The right to oppose religion and belief

[Az]

There is a right for people to believe and promote their belief. But so to is there a right to oppose a belief and declare it wrong. Otherwise all manner of nonsense would spread unopposed. And contained within the right to believe and promote one's belief is the inherent right to believe that others are wrong and to say so.

Opposition does not mean disrespect however. As we live in a diverse society with a multitude of cultures, religions, and creeds it is necessary for the peace of society that respect to one another be given. But this does not remove the right to say to another that you believe their belief is wrong. In fact this right is vital for dialog to continue.

It is not disrespect to say to another that you believe their cherished beliefs are wrong.

[Occam Bandage]

1. Opposition does not entail disrespect, true.

At the same time, opposition is not incompatible with disrespect.

[defendandprotect]

3. Whoa . . . no religion can demand our "respect" . . .

[Occam Bandage]

6. People do.

[Az]

8. From a different forum

Similar discussion regarding belief and respect.

RESPECT for a person = Always

RESPECT for a person’s rights to Believe, Practice, and Advocate a Religion = Always

RESPECT for the Intellectual and Logical Content of a Religion = Open for Debate

Further, RESPECT, TOLERANCE, and ACCEPTANCE are not the same.

[Occam Bandage]

9. Reasonable of course. Most arguments along these lines do not derive

from any person's failure to recognize anything you have stated, but rather differences of opinion as to whether the manner of the person challenging the "intellectual and logical content" of a religion (or lack of religion) constitutes personal disrespect. It is, after all, hard to avoid taking a blanket declaration of intellectual cowardice personally, much as it is hard to avoid taking a blanket declaration of moral degeneracy personally.

[JerseygirlCT]

39. Well said. nt

[defendandprotect]

20. That's different . . . that's human respect --- holding the door for one another ,etc.

... but no one's religion can demand our respect ---

[JerseygirlCT]

37. Yes. It's a good default position...

start with respect.

[defendandprotect]

2. Note that it is Separation of Church & State which gives this highest of privileges . . .

the right to free thought, the right to personal conscience and free will ---

and when this separation if attacked, this highest privilege is under attack!


Our freedoms begin there . . .


But I have to disagree with you re "respect."

No religion can demand our respect --- rather I think we have to be laughing more at religion!


WHEN RELIGION IS BROUGHT OUT INTO THE PUBLIC ARENA AS IS HAPPENING SO MUCH THESE DAYS . . . .

then it is open to challenge and questioning --


and we need much more of it --- !!!

[JerseygirlCT]

38. Religion has every right to a place in the public arena.

I think you're confused a bit here.

Religion will likely always have a place in the public arena so long as people hold religious beliefs.

Unless you're using "public arena" to mean only government.

[defendandprotect]

52. No . .. religion has no right to plaster its crosses or its commandments ...

in the public areas --- on public lands ---

No one's practice of their religion is dependent upon having their religious artifacts
on display on public land ---

Religion has no right to a "place" in the public arena ---

You are hear speaking of religious issues --- that is not a guaranteed "place" it is
a matter of free speech ---

What I have said is, when people bring their personal religious beliefs into the public
arena for discussion they must expect that their religion may be questioned and challenged.

There are a few ways to interpret "public arena" and "public" and "public areas" . . .
When I am speaking of religious articles put on display, I am talking of government
buildings and town properties.

Otherwise, a website like this is a "public" area where discussion of any subject is
entertained --- but you have to expect your comments/beliefs may also be challenged.

[JerseygirlCT]

54. Right. And that's what's commonly referred to as the public arena

that is, the place where people come together to meet and talk. It's not usually referring to a physical space, as you seem to be here.

On public property? No, of course religious symbols have no place.

But in public discourse? Absolutely religion has a place, and will so long as there are people who hold religious beliefs. And that's absolutely as it should be.

[defendandprotect]

59. We seem to be on some kind of a merry-go-round here . . .

I say something --- you agree ---

and then you alter what was said ---

In PUBLIC is quite clear --- it needs little explanation --- it's the opposite of private.

But I'm glad to see that you are against any religion - or members of a religion -- pushing

to have their commandments on display, or Nativity scenes, etal ---

Many have been doing that.


Religion has a place in public discussion just as any other subject has ---

HOWEVER, for those who may be sensitive to criticism, I've pointed out that when one's

personal beliefs about religion are brought out in PUBLIC then they have to expect that

their beliefs about religion may be open to challenge and questioning.

Religion, as a subject, however, does not demand any more "respect" than any other subject.


In fact, there used to be an old saying that I think has done great harm to Americans ---

i.e., "Don't discuss politics or religion in polite society..."

Americans rarely spoke of politics and rarely of religion, IMO ---

and it made us very dumb.


I'm quite happy to see religion no longer a taboo subject ---

[aspergris]

124. actually,

in some circumstances, even the ACLU (which has fought hard for no 10 commandments in court, etc.) has supported the rights of private citizens to have religious displays on public property.

religious displays on public property is not the issue. religious displays by GOVERNMENT on public property is.

[defendandprotect]

4. I think, perhaps, you want to suggest that there is no need to be personally vile

to people in the public arena --- I think that's true in all situations -- having

nothing to do with religion.

Hopefully, we always treat each other with human respect ---


HOWEVER, that does not include on demand "respect" for anyone's religion --- !!!

[theoldman]

5. Unfortunately the believers do not think that the unbelievers

have any rights at all. There is no respect for the rights of anyone who does not believe as they do.

[Union Thug]

7. Atheists, according to 'the polls' are ranked as the least

trustworthy in society, or at least somewhere near the bottom of the heap. Geez, talk about disrespect.

But I wear this as a badge of honor, being myself an atheist. While the American screwhead christian right are lying us into wars, or preaching against homosexuality while humping meth-dealing male prostitutes, I cannot help but wonder what I and other American atheists have done that compares. And then I remember that religious zealots are all a bunch of... Wait. I'll stop their before I get myself in trouble. :-)

[defendandprotect]

22. I think that has a lot to do with the framing of totalitarian communism as "atheist" . . .

[mrreowwr_kittty]

10. Yes, we non-believers are expected to tread carefully around the feelings of believers

Always making sure to distinguish between the "good" and "bad" ones and never generalizing. OTOH, believers are free to declare that we are all going to hell or are incapable of being moral or whatever.

[Az]

11. Well that is sort of a built in problem

The people we disagree with are simply wrong according to us. The people they disagree with are doomed to hell according to their beliefs.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

12. And for many of them, it is imperative that they try to convert as many of us as they can

Their salvation depends on it.

[Az]

13. It is a very effective meme for a religion to include

Humans have a natural propensity to share ideas with one another. We can even get ourselves worked up pretty well about insisting others take our point of view without much assistance. But religion can take this nature and build upon it. By placing a threat against an imagined eternal identity that each of us supposedly posses religion can effectively hijack a person's normal social sense to back off from pressing their views onto others and leverage it with this threat. Thus people override normal social consideration and try to press their beliefs on others due to this call to concern for others safety. Religion hijacks our normal sense of human compassion and puts it to its own use.

[defendandprotect]

23. Actually that "conversion" business was evidently re upped by the RCC . . .???

and became again part of the teachings . . . ????

It dissappeared for a long while ---

but it is a big part of Evangelicalism -- Mormons are wild on it ---

and the Pope is supposedly heading the RCC to Evangelicalism . . . dum de dum dum ---

[JerseygirlCT]

41. Not that, either.

Being a believer who does not believe anyone is doomed to hell for their beliefs... and I know I'm not alone here in that.

[Marrah_G]

126. I think anyone declaring you are immoral or going to hell is just foolish

I have a rather different point of view though. I have a great deal in common with athiests, yet I am also a thiest.

I am religious, but my faith is private and not to be pushed upon others or used to harm others.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. Some do, some don't

You're making a blanket generalization.

[defendandprotect]

26. I think we're working off what we know of the very determined religous-right . . .

and, sadly, for too long other Christians haven't stood up against the thinking they have

been selling ---

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. As I've said many times, the fundies think we're heretics

They consider our opposition to be proof of their own rightness. We're busy fighting them within our own denominations, where they're funded and encouraged by outfits like the Institute for Religion and Democracy.

[charlie]

30. The Presbyterians

are about to have their own IRD vs liberals donnybrook, like a smaller version of the tumult the Episcopalians are having this year. Their General Assembly just voted to drop celibacy and marriage requirements for ordination:

http://www.pcusa.org/ga218/news/ga08131.htm

which means "practicing" homosexuals can now be ministers (love that word "practicing", makes it sound like a licensed profession -- "Stand back and make room everybody. This job calls for a Practicing Homosexual!"). Worse, so can MARRIED gays.

The usual suspects are squalling for battle:

Presbyterians Plant Seeds of Self-Destruction

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. LOL, which calls up images of someone saying,

"I used to be homosexual, but I'm out of practice." :-)

[charlie]

32. I'm looking forward to the yahoos losing

again when the presbyteries vote. In spite of all that money and the support of legions of outside agitators, they've failed to replicate their single success in capturing a mainline denomination. And a growing faction in the SBs is drifting away from their hardline dominionism. From the looks of it, these are waning days for the fundie nutters. At long last.

[JerseygirlCT]

43. Yeah, sorry about that

Ahmanson must have a lot of money to spend, huh?

I always wonder what those folks would do should they come upon some people "practicing" in public?

[charlie]

49. Oy...

Fundies would do what they always do, kick their filthy feverish minds into warp drive. And project their rot on whatever they see.

Sex-wise, there is NOT ONE THING even in the most extreme outlier gay sex, that the rest of us aren't already doing. Not one thing. Whatever your Abomination in the Eyes of the Lord -- mismatched plugs and sockets, icky fluid fiestas, bizarre penetrations -- the internet abounds with heteros doing the same.

So, one of the worst tragedies from all this: because they're all deemed weird-sex perverts, gays are denied romance. Plain old googly-eyed romance. They have to live furtively and circumspect about who they are, the mere expression of a crush on the wrong person can land them in the hospital or morgue. Few gays get to say,

You. I want to live my life with you. I want to be giddy when you walk in the door. I want to hold your hand and walk in the park. I want to eat ice cream and watch movies in bed. I want to put love notes in your lunch bag. I want to put my arm around you in the dark and squeeze you silly in the theater. I never want to be apart from you.

out loud without expecting derision (or horror) from bystanders, instead of the good-humored indulgence we reserve for lovebirds. I got to woo my wife like a besotted idiot, to applause, not spittle. Because I wasn't a fag weirdo.

And the gobstopping irony is that gay marriage calls the Fundies' bluff. And the hypocrites reeeeally can't deal with it. Fundies like to characterize fags and dykes as rutting animals, coupling with anything that moves, but suddenly gays say, "Let me make an 'honest (wo)man' out of my sweetheart. Let me get married. Let me consecrate my fidelity to my beloved" and Fundies lose what's left of their minds. Suddenly, a constitutional amendment is needed right fucking NOW, to keep homos from doing the RIGHT, DECENT, and, CHRISTIAN thing.

There are few things lower, squirmier, and more fetid than gay-obsessed Fundies... and the Catch-22 they've managed to trap gays in.

[JerseygirlCT]

51. Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes!

Exactly.

So, here we have two perfectly honorable and loving human beings, and their grave sin is wishing to commit to a monogamous life together... that's a problem?

And I think you're spot on about the weird obsession with other people's sex lives that goes on among homophobes. Geez, I think most of my gay friends would like to have lived the lives these people imagine they have - even just for a while, lol! How boring to realize they're just as pedestrian as anyone else when it comes down to it. Much for fun for the bigots to imagine all sorts of interesting goings-on!

[defendandprotect]

60. Looking forward to this progress . . . !!!

[defendandprotect]

34. Obviously they consider only themselves to be right ---

Never heard of the Institute for Religon and Democracy --- Democracy???? ---

... but are you saying that they are penetrating your churches?

or that they've always been part of them?

And who is funding them?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. They're a recent development

The short answer is 1) founded in 1981, 2) funded by the Olin, Scaife, and Bradley foundations, and 3) has a board of directors whose names you will undoubtedly recognize.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1496.html

Their other face is the Institute on Religion and Public Life.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1499.html

[defendandprotect]

61. Thanks for all the info . . .

And I did read it all --- quickly ---

This looks like quite a step up on aggressiveness . . .

And, oddly enough, as I recall it, SCAIFE was supposedly going to stop funding the right-wing

movements --- I read that about two or three years ago, I believe.

And I did recognize the names --- neo-cons, theo-cons and MIC nuts --- all together in one

bomb shelter!

Wow --- !

[JerseygirlCT]

44. Look it up - it's scary stuff.

IRD is behind the uproar in the Episcopal church, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches as well.

Ahmanson, Scaife... deep pockets and determined to undermine mainstream Christian churches who they think are getting entirely too liberal - you know, including women or gay folk...

Seriously, do a google search on them - they're powerful and well-funded and pretty evil, really.

[defendandprotect]

62. They are trying to reverse civil/human rights . . .

including even liberation theology ---

Of course, the Pope before this one barred it from Catholicsm --

and re-upped Opus Dei!

I'm happy to see, however, that these churches are becoming more open in their thinking --

embracing human rights for their own members.

Ah, the Enlightenment arrives ---


let's hope!

[JerseygirlCT]

42. See, you don't know that, either.

You're assuming that the mere existence of the determined religious right indicates that other religious people have encouraged or not opposed them.

[defendandprotect]

63. In some respects you're correct . . .

However, not really -- I'm aware of the organizations which fought the religious right --

one or two of them were religiously based.

However, I see no uprising in the Catholic Church publickly opposing the right wing ---

in fact, IMO, the Pope before this one was CIA . . . !!!


I see no general uprising in let's say the Methodist Church to openly oppose the religious right.


Not until Rev. Jim Wallis as far as I know has there been any organized resistance to the religious

right ---

And, I would suggest that among Protestant churches there are feverish anti-abortion groups --

So -- I hope you're right ---

[JerseygirlCT]

71. Their purpose isn't to oppose the religious right.

By doing what they do, by putting forward a different vision of what Christianity means and how it is to be acted on, they oppose the views of the RR.

We're not talking paramilitaries here - and we shouldn't be. It's more about leading by example. And that's been going on for a long time. Quietly, perhaps, without a need to send out press releases and run television ministries to tout it.

Many in the RCC are still quite active in social justice. The Pope is largely ignored in the US, except by those in the power structure. The rest of the people tend to just go on doing what they do.

The mainstream Protestant churches do include a variety of people, measured along the political spectrum. And change is never overnight. But women are now often accepted as leaders. (My church is led by a woman, Katherine Jefferts Schori, for example. And room is being made for our gay and lesbian members. These two developments have served as instigators and fuel for those like Scaife and Ahamanson - wedge issues, just as they've been used by the GOP. But even with all that money, power and influence, these people - like those in IRD - are failing. They've siphoned off a few parishes out of thousands and thousands. They'll cause a few ugly lawsuits to be fought. Other than that, they won't stop the movement toward greater inclusion and justice.

[defendandprotect]

78. Obviously that hasn't worked in more than two decades . . .

We're not talking paramilitaries here - and we shouldn't be.
nor do I see anyone suggesting that the response should be "paramilitary" --- !!!
Most of us are well aware of Christian armies of long ago --- real armies ---
and there have long been rumors of the RCC instigating violence against Muslims
around the world in current times. Most of us as far as I can see speak strongly
against religious violence. "Introducing the sword with the cross" is something
we want to see permanently ended!

Re this . . .

It's more about leading by example. And that's been going on for a long time. Quietly, perhaps, without a need to send out press releases and run television ministries to tout it.

Obviously that hasn't worked in more than two decades ....

What was called for was a unified message from mainstream churches that would
have signalled their disagreement with the tactics of those identifying
themselves as the "religious right." I remember almost 20 years ago sitting
with a broken arm writing to probably more than 100 churches asking that they
stand up against the religious right.


There was no formal/unified response by the churches -- which could have been
organized to put down the hateful campaigns of the religious right.
Only Bishop John Shelby Spong responded over time ---
Yes, I understand that liberals have been working in the churches to change them --
and hopefully they'll make swiss cheese of them --- but a loud and unified response
was required from the very beginning vs the RR.

Many in the RCC are still quite active in social justice. The Pope is largely ignored in the US, except by those in the power structure. The rest of the people tend to just go on doing what they do.

The RCC was once on its way to being quite effective with "Liberation Theology".... and
that is what we must hope for once again. Needless to say, the right wing within the
church wanted that stopped -- and it has been. Many of us presume they worked that out
with violence once more against two Popes. And the right-wing attack on Vatican II and
a re-brutalizing of the young members of the church with a return to old inhumane
teachings began again quickly. The church always had widespread connections
throughout the world, needless to say - including intelligence - which made it attractive
not only to those on the left, but also to those on the right who have seemingly most
benefited from those connections.

Granted the RCC is pretty much finished in America among members -- however, it continues
to do great harm internationally and domestically, especially to women in matters of reproduction.
Of course, the RCC and the Mormon Church also FUNDED the attack on the Equal Rights Amendment.
So their damage is ancient, historical and current ---

Re this . . .

The mainstream Protestant churches do include a variety of people, measured along the political spectrum. And change is never overnight. But women are now often accepted as leaders. (My church is led by a woman, Katherine Jefferts Schori, for example. And room is being made for our gay and lesbian members.

Unfortunately, these religions are still organized patriarchal religions -- and not in name only.
They are still based on vile writings by men. The Bible still stands.
I continue to be amazed that any female would support organized patriarchal religion in any way!


Here's some late news . . .
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080728/ap_on_re_us/church_shooting

[JerseygirlCT]

81. Because it's not all patriarchal

as I said, women are completely equal participants in my church. And my reading of scripture certainly does not indicate that there's any reason they should not be. It's true that too many places still continue to grasp tightly to their outworn notions of the relative places of men and women. That's why I'm an Epsicopalian now, no longer RCC. Jesus' message has nothing to do with women being subservient. There are some writings attributed to Paul (plenty of question as to whether he actually authored some of these) that seem to toe the boy's club line. But that's Paul, not Christ. He had his own issues, to be sure. As did every fallible human being who put together what's generally accepted today as Christian scripture.

It's not a rulebook, or a textbook, or infallible. It's not God's dictation. It IS a valuable record of humankind's struggle to understand and come into relationship with the divine. And of the teachings of Jesus. There' s a great deal of beauty to be found, and wisdom.


Saying that RRers are still around, so therefore the rest of the mainstream churches haven't opposed them is like saying that rightwing Republicans exist, so therefore it's obvious no one here at DU has done anything about that. Their existence does not indicate a lack of opposition. And your awareness of their opposition is also not a good indicator.

Did you know that a good number of younger "evangelicals" are turning away from the GOP? That's due in part to the work of environmentalists in the mainstream, quietly preaching about our responsibility to the earth and one another. And they've been listened to. Likewise on issues like AIDs and poverty. You don't change people's minds overnight or with anger. You make sense and hope people listen. You do what's right and hope people follow your lead.

[defendandprotect]

84. If your religion is based in any way on the Old Testament or the New Testament . ..

then it is PATRIARCHAL RELGION . . .

Because it's not all patriarchal


:eyes:

Even if only women were running your church . . . it would still be based on patriarchal
writings -- the Bible. Would it not?

And, as far as any reading of scripture, let's be frank, much of it is arbitrary - and
self-contradictory. The Bible is a collection of VILE and violent writings, based on
a vile, violent, venegeful "god."

Jesus is a myth which is based on dozens of male myths exactly like HIM in previous times.

Jesus was a communist in comparison to the old warrior, vile "god."

The Jesus myth is obviously trying to pull Hebrews back from their attack on females --

also, please note, in considerations of violence, the myth is also trying to pull Hebrews

back from animal-abuse/animal-eating -- Jesus was supposedly an Essene.

Clearly the Bible is male political writings intended to cement patriarchy.

Few people describe the Bible as "beautiful or wise" . . . most describe it as violent.

Again -- what I said was that if the Church hierarchies really wanted to oppose the RR,

it would have taken a unified, LOUD, well-publicized response.

The truth is that many of these hierarchies were teaching the same stuff that the RR

was spewing.

Again, "Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" which are patriarchal theories

have brought our planet and our species to the brink of destruction.

THIS is patriarchy at work ---

and I clearly don't understand how any female supports any of these religions.

[defendandprotect]

21. "Faith" is the end all ---

... but they don't like to hear that faith is not fact ---

Nor the true history of these religious myths ---

and the effort to use "writings" of a one-all male god to cement the patriarchy ---

[JerseygirlCT]

45. Of course faith is not the same as proof

Nor is religious belief about fact.

Nor are scriptures written by one all-male god...

Really, there are a great majority of religious people, Christians even, who are not biblical literalists, who are given to a great deal of thought and who embrace doubt as part of their faith journey.

[defendandprotect]

58. Right . . . religious beliefs are personal beliefs ---

The Bible is written by men --- who invented the one all-male god . . .

What we are generally criticizing is church, itself --- hierarchies ---
The Church and its teachings -- not members.
Yes -- people who invade your space and try to sell you religion are mentioned in this thread.
These people make themselves representatives of hierarchy by carrying out "conversion" scenarios.

Again --- this isn't about individuals really -- it's about the church itself.

[JerseygirlCT]

72. Just FTR - many of us do not think that God is male...

although historically the boys tended to insure that's how God was seen.

God is neither male nor female - or is both, take your pick. And many people understand that scripture has to be understood within its historical contexts.

Truly, a far greater portion of Christianity in the US is far more open and inclusive than you seem to think. The loudmouthed, ugly and prejudiced ones attached so tightly to the GOP just make a lot of noise.

[defendandprotect]

25. From what we've seen of the religious-right, I completely agree with you ---

and it's taken a very, very long time for Christians who may think differently to separate

themselves from this thinking and stand up against it -

We've had a little go with this now re Jim . . . Willis? . . . and especially the

new environmental/GW awareness among Christians. I certainly hope that takes hold because

"Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" are really dangerous licenses ---!!!

[JerseygirlCT]

40. That's a pretty bold statement. And one that doesn't hold up

even if you look only at this site.

Plenty of believers would absolutely defend and protect your right NOT to believe. To suggest that believers are some monolithic block of people determined to deny you your rights is simply wrong.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. You're very right, Az

But there are polite and rude ways to oppose religion. On another thread, I defined bigotry as attributing undesirable traits to an entire group of people. By that definition, a few posters on this forum are bigots.

A couple of years ago, we had a whole series of threads in which believers were told in no uncertain terms that we were not permitted to define atheists. Fair enough.

But there's a whole subgroup of posters among the atheists on this board who are inevitably snarky whenever any mention of religion comes up, and who feel free to make blanket characterizations of believers, based on their own limited experience or even their own non-experience. Even within a single denomination, there's a whole range of attitudes.

The funny thing is that I lived in highly secularized Oregon for 19 years, where the non-religion is so predominant that people are downright ignorant of it. (No, hot cross buns are not for Passover, and yes, churches are open on Thanksgiving, and as an Episcopalian, I don't need condolences on the death of the Pope, and yes, I can drink booze and go to movies and dances.) But in all those years, I never encountered the sheer rudeness and arrogance of about four or five regulars on this board.

That's why very few theists post here.

(By the way, since the fact has been noted here and in the Atheists' Group, the Liberal Religious and Catholic/Orthodox Groups are less frequented because we have plenty of offline venues to discuss matters of faith.)

[heidler1]

16. What could a religious or non religious person say that is more rude than "YOUR GOING TO HELL".

With the implication that I however, will go to eternal Heaven.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. And who on DU ever said that to you?

:shrug:

By the way, I don't believe in hell. It's analogous to a tragic case in Oregon where a father beat his 8-year-old daughter to death for "being bad." As one commentator said, "What could an 8-year-old do to deserve the death penalty?" Similarly, what could a mere human do to deserve eternal torment?

[Az]

18. Hey! Your a Universalist!!!

:D

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. I wouldn't go that far

I would hope that there are some consequences for deliberately choosing evil. But I don't know what they are, and it's not my decision anyway. :-)

[Critters2]

123. I'm a universalist. Most UCCs are.

Mostly, I just don't worry about what happens after death. I have enough to be concerned about in the here and now.

[heidler1]

19. It has happened when or where or who don't know. My point was Atheist's are not the only ones

who are rude. Just because some person or book tells believers to convert others does not give them license to be rude. Lots of people believe all missionary work is rude and causes reciprocal words or action. What pops up frequently is a common double standard where in the believer expects the non believer to listen, but takes offense at the non believers rebuttal. From this non believers standpoint there is no way to tell me that your view of life and death is some how better without being rude. And visa versa.

[defendandprotect]

28. I think everyone has a story to tell since the "religious-right" got started . . .

I know as young Catholics we were expected to "convert" non-believers . . .
I'm sure many interesting things happened from that concept --- after all, we were
elementary school kids!

And the rise of the religious right has brought personal interceptions --- I remember
my daugther calling from college explaining that she had met a very pleasant young woman
in the dining room --- only to find that quite quickly she was inviting her to a religous
meeting.

We've had -- if anyone recalls it -- the religous in our airports selling flowers ---

eh . . . "god always needs money!" George Carlin ---

:eyes:

[JerseygirlCT]

48. Sure. And I've run into rude non-believers, too

I think the point here is that treating an individual as such - and basing your interactions with that person on that person's behavior, not on your assumptions about their beliefs - is the way to deal respectfully.

I wouldn't slam you because of something some other person said or did to me. Likewise, railing about all religious people as ignorant and pushy is just wrong, particularly when you're dealing with a group here that is, by and large, anything but.

[JerseygirlCT]

47. Yup.

And even many who do believe in hell do not believe that THEY have any standing from which to judge another person. No one knows what will happen, and even a believer in hell cannot presume to know.

(I'm in agreement with you, of course - the idea of hell as a place of eternal torment does not match with that of a loving God).

[defendandprotect]

64. .... but that is the male concept of spirituality . . . a distorted, fearful spirituality . . .

[JerseygirlCT]

69. What is the male concept of spirituality?

I've lost your train of thought here.

[defendandprotect]

77. See message above which says this . . .

(I'm in agreement with you, of course - the idea of hell as a place of eternal torment does not match with that of a loving God).

That's someone else's post which I was responding to ---



What I am saying is that "HELL" is a concept of organized patriarchal religions . . .

and that there was no "HELL" in the old religions based on nature ---

Basically the old religions were about love, please ---

Patriarchal religions are about PAIN ---

[JerseygirlCT]

82. Suffice to say I think you have a fairly distorted idea of

what modern religions *are* about.

[defendandprotect]

85. What do you mean by "modern" . . . ?

Is the Vatican out of business . . . ?

[JerseygirlCT]

88. The RCC most certainly is not representative of all of

modern religious thought, is it? There's a whole world of Christianity beyond the RCC. Not to mention the bigger world beyond Christianity - still "organized religion".

[defendandprotect]

89. The RCC is the main body from which Protestants broke off . . .

it is all based on Bibical/Hebrew writings --- they haven't junked that book have they?

[JerseygirlCT]

90. No, but there are almost limitless ways to interpret that book

And of course, the right to individual interpretation was pretty central to the Reformation.

[defendandprotect]

93. The Book as written came BEFORE the reformation . . .

And, your argument is true --- the book contradicts itself regularly ---

[JerseygirlCT]

94. Sure it does. As its authors are human, and quite fallible

Expecting no contradictions would be like expecting everyone here at DU to agree on everything all the time. Generally, we're on the same page, but...

If you look at scripture less as history textbook or a rulebook for life, and more as literature and a record of humankind's search for God and understanding, suddenly there's a great deal more in there worth exploring. It's the beginning of a conversation, not dictation from on high.

[defendandprotect]

98. These aren't "human" contradictions . . .

For instance, we have the admonition to eat only what GROWS in the GARDEN . . .
with specifics ---

and then the attempted contradiction ---

You're suggesting that the Bible is a "record" of the search for "god" and understanding --- !!!???

It's an effort to cement an idea of a one-male-god --- and a patriarchy ---

and a quite violent "god" to boot!

[JerseygirlCT]

100. Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that

I've explained it six ways to Sunday, but you're just not interested in hearing what I'm saying, I think. You're obviously very invested in your view - so I'll leave you to it.

[defendandprotect]

101. You've outted yourself as a FUNDI . . . !!!!

Anyone who believes that the Bible is "God's dictation" is saying that it comes

directly from "god."

That's FUNDI ---

Now . .. why did you try to hide this so long --- ???

Aren't you embarrassed . . . ???

Why deny who you really are, if you really believe it?

[varkam]

102. What? Seriously?

Tell me you're joking. Where did she say the bible is "God's Dictation"?

[JerseygirlCT]

105. I've said several times that the bible is NOT

God's dictation.

I have to assume the poster is so worked up that reading comprehension is dropping off.

[defendandprotect]

109. Too late, Jerseygirl --- game's over ---

But . . . why do you want to hide who you are ---

is that the only way you think you can succeed . . . ???

You must think quite poorly of your own message ---

[JerseygirlCT]

110. What the heck are you talking about? nt

[varkam]

112. Give it up, Jerseygirl!

Admit it! You think that the bible is the inerrant word of God, don't you?!

:rofl:

[JerseygirlCT]

116. Ahhhhh!!! You've caught me with your Super Atheist X-Ray Machine (T) !!! nt

:rofl:

[varkam]

118. To the lions with you!

:rofl:

[JerseygirlCT]

119. You guys still doing that?

That's like, so 100 AD, you know?

[varkam]

121. Every Saturday night at my place.

I had a lion pit specially installed in my living room. We grill up some burgers, have some drinks and throw a few Christians into the pit. It really is a lot of fun. You should come :evilgrin:

[JerseygirlCT]

122. Oh you're good. Very good.

You clever atheists are so dangerous!

[defendandprotect]

108. Seems to have disappeared, doesn't it . . . ???

So there are TWO of you, eh . . .

[varkam]

111. Perhaps you should lay down for a little bit. Drink lots of fluids, you know?

I think you're hallucinating, and are on the verge of making an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have.

[JerseygirlCT]

46. Is that something you've heard from anyone here?

If yes, then that's to address with that individual.

If no, (and I suspect this is the case), then treating the people you deal with here as if they have said such a thing is wrong.

[defendandprotect]

27. There is no "bigotry" involved in opposing religous notions . . .

despite your personal definitions --

-- and, again, for decades we have seen the religous-right out there saying preposterous

things --- and not just simply directing it to their members for their guidance but attempting

to rule America with their religious dogma ---


Also as I've said above --- other Christians have not in all of this time attempted to

separate themselves from this leading pack of wolves. Lately, I've been pleased to see

that there is some separation going on --- including re enlightenment of Global Warming.


I'm really not getting what you're trying to communicate about "Oregon" . . . and your

experiences there --- however, I would simply say that this is a PUBLIC arena and when you

bring your religion into it, you have to expect that it can be challenged and questioned.


And -- as with all subjects here at DU -- you will note that there are the misinformed, the

underinformed -- and the simple idiots who will reply. Again --- that's ALL SUBJECTS.

[JerseygirlCT]

56. Unfortunately, your last paragraph is the closest to true.

As to Christians other than the religious right opposing the RR's views - your assumption is pure conjecture, and not supported by fact.

[defendandprotect]

65. Are you saying that . . .

-- opposing religious notions is "bigotry" . . ?

-- that the religous right hasn't been trying to force their religious beliefs on ALL of
society . . . ?

-- that there has been a widespread movement within the churches --- pre Rev. Jim Wallis -
to awaken their hierarchies in regard to "Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature"
as mistaken beliefs . . . ?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. As I mentioned above, these battles are going on within denominations

and have been for a long time, but they haven't reached the general public till recently, with things like the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson.

[defendandprotect]

75. I think Jim Wallis is the only one running a noticeable united effort . . .

and as far as I can see "Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" are two BS concepts

that should be discussed every day among people who support these patriarchal religions . . .

Global Warming is our greatest problem --

These two notions are suicidal --- they give license for exploitation of nature, natural resources,

animal-life --- ALL of this has to be stopped.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

79. Actually, it's the fundegelicals who emphasize "man's dominion over nature"

The mainstream churches that I know of have environmental committees and are looking at ways to reduce their carbon footprint, some more than others, but I don't know of any mainstream types who are saying stuff like, "Don't worry, because Jesus is coming back soon."

Again, the fundies don't listen to us. They're like that shooter in Tennessee who shot up a Unitarian church because of hatred of "liberalism," something that their leaders encourage.

[defendandprotect]

86. No -- that's totally untrue . . .

"Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" have always been taught by the RCC ---

I don't know what Protestants did with those notions . . .

but this exploitation is on-going ---


Religious/patriarchal teachings were generally based on this kind of license ---

licenses to exploit --- and not only nature, natural resources, animal-life ---

but even other human beings according to various myths of inferiority.

This is the basis for the Papal Bulls against the native American on this Continent --

and against the African in America.





Capitalism is part of that system --- invented by the Vatican to handle their Papal States

when Feudalism proved insufficient ---

[Lydia Leftcoast]

114. Capitalism actually developed in northern Europe, but

you admit that you don't know much about Protestantism.

You just plain hate religion, and your arguments remind me of my grandmother's Old Country proverb, "If you want to beat a dog, you can always find a stick."

[JerseygirlCT]

68. Opposing religious notions isn't bigotry

Assuming characteristics of one small group apply to every Christian is at the least stereotyping.

The religious right has been trying to do a lot of unsavory things, and

The rest of Christianity - that is, by far, the majority of Christianity - has never held with their theology or methods. Many of the people you'd disparage with your very broad brush have instead been in the forefront of the fights for civil rights, for example. Or peace movements. Or fights against poverty or degredation of the environment. In short: opposing the agenda of the religious right.

And once again, as Christian, I'm no more responsible for the religious right than are you. That weird idea is your own. I'm responsible for my own behavior and words - as are you. When some people are acting in ways that are harmful to others, harmful to our country and our world, why would you assume that only one group of people is responsible for opposing that? Anyone who sees it is just as responsible to take action.

But broad-brush, uninformed swipes at "religion" do nothing of the sort. They're ignored, at best. As they should be.

[defendandprotect]

76. Again . . . try to understand no one wastes their time criticizing individuals . . .members . ..

We are criticizing the CHURCH, the HIERARCHY, the INSTITUTION AND THE POLICIES IT PUTS

IN EFFECT ---

Where have I said that YOU are responsible for the religious right?

You keep trying to make this individual, personal --- it's not.

It's not about members --- it's about the institution . . .

AGAIN -- there will continue to be major criticisms of the CHURCH, ORGANIZED PATRIARCHAL

RELIGION AS IT EXISTS, the INSTITUTITON, THE HIERARCHY . . . .

This has nothing to do with individual members --

understanding this any other way is simply an effort to distort the discussion ---

[JerseygirlCT]

80. Which "church"? Which hierarchy? Which organization that is

somehow entirely separate from its members?

There is a definite hierarchy in the RCC, for instance. Quite top-down, authoritarian.

There is a hierarchy in my Epsicopal church, too - but quite bottom-up - elected, every person in a leadership position.

There are countless different "churches" just within mainstream Christianity, and more who belong to no denomination - just set up individual churches.

There's nothing particularly insidious in an organization. It's what that organization does, what it works toward, it's reason for being and how it actually behaves that you need to look at.

And in the same way that you cannot fit every individual into one broad category and have it hold a great deal of detailed meaning, you can't do that with different churches, either. And all that's just touching on Christian churches. There's a whole big world of religion outside of that.


Religion as it exists contains all the variety that humankind as it exists does. Railing against it is as useful as railing against the ocean. Might make you feel better, but it's essentially pointless.

Better to direct your wrath at those who are discriminating, upholding a male or straight or white only view of the world, using religious belief to consolidate their own temporal power... they're easily enough found, these people.

[defendandprotect]

83. Are you trying to suggest that Catholics make decisions for the church . . . ????

Of course they don't . . .

Again, trying to make this about individual members is nonsense ---

These are male dominated institutions --- based on patriarchy --- male hierarchies --

Nor is this about a hundred tiny churches -- they are all "Christian" --

they are all connected in one way or another to male Bibical/political writings ---

are they not?

They are ALL part of organized patriarchal religion . . . are they not?


Re this . .

Religion as it exists contains all the variety that humankind as it exists does. Railing against it is as useful as railing against the ocean. Might make you feel better, but it's essentially pointless.

No -- individual spirituality would contain variety ---

What dominates and what we are discussing is organized patriarchal religions and their edicts.

And all of these patriarchal religions are connected in one way or another to Bibical writings --

male political writings.

[JerseygirlCT]

87. No, I'm contrasting different churches and their organizational

structure.

The RCC is a good example of a very strongly structured, top-down organization. Not even remotely a democratic organization.

BY CONTRAST, the Episcopal church is modeled on our US system of government (or vice versa, as they were created at the same time by many of the same people). Anyone in a leadership position in TEC got there with the support and votes of both the clergy and laity. Currently, the head of our church is a woman. A scientist, actually. Who received the most votes at our general convention in order to reach that position. No one is told what to believe - primacy of conscience and lots of room for individual thought on all matters theological are central to TEC.

My point is that any given church will have a different structure. Some are quite structured. Some, like the UCC and Congregational churches have NO authority beyond the individual congregation. (Thus the name...). You cannot make generalizations about church governance or structure - it doesn't work.

Are you saying there is some uniform structure shared by all Christian denominations? Some temporal authority for them all? Good grief, getting one congregation to agree on some small point of theology can be like herding cats. You're not going to find any sort of unified governance among Christian churches. Ecumenism hasn't ever gotten that far, believe me.

And your interpretation of the Bible can certainly lead you to your views. Mine does not. Who is right? As it's an interpretation we're both dealing with, we can only say both of us or neither of us. It's totally subjective either way.

[defendandprotect]

92. Have any of the Christian churches denounced Bibical writings or condemned them?

We can't deny the reality of the RCC -- and that's . . . 6 billion or more?

All other "Christian" religions are break-aways from that main body ---

Yes, the RCC still stands against democracy, against "equality for all" ---

still denies the full personhood of all women --- the majority of our populations, btw.


BY CONTRAST, the Episcopal church is modeled on our US system of government (or vice versa, as they were created at the same time by many of the same people). Anyone in a leadership position in TEC got there with the support and votes of both the clergy and laity. Currently, the head of our church is a woman. A scientist, actually. Who received the most votes at our general convention in order to reach that position. No one is told what to believe - primacy of conscience and lots of room for individual thought on all matters theological are central to TEC.

This is great . . .
but is your religion still based on male Bibical writings?
Have you condemned them?

I am saying that if you have a religion which broke off from the main body of the RCC, then
you are a Protestant but you are still a patriarchal religion --- especially if you have not
junked the Bible ---

Again, very few would see in the Bible anything but a violent, vengeful "god."
Very few would see anything but vile and violent teachings ---

Now, granted, most of this stuff was written when only 3% of the people could read --
and most of them were religious scholars. Most of the more meaningful writings ---
especially by women --- were discarded. Most of the writings were turned upside down.
Female history reproduced as male history.
These were male writings intended to cement patriarchy and to deliver a "warrior" "god."
Male religions are based on pain -- clear to see from these writings.

[JerseygirlCT]

96. No, all other Christian religions are not breakaways from the RCC

though I remember being told that, too, back in the early days of my catechism.

Talk to Knitter4Democracy here or any other Orthodox and you'll likely get a history lesson!

Likewise, many of the newer "nondenominational" break-offs see themselves as neither RC or Protestant. They think of themselves as getting back to the original church.

And then you'd have churches like the LDS - again, not R. Catholic and not Protestant.

Why would I junk the Bible? That would be very silly. It's a very complex, interesting, and useful piece of writing - the voices from thousands of years ago marking their journey of discovery and searching for God and for relationship. Would I "junk" a history book because I don't care for the behavior of the people written about? Or a piece of literature I don't much like?

There's something to be learned there, something very human and very valuable on a lot of different levels. Not because it's the rulebook. Not because it's God's dictation. Not because it's without cultural influences and human flaws. But because it's one of the records we have of our human search, our relationship with God. Because learning how others approached the issue, approached the divine, is worthwhile. Because the lessons of Jesus are worthwhile (and not at all patriarchal). Because deciding we have nothing to learn from these people because our culture is not theirs is really not productive.

[defendandprotect]

99. Granted you may have found some decendants of "pagans" ---

or "heretics" and presumably some of them were Jesus followers ----

with the Bible being written hundreds of years after that ---

Again, it's a distinction without a difference ---


Let me suggest that you junk a "history" book when you come to understand that it is lying

to you -- and promoting violent notions.


And, now . . . you're saying the "literal/inane" . . . eh . . . FUNDI looking . . .

"it's God's dictation" . . . !!!

Whoa . . .

If you think this is a "record" of your spiritual search .... it's pitiful.

And, you've just outted yourself as a FUNDI . . .


:blush:

[charlie]

104. Are you *trying* to sound like a Witchfinder General?

She's no fundie. If you think she is, you've diluted the word beyond any useful meaning.

Slow down and read. You've bolloxed everything she's said about "dictation."

[JerseygirlCT]

106. Thanks, Charlie

I guess how you read what I've said might depend on whether you approach it with preconceived notions and expectations.

Or perhaps I should have used more quotation marks. I didn't think my meaning was unclear. Guess I was wrong, at least in one case.

[kwassa]

33. The right is called free speech.

Opposition can be respectful. It often isn't, and there are those who inevitably see opposition to their beliefs as disrespectful of them as people. That will never be resolved.

I completely agree with your point, Az, but we are human, and the emotional connection with our beliefs is sometimes hard to separate from the beliefs themselves.

The other difficulty is semantic. In this forum, the theists are called believers, but everyone is a believer in something, religious or non-religious, about the nature of the universe that we live in. The non-religious can be as emotionally attached to their beliefs as the religious are, but some of the non-religious see their beliefs as facts rather than beliefs, when they are simply different beliefs.

[JerseygirlCT]

36. No, it's not. At all

Disrespect comes in with the name-calling, though. "I think you're wrong" is one thing. "I think you suffer from delusions, you idiot" is another.

"I think you're wrong" can be the opening to an interesting discussion, especially when it comes from a place of respect. There are many people I resepct with whom I disagree on matters theological. It's perfectly possible to do so.

[defendandprotect]

53. What you are trying to say is that your RELIGION is of a higher order than

any other topic that's discussed here --

it's not . . . it's just another topic ---

In all of the conversations at DU you will find the occasional put down --

it comes with every subject/every discussion ---

What you are trying to suggest over and again is that YOUR subject - religion ---

should be treated with a higher respect.


Again --- it's just another subject ---

[JerseygirlCT]

55. Now how you would you get that idea?

Are people uniformly civil here? No, they're not. On just about any topic. Is that a good thing, IMO? No, it's not. On any subject.

Nowhere did I suggest that religious discussion are worthy of greater civility and respect than any other. You would do well to respond to what's actually said, not what you wish to *think* was said.

[beam me up scottie]

66. Bullshit.

Telling other people what they are really "trying to say" is arrogant and insulting.

DU atheists bristle every time someone tries to tell us what we believe or don't, and rightly so. We've had infinite discussions, flame fests and all out wars about it in this forum. I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't call you out for doing the same thing to JerseygirlCT.

If you need clarification, ask for it.

Or maybe you should just try listening for a change.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

70. Thank you, bmus!

:thumbsup:

[beam me up scottie]

91. You're welcome, Lydia.

I can't stand it when someone keeps talking at you instead of to you. :)

[JerseygirlCT]

73. Thank you

I really appreciate that. Really.

And hope to be able to return the favor one of these days!

[beam me up scottie]

95. IIRC, you have done the same for us in the past.

It's too bad the other poster doesn't want to have a discussion, I've learned a lot from believers in this forum (even when I'm fighting with them-just ask Southpawkicker).

Kudos for being so patient, but I think it's a lost cause.

[JerseygirlCT]

97. Sigh

Yes, you're probably right. I just can't seem to help myself, you know?

There's a lot of anger there, and it's sad to see that hurt.

And once again, I really do thank you for your kindness! I know we can just be names on a screen, but the person shows through and I'm really touched.

[varkam]

103. Were was she trying to say that?

What I got was that there's a difference between disagreement and disrespect.

[JerseygirlCT]

107. Yes, exactly Varkam.

I didn't think that would be such a difficult concept, really. More like a basic one.

Thanks.

[varkam]

113. This is actually quite amusing.

I have no clue why the other poster appears to have such a problem with you, of all people.

[JerseygirlCT]

115. Me either!

But I appreciate the kindness - thanks again!

[varkam]

117. Don't mention it.

Just don't tell the EAC about my kindness or else I'll lose my rubber chicken :D

[JerseygirlCT]

120. LOL!!!!

Your secret's safe with me.

[Goblinmonger]

50. No replies on this cartoon as an OP

but seems on point here.

[TechBear_Seattle]

74. Reminds me of David Horsey's "A Brief History of Religion"

[knitter4democracy]

57. Declaring it's wrong is fine and expected.

I only get miffed when it crosses over into personal attack or blanket smearing.

Look, most of the kinds of Christians (just for an example) that many atheists and agnostics hate aren't here. The Christians who are, by and large, are really trying to be loving and respectful and understanding and unoffensive entirely. Sure, there are some who aren't, but I can only think of less than a handful. So, blanket statements about fundies or right-wingers and how awful all of Christianity is because of those people grate on my nerves a bit. They aren't here, and they're not going to get the message.

[Marrah_G]

125. I think you have that right

All I ask is that others not impress their beliefs on me and I will not impress mine upon them.

It's all about respecting other's individuality.

[and-justice-for-all]

127. All ideologies are open to criticism...nt