Religious Tolerance and DU (aka: We Need to Recruit Liberal Theists)

[TXlib]

I write this post as a plea to the DU community and to the mods.

---

My thesis: we need to control the anti-religion threads and posts on DU. We locked down sex threads in the lounge to make the site more user-friendly; perhaps we need to do so with the theist-bashing (and specifically, christian-bashing).

---

As many of you know, I am an atheist. My wife, KCDem is a christian. Her father is a (retired) presbyterian pastor. The prevalence of the anti-religion threads bothers us both.

I feel, with such threads, that I often have to 'justify' myself and my atheism, and apologise for (and distance myself from) the anti-atheists. Anti-theism and atheism are totally different things, and I'm tired of having to explain that distinction.

KCDem would like to invite her parents to this site and encourage them to join, but she's worried that the anti-christian sentiment would turn her family off. She and I are both concerned that such sentiment may turn away many liberal christians who would otherwise have been allies.

---

Chime in!

Do you agree that we need to make an effort to include liberal theists, or do you feel our collective attitude is fine as it is now?

[tom_paine]

1. Not a believer, but I completely agree

Many DUers are "liberal theists"

www.liberalslikechrist.org is run by a DUer, I think.

I know LiberatorRev is alos a Liberal Theist and MANY Duers have strong belief in their faith.

The problem is that DU is a website that is at least 50% atheists and agnostics...perhaps more, and people are going to say what they're going to say.

However, if Skinner can shut down the Sex Threads in the Lounge and institute the new civility codes, then I suppose that censoring religion-bashing isn't going that much further.

in either case, you bring up a good point about it.

[Loonman]

2. Hear, Hear!

:kick:

[Az]

3. The word you are looking for is Apostate

Someone opposed to a religion. Typically having once been a member themself.

We are all in this ride together. We are going to have to devise a means of getting along together or we will surely be at each others throats in short order.

The issue is problematic though. The means we have used to maintain public order (Post Modernism) has a couple of serious flaws. It cannot progress and it cannot destroy. It can only maintain a group of people in balance with each other.

But the nature of human society is to move. To progress or destroy. We have a situation where acient voices in our society cry out for the control they once had while voices looking to the future wish to silence these ghosts. But Post Modernism keeps them both in check.

People fall away from partaking in society because it cease to offer anything. They fall back into their own particular social niches and become disenchanted with finding a communal path. The stagnation of Post Modernism means that it has a limited life span. Sooner or later the camps will clash. We have only bought some time (a couple 100 years of it).

The frustration on the part of the ones that wish to pull the society forward is met with the anger of those that wish to pull it back. Something has to give or the social tensios will rip us apart.

[cosmicaug]

19. Apostate wrong word.

An apostate is one who rejects a religion. However, I'm not sure that such a thing as apostasy truly exists to a significant extent. The very concept of apostasy implies belief and one cannot reject that which one does not believe in (I am guessing that lack of belief would have to be the case for most folk who leave a given religion).

Anti-theist is a much better word.

[meow2u3]

152. Here's a more specific definition of apostate, cosmic

An apostate is one who rejects the religion he or she once embraced, usually the religion in which he or she was raised. One can argue that the many ex-Catholics on DU can be termed apostates.

[adamblast]

4. Sounds to me more like...

...you're trying to *exclude* whatever threads you consider anti-religious. You don't include one group at DU by censoring another. Liberal Christians are welcome to chime in, and debate whatever points they wish.

Sorry, can't agree, although I understand your frustration, I think.

[TXlib]

7. I'm all for a good debate on religion

But the kind of posts I am talking about are the ones that have the tone, "Anybody who believes in God is a Freeper and/or stupid."

There's no call for that kind of intolerance, and I don't feel it belongs here.

I have some friends who are liberal christians who are independent or very slightly republican, and this site might help swing them to our side... but not if christians are being attacked so frequently.

[Stuckinthebush]

10. I'm sure that type of post represents a minority of posters

I have never seen such a statement myself, but if they do exist, those are people with major issues.

Now, religion and Christians in our society can be heavily criticized as a force for good and a force for bad. I think that a critical analysis of religion or Christianity specifically is completely within the bounds of DU.

[TXlib]

18. Absolutely.

It does represent a minority of posters, but one, I feel, with a disproportionately loud voice.

I wholeheartedly agree that a RESPECTFUL critical analysis of religion is completely within the bounds of DU.

What bothers me are the instances in which somebody paints people like my wife, or any number of liberal christians, with the same brush they use for the likes of Fred Phelps.

[Stuckinthebush]

26. I'd agree

If a poster attacks anybody that shares a belief as being an idiot or being dangerous like Phelps, then that poster needs a warning.

The GOP and the evangelical/fundamentalist Christians have stolen Jesus. My father, also a retired Presbyterian Minister, gets pissed off all of the time at how the right has bastardized his beliefs. He understands that the term "Christian" has been taken and distorted to mean "intolerant bigot" when in reality, the term should mean exactly the opposite. I think the handful of posters who have such a visceral reaction to the term Christian are victims of this term theft by the right-wing.

Perhaps a warning and a discussion of the different aspects of Christianity would a long way to help them.

I would disagree that, for instance, calling out the Pope for his decisions that hurt women and others in our society is not Catholic bashing, but critically analyzing the head of a church. If one says, "Catholics are fools for being Catholic", then this would be Catholic bashing. Saying, "The pope is irresponsible" is not Catholic bashing.

[TXlib]

30. Again, I agree

Calling the pope irresponsible for bad decisions is a valid argument on issues.

Saying "Catholics are poopyheads" is unwarranted abuse, worthy of earning a mod warning.

[Woodstock]

90. Yes, I've gotten it in both directions

When I say I'm a Christian, I'm told I'm the enemy by athiests.

Then when I criticize the pope, I'm told I'm the enemy by certain Christians. (BTW, I'm a Catholic.)

My rule is, if Bush is going to bring up Christianity, then it's on the table as a topic of discussion here. He's using it to promote his agenda. If I have some scriptures that prove he's a hypocrite, it helps us.

And if the pope is going to be political and make decisions affecting the health and lives of female citizens of the US, then it's on the table as a topic of discussion here as well. I'm going to criticize him the way any good citizen would criticize something that adversely affects them.

[AgadorSparticus]

161. well said! i agree....

[Sophree]

31. And that's too often the problem.

The personal disrespect shown to people of faith on DU.

[Djinn]

84. no need

I generally go into any religion/religiou threads because I find it really interesting, and I've hardly ever seen anything as bad as "if you believe you're stupid" - when they are posted their deleted almost immediately.

I have seen people claim that stating "jesus isn't a historical entity" or "the bible is propaganda" is offensive? Someone beleiving something different to you and arguing their point shouldn't be a problem, the psts that are abusive get pulled, absolutely no need for any more rules on this - the generic ones cover it

[blondeatlast]

116. There are about 3 on the anti-Xian side and a couple on the

pro side who I ignore. I don't put them on ignore--I just have neither the time nor patience.

I'm a Christian, and one of the pro-Xians is so horrendously anti-Catholic he makes me literally ill.

[papau]

23. nope - it is a common post - usually phrased as ghost in the sky or

some variation thereof.

There have been very few discussions of religion, religious history or indeed of myths and their meaning and their effect on religion.

it is always religion equals myth equals stupid or unenlightened.

We seem locked in a 15 year mind set whee self esteem for the non-believer requires a put-down of believers.

But I see no reason to ban - but then I also see no reason they should post outside the meeting room - I'd like to keep the lounge clean of the self esteem/ego needs of the non-believers - and of the believers for that matter.

Sort of I/P rules

[LoZoccolo]

34. A minority, but one which can say very offensive things.

I've seen posts advocating ethnocide against fundamentalists. Yep, killing people. People who know church history or theology know that fundamentalism is a theological tradition, not even a political one (I'm sure someone would post something like "no they aren't - they wanna..." if I didn't include this little bit between parantheses). It may seem like nitpicking, but if someone were to make those kind of broad statements about a sect within Judaica or Islam, you would expect a rebuke of such ignorance. I think the desire to pin it on one group is in part just a way for some people to conviently find a term with which to label their bugbear, and betrays the complexity of the issues of religion and politics; it's prejudice.

I realize there's a lot of frustration at this segment of the right-wing here that has a lot of problem understanding or respecting the separation of church and state, a liberal doctrine. But that's where the debate should be on a political board - where are people not respecting that. By keeping it there I think we're inclusive of all people - regardless of religion - who want to uphold this American tradition. Or we could just fling them back into FReeperland and wonder why things happen like working class people voting against their class interests.

[LoZoccolo]

37. Also, forgot to mention.

On broad-brushing even sects within Christianity: I read somewhere that some 30%+ of evangelical Christians vote Democratic or something. It's bigotry to ascribe some sort of political import to what's essentially a theological tradition.

[Dob Bole]

77. Agreed...Am I to assure friends that only a few DUers will scream N*er?

Just a thought.

[shimmergal]

59. Exactly.

I'm a liberal Christian with some inclination to both paganism and_ agnosticism, and I have no problem with atheists per se.

But in almost any long DU thread on religious topics, you do get someone echoing that exact sentiment--that nobody with intelligence or intellectual honesty could believe in a higher power.

Atheist fundamentalists are just as annoying as any other brand of fundies, and that's the mindset these sentiments seem to express.

[blondeatlast]

120. Exactly. When respect exits the building, idiocy walks right in.

Doesn't matter which side you are on.

[IrateCitizen]

5. As a "liberal theist", I agree wholeheartedly!

My spirituality is the basis for my political views and respect for humanity. However, due to the influence of the minority of religious people represented by the evangelical right, many people automatically equate anything discussing "spirituality" or "religion" with an attempt to control them.

The end result is, as you have correctly identified, a climate of intolerance in the OTHER direction -- those expressing any kind of religious or spiritual views are immediately denounced by a vocal group here as having views that are "bullshit" or "believing in myths".

The problem is, it's not going to go away, short of outright banning people who express these kinds of viewpoints. So in the end, you just have to deal with it. :shrug:

[MoonAndSun]

6. I see this as going down a slippery slope, what you and your wife

call xtian bashing, others would call a vigorous discussion of xtians. I would feel very uncomfortable if DU started shutting down dissenting opinions on various religions because some might find it offensive.

As for your in-laws, let them decide for themselves if they find these threads offensive and let them know about the hide thread options.

Just my humble opinion.

[TXlib]

9. Please see my reply #7

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1150201#1150250

[MoonAndSun]

11. I understand what you are trying to convey, but that still does not

change my feelings about this topic. If you find something offensive or freeper-like then you need to alert the mods.

Again, let your in-laws come in and look around DU and let them decide for themselves if this is someplace they can be comfortable in. And again, there is the ignore feature on posters and threads that they can use.

[Stuckinthebush]

8. What do you classify as anti-religion?

Start the discussion there and then move forward to what is offensive.

[TXlib]

12. For starters...

See post #7: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1150201#1150250

There are many useful discussions of religion/tolerance/atheism, and I would not want to see those censored. Sure, they will get heated at times.

But there are certain members of our DU community who frequently post "Theists are total republican tools and idiots" sentiments. I'm talking about trying to reign in the most over-the-top intolerant posts.

That's one example. With as many people who have posted agreement with me, perhaps they can post other examples, or even post links from the archives of threads they felt were a bit too much.

[Stuckinthebush]

17. Not trying to be thick here...

but do the posters in question say "theists" or "Christians" or "fundamentalist Christians"?

I ask because there is a distinction between saying all people who believe in a god or gods are idiots, and saying the fundamentalist christian community is in lock step with the GOP and are idiots for doing that.

The first statement paints all people of religious belief with the brush of ignorance, the second statement paints a certain sect of people with the brush of ignorance. It doesn't say anything really about their belief in a god or gods, but in the way the act out those beliefs.

[TXlib]

21. It depends

I've seen posts in which the author was specific that his/her problem lay with the FUNDIES.

I've also seen posts in which the author seems to be blaming all of christianity and indeed, all who profess to some kind of theism, for the excesses of a minority.

I agree there is a distinction between sweeping generalisations, and focused contempt! :D

[Rowdyboy]

13. I invited my anti-war priest to this site

He visited, loved the link to chicken-hawks (and uses it in his sermons), but found the board too hate-filled to stay and post here. I don't think its worth the effort to try to convince others. There are too many that think Christian=fundamentalist automatically. Too many to even begin to educate.

[cprise]

97. Christian=fundamentalist is how the fundies want people to think

Of course other Christians disagree, but mainly the out-and-out liberal ones.

Many conservative Catholics I've spoken to in the past few years have reserved the word "Christian" for evangelicals/fundies. I consider them tragically brainwashed and its a pretty scary trend.

[seabeyond]

14. my kids go to a baptist school

we are christian, and have a passion for jesus. i hear the talking points from the baptists. christians are republicans. the kids in public schools are ungodly, the ungodly kids........

i am with you embracing christianity, along with any other religion, along with those that dont believe in god, along with those that have more a spiritual perspective, new age site.

i think though the gift of opportunity we have in time, this moment, is receiving an understanding of the battle beign created between the old testament literal interpretation of bible and the new testiment christianity.

[hexola]

Send them to FreeRepublic

and then see which site they prefer...I think FR makes a mockery of Christians...

Also, have them understand that the GOP has gone to great lengths to identify themselves with Christianity...so sometimes the insults spill over into non-political realms. We should be more careful...especially in an election year when we need all the votes we can get.

I am a devout unbeliever...but many of my close friends have recently become Liberal Fundamental Christians...(who would have thought ther was such a thing!)

I have had to learn a new respect for Christianity - I am still frustrated by them occasionally. But I don't resort to name calling anymore.

We need your Christian friends...they are key to convincing more traditional Christian-Right types to vote Dem in 2004...They can "talk the talk" better than non-christians...

[TXlib]

27. And we need to undo the GOP's efforts there!

the GOP has gone to great lengths to identify themselves with Christianity

Yes, they have.

Recently, one of my coworkers characterised Republicans as "god-fearing", and Democrats as "immoral secularists".

And he's only borderline conservative.

We, as Democrats, need to do two things:

We need to reclaim the American flag, and we need to reclaim the faithful.

[Jose Diablo]

44. I wouldn't call the neo con repubs Christian

You know them by their actions. They claim to be Christian to gain votes and respectability, yet they produce hate. How is that Christian?

I think the theist and atheist have many things in common when dealing with the common problems all mankind face. And in that both groups can find a basis for respect for each other.

As mentioned above by another poster, I am also a liberal-progressive because of my religious beliefs. To me, spiritual beliefs are the foundation for the political view of what a government should do/be.

[Malva Zebrina]

15. I have thought about this

I have discussed/debated religion from a philosophical point of view with many theists. I am an atheist also. It usually does not bring the vehemence noted here on DU, or the defensiveness noted here. It is not the atheists or the agnostics who are bashing Christianity, though. It comes from other Christians, from what I have noted. Usually atheists will relate what they believe-or cannot believe-and it is many times interpreted as bashing Christians immediately--yet it is the same process as a Christian stating what they believe.

Most believers do not also recognize what is insulting to an atheist.



I do not believe one can actually discuss religion on these boards because most of the conversations are one paragraph, one time posts. In other words, there is not an on going, in depth discussion, so that parties do not get a chance to reach a mutual respectful uderstanding,or exchange of information, even though on opposite sides, because there is no attempt at in depth discussion--just mainly defensiveness. If one states a fact about say the Catholics, as an example, (just taken Catholics, out of the air and not pointing a finger at CAtholics per se)it's immediately "Catholic bashing" or painting with a broad brush or other defensive titles.

One of my most favorite debators on the question of relligion, was a Baptist minister , who I dearly loved. We had many many good conversations over the net on talk forums,-- mutually respectful debates.

That cannot happen here--too much defensiveness and not enough willingness to discuss the issues in depth, with fact or research or just plain conversation.

There are other places to go--

[dwckabal]

41. This is what I see also

Within a month of my joining DU, I was accused of Catholic-bashing by someone who could not--would not--understand that all I was doing was relating my knowledge of Catholicism gleaned from my friends and the internet.

It is very difficult to discuss such emotional topics in this (mostly) emotionless medium (the internet).

[blondeatlast]

123. But you state the problem very clearly yourself:

"...relating my knowledge of Catholicism gleaned from my friends and the internet."

that is like saying that the scaling we put on the Democratic candidates in GD2004P applies to the rest of America; the Kerry is Bush-Lite vs. Kerry is as liberal as DK (it's in a post today, I'm NOT making it up!).

Surely you see the problem here...

As a librarian, I've learned that the internet can be a wonderful source for information... and also a wonderful source for pure pulp fiction brought forth as fact.

[A J]

16. I agree completely

I am a Christian and believe strongly in my faith. The church I am a member of is the UCC, which believes that you can be both a true liberal (pro choice, gay rights etc.) and also a strong Christian. Just the other day, I heard someone on talk radio blabbing about how all true Christians have to be Conservative and vote for Bush* and it made me angry.

The UCC is working hard to get rid of the "exclusivity" of religion that drives so many people away. "Holier than thou" is no way to run a church, and you can tithe your way into heaven.

To me, the most important teaching in the Christian faith is to help the poor, the needy, the downtrodden. It seems to me that Conservative Christians are missing the point on this one completely, because they are actually selfish bastards who just want to use religion as an exclusive club.

[scottcsmith]

20. I was hoping for a religion forum

I don't think the lounge is the right place for religious discussions, and suggested a separate board for religious topics, but was shot down by the admins and told to just ignore it. Oh well.

[Malva Zebrina]

29. I am not sure what you mean by religious forums

some people would take that to mean evangelism or witnessing forums where people state their faith and beliefs and pray, perhaps and others may think it to discuss various philosophy re religion.

Internet Infidels is not a bad -place to discuss religion philosophically if that is what you seek. I have not visited there in a while, so I hesitate to praise it further.



http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php?s=c7943c6c7a262426e2ab6ca08d36fa96

[MoonAndSun]

33. The Meeting Room often has threads on various religious topics.

and the threads last a long time on the 1st page, not just a couple of hours.

[Redbear]

22. Amen, brother.

Pardon the pun, but you are correct. Religion-bashing goes over the top when you slam all those who hold a religious faith.

[blondeatlast]

124. As well as slamming those who don't.

There are a few Christians on the board who paint those who don't have spiritual beliefs with a broad brush, too.

The particular Christian bashing poster (I KNOW who is being discussed here--I've been on the wrong side of his vitriol) si no more indicative of the nonbelievers on DU as I am a representative of Concerned Women for America.

FWIW, I AM a Christian who wants to see the debates continue.

DUers, the alert button is your friend.

[Dookus]

24. Like the candidate wars...

one sees what one's looking for.

As a rationalist, I've been called closed-minded, narrow, ignorant, etc.

I've also never seen any thread that so much as questions the political decisions of the Pope without someone calling the poster anti-Catholic, or calling it Catholic-bashing.

Some of us ARE in fact anti-theist, in that we believe magical thinking to be harmful to our society. There's nothing wrong with saying that.

That being said, I don't attack individuals for what they believe in. But I do express my own views and will defend them, and challenge those who want to bring their religion to the public square.

[Djinn]

86. well said

it sometimes seems that simply by not beleiving in God you're "christian" bashing - even though I hold the exact same views on Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc etc

It's OK for someone to beleive that I'll be writhing in the hell fire for all eternity, but if I beleive they're totally wasting their time I'm being offensive? the thing about beliefs is that everyone gets to have them.

[Sophree]

112. Huh?

"it sometimes seems that simply by not beleiving in God you're "christian" bashing"

I don't see that at all. Not from Christian DUers, anyway.

[Sophree]

25. We should welcome people of faith

with arms wide open.

People of true faith believe in the same principles we all believe in- Truth, Justice, Fairness, Equality, Hope.

The Republican Party of today stands for Gluttony, Bloodlust, Oil Lust, Greed, Warmongering, and Hatred. People of faith and good conscience acknowledge this and it REPULSES them. When liberals deride people of faith as stupid and insult their belief systems, we give them nowhere else to turn. This is self-defeating. And, well, stupid.

.02

[Sandpiper]

28. I agree that DUers ought to refrain from

Ad hominem attacks on theists merely for the fact that they are theists.

However, there are many on this board who profoundly disagree with the tennets and philosophy of christianity (or any organized religion for that matter), and when they express this disagreement, it tends to hurt the feelings of resident christians. So, what is to be done?

On one hand, the non christians shouldn't personally attack the christians. On the other hand though, we shouldn't expect those who aren't christians to muzzle their criticisms of the religion simply because it hurts the christians' feelings.

And finally, if civility between the religious and irreligious is the goal we're after, there are some resident evangelists who need to tone down the pro religious rhetoric as well.

[blondeatlast]

126. I absolutely agree--and I'm on the believer side of the fence.

There's a believer or two on DU who can dish it out like crazy, but they can't take it.

Same goes with a couple of non-believers.

Please don't assume, though, that believers are the only ones who take it way too personally. There is one glittering example I can think of who trumps all cards on both sides of the fence.

[Cleita]

32. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

Too many posters who belong to a formal sect of religion are too quick to base their arguments as facts with the Bible or other religious guide books like the Koran as their authority. When one points out the fallacy of their sources, they get uppity and then the offended party throws in an ad hominem attack like you illustrated above.

Maybe we need to define what sources are acceptable to all as indisputable facts for the sake of argument. I for one have no objection to the Bible as a source of probable history, although flawed, tampered with over the centuries and often inaccurate, but still probable. Also, there is literature and life lessons to be learned in the Bible, all very commendable, however, when someone starts in with the word of God argument, I demure.

For one thing your gods are not my gods so stop trying to convince me my gods are false using your book as an authority as contrary to my book. We will only find the answer when we question everything that is not proven. One of these days there is a possibility that the existence of a God like the one we envision will be proved. Astronomers and Quantum physicists are coming very close to the possibility, but they must be able to work scientifically without dogmatists interferring to make that happen.

[smirkymonkey]

48. My sentiments exactly...

I do not have a problem with people who practice their faith, it is those who try to impose thier religious beliefs on the whole of society that is the problem. Also, there are differences within the Christian faith itself and I think that needs to be recognized here at DU.

The issue for me is separation of church and state. Everyone has a right to believe as he sees fit, however when fundamentalist beleifs of any denomination start to become codified into law and interfere with my civil rights, I believe I have a right to speak up against it.

I will not accept someone elses faith as the ultimate truth, however, and I resent the assumption that because something is in the bible it is to be unequivocally accepted by all as absolute truth.

As long as one sets forth their beliefs as a matter of faith and opinion, I do not take issue. It is the frequent intolerance of the extreme wings of Christianity toward those who neither believe their creation myth nor choose to live by the words of the Bible that I have a problem with.

[Vernunft II]

170. My sentiments exactly.

[lapislzi]

35. Tolerance and respect

Although I am an atheist, I enjoy respectful discussions with people of all faiths. When the threads turn ugly, however, I hit the "hide" or "ignore" feature. I think the beauty of DU is its general atmosphere of tolerance.

Many atheists are sick and tired of being bashed around by the fundamentalists in the world at large, however, and I can see how that spills over into the DU arena. I know I for one am very circumspect about admitting that I am an atheist. I almost always encounter a negative reaction, or plain bewilderment.

I don't particularly want to debate whether there's a god. I do enjoy discussions about matters of faith, and faith versus reason, creation myths, comparative religions, etc.

DU is big enough to hold all of us.

[seabeyond]

36. further, i have great love for the fundamentalist

do you know how hard it is to live their lives. oh, they are in such judgement of all humans, that includes themselves. was telling husband just last night, to live that, there is an universal law that comes along with that. i feel, in my beyond of seeing religion, that this is indicitive of the rush adn drugs, the affairs the child molestation (non confirmed) all the hypocrisy. i think the universe gives us to face what we are the most fearful of. you know, sittin in the middle of conservative white males. such a sin for black to be with white. all these old men, you know what is in their closet, i black girl.

they have been gotten hold of in the brain washing of jesus, the sheep follower, and they arent living the beauty jesus gave us. this i think is the sad part. they are missing the joy of jesus.

i sit in this church/ school feeling a role in allowing them to learn to love the pagan me, not be so afraid of the pagan me........and in their ability to not judge me, to see my lite, i swear, it is a gift to them, to allow their own lite ot shine

i have no desire to take their power, my wish is that they own their own, and not give it to preacher, another.

i suggest to them, as jesus says, remove the bushel and allow your lite to shine

i see this as a gift that the christian democrats can give these sad people, cause i assure you in their fear, they are in pain. and in love, i see it has to be in love, in higher, what a gift it can be.

i hear the anger on this board, and dont participate, yet i have patience, knowing the last decade, a lot of liberals have gotten to the point of this anger, and in another post hate of bush. no hate for me. i can honor the liar, .........doesnt mean he gets to be my president, but i can out loud say i love this liar

[meow mix]

38. i would never try to talk about "theist issues" of which i am concerned

out of fear of being roasted i guess ;p
owell..

[Selwynn]

39. No, what we need is progressive religious non-theists

To counter the blind dogma of fundamentalism and classical theism

[TXlib]

43. What is a religious non-theist?

[Lars39]

40. I have gotten to the point where I cringe at proselytizing as well as

the broad-brush denigration of christians. I have come a long way. :)

My personal answer has been to call the fundamentalists that have voted and will vote for Bush, Bushtians. Not real catchy, but it just might not offend the fundamentalists that would vote Democratic.

However, if any fundamentalists subscribe to the Dominionist viewpoint that wants to establish a theocracy here and abroad, they are Bushtians also. Who knows how many, if any Bushtians can be deprogrammed.

[seabeyond]

46. fundamentalist isnt a bad word

i dont see it that way. i just see that as a people that take the bible literally

isnt that what a fundamentalist is

i dont take bible literally ergo not a fundamentalist. yet in evolution, the progression of man, there is a place for this step in our life. merely a part of the path, and hopefully people will continue on the journey beyond. some just get stuck here.

i also feel that all of this is a huge to what we want in our world, the understanding of all this. i think it is a big part in any movement and shouldnt be fearful in talking it

if we want the world to be able to do in a flash, middle east, isreal, the u.s. then surely we can do it in grace here on a board. a place to start and practice and learn to do in non judgement

[stopbush]

42. If the pro-religionists don't have the wherewithal to back their beliefs

against the onslaught of the non-believers, then they need to do some work in that department.

I think the DU mods do an excellent job weeding out the over-the-top posts in religious threads. There's consistency there, the same consistency that I see in non-religious threads. Why change? There's enough censorship going around these days to gag a maggot. The last thing we need is more censorship imposed in one of the last refuges of open liberal thought, ie: good ol' DU!

Censorship is no replacement for a well-reasoned argument nor a fully engaged debate.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stopbush]

75. Well, your term "Pro-FeelsGoodIsGood" is such a narrowly

defined moniker as to be absolutely useless. It certainly wouldn't describe my feelings or beliefs nor those of anybody else I know, for that matter.

What do you find objectionable in the term "pro-religionist?" I was trying to come up with a term that was pan-religious in its nature while being germane to the discussion at hand, something that would include everyone from Jews to Muslims to Wichans to Xtians to Druids to those still worshiping Athena, Zeus or Odin et al. Certainly the beliefs of people worshiping something other than the acceptable gods-du-jour have their place in our nation's tradition of religious tolerance, right?

[Blue_Chill]

115. It was only meant to annoy

As "pro-religionist" does. What's wrong with the term "religious" as is commonly used to describe anyone that is of a religion. And of course all religions have their place, I don't appreciate your implication to the contrary.

[Az]

57. The nonbelievers have to learn something too

There has never been a religious debate that ended in someone losing their belief. It simply does not work that way. The manner in which the mind works means that we accumulate experience through emotional weighting. The more a thing impacts us the more our mind gives creadance to it.

As we grow and learn about the world around us our various social institutions and systems imprint themself on our minds. The enviroment we grow up in takes on particularly strong fondations in how we view the world throughout our lives.

These life long learned views work. They function. Whether they are accurate or not is irrelavant to how we live our lives for the most part. Thus the become depended on. It is the emotional attachment to our experiences that gives them the presense in our world view.

In time we learn to temper our emotionally learned experiences with tools such as reason and rational thought. But these tools only carry as much weight as we learn to give them. Some brains are simply wired to hold older beliefs stronger than new ones. A variance in this is natural to expect. Thus some people form a stronger reliance on reason than on learned experential knowledge.

Thus when a skeptic comes before a believer and gives them well founded arguments about why something cannot be true the believer will be unphased. Simply put they know the skeptic is wrong because everything about the world tells them it is so. The fact that they may be wrong has no bearing on this nature of belief.

Until such a time as the balance of reliance on reason and the particular argument is balanced it cannot overcome their belief. Such occurrences are infrequent (depending on the subject matter) and unfortunately are not pleasant experiences either.

The shifting of belief often follows a tramatic event which unseats a persons reliance on a system of belief. The constant presense of other systems may be able to take advantage of this break in reliance on the older systems and the person may shed their old beliefs and find something new to rely on. Or they may find only others from their belief system to rely upon and thus fall back into the system that broke. They may also fall into a nihilistic state where they lose all semblance of direction.

The battle for belief is not one fought in a day. It is not one fought to keep score. It is not one to show superiority. It is a battle fought day to day to expose people to ideas and ways to find the truth for themself and to be there for each other and hope that they are there for you if you should fall. We are born ignorant and screaming into this world. It is only by struggling together that we get anywhere in this life.

[JasonDeter]

45. I agree.

Alot of the disdane or hatred shown towards Christianity is misplaced or uneducated generational opinion.

[blindpig]

47. yes, but

to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, "missionaries are obnoxious and should stay home." Many have an uncontrollable urge to "share the good word". As a diest/pagan I find this tiresome, at least.

[wyldwolf]

49. no way... no free rides...

My thesis: we need to control the anti-religion threads and posts on DU. We locked down sex threads in the lounge to make the site more user-friendly; perhaps we need to do so with the theist-bashing (and specifically, christian-bashing).

I disagreed with locking down the sex threads and I disagree with locking down the anti-religion threads.

At DU, we have all kinds of democrats - from centrist leaning dems to socialists. None of them suggest that threads knocking their philosophies be banned. We get in and duke it out.

The religious here should do the same. Why should you be any different?

[TXlib]

61. I'm not talking about banning any philosophy

I'm talking about trying to change the culture of disrespect.

Posts that are over-the-top disrespectful should be avoided, and those who cannot control themselves should be warned.

[Malva Zebrina]

81. anti religion threads need to be controlled

that implies that atheists and agnostics are the guilty party.


that is NOT the case.

There have been, within the past two days, a couple of threads, beating up mercilessly on Christians by other Christians who deem their sect or their relgious beliefs more true than other
christians.

These threads were accompanied, ad nauseum by such derogatory language and description as "fundie" and in the same breath "wacko"

You tell me--is this not bashing
christians? Is it not hypocrisy?


Post like that, denigrating these "wackos" and you will get a whole thread of a lot of posts agreeing that there are
christians whose religion is not as good as one's own.


and these will not be atheists or agnostics--they will be other
Christians.

I suppose now, the knee jerk is just beginning and I will be accused of "Christian bashing", but I am simply stating what I have observed here over the past two days and that is not bashing anything but is fact.

The incredible thing to me is that there are rules stating the bigotry is not allowed and indeed the judgement on what exactly is bigotry is up to a vulnerable human being, maybe harried, but I do not think these and this biogtry has ever been deleted or reprimanded.

and what does that say? If the bigotry is "popular" amongst the majority , who all agree that "fundies" are evil and are "not Christians" then it is acceptable, it seems.


think about that. and further, Ihave seen some ignorance by these people posting that bigotry, on what exactly a "fundamentalist" is.


they are off in left field on that and under a complete misinterpretation of the meaning of that term as it applies to the religion here in the US.

[cally]

50. This is the one issue on DU

that I just avoid. I got into a few threads where folks I respected showed no respect towards others. Too many times liberal Christians are attacked for the sins of the fundie Repubs. I now try to avoid those threads because the hatefulness is too much. I don't know if the mods and admin can do much more, though.

[Az]

51. Without dialog the camps only grow farther apart

Yes. Conversations about religion can often become heated. But we cannot allow this topic to simply be shuffled to the side because it is too difficult. The very fact that it is difficult makes it important. There are people in this world ready to die for their beliefs. There are people hoping to die for their beliefs.

Belief is one of the single most powerful forces on this planet. It guides the very way we see the world around us. The only thing that can temper belief is experience. If we do not experience others positions we will continue to form irrational opinions of them and the camps will increase their distance until we are no longer recognisable as humans to one another.

Unfortunately the camps are already so distant that we have lost the ability to converse on these matters. Some have been oppressed and are angry about it. They lash out. Our society has ceased to progress and grows stagnant. Stress is building. We either move forward together or the camps will settle the issues in a far worse manner.

[Cleita]

53. You forgot the people who are willing to kill or let other people

die whose beliefs are not like theirs. Religion is very dangerous and needs to have as little power in the secular state as possible. No one can make anyone believe or not believe, but they have to make sure their beliefs aren't made into law. As it is many of our laws stem from religious beliefs that victimize a segment of the population and they should be expunged from the codes.

[throwthebumsout]

54. I'm not afraid of diversity of ideas. Why are you?

I'm comfortable enough in my own beliefs to discard the opinions of others as I see fit. I already find the censorship on this site to be over the top. Seems as every time I go to read a post with a title that interests me, a moderator has locked it because it doesn't conform to some set of bullshit rules they've established here. Everytime I turn around, somebody's whining about their pet peeve. "Wah, they use cuss words, and I want my kids to come here." "Wah, there are people who are contemptuous of Christians, and I want my inlaws to come here."

Toughen up. It's a big old world, and not everybody agrees with everybody. I see things on here every day that piss me off, and do you know what I do? I just chalk it up to that poster being an idiot. I suspect your inlaws could probably do the same.

[TXlib]

62. *sigh*

I'm not talking about discouraging debate, or having less diversity in ideas.

I'm talking about making sure that those discussions remain respectful.

[DrWeird]

55. I disagree.

Of all the threads in which religion is discussed, the loudest and most annoying are the ones that cry about "antitheism" when there is none.

Any intolerance of christianity or any other religion is against the rules and will be deleted. If it's not deleted promptly, it's not antichristian. But people see things like complaints against the Pope, creationism, homophobia, etc and figure it's an attack on their religion when it's not.

That said, I'll occasionally see things like, "I think organized religion is a bad idea, it's an opiate for the masses," but this is said person's opinion and I see no reason it shouldn't be allowed.


If you don't like it use the "ignore" feature.

[ixion]

56. encourage all people with open minds, who don't mind debating

but I don't think it's right to target on demographic.

[TXlib]

63. I think targeting demographics is entirely appropriate

There are a lot of liberal christians out there who are voting republican because nobody told them otherwise.

We certainly need to grow our numbers as democrats; ours is a big-tent party, and we need to invite a few more!

However, we DO need to make sure that those who have recently decided to check us out don't immediately feel set upon by a possibly small yet very vocal minority.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. I have never seen

a religious DUer tell a non-religious DUer that he or she is going to hell. Never. Most of us don't believe that in the first place.

(The occasional freeper disruptor might come on like that, but a genuine DUer? No.)

However, I have seen lots of anti-religious threads that go way beyond personal statements or rational discussions, such as "religion is the root of all evil," or "well if you want to be superstitious."

Usually people who can't let religion be mentioned without making a sarcastic remark are the ones who have issues that don't really have anything to do with religion. Scratch someone with a bad attitude, and you'll find someone who grew up in an unloving, abusive, pseudo-religious environment. (My late father, a Lutheran pastor, had only one comment about Madalyn Murray O'Hair: "She must have been terribly abused by religious people.")

Your average rational atheist is not ashamed of his or her position but does not feel compelled to put people down. (Thanks for bringing up this point, TxLib!)

Oregon, where I lived until last summer, is a very secular place with the highest percentage of declared atheists of any state, In three years on DU, I have run into more bitter atheists with issues than I did in eighteen years in Oregon, and that was while spending time in academia and the performing arts, two fields not known for their religiosity.

Making a snooty attack on someone who agrees with you on most issues is simply counter-productive.

[Blue_Chill]

60. I see the same lame bullshit coming from the anti-thiest camp.

whaa whaa we should be allowed to speak our minds whaa whaa. No one is asking anyone not to speak their minds. But do so in a respectful manner. I have yet to see one good reason why we have to respect every group on this board but when it comes to religious people we can go ahead and fire off insults and defend it as opinion.

Show some self control or go somewhere else.

[TXlib]

64. AMEN!

And thank you!

[Cleita]

65. A respectful manner?

Sometimes stating the truth is regarded as disrespectful. In my opinion it's disrespectful of people to blast those whose beliefs they don't share just because the person expressed an opionion. People should practice their religion in their churches and temples and leave it alone elsewhere. As it is now I have a Jesus freak who follows me around ranting to me about the end coming and that I am going to hell.

I don't live in a really large area so I have few choices to go shopping, but this fanatic and his wife follow me around for the simple reason that my husband once refused a phamphlet they tried to force on me. I could report him to the authorities, but I don't because I don't feel it will solve anything so I put up with it. But this is an example of some of the extremes religious people go to.

My opinion is that if I go to their church or invade their property or homes with my beliefs I am wrong. I just want the same respect shown to me when I refuse their proselytizing in public or I don't let them on my property.

[Blue_Chill]

72. YES a respectful manner!

- You are in no position to tell me what "the truth" is or isn't concerning religion.

- I don't care what the loony in your town does, that loony isn't me and I shouldn't have to suffer insult for his action.

- proselytizing isn't something I believe in so why the hell should I be lumped in with those people when Duers decide to go off on a tirade. Be respectful and you can make your point and avoid a flame war.

So I stand by my statement there is no reason why people should insult DUers that happen to be religious. If you need to vent go see a doctor because I don't want to read about how "christians" are this or that. I'm not so leave me the hell out of it by learning some frickin manners.

[Sandpiper]

91. Ah yes, but the problem is

So I stand by my statement there is no reason why people should insult DUers that happen to be religious.

When the unpleasant truth is pointed out regarding the teachings or actions of someone's religion, they usually take it as a personal affront and then start flinging accusations that the truth teller is anti *fill in the blank religion*.

The only real way to prevent religious DUers from getting their feelings hurt is to make any criticism of religion verboten. I'm not comfortable with that.

[Blue_Chill]

99. That isn't a problem

If your problem is a teaching then question it directly without being a jerk. For example the Catholic teaching that suicide sends you to hell, which is used against assisted suicide for terminally ill patients.

State that you are against it without saying something like "WTF is wrong with these stupid moron catholics and their dumb rule stoping doctors from putting bone cancer patients out of their misery" There is always a way to state your case and be respectful.

[TXlib]

173. You raise exactly the problem to which i refer!

People post in anger when their dander is up... not all of us, but enough to raise eyebrows.

I've seen too many threads that could've been a useful and productive discussion of religion, or a specific teaching of a specific religion, but the author of the thread, or one of the immediate repliers, phrased their opinion in a combative manner that was bound to start a flame war.

It is this behavior with which I have a problem.

I guess the moral of the story is that, if we want to effect change in this arena, we must be liberal (no pun intended) in our use of the "Alert" button with some of the more obnoxious denizens here.

[Malva Zebrina]

76. I think it is called "political correctness"

and you have to not say one bad thing about any group, not even state facts that are negative toward one group or the other. It is not politically correct to do so even if it is fact.

[Blue_Chill]

102. Not what I'm talking about

I don't care if you have a problem with my faith, church, or anything else. I just demand you show respect in voicing it. There is no reason why you can't discuss a topic without insulting many DUers.

[Malva Zebrina]

104. Excuse me

but I fail to see what you are talking about.

I have no problem with your faith as it applies to you and as you see fit to practice it. I am not trying to institute laws, nor am I an activist against your beliefs or would I support any laws that would prohibit you from practicing your religion and your right to believe in your god.

I simply cannot believe in any of it as you do.

That I post that, and your response is the perfect example of the knee jerk reaction that is prejudicial to those who do not subscribe to your beliefs.

I am within my rights to say I cannot believe in what you believe, re gods. I simply cannot believe in your gods.

Does that mean that I am trying to squelch your religion or bash it? I am stating what my beliefs are. You are trying to make it into an issue of bashing on the part of atheists.

I submit to you that you are trying to bash atheists.

[Blue_Chill]

110. THAT is a knee jerk reaction

- I was clearing up that unlike what you said I don't want anyone to not voice their opinions. Positive or negative. I believe that is different from what you wrote originally.

- I don't care what you believe don't know what gave you the impression that I did.

- I never said you shouldn't say you don't believe in "my god"

- I never claimed you were bashing anything, I used "you" in the general sense.

- I don't bash "atheists" because they don't bother me at all. Sometimes I understand them more then those on my side of the religious fence.

[seabeyond]

121. in your demand

on someone talking to you in a certain way, then you are demanding to have power and control over another. and that never works. wink

just a suggestion, though i chose to be respectful, easy enough for me.

[Blue_Chill]

127. Yes I do demand respect....

...call me crazy.

[tkulesa]

180. Respect

Everyone at DU deserves to be treated with respect regardless of their faith (or possible lack there-of). Respect can't be defined as "You're not allowed to disagree with my faith." That's not respect. That's coercion.

Respect for faith means people are allowed to have their faith, they can express their faith, and they can live their faith. Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody here at DU is denying anyone this respect.

Respect doesn't mean that others have to complement their faith, privilege their faith, or protect their faith from review, discussion or criticism.

One of the common arguments used against every branch of the civil rights movement has been that people are demanding "special considerations" and "privileged standing." The funny thing is, it's always the people in power who have that special consideration and that privileged standing, and they complain whenever it is taken away. They can't standing being just equal to other people.

That's what I see happening here. IMO, some of the Christians here at DU seem to be up in arms because they don't feel as special or privileged as they think they deserve.

The entire idea that Christians are persecuted here is very funny.

[DrWeird]

94. Weren't you the one...

who in the same thread whined about antitheism and called for respect for christians while at the same time calling Scientology a crazy loony cult?

[Blue_Chill]

101. No.

I have noticed your failure to address my point. And while I have feelings concerning scientology I haven't called them a crazy loony cult. They do nothing worse then certain sects of my own religion (Catholic).

I haven't been able to find much good in that religion nor any reason to follow it, but I certainly don't start threads insulting all it's members nor support such insults as being nothing more then opinions.

[PurityOfEssence]

66. A prime objective of religious belief is the demand special treatment

Nowhere is this more true than in social situations, and that's why it's anti-democratic to endorse religion. Sure, many attack religion here, but many also attempt to argue in a balanced way.

If you want to tone down the place to attract the middle, you'll still have problems with all of the other wild-eyed beliefs expressed here.

Religion is the cosmic trump card in this society; you can stand there with an axe dripping blood and mutter something about god, and you're gonna get a better break. Enough's enough. Having sparked a few flame-fests here three years ago when I came aboard, I've mellowed; no longer do I automatically point out the religious component to EVERY PARENTAL MURDER OF CHILDREN in the news.

Religion is a tricky subject, and much as you'll see some decry it as (fill in the blankety-blank) you'll also find belief partisans attacking vehemently.

Nobody's belief system is above reproach. The harsh fact remains that the major problems in the world are either directly caused or overwhelmingly facilitated by religious belief, and those operatives in the driver's seat who hold it demand the right to be presumed morally superior people. People who hold out the right to question other people's views while demanding that their's are not only held off limits but as proof of superiority are supremely anti-democratic and should take the heat for it.

I heartily applaud the "right christians" that Al Sharpton refers to, and their contribution is necessary. Conversely, if they can't get it together and bring their weight to bear against their theocratic cousins, THEY BEAR SOME RESPONSIBILITY.

Religion is based also on the disconnect of responsibility. As a white guy, I accept that I'll often get some heat and snarls in certain parts of town, and I don't hold people responsible for it; my subgroup of humanity is responsible for some serious ugliness, and a little backlash is to be expected. Along that same line, those of religion have to understand how much discomfort, oppression, recklessness, instability and outright insanity they've wrought on the world at large, atone for it, and MAKE IT THEIR JOB TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM.

No, we've been through this before, and when overt flame-fests are launched, they're generally well policed.

Like it or not, this is A PRO-RELIGION site. It's marginally so, I'll grant you, but so nonetheless. Your wife's and her family's people are already getting a break here, so be happy with that.

It's very peculiar. Many of fervent religious belief literally think that they're being oppressed if their oppression of others is limited in any way.

If they have a problem with some of the bashing, point them to FR, where they can see people advocating that god kill people for getting in their greedy little way. A fair-minded person will generally see a great amount of reason prevailing in religious threads on DU.

Religion has an illegal and immoral stranglehold on this country, and it's getting worse. Enough already.

[seabeyond]

71. the four agreements

by ruiz. has anyone read it. it is a wonderful book, one of the agreements dont take anything personally. the arrogance to take personally. it is really nifty and if implimented, ah the freedom there is.

no one can be disrespectful, only if i allow. it is my power to feel a disrespect or not. someone attack me in my religion, i personally just feel this person has the issue whatever it may be. if i attack another i know it is my issue not anothers

one tries to intimidate, they cannot succeed unless i allow them to intimidate, they have no power to, only i can allow

it is really all so simple

and all the boards i have been on, all the angers, there has not been a time, when i havent found the possibility of peace. and i am telling you be it politics, family or religion there is no more fun, than to be able to find peace in chaos.

if we chose to go into battle in polarity, it is cause there is something in ourselves that wants to experience, learn grow. our lesson

[Malva Zebrina]

107. Like it or not, this is A PRO-RELIGION site.

Religion is the majority in this country. That is the undisputed fact.

NOn religious or non believers are in the minority.

However there used to be comfort in the fact that this country protected the minority from the tyranny of the majority through it's laws and it's recourse to the courts if there was a dispute,k in cases that would challenge or protect this constitutional right.

I no longer believe that is the case.

We have an evil cabal, a bunch of Straussians, for the past three years, that is bullying all of us here in the this country, pell mell as fast as they can, led by a patently ignorant and stupid man who has
been elected, (hee hee)as it's poster boy, but to whom they throw a bone every now and then in order let him "think"--ugh, not to "think" he is incapable of that--let us say "fantasize" instead of 'think", that he is running things here. He really thinks he is running things and does not have a clue as to what is going on. I believe that.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

153. No. Not pro-'religion.' Pro-Constitution and 1st Amendment: Bill of Rights

The United States of America's official state 'religion' is
secular democracy with the rule of law in the form of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights as its 'bible.'

Absolutely positively not 'religion.' Read the 1st Amendment.
There is a reason that it is the 1st Amendment, not the 4th ot 6th.

Our government has been hijacked with the aid of atleast one Supreme Court Justice (Antonin Scalia) who has admitted that he believes in the Divine Right of Kings, that rulers are chosen by 'God' and derive their legitimacy from 'God.' He's even said that democracy is a new thing that interferes with 'God's will' and that people like Scalia must do what they can to correct that! I'm not kidding!

And there has been a 25 year secret effort to infuse the public, many of them fundamentalist Christians, with this yearning for a theocracy such as the Taliban had in Afghanistan!http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_5160.shtml

This is what makes so many du-ers hostile to religion.

Because it is being used to steal our country, conquer the world, and kill millions.

This is why people sometimes make angry statements that offend others.

[TXlib]

174. All the more reason to have respectful conversations about religion

When moderate theists visit our site, we don't want to turn them away in the first day; we want to win them over.

That's why invective and sweeping generalisations should be avoided. I know I'm not blameless here, but I do strive to improve myself. (And I know I can count on a certain DUer to call me on it when I break my own rules of conduct!) :)

[Sophree]

182. exactly n/t

:thumbsup:

[JohnOneillsMemory]

183. Agreed. I merely offer why anger surfaces, politics and religion ARE mixed

together and can't be seperated in different threads anymore than, say, discussion of guns and bullets.

I'm also amazed at some of the 'us vs them' dehumanizing comments made on this, supposedly, liberal website.

Your call for civility is well-timed as Mel Gibson and Rove turn up the heat among the GOP's religious support base.

[Sophree]

181. There you haveit-

"This is what makes so many du-ers hostile to religion.

Because it is being used to steal our country, conquer the world, and kill millions."

It is being used to steal our country. People of faith are not trying to steal this country. People who stealing this country (and the resources of the entire world) are USING religion as a justification and a means of consolidating power. Most true Christians, Muslims, Jews, are horrified by this destortion.

I guess all I ask is that people be aware of this and stop blaming us for something which we have no control over, and that bothers US as much as, if not more than, it does you.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

185. Absolutely. I wish the Berrigan Bros. followers were a billion strong. n/t

[Sophree]

186. Who are the Berrigan Bros.?

I think I'm totally outta the loop. :-)

[JohnOneillsMemory]

188. Catholic priests Daniel+Phillip. Anti-war/nuke/poverty activists since60s

They were amazing activists for social justice for decades. One just died last year, I think. They worked to stop the Vietnam War, the Draft, the Nuclear Arms Race, and policies that perpetuated poverty and injustice.

They are insipiring examples of people who took the nurturing values of Christ to the streets and urged politicians to stop the killing.

Do a google search on these men. You must read about these men.

[Sophree]

190. I will, thank you!

They sound like wonderful human beings.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

67. I'm Christian, but don't want religion anywhere near my politics

I agree with the poster above that 'freedom from religion' is just as necessary. Thankfully, I live in an area of the country where we keep our religious beliefs to ourselves. Most New Englanders keep their relationship with God private. As should everyone else.

I come to DU to learn about politics, not be prosletyzed or exposed to religious dogma. I think a separate forum would be fine for those wanting to discuss religion. That way if someone posted a thread about evolution or abortion in GD, I wouldn't have to read irrational responses based on something in the Bible.

[Dob Bole]

82. I'm not following...

Where in the Bible does it say to keep your religious beliefs to yourselves? Or perhaps your denomination does not use the Bible very frequently?

Sorry, I just can't see how someone's faith and politics can be separated completely. Your personal beliefs have to affect somehow your beliefs on the role of government. What is human nature? What is our purpose? These questions cannot be avoided when choosing a theory on which you base your voting habits. Just my observations,

Dob Bole

[Djinn]

93. well there's this

Matthew 6:5 And when ye pray, ye shall not be as the hypocrites: for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have received their reward.

Matthew 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thine inner chamber, and having shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret shall recompense thee.

[Dob Bole]

96. Sure...

But that's an admonition against going around saying "Look at me! I'm REAL HOLY!"

It says nothing about your worldview not affecting how you vote. That R Baloney.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

106. I'm Catholic-so I am Familiar with the Bible

I think it's cultural up here to not talk about religion. New Englanders go to church but, like everything else, have a Mind-Your-Own-Business attitude toward it. People who go door-to-door like Jehovah's Witnesses are frowned upon, and you never talk about religion in the work place or other places deemed inappropriate. It's not that religion is frowned upon. People are reserved up here, and I think most people who are in-your-face about religion are considered rude.

[Malva Zebrina]

111. I think that is a correct observation

we do not like ostentatious displays of religion here--or ostentatious displays of anything here.

But it is curious that in my state of Maine, we have been most accepting of allowing any sect to settle here-in that way we are most accepting-I am thinking mainly of the rather off beat religions that existed in peace without any prosecution -- for instance--the Shakers had a few villages here. There are others also.

It is the glitzy religions that bombard our individual space and resort to accosting us on the street, that are offensive to a New Englander.

When I travelled in Kentucky, I was amazed that bible, gospel singers set up their truck platforms in the WalMart parking lot and sang their gospel tunes for hours, complete with the whole electronic booming. The amazing part was that it was piped inside to the walmart aisles! Never would that happen here--

Well I should never say "never"

[Kathy in Cambridge]

125. Good Observations

It's the ostentatiousness of Fundamental Christianity that raises the eyebrows of us Yankees. We keep to ourselves, mind our own business, and expect everyone else to do so as well. We're really just a bunch of Cranky Yankees!

The scenario you describe in Kentucky would never happen here. The neighbors would complain about the noise, and the singers would probably be subject to harassment from kids. I've seen it happen to this guy that used to preach in Park Street "T" (Subway) station in Boston. The high school kids almost made him cry.

[smirkymonkey]

130. That is exactly one of the points that

we non-theists are trying to make - We don't live OUR lives according to the bible, and it offends me when someone implies that I am living the wrong way because I am not conventionally religious and because I don't use the bible as a manual to help me get through life.

If the Bible helps you in your life, then fine. I am happy it works for you. But the Bible has no place in guiding my life or spirituality and it should certainly have no place in determining the laws of a democratic state.

My personal spiritual beliefs inform my politics, yet I do not think that everyone in this country should be governed by MY spiritual beliefs.

I vote according to my conscience and you are free to vote according to yours. I believe in live and let live. I don't expect anyone to think like I do, but at the same time I do not want the religious views of others imposed upon me by law.

[Woodstock]

92. If Bush uses religion and the pope uses religion

to oppress minorities, the poor, women, ...

Then it needs to be discussed. We need strategies to counter this.

I don't bring up religion for any other reason. I think it's useful to fight fire with fire - to counter their hypocrisy with examples in the bible that show them to be acting counter to the teachings they claim to embrace.

Again, that's only to counter what they do. If they leave religion out of it, so will I. But they won't, they use it as a weapon, and try to paint the left as immoral - when really it is they who are immoral.

I'm not out to convert anyone or rub it in their faces. I'm out to win an election.

[AgadorSparticus]

163. exactly, I have a problem when religion is used as a tool to control

personally, i'd like to leave religion out of it altogether. not because I don't have one. but i find it hypocritical to use it as a tool for anything but PERSONAL growth. And I think if everyone did that--swept their own porch, this world would be a heck of alot nicer to live in.

[populistmom]

117. Exactly

We do NOT live in a theocracy (yet)!

[TXlib]

175. Not the point of my thread.

This is not supposed to be a discussion of the role of religion in politics, but on the rules of discussion of religion here on DU.

My sole point is we need to strive to keep the discussions respectful. I know of religious moderates who are divided between R/D who have come here. Some have been turned off by what they felt were anti-religious threads, and when I looked, I agreed with them; the posts made sweeping generalisations and were deliberately combative.

[Q]

68. Seems like someone always wants to 'control' someone else...

...and their thoughts. But why just 'anti-religion' threads? What's next on the banned list?

- Freedom of speech is essential to a healthy democracy. This is probably why our country is looking so sick right now.

[Malva Zebrina]

74. Amen to that

What's next on the banned list? Hmm--good question.

There are many different ways that people attempt to control others. It is an interesting observation and study.

[TXlib]

176. I never suggested banning such threads

I suggested that we strive to make such threads more respectful, and here is why:


I want to win this next presidential election.

There are a lot of independents and moderate republicans visiting our site.

Only 10% of the population is atheist.

We need to win over the curious, not drive them away.

[camero]

69. I've thought about this thread all day

I really feel we should focus our energy on the people who wish to create a theocracy on earth. There is a very real danger of this coming about.

A big part of the reason why I stopped going to church is that the message of love and peace has been hijacked by people and ministers which want nothing more than the power they would have if this came about.

I consider myself a Christian but feel it is better left to the personal realm and any discussions on it should focus on the real message of love and harmony for everyone, believer or not.

There is quite a difference between someone who believes for show and those who really take the message to heart.

I think the mods do a decent job with the posts that are over the top but I don't think we should stifle debate on this issue because it is becoming a very important one.

Not my best post. I tried. :)

[blondeatlast]

139. Keep the gov't out of my worship and religion out of my government.

I'm with you. I call myself a Christian, but I don't believe in hell. I've come to my beliefs through years of exploration (I've always been Christian, mostly Catholic). Then, I swear--I experienced a miracle.

I won't go into any detail, but I know there is a Spirit. I've been a different, and far better person, since then.

[camero]

151. Ain't it the truth

As another who has experienced a miracle. Actually more than one. I wonder why I'm still here sometimes. :)

[Ysabel]

70. in general...

i think that there is a large amount of lack of respect for (any subject and / or any person)...

with all the rules around here - i think this is rather ironic...

although - i don't really like rules much - excepting one that i very much like (one could argue that rules have not a thing to do with respect - personally i find rules somewhat offensive - i have a right to make my own decisions) - i think the less rules the better - i don't think that we learn by attempts to make us learn - i think we learn by trying...

i really wish - all people would show respect towards all people - no matter what - i wish everybody would just TRY it...

another way i think that people learn is by seeing good examples - i think that we can all be good examples by trying to be good examples and at the same time learning better how to be ourselves...

edit - typo...

[Woodstock]

95. That's a good message, Ysabel

It takes a little more effort to do it, but it is worth it to be civil to each other in the end.

[Ysabel]

160. thank you...

:)

[ulysses]

73. I don't see

a need for anything like admin action or what good it would do to lock more things down. Banning the sex threads didn't make the lounge lizards any less randy than they were before.

I *would* like to see more open and honest dialogue about religion. A lot of people here have been hurt in personal ways by conservative positions masked in religious garb, and while I don't think that that justifies attacks on all who are religious (and have said so quite a few times to good friends), I don't think we're going to do ourselves any favors by simply saying "You can't attack religion". Non-believers certainly are not immune from attack.

I do think that every effort should be made to include liberal theists, but I think that *we* need to do it instead of asking the admins and mods to create and enforce another unworkable rule. All sides can contribute to this - left atheists can remember that there *is* a religious left that doesn't hate them, and the religious left can remember that couching a conservative social argument in religious terms will likely get them flamed in religious terms in return. I just wouldn't ban violations of either remembrance.

[Pithlet]

78. We have to be careful.

I have seen instances where people merely voicing their beliefs has been called Christian bashing. People can be very protective of their beliefs, and for many, hearing an opposing view can feel threatening.

There is no doubt that actual bashing of poster's beliefs has happened, and still does, but there are already rules against that. If anyone sees them, they should alert so the post can be removed. To me, that is enough to ensure that all beliefs can open for discussion. If we separate one belief out for speical protection, it can seem like an undue restriction for many who do not follow that belief. The only solution to ensure that bashing never happens is to ban all discussion of religion, and to me, that would be going too far.

[truthbetold]

79. I'm a liberal Catholic.

Yeah, I'm not sure how that works either.
Mostly, I just ignore what the Pope says.

[sweetheart]

80. Liberal free speech, like the constitution says.

I am a buddhist. You could call it theism, thought in pratice it
is closer to taoism or american indian religions.

My religion respects the sancity of life and free will in all
beings, and if someone wants to ramble about how much they hate
religion, let them speak.... in speaking, *AWAKEN* them.

NO CENOSRSHIP. The people who speak up hating god is a part of
awakinging, as when one comes to the point of truly discovering
religous experience, is the time when they are most frustrated and
striking out at anything... take the slap on the other cheek and
demonstrate the values you live for.

[seabeyond]

83. ah sweetheart

you are a sweetheart. yes i am with you on what you say

[Malva Zebrina]

85. I honestly do not think I have seen that many posts that purport to

"hate god". First of all, no atheist would ever post that notion, and I am doubtful that any agnostic would either.

People who do not believe, sometimes maybe, do not know how to state that to those who are waxing about the god they believe in and it may be percieved by others that they, the non believer, are "hating god"

They are stating thier reasons why they cannot believe in a god and that is the same process as someone stating their belief in a god.



So, who is it that is "hating god" I wonder.

[sweetheart]

114. Who is it indeed?

My buddhist interpretation of god might better be phrased as
"life itself" / "your mothers arms" / "death" / "the totality"
We all come to terms with these things in life.

Sometimes coming to terms is fighting life tooth and nail, hating
religious people who have gone beyond the fear that compels hatred
towards a geinuine peace, awakening and discovery of ones connection
with life.

When you penetrate all the words, there is beneath the semantic
misunderstanding, "the totality", "God", "Nirvana", "Allah", "Tao"
"Nirguna Brahman", "eternity". Who is aware of those things
to hate them... good question, a very buddhist question indeed.

Perhaps the awakening within the person wanting more than anything
to be free, and feeling completely imprisoned by the 4 square walls
of their own prison of their own making.

God is all things in my thinking, the hatred, the awakening, the
ignorance and this moment, your reading this WORD. To hate God
is to hate yourself... and after a long cry and a hug, there is
no god, only yourself, and after all that, there is nothing but
God....

namaste,
-s

[blondeatlast]

141. I've never seen it, and I'm pretty sure you know where I stand.

I don't think there is any question that the Mods would act on such a thing, as they should.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

87. Being aware of how we are perceived is not the same as censorship

People can say whatever they want.

HOWEVER, they need to be prepared for the effect that their words may have.

I see the over-the-top atheists as akin to the people who make snide remarks about "trailer trash" and "rednecks."

Yes, poor rural whites often do counter-productive things, but it's a reflection of their being ground down by a system that doesn't give them a fair shake. Poor whites are people who should be voting Democratic, and while remarks about "raping sisters" will probably never be seen by someone who is getting by on a minimum wage job or two, such remarks put US in the wrong frame of mind for reaching out to that population.

Similarly, if you reflexively bash anyone who professes a religious belief system, it gives you zero credibility with them and may even cause YOU to write off people who are potential allies. I saw this in the anti-intervention movement, when some of the Marxists refused to attend an event just because Catholic clergy (liberation theology types) were involved. Nobody was asking the Marxists to turn Catholic, for goodness' sake, just listen to some people who had a lot of experience on the ground with Salvadoran peasants.

[sweetheart]

118. over the top atheists

When is hear such people, i love them. It hurts the suffering
and heartfelt denial that life is a divine gift beyone measure.

The thinking mind has its place, and beyond that, profundity,
divine awareness, religious ecstacy that is root to every religion
on earth, words making them seem different.

I am for censoring hate, personal attacks and such, and even then
i can only see a crying child beating his mother until he finally
melts in her arms and loves her.

Love is the most powerful weapon on earth. It is the WMD of the soul. (weapon of mass divinity)

namaste,
s

[Spentastic]

167. I'd just like to say

As an atheist there's nothing I like more than to be patronised.

"life is a divine gift beyone measure"

I'd say in a world where life for the majority is characterised by grinding poverty, disease, violence and hatred that the divine might be well advised to put a little more effort in.

[Woodstock]

88. My thoughts

I expressed a lot of them above, so I'm editing this to kind of summarize...

All I ask is that the athiests think about this: all Christians are not the enemy. My religion is not the religion of George W. Bush. I follow Jesus, Bush follows $. I don't want to impose my religion on anyone - religion has no place in government, and shouldn't have any place in politics. BUT... if Bush and the pope politicize religion and use it to oppress people, then I'm going to respond that they are not acting in a Christian manner (and provide examples and proof.)

[Pithlet]

119. You're right.

Although I'm not a Christian, I do recognize that what Bush and is ilk preach is not Christianity. I'm an atheist/agnostic who realizes that Christians are not the enemy. I think it is important to make that distinction when talking about those who would use Christianity and try to adopt it to their own greedy selfish, oppressive means.

[Perky]

89. As a fundamentalis christian I agree,

Look I am perfectly willing to be a small minority here.

I oppose abortion but I also have to support a woman's right to choose. I don't find the positions incompaitble.

I am sick to death of the religios right Falwell/Robertson villifying and demonizing the left.

All they have succeeded in doing is turning many on the left away from the claims of Christ and abandoning the poor and the meek.


I personally blame the Christian Left back in the Carter Years for not taking on the hypocrisy of the Moral Majority.

As for the tone of the site: I have no problem in Bashing the RR...but we need to realize they do not speak for God or His Son and they will reap the rewards as modern day Pharisees.

Mess with Savior and his claim and then you are fair game......haha.

[Cleita]

98. One thing you stated.

"I oppose abortion but I also have to support a woman's right to choose. I don't find the positions incompaitble."

If you oppose abortion for yourself and support other women's right to choose, then that is not incompatible. But, my question is, will you interfere with laws that allow women a choice? Will you leave the clinics and doctors alone to practice what they do so that a woman really has a choice or will they have to be put in danger and doctors and nurses harassed for this privilege?

Can you do this and still oppose abortion? I hope you can because only then will I believe your position is not incompatible.

[Perky]

109. My response

I need you to understand the distiction on this issue,

I certainly feel that I have a resposibility to attempt to evangelize practitioners. I certainly want them to stop performing abortions. BUT THAT IT IS NOT MY MOTIVATION!!

Having said that I think I have a responsibility to share the Gospel with a doctor and his staff. I Do nopt think I have a right to call them murderes and baby-killers.

I want to reach them in love not in hate. The religious right makes this very hard to do.

I do not perceive that I have to speak for the unborn and protection of the unborn should not be my motivation for evangelizing practitioners.

My sole motivation has to be to help others find for themselves what I have found.....I don't think I need picket signs and coat hangers to do that.

[Malva Zebrina]

100. Carter stuck with the Southern Baptist Convention for a long time

but finally disengaged himself from it and resigned when the SBC just became too unbearable with their decrees against other nations and their religion, and their decrees attempting to limit the freedoms of women.

The reversing or the overthrow of the hierarchy of the original SBC was initially an effort on the part of Chuck Colsen--remember him? He was there--

His name keeps cropping up like a rather inconsequential and weak weed in the garden. He is there however, large and in the thick of it.

I read his name once more, in this piece provided by some astute DU poster

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

[tkulesa]

103. I can't be the only person laughing at this thread.

If someone gets offended by someone else referring to G-D as an "Invisible Cloud Being," well, too bad. It's a difference of opinion, not a reason to censor other people.

There are people here that I regularly see screaming "Insult" at any mention of Christianity or Catholicism that isn't flattering.

These are people you can generally talk with about any other issue. But when religion comes up, even in a minor point of a discussion, fangs come out. Suddenly any difference in opinion or perspective isn't seen as discussion any more, it is seen as an attack.

It is to the point where often people can't talk about religion in historical, social, policial, or economic contexts without being "a basher." People can't talk about their own personal experiences with religion or with religious people without being accused of being against anti-theist. (Which gets even funnier when they are attacking someone who isn't an athiest.)

Do we really want religion to be a protected topic at DU? Do we really want to institute rules to protect people of certain faiths from reading anything contrary to that faith? I can't see any sect of Christianity becoming the official religion of DU.

It has been said above that people with something bad to say about religion should say it somewhere else, that is rude to post anything here would might offend a believer. But let's turn that around. If people are looking for an affirmation of their faith, perhaps they are the ones who should look somewhere else.

This isn't the place to come looking for religious affirmations. This is a political forum. Religion is a relevant force in politics. It will be discussed.

[Sandpiper]

131. So ingrained in our culture

Is the special status accorded to Christianity, that most Christians are offended when a non believer does not speak with respect or reverence for its theological tennets.

Just as most white people are so accustomed to white privilege that they don't even realize it exists, so are most Christians with our cultural Christian privilege. Consequently, it seems that some would wish to see Christian privilege extended to DU.

[tkulesa]

138. I had not thought of a comparison to White Privilage

But you are right. That's an excellent point I'm going to have to thinking about.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

154. Chosen Few=Master Race=Murder. It is being done for years, friend.

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_5160.shtml

The movement to take over the US government, starve the poor, and install full-fledged fascism is being done with a very deliberate and insidious method of using religion mixed with nationalism to get authoritarianism, the root of fascism.

This ain't just multi-syllable rhetoric, friend. Read that link.

God Bless America is about two hairs away from the Master Race.
Why do you think Bush is almost getting away with killing tens of thousand of innocent people and getting mostly approval from 'Christian God Fearing America'?? Hmmm?? Who would Jesus Bomb?

Hitler used Christianity to justify his wars against 'evildoers' too.

[Cleita]

156. Watch out what you say about your white facist politicians,

Some might accuse you of ethnic prejudice. I agree with you. One only needs to lurk at right wing websites to feel the full flavor of the Third Reich right here in Amurika.

[TXlib]

172. Have you actually READ what I wrote?

I never said we must ban all discussion of religion.

I said that such discussions should be conducted in a respectful manner.

A thread titled, "I don't understand religious faith-- where does it come from?" is fine, IMHO. "Theists are morons" is not.

"The Pope is wrong because..." is fine. "Catholics are wrong because the Pope said..." is likely to result in a flame war.

I get the feeling that some DUers (admittedly a small fraction) feel that their right to be a miserable, repugnant SOB trumps all else. They've got a chip on their shoulder, and they don't care who they fight with, so long as they can pick fights.

As an atheist, I recognise that I represent perhaps 10% of the population. That's not enough to build a consensus. That's why it's important to make new DUers who are likely religious in some way, most likely christian, feel welcome.

[tkulesa]

192. Of course I read what you wrote

I also read what a lot of other people in this discussion wrote. There is a lot more to respond to in this thread than just the original post.

Everyone should feel welcome, regardless of their faith. I think most Christians can deal with this. But some definitely seem to think that they must be accommodated and provided with a proper pedestal in order for them to be comfortable.

I don't agree that accommodating religious elitists benefits people with differing beliefs. I don't agree that accommodating sexist men benefits women. I don't agree that accommodating racist White people benefited Black people, Hispanic people, Asian people or Native Americans. I don't think that accommodating any type of bias helps anyone but the people with the bias.

That isn't anti-theist, anti-religious, anti-Christian or anti-anything else. I prefer to think of it knocking down the pedestals before they get so high that they block everyone else's view.

[mumon]

105. My frank and honest opinion...

A discussion of religous differences is good.

In the realm of discourse, satire and ridicule of any religion - or lack thereof- is a "hallowed" right.

Free speech should bother at least some people some of the time. That's the point of it!

Having said that, I think though that treating people respectfully ought to be the rule.

However, I also tend to think, as of lately, that this forum is verging a little too much on the censorship side.

Too many times a right-winger comes in, posts a couple of right-wing points, gets walloped by facts, and then his post gets deleted. I think such things ought to stay; they don't seem to be really disruptive to a forum, and in fact show in very stark terms how intellectually bankrupt conservativsm is.

Anyway, I don't look for specific examples of "Christian bashing" much; I'm not Christian. But I'd rather the discussion proceed at a more measured level. But please, please remember: "sacrilege" and "disrespect" are oftenin the eye of the beholder. Your adherence to a religion does not enjoin me not to giggle and vice versa.

I was recently at a Chinese new year meeting in my new hometown here. Some Baptist guy had put "his people" in charge of the organization, and they were singing songs about Jesus and turning the event into a Chinese Baptist revival. I made fun of it; the whole baptist thing was out of place. My wife (who's Chinese- I'm not) was peeved at them for hijacking the event. Me? I was entertained. I wasn't going to complain to them, though; why should I? But I wasn't going to not find humor in it.



I'm not offended at Buddhist bashing, personally.

[Malva Zebrina]

108. However, I also tend to think, as of lately, that this forum is verging a

In this I agree.

There are a lot of people posting here. It must be diffucult to herd us all into a slot--a slot which the owners of the thread would like to maintain as the
"essence" of the site.

Push comes to shove, it is the owners that really are running things here. We are under their rule because they own the place. LOL

There are other places to go to discuss religion in depth though if it really is a pressing issue.

If there are restrictions, or severe , unjustified, censorship here on DU and there is no satisfaction protesting this very personal interpretation of posts, then there are other places to go and one need not remain here on DU if it is uncomfortable for them and if their own beliefs are not given respect as religions here.

Further, if the censorship becomes obviously skewed, it is up to the owners to determine if indeed, their mods are using their own prejudices against posters who are posting something that they do not like, due to their own biased interpretations or their own religious beliefs.

Religious beliefs are strong indeed and often, imo, irrational. Religious beliefs, over history, have been the cause of immense suffering, death and destuction.

[sweetheart]

122. The irony of Buddhist bashing

Buddhists hold sacred the spirit of life inside all beings. This is
the spark of awakeining, that is only alive in THIS moment. To bash
a Buddhist is no offense to a buddhist either, as they are surely
aware that the bashing of the Buddha is part of Buddha, inseparable
Dharma.

There is a point where you realize that the buddha is *YOU*; that it
is all living beings... and that appearances delude. Buddha is not
a person, rather it means "awakened one" similarly to "christ".
The human names are "Gautama Siddhartha" and "Jesus of Nazareth".

The Buddha is what bashes, and what is not offended; it is what
has transcended illusion and it is all the suffering of humankind...
Yet all these are words, and Buddha is not words. For a
non-buddhist, i find your last sentence very buddhist. :-)

peace,
-s

[seabeyond]

128. you talk my talk

;-):hippie:

[sweetheart]

146. brilliant !

A kindred soul... how cool.

namaste
-s

PS. your moniker is/was the name of a software company, and i keep
doubletaking on it.... yet l love the impress of a sea of light; an
ocean of nirvana beyond this illusion... divine.

I've not welcomed you to DU, it is a pleasure. :-)

[dawn]

162. Great post!

:)

[arewethereyet]

113. its a tall order

anti religeous feeling runs very high around here. Those folks can't seem to get around the notion that some believe in something greater than themselves and attribute it to mind control, lack of intellect and a host of other things.

You're dealing with very elemental matters and there is no backing off them as they are too deeply etched into their lives.

I'm a Christian and I just try turning the other cheek on them, sometimes point out the flaws in their reasoning or offer some perspective that they may not consider all as the case suggests.

I'm more tolerant of them than they seem to be of me which is a shame around here but I'm used to it.

[blondeatlast]

137. Please see post 134. I'm Christian, too.

[stopbush]

144. Hail the straw man!

When you say "those folks can't seem to get around the notion that some believe in something greater than themselves," you're simply trotting out a straw man that is easily knocked down.

Just because people don't believe in a conscious, omnipotent being in the Judeo-Xtian tradition hardly means that they don't believe in something "greater than themselves." The simple laws of physics and natural selection are things that are "greater" than most of us.

And, on a human scale, the future holds a human who will - through natural growth processes - be so far "greater" than those of us currently inhabiting the Earth that we will seem as Neanderthals to him/her.

Not worshiping a god figure does not necessarily equate to self-idolization.

[arewethereyet]

148. ah, but I agree with most of this

its just that I see the hand of God behind it all. Many people think that its impossible to reconcile science and God. i think its impossible to NOT reconcile them both.

[tkulesa]

184. Excellent point!

[blondeatlast]

129. We don't have to go to the Admins. If we want to be able to debate

religion, how about we come up with some boundaries? I'll start (may God have mercy on my soul! :evilgrin: ):

1. Don't proselytize--doesn't matter what you believe or don't. If we believe, it isn't up to us to decide other's fates. If we don't, it doesn't much matter.

2. The Bible, Koran, Talmud, Satanic Bible, Critiques of God, etc. are NOT works of fiction, nor are they fairy tales. Mythology (my personal belief about the Bible, btw)--maybe. But as long as the Dewey Decimal system and the Library of Congress call them non-fiction, that works for me. (I'm a librarian, fwiw).

3. Don't take it personally, even if it seems personal. Hit the alert button and carry on from there.

4. Getting seethingly angry? Get thee to the Lounge and we can discuss WHY Robb is a dingbat or pull out a pithy caption.

5. The debate will never be resolved, and it sure as Hell won't be resolved at DU. Accept this.

6. I'm a card-carrying ACLU member. I DON'T WANT THE CHURCH IN MY GOVERNMENT AND I SURE AS HELL DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT IN MY WORSHIP. I think that is an important point to consider.

7. If you are a nonbeliever in a tough spot, please don't be offended if I pray for some relief for your troubles. It works for me and I was always good at sharing.

Discuss?

[tkulesa]

143. Except for that part about

religious texts not being fairy tales you have a good set of points there. But there are many people who think that religious texts are simply socially codified fairy tales.

I think that has to be accepted too.

I've read various holy texts and a lot of books about those holy texts. I see a lot of good in them, but also a lot of nonsense. I haven't found one that isn't ripe for criticism. Once we take as a premise that the holy books are off limits to discussion and debate, we are setting a precident that a religion is off limits to discussion and debate. That's a step too far.

However, a discussion purely about the validity of religious texts is probably outside the bounds for a site like DU except as a tangent. So that is probably a moot point for posts here.

[Djinn]

157. me too

I'll agree to NOT calling them fairy tales but they can NOT be classed as Non Fiction either, where Dewy put them doesn't erally worry me - they are NOT historical texts

[blondeatlast]

132. Observations from a battle scarred "belief" soldier; there is enough

blame to go around.

On the "nonbelief" side (I'm going to leave specific belief out of this) I have encountered perhaps 5 DUers beyond the pale. Many are angry, but with the exception of a handful, they are intelligent and willing to debate while holding their ground--as they should be.

On the "belief" side--the same.

[BiggJawn]

133. Then we can knock off the ReTHUGlican bashing...

I see your point. Unfortunately, there is a wide gulf between me and "People of the Book".

I suppose I could just ignore the Christians.
And maybe I could just ignore the ReTHUGs.
And eventually, I could achieve the Tao of Ignorance, once I learn to ignore EVERYTHING.

Sorry, They tell me I'm going to some place called "Hell", and I tell them they believe in Faerie Tales. And the dicussion usually goes downhill from there.

To compare religion-bashing threads to the wild and rolicking sex threads we used to have is somewhat intellectually dishonest. I believe the reason Skinner gave for the sex ban was "Fur den Kinder", not that we were scaring away the "No-Sex Swing Voters"...

I won't go out of my way to "bash" your in-laws, but neither will I tolerate someone telling me where I'm going to spend "eternity", either.

Fair enough?

[blondeatlast]

135. I'm a Christian who doesn't believe in hell, actually.

And I've been very sympathetic to the nonbelievers on this thread.

[Djinn]

158. curious

if you don't beleive in hell where are the "bad" people gonna go? if there's a heaven as a "reward" doesn't that mean there HAS to be a hell?

[blondeatlast]

134. This may be the ONE place in the world where non-believers

are the majority. On a daily basis, they faces even the smallest representations of belief. If they dare to protest, they are called names I won't mention here--and it doesn't stop there. So they vent here where there is a supportive base.

Imagine that.

As a Christian, I can honestly say that DU may be the ONE place I have ever felt a tinge of persecution, and if what I've experienced can be truly called persecution in even the smallest sense, all I can say is thank God. This is nothing.

Toes get stepped on, but most of us come out better people from the debates, IMHO.

Besides, a common enemy remains. If you get too angry, don't blame the non-believers, blame that bastard and his puppeteers in the White House.

[Pithlet]

140. Good post

While I don't condone bashing anyone's belief system, I think it's great that you try to see it from another perspective. While I don't think it excuses bashing anyone's religion, I think your post is spot on. This is one of the rare places that I can ever discuss my belief (or lack of) comfortably. I can't with most of my family, and certainly not with many people where I live.

[arewethereyet]

149. its a valid point that we are in the hefty minority here

I guess I was just hopeful that a more open minded environment would prevail.

But I thank God for it all. It all serves to help me whether I can see how or not.

[blondeatlast]

136. Perhaps we believers are worrying too much about DU.

What we need to do is organize, organize, organize then get spirituality's values out for all to see.

Tolerance, love, peace, understanding, charity, selflessness--all are shared values for virtually every faith, from the Pagans to the Muslims.

Here's a good start: http://www.clnnlc.org/news_events.html

Edit: Guilty as charged. What is this, my eighth post???

[Malva Zebrina]

142. these are values atheists subscribe to also

so I often wonder why the need for the religious beliefs because I perceive no difference at all in the everyday life, except perhaps for the belief in a hereafter life in a heaven somewhere. It is the belief in a life after death and the striving to do good as a indication of the reward in that "hereafter" that is the difference, I think.

[blondeatlast]

145. Sorry--of course I know that, I stated it poorly.

My point is that as believers we need to act in opposition to those who whore out belief in order to condemn and hate (this applies to Christianity, in particular, IMHO). Basically progressive liberals just need some good PR to counter the Fred Phelps analogy that is popular with one virulent anti-theist on DU.

We can't change each other's minds, and I hope I never proselytize to anyone--If I do, feel free to call me out. I've been proselytized and it was the most hateful experience I've ever had: "You can still be saved, even if you are a Catholic." And it got worse from there.

[nemo137]

147. my thoughts on a double standard.

to make full disclosure, i am a midwestern, middle class, protestant christian.

when religion comes up, there's usually at least one post identifying religion in general, christianity (of whatever brand is being discussed) in particular, at the font of all evil and suffering in the world. this is somehow acceptable. people who do this are not tombstoned.

imagine if during a thread on say, religion in schools or womens rights, a christian DUer identified secular humanism as the cause of everything wrong with america. how long would it be before he was tombstoned?

i'm not saying we should censor religious threads, or prefer theism over atheism. but if we could all refrain from making statements that are out and out inflamtory*, that would be nice


*and please don't remind me how you have the right to say the "truth." christianity is not unabashedly positive, but it's not the cause of all suffering, or the only thing keeping people from progessing to a great englightenment, or a crutch for people too deluded to think for themselves. i don't say those sorts of things about you, nor have i heard any religious DUers doing such.

[tkulesa]

177. I swear that this is a humorous thread. :)

The Onion could use this discussion as a draft for an awesome article.

But seriously, I have never seen anyone say that religion is the cause of all problems. That's quite an exageration.

I have seen people say that religion is the cause of some problems, or a major contributing cause of many problems. I have also seen people say that they personally don't like some religion, usually with description of the specific aspects of religion they don't like(the indoctrination, the involvement in politics or whatever). These are almost invariably followed by,

1. Well, you're just ignoring all the good aspects of our religion. You're biased. If you weren't so biased you'd spend equal time telling us how wonderful we are. If you don't concede that our religion is wonderful then you're wrong and should be tombstoned.

2. You're accusing all of us of being evil. You're accusing us of being responsible for all evil. How dare you.

2. You must be a raging anti-theist. (usually followed by personal criticisms and negative assumptions about the person who posted.)

3. Help, we're being persecuted over here...

And the more the believers criticize and bash other people the more they claim they are being victimized. Which is now followed by this big discussion about whether Christians need special rules to protect them from all those big bad non-Christians out there.

The hypocrisy is rank.

[Goldberg]

150. As a Christian, I like this!

No more bashing my religious beliefs!!!! :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

I don't like my beliefs to be called "bedtime stories" or Jesus as a "propagandist." It makes me sick to hear people bash my religious beliefs like that. :( :grr:

[Ladyhawk]

155. I'm anti-dogma, but usually get along fine with liberal theists

I think that part of my problem is that fundamentalist indoctrination really hurt me--deep, deep down. I still feel angry a lot of the time. Also, I don't know any people IRL who are NOT half-crazy fundies. It distresses me. Every day I try to forgive. I don't always succeed.

Tonight, the pianist for our chorus approached me and said she saw my mother at church. I wanted oh-so-badly to explain to her then and there that I am an atheist, but I kept my mouth shut. I'm embarrassed for people who believe in biblical literalism. I can feel the heat rising in my face when they talk about a six-day creation. I get angry when they follow * blindly because he is a "Christian just like us." I don't want people to think I am that nuts, even if THEY are that nuts. :)

Recently, I had a pleasant e-mail correspondence with the fellow who runs http://www.liberalslikechrist.com">Liberals Like Christ. I'd seen his page before, but he had called in to the Mike Malloy Show, so I decided to ask for his input on the problems I experience with fundy friends and family. DU could formally invite him here. Perhaps DU could even expand to include a theology forum.

Anyway, I think we need the help of the liberal theists if we're going to oust Shrubya. Nothing is more important.

When it comes right down to it, I believe in both freedom OF and freedom FROM religion. If the reich-wingers want to drag their interpretation of Jesus into the fray, I don't see why liberals can't have their say.

[DemBones DemBones]

159. DU has always had this problem and it

is never really addressed. It's very tiresome to see one's beliefs mocked over and over and over again. People don't leave their church because of ugly things said at DU; they leave DU, and maybe the party and the left.

If the left is ever to have real power, it needs more numbers. You don't build numbers by driving people away. It's a classic case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

[Qanisqineq]

166. needs repeating

"they leave DU" -- and not just for mocking of religious beliefs, but other opinions that are mocked here over and over again.

[LibertyorDeath]

164. Get a grip. There adults? they can stand on their own 2 feet.

What's next?

[corporatewhore]

165. well......

I have been called anti catholic because i said the pope was a Patriarichal homophobic bigot I respect every religion and at other times think they all (christianity judasim islam paganism hinduism )are a bunch of crock And dont think the religons or their followers should be painted with a broad brush(like all muslims are terrorists or all catholics follow the pope)but sometimes i feel like crossing the PC line

[Q]

168. Reading through some of the posts...

...I'm pondering why it's even necessary that other DUers KNOW about YOUR religion?

- This is...after all...a Political Discussion Board. I've never once mentioned my religious belief or lack thereof because...well...it's none of your business.

- I don't understand this desire to broadcast one's belief in God or compare dogma. Why do others need to know what you believe...especially in relationship to politics?

- Pray in your closet and leave others be. Insisting that your religion be included in political dialogue sounds too much like the religious right and their demands to be part of our government.

[Vernunft II]

169. I´m probably a minority here but I think

all religious topics should be closed. I understand you´re bothered by christian bashing threads but I see that as self defense against christian preaching. I would prefer to keep religion out of here entirely. It is my experience that such a thing can only be discussed in dignity over a table, face to face. If at all that is because most people seem to not be objective enough to bear even the slightest criticism.

And for the record, yes, I do have VERY strong sentiments against all organised religion. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are equally viewed as the enemy by me. I don´t mind religious people as long as they keep their religion to themselves.

[mac2]

179. What about free speech?

A different forum might be acceptable.

[Jose Diablo]

171. A good thread

I am bookmarking this thread, there are very good points from these posts about religion/spirituality and its relation to politics.

There is a huge group of voters called trailer trash, NASCAR dads, poor white trash and various other unsavory terms. But these voters are locked into their political beliefs because of a view of a 'fire and brimstone' god.

If you think about it, these voters are not that far from a liberal-progressive view of god as a loving and forgiving god. A tolerant god. It is just a different view of the symbolic view versus the literal view of the doctrine. A small step indeed.

These voters would receive an economic benefit if they could be persuaded to view a more liberal-progressive form of god.

You might say the religious view they hold is what keeps them from adopting a view that would benefit them rather than the overlords. And in this, if the core-foundation view could be changed, we all could benefit.

[mac2]

178. Did you forget about free speech?

We need to keep an open forum. Religion plays a big part in our policies today. It is even in our wallets and at the polling booth.

We could have a separate form because these discussions about Mel Gibson and the Passion has taken over. We have more important issues to discuss.

Forget about that Hollywood movie. It's only a movie.

Religion is one of those things that divides us. That is why Bush talks about it so much. Divide and conquor..got it?

This is why our founding fathers wanted religion out of government. The religious group with the most money or members would rule and the others would not have freedom to exist. The non-believers attacked and denied their right of speech, etc. We would be fighting about dogma and power rather than getting the business of government done.

[TXlib]

189. Did you read the thread, or just post a knee-jerk reaction?

[jus_the_facts]

187. if the sentiment isn't friendly and you can't handle opposing views.....

....then this isn't the place for you.....everyone is entitled to percieve reality anyway they choose even if it is irrational......if you can't stand the heat of the argument then stay out of the debate.....civility over religious tolerance...LOL...that is one of the oldest battles that will never cease to rage on.....deal with it. :eyes:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

191. :shrug: