. No biggie.

It seems to me what you're saying is that progressive religious people are pretty much like everyone else. Much like atheists, in fact. I know nice ones, and I've known some who seemed determined at every opportunity to shove their atheism down people's throats in order to demonstrate how vastly superior they were to all those deluded fools who held onto their faith. One or two in my recollection were as obnoxious about it as any right wing fundie. From time to time I see echoes of much the same attitude here on DU.

People are people, I guess is the moral here.

Best wishes.

[Mariana]

75. Back to what Marylandblue said earlier

yes, there are some personal issues in this group. The OP identifies himself as a progressive Christian. Another very recent and still active thread started by the OP of this thread contains a lie about atheists in the starting post. He knows it's a lie. He's said the same thing many times and he's been told it's false many times by many different people. He posted that lie to provoke. He's also told us several times that he receives numerous private messages praising him for posting such things, and asking for more. So you see, there is a history here, and there is stuff going on in the background, too.

[thucythucy]

82. Yes, but this all makes it very difficult

for someone who isn't aware of the back story to evaluate what's going on here.

Just as an example, the person who posted this OP headlined it (or the linked story was headlined) "Good News--" and then the bit about religious groups advocating against gun violence and in favor of gun control. Several people in response seemed to me to be objecting, not to anything in the article itself, but to the very notion that religion can play a positive role in progressive politics. And in response, today we've had five or six OPs posted in "religion"--all mocking the "Good New" header--"Bad News" "Blame Obama News" etc. etc.

Whatever the back story, someone walking into the middle of this--as I have--is pretty much bound to conclude that the atheists in this forum--two in particular--are determined to mock and ridicule people who profess to any sort of religious belief, whether they're progressive or not I suppose that's their right, this is, as I've been told, "an open forum" in which "all views can be expressed." It just seems rather infantile, and hardly conducive to anything approaching an actual discussion conducted in--no pun intended--good faith.

If the poster of this OP has lied, and continues to lie, then he or she should be called out every time it happens. Maybe the folks directly involved can work something out between themselves. I don't know what the rules are or if anyone has seriously tried to apply them. But I just don't see how this tit for tat back and forth yammering is going to do anything to bring people together around a progressive agenda.

Which brings me back to my original point. As an agnostic, I LIKE the fact that there are people of faith who share my progressive aspirations and are willing to work toward seeing them happen. That this viewpoint should be somehow controversial seems to me very strange indeed.

Best wishes to all.

[hueymahl]

76. I'm with you

I do not understand the hostility, and like you, rarely post or read this group. How dare someone post about religion in the Religion group!

Like other have said, it looks like we have stumbled upon an internal feud that goes back quite a long time. Kind of like an old married couple that constantly bicker and only they understand why.

[guillaumeb]

57. Off topic.

[guillaumeb]

26. True.

[thucythucy]

51. Thanks for the informative article. nt

[yallerdawg]

63. There's a real malevolence expressed in this Religious group towards positive messages.

It is appreciated when agnostics such as yourself can express a little positivity, unity, and tolerance!

[hueymahl]

77. Good article

Thanks for posting it.

[guillaumeb]

80. You, and all who liked it, are welcome.

The others are welcome to their opinions.