So I went over to Reverend Barber's website

[marylandblue]

https://www.breachrepairers.org/moralagenda

And it is clearly trying to create a progressive version of the 1980s Moral Majority. They state "This Higher Ground Moral Declaration provides a moral agenda for our nation on issues including: democracy and voting rights; poverty and economic justice; workers’ rights; education; healthcare; environmental justice; immigrant rights and challenging xenophobia; criminal justice; LGBTQ rights; and war-mongering and the military."

All things that every progressive whether theist or not should support. But if you look at the bulleted list below the intro, each point provides a religious quote, usually from the Bible, and a secular argument. What they are calling "moral arguments" are really religious arguments. Furthermore, throughout the site, you can see the pictures, the wording, the leadership, the events are all clearly aimed at a religious audience.

So my questions are these:

For religious folks: Do you really think atheists would feel comfortable at events sponsored by these groups and using this sort of language? I am sure they won't turn an atheist away. But if they are not the target audience, wouldn't they rather go to a less overtly religious event?

For atheists/agnostics: Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Give that most people in America identify with a religious faith, and the right has successfully created a powerful rightwing religious movement, isn't it good that the religious left form a countermovement? It's a given you don't share their religious values, but if you share political values, can you work along side them?

My position is that this is a very good thing. Religion is still a powerful force in this country. Ceding religious politics to the right has brought us Donald Trump. But giving up on religious voters completely is not the answer. Surely some see the hypocrisy are looking for an alternative that speaks their language.

[Major Nikon]

1. Demagoguery is a powerful force

I don’t want to see it used for any purpose regardless of the expected outcome.

The ends do not always justify the means.

[mahina]

128. How is Rev Barber a demagogue?

[Major Nikon]

129. The point was just because something is a powerful force...

...doesn't justify it's use.

I don't see the mix of religion and politics turning out any better than mixing fear and politics.

[MineralMan]

2. Religion has always played a large role in

the civil rights movement. Still, in 1965, when I was active in it, nobody ever inquired into my beliefs or non-belief. That didn't matter. Not to me, and not to anyone I encountered. It wasn't the point, really.

[marylandblue]

5. They are not inquiring into your beliefs now

But would you attend a rally led by clergy and filled with Bible quotes? I am guessing you would, since you went to an MLK rally.

[MineralMan]

15. Sure, if I supported the cause.

I go to churches for weddings, funerals, and other events, too. It's not the religion. It's the reason. I don't care if people have religious beliefs. I'd prefer they don't insist that in share those beliefs, though, but I'll make common cause with anyone, if I share the cause.

[DBoon]

55. The abolition of slavery was also often based on religious grounds

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-33/abolitionists.html

Not that all abolitionists were orthodox Christians, though a large proportion were. But even those who had left the church drew on unmistakably Christian premises, especially on one crucial point: slavery was sin. Sin could not be solved by political compromise or sociological reform, abolitionists maintained. It required repentance; otherwise America would be punished by God. This unpopular message rankled an America that was pushing west, full of self-important virtue as God’s darling.

and http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo/amabrel.htm:

...evangelical Christians were most especially influential when pressing their moral issues forward into the public arena. Growing out of the Great Awakening, these Protestants, largely in New England, were inspired less by earlier Calvinistic doom and gloom theology than by concepts of human betterment under God’s grace and His gift of free will. Out of this fresh religious doctrine, called Arminianism, grew a movement that included the plea for the freedom of all of God’s human creatures, especially the Southern slaves. Eventually the antislavery cause with its strong religious support helped to create the Republican party in the 1850s. This development led directly into the sectional crisis of 1860 and the war that followed.

[MineralMan]

57. And so was retaining slavery. Slavery had strong support

from the Calvinist side of Christianity. Christianity can support almost anything, with proof texts readily available on any side.

[yallerdawg]

3. "Who We Are"

Some issues are not left versus right, but right versus wrong.

Repairers of the Breach is a nonpartisan 501 (c) 3 tax exempt not-for-profit organization that seeks to build a moral agenda rooted in a framework that uplifts our deepest moral and constitutional values to redeem the heart and soul of our country. We challenge the position that the preeminent moral issues are prayer in public schools, abortion, and property rights. Instead, we declare that the moral public concerns of our faith traditions are how our society treats the poor, women, LGBTQ people, children, workers, immigrants, communities of color, and the sick. Our deepest moral traditions point to equal protection under the law, the desire for peace within and among nations, the dignity of all people, and the responsibility to care for our common home.

You could sit through this, couldn't you?

[marylandblue]

8. Personally I don't think I could sit through a speech like that

But I could knock on doors with someone who sounds like that.

[yallerdawg]

12. In the South...

I had to finally reconcile with Democratic candidate political rallies sounding like "tent revivals!"

Now - religious leadership is starting to sound like Democrats!

As Martha Stewart says: "It's a good thing."

[guillaumeb]

24. Amen Brother!!

And I have sat through this many times. In a number of churches.

[Eko]

4. I dont see

Abortion in there, granted they cant list everything,,,,,,but that's a huge one with most of the party.
This doesn't sound good either
The positions are neither left nor right, nor conservative or liberal. Rather, they are morally defensible, constitutionally consistent, and economically sound. Most importantly, they represent, as Dr. King urged, a revolution in values.
I did see where they support a woman's rights to the health care they want. So, I take that back.

[marylandblue]

7. Yallerdawg quotes them

"We challenge the position that the preeminent moral issues are prayer in public schools, abortion, and property rights." Not saying they are now pro-choice personally, but rather they want to drop it as a political issue, so they are de facto pro-choice. Like Conor Lamb and Tim Kaine.

[Eko]

11. Actually that quote doesnt say they are for or against abortion.

Here is the full quote.
"We challenge the position that the preeminent moral issues are prayer in public schools, abortion, and property rights. Instead, we declare that the moral public concerns of our faith traditions are how our society treats the poor, women, LGBTQ people, children, workers, immigrants, communities of color, and the sick."

[marylandblue]

16. Yeah you are right it doesn't come out and say it

So I am interpreting it a bit. Those are three issues the religious right has been pushing for 30 years and suggesting that a Christian has to vote based on them. Barber's group is suggesting an alternative set of issues that actually has a much stronger Biblical basis. It seems to me that if you get a Christian to vote based on these alternative issues, they will end up voting for a pro-choice Democrat 95% of the time, even if that voter is personally pro-life.

[Eko]

17. See post 4

I found where they support a woman's choice.

[marylandblue]

19. Well that's a good thing

[Eko]

21. Yup.

[Pope George Ringo II]

6. The moral foundations of religion are simply too ephemeral to build much on them

Even if the blind squirrel has found a nut, there are better ways to do things.

[yallerdawg]

9. Human history says...

"Wut?"

[Major Nikon]

13. Past performance is no guarantee of future results

The world is becoming less religious and the religious are becoming more extreme. If I have to pick a bandwagon, I’d just as soon go with the one going the right direction.

[marylandblue]

18. Religion is still a force in America today

Maybe 50 years from now it won't be, but our political problems can't wait that long. Meanwhile, it's not about jumping on bandwagons, but joining with people who may be travelling in your general direction for a little while.

[Major Nikon]

32. As a political force it only goes one direction

Arguably the biggest reason why most of Europe is far more progressive is because religion has been rendered to a ceremonial role and neutered as any sort of political power. It wasn’t because they were able to somehow harness a force that is inherently corruptible.

[marylandblue]

10. Politics are ephemeral, and can make strange bedfellows too.

Never made sense how Ayn Rand got together with Jesus, but eventually I think they will get a divorce.

[Pope George Ringo II]

14. Politics can do that, seldom to its credit.

Honestly, I was trying to be nice. "Shaky" might have been a better word. Religion really has only random and brief intersections with morality. At the end of the day, it's just too morally tainted for me to want to have anything to do with it.

[marylandblue]

20. So what do you do with religious people who share your politics?

[Pope George Ringo II]

23. Find common ground with them outside their religion

This is simply trying to find common ground with them alongside their religion. If they can overcome their religion enough to do something moral, then I can work with that. But at no point am I interested in putting a fig leaf over the failings of their religion.

As an analogy, let's imagine a politician who shares many of my political leanings, but is not a Democrat. Let's just pretend there is such a creature without inventing a name for him. If this imaginary politician really shared our values, I'd be okay with him joining us. But I'm damned if I'm going to become an independent just to work with him when there's a perfectly viable political party already doing far more work, with a far more impressive legacy, and a brighter future.

Similarly, why work with a religious startup subgroup when there's a superior alternative in place? I don't mind inviting them aboard, but limiting things to working within the confines of their imaginary friend is hardly productive.

[marylandblue]

34. American political parties are always alliances of disparate groups

So you don't work within the confines of their group, everyone works within the bounds of the party. But if they bring in enough money and votes, they get a seat at the table.

[Pope George Ringo II]

36. I'm still not saying they shouldn't have a seat at the table.

Obviously, the central role of religion in the moral fall of the GOP--never mind the appalling overall history of the Abrahamic Trilogy of Terror--calls for caution, but if they can overcome their religion enough to do something right I can deal with that.

But that's not what's happening here. They're inviting us to a seat at their disgusting and blood-stained table, and I will never want any part of that.

[guillaumeb]

25. A revealing pronouncement about something.

[Voltaire2]

48. Protestant work ethic preceded Objectivism

In the ideological justification of capitalism within a European Christian society. It was no leap at all to incorporate Rand’s rightwing libertarianism, despite the fact that she was an atheist.

[Mariana]

51. Those ideas were around long before Ayn Rand

and were already quite popular among many Christians, especially rich and powerful ones. It's not as if Christians never oppressed poor people, and despised them, and blamed for their condition before Ayn Rand came along. Her ideas meshed nicely with what many of them already believed.

[guillaumeb]

22. Recommended.

Excellent questions as well.

As to the first question, I belong to a social justice group that is about equally divided between theists and non-theists. I know because we have had similar discussions. We are generally united in our progressive politics. Our events are not religious, but I have been to religious events that welcome atheists.

[Ferrets are Cool]

26. Religious voters did not bring us the PGIC...rigged voting did.

I know it's not your message, but it almost reads as though you are saying that there are no religious democrats.

[marylandblue]

28. Obviously there are plenty of religious democrats

But they haven't been well organized until now. And that has meant we see a lot of religious conservatives in the media, but not as many religious liberals. It's created a narrative that religious = conservative. Organizing like this creates new opportunities to change the media narrative and to bring in religious voters who may be turned off by the right's hypocrisy but have not heard a viable religious liberal message.

[Ferrets are Cool]

29. Thank you for taking the time to explain.

That will certainly be a hard nut to crack.

[Mariana]

33. It doesn't almost read like that.

There aren't enough religious Democrats. The majority of religious voters cast their ballots for Trump. That's just a fact. Within some religious groups it was very different, but overall, the majority of religious voters cast their ballots for Trump.

[yallerdawg]

38. You suggest religious Democrats don't matter?

As if religious Democrats don't remain the majority of Democrats?

[Mariana]

39. I suggest nothing of the kind.

I say there aren't enough religious Democrats. The Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham type of religious leaders are more popular than the William Barber and Robert Wright Lee type.

[yallerdawg]

40. Movements to deliver more religious Democrats.

"It's a good thing!"

[Mariana]

41. I agree.

The young people are going to make the difference. They're bailing on religion in record numbers. I don't know if this has been studied, but I'd like to think most of that loss is happening in the right-wing churches that preach hate. The young people who remain religious, and the ones who return to the fold, are likely to be much less rigid in their thinking. The older generations whose religious hatred has become fossilized will eventually die off and take their hatred with them. I have a lot of hope for the future.

[yallerdawg]

42. You never know what the future will bring.

Although people make significant bets on it.

[Mariana]

45. Significant bets? Like what? nt.

[Voltaire2]

49. Religious voters are overwhelmingly reliable

Republican voters. That has nothing to do with vote rigging and everything to do with why the Republican Party remains viable and frequently dominant.

I’m fine with encouraging progressive religious people to vote, but I’m more encouraged by the decline of religion in general.

[Mariana]

27. I like that they're including secular arguments.

Do they have a plan to try to convince the religious right-wingers that they're doing it wrong?

[marylandblue]

43. From the looks of the website, they will mine the Bible and other religious texts

for quotes about helping the poor, loving your neighbor etc. There is no shortage of those. There is not one word in the Bible about abortion or tax cuts.

[Tanuki]

44. 40 days of civil disobedience will begin on Mothers Day.

Barber has been speaking truth to "religious right wingers" for years.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.charlotteobserver.com/living/religion/article167532207.html

..."On what he’d say to evangelical clergy who have supported President Trump. After Charlottesville, several of them spoke out against bigotry, though some – including Franklin Graham – did not mention the neo-Nazis or the KKK by name:

“I would say the same to my fellow preachers: yes, we must call racists to repentance. But it's cheap grace and hypocrisy to both say you renounce racism and continue to defend the systemic racism that is anti-immigrant, anti-black, anti-LGBTQ and anti-Muslim. Do what Jesus said: show fruit worthy of your repentance.”

On fellow North Carolinian Franklin Graham, a fellow preacher with very different views:

“Well, he’s my brother in the human family. I have actually met with him with a group of clergy. We challenged him for always castigating President Obama. I will say to you what one of my professors at Duke taught me: Whenever you claim that you’ve had an experience of being born again, changed, transformed by Christ and it does not produce a quarrel with the world – a quarrel with policies that exacerbate and create poverty, a quarrel with those who would see other human beings die for the lack of health care, a quarrel with systemic racism and injustice, a quarrel with those, in a land of immigrants, who want to deport and destroy the lives of immigrants, a quarrel with those who want to destroy, dismiss and label the LGBTQ community as something other than God’s creation – then my professor taught me and what I believe now is that it renders your claims of faith terribly suspect. Because you cannot find legitimate Scriptural support for that kind of narrow interpretation of morality. I chose not to denigrate Brother Graham, but I will challenge him to remember that Jesus’ first sermon began with good news to the poor. There’s no way to claim to be with Jesus and to not be with the poor.”

On what role Charlotte’s faith community should play to bring systemic change to the city almost a year after the police shooting of Keith Lamont Scott:
.....

“I think the faith community anywhere has a prophetic role to stand with, speak up with the poor, the marginalized, the stranger and to challenge injustice at the seats of power. We are not merely to be the chaplains of the society.”

On what we’ll see in Washington and in 25 state capitals during the first 40 days of the Poor People’s campaign in 2018:

“We will be having civil disobedience and direct action. It will happen simultaneously. The weeks (during the campaign) will be agenda-based. You will see people coming together at these capitals demanding that policy changes be made – poor people, activists, clergy. "....(more)

[Mariana]

46. "...I chose not to denigrate Brother Graham..."

Except to imply that Graham must be an atheist, because he supports policies that harm people, and only atheists would do that.

"...what I believe now is that it renders your claims of faith terribly suspect..."

[marylandblue]

47. I think Barber is implying Graham is a hypocryte,

not that he is necessarily an atheist.

[Mariana]

50. Maybe that's what he meant, but that's not what he said.

His words clearly say that that he doubts that people like Graham have faith. "...what I believe now is that it renders your claims of faith terribly suspect..." If Graham's claims of faith are false, and he has no faith, what does that make him?

[marylandblue]

63. Christians use the word "faith" a lot but it has many meanings

And they are often unclear about which one they mean. I don't think Barber is saying Graham lacks faith as in lacking a belief in God. Rather, he might be saying that he believes in the wrong God, as Jesus described Pharisees serving "their father the Devil."

Or it could be a reference to James 2: 14-17:

"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."

So the idea would be if you talk about God a lot but don't feed the poor, your faith is worthless. This one is a very common theme among progressive Christians when they criticize the right.

[Act_of_Reparation]

64. There's no need to tie yourself up in semantic knots trying to make excuses for this stuff.

This isn't our first rodeo. We know exactly what is meant by, "So-and-so isn't a real Christian".

[marylandblue]

67. I am not tying myself up in knots

I have heard many Christians say other Christians aren't real Christians, aren't good Christians, are deluded, evil, following false gods, following demons, worshipping idolators, following the works of men rather than God and so on. But I've never heard them come out and say someone is an atheist because they are one of those things. I've even heard a few Christians say they are no atheists at all because the people who say they are atheists must be really be worshipping some kind of idol like "reason" or "self."

[Act_of_Reparation]

80. Well, if it isn't explicit, I guess it doesn't exist.

In which case, we can disregard all these "empirical studies" on "implicit, unconscious bias" and declare racism and sexism things of the past. Woot. That's progress.

[marylandblue]

82. That really has nothing to do with my point

Which is about what the speaker intends, not what you interpret it to mean. If you wish to interpret every utterance of "suspect faith" as "he is an atheist" then you are free to do so, but watch out for your own unconscious biases.

[Act_of_Reparation]

83. It has everything to do with your point.

We have the reverend's literal words. I'm telling you there is empirical evidence of implicit attitudes systemic to our society that manifest themselves in anti-atheist tropes, the most common of which is "atheists have no moral compass". Your position hinges on the assumption these words mean something different than they literally imply, because, I dunno, some anecdotal crap about Christians you know.

The allegation that a morally bankrupt person has no faith, in the context of the pervasive attitude that people without faith have no morals, is pretty self-explanatory. Even if it was not the reverend's intent to do so, he still reinforced a pervasive, anti-atheist attitude by linking an absence of faith with immorality.

[marylandblue]

84. Please provide empirical evidence that

"His faith is suspect" = "he is an atheist."

Some quotes from William Barber

"When it comes to atheism, I'm an atheist too when it comes to those folks that say God is on the side of bigots and on the side of those that hurt people. That kind of God? I don't know him either."

Speaking of Roy Moore supporters, "This is not Christianity. Rather, it is an extreme Republican religionism that stands by party and regressive policy no matter what. It's not the gospel of Christ, but a gospel of greed. It is the religion of racism and lies, not the religion of redemption and love."

When we love the Jewish child and the Palestinian child, the Muslim and the Christian and the Hindu and the Buddhist and those who have no faith but they love this nation, we are reviving the heart of our democracy."

[Act_of_Reparation]

85. Empirical proof?

Like, I'm supposed to dilute "his faith is suspect" in a silver nitrate solution, titrate, and measure the ratio of "he is an atheist"?

This is simple logic.

"His faith is suspect"

"Suspect" in this context means "to doubt the genuineness or truth of".

"His faith is suspect" means, therefore, "I doubt he is actually faithful".

If he has no faith, what must he be?

[marylandblue]

87. You mentioned empirical evidence

I am aware of the evidence for implicit bias in how people interpret other people's actions. Often they are unwilling to look at alternative explanations for what seems "obvious" or "logical" to them. I offered you alternative explanations. The rest is up to you.

[Act_of_Reparation]

94. "I offered you alternative explanations"

Read: "I mined my imagination for a bit and speculated the following excuses."

Most people associate atheism with immorality. Barber is a person. Odds are Barber associates atheism with immorality.

And again, even if it wasn't his intention to do so, he still linked a lack of faith with human refuse like Graham.

[marylandblue]

95. No, I told you what I thought he meant

You just don't agree, that's all.

[Act_of_Reparation]

97. I don't just disagree.

I also think you're giving cover to a guy who, intentionally or not, is perpetuating a deleterious anti-atheist trope.

[marylandblue]

98. Obviously we disagree on that too

[trotsky]

86. Here's a nit to pick: "This is not Christianity."

But it is.

Christianity is not synonymous with "good" or "liberal" or "tolerance" or any of those things. Christianity is simply what its adherents - ALL of them - believe it to be. There is no universal agreement on the creed, because the bible is a hodgepodge of contradictory statements and accounts. Individual Christians pick out the parts that they like, and declare those parts "their" Christianity, and then people like Barber declare the Christians who disagree with them to be "NOT Christians."

This implicitly states that true Christianity is always good and pure and perfect, which in turn justifies the position that we should base our policies and laws on it. But we don't know that Barber's Christianity is good and pure and perfect. We can't know that about any religion, because there's no way for a human to know that at all.

[marylandblue]

88. Yes they all argue about what "true" Christianity is

But if they are going to argue it anyway, I'll take the side of the inclusive and progressive version.

[trotsky]

89. "the side of the inclusive and progressive version"

So Pope Francis' side, then?

[marylandblue]

90. Yes, but he has his faults too

Still protecting child abusers is a big problem. Maybe the Catholic Church will catch up to the rest of us in 20 years or so.

[trotsky]

91. So you're against his Christianity and in favor of Barber's only? n/t

[marylandblue]

92. I think they have a lot in common politically

I'll stay out of the theological disputes.

[trotsky]

96. So whose Christianity is the best?

We need to know!

[Mariana]

68. It might be he meant it differently.

Although I suspect Rev. Barber chooses his words very carefully, because communication is what he does. His livelihood and the success of this organization depend on him being able to communicate what he means clearly and effectively.

[marylandblue]

69. Yes, he does choose his words carefully

But you and I are not the target audience. He is talking to other Christians, where questioning someone's faith is a big deal all by itself. I just don't think it's synonymous with calling Graham an atheist. I don't think atheism really even computes with that crowd

[Mariana]

93. Of course we aren't his target audience

so he can use stereotypes against us that resonate with those who are his target audience. One prevailing stereotype is that people with faith - any faith - are better people than those without faith. He's not calling Graham an atheist outright, but he certainly raises the possibility ( "renders your claims of faith terribly suspect" ) as an explanation for Graham's behavior, and that reinforces the stereotype.

[PoorMonger]

30. As an atheist

I greatly admire Reverend Barber and the way he represents his faith. I absolutely think it’s a good thing if the religious followers on the left want to take up liberal cause and speak to the religious voters who have gone astray. In fact I have asked myself why the Religious Left isn’t already a thing - it seems that moral people would side with us on so many issues just out of basic goodness and humanity. Though again, as an atheist I know it isn’t my place to tell believers what they should be doing, so I’m thrilled that people of faith like Barber are around to do it for me.

[njhoneybadger]

31. I'm An atheist now but for years was a member of the Assembly of God church.

I really like Rev. Barber and can relate to his Biblical references. I believe he is an important
Voice for our party and also for the Christian Church at large.I agree with you that his voice is a very good thing.

[Voltaire2]

35. Im fine with it but it is exclusionary.

Religious privilege is a fact of life here. I’m used to it. The fact that Barber is trying to move religious voters to the left is a good thing.

[marylandblue]

37. I agree it's exclusionary

I look it at like advertising. Ads are geared to a target demographic. Sometimes you see an ad you hate and wonder why they made it, but it could be you are just not the target demographic.

[dameatball]

53. Yes. It is called marketing to an audience and it works.

[dameatball]

52. It is indeed a good thing. We need many voices with many messages, but all with one big message.

There has always been a bit of a conservative bent in many churches, even though it was technically illegal (I think) for pastors to preach politics. Same on our side.......bring in the crowds and sign them up to the cause.

If the good Rev is having a rally on one side of town to attract the religious portion and also the curious and I am having a fish fry on the other side to attract a different demographic....as long as the result is satisfactory to those that attend and serves as a mechanism to increase Dem voter base, I am for it.

[Mariana]

58. They can preach politics.

They're not supposed to promote specific candidates for office, but they can preach all day along about political issues, and tell the flocks what God thinks about them.

[dameatball]

60. I also thought they could do endorsements now.....no? Seems like I read it "somewhere".....:)

[Mariana]

61. You read right, they are in fact doing endorsements.

If they have tax-free status, they're not supposed to, but they know the law won't be enforced, so they're doing it anyway.

[alfredo]

54. Matthew 5:1-12

Last edited Sat Apr 7, 2018, 02:37 PM - Edit history (1)

5 Now when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2 and he began to teach them.

The Beatitudes
He said:

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

[Qutzupalotl]

56. I dont think he is courting atheists per se

and I think most atheists would rather go the less overtly religious route. Barber is comfortable speaking of moral questions in religious terms, which is to be expected.

Whether you see religious folks as faithful or deluded, we can all agree that persuading and motivating more people to do good works is a Very Good Thing.

[Mariana]

59. Everyone has his own idea of what consititute good works.

For example, the religious people who scream at women going into Planned Parenthood clinics think they are doing good works, and that God wants them to do that. Can you prove that they're wrong?

[Qutzupalotl]

62. I cannot prove they are wrong

but I can disagree. If I felt like investing a lot of time, I might try to persuade some of them, but IMO most are unreachable. I share a lot of Rev. Barber’s values, so I’m encouraged by his movement.

[Act_of_Reparation]

65. Conclusions are important.

But so are means used to arrive at those conclusions.

Faith is an unreliable means to true and/or moral conclusions, and while I may agree with many of the positions taken by this group, I cannot in good conscience give credibility to their method by endorsing them.

[yallerdawg]

66. You may have it backwards.

Can't "true and/or moral conclusions" lead to faith?

[guillaumeb]

71. Morality is a very fluid term.

And much of what is called moral is specific to a culture.

[Voltaire2]

77. Basic morality is almost universal.

Don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t harm others.

We differ primarily on when it is allowed to violate the core morality.

[guillaumeb]

78. What you call basic morality is species preservation.

But many behavioral issues are also part of societal morality, and those issues vary.

[Act_of_Reparation]

79. No shit.

I didn't say morality was universal. I said there are reliable and unreliable means of arriving at moral conclusions.

[guillaumeb]

99. PLease explain.

[Act_of_Reparation]

100. You need me to explain how "Because God says 'No'" is unreliable moral metric?

[guillaumeb]

105. What are these unreliable means, and the reliable ones?

[Act_of_Reparation]

114. What do *you* think they are?

I've posted at length about secular morality and what I feel are reliable methods to arrive at moral conclusions. If you're that interested—and I have no reason to suspect you are—feel free to look around. I don't have the time or the patience to rehash it all here for someone likely arguing in bad faith.

[guillaumeb]

118. An accusation on your part.

And a refusal to engage in dialogue.

[Act_of_Reparation]

123. Yes and no.

It certainly is an accusation on my part. It is not, however, a refusal to engage in dialogue. It is a refusal to play pointless games with someone demonstrably uninterested in dialogue.

[guillaumeb]

124. Further confirmation of my point.

With the addition of personal insult as a substitute for dialogue.

[Act_of_Reparation]

125. Yeah, poor you.

But on the bright side, there are plenty of people here. Maybe one of them will fall for your leading question gag and you can pop them with whatever devastating conundrum you had planned for me. Maybe go play with trotsky for a bit. Bush league divorce lawyers the world over will shower you with praise and admiration if you can pull one over on him.

[guillaumeb]

126. Ah yes, the leading question argument.

We never see that one used here when people attack religion.

[trotsky]

102. How many religions are there in the world, gil?

That might provide a slight indicator as to why faith is unreliable when it comes to discovering truths - moral or otherwise.

[guillaumeb]

106. How many philosophies are there?

And what do you use to discover this truth?

[Mariana]

109. This is the Religion Group, Gil.

The Philosophy Group is over here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1263

[trotsky]

116. The topic is religion.

This is the Religion forum.

Answer the question. Though I know you won't, because doing so goes against your agenda.

So go ahead, smear me, and avoid talking about the subject. Like you always do.

[Mariana]

108. I've asked some religious people in this group

if all religions are equally true, if the practitioners of those religions have equal faith that their religion is true. Thus far, none has answered the question.

[guillaumeb]

110. You sound confused.

[Mariana]

111. Just curious.

One poster here insisted that the Greek gods don't exist, because there are pictures of the top of Mount Olympus in which the gods don't appear. Therefore any person who has faith that those gods are real must be wrong, and the religion must be false. Yet, that same poster would not answer the question above when asked it directly. Isn't that odd?

[guillaumeb]

112. Is the question:

1) Dos a god exist, or
2) Where does that god exist?

If we take Olympus as an example, it can stand for a high place. So metaphorically, it stands for a place above where humans live.

[trotsky]

117. How insulting.

How "Christian" of you.

Really showing the love of Jesus, aren't ya gil? What a fine example.

[guillaumeb]

119. You also sound confused.

[trotsky]

120. Does insulting others make Jesus proud of you, gil?

What a truly awesome Christian you are. Showing everyone what the love of Jesus really looks like.

[guillaumeb]

121. That was an observation, and an opinion.

Not an insult.

[trotsky]

122. However you need justify your behavior to yourself, gil.

Others can judge for themselves.

[pansypoo53219]

70. we need to retake the bible back to where it belongs.

[Mariana]

75. It could be done.

I don't see many signs that it's going to happen any time soon.

[Mariana]

76. Here's an example of how it could be done.

Check out this story, about the Christian Ted Nugent:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/07/politics/nugent-democrats-media-advocates-rabid-coyotes/index.html

Wouldn't it be impressive if thousands of Christian leaders came forth clearly and unequivocally to condemn him for being a Christian and making those statements? If there was a blizzard of press releases and letters to the editor, explaining that Christianity is a religion of love and caring, and that Ted Nugent is doing it wrong? If a bunch of Christians in the area where he lives were to picket and/or put up signs, saying that he's wrong, and they don't agree with him?

Unfortunately, none of those things, or anything like them, will happen.

[Act_of_Reparation]

81. To the Bronze Age?

Totes agree.

[nclib]

72. Did you know that Barber was the President of the NC NAACP?

He also is the one who began Moral Mondays. He resigned as president last year to focus more on the Poor People's Campaign or Repairers of the Breach. I've seen him speak in person and on the internet. He's a very powerful speaker. If you have time, watch his speech from the Democratic National Convention 2016.

I love him.

[marylandblue]

73. Yes I've been following him since his days in NC

And was thrilled when he decided to go national.

[nclib]

74. Same here.

Although I'll miss him not being in NC as much.

[Eliot Rosewater]

101. If they oppose Rump the Nazi fascist traitor, I dont care if they have wings and

come from another planet.

I support anything that opposes the Nazi. For now, at least.

[CrispyQ]

103. Barber's Christianity is more in line with what I was taught when I was young.

It was based on "Treat others the way you want them to treat you." As an atheist I'm glad to see a counter to the "God blesses those he favors with money" philosophy, that seems to have caught on in a big way & contradicts what I was taught. But while I would visit Barber's site, I wouldn't go to a live event or send contributions.

[DetlefK]

104. There are too few atheists to take them into accoutn as a religious constituency.

And I say that as an atheist. About 3-5% are atheists. About 10-15% are non-religious but spiritual. So, from a political point of view, it's better to target voters who are spiritual but don't like organized religion.



And, seriously: Are you complaining that a religious man is using religion as a basis for morality????

[Mariana]

107. It was pointed out in another thread

that some of the language being used to attract membership to Rev. Barber's organization is exclusionary. So, the discussion isn't about the basis for his morality at all, but about how the group is being promoted. Anyway, read Marylandblue's last paragraph in the OP, the one that starts with "My position is that this is a very good thing." I don't know how you interpreted the OP as a complaint about anything.

[guillaumeb]

113. Recommended.

[marylandblue]

115. It's more of a quibble, but I am okay with it

I wish he would quote some secular moral philosophers, but such people would not be familiar to his religious audience and it's probably not worth it to pick up a few atheists.

[mahina]

127. Heres a link to the New Yorker interview. Its 24 minutes long and will run w other windows open.

https://www.wnyc.org/story/reverend-william-barber-talks-david-remnick-about-morality-and-politics/

Thanks for checking his message out and sharing!