Why is there such continued hostility toward religion on these boards???

[IrateCitizen]

This morning, I was greeted by the following thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=428913

And once again, I am forced to ask, why is there such overt and complete hostility toward organized religion from people on "the Left"?

It seems that many have the immediate reaction to equate organized religion with the religious right; when, in fact, the religious right is just one small subset within "organized religion". I am a Unitarian Universalist who still considers myself a Christian (although my "Christian" views don't exactly jive with mainline Christianity, hence why I'm a UU), and I must say that organized religion plays a major part in my life. I appreciate greatly the spiritual community that I have found -- we are a group of people who provide support to each other, and share our perspectives with one another in order to encourage and further our own personal searches for meaning.

But the importance of organized religion in social movements goes even further than that. If it weren't for the dedicated Christians of the abolitionist movement, civil rights movement, and anti-war movement; none of them probably would have gotten off the ground. The American Council of Churches was also one of the most ardent opposers to the invasion of Iraq.

The point I am trying to make is if you want to throw out ALL organized religion in order to repudiate the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham -- then you must also throw out the likes of Martin Luther King, Phil and Daniel Berrigan, Dorothy Day, and so on. Are you willing to cut off your nose to spite your face in the name of ideological purity? Or are you willing to recognize one of your most ardent allies in the battle for meaningful social change?

[bpilgrim]

1. it may be their long period of intolernece

which continues to this day in many places and that many on the left are aware of this? :shrug:

peace

[Nlighten1]

2. It may be because

The likes of MLK, Daniel Berrigan, and etc are the minority when it comes to religious nicities in the US. Why do we need religion to change anyway, most religions fight change hand over fist.

[radwriter0555]

63. Well why do religious people think they're above reproach?

The churches haven't done anyone any favors.

[cms424]

182. religious organizations,

in general, have been scaring people with promises of heaven and hell since the beginning of time and right up to the suicide bombers.

I was brought up Catholic, and all my religious training said to me was that you should do what they said, and if you didn't, that made you a bad person.

[Avalon Sparks]

195. Just wanted to add...

I too was brought up a Catholic, including 8 years of Catholic school.

However, the main thing that was drummed into my head during those years was "take care of the less fortunate", "be thankful for what you have" and "treat everyone as you'd like to be treated, or as though they were Jesus himself"...

I don't know if I'd be a Liberal if it wasn't for my Catholic upbringing.

[Liberator_Rev]

199. That's wonderful Avalon, but is that the RULE?

or is the Catholic Church governed from THE TOP down, with extremely Conservative bishops appointed by an extremely Conservative Pope driving out Liberal Theologians, priests, nuns, and people?
See http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/PopesvsChrist .

[booisblu]

3. Why

is organized religion so hostile towards gays?

[IrateCitizen]

5. My fellowship is a "welcoming" religious community

We have a few openly gay members, and emphasize not only tolerance, but acceptance and validation of both homosexuals and heterosexuals. The UU church ordains openly gay and lesbian people as ministers.

The Episcopalian Church (US arm of the Anglican Church) just appointed an openly gay bishop.

I believe that Methodists also ordain openly gay and lesbian people as ministers.

Granted, there are significant numbers of religious communities that are still unaccepting of gays and lesbians. But the tide is changing, because there are many others that DO accept and affirm gays and lesbians.

[LeahMira]

29. Not all are hostile...

Why is organized religion so hostile towards gays?

My Reform Jewish congregation has had two cantors who are gay over the past several years, and the congregation loves both of them. One has gone on to teaching now, but the new (gay) cantor is welcomed and well-liked.

The Reconstructionist Jewish group has ordained lesbian rabbis... I'm not sure if Reform has ordained any lesbians as yet. Plenty of gay rabbis are out there.

I don't think the Orthodox Jews are going to come around quite that far, but on campus here there are several students that are gay and are welcomed into the Orthodox student group and much appreciated. No one is trying to change them or shun them or whatever.

A lot in any religious group has to do with which congregation you get involved with. I agree that the ones that are hostile get noticed though... just as murder and mayhem grab the headlines and random acts of kindness are buried in the "Leisure" sections. Too bad.

[Dhalgren]

51. Will your congregation

perform gay marriages? If so, your's really is a forward looking congregation. If not, it's just another "sit in the back of the church" kind of acceptance.

[arwalden]

67. Window dressing.

but nothing substantive or meaningful.

Besides... the word "marriage" is too contentious anyway. I don't really care one way or the other if any church anywhere in the US performs gay "marriage" ceremonies or not.

What I care about is whether or not LEGAL unions that offer the SAME protections and benefits to me as to my hetero-unions will be the law of the land.

With just a handful of "I-do's" straigh couples are afforded a ton of assumed and implied and implixit and explicit benefits and protections that are not available to their gay and lesbian equivalents.

Not automatically anyway. My partner and I have created dozens of contracts and other legal documents, powers of attorney, etc etc between ourselves so that we can give ourselves many of the same type of benefits and protections.

Did you know that my partner could be PROHIBITED from visiting me in a hospital (by either hospital policy and/or a relative) simply because we're not "married" or "legally related"? How absurd! --- To that end, he has been given power of attorney over all of my medical decisions and healthcare directives. You should see the files we must carry with us while we're on vacation or away from home!!!!!!

Married couple "A" need only tell the nurse "we're married" and the husband can visit the wife without having to offer even a DRIVERS LICENSE! --- We need to show proof of ID... ORIGINAL notarized copies of our healthcare directives, etc etc. --- WHAT A FARCE!

But I digress... this thread is about religion.

-- Allen

[Liberal Veteran]

75. Don't sugar coat it Allen....

The simple fact is that 99 percent of the hostility and obstacles placed in front of gays and lesbians in this country can be attributed directly to religious beliefs.

Not too put too fine a point on it, but one of the major reasons I feel some distaste for religions is because so damned many of them are downright hostile toward me and many of them teach outright hatred toward gays and lesbians (although the majority pretend otherwise with such empty platitudes as "hate the sin, love the sinner").

[IrateCitizen]

80. I won't disagree with you on that point at all

And, to be quite honest, it is one of the things that turned me from mainstream Christianity and toward Unitarian Universalism. I can still remember sitting in church when I was a teenager hearing the minister give a sermon on the "evils of homosexuality" and knowing that something wasn't right with it -- how could a faith supposedly based on love promote hate toward ANYONE???

I know I'm probably venturing on forbidden ground here (but hey, I started this thread so I must be looking for trouble today!), but did you know that there is not ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of Christ saying ANYTHING about homosexuality, one way or another, in the Bible? All of the passages condemning homosexuality come from the OT and the writings of Paul. Perhaps that pulls back the shade on the way that Christianity was SUPPOSED to be practiced, and the manner in which it was twisted over time.... :shrug:

[Liberal Veteran]

88. Try growing up gay in a strict Southern Baptist household........

...and realising that what the person at the pulpit who is supposed to be spreading the truth and the love of God is spreading lies and hatred about you. And it's not just that one issue that caused me to reject the faith I was raised in. I remember all too well when a black couple came to Sunday service one week. While the congregation did not chase them away, they were definitely made to feel unwelcome.

The problem I saw was that while there were good, decent people within the congregation, there was a poisonous groupthink undercurrent that did not encourage people to examine their faith and basically forced conformity at all costs. I found it intellectually stifling and more often than not overly provencial.

Such an experience is bound to color my opinions about organized religion in general because in my own spiritual search I found very very few religions that promoted individual examination and logical thought on matters of faith, IOW putting tradition and edicts above intellect and reason.

[IrateCitizen]

110. liberal_veteran, please see my post #104 below.

I hope it helps you understand the thrust of my frustration with this subject, and assists us in finding more common ground.

Peace.

[Liberator_Rev]

200. We hear you Arwalden, and are doing our part to

promote change, but even HERE at DU, when we point out that the Catholic Church is the principal obstacle in states like Conn. & Mass (to name the current battle grounds) so-called Catholic "Liberals" scream "Catholic bashing", "bigotry", blah blah blah. See our

http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/equality4gays

[LeahMira]

163. Marriage?

Will your congregation perform gay marriages?

I really don't know. I imagine the rabbi would if it was between two Jewish people, but I don't know that the congregation has ever talked about the issue. Shall I put the bee in someone's bonnet? :-)

[arwalden]

4. Why Does Everyone Assume That Hostility Towards Fundamentalism...

... "automatically" includes all religion? Why do so many moderate and otherwise reasonable people take such offense?

Notwithstanding the fact that I think all religion is BULL... my 'overt' hostility is directed at fundamentalists. Otherwise I just sit back and quietly hold my nose, refute creationism, and point out bullshit wherever I see it. I also think astrology is bullshit... but, the astrologists seem to take it in stride better than Xians.

Also... can you please explain to me how my rejection of ALL religion somehow means that I must "throw out the likes of Martin Luther King"?? This makes no sense to me.

I don't hate Christians... I just hate Christianity. There's a difference.

[Spentastic]

8. Nicely done

There is a tendency for people to get offended when their "religion" is questioned. Even to the extent that questions about Catholic policy for example, need to be tip toed around in order to avoid upsetting people.

I'm with you. I think that Christianity is bullshit. It doesn't mean I don't like Christians. However, Christians that try and make me eat bullshit because they claim knowledge of the "truth". Well they can just get fucked.

I don't believe in God. As long as you don't get your God to tell me what I can and can't do you'll be fine.

[IrateCitizen]

14. No, I have no problem with my spiritual beliefs being "questioned"...

My problem is when any search for spiritual meaning or belief in religious principles is summarily bashed as a bunch of "bullshit" and the reason for all evils throughout the ages.

I happen to fully believe that there is a "God" in the universe -- call it the source of all life or what have you -- but I, for one, would never tell an atheist that their beliefs are "bullshit". See what I'm getting at here....

There's a difference, just as there is a difference between rejecting fundamentalism and other forms of religion/spirituality.

[Spentastic]

24. Sorry I should have qualified

I'm pretty nihilistic about things. Especially at the moment.

I pretty much feel "any search for spiritual meaning or belief in religious principles " will be forlorn. I feel an absolute abscence of any spritual input whatever. Unfortunately, it makes it difficult to understand other beliefs.

I have no grounds to question you're belief other than, "you really believe a man who claimed to be the son of God actually was?"

I have no problem with calling my beliefs bullshit. It's kind of par for the course.

[Japhy_Ryder]

26. But no one said that you believed bullshit

they said that they thought it was bullshit, for themselves. No one attacked you or your beliefs. They said that for them, Christianity was bullshit. And that's a legit point of view to have. You may not question an atheist, but do you not believe that atheism is bullshit?

Besides which, non Christians get mighty sick of the arrogance of many Christians in this country. If you aren't a Christian, then you know of that holier than thou "you poor silly fool" look that we often get when it's found out we don't believe in "the truth". I'm not defending anyone who bashes your religion, but non-Christians get their religions (or lack of it) bashed nearly every single day in some way. You are getting offended at people not seeing from your point of view, but at the same time, you aren't seeing from theirs.

This said, it seems to me that religion is a personal thing, and no one has the right to ridicule someone's beliefs. In any way. Live and let live.

[IrateCitizen]

31. I'm not trying to enforce any point of view

You are getting offended at people not seeing from your point of view, but at the same time, you aren't seeing from theirs.

No, that's not what gets under my skin at all. Personally, I believe that everyone comes to their own faith (or lack thereof) from their own path of experience. Therefore, unless someone has had the exact same experiences as me, how can I expect them to share the same exact religious views?

My frustration comes from those who, through their vehement rejection not only of religious beliefs -- but of those who have religious beliefs -- would alienate one of the greatest allies we have for affecting meaningful social change in many arenas. I'm not saying that EVERYONE who replied to the thread which I linked was bashing ALL people who have religious/spiritual beliefs. But it was exhibited quite fully by a number of people.

And I also find it perplexing that these same people who decry lack of tolerance toward them by others unwilling to accept their lack of belief, exhibit the same lack of tolerance toward those who have some sort of belief system. :shrug:

[Japhy_Ryder]

43. I didn't think you were trying

You were expressing disappointment. And you are dealing with a minority of users here and people in the country that are vehemently opposed to religion. And I agree with you that oftentimes the people decrying lack of tolerance for their beliefs aren't very tolerant of those with beliefs. But this is not everyone, certainly.

Anyone, left or right or whatever that bashes belief systems does it for a reason. To be so adamantly opposed to one belief system is, in itself, a belief system. And part of the problem is that the Republican party has tried to market itself into the party of God, and that bothers a lot of us (in part, because that strategy has worked for them). Churches, like it or not, are part of the fabric of our society and I agree that they can be part of improving society.

But far too often in recent years, nationally known Christian leaders have shown nothing but disdain for anyone that disagrees with them. They spew forth hate and bigotry. Centrists churches do not have a national voice. Conservative ones do, and though I doubt you have much in common with Jerry Falwell, the fact is that he has come to represent the voice of the Christian church in America. If centrist churches want to be part of real meaningful change, then they have to change the identity of the American Christian from Jerry Falwell to MLK Jr. Because right now, we think Christian, we think Falwell, we get mad. When you are attacked here, that's what's happening. You aren't being attacked, Falwell, Robertson, et al, are.

[arwalden]

45. Quote: "And I also find it perplexing..."

"And I also find it perplexing that these same people who decry lack of tolerance toward them by others unwilling to accept their lack of belief, exhibit the same lack of tolerance toward those who have some sort of belief system."

Perplexing? You do? Really?

What would you suggest?

Should I simply keep my mouth shut and "turn the other cheek" and "take it" all in the name of "being polite" and "showing tolerance" and "setting a good example" for those who are trying to fuck me?

I think not. Civility for the sake of being civil is foolish.

I'm no fool.

-- Allen

[IrateCitizen]

70. You should denounce intolerance when you see it, Allen

That's my attitude toward the outright hypocrisy, intolerance and hiding a pile of shit behind the cross that is so often exhibited by the religious right.

All that I am saying is that you should be more measured, or perhaps more explicit, in your denounciations -- in order to ensure that they are directed toward those who are committing the acts of intolerance, rather than catching those who would agree with you on these issues in the crossfire as well.

I'm not asking you to buy into the same belief system as mine. All I'm asking is that you recognize that we share common principles in many of these areas -- and if mine are a result of my personal faith, then that isn't something that should necessarily be summarily denounced.

[arwalden]

84. I do! I DO!! --- And So Should You!

And when the root cause or justification for the hypocrisy and intolerance and hate is the result of Christianity, then by golly, I'll denounce Christianity without a second thought.

I agree with you... It's a shame that other folks who are otherwise well-meaning are 'caught in the crossfire' as well.

In that case, my only suggestion would be for those folks to GET OUT OF THE WAY!! And to invite those folks to COME OVER HERE AND HELP US SHOOT down the hypocrisy and intolerance.

My anger is not mis-directed. It's very focused and it's very intentional and it's ON TARGET! I know exactly what it is about Christianity that I'm most opposed to. I know exactly who it is that I'm opposed to.

I'm sick and tired of folks trying to tell me to calm down and be nice and trying to equate my attacks on one segment of Christianity as somehow being an attack on ALL Christians.

Try not to take it personally... as an atheist I do indeed summarily reject Christianity. I reject all religion, all myth, all superstition, ghosts, afterlife, magic, spirits, souls, outer body, white lights... you name it.

When I denounce Christian bigots, Christian hypocrites, and Christian hatemongers... don't take it personally. If it doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you.

I fully understand the instinctual reaction that you may have of "an attack on one is an attack on all"... but that's not the case.

You're clearly one of the more intelligent people on DU... I don't understand how you can take such offense when these criticisms and denunciations are not directed at you. If it's not you, then it's not you. Why do you care?

Okay... obviously you care because it's those "bad-christians" that give "good-christians" a bad name.

In that case... one would think that rather than defending the bad-christians and giving them a free ride, the good-christians would do everything possible to eliminate or change the hearts of those that are doing so much damage.

You can't change history. What's done is done... but for those christians who really want to be christ-like... why are they sitting around being so defensive if they've done nothing wrong.

Is it wrong to do nothing?


-- Allen

P.S. When I "attack" Christianity, or point out the hypocrisy of some of the aspects of the Christian religion, most people can tell IN THE CONTEXT of the body and subject of the message (or thread) exactly to whom I am referring... and exactly about whom I am decrying.

It serves no purpose for me (or anyone) to type out preemptive exclusionary statements at the end of every post. "My criticism of Christianity in this post is not meant as an attack on Christians as a whole an not meant to disparage those Christians who joined in the middle of the thread than who thought I was referring specifically to them. Etc. Etc."

[IrateCitizen]

90. Allen, I'm not taking your "attacks" personally...

... because I know they are not directed at me. Nor is my greater context wrapped around the denounciation of wrongdoings.

What my broader point is, and I regret that it has been missed thus far, is that there is a vast ocean of religious/spiritual people out there -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. -- who are our natural allies in many of these fights. They are our natural allies because they embrace and attempt to live by the most basic tenents that run through all of these religions -- the Golden Rule, living in a spirit of love and fellowship, cooperation and compassion, etc. When you are moved to make such vociferous denounciations of religion in general, you stand to lose some of the most committed allies you may be able to find.

Additionally, I recognize from your posts that your target is the hypocrisy and intolerance of the Religious Right. My initial post was more primarily directed at those who espouse such ridiculous ideas as, "religion is the fault of all evil in the world" and the like. As you said, if your message doesn't apply to me, I shouldn't take offense to it. Perhaps this is an instance that this principle should be followed as a two-way street? ;-)

[arwalden]

96. You Started Off Commenting On That Poll About Whether Religion...

... plays an important role in your life. "Yes/No"

At the time, it seemed to be a rather self-serving, but otherwise harmless thread/poll. I now see that it got out of hand and has since been locked.

And you're right... your criticism doesn't apply to me. Point taken.

Whenever I read any hostile criticism of religion (in general) I automatically understand it to mean Christian fundamentalism. And I'm generally correct about that assumption too.

I don't recall ANY threads where someone is just bent out of shape and ragging on Hindus or Buddhists, etc. Unless the topic/rant is Al Qaeda... you can be fairly certain that the anti-religion rant is about Christian fundamentalists.

And even then... to the best of my recollection, it's always been specific. I don't recall any rants against Baptist soup kitchens and chow-lines for the folks harmed by Isabel.

You see what I'm getting at.

While the ranter's words may not be focused and exclusive so as to eliminate the possibility of incorrectly including the innocents... taken in context, their message is usually clear enough to know that they don't truly hate EVERY man woman and child who happens to be Christian.

I think we've found some solid ground here for mutual agreement. Anything thing else is just picking apart words and phrases and looking for hidden meanings and insults where none exist.

I'm exhausted.

-- Allen

[LeahMira]

177. I am sorry that has happened to you, "arwalden"

Should I simply keep my mouth shut and "turn the other cheek" and "take it" all in the name of "being polite" and "showing tolerance" and "setting a good example" for those who are trying to fuck me?

Absolutely no!

But you know how you feel when you are personally attacked by some alleged Christians. I'd guess that most people who are affiliated with some religion would feel the same way if you told them that their religion is BS. Although you don't mean it (most of the time!) what they hear you saying is that they are stupid for affiliating with their religion.

Allen, I'm sorry that some people have said hurtful things to you. I will try to be especially attentive to and caring for someone in the next little while today to try to put out a little kindness in the world, sort of to counter the unkindness you have met up with.

I try not to, but I'm sure there have been times when I've said something without thinking that has been hurtful to someone else. I'd hope that someone would point that out to me at the time in a way that lets me know what I have done and at the same time lets me know that I'm still OK... just human, and capable of doing better.

That's about all I can do. Oh, since I do believe in the Creator, I will also pray. I don't know if anyone listens, but it couldn't hurt.

[Dhalgren]

58. It is the frustration of living every day

inside the Christian beast that gets to people. Christianity is evangelized all day every day in this country. It is non-stop and wall-to-wall. Do you think an avowed atheist could be elected as president? No. Why? Bigotry and intolerance. Now, if there is a bit of a backlash out there towards this intolerance, well that is to be expected. Most atheists are afraid to admit their beliefs in public, because of the treatment and ostrasism they would experience. If this society ever became truely "open", you be be very surprized at how many atheists and agnostics are out there. And, by Christian teachings, that is the fault of Christianity, itself, isn't it?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[arwalden]

40. Christians Continually Tell Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc...

that their beliefs are bullshit. I see no difference in my publicly proclaiming my opinions as well.

(For those who pick nits: I concede and I seriously doubt I can find a link or other documented example where a christian actually uses the word "bullshit" but the message and the meaning are clearly synonymous.)

And technically... Christianity by it's very nature is a "belief". Atheism is not a "belief" it is the lack of a belief... it is a knowledge. (But that's beside the point and a topic for another flame throwing thread on another day.)

But, back to the point: Yes... I see what you're getting at. You're more genteel than I am, and less crude than I am. --- I commend you for being painfully polite and not using gutter words.

But, I'll bet it's safe to assume that you and most others like you haven't been persecuted against, vandalized, beat up, taunted, FIRED, arrested, imprisoned, and legislated against by atheists.

Believers have only been offended by perceived insensitivity and crassness of others. Crass folks (like I) are often the ones who have had to suffer (LITERALLY) at the hands and whims and laws of Christians and Christian morality.

Nobody is SHOVING ATHEISM down your throat. Nobody is forcing believers to not believe. Yet day after day, year after year, we see countless examples of how Fundamentalist Christians are wedging their ways and rituals into that which should remain separate.

I'm confused that so many can't see the difference. I'm infuriated that so many feel that they are DIVINELY ENTITLED to do just that.

Believe what you want... nobody is stopping you. Your religion should be a private thing. My atheism should also be a private thing.

BUT as long as Christians try to publicly force their religion upon me... as long as they try to legislate their religion into my life and the lives of others... as long as they try to use their public positions of authority to impose their Christian values upon the citizens... then I'll PUBLICLY decry their methods and point out their hypocrisy.

Why should I be silenced? Why should I be unnecessarily polite and willingly complaint for fear of being called "rude".

You may be right... not ALL "evils throughout the ages" can be attributed to the followers of the Christian religion. But you cannot deny (nor do I think you or any other intelligent person would try) the atrocities that have been committed in the name of the Christian god.



http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dungeon/4712/torture.html
http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tinq.htm

Bible contradictions are so well documented (and ignored by Christians) that they practically INVITE ridicule upon themselves. --- But as I mentioned earlier... this too is a subject for another thread.

http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tcont.htm

[Dhalgren]

60. Wonderful post!

Thank you!

[sangh0]

22. arwalden, here's why

Because even though many people, such as yourself, are often careful to distinguish between the intolerant fundamentalists and the more tolerant (to varying degrees) non-fundamentalists, there is still too often a misguided conflation of the two, as demonstrated by phrases like "I just hate Christianity"

Also... can you please explain to me how my rejection of ALL religion somehow means that I must "throw out the likes of Martin Luther King"?? This makes no sense to me.

MLK's legacy is the direct result of his religious beliefs. To those familiar with both his actions AND his philosophy, the idea of distinguishing between the two represents a betrayal of his message, his philosophy, and his values

[arwalden]

What You Said About MLK Is True... But It Doesn't Answer My Question...

... Actually, my question didn't need to be anwered at all. My point and my "question" was more rhetorical than anything. (EDIT: Added this for clarity.)

It was to point out that the poster's example didn't really apply. Clearly it was evoking MLK's name to tug on emotional heartstrings and to try and draw some parallel between an attack on religion being an attack on MLK. (Edit: Added this too.)

The premise of the original statement is fundamentally flawed and is an exaggeration that frankly just sounds too silly to be taken seriously.

One could also argue that there MLK would not have been needed had Christians and Christian lawmakers not twisted and cherrypicked out of context selections from their bible to justify slavery and segregation.

It goes on and on.

-- Allen

You appear to be defending an example of where some atheist says "A"... then some christian argues that "A" means "B"... and then tries to show how wrong "B" really is.

Why should I spend time trying to explain and/or defend "B"? I'm done with this sub-thread. It's a diversion and not germane to the discussion.

[sangh0]

55. About my premise

MLK's philosphy, and it's religious underpinnings, is a bit too complicated and nuanced for explaining in one post on DU. If you'd like to read about it, I can recommend some books. One particularly good one is a collection of MLK's writings, many of which make clear the link between MLK's actions and his religious beliefs.

[arwalden]

59. See what I mean? See? SEE?

You're now off on an entirely different tangent than the original premise of the original message? This has NOTHING at all to do with the original message.

The poster's comparison to MLK has nothing at all to do with their original premise.

You're probably very knowledgeable on this subject and authoritatively enthusiastic about it... but it has nothing to do with the fact that the originals poster's comparison to MLK is irrelevant and serves only to make the original issues more emotional and to tug on heartstrings.

It's a distraction. Let's move on.

-- Allen

[sangh0]

64. I'm sorry, but I don't understand

I thought you were taking issue with my statement that MLK's actions and religious beliefs could not be separated. I guess that's not it, so I won't press the point.

[Dhalgren]

61. You may not have intended it,

but the thrust of you post is that MLK could not have been MLK without his religion. I assume you would say that MLK's model and mentor, Ghandi, could not have been Ghandi without Hinduism. But if these two diametrically opposed religions can produce two such Huamnist heros, then perhaps it isn't their religions, but their Humanity that is the source.

[arwalden]

62. Good save! I Wish I Had Said That...

... but you did such a nice job of it. It wouldn't have sounded right coming from me.

-- Allen

[sangh0]

65. No, I didn't intend that

It certainly IS possible (in theory) that MLK could have done the same things without being religious. My point was that (in reality) MLK did the things he did because of his religious beliefs.

But if these two diametrically opposed religions can produce two such Huamnist heros, then perhaps it isn't their religions, but their Humanity that is the source.

Two things:

1) I believe they would argue that the two religions are not diametrically opposed.

2) I believe they would argue that their Humanism was based on their religious beliefs.

[Dhalgren]

72. I think you are right about

the two of them attributing their Humanism to their respective beliefs. That sounds very much in keeping with the way each of these heros expressed their faiths. But, I dougbt that their two religions could be equated in any meaningful way. True there are some slight similarities in minor areas of faith, but the differences between the two are so great as to be irreconcilable. Polytheism vs monotheism (Christians at least claim to be monotheist) idolatry vs a ban on such (presumably for Christians) the source of salvation would be the biggest drawback in that Hindus do not believe in Jesus. But, again, you may have been speaking in a much broader context and I may have narrowed my objections too much.

[sangh0]

79. There are similarities and differences

and different people will pay attention to different things. Some place more emphasis on the differences and some place more emphasis on the similarities.

[starroute]

102. I have a problem with your use of the word "because"

You say, "MLK did the things he did because of his religious beliefs."

I would reverse the equation, and say that I'm convinced MLK's beliefs arose out of who he was, not the other way round. That is, in a world where most people are primarily driven by personal self-interest, there are certain rare individuals who are prepared to act on a sense of something higher. But that "something higher" comes entirely from within themselves. Any religious beliefs they may hold are not the source of it, but only an after-the-fact attempt to understand it.

Because of this, I'm pretty ambivalent about the utility of religion. I can see that it has helped people like MLK to clarify their sense of moral urgency and to align themselves with the great teachers of the past. But I also see that in the hands of those without an inner calling, religion tends to devolve towards one more function of self-interest -- which can meant anything from small-town social club to tool of social control by the power elite.

I also have a suspicion that much of present-day Christianity, having fallen out of touch with contemporary science and the realities of our multicultural society, is now more of a cult than a real religion. Its adherents have to adopt a specialized belief system, wall themselves away from anything that might challenge it, and shut out alternative source of knowledge. The fact that fundamentalists increasingly seem to identify themselves as "Christians" rather than as Americans who practice Christianity is one inevitable result of this cult mindset.

I respect what Irate Citizen says about the Unitarian-Universalists (for what it's worth, Hosea Ballou was my husband's g-g-g-g-uncle), but they're hardly typical of organized religion in general. They're
the product of a couple of radical intellectual movements of the late 18th/early 19th centuries and their radical heritage is still alive. Very few other churches share that advantage.

I'd personally like to see religion stripped of all its "organized" aspects and recognized as a free-floating complex of wisdom literature, myths understood as metaphor, meetings of small groups of the like-minded for study and evocation of higher forces, and (for those who are prepared to make the commitment) highly-focused mythical paths.

A little more humility on all sides would help as well.

[sangh0]

117. Interesting points.

I would reverse the equation, and say that I'm convinced MLK's beliefs arose out of who he was, not the other way round.

Actually, I don't think you reversed the equation. I said that MLK did what he did because of his religious beliefs. The reverse would be that MLK's religious beliefs were the result of what he did. IMO, what you did was to introduce a new element (ie. what he was). And I agree with you - MLK's actions AND religious beliefs WERE the result of who he was. However, I would note that one of the things that MLK was, was "a religious person"

FWIW, I find it hard to seperate what someone deeply believes from who they are.

Because of this, I'm pretty ambivalent about the utility of religion.

And for good cause. Religion is a tool. What comes from it depends on how it's put to use.

WRT, to the rest of your post, I agree with almost all of it. I doubt that we have any great differences between us, and I don't even know what your religious beliefs are (or are not)

[sangh0]

76. I think I now see what I missed earlier.

The problem is with IC's assertion that if you're going to "throw out" Christianity due to the actions of Xtians like Falwell, etc, then you will also have to throw out Christians like MLK. Personally, I think IC could have worded that better.

The way I see it, many people cite the actions and beliefs of Xtian fundamentalists in their critiques of Christianity. In these cases, the critics see a clear link between the XTian fundies acts and beliefs. But for some reason, when it comes to the actions of people like MLK, Gandhi, etc, the link between their actions and their beliefs are portrayed as unnecesary. (ie "could not have been Ghandi without Hinduism"). By the same token, I could have asked "Does Falwell have to be Christian in order to attack homosexuals and feminists?" Limpballs attacks gays and feminists without using religious justifications.

Maybe I'm wrong on this, but there seems to be two standards at play here. When it comes to a Christian doing something bad, their religious beliefs are seen as being inextricably linked to those actions. But when a Christian does something good, those acts are portrayed as being distinct from their religious beliefs.

[Dhalgren]

83. I agree that the "double standard" does seem to apply.

But, many of the more open Christians and the more tolerant religionists are that way in opposition to the basic teachings of their particular religions. However, I think that Christians can find many supports within their religion to be open and broad minded and accepting - and many Christians do just that. The problem comes from the large parts of Christian teachings that are intollerant and anti-humanist. These are the aspects of the religion that tend to be impediments to peoples rights and freedoms - and so the causes of animosity.

[Blue_Chill]

89. I'm sorry but your post is just a effort to deny the positive

All to often I see this type of argument being made. When religion does something bad, it's the religions fault. When a religion leads to something good, the religion was a secondary player and of little consequence.

Then when we look at the flip side and examine atheits the very opposite is used. When Athiests do well, it's because their minds weren't clouded with religious dogma. When they kill millions, it had absolutely nothing to do with their anti-theism.

I see this nonsense coming from the left far too often.

[arwalden]

103. Sorry. Atheism Is Not The Same Thing As "Anti-Theism"

You started off strong... but it fell apart at the end.

[sangh0]

106. arwalden, what did you think about the strong part?

When religion does something bad, it's the religions fault. When a religion leads to something good, the religion was a secondary player and of little consequence.

Maybe I'm still unclear on the MLK point, but it seems to me that you are willing to link belief and actions when the Christians act intolerantly, but when they act tolerantly, you downplay the link between the acts and the beliefs of the actor.

[arwalden]

116. Wouldn't It Be Wonderful If Everyone Got A Gold Star For Every Good Deed?

"It seems to you?" It does, does it?

I don't recall ever having "downplayed" any good deeds by Christians. Please correct me if I'm wrong. What did I say or do to give you that impression?

Whatever it was that made you feel that way, please rest assured that that is NOT what I intended to convey. I am heartily sorry for giving you that impression. Please accept my deepest and heartfelt apologies for not having been clear enough in expressing my thoughts.

Perhaps you consider the fact that I'm NOT out there wasting time cheerleading every good deed done in the name of Christianity to be "downplaying" it.

***** Isn't the purpose of religion to "do good" anyway? Yes? Why should you expect me (or anyone) to go around "up-playing" how good religion is. That's supposed to be the point, isn't it? ****

That's like handing out a BONUS CHECK to someone who comes to work on time. Why would you give someone a BONUS for doing the BARE MINIMUM and simply showing up??? --- Similarly, you're wanting me to 'REWARD' religion and ACKNOWLEDGE ITS GOODNESS simply because it's performed it's basic function.

DON'T BE ABSURD!!!!

In any case... where's the urgency in publicly rewarding all the good-doers? Isn't their reward found in their afterlife? Or isn't the reward simply doing the good deed itself?

Why are you expecting me to be 'fair and balanced' in my attacks on Christian fundamentalism by providing equal time and verbal gold stars on everything good?

Since supposedly it's NOT the purpose of Christianity to be hateful and cruel and intolerant... then by golly, I'll point out when it is.(EDIT: Added this paragraph.)

It appears that you're attempting to draw some sort of faulty conclusion between two things that are TOTALLY UNRELATED. True... I don't hand out gold-stars. How does that equate to "downplaying" or even *denying* that MLK drew his strength, convictions, etc from his religion.

What are you trying to get me to agree to? What point are you trying to make?

[sangh0]

118. I'm not sure a Gold Star would help

I'm a big believer in "No good deed goes unpunished", but that's a whole other argument :-)

"It seems to you?" It does, does it?

It does, but I could be wrong. That's why I used the word "seems". That, and the fact that I seem to be having problems understanding your posts.

And I don't think you've downplayed any good deeds (and you have my apologies for not being clear about that) but I do think you may have downplayed the role MLK's religious beliefs played in motivating his actions. While you have absolutely no obligation to speak of the good things Christians do, or "talk up" religion, we all have an obligation to the truth. I believe that if you were to study MLK's life and his writings, you would come to see how religion played such a crucial role in his life and the civil rights movement.

And, this may surprise you, but I agree with your points about rewarding people for doing good. IMO, doing good is it's own reward, and so there's no need for any gold stars.

Also, I'm not sure if you're mistaking someone else's remarks for mine. I don't recall ever saying anything about publically rewarding do-gooders.

What point are you trying to make?

That the tactic of identifying bad acts by people who are religious proves as much/little as identifying good acts by people who are religious. Like everything else in the universe, religion has it's good side and it's bad side. Religion is a tool. Whether it results in good or bad depends on who uses it and how it's used.

[arwalden]

127. No... I Didn't Mistake Someone Else For You...

You found fault in the fact that when it came to good deeds I would "downplay the link between the acts and the beliefs of the actor."

Because of this, there's only ONE logical conclusion. If I'm at fault for downplaying it (or not acknowledging it)... then the correct action would be to do the OPPOSITE of what I'm doing (or in this case, what I'm NOT doing) and therefore I should be publicly extolling their virtue.

If this is not the proper corrective action, please explain what would be best.

Oh Brother! You think I've "downplayed MLK"... GOOD GRIEF!!

Irate's reference to MLK and trying to put that into the mix as a valid comparison was completely irrelevant to the discussion. I dismissed it as being so.

I dismissed the comparison. Not MLK.
I dismissed the reference. Not MLK.
I dismissed the faulty logic behind the assertion. Not MLK.

I dismissed it in the form of a rhetorical question. A rhetorical question is one that need not be answered. The asking of the question is in itself a STATEMENT.

You got bent out of shape and insisted on following this cow path through the woods and far far far away from the original subject.

Well... here we are.

Happy now?

"That the tactic of identifying bad acts by people who are religious proves as much/little as identifying good acts by people who are religious."

What? This makes no sense to me at all!

How can pointing out and identifying BAD ACTS by people who are religious be a "tactic" that proves little? --- How wrong you are. It's a tactic that PROVES much and REVEALS ALL!

It shows that there are indeed BAD people. It shows that there are indeed SPITEFUL and CRUEL and PARANOID and HYPOCRITICAL passages in the Christian bible.

I think where "good christians" get upset about this "tactic" is when it's demonstrated that "good christians" get to pick-and-choose which portions of the bible apply and which ones don't apply.

This doesn't deny the fact that good christians exist... it merely points out the hypocrisy of both good christians and evil ones.

The bible says to stone disobedient children... yet we don't do that. Adulterers (women) are supposed to be put to death also... yet good christians choose to ignore that one as well.

**** I can't believe you meant what you said about how "little it proves" in identifying bad acts by bad people done in the name of Christianity!! ****

It proves that they are wrong.
It proves that there are evil people who manipulate the bible.
It proves that there are gullible people.
It proves that there are hateful and cruel and intolerant passages.
It proves that they are everywhere!
It proves that they cannot be trusted.



These people are protesting against homosexuality. They are pretending that their bigotry has some sort of spiritual component or basis. Their actions prove, of course, that they are quite removed from anything spiritual. Their myopia makes it impossible for them to understand that sexuality is not something chosen, like one chooses a shirt, or a religion. It has been said that the fundamentalist mind is like concrete; all mixed up and permanently set.

[sangh0]

132. Ahh, I see.

I now understand why you said that, but I do not believe you have any obligation to extol anyone's virtues. I do believe you should be as honest as you can be, and on this point, you've succeeded. However, I do think you'd gain some understanding if you were to read about the connections between MLK's deeds and his beliefs. If I were to prescribe anything, it would be for you to continue being the sincere person you are, and to do some research into some of the more positive aspects of religion, with MLK being a wonderful place to start.

IOW, I don't think you've "downplayed MLK", but I do think you have downplayed the critical role MLK's religious beliefs played in motivating his actions.

How can pointing out and identifying BAD ACTS by people who are religious be a "tactic" that proves little? --- How wrong you are. It's a tactic that PROVES much and REVEALS ALL!

Actually, I didn't say it proves little. I said that it proves as little/mucuh as identifying the GOOD ACTS. IOW, identifying the BAD ACTS is not conclusive because for every BAD ACT you can identify, I can identify a GOOD ACT. If acts, good or bad, prove that a belief is good or bad, then pointing to the good and bad acts does prove something; It proves that religion is both good and bad. So yes, there are bad people, and some of them are religious (and some of them are not) But there are also good people, some of whom are religious, and some of whom are not.

And the people in that picture are wrong.

[arwalden]

139. I Downplayed NOTHING... NOTHING!!!

You are totally off base on this one.

The MLK reference was IRRELEVENT. If I choose to not acknowledge something that's irrelevent and not germane to the discussion, then I haven't downplayed anything. It was a red herring. A diversion. (Lookie at how diverted we are. See? We're not even talking about the original topic. How smart we are!)

The "critical role" of his religion was an assinine comparison that had nothing to do with the original discussion. I pointed that out, and you have a cow.

Get over it!

No... never mind. This is rediculous. I give up.

You're right. I'm wrong. Oh how wrong I am. How could I have ever questioned you.

You win. Whoo-hoo! Happy?

-- Allen

[sangh0]

144. I don't think I'm off base on this

I could be wrong, but insisting that I'm wrong without explaining why I'm wrong isn't going to do much good. You say it's irrelevant, and you have the right to that opinion, but don't I have the same right to an opinion as you, even if my opinion is the opposite of yours?

Also, I'm not having a cow, and if you go re-read my posts, I think you'll find that I've used fewer emotional words and phrases (ex "have a cow", "assinine", "bullshit") than you have.

And I'm as happy as I've ever been. Whether you agree with me or not has little to do with my happiness, so question me as much as you like. Or don't. To be honest, I like being challenged. IMO, it helps keep me on my toes, so to speak.

[arwalden]

147. So You're Less Emotional... Your Point?

I call my words colorful and descriptive. What does this have to do with anything? Your implication is that my emotional responses somehow makes them less valid. Get real!

Indeed the comparison was asinine. It was irrelevant and you chose to harp and harp and harp on it. Hence your "having a cow"... you were obviously perturbed and wouldn't let go of it.

I told you REPEATEDLY why you it was wrong. Simply stating that I didn't, doesn't make it so. I did... you know it, I know it. Please don't play dumb... I know you're not.

You're now making an assertion that I've somehow implied you don't have a reason to have an opinion or you don't have the right to express that opinion. Another red herring. Please keep on topic. Even if it's THIS off-topic-topic. Don't try to change topics on me again.

You may express your opinions whenever you please. When they are OFF TOPIC I'll let you know. (As in these many cases.) But feel free to express away. Knock yourself out, honey!

How could I be so foolish for letting myself be drawn into this diverted and pointless argument? Silly me.

You like being "challenged"... is that what they call it these days? Okay. --- Challenge away, sweetie.

I'll give you the last word. I'm done here.

[sangh0]

155. I don't know if you are more emotional than I am

and I'm sorry that you don't understand why I think MLK's religious beliefs are relevant.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

92. No, I see it more this way:

Both MLK and Gandhi were in touch with the spiritual sides of their natures, their striving toward (to use a Platonic term) the Good. Because MLK was born in the American South and Gandhi was born in India, they arrived at the same goal through different, culturally-determined paths.

Knowing my Lutheran/Episcopalian background, you may be surprised to learn that when I am in Japan, I have no trouble praying at Buddhist temples or Shinto shrines that seem to have some sort of a special mystical aura about them.

The ultimate spiritual force behind the Universe has to be too big for the human mind to comprehend, so we all approach it in our own way. The world's religions have spread throughout the millennia because they met some need in the search for meaning beyond the mundane world.

By the way, I've noticed throughout the years that a lot of (not all) atheists are fans of science fiction and fantasy. Could it be that they have unacknowledged yearnings for something beyond the mundane world, too? If they've found it in science fiction, more power to them.

[Selwynn]

122. I challenge the assumption that they are diametrically opposed

Yet I agree that their humanity is partly responsible -- the spiritual journey in my opinion is about the awkening of full humanity, which I believe is only possible as an idividual discovers how to stand in right relationships to others and discovers a relationship to the divine life. There are many paths to that truth I believe. In the end, Ghandi and MLK may share similar qualities, insofar that they both discovered the correct path to a full acutalization of their own human potential. For MLK Christiantiy was the tool for spiriutal awakening, for Ghandi it was Hinduism. Both men were awakened and changed in their hearts and minds - truly what I define as the ultimate religious experience.

It is in the end, and equal partnership between our humanity and our relationship to our community and to the ground of life itself.

[Cheswick2.0]

201. I think Jesus was a much bigger influence on MLK than Ghandi

Jesus also taught non violence.

Don't try to separate MLK from his religion, it is disrespectful and you have no right. He was a member of the Christian clergy, not an insignificant commitment. That is what he chose to do with his life.

[Cheswick2.0]

205. "I don't hate gays, I just hate what they do"

Gee thanks for not hating me, just who I am.

Love the sinner hate the sin?

[JanMichael]

6. Unfortunately the Political enemies of the Left are also Fundamentalists

Of the Christian variety.

I agree with you however that we need to differentiate between the foaming at the mouth Fanatical American Christians and those who are simply decent people that hold a religious belief.

Funny you should mention UU. I'm an Atheist who happens to attend quite a few UU forums and activist events. Nice group.

[niceypoo]

7. Ive often wondered that myself

Many here assume all democrats/liberals to be athiest, which is far from the truth.

[sendero]

9. well...

... I understand your point and agree, judging anyone by a single data point is ridiculous.

But I also have some problems with religion in this country. While I agree with you that *most* Christians are not the toxic variety, why do I not hear this Christian majority speak out against the charlatans who have hijacked Jesus?

It will do little good for me to speak out, as I am openly not a Christian. But if I were a member of a religion, I would try to cast out and ostracize those who were corrupting the faith to their own temporal ends, and I hear very, very, very little of that.

I hear lots of people claiming to be Christians and IGNORING the message of the bible, forgetting the instructions and admonitions that are repeated throughout the bible in favor of those sins that are mentioned once or twice. These people are not seeking wisdom or enlightenment, they are using religion as a cover for their greed and inhumanity - and this is no tiny subset of Christians at all IMHO.

[sangh0]

23. answer

why do I not hear this Christian majority speak out against the charlatans who have hijacked Jesus?

There are many people of faith on DU who do speak out about this. In fact, including myself and the poster who started this thread. Must we identify ourselves by religious affiliation every time we post a critique of the Xtain right?

I'm religious but do not consider myself a member of any specific sect.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

78. We do speak out

but the mainstream media pay no attention. The fundamentalists have lots of money to throw around by buying media time and holding glitzy services that are almost indistinguishable from a TV variety show.

We mainstream types are too busy feeding the hungry, participating in Habitat for Humanity projects,sponsoring refugees (who may or may not be Christian, but we make no effort to convert them if they aren't, other than inviting them ONCE to attend a service to meet the congregation, and it's no big deal if they don't come back), sending delegations to march in anti-war rallies, and raising money for our denominations' worldwide charitable programs.

I don't care if anyone thinks that Christian theology is nonsense. Here's a news flash: few mainstream Christians are Biblical literalists, and a large number (close to a majority perhaps?) are aware of the scholarship about how the Bible was written and the status of much of it as allegory. We don't think that non-Christians are going to hell, because of Romans 2:12-16, a passage which the fundamentalists somehow ignore.

Issuing blanket condemnations of Christianity because of its supposed malevolent influence on society is like condemning all African-Americans because of the activities of the gangbangers. Right wingers sometimes get all high and mighty and ask why the black community isn't trying to stop the gangs, but in fact, there are all kinds of efforts going on. However, the mass media find it much more fun to report the latest shooting than the efforts of community groups to provide constructive activities for youth.

Every time a rogue fundamentalist like Jerry Falwell opens his foul mouth, the media are all over it. However, the head of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, and the other mainstream denominations can issue a strongly worded statement against the invasion of Iraq, and the news appears in a three-inch article on page 15.

[Liberator_Rev]

202. Very well said, Lydia (from Ray on the Other coast)

Assuming Left Coast is the West Coast, I hate to refer to ours as the "Right Coast".

[GinaMaria]

101. There is an organization

of religeons that do exactly that. I recieve letters and requests for donations and invitations to protests from them. It's the Interfaith Alliance, I think. They are doing a great job of uniting people of all different beliefs against the policies of this administration. I have no problem joining them and reading their material and passing along their emails. I consider myself a secular humanist and the goals of this organization are usually in line with my goals. I believe that Walter Cronkite (sp?) is involved with them. I could be wrong about that.

My point is that this group actively opposes the policies and behavior of the fundies.

http://www.interfaithalliance.org/

[Liberator_Rev]

204. Check out "Liberals Like Christ"

Unlike the I A, which doesn't want to offend Republicans, we embrace Liberal Democrats and let the chips fall where they may.

http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org


See what Christ might say about the "Christian Coalition" & "Religious Right" imposters.

[Ruby Newsbee]

10. Organized religion is nothing but political governance.

It's just a means for organizing and manipulating the masses. Just like politics, you have to search for the shred of truth. MLK may not have had the power to get his message out had it not been through his position within his organized religion. He used it as a tool and not necessarily his religious convictions. Had he been serious about his religious convictions he wouldn't have been an adulterer.

[Cheswick2.0]

207. wrong

You can be very serious about your religious convictions and still make mistakes. God doesn't demand perfection from anyone, just faith.

[qb]

11. When I hear "organized religion" I think of the Catholic heirarchy

and all of their dirty dealings (destroying family planning programs, meddling in U.S. & other countries' politics, etc.)
Others that come to mind are the protestant swindlers (Falwell and others).
There is naturally a strong emotional response to the evils perpetrated by these institutions.
"Organized Religion" is a convenient label that encompasses these corrupt organizations.
I can only suggest you remind yourself that UU is not included in this group (nor are any of the other religious organizations that have a solely benevolent, humanistic agenda).

[Padraig18]

37. A valid point, but...

... do you ever remember the Catholic Worker's Movement, which strives for dignity, decent wages, and end to child and slave labor throughtout the world, especially the 2nd and 3rd World? Do you ever think of Mennonite Relief Services, which provide food, medicine, housing and education without regard to race, creed, religion or national origin? Do you consider American Baptist Foreign Missions, who work to ameliorate some of the worst poverty that obtains throughout the globe, especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America? Do you... *grin*... see my point?

Don't lump us all together; we are as diverse as the world itself. :)

[Blue_Chill]

91. Why do you only look at the negative?

When I say "Socialism" do you immediately think failed system that often leads to oppression?

When I say "Bill Clinton" do you think "cheating husband" or "liar".

I often wonder why some seem to intentionally block out all positives associated with religious groups such as the Catholic church. Like for example you say "destroying planned parenthood programs" but you fail to mention "feeding and providing medical care to millions in Africa that the rest of the world shuns and ignores". You say "meddling in US and other nations politics" but fail to mention that all to often that meddling is to oppose the death penalty, oppose a unjust war, demand aid for the poor etc etc.

I don't understand it.

[qb]

136. Because it is the negatives that need to be rectified.

Doing good to one group of people in no way diminishes the harm they're doing to others.

[IrateCitizen]

146. And your statement implies you're looking at it as a monolith

Religion is hardly a monolith. It is a word used to describe a set of beliefs and/or traditions held by a group of people. And within that description, are countless varying beliefs, along with expressions of beliefs.

You are portraying the Catholic Church as a monolith in this instance, outside of the work done by different sects within it -- sects that often come in opposition to one another.

For example, the Catholic nuns and Archbishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador were attempting to institute a policy of "preferential treatment of the poor" in Central America. This same policy was opposed by higher elements in the Roman Catholic Church that did not want to "stir up trouble" in the region. In fact, Romero was initially appointed to his post in order to curb this practice, and he ended up embracing and advocating it.

In this situation, should the Catholic Church be lauded or condemned? It's not so easy of an answer when looked at in those terms, because there were opposing elements at work within this seemingly monolithic structure.

What I would say is that Archbishop Romero, and the nuns who were killed by the El Salvadoran death squads for their beliefs, should be held up as examples of people who attempted to use religion as a tool for GOOD. Likewise, those who advocated the curbing of such uses of religion in order to curry favor with the powers-that-be should be held up as using religion as a tool for CONTROL, something that should not be repeated.

[maxanne]

189. er, Blue Chill

<<Like for example you say "destroying planned parenthood programs" but you fail to mention "feeding and providing medical care to millions in Africa that the rest of the world shuns and ignores".>>

Do you not see the connection between the abysmal family planning practices and overpopulation, sickness, and hunger? There wouldn't be a need for so much medical care if the Church stopped minding the reproductive decisions of the world.

[Liberator_Rev]

206. Blue-Chill, were your ancestors among these beneficiaries

of Catholic missionaries: (excerpts from a book every Liberal (open-minded, sensitive) American ought to read, "American Holocaust" (of America's first settlers):
"In short, the missions were furnaces of death that sustained the Indian population levels for as long as they did only by driving more and more natives into their confines to compensate for the huge number were being killed once they got there. This was a pattern that held throughout California and on out across the southwest. Thus, for example, one survey of life and death in an early Arizona mission has turned up statistics showing that at one time an astonishing 93 % of children born within its walls died before reaching the age of ten -- and yet the mission's total population did not drastically decline. There were various ways in which the mission Indians died. The common causes were the European-introduced diseases -- which spread like wildfire in such cramped quarters -- and malnutrition. { p.138 } The personal space for Indians in the missions averaged about seven feet by two feet per person for unmarried captives, who were locked at night into sex-segregated common rooms that contained a single open pit for a toilet. It was perhaps a bit more space than was allotted a captive African in the hold of a slave ship sailing the Middle Passage. Married Indians and their children, on the other hand, were permitted to sleep together -- in what Russian visitor V.M. Golovnin described in 1818 as "specially constructed 'cattle--pens.' " He explained: I cannot think of a better term for these dwellings that consist of a long row of structures not more than 7 feet high and 10 to 14 feet wide, without floor or ceiling, each divided into sections by partitions, also not longer than 14 feet, with a correspondingly small door and a tiny window in each -- can one possibly call it anything but a barnyard for domestic cattle and fowl? Each of these small sections is occupied by an entire family; cleanliness and tidiness are out of the question: a thrifty peasant usually has a better--kept cattle--pen."' Under such conditions Spanish-introduced diseases ran wild: measles, smallpox, typhoid, and influenza epidemics occurred and re--occurred, while syphilis and tuberculosis became, as Sherburne F. Cook once said, "totalitarian" diseases: virtually all the Indians were afflicted by them. As for malnutrition, despite agricultural crop yields on the Indian--tended mission plantations that Golovnin termed "extraordinary" and "unheard of in Europe," along with large herds of cattle and the easily accessible bounty of sea food, the food given the Indians, according to him, was "a kind of gruel made from barley meal, boiled in water with maize, beans, and peas; occasionally they are given some beef, while some of the more diligent catch fish for themselves." On average, according to Cook's analyses of the data, the caloric intake of a field--laboring mission Indian was about 1400 calories per day, falling as low as 715 or 865 calories per day in such missions as San Antonio and San Miguel. To put this in context, the best estimate of the caloric intake of nineteenth-century African American slaves is in excess of 4000 calories per day, and almost 5400 calories per day for adult male field hands. This seems high by modern Western standards, but is not excessive in terms of the caloric expenditure required of agricultural laborers. As the author of the estimate puts it: "a diet with 4206 calories per slave per day, while an upper limit neither excessive nor generous, but merely adequate to provide sufficient energy to enable one to work like a slave." Of course, the mission Indians also worked like slaves in the padres' agricultural fields, but they did so with far less than half the caloric intake, on average, commonly provided a black slave in Mississippi, Alabama, or Georgia. Even the military commanders at the missions acknowledged that the food provided the Indians was grossly insufficient, especially, said on given "the arduous strain of the labors in which they are employed"; labors, said another, which last "from morning to night"; and labors, note a third, which are added to the other "hardships to which they are subjected." . . . The resulting severe malnutrition, of course, made the natives all the more susceptible to the bacterial and viral infections that festered in the filthy and cramped living conditions they were force to endure -- just as it made them more likely to behave lethargically, something that would bring more corporal punishment down upon them. . ."

[LeahMira]

12. Good point, and one that has occurred to me also...

I think most folks are concerned with the issues of separation of church and state. I don't think you can be too vigilant about that, and your mention of a few of the "televangelists" shows that you are also aware of the problem.

I do agree with you that religious teachings and principles can be the source of much that is good as well. Organized religion at its best embodies some of the highest ideals which inspired humans are capable of imagining. I think that the left is sometimes guilty of lumping the good in with the bad and the ugly and dismissing the whole bunch.

Whether or not "secular humanists" admit it or like it, people in the U.S. are religious people... much more so than people in European nations and even more so than people in Israel. Constitutionally we aren't, but facts on the ground are stubborn. I agree that we need to focus on the ideals that we have in common, whether fundamentalist Christian, liberal Jew, staunch atheist, or some other choice. Liberals and progressives are turning off a lot of good folks by attacking their religion when we ought to be denominationally neutral but supportive of their ideals.

[The Zanti Regent]

13. I just see what religion has done

Enslavement of people because of the color of their skin,

Killing people because they don't share the same beliefs as you,

Encouraging ignorance and stupidity.

Well, that is just for starters!

[IrateCitizen]

19. No, specific interpretations were used to JUSTIFY such behaviors...

The behaviors themselves came out of greed and unrestrained selfishness. Religion was twisted to JUSTIFY these behaviors, in an effort to legitimize them to the masses. That does not equate with "these things were done BY religion".

You might as well say that religion was the reason for the latest round of corporate scandals that looted pension funds, and the ravaging of our environment in the name of profit.

IOW, your argument is a leap of logic that ends up plunging off a cliff.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

32. Here is when we come across the nomenclature problem

Many people, when they say "religion" they actually mean "organised religion" by which is meant "a system of rules regarding the interpretation of religious texts governed by a hierarchy of priests".

In other words, "Catholicism" is an "organised religion", while "Christianity" is not. Thus, not ALL Christians belong to an organised religion, but ALL Catholics do.

So as you are saying, the specific interpretations that allowed these things came from "organised religion".

My point is that an organised religion is in fact a POLITICAL group more often that not set up to control the actions of its subjects. Thus believing in their "God" is not enough, you also have to live by the rules set out by the hierarchy.

Why MANY people have a problem with organised religion is because in most cases these rules are NOT based on the underlying belief, but on purely power motives, and sometimes run CONTRARY to the beliefs themselves.

Most people do not equate private spirituality with "religion" and thus they often use the term interchangably with "organised religion". This leads to MANY arguments such as the one you are engaging in, but I bet that if you ask the person you are responding to what they mean by religion, they will give examples of organised religions.

[LeahMira]

20. PS

Supportive of the ideals that we have in common.

(Sorry, one of these days I'll find the section that says how to edit... )

Enslavement of people because of the color of their skin,
Killing people because they don't share the same beliefs as you,
Encouraging ignorance and stupidity.
Well, that is just for starters!

You don't have to be religious to do those things! :-)

C'mon... can't you think of anything that organized religion has done well? I wonder how Dorothy Day could have come from the same religious tradition as the clerical child molesters if organized religion is so monolithically bad to the bone.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. The same could be said of Stalin

who enslaved all kinds of minority groups that wanted to retain their cultural identity. What church did he belong to?

Religious people have done all these things, but so have non-religous people.

[starroute]

114. Um, actually, Stalin had been a theological student

http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/stalin/section1.html

{Stalin's father} was an abusive, hard-drinking man, who eventually failed as an independent artisan and left his family to work in a factory in Tiflis, the capital of Georgia, when his son was five years old. For the rest of Stalin's childhood, Joseph and Yekaterina lived in the home of a priest, Father Charkviani, where the pious, hard-working woman attempted to ensure that her only son would be well-educated enough to escape the drudgery of a lower-class existence.

<snip>

The Church played a strong role in his early life: he lived with a priest, and his schooling was religious. His mother enrolled him in the Gori Church School in September 1888, when her son was nine, and he graduated six years later, despite various interruptions.

<snip>

At his mother's urging, he applied for and won a small scholarship to the Tiflis Theological Seminary, where he enrolled in September 1894. Yekaterina worked hard to help him afford the tuition, and she nourished a strong hope that her son would become a priest. Indeed, even years later, when Stalin ruled all of Russia, she told an interviewer that she would have preferred for him to have entered the priesthood. Russia, in retrospect, might have preferred it as well.

[booisblu]

15. Ok, then may I ask a question?

Why is it so important to be part of an organized religion? My understanding of what Jesus preached was geared more toward praying in private and a one on one relationship with God and the universe. The gospels of Thomas are great and I can totally see that as a more true form of spirituality than what is being followed today. I was raised in a catholic upbringing and discarded and disregarded every tenet put forth. I find the majority of organized religions abhor critical, logigical and free- thinking individuals. If all religions have the basic tenent of love your neighbor as you love yourself, or the better- do unto others, etc.; then why on earth is the world in the mess that it is? Tell me, what good has religion done? I see the incredible harm.. but I have trouble seeing the good. I am truly interested, and I'm not looking to flame or be flamed.

I love nature, and every day I see the miracle that was and still could be. But I also see so much hate and despair. The desperation out there on so many levels is unbelievable. And not just with poverty, but with abuse of every kind. Why is it growing? If religion was the answer, or faith.. then why is the evil spreading so quickly, and so completely?

[IrateCitizen]

27. Your questions are very valid ones, and I'll try to answer them.

Why is it so important to be part of an organized religion? My understanding of what Jesus preached was geared more toward praying in private and a one on one relationship with God and the universe. The gospels of Thomas are great and I can totally see that as a more true form of spirituality than what is being followed today.

I think you started to answer yourself with these two sentences. Religion in all shapes and sizes has two sides -- one is authoritarian, and the other is love-centered. You rightly recognize the love-centered emphasis as the correct one. It is the authoritarian side that is often used to justify oppression, exploitation -- even outright slaughter. And as such, THAT side should be rejected.

I find the majority of organized religions abhor critical, logigical and free- thinking individuals.

Many organized religions are based on traditions -- and many of these traditions need changing. But rather than simply reject religion outright, why not seek out a community that at least allows, if not encourages you to challenge these traditions? While the Baptists and Pentacostals won't exactly be welcoming in this respect -- I can say that Presbyterians will be relatively welcoming, and UU's will be downright disappointed if you DON'T question and challenge these traditions and religions.

If all religions have the basic tenent of love your neighbor as you love yourself, or the better- do unto others, etc.; then why on earth is the world in the mess that it is?

Because people often give into the worst aspects of themselves -- selfishness, greed, etc. Being a former Catholic, certainly you can appreciate this principle at work even in the crucifiction of Christ, because he opposed the power structure of the Pharisees and instead preached these values that you rightly recognize as being paramount. And this is one of the areas in which a positive religious community can provide a tremendous source of support -- by supporting those very values that you recognize as most important, and thereby helping YOU to live by these values just as you help OTHERS. It won't change the world in your lifetime, but this changing of attitudes and perceptions is what will change the world over time.

Tell me, what good has religion done? I see the incredible harm.. but I have trouble seeing the good.

Just look to the examples I cited above.

I love nature, and every day I see the miracle that was and still could be. But I also see so much hate and despair. The desperation out there on so many levels is unbelievable. And not just with poverty, but with abuse of every kind.

Do you think that I don't feel the same despair? I do. But I also know that we must change our attitudes and perceptions if this hate and despair is to be stopped. And my spiritual community gives me support in trying to live my life in a way that goes against this hate and despair.

If religion was the answer, or faith.. then why is the evil spreading so quickly, and so completely?

It's not an answer. The community of support that it can provide, along with the recognition of the right moral principles -- which you obviously recognize as well -- are a step in the right direction.

[sangh0]

28. My responses

Why is it so important to be part of an organized religion?

IMO, it's not.

If all religions have the basic tenent of love your neighbor as you love yourself, or the better- do unto others, etc.; then why on earth is the world in the mess that it is?

Because there are people, both religious and non-religious, who do not adhere to that principle.

Tell me, what good has religion done?

I took a taxi ride this weekend. The cabbie told me about his girlfreind, who is from Saigon, VietNam. When the communists took over, her families assets (house, business, etc - they were relatively well-to-do) were all confiscated for use by communist govt. So was her family, who were kept confined to the basement.

She and her sister were required to work for the authorities cooking, cleaning, or whatever else might need to be done, including providing sexual services for the soldiers stationed there. She was raped 10 times a day or more, and if she resisted, knives were held to the throats of her family.

She and her sister eventually escaped qith the help of the Catholic Church. They paid $3000/person to have the two of them smuggled out of the country, and were then sponsored by the church, who employed them and supported them until they could come to the United States.

That's just one story. There are many more.

[booisblu]

44. Irate and Sangh0

Thank you for your replies. Irate, I wish I knew you in the real world for I think we could have some wonderful philosophical debates! You have a very serene, measured way of responding and I appreciate it. You have given me much to ponder on.

Sangh0.. your taxi cab story blew me away. It is good to know there is some good being done in a very, very great way. I was beginning to think it was all talk and no action as far as the catholic faith.

I doubt that I will ever be comfortable within any organized religion as I am far too individualistic a person. I think the answer that I'm seeking has more to do with the need for them. If we all carry our own spirituality inside of us..our hearts and our minds, then why do you and people in general seek out others of the same religious leanings? I mean, if you know who you are and what you believe..then why is it necessary to surround yourself with others in a religious setting? What exactly are you gaining from that? I am truly curious about these issues.

[sangh0]

52. Thanks

If we all carry our own spirituality inside of us..our hearts and our minds, then why do you and people in general seek out others of the same religious leanings?

I don't believe that is true. Many people of faith DO seek out others with similar beliefs, but many do not. I don't. Furthermore, isn't the tendency to seek out people who are similar pretty common, and not just limited to the religious? Where would DU be if people didn't seek others with similar views?

I mean, if you know who you are and what you believe..then why is it necessary to surround yourself with others in a religious setting?

It's not. It can be pleasant. It can be helpful. But I don't see it as "necesary". I just don't see anything wrong with someone seeking assistance (on any matter) from those whose judgement they respect.

What exactly are you gaining from that?

Exposure to a variety of views. Advice from people we respect and who we feel might have a better understanding of these issues and values. Feedback. Support. Constructive criticism.

[AmeriCanadian]

16. The perception is that for the most part, liberals have no

... Morals. For the most part we generally enjoy things that are usually against the law, support abortion rights, we condone interfacial and homosexual sex. Often out of wedlock.

... We?re generally non-conformists, atheists, free thinkers and don?t like to be told what to do.

[Aries]

17. Being right on one thing doesn't make one right on everything...

...The point I am trying to make is if you want to throw out ALL organized religion in order to repudiate the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham -- then you must also throw out the likes of Martin Luther King, Phil and Daniel Berrigan, Dorothy Day, and so on...

I respect all of those you say we would have to "throw out" without religion, but I consider their religious ideology a flaw in an otherwise admirable character. The thing about religion, particularly monotheistic religion, is that it requires obedience to the divinity, which in turn requires worship. This mindset then carries through to the authoritarian tendencies of the rest of our culture, from school, through work and the military.

"The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth." --Mikhail Bakunin

[IrateCitizen]

35. Then you are rejecting the source of their character

I respect all of those you say we would have to "throw out" without religion, but I consider their religious ideology a flaw in an otherwise admirable character.

The religious belief system that these people all had was not a "flaw in their character". It was the source of their actions. They all readily acknowledged it as such. By attempting to separate their spiritual beliefs from their actions, you are failing to recognize the most basic of WHY they all did what they did.

[Aries]

165. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason

doesn't make the "reason" correct. The actions stand on their own. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that the events of the Inquisition were admirable, because the participants' religious faith led them to torture and murder those who didn't agree with them. Their religion was the explanation they gave for their actions, but their actions can be analyzed independent of their beliefs, as can those of the moral paragons. Or was the Inquisitor's religion really part of their character, as they claimed, and which is what you are claiming for the examples of moral virtue?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

82. Try substituting words

Suppose you had said:

"I respect all of those you say we would have to "throw out" all non-heterosexual classical composers such as Ravel, Barber, Menotti, Poulenc, Copeland, and Britten, but I consider their homosexuality a flaw in an otherwise admirable character."

That would have been bigotry, yes?

[Flying_Pig]

18. Hmmmm. Could it be because organized religion(s) are...

currently the cause of about 90% of the world's wars right now, and have been throughout history?

Could it be because certain religions, by virtue of their beliefs, are causing massive over-population, and the resulting environmental degradation of the world?

Could it be because of people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and the whackos on the Christian right?

Could it be because thousands of children have been raped and molested, and then a church tried to cover it up?

Could it be because that most religions are so hypocritical in their beliefs, that many reasonable people shun them?

Could it be because people like G.W. Bush, Ariel Sharon, and Osama bin Laden, not only lie, but kill tens of thousands, while wearing their religions on their shirt sleeves?

And you want to know why so many people are hostile to religion here? I, for one, thank goodness they are, because it shows that most of the membership of this board is comprised of thinking people, not easily fooled by the distorted and hypocritical message of organized religion.

Having said that, are there exceptions? Yes. Are there religions who do good works, and provide gentle spiritual solace and enlightenment to their believers? Yes. But too damned few.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[NashVegas]

21. As a Product of Organized Religion ...

I will conceed that the day mankind conceived of a god in its own image was one of the most important days in our history, for it implied an innate divinity that allowed us to have a little more respect for ourselves and each other, and progress as a more civilized race.

However, as someone with first-hand knowledge of organized religion's hypocrisy, I'm forever grateful that I was forced to take a step back and view organized religion with a more critical eye, forever taking myself outside the control and authority of self-proclaimed religious leaders.

It's not just the Falwells and the Robertsons, it's all of those - some of whom are very well-intentioned - who use their religious authority or leanings to tell us how to behave in the name of a god, declaring certain actions or behaviors off limits for fear of offending their egoist God, when it's truly mankind who suffers from offending actions, often times actions which the god's representatives themselves look the other way at when committed by the powerful.

As for the hostility on the board, you may want to consider that at least some portion of it comes from those who, themselves, have been bashed by organized religion, whether literally or figuratively. Some people take longer to work it out longer than others. For me, it's taken over 30 years and still working on it. My suggestion to you is to maybe avoid going into threads where you think you're going to be offended.

[PATRICK]

47. As more than a product

I can outdo any anti-organized religion thread. I even have a rare deleted reply during one rant. It's like keeping the Democratic party honest only there's little democracy even when it's supposed to be there such as in parish councils etc.

But read the first Gospel (Mark) for constant and rather shocking digs and takedowns of religious people, leaders and mindsets. of those who acknowledge Jesus correctly only the demons get it factually right and the Roman executioner looking at the death of Jesus. the it ends abruptly with the women at the empty tomb too scared to tell anyone. So radical that the Church added a very conventional unMarkian last section. Obviously for one thing blunt,not too literary,Mark was angry, no one is exactly sure why, but it kept the Church a lot more honest than it would be today without that Gospel.

People have been screwing up the religion of Christ and forcing it back to conformity with- if not the devil- then the comfortable manmade boxes that cause all the trouble, judgmentalism and apathy required to disembowel the truth. They can even wage wars about some interpretaion of the prince of Peace without caring for the real God one bit. They are atheists with a mask. The people I find here are mask haters, or fed up with hypocrisy and self-righteousness. Therefore close to getting Jesus' point.

Most of the Catholic Church's values are consistently good in conception but even in their chosen emphasis start turning off the track into shady areas for seemingly good human reasons.

[gratuitous]

25. IC: Don't feed the trolls

And yes, blanket statements about all organized religion is trollishness. If I were you, IrateCitizen, I wouldn't get too plugged into what a bunch of anonymous posters on a little website in a teeny, tiny corner of the internet have to say about organized religion. A lot of the comments seem to exhibit fuzzy thinking on the subject.

For the other folks posting, if a person is doing something reprehensible, but waves a cross while he's doing it, that doesn't necessarily make it a product of organized religion. Sometimes it just means that he's hiding behind a potent symbol, because he knows it will gull the public.

The same thing holds true for a person who, for example, starts up an unnecessary war while wrapping himself in the flag -- a lot of well-meaning people, will be victimized by their own disorganized thinking. They will think that because this vile and mean person has acted while hiding behind a flag, that that means the flag itself had something to do with the heinous act.

The flag and the cross (or whatever symbols you choose) remain what they are; the shame of the act should be imputed to the actor, not his camouflage.

[lancemurdoch]

30. As a UU...

As a UUer you must be aware of the current debate over the UU head dude talking about using the word "God" and so forth and the flap that him saying that caused.

I go to UU services when I'm not sleeping late on Sunday (which I often do). I am not touchy about someone bashing organized religion, I know that they're talking about Jerry Falwell or that excommunicated bishop Mel Gibson's father follows because he's unhappy that Vatican II called off Catholicism's jihad against Protestantism (and Judaism).

Personally I think people are too sensitive about this - churches spend 24/7 bashing secular humanism, atheism, agnosticism and so forth. The last time I was in a Roman Catholic church for a service the sermon was on the evils of secular humanism (I guess the evils of Bishop Hudal ferrying Nazis off to South America to avoid prosecution didn't bear mentioning).

In polls, the biggest supporters of the Iraq war were fundamentalist Christians. In fact, the biggest supporters of almost anything bad are fundamentalist Christians (be they Protestant or Catholics who are still reeling from Vatican II). As someone, I forget who said, fundamentalism is not about love, it is about hate. Not every devoutly religious person is bad all around, but even in people like Dorothy Day, I look out their religious devotion as a negative, as a bad thing that crept into the rest of their life as a negative influence.<P>
Religion is just insanity - a man in the clouds created everything, some half-man/half-deity came back from the dead, his mother was a virgin, he could perform magic....Europeans do not buy into this garbage, only Americans do.

The only positive aspect of religion is it is so obviously ridiculous, even to children. I would fear the replacement of religion with a more subtle form of psychological control.

[drdigi420]

33. It's probably the hostility of religion that causes it

Let's face it. Historically, religious folk have been more than hostile to enlightened people.

I think religious people just get overly defensive when the gaping holes in their story are pointed out.

[sendero]

36. well, there is that :)

also

[kodi]

34. 'cause most look at the menu thinking it's the meal

and few are willing to admit that religion can actually work to help many people resolve their fundamental questions about life. easier do they dismiss those who are religious as fools and yet do not admit their own foolishness.

you cant engage discussions on religion from merely a logical perspective. it doesn't work like that and using some sort of bastardized platonic rational approach that "reason is all" is as meaningless vis-a-vis religion as trying to eat soup with a fork.

aquinas attempted to prove via logic god's existence, now a millennium later his method is used to disprove god. in some sort of aquinain jujitsu they insist that logic disproves the a-rational approach and god.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

38. Religions a responsible for ALL the wars and killings and woes that plague

this planet

[IrateCitizen]

41. In that case, I find it ironic that you sport a Kucinich pic!

Because Dennis is a guy who has always been guided by his religious faith and principles. Didn't he even spend some time in Seminary?

As did Al Gore, I might add.... ;-)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

53. that may be...but it has never enter my realm of reasons for supporting

him...it is strictly his idealogy on social, environmental and anti-corporate issue that garnished my support

[kodi]

48. how superficial and useless that viewpoint.

people use religion for personal purposes, they would use tribalism or greed to achieve the same ends.

you might as well damn a sword for killing a man then the other man himself.

[Dhalgren]

77. The idea expressed, I think

was that common, everyday people have been driven into supporting and participating in countless war and atrosities based on the urging of their regious leaders. It is one thing to say that the instigator of a conflict might have used any excuse for the carnage, but for that instigator to be able to use the masses' religion to push then into war, does not speak well of that religion.

[QC]

54. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were religious?

That's a new one for me.

[sangh0]

56. Are nuclear weapons Christian?

.

[Blue_Chill]

98. No they were brought to us by our friends in the scientific community

Who, as we are reminded again and again on this board, can not be bothered with religion.

[Blue_Chill]

100. No of course not, but here you'll run into a double standard

When a religious person does something evil, it's the religions fault. When a atheist does something worse, their anti-theism played no role, even though they did hunt down and kill religious people.

[Avatar13]

105. Stalin WAS religious

He recieved a seminary education in his early teens. This was, of course, way before he got involved in politics and his need for power pushed aside whatever remained of his faith.

And Pol Pot died a christian, but wasn't during his heyday. Mao definitely wasn't keen on religion.

[Blue_Chill]

109. Raygun was a democrat

so what?

The only thing that matters is what were they when they did their thing. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - atheist. Hitler - Pagan.

[Avatar13]

113. True

But AFAIK their actions weren't motivated by their spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof). As much as Hitler used religion (Catholic, pagan, whatever) in his propaganda to justify his treatment of Jews, I remain convinced that it wasn't his religion that directly motivated his hatred - just as I believe that the communists did not kill in the name of atheism.

Sometimes one's spiritual position compells them to perform unspeakable acts. Sometimes it doesn't, but is used to justify the act anyway. There's a fine line between conviction and convenience and I'm loathe to pin religion as a source of one's malice wrt to these characters.

Add: BTW, I agree with you that ElsewheresDaughter's statement was a bit too broad.

[sangh0]

111. So did many athiests!!

He recieved a seminary education in his early teens

And some will tell you that that is why they are atheists

[Forkboy]

119. Simply not true

[Cheswick2.0]

208. Paul Welstone and DK would not agree with you

Wellstone recited the 23rd psalm on 9-11 and DK is a devout Catholic.

[Grins]

42. Well...

I guess I'll have to read between the lines a bit more. Never really noticed that thread.

As a survivor of 4 years of Jesuit higher ed, I know quite well that when you refer to the religious right you are not referring to the Catholic, Episcopal, Unitarian - Jewish!, religious. You know who they are, the big, mainline church/synagog (sp?) organizations. But, it is the extreme religious "other" that bugs the heck out of me.

This group is deeply commited to changing the Constitution to reflect only their point of view (putting the 10 Commandments into Courthouses and other government buildings, school prayer, "In God We Trust", '...under God...', the content of Hollywood films, anti-gay, marriage our-way or no-way, wave the flag or go to prison, etc.) and supported by the current administration and its party that OPENLY AND SPECIFICALLY panders to them.

When I was about 12 or so, I happened to be too close to one of our parish priests the week after the Supreme Court made its Madeline Murray decision. Fr. Kelly was to be respected and feared. One of the idiot (to my mind) adults asked him about the decision when I was standing right next to Kelly. I thought he was going to go nuts on the Court (which I agreed with, thus putting me in opposition to our priest!!) and he I was - in range of his wrath. He didn't. HE thought the Court did THE RIGHT THING! I can still remember him shouting, "...you are Catholic, you should be praying in OUR church, say OUR prayers...we will pray according to our beliefs.., Episcopalians should be in THEIR church,..." etc.

Surprised the heck out of me. Kelly thought school prayer was another assault on the Catholic Church, and he wanted to fight back. This was 1963 and we all remembered John Kennedy's religion being an issue in the 1960 election, especially with the southern conservative churches. (One classmate of mine actually stood up in class before the '60 election and said she had heard that my parish priests "ordered" all the faithful to vote Kennedy. That one even *P*'d me off.)

Your comment, "If it weren't for the dedicated Christians of the abolitionist movement, civil rights movement, and anti-war movement; none of them probably would have gotten off the ground. The American Council of Churches was also one of the most ardent opposers to the invasion of Iraq." has flaws as well. Remember the majority of the churches in the south supported slavery and actually used the Bible to justify it. 100 years later the decendants of those church-goers hated MLK, called him a traitor, hated his getting the Peace Prize, and had no trouble with the FBI targeting and smearing him. "Anti-war"?, don't think they are so perfect on that issue either. Before WWII it was the American Firsters that held back and that was backed all churches, not just the fringe groups. As a former Catholic, I still cringe at Father Coughlin.

BushCo would love to get the Catholics on his side, but I think they have (I hope) enough sense to worry about the problems in their own back yard before lecturing others. Bush goes the most perverted route possible to get to Catholics (which he assumes votes as a block). First he goes to rabid, anti-Catholic (Jew, Islam, gay, etc.) Bob Jones University (University? Yeeech!) where he panders to their "values" (while his campaign staff calls the locals to smear John McCain about his being a traitor while in captivity, and hinting of his fatering a (gasp!) black baby), then goes to the University of Notre Dame - and thinks they didn't notice.

[Terran]

46. Why is there such continued hostility towards differing opinions...

...on this board?

Give me a friggin break; the people responding to the thread you linked were expressing their personal opinions, and nothing more. In case you hadn't noticed, people are aware that religion is responsible for a lot of crap in this world, as well as good. Why does it surprise you that some people are critical of it? Are we just supposed to shut up about it?

Also please note that the criticism in that thread was almost exclusively directed at organized religion, not anyones' spiritual beliefs. There is huge difference.

[Dhalgren]

49. I believe that it is organized religion's intolerance

of other religions and non-belief that is the genesis of the animosity. If you believe that someone who believes differently than you or does not believe at all, is going to hell for eternity, then that hell-bound person might not care for your beliefs very much. Also, this society is controlled by people who give lip-service to strident relgious beliefs and this causes resentment, as well. You do not know what it is like to live in a society where your beliefs are taken for granted as being wrong and even evil. Where every time you voice your beliefs you are consigned to hell. It isn't an uplifting and joy-inspiring feeling. Even when science and logic, reason and humanity are on your side, the religionists will shake their heads and say "you're going to hell", or, "you are too stupid to see the light". It can be frustrating, to say the least.

[msmcghee]

50. "But the importance of organized religion . .

. . in social movements goes even further than that. If it weren't for the dedicated Christians of the abolitionist movement, civil rights movement, and anti-war movement; none of them probably would have gotten off the ground."

White Christians in the south especially but also some in the north supported slavery and resisted the civil rights movement and kept their churches racially segregated - and many are still that way.

Most of the southern white Christian churches backed every war we've had and still support this one actively.

Perhaps you are suggesting that there are good Christians and bad Christians. I would agree with you on that . . but I am more interested in the values you hold that cause you to take one side or the other.

Simply identifying as a Christian doesn't mean much by itself. Some Christians have done good. But Christians have also been the primary cause of untold suffering of innocent humans for 2000 years - the Inquisition, the Crusades, many wars.

The reason why Christianity has difficulty here at DU and experiences negativity . . is because liberal philosophy is based on a pragmatic view of cooperation and working with others, using our intellect and reason to solve common problems. These human problems, like poverty, health care, education, peace in the world, etc. are not easy to solve even with the best of intentions by smart capable leaders. Allowing religious dogma and superstition onto the table is seen by many - me included - as a step away from the solution and an invitation for chaos caused by various religious factions promoting their own particular brand of Godliness

OTOH many Christian values are good values. Bring those to the table - without the scripture - and I will welcome you. Wrap your values in religiosity based on myths and fables and you discredit yourself in my eyes.

[leftofthedial]

57. some view organized religion as part of "the problem"

and as antithetical to "the solution"

debate rages on four fronts:

1. Some view attacks on organized religion as attacks on their personal spirituality

2. What is "the problesm"

3. What is "the solution"

4. Some disagree that organized religion is a problem

I think this is an important topic, but not as important as defeating the Bush/PNAC Cabal in 2004.

[Mari333]

66. Too many like this pretending to be Christians

this woman is the mindset that runs the GOP.

[Liberal Veteran]

69. Loni Anderson didn't age well, did she?

Yes, I know it's not her. It's that scary whack job from the Trinity Broadcasting. What happened to her pink wig, btw?

[Liberal Veteran]

68. A better question would be why so many religious people cannot...

...accept the fact that not everyone subcribes to their brand of faith and why they take such offense that in a place where people should be free to express themselves and their true feelings about religions in general people actually do exactly that.

I respect your right to believe whatever you want, but there are far too many people of faith who believe that people who don't share their faith should be required to genuflect and show respect to a belief system that they don't necessarily share.

Sometimes you just have to accept the fact that some people believe that Christianity, Buddhism, Satanism, or whatever is bullshit. To expect people to show some kind of preferential treatment to faiths they don't share and avoid any and all criticism of organized faiths, especially where such criticism is deserved (like the idiots who want creationism taught in science class) is asking people to curb their beliefs so as not to offend you.

Personally I think that people who get so bent out of shape over criticism of religions are showing their theological failings and suffer pangs of a theological crisis when criticism is made. If you cannot handle the fact that some people actually believe that belief in Yahweh/Jehovah is the equivalent to believing in Zeus or Artemis or Odin then perhaps you should examine why you become so uncomfortable with the diversity of opinion on religion. In other words, why should it matter so much to you if someone thinks that your particular brand of faith is silly or illogical and says as much? That is the real question that should be examined.

[arwalden]

73. Isn't A Missionary's Message: "Your Beliefs Are Bullshit"?

Well... not in those exact words... but that's the message.

Isn't this the message that missionaries took to Hawaii and relegated Pele to being a mere historical footnote and souvenir-stand trinket.

(Let's not even talk about the syphilis and other venerial diseases that the morally upstanding missionaries left behind. Oh the hypocrisy of it all! But that's a topic for another thread.)

I don't see any difference?

Do you see a difference?

I don't.

-- Allen

P.S. Excellent post, by the way.

[bloom]

71. As someone who has participated in organized religion...

over the years - (I now associate myself with a Quaker meeting), I can totally see that this country as a whole is hostile to non-Christians.

I have seen the good that religions can do, as well as the bad - but here in the midwest - esp. rural areas - people are not generally open about their alternate religious viewpoints. Pressure to conform, IOW.

And it DOES relate to politics - politicians, for the most part who have "alternate religious viewpoints" - better just keep them to themselves, as well.

And what keeps this going, I believe, is the charade that so many continue to be complicit in - the "fairy tale" beliefs. As if it is reasonable to believe outrageous things about Jesus - but not about witches, or some other thing. (I think Jefferson made a reasonble Bible without the supernatural aspects - too bad it never caught on.)

I can see where there is (mostly suppressed) resentment about all this.

I appreciate people who speak their truths.

[FlaGranny]

130. I see your point.

I personally keep very quiet about my religious non-leanings. :-) I find it horrendous when people (and a lot of family members) look at me with pity because I'm going straight to hell. I don't believe in hell and I hate pity and I don't want sermons, so I keep quiet. I have never tried to convert anyone to agnostism or atheism. So, I believe there is truth in what you say.

I have a fairly good working knowledge of the Bible, so I can participate in conversations about religion with very religious folks and they believe (because they want to) that I am religious, too. This is the only place I will state I am an atheist because none of you know me. I know this is cowardly on my part, but I do it anyway, for the reasons stated above. :-)

I don't like the lack of respect shown on some religious threads by a few people. In my time here I have seen only one or two threads that discussed religion (or lack thereof) in a civil manner.

I will admit that it seems to always be an atheist who begins the "war" by belittling the religious. I haven't seen an atheist being belittled here. I have an inkling, though, these insensitive remarks may be due, in some part, to the fact that many of us are put on the defensive for our beliefs (in the "real world"). Here, in the digital world, I guess some of us feel the need to get "even."

We should all try to remember that religion and even candidates can be discussed, pro and con, without resorting to petty bickering and outright nastiness.

[LittleApple81]

74. I have noticed that the intolerant ones are the religious people

I believe in live and let live.

And I agree that many organized religions have helped (and continue helping) humanity along. But they also have done (and continue doing) enormous damage in name of religion.

I won't try to convert anyone out of religion. But I don't want to be shouted out just because I ask a question about religion (as I was in a previous thread in DU).

[Lydia Leftcoast]

86. Let me ask you all this

Have you ever seen anyone on this board (except during a brief encursion by freeper trolls) condemn the DU atheists or call their beliefs "bullshit"?

I know you are offended when ignorant people consider atheists to be evil. There may be evil people who happen to be atheists, but you're not one of them, so you're rightfully offended. The pain and anger that you feel in being constantly characterized this way comes through in every post.

I wish you would see that while there may be religious people who happen to be evil, we're not like that, so yeah, we get offended at the constant criticism by people who either do not know or choose to ignore the fact that not all religion is televangelists.

[Blue_Chill]

107. Both sides are intolerant

Anti-theists are up in arms if a teacher wears a cross around her own kneck. Fundies go nuts if homosexuality is discussed in school in a positive way.

Don't kid yourself, anti-theist are no different then fundie extremists, they just happen to be the minority at the moment. One need only look Stalin to see that the non-religious can be pretty damn intolerent themselves.

[MissMillie]

85. How is it that...

... people indicating that they are not particularly religious means to you that these people are hostile toward religion.

Can't we be atheist, agnostic, or spiritual but not religious without being "hostile"?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

87. The ones I consider hostile are the ones who

cannot mention a religious topic without adding gratuitous condemnations of all religion.

[IrateCitizen]

93. Those ones aren't necessarily "hostile" toward religion.

However, would you or would you not characterize the following statement as not only hostile toward religion, but hostile toward anyone who has religious/spiritual beliefs:

Religion is the source of all evil, hatred and strife in the world.

That kind of statement is just the same kind of intolerance as, "God hates fags" or "Only true Christians will be saved" or what have you.

What I denounce is intolerance, whether it comes from the Religious Right or atheists.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

94. Ignorance and scapegoating

There are those who cannot possibly survive in the face of an unanswerable question. They MUST answer it and are more than happy to be WRONG rather than open.

They look around, see a problem and immediately feel a need to affix blame. In this regard, some high profile clowns such as Robertson and Falwell make for a convenient focus.

[MrPrax]

95. Not the "left"

Mostly atheists, where the most outspoken ones tend to be more numerous on the Left spectrum...

Personally I think religion is an archetype that 'trains' people into wishful thinking, 'faith-basis' analysis etc...
One ideologues supply and demand curve is another's Immaculate Conception or Crop Circle...
They lack realism

[FlaGranny]

99. Let me answer, before reading the rest of

this thread, that there are only a handful of people here who are actually intolerant of religion. They sometimes tend to gang up in a thread about religion. Count them - there are very few, but they show up like clockwork to bash religion.

I subscribe to no religious beliefs myself, but I certainly respect the rights of every person to believe what they wish to believe. It seems some do not feel the need to respect anyone for any reason.

Religion threads are like candidate threads. Someone always has to be a dipshit. They just can't help themselves.

Advice: Ignore them.

[Stuckinthebush]

108. FlaGranny has the answer!

She is exactly right on this one. There are a few who "bash" religion no matter which religion or what the topic. Most are very tolerant even if they are agnostics or atheists.

I would echo FlaGranny's wise observation:

Religion threads are like candidate threads. Someone always has to be a dipshit.

I'd also echo her advice - which is good advice for many "dipshit" posts we see at DU.

Ignore them.

[sangh0]

112. Ignoring them leaves the impression

that they are not objectionable. Why remain silent? The Repukes are dipshits too. Should we ignore tham too?

[FlaGranny]

121. Yes, ignore them because

you only encourage them. It is attention they are after, either that, or they have sadistic personalities. Most of us here are tolerant, progressive people, who respect others and, even though it does not need really to be articulated, we are all disgusted with the small percentage here who use this tactic. They know how to push buttons!!! Don't fall for it.

[sangh0]

124. I've learned my lesson

about having my buttons pushed, so be assured I won't be getting to emotional in this thread. However, I can't remain silent because it leaves the impression that liberals are intolerant of the religious.

[FlaGranny]

137. If you want to respond,

that's certainly up to you to decide. :-) Some liberals are NOT tolerant of the religious - makes you wonder how they can be intolerant and liberal at the same time, doesn't it?

[sangh0]

145. Yes, I do wonder about that

I chalk it up to the wonderful diversity of opinion that can be found on the left :-)

[IrateCitizen]

104. Some thoughts on oppression due to religion (WRT this thread)

Some of the responses I see repeated throughout this thread are along the lines of, "Imagine being an atheist and having your beliefs denounced by Christians" or "Imagine being gay and being persecuted by Christians"

I do try to imagine it. It's something I always try to do, in order to avoid intolerance of others. Sometimes I succeed, and sometimes I fail. But in any case, "imagining" yourself in someone else's shoes is a poor substitute for actually having lived through what they lived through.

But from the other side, imagine what it is for those of us who are people of faith, who...
... believe in reproductive choice and staunchly support a woman's right to choose, whether or not we like abortion or not.
... believe that gays and lesbians should not just be tolerated, but should be appreciated as people and encouraged to live their lives as who they truly are, with all the legal rights and protections afforded to heterosexuals.
... believe that the place for worship is in the temple/church/whatever, or the home, and that religion has no place in the public square.
... believe that religion should spur us to ASK questions rather than AVOID them, in hopes that we might better understand the world beyond that which we can see, touch, taste, hear and smell.
... take seriously the values of love, compassion, tolerance, understanding and cooperation over any sort of dogma, creed, or religious "law".

Do you think that WE do not have denounciations at the hands of the Religious Right as well? Do you not think that WE are often troubled because of our desire to belong to a religious community, but the difficulty we have in finding one that affirms these values?

What then, when we are greeted with hostility as well from those with whom we seek common cause, despite any differences we have in "beliefs", because many of our "values" are much the same?

My point is that it should not be a contest to prove what group wins the title for "most oppressed". I'm not here to deny the fact that you have been. What I am here for, and I would hope that you are here for the same, is to DENOUNCE that oppression, and to work together to STOP it occuring in the future.

Can ya dig it? Or am I still just tilting at windmills here?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

115. And may I add that...

liberal religious people are on the fundamentalists' shit list too?

My own church in Portland was condemned by the fundies because it hosted the ordination of a gay man to the priesthood.

The fundamentalists consider people like me, who have chosen a mainstream Christian approach to our spirituality and who embrace equality and diversity and modern science are considered only one step above atheists. They try to "rescue" mainstream Christian children and teens by inducing them to attend fundamentalist Sunday Schools and youth groups. They tell their followers that we're worse than atheists because we have allowed the devil to deceive us into following a corrupt form of Christianity (a little projection going on here, huh?). They tell us that we've been hijacked by the Democratic Party (a little projection going on here, too).


So I can't stand fundamentalists either.

[Selwynn]

120. because human beings are hypocrites

It shouldn't suprise you that our own community frequently acts exactly like the people they lash out against.

Just remember than true faith is a matter of the heart, and its fruits should be that which produces love and compassion, and a genuine tenderness towards others, a generous spirit and a heart of peace -- if participating in any religious organization helps you nurture those fruits, then by all means, blessings on you and your involvement in such organizations. However at the same time, I would argue that if you belong to something like an organized religious community, you have a responsibility - indeed a moral obligation - to stand up for what you know to be right, and to speak out against things you know to be wrong in your community, i.e. to fight for the best and most beautiful community you can have.

There is hostility to religion becasue religion has been incredibly hurtful to a great many people - sometimes I think those of us who have found our way through that mindfield and into a joyful spiritual life tend to not understand just how incredibly destructive the absues of religion have been to so many people. I think we're just going to have to deal with a lot of the attacks. Many people do oversimplify the religious question, lumping too many people into the same category with not so good people. But I think we're just going to have to faithfully point out that for some of us, our spiritual convictions are based on deep, personal experiences, a hunger for truth and not blind dogma, and an openness towards the self-directed journeys of others.

All I want for every other person on earth is for each and every person to touch a tiny fraction of the undescribable love and happpiness that I have discovered. If you don't know what it is like to feel such peace and joy about life that it truly moves you to tears, then my heart hurts for you, and I want you to discover that same kind of happiness. I don't care about how that happens, though I do believe some choices will help you along that path more than others. If organized religion does not help you touch the face of god in that way, then I wouldn't want you to be involved in it - I am not a participant in any organized church and have not been for several years. All I want is for my fellow brothers and sisters to find what I've discovered - that I do not have to live a live where I feel in despair all the time. I've come to understand a deeper and richer connection to the mystery of life which I in short hand refer to as "god" - in whom we live and move and have our being.

For those of you who are so angry and skeptical of religious claims - I can accept that, but my response to that is this: Ask yourself this question about your life - has anything you've done made your life better? When I reflected on my own spiritual journey, I understood with absolute clarity that my life was personally better for my spiritual beliefs than was my life without. I feel more love, have greater peace, tap into deeper compassion, and I feel the drive daily to strive to be more and more the man of wisdom and grace that I desire to be.....my life is better for my spiritual beliefs than my life is without those beliefs, and who are you, oh outspoken lambasters of the religious in this community, to take that away from me, or condemn the manner in which I find fufillment in my life?

Some of us who do cherish religious experiences just get sad and tired of hearing something that is sacred to us constantly bashed and ridiculed and berated here by others. That's all. It's like taking something that is very precious to some of us and throwing it on the ground and pissing on it, stomping on it and setting it on fire. I don't care if you don't personally want to share the same kind of religious experineces that I have - but it its hurtful to have those experiences constantly derrided in such a mean spirited way by so many in this community. Sure there are a lot of people doing things in the name of organized religion that are awful. But there are more people who are living beautiful and loving lives in the name of organized religion than you are willing to see.

[arwalden]

135. Hee hee hee... You Said 'Fruits" -=- But seriously...

If the "good Christians" are so concerned about what the "bad Christians" are doing in their name... why the fuck don't they do something about it?

You need to stop being so touchy-feely and get in touch with reality. When someone posts a message that lambastes religion... CLEARLY you should be able to figure out that they are talking about Christian fundamentalists.

For you to lump together all of us who are critical of fundamentalism along with those who TRULY HATE ALL RELIGIONS, is tantamount to doing the same thing as those who hate all religions. Get it?

A little thoughtful reading is usually what's required. You can't just imagine what the whole message says based on what's in the subject line.

You sound like a reasonable person... why would you take it so PERSONALLY when some queer soul talks about how religion ruined his life and how religion turned his family against him/her.

THINK FOR A SECOND BEFORE YOU RESPOND. Clearly this individual is talking about FUN-DA-MENTALISTS. You would have to stretch things pretty far to be able to conclude that this person was talking about you or your religion.

You folks are so sensitive. Quit whining and do something about it. If you truly hate the bigots and hypocrites as much as we do... then ACT... don't just sit there and bemoan us for painting Christianity with too broad a brush stroke.

Get out there and change minds and change hearts! Or help fight the good-fight.

Don't give the zealot wingnuts a place to hide!

-- Allen

[Selwynn]

152. You're responding to me?

I think you need to read my post again... I think I come off pretty even handed. I pretty much agree with most of what you wrote, though I don't see it to be in much contrast to what I wrote.

I don't know what you mean by being so "touchy feely," but if you refer to my comments about love and compassion being what matters, and whatever things help a person enhance his or her own personal joy and commitment to healthy relationships with others should be affirmed by the rest of the community, even if not embraced by each and every individual directly, then I guess I refuse to stop being "touchy feely."

Personally I dont' believe there has even been a time where the world is more desparately in need of a "touchy feely" message. You're right, we live in the real world, and guess what - its a lagely shitty place for many people, so maybe its time to stop simply acknoweldging the world as it is and start thinking about the world as it could be and SHOULD BE and how we get there...

[Terwilliger]

123. I don't get it

If religion is such a wonderful institution among people who all (supposedly) share a common vision of a "force of good" or "higher power"...why are the religious the most contentious? Why do they cause the most harm, whereas MLK should be replicated with every new Christian?

So what I have to believe is, the religion doesn't matter because different people interpret things different ways. Right now, George Bush and the Republicans have so twisted the beliefs surrounding religion that they've got a LARGE chunk of this country ready to perpetrate the most heinous offenses all in the name of "a good Christian" like George Bush.

That's what religion does, and you talk about a wave of intolerance...YA RIGHT!!

To answer your sarcasm from the other thread: Yeah. Maybe we wouldn't be addicted to oil if it weren't for organized religion. Maybe we wouldn't allow exploitation of indigenous peoples if it weren't for organized religion.

We wouldn't be. All of our emphasis about how we should transform the world (neoliberalism, neoconservatism, etc.) is built on our moral belief that we are the best government to bring freedom and justice to the world. This belief was built on the Christian foundation: most of the life of this country is grounded on Christians making decisions, swearing on the Bible, etc. etc. We do exploit oil because of our technological demands, and these things are enabled by Bible-thumping (and general) believers. We do exploit indigenous peoples...here and abroad...because of a "God given" mandate to "bring civilization to the brown people".

There is simply no way you can say that religion doesn't bring these things about. The evidence is all over the place. If Christianity was worth the paper it was delivered on, every Christian would be like Christ. Most are NOT, and I deal with the hypocrisy, not the fact of belief in that god.

For those outside of Christianity? Well, they obviously have their problems too: religious beliefs about ancient homelands, dialectical intransigences that cause many Muslims to kill for their beliefs, Christian "Scientists" who allow their children to die because god will take care of them. Even more isolated groups of humans who haven't transformed their reasoning into modern thinking will do heinous things in the name of their god, whatever it may be.

I've got no problem with people who believe...it's what they do with that belief that becomes the problem. If you think it's intolerance to discuss that, then...well, I don't know. That thread was all about an online poll, which never accurately reflects anything anyway.

[IrateCitizen]

128. You're confusing authoritarianism and religion, Terwilliger

Of course, religion is often USED as a TOOL for authoritarianism -- but it's important NOT to equate the two. Many things are used as a tool for authoritarianism. Lenin and Stalin used Communism as a tool for authoritarianism. I would bet that a radical (and I'm not using that term in a bad way) like yourself probably gets a little pissed when anyone tries to equate "communism" or "socialism" with "authoritarianism". Likewise, it's not right to substitute "religion" for "authoritarianism" either.

To answer your sarcasm from the other thread: Yeah. Maybe we wouldn't be addicted to oil if it weren't for organized religion. Maybe we wouldn't allow exploitation of indigenous peoples if it weren't for organized religion.

We wouldn't be. All of our emphasis about how we should transform the world (neoliberalism, neoconservatism, etc.) is built on our moral belief that we are the best government to bring freedom and justice to the world. This belief was built on the Christian foundation: most of the life of this country is grounded on Christians making decisions, swearing on the Bible, etc. etc. We do exploit oil because of our technological demands, and these things are enabled by Bible-thumping (and general) believers. We do exploit indigenous peoples...here and abroad...because of a "God given" mandate to "bring civilization to the brown people".

Sorry, but I have to call bullshit when I see it. Nationalism is what you're describing here. And while it may be a turd wrapped in the flag, it's still a turd. I won't deny that religion has been used to justify that nationalism, but that's nothing more than an attempt to attach ANOTHER symbol to that turd -- wrapping it in the flag AND propping the cross up on it, making it unassailable.

I've got no problem with people who believe...it's what they do with that belief that becomes the problem.

First thing you said in your post that made sense. And I agree. Like sangh0 pointed out in numerous posts above, religion is a TOOL. It can be used for good or evil. But just because it is a TOOL does not mean that it is inherently evil, as some seem to suggest.

[Terwilliger]

138. there ya go Irate...lets blame the communist bugaboo

Bullshit. Socialism is no religion...Lenin and Stalin were authoritarians...so what. The mass delusion of Christianity has done FAR (by factors of magnitude) more to shape our current situation than any dogma over an economic system (except for the Smithian and Keynesian worship) Religion doesn't even equate with Lenin and Stalin. Do you think the people of Russia or the early Soviet Union "believed" in communism like a religion? You know they didn't. The god belief is a VERY different concept.

Religion IS a tool (I don't believe in "evil") Priests have shaped the lives of their communities over the centuries (and longer) in order that the people would be supplicant to that belief and give authority to the church. For every one religious figure that believed in the love concept and wanted to share that with their "flock", there are thousands that want their flock to be sheared.

And you can call it nationalism all day, but the hook is not nationalism...it's religion. You "believe" in your country because you've put it on some pedestal that equates with "god". That MAKES these things consequences of religion. I doubt Adolph Hitler went around Germany evoking atheism when he talked about why the Jews were so bad. George Bush today goes around talking about "evil" and "our values"(read: Christian values) and "god willing, we will defeat the enemies of freedom" blah blah blah...it's all about religion.

First thing you said in your post that made sense.

Love you too! :hi:

[IrateCitizen]

143. You're attempting to place religion OUTSIDE of "human context"

On one hand, you place religion outside of human context, as some justification for all of the evils of the world. On the other, you refuse to acknowledge that communism was used as the justification for many evils committed under Lenin and Stalin. Believe me, after reading Emma Goldman's accounts of Soviet Russia in the early days of Lenin's regime, I lost any trace of romanticism for what the USSR was or what it was trying to achieve. Likewise, I harbor no sense of romanticism for the corruption and authoritarianism of large religious institutions.

The fallacy in your argument is on plain display in this paragraph:
And you can call it nationalism all day, but the hook is not nationalism...it's religion. You "believe" in your country because you've put it on some pedestal that equates with "god". That MAKES these things consequences of religion. I doubt Adolph Hitler went around Germany evoking atheism when he talked about why the Jews were so bad. George Bush today goes around talking about "evil" and "our values"(read: Christian values) and "god willing, we will defeat the enemies of freedom" blah blah blah...it's all about religion.

None of these things are "consequences" of religion, per se. They are consequences of the USE of religion by men, in pursuit of immoral ends. It's interesting that you bring up the example of Hitler, because he actually wanted to bring back Paganism in line with the Norse mythology of old, and most of his propaganda surrounding the Jews was built around the myth of "Aryan superiority", which was itself a reflection of an intense German nationalism.

It's NOT all about religion. It's about CONTROL. And religion is being used as a tool by many of those seeking control.

By the same token, there are many others who are using religion/faith as a tool to work for progressive/liberal values. Are these people acting in evil ways also? Are the only ones who can save us those, like you, with the sense enough to wholly reject religion in any form and maintain ideological purity?

[Terwilliger]

149. religion is nothing but human context...humans are the ones being used

On one hand, you place religion outside of human context, as some justification for all of the evils of the world. On the other, you refuse to acknowledge that communism was used as the justification for many evils committed under Lenin and Stalin.

Once again, no one got down on their knees and said "OH Communism! Save me from these trials and tribulations" Your comparison is a joke. This is not the same. Lenin and Stalin didn't use the socialist concept as a moral vice or stricture...it was the economic plan and they were going to see that people followed the plan (authoritarianism) This was not religion.

Likewise, I harbor no sense of romanticism for the corruption and authoritarianism of large religious institutions.

Good, because religion built those institutions.

The fallacy in your argument is on plain display in this paragraph:
And you can call it nationalism all day, but the hook is not nationalism...it's religion. You "believe" in your country because you've put it on some pedestal that equates with "god". That MAKES these things consequences of religion. I doubt Adolph Hitler went around Germany evoking atheism when he talked about why the Jews were so bad. George Bush today goes around talking about "evil" and "our values"(read: Christian values) and "god willing, we will defeat the enemies of freedom" blah blah blah...it's all about religion.

None of these things are "consequences" of religion, per se. They are consequences of the USE of religion by men, in pursuit of immoral ends.

Given power by those people who believe, rightly or wrongly.

It's interesting that you bring up the example of Hitler, because he actually wanted to bring back Paganism in line with the Norse mythology of old, and most of his propaganda surrounding the Jews was built around the myth of "Aryan superiority", which was itself a reflection of an intense German nationalism.

Aryan superiority as nationalism? Wouldn't the idea that Aryans were superior (certainly in the context of the people who supported Hitler) have been derived from a self-realized sense of superiority dictated by the rightness of the religion that most of the German people believed in?

It's NOT all about religion. It's about CONTROL. And religion is being used as a tool by many of those seeking control.

Given control because the sheep believe in the same "values" that give these men their power. If they were smart enough not to believe (or, at the very least, question everything they were told) then human history would look very different. The whole concept of giving over your moral authority to a group who purports to believe the way you do allows you to shrug off responsibility for how those people conduct their affairs in your name.

By the same token, there are many others who are using religion/faith as a tool to work for progressive/liberal values. Are these people acting in evil ways also?

I've addressed this above. Also, anybody who is a Christian should denounce vehemently those that act against the teachings of said Christ...not to do so would suggest that you condone tarnishing Christ by those who claim to share your fealty.

Are the only ones who can save us those, like you, with the sense enough to wholly reject religion in any form and maintain ideological purity?

Why am I a purist? Because love and Christianity and Judaism and Islam are RARELY reflected in a world today that was borne of those things? I say, recognize God and Christ and Moses and Mohammed within yourself (like Martin and Malcom did) and do the work of your god by your actions. Only THEN can we throw off the shackles of nationalism and authoritarianism.

[IrateCitizen]

157. Rather than focus on the "fluff" of your post with which I still disagree

I'll focus on the "meat and potatoes" you gave at the end with which I agree.

Why am I a purist? Because love and Christianity and Judaism and Islam are RARELY reflected in a world today that was borne of those things? I say, recognize God and Christ and Moses and Mohammed within yourself (like Martin and Malcom did) and do the work of your god by your actions. Only THEN can we throw off the shackles of nationalism and authoritarianism.

Well, I think you've pretty much hit my religious beliefs on the head right here. The whole point of my post was directed toward those who present ALL religion as evil -- something you even alluded to in your posts, while you DO acknowledge in this part of your post that it is something that can be used for tremendous good.

My entire point was based around the importance of not tarring ALL religious people with the same brush, because there are many of us who take the approach you just outlined.

[Terwilliger]

160. I've addressed that...three times now

but you keep calling my words "fluff" so I'll give you the same respect

and you ignore a central point, which is that because of people like MLK and Malcolm, Ganhi, etc...that those folks should be heavily interested in terminating with extreme prejudice those that would tarnish the ideology with utter hypocrisy and shame

and since you're ignmoring points, I'll bring them up again...religion established these problems by the unexamined beliefs of its supporters...that doesn't make religion all evil, but it doesn't make it good, either

[IrateCitizen]

167. "terminating with extreme prejudice"???

and you ignore a central point, which is that because of people like MLK and Malcolm, Ganhi, etc...that those folks should be heavily interested in terminating with extreme prejudice those that would tarnish the ideology with utter hypocrisy and shame

:wtf:

Are you seriously suggesting that the likes of MLK, Gandhi, and Malcolm X (post-conversion to traditional Islam) would have truly been interested in "terminating" those who tarnished the positive aspects of their faith? I don't think I've heard a more ridiculous thing yet on this thread.

Anyone, ANYONE who is the least bit familiar with these figures knows that they were not hesitant in denouncing what they saw as hypocrisy, exploitation, demagoguery, or what have you. But equally, they were committed to attempting to win others over to their side by LOVE -- because they correctly recognized that to commit or advocate (or even consider) violence against other human beings would be to act in opposition to their faith!

I really can't believe you would even suggest such a thing to be true! I really can't! :shrug:

[Terwilliger]

172. You read right over what I say...

as usual

but don't worry, you've already dismissed everything I've tried to say all day

[Blue_Chill]

142. I'll respond to a few points.

Why do they cause the most harm, whereas MLK should be replicated with every new Christian?

Not all people are good people. That goes for every group including all those to which you belong. To expect a group that's one third of the worlds population in size to be both "good" and meet your criteria for "politically good" is insane. After all you can't be a good person if your pro-life right? ....no no no you must be a good person AND be as further left then lenin for Ter to see you as truely good.

After all Ter you are the one that called Mother Theresa bitter old hag, or something along those lines. And now here you are giving your holier then thou speech.

We do exploit oil because of our technological demands, and these things are enabled by Bible-thumping (and general) believers. We do exploit indigenous peoples...here and abroad...because of a "God given" mandate to "bring civilization to the brown people".

Oh my you'll spin ANYTHING to blame religion won't you. Civilzation was forcefully brought to "brown people" by greed, not god. Spices, gold, power - those inspired expansion.

As for the oil thing? please that was just weak.

[Terwilliger]

150. I see you still proclaim some kind of moral superiority

all the while displaying a symbol of the HIGHEST ATROCITY Amrericans have committed. You dishonor all of the people who died at the behest of our "moral superiority"

[Terwilliger]

151. Exsqueeze me??????

After all Ter you are the one that called Mother Theresa bitter old hag, or something along those lines. And now here you are giving your holier then thou speech.

CITE!! I WANT A GODDAMN CITE!

At least now people can see you for the liar you are.


Not all people are good people. That goes for every group including all those to which you belong.

Really good, BC...I suppose that includes me being an American too, right? Nice attempt at slamming all of "my groups".

[im4edwards]

125. people are often hostile to what they don't understand

its essentially the same effect for whichever side of the fence you are. Fundamentalists of the extreme sort are hostile and intolerant same as the non-religeous folks of the extreme sort.

Obviously we can't all just get along on this matter. Neither can we all just agree to disagree.

Too bad. A lot of hard feelings for no reason and to serve no end.

[HPLeft]

126. I would personally distinguish

between spiritual practice/exploration and religion. In truth, they are often not one and the same.

IMHO, dogma and ideology tend to build walls around a person's consciousness rather than lead it to a state of greater awareness & spiritual liberation. Moreover, if we look closely at the world situation, religious dogma may represent the greatest threat to the survival of the species. Just consider what the interaction would be like between fundamentalism Islam and fundamentalist Christianity - or fundamentalist Islam and almost every other religion. But, as Jerry Falwell and the Religious Right prove on a daily basis, this myopia is not an Islamic problem, it's a human problem.

I personally am not hostile to any religion except in response to its hostility to personal evolution and spiritual and political transformation in the world. But many of these religious institutions actively oppose this process, and insist on taking their cues from supposed infallible sources that originated thousands of years ago. I don't think any person who has pursued a spiritual practice (chanting, meditation, yoga, Tai Chi, Chi Gong, etc.) would ever buy into a conception of God that would have encouraged stoning adulterers or cutting off hands or endlessly warning of the end of the world or eternal damnation. This has everything to do with man and nothing to do with God, at least in my opinion.

[starroute]

197. I like what you say about dogma building walls around consciousness

In the course of this thread, I've been thinking about what I actually do believe -- and it comes out very much like something Dylan once said: "There is a voice inside us all that talks only to us. We have to be able to hear that voice."

All we really know for sure about this voice is that it is there. Anything else is guesswork. Some people call the voice "God" and insist that it comes from outside us. Others call it "conscience" and insist just as strongly that it comes from within. In the 18th century, it was fashionable to call it "reason," and in the early 20th century it might even be described as "science."

But the really funny thing about this voice is that it seems to be the same in everyone. As the Rig Veda says, "The truth is one though sages call it by many names." The inner voice says the same sort of things to everyone, offers the same advice, directs us to the same goals. And it also insists that we ourselves are ultimately all one, however much we may differ on the surface.

I tend to be distrustful of those who want to project that voice outside themselves onto an external God. As Jesus said, "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you." But I try not to get into arguments over it, since that sort of projection seems to be useful to some people.

What I do reject entirely is any system that puts up barriers where there ought to be oneness. That creates dogmas and credos and articles of faith to separate "believers" from "unbelievers." That preaches about the separation of the saved from the damned -- and does its best to enforce an equivalent separation here on earth. That sees the world in terms of us vs. them.

Not all aspects of organized religion are misguided. There is such a thing in mysticism as the concept of a Path -- a focused set of certain practices and objects of meditation that leads to higher development -- and many of these Paths are best followed communally. In that sense, there is nothing wrong with self-selected groups of followers of the Path of Jesus, or the Path of Mohammed, or the Path of the Buddha.

But any forms of organized religon which is based on regimentation of the faithful and exclusion and demonization of everyone else is in utter opposition to genuine religion. And unfortunately, that seems to amount to at least 90% of the whole. The word "religion" itself means "re-linking." Any so-called religion which does not re-link us to one another and to what really matters is not worthy of the name.

[Skittles]

129. BEACAUSE

some of us are SICK TO DEATH OF HAVING RELIGION SHOVED IN OUR FACES and I mean SICK OF IT.

[IrateCitizen]

131. Please give me an instance of a DU poster who shoves it in your face

I'm not talking about on the outside -- because I get sick of it being "shoved in my face" on the outside too. I'm talking about within these confines.

[sangh0]

133. I know I would never do that to you

and I doubt any other DUer would either.

[Character Assassin]

134. Would like me to call a whaaaaaaambulance for you?

You seem to be in great distress, and yet I see no evidence of having religion SHOVED IN OUR FACES, as you delicately put it, on either this thread or board.

[IrateCitizen]

140. While I enjoy observing your sarcasm from the outside, CA...

(as opposed to be on the receiving end) ;-)

Somehow I doubt that it will help to increase the civility of discourse regarding such a touchy subject.

IOW, now is not the time nor the place.

[Character Assassin]

141. Perhaps I was a bit hasty, but.....

I find precious little evidence to support (in screaming caps, no less) the indignant protestation that religion, somehow, magically, is being shoved down peoples' throats here.

Every thread is a link. Simply don't click that link and... Hey, Presto! Nothing in any throat or face.

[Terwilliger]

153. That's all well and good...

I still like "whaaaaaaaaaaambulance" :D

[Merlin]

148. Good question. It has to do with the way liberals view the world.

There are multiple reasons why liberals and religion don't mix easily:

The first and foremost is this:

--Religion, collectively, is unable to answer the fundamental, burning theological question of the ages. If God is all just and all good and all powerful, how come the world is so screwed up? Why do people suffer? Why is life so unfair?

--Liberals are very focused on the world's unjustness and unfairness. We are keenly attuned to suffering. We resent the implicit hypocricy of those who claim to know God is all these wonderous things, then ignore all the awful results of such "wonder."

--Liberals can sniff out hypocricy from a significant distance. Many who profess to be devout are patent hypocrites.

--Religions are also illogical. They demand throwing off all you know about rational existence in order to embrace a bunch of mythical concepts the validity of which depend entirely upon ancient fables passed down by word of mouth for generations before being reduced to writing.

--The writings upon which religions are based are themselves irrational. They are called "The Word Of God." Yet they are full of violence, hatred, baseness, non-sequiturs, incomprehensible parables and maniacal pronouncements. Thinking people recognize it is preposterousl to believe that a God capable of creating the phenomenal universe we are part of would be so lame if He/She/It chose to write a Book for the benefit of humanity.

These are some of the many reasons why liberals have such a hard time with religion, and in fact feel significant bitterness toward it.

What we so often fail to grasp is that many, many of the people who are a part of organized religion do not give much of a damn about the theology or catechism of it. They are involved in order to help other people, to do good in the world, to minister to those whom life has deeply wounded.

We liberals need to cut religion a lot more slack. Yes there are hypocrites. But there are many, many, many good folks too who embrace religion as a way to practice the principals that we liberals hold in the highest esteem.

Whatever else he was, Jesus was a liberal. Martin Luther King was a minister.

In my life, I have no doubt whatsoever that there is a God. But that's as far as I'm willing to go. I embrace NONE of the organized religions (save Deism, as practiced by our founding fathers, Jefferson, Washington, Paine, Franklin, et al). But I have great appreciation for many (not all) who are in the clergy and for many who are even true believers.

Belief is often a stage in life maintained until one has built up sufficient courage to view life without the benefit of religious myth.

[Character Assassin]

154. Too many untenable assumptions in that explanation

Good question. It has to do with the way liberals view the world.

It has, perhaps, to do with how some liberals view the world, but certainly not all.

The first and foremost is this:

--Religion, collectively, is unable to answer the fundamental, burning theological question of the ages. If God is all just and all good and all powerful, how come the world is so screwed up? Why do people suffer? Why is life so unfair?

It most certainly has answered those questions to the satisfaction of some. Just because some people find these questions still opened, unaddressed to their liking in whatever particular faith, doesn't mean that such questions either are unanswerable or haven't been answered for others.

--Liberals are very focused on the world's unjustness and unfairness. We are keenly attuned to suffering. We resent the implicit hypocricy of those who claim to know God is all these wonderous things, then ignore all the awful results of such "wonder."

Those attributes are in no way limited to liberals, nor is the hypocrisy you mention limited to those who are not liberal.

--Liberals can sniff out hypocricy from a significant distance. Many who profess to be devout are patent hypocrites.

As can many others, and many who profess to be devout are not hypocrites.

--Religions are also illogical.

That has never been disputed, but it does harbor the assumption that liberals, for whatever reason, dispense with illogic by nature.

They demand throwing off all you know about rational existence in order to embrace a bunch of mythical concepts the validity of which depend entirely upon ancient fables passed down by word of mouth for generations before being reduced to writing.

Yawn. Same tired, shopworn objections and mischaracterizations that have entirely miss the point.

--The writings upon which religions are based are themselves irrational. They are called "The Word Of God." Yet they are full of violence, hatred, baseness, non-sequiturs, incomprehensible parables and maniacal pronouncements.

Thus critical thinking is required to parse through them, and this is not the exclusive domain of any one particular mindset.

Thinking people recognize it is preposterousl to believe that a God capable of creating the phenomenal universe we are part of would be so lame if He/She/It chose to write a Book for the benefit of humanity.

Wrong. Thinking people also understand that you are explicitly implying Christianity, and unjustifiably so.

These are some of the many reasons why liberals have such a hard time with religion, and in fact feel significant bitterness toward it.

Those are indeed reasons, but, I believe, unsupportable and illogical ones.

Belief is often a stage in life maintained until one has built up sufficient courage to view life without the benefit of religious myth.

And just as often not.

[Terwilliger]

161. why is he implying Christianity?

Thinking people recognize it is preposterousl to believe that a God capable of creating the phenomenal universe we are part of would be so lame if He/She/It chose to write a Book for the benefit of humanity.
=====
Wrong. Thinking people also understand that you are explicitly implying Christianity, and unjustifiably so.

So this couldn't be about the Talmud or Koran either? Isn't THAT a little prejudice on your part?

[Character Assassin]

169. Because that is a phrase most common to Christianity.

The writings upon which religions are based are themselves irrational. They are called "The Word Of God."

I have never encountered this phrase used by a Muslim, and as for Judaism, I have no idea.

[Terwilliger]

173. so, again, YOUR ignorance means Merlin is attacking Christianity?

Muslims are more fervent in their belief about the words in the Koran than Christians are. Jews know the Talmud pretty damn well also, though I'm not sure if they treat the words as the word of god.

[Character Assassin]

175. No, you're misreading that.

so, again, YOUR ignorance means Merlin is attacking Christianity.

Kindly re-read what I wrote. I never stated the poster was attacking Christianity. I stated that he/she was implying Christianity.

Muslims are more fervent in their belief about the words in the Koran than Christians are.

That's patently obvious, and irrelevant to the point I was making: the exact phrase 'The Word of God" is something I have never heard a Muslim use, but I have heard Christians use ad infinitum.

Clear now?

[IrateCitizen]

156. Good post, Merlin... but I have one question

First, you write...
In my life, I have no doubt whatsoever that there is a God. But that's as far as I'm willing to go.

And you follow it up with...
Belief is often a stage in life maintained until one has built up sufficient courage to view life without the benefit of religious myth.

Aren't these assessments contradictory? On one hand, aren't you expressing what could be characterized as a "belief", and on the other hand, equating belief with religious myth?

Personally, I have no doubt whatsoever that there is a God, simply because of the way that I have come to see the world around me. Despite all of the strife, death and destruction perpetuated by man throughout the world, the world and the universe are still incredibly marvelous. There are so many questions out there that are unanswered, so many things that lie beyond the realm of our five simple senses -- that it leaves me just filled with awe and wonder when I think about it.

This kind of "belief" is not based on religious myth. However, it would be best characterized as a "belief", because to someone who does not believe in God, I would be unable to offer an empirical proof as to the existence of God.

By the same token, would your certainty that God exists be open to empirical proof? Or would it be a "belief" as well?

Not flaming here by any means, just curious.

[Terwilliger]

164. your ignorance does not necessitate a god

the world and the universe are still incredibly marvelous. There are so many questions out there that are unanswered, so many things that lie beyond the realm of our five simple senses -- that it leaves me just filled with awe and wonder when I think about it.

"awe and wonder" do not mean that some mytsterious supernatural being is behind it

I am in awe of the exquisite majesty and glory that is nature and natural laws...there's no god there...it's just nature.

[IrateCitizen]

166. Oh, so now I'm "ignorant", Terwilliger?

My response was to Merlin, NOT to you. But since you've gone out of your way to issue a direct personal attack, forgive me if I say you've rendered yourself irrelevant for the remainder of such a discussion, along with most in the future.

[Terwilliger]

171. like I give a shit about somebody who doesn't treat me with respect

but I do notice you addressed nothing in my post

talk about unsubstantive

[Terwilliger]

174. By the by, Irate

There are so many questions out there that are unanswered, so many things that lie beyond the realm of our five simple senses

You're ignorant of these things then. Why is that an attack on you?

[Merlin]

181. Yeah, right, Terwilliger. Intelligent things just happen by accident.

See, when somebody posts something like you did, I just shake my head in wonder at how completely illogical people can be, and how utterly ignorant of the laws of physics. No offense.

[Terwilliger]

183. no offense on this either

saying that something unexplained must be due to god is silly and goofy

It's like saying there was a conspiracy involving JFK

[Terwilliger]

185. intelligent things?

physics is "intelligent"?? that's even more goofy. Physics happens because of the four fundamental forces...don't put some kooky "intelligent design" on it.

[Merlin]

187. Which came from where, exactly?

Physics happens because of the four fundamental forces...

These forces came from where, Terwilliger?

They just happened?

[Terwilliger]

190. well, Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking worked on that

no final answer yet, but to say that there's some great power called "god" that created it all is a COMPLETE AND UNJUSTIFIED leap of logic

Intelligent design is a last desperation gasp of the believers to hold on to the idea that some mystical, non-corporeal all-powerful entity was (at least) involved in the creation. We don't even know that anything was created...we could be on the billionth cycle of universes.

So where did the cycle come from? Must be god! :eyes:

[Merlin]

191. How 'bout Einstein.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." - Albert Einstein, New York Times, 25 April 1929


Btw, there IS some great power, but you don't have to call it "god" if you don't want to.

"Complete and unjustified leap" ??? So is saying that the sky is blue, I suppose, in your view.

[Terwilliger]

192. Well, that's "informative"

That's Einstein, and you're not speaking to what I said.

Also:

Btw, there IS some great power, but you don't have to call it "god" if you don't want to.

Link to credible proof of that statement?

"Complete and unjustified leap" ??? So is saying that the sky is blue, I suppose, in your view.

The fact that the sky is blue is explained by science. Could your post be any weaker in terms of reply?

[Merlin]

180. Actually, I think we're in complete agreement, IC

At least, I feel as you do about the awe inspiring universe; the phenomenal beauty and intelligence all around us--even within us.

When I referred to "belief" ("Belief is often a stage...") I meant an embrace of religious mythology that extends beyond the simple awareness of an intelligently designed universe.

Thomas Paine said that people in all religions agree on one thing: that God exists. The problem is that most religions go beyond that to postulate that this or that prophetic figure was divine or semi-divine, and said this and that, and spoke to or was spoken to by God or one of God's appointees, and on and on. None of the "beyond" part is verifiable in any objective way. All of it rests upon the opinion of other human beings.

It is going beyond the recognition that a God exists that I construe to be "belief." On the other hand, the existence of a God (e.g. a Supreme Being, a Creator, a Prime Mover) I consider to be a rational certitude, rather than a mere belief. I'm sure some will disagree with me on this point, but that is how I feel about it.

[Selwynn]

158. It's not that religion can't answer...

"--Religion, collectively, is unable to answer the fundamental, burning theological question of the ages. If God is all just and all good and all powerful, how come the world is so screwed up? Why do people suffer? Why is life so unfair?"

This isn't true. There are in fact very clear, very detailed, and to me very true and comforting responses to this question, but the problem is that they frequenly cannot be heard over the din of the mass-media religion. Study Process Theodicy for example, for a response to the problem of evil that I believe to be very soul-satisfiying. The only problem is the theology of liberal/progressive theologians in the academy does not translate easily into the common pulpits or the mass media.

By the way for anyone who cares, process theodicy would respond to the question above saying that the problem lies in the fallacies of Classical theism, that we misdefine the concept of "all-powerfulness"

Rita Brock, feminist theologian and author once said, "When did we decide that cocercive dominating power was the highest form of power? "

In christian theology we fail to reconcile the concept of God's unilateral coercive omnipotence with the faithful conviction that God is love. Process theology would argue against many of the classical theistic models for talking about "god" and in this case would emphasize that if God is truly love, the one thing love cannot be is coercive - you cannot in love put a gun to your beloved's head and force them to love you. God does not have totalitarian control over creation - instead She has a partnering, nurturing luring relationship with all of creation, a creation truly free and capable to choose against God.

The adventure of god-in-the-world is truly a journey of genuine risk. Or put another way, there is only one thing that God cannot do/be and that is She cannot be contrary to her essential nature. Put another way, God cannot be that which she is not. Christian theology maintains the faith claim that God is love at essence. Love cannot force, corerce or exert the kind of power over other beings or truly any created thing in the ways that classcial theism often claims.

The short answer then, is that God does not break in on history and coercively force a stop to evil because, quite frankly, She can not - to do so would to be opposite of God, because God is love, and love is freedom - love cannot force love to be returned, either to God or to others.

Where does that leave us then? Two places: first, while it is true that the God who is love cannot coercively stop the evil of other beings/creation, neither can a God who is love be removed from, or separated from the suffering of those that she cherishes. In my opinion, the best and most beautiful kind of Chrisitan theology acknowledges the fact that God weaps with those who weap, anthropomorphically speaking, and wraps her arms around those who suffer. Second, there is a note of good news. While a God is not all-powerful in the sense that She cannot contradict Her essential nature as self-giving, other-receiving love, there is a promise which I believe to be at the heart of a Christian message: that promise is the promise of a God who says "I will never leave you or forsake you" who says "nothing can separate you from the love of God" who says "I know my plans for you, and they are plans for your FUTURE and your HOPE."

Put another way, where is God when suffering happens? She is with the victim, comforting, weeping, nurturing, and beginning her faithful and tireless work of RESTORATION in the heart of one who is heartbroken. God's response to evil which cannot be prevented in a truly free world of love and risk is to faithfully be about mending and remaking the hearts and lives of those who have suffered, if we will let her. She is a god of nurturing tenderness, and through her no shipwrecked life is beyond healing restoration. God's power in the face of suffering is the understanding that no suffering, no matter how horrific needs to rob anyone of a life WORTH living, and that through understanding of gods love and tender care, even we how have lived through such pain and emerge rebuilt, free indeed -- and isn't that they ultimate overcoming of our abusers!

In other words, the heart of a Christian message for suffering or heartbroken, is the message that with God, you too may have a life worth living. You who have suffered, who have experience heartbreak, despair, brokenness, violence and you who feel dark and unhappy in your lives. The whole point of a religious message worth listening to is one that says you can experience the joy of understanding a greater and deeper relationship to the power of being, the source and ground of life, that manifests itself in deeply personal and loving ways, and through such relationship you ... yes you, can be healed, filled with joy and happy. The gospel message is of a life WORTH LIVING.

The only reason I am a religious man is because it has been my understanding of this kind of relationship to others, and to God that has filled my heart with happiness -- it is the only thing that allows me to know that if I died today, this very minute, I could look at my life and say this: living was WORTH dying for! That, my friends is grace. That, my friends is what I believe is the POSSIBLILTY of religious faith, and that is why I refuse to become cynical even when I see the beauties of a spiritual walk perverted and distorted by some religious folks.

[Selwynn]

159. Something from Annie Dillard..

To add to what I said, a quote from Annie Dillard's book "For the Time Being" although I think she may have been quoting someone else. Either way, it says:

There is nothing God can do for you that he is not actively doing at every present moment.

To me, as long I can honestly believe this to be true, that God isn't "holding out" on creation, then the problem of theodicy, especially in light of my post above, really isn't such a problem.

[sangh0]

162. Those were two beautiful posts

I particularly liked this part:

By the way for anyone who cares, process theodicy would respond to the question above saying that the problem lies in the fallacies of Classical theism, that we misdefine the concept of "all-powerfulness"

Rita Brock, feminist theologian and author once said, "When did we decide that cocercive dominating power was the highest form of power? "

and the description which followed:

In christian theology we fail to reconcile the concept of God's unilateral coercive omnipotence with the faithful conviction that God is love. Process theology would argue against many of the classical theistic models for talking about "god" and in this case would emphasize that if God is truly love, the one thing love cannot be is coercive - you cannot in love put a gun to your beloved's head and force them to love you. God does not have totalitarian control over creation - instead he has a partnering, nurturing luring relationship with all of creation, a creation truly free and capable to choose against God.

I've always thought that asking "If God loves us why is there so suffering?" was like asking "If you really love your partner, then why aren't they perfect?"

[IrateCitizen]

168. I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment.

:grouphug:

[bloom]

170. Does your belief insult others?

As far as this discussion goes - it can be statements like this that can piss people off ->

"In other words, the heart of a Christian message for suffering or heartbroken, is the message that with God, you too may have a life worth living."

It is like you are saying that other's lives are NOT worth living or that there is no way to a worthwhile life without God.

While I understand that some people are helped quite a lot by their religion - it seems like that could be interpreted as an insult to me.

So I think there are inherent problems in the way some see religion (esp. if it is framed as the ONLY way) and how some see non-belief (as the ONLY way that is reasonable). They are incompatible.


_________________
P.S.

I like this quote, also,

"When did we decide that cocercive dominating power was the highest form of power? "

That is why I like to define things for myself.

__________________

[sangha]

176. I see your point

but that analysis takes quotes out of context. Though the quote could, but itself, be interpreted the way you've interpreted, I think it's important to note that the full quote equated "God" with "love". If you replace the word "God" in that quote with the word "love" you get:

"In other words, the heart of a Christian message for suffering or heartbroken, is the message that with Love, you too may have a life worth living."

[Merlin]

186. It's not that religion hasn't TRIED to answer the main question...

it's that the answers are insufficient.

Your answer, for example, beautiful as the thoughts may be, is powerfully inconsistent internally. You are trying to have things both ways, imo.

I understand that power does not always imply the need to coerce. But love and caring and empathy all imply the desire to help the loved one avoid suffering. You argue that God loves and is all powerful, yet chooses not to intervene. This God has a personal relationship with each and every human being and is attuned to each nuance of the existence of each human being, and suffers with them, yet has not the willingness to intervene. This God directly implants in (some of) us the "grace" to feel joy and understanding and so forth. Yet this God does not intervene?

Where is God when people suffer, you ask. He is comforting the victim, you answer. I do not see this, I'm afraid. I find that most people--other than those who have been blessed with being surrounded by a loving environment and have thereby been fortified spiritually--most people suffer profoundly and utterly without comfort. Indeed, it is the true calling and the great contribution of the religious among us to find such souls and offer them comfort whenever posssible. If God were doing Her duty, this should not be necessary, yes?

You would also argue (I'm sure, though you did not mention it specifically here) that people should pray to God; that prayer is an important part of life, etc. So we have religion urging people to pray, but--by your belief system--they are praying to a God who loves them and is all powerful but refuses to intervene in the happenstance of existence. It is a non sequitur.

I agree completely that God does not intervene in the happenstance of existence, though I also happen to believe that God has no relationship with us individually whatsoever.

I wholeheartedly applaud your committment to helping others and your appreciation of the beauty and wonder that is in others and in all of nature. And, though we each have differing views, that is after all a wondrous thing as well.

Peace.

[sangha]

196. A couple of points.

First of all, insufficient for what?

You argue that God loves and is all powerful, yet chooses not to intervene.

The idea that God might intervene in our lives assumes what is known as the dualistic God. That is, this idea assume that God is a distinct entity, apart from the universe. Not all religions, and not all Christians even, believe in a dualistic God.


And even if there is a dualistic God, who's to say what the schedule is for Him to deliver comfort? Maybe God waits for the most propitious moment to act. Though immediate comfort might seem to you to be the true calling, who is to say that God faces the same limits as we do? Maybe God has something better in mind than this timely comfort.

IOW, your conclusions are based on your idea of what someone believes God is, but ignores the possibility that there might be others ways to experience God.

[Seneca]

178. I was getting worried

After the candidate-bashing threads reached full boil this weekend, I thought to myself - hey! We need a new religion-flame-fest! :eyes:

[LittleApple81]

179. Put it to rest, people.

Nobody will convince anybody else.
Let's keep on discussing the other taboo in polite conversations: POLITICS.

[Merlin]

188. Get over it! Religion is important and it's very interesting.

All that's necessary is for each of us to respect--genuinely--the views of others and avoid insults and put-downs.

These are really valuable threads. The subject of this one is damn important in helping to bring about a common bond among people of our political beliefs. We need to debate and engage this issue in order to strengthen our political bonds.

[inthecorneroverhere]

184. I'd love to know the answer, too

Although I'm not strongly religious, and in fact come from an agnostic family, I'd like to know why the overall tenor of the board is quite anti-religious.

I certainly don't like the TV preachers and the fundamentalists, but it seems that even someone who is a believer in a mainstream denomination has to defend themselves constantly here. I don't think that's right. Lots of believers, from Catholics to Baptists, to Jewish folks, and all between, have taken principled stands in politics and social issues. As the original post mentions, among them are Daniel Berrigan (Catholic) and MLK (Baptist).

Faith is a very personal thing, and I believe it should stay that way.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

193. And I must say that I don't recognize the

characterizations of religion posted by some of the people in this thread.

I grew up as a preacher's kid, and I saw how my dad wore himself out as a listening ear and a facilitator for troubled parishioners. Sure, there were hypocritical people and petty squabbles, but no more than in the secular world of academia. I grew to love the beauty and music of the liturgy and the cycle of celebrations and observances. (Tradi-TION!) My faith gave me a grounding to survive some very rough high school years without falling apart.

The college I went to required a religion course every year. In my senior year, I took a course called Studies in Genesis, because I like really old literature. The professor began by assuming that he'd have to deal with fundamentalists insisting on Creationism, but he soon realized that none of us mostly Lutheran students had any problems with modern science. We learned all about how the Bible was actually put together and the parallels between the Bible and other Middle Eastern traditions.

You know, the Soviets spent 70 years trying with all their might to obliterate religion. They assumed that if you proved that the earth wasn't created in 6 days and that the Bible wasn't dictated personally by God, everyone would say, "Oh, well, then," and become atheists. But it didn't happen.

People remained secret believers and "came out" after they retired and couldn't get into trouble at work. There was a minor scandal during the late 1960s when a Politburo member died and stipulated in his will that he wanted a religious funeral. Foreign visitors throughout the entire seventy-year history of the Soviet Union were told, "Only old people go to church." Well, they obivously weren't the same old people all those seventy years. (This information is from a scholarly book that I read in the 1970s called "Anti-Religious Propaganda in the Soviet Union.")

What the Soviets didn't realize was that some people have a basic hunger for transcendence and spiritually based community, just as some "gotta dance" or are irresistably drawn to mechanical objects.

I had a friend in graduate school who was brought up by militant atheists of Jewish ancestry. They sent her to Reform Jewish Sunday School for cultural reasons--they thought it might be kind of nice for her to learn Hebrew language and Israeli folk dancing--but they pulled her out when she started wanting to become observant. Nevertheless, she remained attracted to spiritual matters throughout her youth and eventually converted to Christianity. She was simply a naturally spiritual person.

Anyway, to continue, the first year of graduate school was extremely rough personally, and I got through it only with the love and support and comforting and calming rituals of the Episcopal chaplaincy.

When I moved back to Minneapolis for the first time, I hooked up with a Lutheran church that was heavily into peace and justice issues. We organized delegations to march in all sorts of demonstrations and to lobby legislators. As a member of the Global Concerns commission within the parish, I took part in presentations and study groups about current issues such as nuclear weapons and Central America.

After drifting from parish to parish in Oregon, I landed in a small downtown Episcopal parish in Portland. With only 150 members, we provided two meals a week for the homeless, opened a drop-in social center for former mental patients, and sponsored refugees from Cuba, Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia. We received a gay man as transitional deacon and hosted his ordination to the priesthood. Most of all, we were like a family, sharing good times and bad. They were absolutely wonderful during my difficult transition from academia to self-employment.

I'm now attending one of the largest parishes in Minneapolis, but here, too, lots of good stuff, some of which I haven't even scoped out yet. So far I've heard of meals for the hungry, Habitat for Humanity projects, mentoring programs, and youth work projects in Mexico. One of the priests is an out lesbian. All in all, the sense of welcome and acceptance has been impressive for such a large church.

In all of these churches, I have come to know and love people who I would not otherwise have encountered: a cab driver with AIDS, a Navaho single mother with three terrific daughters, a spunky woman with cerebral palsy who had a livelier social life than I did, an eighty-something couple who did things like cruise the Amazon and serve as volunteer directors of social action groups, a retired accountant who was amazingly knowledgeable about opera and football, and a lawyer couple who worked on employee rights.

I'm sure that most of you have experienced the "high" that comes from participating in a huge anti-war or other political rally with thousands of like-minded people. Well, when the spiritual energy of the people and the words and the music all come together, it's even better than the best anti-war rally.

Were any of these church experiences perfect? Not at all, but on the whole, they were better than my experiences in academia.

I once saw an article explaining the point of joining a faith group instead of just being a spiritual person, and it made sense to me. A spiritual person alone can't accomplish much in the world without attracting likeminded people to help. Where would the civil rights movement have gone if all the Christians and Jews and atheists of good will had just sat around in their own homes thinking, "It sure would be nice if segregation were ended." Similarly, feeding all the hungry people in a city would be a daunting task for an individual, but if you organize the members of a church into teams for buying and serving food or assign different days to different churches, the burden becomes bearable.

Being a spiritual person of good will and just being private would make as much sense as being a Democrat and never getting together with other Democrats to share ideas and concerns and decide what to do.

I know that some people on this board have been badly hurt, but that's not an excuse to invalidate the experiences of those of us for whom religion has been an overwhelmingly positive force.

[enki23]

194. the day "the left" tries to outlaw the practice of your religion...

call me.

last i checked, however, religion is protected by the same amendment that protects *my* right to say it's a bunch of crap.

in other words, we've all got different ideas. they are often mutually exclusive. we just have to accept that. some people on DU, many of them good democrats, believe i'm going to hell because i wasn't dipped the right way, or because i don't ask jesus to forgive me for fantasizing about my neighbor's wife's ass, or because i don't believe in any of the trinity, much less all of it, or because i haven't said "i accept jesus christ as my lord and savior" and really meant it. or whatever. and they're entitled to that belief, even though it means they think i'm the biggest idiot *possible*, making the one mistake that makes the difference in eternal happy-happy, with cake and donuts served up on smiling virgin tummies for all eternity, and horrible unending suffering and burning, and testicle crushing forever and ever amen. they get to believe that, and even *tell* me that if they wish.

they can say "you're an idiot for choosing hell over heaven" and i can say "you're an idiot for believing such a choice exists." big hairy fucking deal. if i can deal with it, christians can deal with it too. we disagree, and strongly, because if they're right *I'm* a giant fucking idiot. and if i'm right, then they are. and that's the way the world goes round and fucking round.

[sangha]

198. Not quite

For one thing, even the religious right isn't trying to ban atheism, as much as they'd like to, so if banning a set of beliefs is the threshold for action, call us when they ban YOUR beliefs.

Secondly, no one here has questioned your right to say that someone else's beliefs are "crap". We just question the civility of it, not to mention the political effects of promoting the idea that the majority of voters believe in crap. This, like the first point, is just another way to exagerate how put upon you feel. No one is banning atheism (yet), and no one has questioned your right to express your opinion.

Third, I'd like to know exactly who is saying you're going to hell. I think you're making that up. I'd also like to know which DUer believes in a "eternal happy-happy, with cake and donuts served up on smiling virgin tummies for all eternity". Unless you're just making that crap up.

Now go lick those imaginary wounds

[SingSong]

203. Is this political?

just generally discussing. What an easy target.