I don't feel safe around many religious people.

[raccoon]

What I mean by that is, I'm wondering when they're going to start trying to "save" me, or start talking about how I'm not as good as they are because I don't believe the Bible literally, or believe that Jesus was the son of God and is coming back, etc.

I guess what I'm saying is when I'm around them--especially a group of them (which rarely happens, but still), I'm wondering, when are they going to come across all critical and judgemental of me, like I don't measure up to what THEY think I should, such as, being saved, etc.? Like they're superior because they're "saved?"

I know that not all religious people are like this, but I've run into some who are, and they sure have left a bad taste in my mouth. In fact, I don't believe I've ever known a person who was "saved" who didn't think s/he was better than "unsaved" people.

[bananas]

1. You have some self-esteem issues.

Talk to a counselor.

[drmeow]

4. I disagree

[Duke Newcombe]

6. ???????! n/t

[Jamastiene]

18. I do too.

I has to do with past experiences of being ganged up on, not self esteem, going by what the OP has said.

[Sanctified]

28. Agree 100%, thats what I thought while reading the post.

If you are hanging out with people and are constantly thinking about what they think of you, you have some issues that need to be worked out.

[RaleighNCDUer]

41. Hanging out? What about having to work with/work under

such people? Don't you then have to be concerned about their attitudes toward you - particularly if they have some power or authority over you? Never mind peer pressure.

If you'd ever worked in a hostile environment you might feel differently.

[beam me up scottie]

44. Thank you!

But they'll just tell us to sue for harassment, you know, because it's just that easy.

[Sanctified]

63. Still sounds like insecurity issues to me.

If you work in an environment where you think everyone is out to get you then you have some serious issues and should seek professional help.

[Goblinmonger]

74. What if they are out to get you? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

83. How about being told by your coworkers that they "prayed" for you during the daily prayer meeting?

You know, those meetings that you were told you didn't HAVE to attend but will by Jesus regret not doing so, if ya know whut a mean *nudge*nudge*wink*wink* - that meeting?

The only professional help we need is from the ACLU.

[TCJ70]

88. Do they know about...

...some sort of bad time you've been having at all? What if they're prayer was just for peace and relief for you? Would you still call the ACLU?

[beam me up scottie]

89. This is a joke, right?

Tell me you're joking.

[TCJ70]

90. No...

...at the church I go to we pray for people we know all the time when we hear about sickness, financial troubles (along with trying to help them out as best WE can), family problems. It doesn't matter if they do or don't believe what we do, we can still pray for them. Can't hurt right?

[beam me up scottie]

92. Yes, it can hurt.

nevermind, I can't answer this civilly, maybe someone else can

[TCJ70]

93. I'd really like you to give it a shot....

...honestly. Please tell me how my praying for relief, with no strings attached, for someone else hurts them?

[cosmik debris]

94. I'd like to give it one try.

Telling someone that you are praying for them is self righteous mockery of their status.

It is just as offensive as asking you to give up your superstition about sky daddies, santa claus and easter bunnies.

[Duke Newcombe]

95. Curiously enough...I agree with you!

If you had come to me with your problems, that would be one thing. If I learned of them, I'd still pray for you, but there's no particular reason why you'd have to know, or for me to "advertise" it--I'd just do it.

Next thing you know, cat and dogs will be living in harmony.

Duke

[TCJ70]

138. That's a fairly narrow view of prayer..

People get prayer for all kinds of things! Salvation being just one of them.

If you are unclear of what someone means when they say, "I'm praying for you.", isn't it a better idea to find out exactly what they're praying for rather than walking away offended? What if you're offended, and most likely frustrated at that point, for no reason?

[beam me up scottie]

143. They prayed for me because I was a non believer, do you have any idea HOW FUCKING INSULTING that is?

If this had happened when I was living in the northeast, I could have sued for harassment, but unfortunately for me, down here the lunatics are allowed to run the asylum.

"isn't it a better idea to find out exactly what they're praying for rather than walking away offended?"

A better idea? He's lucky I didn't knock him on his puckered, pompous, self-righteous ass.

[TCJ70]

150. That certainly is insulting...

...and you have every right to be offended by that.

[DeSwiss]

162. Here Scottie, show 'em this:

- Sometimes cartoons are necessary....

[beam me up scottie]

165. ROFLMAO!

:rofl:

I love it, especially the diagram!

[cosmik debris]

145. I'll rephrase.

Praying for a person implies that the person in question is defective and needs intercession of the person doing the praying.

It is similar to someone wishing you a speedy recovery from your mental defect of conversing with imaginary friends. Should you not be offended because that someone only has your best interest at heart?

[TCJ70]

148. The difference is...

...my prayers for someone don't have the negative connotations of "mental defect" and "imaginary friends". Yes, I should be offended. The other person, absolutely not.

[cosmik debris]

152. That is absolutely wrong

When you say that you are praying for someone, you only do it because you feel that the person needs your help i.e. they are defective or deficient in some way. Why would you offer to help someone if you didn't believe (in your self righteous way) that they would benefit from your help? That is arrogant, condescending, and insulting.

The fact that you are unable to see that shows that you don't even understand the problem. If you are unable to see how big an ass you are being, it is a waste of my time to educate you.

Get well soon.

[TCJ70]

153. Why do you assume that praying for someone equals a deficiency?

Is it wrong to want a God that I believe is responsible for creating the universe, a God that is all-powerful, a God that I believe could and would give a sense of peace and hope to a situation, to take time out of His schedule to see what He can do about your situation? I think that's pretty huge. Even if you don't believe in that God, how can you say that that isn't at least extremely kind?

Would you be as offended if I heard about your trouble and said "Dang, I hope things get better for you." That statement also implies that there is nothing you can do about the situation and leaves everything up to chance or whatever you decide to chalk it up to. Doesn't have anything to do with any god though, so I'm guessing you don't mind THAT implication of deficiency.

If you want to talk about self-righteousness, you've designated and denigrated me as someone who is mentally ill. Unless you consider us on the same level, you've pretty much convicted yourself on that charge.

[cosmik debris]

154. It is extremely kind of me

To wish you a speedy recovery. Why is that insulting to you?

[PassingFair]

164. Do you actually believe that you have intercessory powers with god?

Like magical powers?

Do you tell people that good things
happen because you "prayed for them"?

[patriotvoice]

127. "I prayed for you" is much different than "I prayed your troubles would ease."

The first *condemns* you, the second *empathizes* with your situation. Whoever prays "for you" is sloppy at best, and callous at worst.

[TCJ70]

130. I guess I just don't assume the worst.

Depends on your experiences though I suppose.

[patriotvoice]

132. Language has purpose, and people choose the meaning deliberately.

"I will pray for you" = "I will pray that my God will save your soul."
"I will pray your troubles be eased" = "I will pray that my God will alleviate your suffering."

The first implores God to address the person. The second implores God to address the person's needs. Which do you mean when you pray "for" someone? Based on what you've written above, I'm guessing you mean the second. But when you mean the second, and say the first, you are sending very mixed signals.

[TCJ70]

139. And when people run into those mixed signals...

...isn't it a good idea to clear them up? Why walk away frustrated and offended, when you can just ask, "why?"

[patriotvoice]

140. Yes, it is wise to clarify. But...

it's a semantic nuance that many people will simply not understand without a careful discussion. In the heat of the moment, after someone's already been offended, understanding is probably asking too much.

[TCJ70]

141. That's true...

...depends on the personalities involved and what other background, good or bad, someone would have with the church.

Having grown up in a church where we regularly pray for people's situations and for their own peace of mind (regardless of belief, faith, creed or lack of), it was difficult for me to see how praying for someone would be offensive. Thank you for at least acknowledging that prayer can be neutral and is not always tied to trying to "save" someone.

[patriotvoice]

142. Just remember: to many non-believers, prayer is masturbation.

That is, prayer is self-gratifying and without purpose beyond easing the petitioner's insecurities. It doesn't matter that it feels good or right to the petitioner; they don't want to be a part of it.

[cosmik debris]

86. Yep, it is always the victim's fault.

Christians can do no wrong.

[knitter4democracy]

98. So, which kind, a pastor, priest, or Christian therapist?

;)

[Duke Newcombe]

2. And I run into atheists that are boors-strangely, I don't feel "unsafe"

Once I know someone has heard about salvation through Christ, and isn't interested, I personally let it go. They're a big boy/girl, and have made their choice. Being an ass about it is counterproductive-if they're interested again, they know where to find me or what to do.

And any Christian that acts like they're "better" than you because they are saved doesn't have it right. I'm sorry if you've been treated that way. It's simply not acceptable.

As for believing that Jesus is the son of God, and that He's coming back...well, can't help you out there. Kinda goes along with the whole "Christian" thing, like supporting the causes of the party and progressives is required to be here on DU. No way out of that.

Please amplify about feeling "unsafe": does this mean you think they'll attack you physically? Do other people (say, Repubs, telemarketers, potential mates) that try to convert you to their way of thinking provoke this feeling as well? I ask for informational purposes only.

Duke

[dmallind]

3. So you hang out in remote South American rainforests and Asian mountain villages?

I mean how else can you possibly even imagine that there is anyone who has NOT heard about salvation through Christ? So you never proselytize at all in the US? Or is your opening line BS?

Why would a person with perfectly reasonable self esteem feel undafe around passionate believers? Larry Hooper springs to mind.

The problem is that there is one and only one set of religious beliefs, or lack of them, in the US that is OK to a) aggressively push on others and b) use as a byword for "good and decent". You don't feel the sting of that because it's yours.

[Duke Newcombe]

5. Please clarify.

There are people here in the US who because of upbringing, never stepping foot in a church, or just the circles they run in haven't really heard about Jesus Christ and salvation. I know, in this day and age, unbelievable, but I encounter it every day. So no, my "opening line" as you artfully put it is not "B.S." And I primarily go to Africa for my proselytizing needs, thank you.

As for "feeling unsafe" around passionate believers, should people feel "unsafe" around people here at DU? Because I know I feel "passionately" about the Democratic Party. I don't think the word "passionate" means what you and the OP think it means, but I could be wrong.

Furthermore, please point out where I say it's okay to "aggressively push on others"? Unless you feel asking questions and sharing information is "aggressively pushing"--if so, we can end our conversation now, as there's no where to go from there.

Duke

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. That's bullshit.

Unless you proselytizing kindergartners. There is NOBODY in this country who has never heard of christianity. Nobody. This is the most religion-soaked culture in the world. There is no escaping it. Just spend three minutes flipping channels on the TV.

[Duke Newcombe]

46. Very well. Choose to believe that if you must.

Be well.

Duke

[dmallind]

119. Apparently I need to.

I certainly know what passionate means. The man who shot Larry Hoopper is a passionate believer. Eric Rudolph is a passionate believer.

Not all passionate believers kill, but some do and some do less egregious harm. I am involved in organized atheist groups. I know of 7 people who put Darwin fish on their cars. Every single one - 100% - were keyed or otherwise vandalized within two weeks. Anecdotal? Sure - but statistically valid surveys show that atheists are the least trusted people and most prejudiced against potential candidates for office in the US, so you can hardly claim that it's unique or made up.

But your opening line remains BS, artful or otherwise unless you lead a remarkably unusual life that I can't even imagine what it would be. I have NEVER met one single adult in the US who has not heard of Jesus and salvation. And please no weaselling that they haven't heard YOUR message or that of your particular denomination. Honestly where do you find them? You use terms like "not setting foot in a church" or "the circles they run in" (ooh ever so not perjorative there) as examples of not having heard of Jesus. Do these "circles" never watch TV, saturated with god references either evangelical, political, dramatic or comedic? Do they wonder idly what all those buildings with crosses on them on almost every street corner are all about? Do they miss the billboards on hundreds of highways?

I don't set foot in churches either and if you have ever met a person over toddler age ignorant of the Christian message in this country obviously we "run in different circles" but that does not mean I have never heard of the message of Jesus and salvation. It means I've heard avout it, recognized it as yet another syncretic amalgam of primitive mystery cult tales that has been around for maybe 3% of the time that humans have been worshipping thousands of different gods, and decided it has as much evidence for it as any of the others - none whatsoever.

And another strangely necessary clarification: please look at the sentence that mentions aggressive proselytization and where the reference to you is. It refers to why you don't feel this issue as viscerally as nonbelievers do. It makes no claim about your own actions or preferences.

[cosmik debris]

121. Even NASCAR races start with a Jesus prayer. n/t

[dmallind]

123. Yeah but at least there it makes sense. ;)

But in all seriousnes I think we should try an experiment.

Replace all Christian messages delivered to audiences gathered for another purpose or in entirely secular pursuits with Islamic ones, and see how long it takes the Christians to feel uncomfortable, excluded, and marginalized.

In Allah and Mohammed (pbuh) we Trust on all the money.

Muezzins calling everyone to prayer before sporting events.

Congress bowing to Mecca before each session.

Presidential debates centered on how much the candidates follow the Quran and how much they love Allah.

Why can't they understand that's exactly what the 17% who are not Xian in this country put up with? Rhetorical question of course.

[cosmik debris]

124. My personal version of that experiment:

When ever I hear people talking about god or Jesus, or any time I read such stuff, I mentally substitute Leprechaun or unicorn for the deity in question.

"In Leprechauns we trust."

"...One nation under unicorns, with liberty and justice..."

It brings a more rational understanding to the whole religion thing.

[DainBramaged]

173. I have one question, and then, no matter what the answer is, I won't ask you any more

If you are so offended by acts of Faith, why shouldn't we be offended by your lack of Faith? Your only purpose in the threads in this forum (that I can ascertain) is to put down people of Faith for your own amusement. YOU may think that's fun, but I think that's mentally defective. This board (DU) for better or worse, was created many years ago as a beacon of hope in a hopeless world, and whether you like it or not, for some it includes religion of one kind of another, be it money, Deities, drugs, or in your case, hatred of the religious.

Have a great life.

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

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

[DainBramaged]

176. You answered the question clearly "more fun for me"

hate, I only thought that was a trait shared by Right-wing loonies, but I am wrong. You talk to people of faith the same way homophobes talk to gay people, with disdain and to try and 'convert them' from their point of view because you so vehemently disagree with THEIR right to a point of view.


Bye.

[cosmik debris]

178. I love the way you brag about ignoring people

When the only person hurt by your closed door is YOU!

It is your tantrums that I find amusing. And you can't deny that they are a treat!

[DainBramaged]

172. Bothers me immensely, projection of one religion to a National audience is wrong

and offensive to many, even those of us who share that Faith.

[beam me up scottie]

9. I'm starting to wish I did.

My guess is the op feels outnumbered and intimidated by an overwhelming majority of uberzealous cult members of the One True Religion™.

[raccoon]

14. You got that right. nt

[beam me up scottie]

19. I had a feeling it was something like that.

Down here in the buy-bull belt one can never let their guard down.

[raccoon]

12. I see that

Larry Hooper was a featured singer and pianist in Welk's orchestra, but I still don't understand the reference.

"The problem is that there is one and only one set of religious beliefs, or lack of them, in the US that is OK to a) aggressively push on others and b) use as a byword for "good and decent".

Agree--some Xian proselytizers are aggressive and bother innocent bystanders.


Also, many still believe that "Christian" means a person is good and decent.

[dmallind]

118. Different Larry Hooper

And therein (if you were serious) lies the problem.

Matthew Shepard is famous. He was killed for being gay.

Larry Hooper is almost unheard of. He was killed for not believing in gods.

The former caused massive outrage and rightly so.

The latter was nigh universally ignored.

That being the problem.

[raccoon]

120. Thanks for the heads up. I just googled "Larry Hooper" and "atheist,"

(The following occurred at the trial of Arthur Shelton, a self described Christian and Eagle Scout, who murdered his friend and roommate, Larry Hooper, because Hooper didn't believe in God.)


On Day two when George and I (Arlene-Marie, Michigan State Director,American Atheists) together with Joe Milon, entered the court room the taunting began immediately. Within an hour the Judge announced that those making gestures and faces had better cease or they would be removed. For the balance of the day the Christians wore their neck crosses on their backs, as we were seated in the back row, while constantly flopping them about with their hand. When we returned from lunch (without court escort) the Christians were waiting for us on the seventh floor and lunged at us with small signs they had painted -- 'Jesus lives', 'God loves you' -- and, again, thrusted their crosses within 2 or 3 inches from our noses. Tempers flared and a brief shouting match began. Brief because the court officers were there in a flash.

Day three found Atheist Lee Helms in the same taunted position of the previous days though he was not known to the court or the Christians. At the conclusion of the day an officer of the court detained him stating they have been having trouble with 'those people' (Christians) and escorted him to the elevators.

Even with all that behind us, December 19th, the day of sentencing, was still a horrific experience for myself, George Shiffer, Joe Milon, Lee Helms and Marty Maier. When leaving the courtroom the 'Christian' Shelton family lay in wait for us in the hallway. Their tears dried, they surrounded us shouting these comments: "The one good thing of all of this is that another Atheist is dead and the world is better off for it" and "The only good Atheist is a dead Atheist."

http://www.parallelpac.org/murder.htm

[dmallind]

122. Glad to have helped. Notice one thing?

Even in this news report of a vicious murder committed ENTIRELY for the sake of religion and directed against an atheist because and only because he was one, the perpetrator is listed as "self-described" Christian.

It's almost as if the reporter was implying (really subtly - as in sledegehmmer) that he wasn't a REAL Christian and it wasn't because of his faith that he killd an atheist.

[patriotvoice]

128. A Christian who murders or condones murder (silently or actively) is simply not a Christian.

They are, therefore, "self-described."

And for all you "Christians" out there that support the death penalty, remember this: Jesus's death certificate read "state-sponsored homicide."

[beam me up scottie]

144. Oh, bullshit.

Christians have happily slaughtered their way through the last two millennium. Those who claim moral superiority are only whitewashing their past.

See this post for a few choice examples: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=183828&mesg_id=183878

[patriotvoice]

146. And that is exactly my point.

Those Christians who condone (actively or silently) murder (past, present, or future) are simply not Christian, no matter how much they claim themselves to be: they are just murders.

[cosmik debris]

147. I'm just guessing, but I suspect that you have never heard of the

No True Scotsman Fallacy.

You certainly don't seem to be aware of it.

[patriotvoice]

149. Anyone who claims to be Christian while also condoning murder is internally inconsistent.

There is no equivocation here. A Christian, by their own definition, is "one who follows Christ."

Christ specifically did not condone murder:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=146x5792

And even if one is an "old Testament Christian", Exodus 20:13 is pretty clear: "Thou shall not murder."

Of course, the Bible is littered with inconsistencies, so perhaps being internally inconsistent is the hallmark of a "true Christian".

[cosmik debris]

155. That's funny!

You seem to believe that YOU have the ultimate definition of "christian" and that no one can be a christian unless they live up to YOUR definition.

From whom do you receive such power as to tell everyone in the world that YOU get to decide whether or not they are christian?

[bulldogge]

157. That is an

interesting debate in itself.

Matthew 10:34 "Do not think that I come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."

The historic Jesus , a bit different from the biblical Jesus, hung out with zealots, or freedom fighters depending on your politics. There is also the famous tale of disrupting the money tables , not a very passive sort of guy.

The old testament is a jewish doctrine, which of course is not christianity.

I would like to think that being a christian means non violence etc but they have proven themselves to be the exact opposite time and time again. There are peaceful religions but they are primarily unknown and of small numbers because through out time they have been slaughtered by their violent neighbors.

The thing that is difficult about your position is that if you go out and give a guy the shirt off your back and the other guy goes out and kills in the name of God how is it that either one of you are any less or more than the other because in your mind you are doing it for "God".

[patriotvoice]

158. Matthew 10:34-42 is a good example...

I believe Christians define themselves as one (or both) of these:
1. "A person who believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and through only Jesus Christ can one reach everlasting peace"
2. "A person who exemplifies the teachings of Jesus Christ in their daily lives"

It strikes me that these combinations bear out as follows:
#1 only = "Christian in Name Only"
#2 only = "Happenstance Christian"
#1 & #2 = "Professed Christian"

To do something "in the name of God" requires that you believe of yourself definition #1, so you are either a Christian in Name Only or a Professed Christian. A Christian in Name Only is the only one that could (or support) murder in the name of God. A professed Christian could not because doing so would violate his own definition. Should people care if they violate their own definitions: probably. Do they care: rarely.

To my original point (up a few messages), neither a Happenstance Christian nor a Professed Christian can simultaneously support capital punishment and exemplify the teachings of Jesus Christ. My larger point -- and I was very sloppy and unclear -- is that people should constantly compare their actions to their beliefs and rectify discrepancies. By that, I mean Professed Christians favoring capital punishment should really check to see if that belief exemplifies the teachings of Jesus Christ. Christians in Name Only, well, they can continue doing whatever they want -- so long as they remain Jesus Christ's #1 fan, they suffer no internal inconsistency from any earthly action.

[beam me up scottie]

151. By your logic anyone who has ever done anything un-Christ-like isn't a christian.

And, since Jesus was a jew, there is no such thing as a True Christian™.

If you want to believe that christians are morally superior to you, knock yourself out.

They are not, however, morally superior to the rest of us.

[dmallind]

156. And no true Scotsman has sugar in his porridge, right?

That silly logical fallacy applies to you. Christians believe in Christ as a divine savior. That's IT. That's ALL you need to be every bit as Christian as a Pope or Billy Graham. You do not need to be good, nice, moral, churchgoing, or anything else. Sorry but sorry Christians don't get to feel better than everyone else by lying and saying that anyone who does something wrong can't possibly be one of you/them. Not when speaking to anyone with even a vague hint of rationality anyway. Fail. Shelton is a Christian. He killed for it. Phelps is a Christian. He anagonizes and rabble rouses for it. Eric Rudolph is a Christian. He plants bombs for it. You may very well be a Christian. Live with it.

[raccoon]

7. To clarify,

"does this mean you think they'll attack you physically?" No, not physically. Though in a way it might be similar to wondering when a physical abuser is going to let you have it.

I mean there's no telling when they might start trying to "save" me.

"Do other people (say, Repubs, telemarketers, potential mates) that try to convert you to their way of thinking provoke this feeling as well? I ask for informational purposes only."

They piss me off, if they're coming across like they're trying to control me or like their opinion/philosophy, etc., is right and mine is wrong. But I haven't run into that nearly as much as I've run into the "saved" variety.

"Once I know someone has heard about salvation through Christ, and isn't interested, I personally let it go. They're a big boy/girl, and have made their choice. Being an ass about it is counterproductive-if they're interested again, they know where to find me or what to do."

Good for you. It certainly is counterproductive. Wish more people realized that.

[Bluestar]

8. Here's the part that bothers me--

"Once I know someone has heard about salvation through Christ". I take that to mean that you are going to try and convert me to begin with. I appreciate the fact that you personally wouldn't pursue it, but I contend that you have NO RIGHT to do this--it invades my privacy. The "message" of Christ is readily available to anyone who wants to follow this path thanks to religious evangelicals, so you can safely assume that we have all heard of "salvation through Christ". I was indoctrinated into this belief system early in my life and have chosen to reject it. When someone tries to convert me I am insulted. I don't believe it is done out of love, but out of ego.

I know that I am overly sensitive to this, but I have had some bad experiences with this in the past, especially in the past few weeks. I live in an area where evangelicals constantly knock on my door, initiate irritating "robo" calls from local churches and litter my yard with religious material. I have kept silent for far too long and I will not keep silent any longer.

[Duke Newcombe]

11. A question

First off, yes, they're trying to convert you. Christianity is a proselytizing/evangelical religion. Not much can be done about that, as it's by design.

I'm finding it hard to believe that you go through your life being upset at people trying to convince you of things, or that people have no right to do so. The very fact that you and I are here, now, conversing, or that you have a DU account contradicts this.

Perhaps the venue is the culprit: a televangelist or preacher on the TV on the interwebs or an email from a friend is "less threatening" than someone talking to you face to face. Could that be it?

As for folks knocking on your door, instead of letting this anger seethe, couldn't you put out a "no solicitors/no proselytizing" sign or something?

Duke

[Bluestar]

21. I happen to believe that one's spirituality is a very private matter

It is true that the evangelicals (and from your posts above, I assume you are in this category) have cheapened their own religion by these marketing techniques. No other religion, not Muslim, not Jewish, Greek Orthodox, etc. feels compelled to do this. So in this equation, who feels threatened? I say it is the evangelical himself, desperately trying to convince himself that he is in the right and that he MUST get others to embrace his belief system as well. I know, since I was raised in this type of church that one of the tenets of Christian fundamentalism is that one must "evangelize" others in order to advance their own position in heaven. This is entirely ego-based and has NOTHING to do with true spirituality.

For you to say that my response to you on this board, or my reaction to being assaulted with this religious zealotry is somehow making myself "upset" is asinine. I reserve the right to be upset with this invasion of my privacy and personal space and I will react in any way I choose.

[Duke Newcombe]

27. No one disputes your right to "react in any way (you) choose"...

Just as it is free to be observed here, and commented on.

And it seem that with every response, you "goalpost move" and ascribe motives en masse to evangelicals that are not true.

I can sense this is going circular, so this'll be my last response. Suffice it to say that evangelizing "in order to advance their own position in heaven" is the furthest thing in the minds of me or any Christians I know. YMMV, of course.

Duke

[raccoon]

116. Me too, and it pisses me off when someone tries to force-feed their religion to me.

" I happen to believe that one's spirituality is a very private matter"

[patriotvoice]

129. The disciples began the corruption: Jesus' message was "do", not "preach".

Jesus went around "doing" good works, while the disciples began the system of proselytizing that transformed "spread the Word" to "conquer with the Word."

[beam me up scottie]

10. How many atheists have tried to bully you into joining a cult?

As usual the majority is completely unable to relate to the minority and blames it on them.

[Duke Newcombe]

13. Actually, no "blaming" was going on.

I was wondering where the feeling comes from, and have received more information. Do you feel "blamed"? My comment is that there are atheists that are horse's asses--one need go no further than this forum to prove that. Yet, the world keeps spinning on it's axis, birds sing, and criminals like * and McWhatever still draw breath. Life goes on.

Duke

[beam me up scottie]

17. Of course, it's obvious that it's the atheists' perception that's faulty.

We all know christians would never harm anyone.

And if they do, well then, they're not Real Christians™, are they?













edit speeling

[ZombieHorde]

15. I usually enjoy it when people try to "save my soul".

Though this has not happened to me in over 10 years. Whenever the door to door religion sellers come to my door, they will leave as soon as I open that door. I have no idea why, for they leave before I even get to say anything.

Them: Knock knock
Me: Opens door
Them: Makes excuse to leave and then leaves
Me: Wondering why

[Occam Bandage]

22. If you wear clothes they stay longer.

[ZombieHorde]

84. I wipe well, where is the offense?

[Duke Newcombe]

85. "Sky Clad". Nice.

Have any proselytizers actually _stayed_ and chatted after you greet them at the door sans clothing?

Duke

[ZombieHorde]

87. I always answer my door wearing pants and a shirt on the usual body parts.

I really don't why they don't stay, perhaps its just a coincidence.

[Jamastiene]

16. I get a lot of anxiety too around many of the local ones.

I have been accosted by them and tortured by them at different times throughout my life so much now that I cringe when I am around any of them. I try my damnedest to avoid being around them, especially when it is a group of them. They will gang up on you and tag team while you have no one on your side to help you out of a very uncomfortable situation. They seem to pride themselves on that gang mentality too. I understand where you are coming from. :hug:

[beam me up scottie]

23. I haven't run into you lately, Jamastiene.

I'm glad to see you're still here and are (hopefully) doing well. :)

[Evoman]

50. That fucking sucks.

I hate that fucking gang shit. Be they gangs on the street or gangs in the church. It's why I distrust groups, hate leaders, and am not a "joiner". Nothing can make a number of "good" individuals go rotten quite as well as joining an exclusionary group.

I'm lucky...I can be mean enough that people like that leave me the fuck alone. But it bothers me so much that people like you have to go throught that sort of shit....atheists, racial minorities, handicapped people, homeless people. I wish I could be everywhere at once.

[Occam Bandage]

20. I don't feel safe around many black people.

What I mean by that is, I'm wondering when they're going to start trying to mug me, or start talking about how I'm not as good as they are because I don't know rap lyrics, or believe that white people are directly at fault for urban blight.

I guess what I'm saying is when I'm around them--especially a group of them (which rarely happens, but still), I'm wondering, when are they going to come across all critical and judgemental of me, like I don't measure up to what THEY think I should, such as, being black, etc.? Like they're superior because they're "African-American?"

I know that not all black people are like this, but I've run into some who are, and they sure have left a bad taste in my mouth. In fact, I don't believe I've ever known a person who was "African-American" who didn't think s/he was better than "European-American" people.

...now look how dumb you look.

[beam me up scottie]

24. You got it backward, non-christians are the minority.

But go ahead and tell me why black people should feel safe around white people.

[Occam Bandage]

25. I didn't claim anything about social majorities/minorities.

I simply replaced the OP's "I'm afraid when I'm outnumbered by people who are culturally dissimilar" with another (very common) example. Many whites do indeed feel the same way around blacks for the same reason the OP does around religious people--fear of a culture, manifesting itself as fear of judgment by members of that culture.

[beam me up scottie]

26. It has nothing to do with "dissimilar" cultures and everything to do with christian privilege.

We're constantly reminded that our presence here is merely tolerated by the majority.

[Occam Bandage]

29. You can claim that OP's fear of Christians is a special case, due to

the special faults of Christians, but that only holds water if you take a very narrow view of the situation.

You claim that the objects of your fear are especially worthy of distrust and resentment? Well, so does everyone who experiences habitual discomfort around dissimilar cultures. The white person in my example would certainly claim that *your* discomfort around Christians is simple bigotry, but that *his* discomfort around blacks had everything to do with the fact that black people are worthy of distrust and resentment for a number of reasons.

A black person (who has little contact with non-blacks) who finds himself suddenly surrounded by whites might well feel the exact same discomfort and fear of judgement, and might well claim that whites are especially worthy of distrust and resentment--but he would likely also believe that our white example's fear is founded only in racism.

A Chicagoan from the North Side (with little positive experience with non-Chicagoans) who finds himself surrounded by rural Mississippians might experience similar distrust and become very self-conscious; a rural Mississippian who, on his first trip out of rural Mississippi, finds himself in a gathering of urban professionals might experience similar distrust and become very self-conscious.

And all will express and justify their fears, distrusts, and resentment the same way.

[beam me up scottie]

32. Tell me another one, mommy!

How about homosexuals, how should they feel when they're surrounded by fundamentalist christians?

[Duke Newcombe]

33. I wouldn't know...

Just how fundamentalist Christians would feel if surrounded by homosexuals in the Castro? What's the point you're trying to make, exactly. Because this actually makes the "I'm afraid of 'the Other' " point instead.

[beam me up scottie]

38. Oh, please, it's not that hard. It's a bit like how Native Americans felt about white missionaries.

How black families felt when they looked out the window and saw a burning cross.

How the jews felt about Nazis.

How Giordano Bruno felt when they lit the fire.

[Occam Bandage]

34. Why do you keep returning to "how should X feel?" I'm not prescribing or proscribing anything.

It is of course likely that the hypothetical homosexual in question would feel similarly to a hypothetical fundamentalist who found themselves surrounded by open homosexuals, who would feel similarly to the previously-mentioned hypothetical atheist, and the hypothetical Chicagoan, and the hypothetical Mississippian, and the hypothetical black man, and the hypothetical white man.

You can sort out for yourself who you think "should" be afraid of dissimilar cultures, and who "shouldn't." If you believe it is just, proper, and productive for members of certain cultures to universally distrust members of certain other cultures, then feel free to believe that.

[Duke Newcombe]

35. Ding, ding, ding, ding...we have a winner, folks! :) n/t

[beam me up scottie]

37. Hypothetical homosexuals?

[Occam Bandage]

48. Yes, by talking about a hypothetical homosexual, I denied the existence of actual gay people.

And by talking about the universal fear of other cultures in conversational situations, I denied the existence of hate crimes.

No, wait, I did neither.

I made a few solid points, and you couldn't think of a sensible reply that didn't justify prejudice as a principle, so you tried to throw the conversation off track with a few tragic pictures that were completely and totally unrelated to the conversation we had been having.

I mean, you could have said, "well, I understand that fear of other cultures is universal, and I agree with your underlying belief that prejudice is generally counterproductive. Still, I believe that prejudice is appropriate in situations where it is reasonable to assume that unalterable distrust already exists." That would have been a reasonable and mature response, and I think that it was the one you were aiming for.

Then I might have talked about the necessity of verifying that assumption, and asked if there wasn't a duty to work towards minimizing that distrust instead of to maximize it, and you could have stated that such a belief was naive and dangerous, and that the only "duty" in such a situation was to escape the situation. Then I would have replied that such a belief in inherent incompatibility is also a natural response, and is the reason why people tend to self-segregate (along ethnic, religious, cultural, political, and socioeconomic lines), to which you might have asked if there was not some degree of value in self-segregation in certain cases.

We might have had a meaningful, interesting conversation (even if neither were persuaded to adopt the views of the other)--if only you were willing to make the effort to communicate, instead of simply breaking out the biggest sledgehammer you could GIS. Maybe you'll see the allegory. Maybe not.

[beam me up scottie]

52. "...now look how dumb you look."

After reading your first post I knew there was never a chance of having a meaningful, interesting conversation with you.

You didn't ask the op to clarify, you passed judgment.

And now look how dumb you look.

[Occam Bandage]

56. Yes. I think that blind distrust of entire cultures and groups looks dumb. I still do.

However, it would be nice if you disagreed by responding to what I have written, instead of flailing about incomprehensibly.

Tell me: if you didn't think there was any hope of having a decent conversation, why are you replying to every post? Just to waste both my time and your own?

[beam me up scottie]

57. Non-christians' suspicion of fundamentalist christianity is "blind distrust"?

Right, we have every reason to trust them, they would never hurt us, would they?

This is the "culture" that you think we should trust:

[Occam Bandage]

62. Not of "fundamentalist Christianity." Of Christians.

Obviously anyone reasonable would feel threatened and uneasy if they were next to those people; there's nothing "blind" about distrusting people who are proclaiming their hatred loud and clear. I'd certainly imagine most mainstream Christians would.

The OP is talking about feeling threatened by being around Christians in general, despite there being no evidence beyond their Christianity that they intend harm or look down upon non-Christians. That is indeed blind distrust.

[beam me up scottie]

65. Guess what? Many of us have to live and work among "those people".

Thank you for allowing us to feel threatened by them.

[Occam Bandage]

70. Again, I'm not allowing or disallowing anything. We're going in circles.

[beam me up scottie]

72. So you're going to let the op feel intimidated by christians?

And stop pretending that they're a bigot without justification?

[Occam Bandage]

76. Again, I'm not allowing or disallowing anything.

However, OP is entirely without justification for the bigotry that has been stated. And no, a GIS for "Westboro Baptist Church" does not justify that, unless the OP is talking about members of that sect. OP isn't; the post talks about "religious people" in general.

[beam me up scottie]

81. Honestly, I've called out bigoted atheists in here before,

and I have read quite a few of the op's posts and I don't think they're a bigot.

I really think they just have a little trouble expressing how they feel.

I also think they're intimidated by this forum (who wouldn't be?) and take a bit longer to reply than the regular gunslingers.

[Dorian Gray]

96. I'd feel afraid

if those people were anywhere near me, and I am a Christian and a Catholic.

They would instill fear in anyone.

[beam me up scottie]

112. It's almost as intimidating when they're not Phelps' protesters.

At least you can see those idiots coming.

What disturbs me even more is listening to hate radio at work (it's piped through the pa) and watching almost all of your coworkers and bosses nod their heads in agreement, no matter how racist, homophobic, sexist or otherwise vile the sentiment.

They're not too fond of catholics around here either, you're not Real Christians™, you know.

[Dorian Gray]

115. I know a lot of the fundamentalists

think that those of us who are Catholics are demon worshipping hell mongers. I don't particularly care for that mentality, either. And, to be honest, I distrust those fundamentalists and what they want from this world just as much as they probably hate me.

I also can't imagine a work place being so politically divisive. I'm happy that I currently work for myself, and that in the past, when I worked in various work places, politics rarely entered the discussion. If I had to listen to political radio all day, I'd shoot my brains out. The only talk radio I listen to are NPR and cooking shows. LOL. Political shows, even the left wing ones, make my blood pressure rise! So that sucks.

[Duke Newcombe]

31. Define tolerance.

I tolerate Republicans insofar as I know that our system of government provides for parties to exist, and they exist, so I won't go looking to burn down Republican homes, cleanse my neighborhood of Republicans, and disallow them from operating in our political system. That's as far as my "tolerance" goes. I don't have to *like* that they exist, or pretend to understand or agree with the way they think, or let them have their way.

Or are you suggesting that your presence should not be just tolerated, but celebrated, validated, and embraced? And is so, isn't that asking a bit much of people that believe differently than you?

Look, don't believe. At the end of the day, I have feelings about that, but they're MY feelings. I'm unsure of what you're expecting.

Duke

[beam me up scottie]

36. It's kind of like pornography, I can show you what it's NOT:

Why don't you ask these two people what they think about christian tolerance in this country:

[Duke Newcombe]

39. And yet, the world still spins on its axis.

In only two of those pictures, is there anything that comes *remotely* close to what classical Christian teachings are. (I don't know what the Statue of Liberty is supposed to prove).

So, should someone now post pictures of the assless chaps and nun-habit crowd at the Pride parade, or of "Piss Christ"? And what would this prove--that the level or irreverence and intolerance shown is standard for the LGBT community, or artists, for example? Of course not. All that it would show is that there are extremists and whackjobs in all facets of American life?

And how does this affect your life or my life, directly? Are folks being dragged off to camps yet? How's Proposition 8 doing in California?

Duke

[beam me up scottie]

42. Bravo! When all else fails, invoke the No True Christian meme.

All of those pictures are as classically christian as you can get.

They're simply following in the footsteps of all the christians who came before them.

[Duke Newcombe]

43. If you believe that...

...perhaps you ought to get out more. But I won't belabor your preconceived notions any longer in this thread. You're pretty set, I believe.

Be well,

Duke

[beam me up scottie]

49. Pictures of other Classical Christians:

[RaleighNCDUer]

51. Of course. The crusades were an abberation.

The Protestant/Catholic wars were an accident.
And nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition.

How about the fundie takeover of the AF Academy?
The war in Iraq as a "crusade"?

Some of us have reason to be scared.

[beam me up scottie]

53. Notice the pretension that recollection of their history is simply a matter of "belief".

" If you believe that..."

[Occam Bandage]

54. The first three you list all had predominantly secular causes.

The Crusades were a result of the overmilitarization of Europe during the Viking period leading to destabilization of the feudal system, and the Seljuk expansionist wars against the Byzantine Empire and corresponding weakness of Constantinople. The Cross was a rallying point; claiming Christianity was responsible for the Crusades is like saying CNN was responsible for the Iraq War. I mean, sure, to a point, but it was mostly a tool used to enable it.

The Protestant/Catholic wars were a result of the reordering of Europe in the post-Feudal/proto-national era. It was not theology that prompted lords with an eye towards expansion or their coffers to sever ties with Rome, nor was it theology that prompted kings who were doing quite well under the Catholic domination of Europe to stand by the Pope. Again, religion was a justification for warfare, not a root cause.

The Spanish Inquisition was launched to demolish political opposition and stabilize the power of the throne; it's no accident that the Inquisition proper only began when Ferdinand II wrested control of the inquisition from Papal control. Again, religion was a justification for brutality, not a cause of it.

Moreover, you'll note that the use of religion to justify atrocities declined sharply as nationalism rose as a powerful force in Europe. When people launch the same crimes against humanity whether they're attributed to God, King, Crown, or Flag, it's hard to believe that God, King, Crown, or Flag is the real culprit.

[beam me up scottie]

55. "predominantly secular causes" ?

[Occam Bandage]

59. While I admire your ability to GIS familiar phrases,

the points stand. The Crusades were the result of feudal lords attempting to protect their position from the destabilizing forces of overmilitarization, and from the weakness of the Byzantine Empire providing a convenient outlet. Before the Seljuk invasion into Anatolia, Europe was collapsing into chaos, as the idle military class started propping up petty bandit kingdoms without regard to the pre-standing feudal order. The Cross was a convenient way of encouraging knights to stop raping and looting from each other and go kill somebody somewhere else.

[beam me up scottie]

61. And Fred Phelps hates gays because financially they're a threat to him.

Oh brother, here we go again...

[Occam Bandage]

64. No, Fred Phelps hates gays because he's a deranged individual.

You sure do like to change the subject.

[beam me up scottie]

66. Next thing you'll tell us is that religious belief has nothing to do with homophobia.

Nobody was ever persecuted for having the wrong religious belief or for lacking one.









edit fixed grammar

[Occam Bandage]

68. As a justification? Sure, it's a pretty big one. Everyone has their justifications.

We've been over this. What does this have to do with the Crusades/Inquisition/30-Years-War?

[beam me up scottie]

78. What does religious persecution have to do with our being intimidated by religious fanatics?

Gosh, Wally, I'm stumped.

[Duke Newcombe]

58. Teh logic...it burns!!!

Spot on, Occam.

To simplify it even more: whatever the justification, most of these conflicts (and ones like Germany's ascendancy in WWII, or Pol Pot, or Rwanda, which conveniently get left out by some) can be traced back to (a) territorial expansion, or (b) strategic control of resources.

Duke

[beam me up scottie]

60. Yes, because we all know how much Hitler really really liked the jews.

And Martin Luther had absolutely no influence on him at all...

[Occam Bandage]

67. You believe the Holocast was religiously-motivated?

See, I believe the Holocaust was the sadly inevitable result of combining fascist industrialism and relentless politically-motivated scapegoating of ethnic minorities. It isn't too far of a jump from "The fucking (dissimilar cultures) are the reason we're in this mess" to "we can easily corral them and keep them under control" to "we can ship them out of here pretty easily" to "we can kill 'em pretty easily and never have to worry about them again."

Martin Luther (who was strongly anti-Semitic, as were many Europeans throughout the history of the continent regardless of religion) provided one of many justifications for the scapegoating of Jews. However, it was by no means a necessary or central justification; Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda rarely mentioned Luther. Moreover, theorizing a religious basis for the Holocaust doesn't at all explain why Gypsies, Slavs, disabled people, Communists, labor unionists, and political/religious opponents of fascism were targeted and executed by the millions as well.

[beam me up scottie]

71. Of course not, Hitler hated the jews because they had better hair.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge Hitler's religious beliefs?

He certainly wasn't shy about them.

[Occam Bandage]

75. He also wasn't consistent about them.

Hitler was in turn a devout Catholic, a mystic occultist, an admirer of Eastern thought, and a proponent of "positive Christianity," in which he took Christianity and stripped out everything that he thought might be incompatible with Nazism.

When we're talking about a man who proclaimed a new ad-hoc theology that was designed to support his political ideology, it's hard to believe that his theology was the inspiration for his ideology.

[Rob H.]

69. That statue is here in Memphis

It's at the World Overcomers Outreach Ministries Church and is called "The Statue of Liberation Through Christ." It's also the tackiest damned thing I've ever seen. What isn't easily visible is the tear on her cheek that symbolizes grief over America's descent into godlessness or some such claptrap. Including the pedestal, it's 72 feet tall and cost the church $260,000 to put up.

Here it is wrapped in a protective burqa-like covering during construction:



Here's the inscription:

Give me your POOR, BROKENHEARTED
Your CAPTURED, BLIND, AND BRUISED
Your huddled MULTITUDES yearning to be free;
The wretched LOST SOULS from shore to shore, Send these, the SICK, OPPRESSED, HOMELESS
The tempest LOST to Christ. I lift the cross as a symbol that CHRIST IS THE DOOR.

(Luke 4:18, John 8:32b, Romans 7:24, Acts 10:38, 2 Corinthians 4:3, John 10: 9)

The pastor's defense of spending $260,000 on the statue is rich with irony: "I personally feel that the answer for the poor is Jesus Christ." Yeah? Call me crazy, but a quarter-million dollars spent helping the poor instead of on building some hideous statue sounds like a more practical option.

It's also appropriate that it's included with the "God Hates Fags"-type photos; the church in front of which this expensive monstrosity stands is openly antigay.

Edit: Dang. Looks like I can't link directly to the photo. Grr!

[Duke Newcombe]

73. I'm assuming that the church pays for the labor and materials...

...and also owns the land.

What do you propose we do with people who do "tacky" (according to you) things with their own resources? And how exactly is that statue oppressing you?

Duke

[beam me up scottie]

79. Nice try, he never said he was "oppressed" by the statue.

More like revolted, as we should all be - not just by their own Lady Lieberty, but also the fact that the pastor would rather spend over a quarter of a million dollars on a cheap plaster knock off instead of, oh, I don't know, maybe feeding the poor or any of that other crap Jesus (remember him?) always rattled on about...

[Rob H.]

80. I never said they weren't free to spend their money however they like

They can do whatever they want with it, including waste it if they really want to. I just think it's hypocritical to spend that much money on a statue and then try to use its unveiling as a launching point to talk about outreach to those living in poverty. It's also hard to take seriously a pastor in a $2000 suit standing at the pulpit of a megachurch talking about how we need to help poor people--I like to think that I can't possibly be the only one who sees the irony in that.

I never said the statue is oppressing me, either; it's halfway across town from where I am.

[Duke Newcombe]

82. Got it. I just don't see what reward there is in getting caught up...

in the "hypocrisy" of something you don't necessarily care about. If that megachurch with pastor-in-a-nice suit is IN FACT helping the poor, I fail to see the hypocrisy. After all, what does it matter--we don't believe in a Sky Fairy that "wants" things anyway, right?

Obviously, they're not caring about what people think, as long as they are being obedient to God by caring for the least of these. If they were not, maybe you would have a point. If they weren't reaching out also to people who are "...BROKENHEARTED
(Your) CAPTURED, BLIND, AND BRUISED" as well, you'd have a point. If it helps to think of it as a gaudy sign to attract attention so they can do the other things, and let others know they're there, then maybe you can do that.

But thank you for your answer.

Duke

[beam me up scottie]

77. It represents the belief that this is a christian nation.

And tacky is putting it mildly.

I put her in flickr so we can see how big she is:


People in other parts of the country have no idea what it's like to be subjected to this kind of propaganda every. single. day.

On the radio, and the boob tube, in restaurants and stores, in our libraries, on billboards, in our schools, on municipal property, it couldn't be any more in your face because they WANT it to be in your face.

We're fortunate that they let us live here.

[raccoon]

117. Have you never run into aggressive evangelical Xians?

If you haven't, lucky you.

[Occam Bandage]

126. Yes. I'd be surprised if anyone hasn't.

[Rob H.]

30. "I don't believe I've ever known...

a person who was "saved" who didn't think s/he was better than "unsaved" people."

I see that a lot down here in the Bible Belt. I remember at my first job out of college the secretary to the VP of Finance found out we lived in the same small town. She brightened up when I mentioned where I lived and asked,"Oh! What church do you go to?" I responded simply,"I don't." She got a look on her face as if horns had suddenly sprouted from my forehead.

I've also overheard no less than 3 of the overly outwardly religious people I know make homophobic and/or racist comments. Two of those three are also the most self-centered, demanding, arrogant people I've ever had the displeasure of meeting. Not saying those kinds of people don't exist among the irreligious, but at least the irreligious I've met don't feel entitled by Jebus to always get their own way, even when they're clearly wrong.

Edited to fix errant quotation mark.

[beam me up scottie]

40. I'm just a little north of you.

Isn't it amazing how someone can be your friend right up until they find out you're not a christian?

[Rob H.]

125. Yep. It's also amazing how many religious people here

attribute divine intervention to simple instances of luck. A perfect example of that was when I was getting ready to get my old Jeep inspected last year. It had sat for a while and the battery had gone dead, so I bought a portable jump-starter to use to get it started so I could drive it to the inspection station. Naturally I kept it in the Jeep for the rest of the day just in case I needed it.

When I was getting ready to go home, I walked outside to my car and there was a woman sitting in her SUV with the hood up. She asked if I had any jumper cables and I responded that I didn't, but I did have something else that would help. I jump started her vehicle and after she thanked me I said,"Lucky I happened to have this with me" to which she said something like,"Yeah, the Good Lord was really watching out for me today."

I almost responded,"Well, if He's looking out for you, how come He made sure that an Evil Atheist™ was the only person around to help?" but instead I just closed her hood, smiled, and said,"Have a good one, ma'am," and walked back to my car.

[DainBramaged]

177. 'Some people' believe that Faith is a blessing not a burden, and live their lives

the same way you live your life without faith, they Praise Him, you curse well whatever, so you two are even in the cosmos. Ohmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Evoman]

47. Depends on the christian....if they are the good old boy kind with big axe handles and lynching rope

then maybe I would be scared. But that's more about "people" than "christians".

If anything, I tend to be more frustrated than scared. That I live in a world were almost everybody around me sees five lights, while I keep yelling out "THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS".

[TCJ70]

91. That was a well done episode...

...can't say it was "good" because of subject matter. But it was definately one of the better, more hard hitting episodes.

[knitter4democracy]

97. That's totally understandable. Some kinds make me nervous, too.

Most from the more mainline denoms don't make me nervous, but when I meet up with some types of evangelicals, I have college flashbacks and want to run screaming. They might be nice people, but all that Christian code pushes old buttons and freaks me out.

[JonathanBrowne]

99. yeah it depends

I think there is a LOT to be said for faith if you believe it. It's just a question of wether faith pulls us apart or brings us together.

[cosmik debris]

100. Faith does not bring atheists together.

If you want to bring atheists and theists together, leave your faith at home.

[Az]

101. Just had one of those experiences tonight

Was at a party and it came out that I was an atheist. This other party member sort of wigged out and took it personal that someone did not believe in God. Came after me insisting that not only was there a God but that I could not tell her otherwise. I kept insisting I had no intention of trying. She kept hammering away. It was like a full out assault on her person that someone did not believe in God. She then started polling everyone at the party to make sure they believed in God. It got real quite for a while after that.

Not pleasant at all.

[Meshuga]

102. Holy crap!

I am glad I can avoid this kind of scene here in my area where there is no chance that I will attend a party with this kind of people. I would probably leave the party if I were in your situation. But not before telling the insisting person to mind his/her own business.

[cosmik debris]

103. So, at the next party

Will she be invited?

Will you be invited?

[Az]

133. She was the mother of the host

So discomfort all around. We will see.

[Duke Newcombe]

104. I'm sorry this happened to you.

What happened here seems like you ran into a boor--an ass, if you will. In your case, it's about belief in God. With me, it used to be regarding what I did for a living (don't ask).

This will happen--if not about one subject, then another. Hold people accountable for bad behavior--the reason for it isn't important, but the bad behavior needs addressing.

Duke

[cosmik debris]

105. That's just a bad rationalization

pretending that religion is just another subject like sports or travel adventures.

But it is pretty common.

I hear it a lot when religious people say something that embarrasses the belief they claim to embrace.

[Duke Newcombe]

106. So, there are no other "asses" other than religious ones, then?

You agenda is showing, cosmik.

Duke

[cosmik debris]

107. That's not what I said. You are making stuff up.

But I'm certainly not surprised by that.

Once you start on the path to rationalization, there is no turning back.

[Duke Newcombe]

108. Not really.

If it makes you feel better to think that, go ahead: you have a right to be wrong.

If they were discussing alcohol, or car choices, or even politics, this would be nothing other than another "encounter with an ass" post.

As for starting on the path to rationalization, I believe a bit of projection is being played out here by you.

Duke

[cosmik debris]

109. That's just plain nuts

To think that someone would react that way over a difference of opinion on Ford vs. Chevy or Mets vs. Yankees.

You need to get a better grip on reality. Your rationalizations are going off the deep end now.

[beam me up scottie]

110. Oh, c'mon, cosmik!

You must know that the Crusades, the Protestant/Catholic wars and the Spanish Inquisition were caused by:

(a) territorial expansion

and

(b) strategic control of resources

Religion had absolutely nothing to do with it!


According to our friend, christianity is only responsible for all of the good stuff that happens, that's how he justifies his proselytizing and missionary work.

They need to convert those filthy heathens for their own good.

[Duke Newcombe]

111. People here on DU have acted more rabidly over far lesser earth-shaking subjects.

See: Hummers
See: Large family size
See: McMansions

Look, cosmik, continue to live with a bunker mentality. You know, the one where when the not so swift or on cue Christians are waging verbal and physical jihad looking to oppress you and remove your ilk from existence. I choose not to see it that way from my side of the fence: now I just view it as unfortunate assholery to be combated or worked around.

If you wish to continue playing the solo version of this persecution game, do continue.

Take it easy, and be well.

Duke

[beam me up scottie]

113. "I choose not to see it that way from my side of the fence"

Thank you, Gen. JC Christian, Patriot.

[cosmik debris]

114. Are you confusing DU with the real world?

Are you so naive that you believe people behave the same way in person as they behave on internet message boards?

It is a shame that you can't address the points I have made without erecting your own straw man arguments to refute the points you wish I had made.

You are not even a very good apologist for the religion you are trying to defend. And you certainly have no idea what it is like to be on the other side of that issue. It seems to me that you are making the argument that because you don't see it, it doesn't exist. But you can't excuse the bad behavior of christians and other religious bigots just by blaming the victim or pretending that their bad behavior is similar to other bad behavior.

And I find it incredibly hard to believe that in a world where religion is such a hot topic that you could pretend that religious discussions are not more charged than discussions about sports or cars. That's truly absurd.

So go ahead and blame the victim and excuse the holy christians. Nobody would have expected anything else from you.

[conscious evolution]

160. See:corn flake encrusted chicken

See:Olive Garden

Sorry.Couldn't resist.You see,SATAN TEMPTED ME!!1!!!!

Sorry.Couldn't resist that one either.

[Az]

134. It is a general problem

Its not just people being asses. It is the mindset behind any assumption that the individual believes can not and should not be questioned. The problem is built into dogmatic systems. This is not to say that religious people cannot be tolerant. But it does create a tendency to oppress other beliefs. And when confronted with other beliefs existence it can cause a very strong emotional reaction.

[knitter4democracy]

135. That's just crazy.

Wow. And you of all people who's so nice and respectable. She's nuts.

[kayakjohnny]

131. I've never seen Buddhist act like that.

[Taverner]

136. Neither do I - and I'm seeing my brother, the Reverend today

SEE http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=8116916&mesg_id=8116916

[Taverner]

137. Some Christians respect our rights to freethought

Others do not.

I tend to fear gatherings of Christians in groups of 2 or more, personally

But one of my good friends, who is even a fundie, never tries to 'sell' Christianity to me.

And I never try to sell skepticism or doubt.

[zonmoy]

159. You have been abused by those out to force salvation on you

like I have been.

[frogmarch]

161. Ignore them, or

roll your eyes at them and sigh if they start giving you crap. Don't let them worry you.

The only religious zealots I worry about - and perhaps you should too - are the ones I think might try to poison me or shoot me. I'm not intimidated by them, but I do try to keep my eyes open at family get-togethers.

[metapunditedgy]

163. I was at a (conservative) seminary (long story), and one of the profs said

"Of course we're better than non-Christians. That's the whole point, isn't it?" I rolled my eyes and began plotting my escape. (Escape was very successful, thank you.)

These were Presbyterians. (Not evangelicals, by the way.) I grew up Lutheran, and the Lutheran *tradition* (though not necessarily practice) would never allow someone to say something like that.

[morningglorysunday]

166. Were you inundated with religious dogma growing up?

I think that it may just be that negative programming ("You're gonna burn in hell" "it's a sin" etc.) which is triggered by these people. I guess you have to really believe that what you were told was not the truth. Perhaps on some level you buy that line of crap? I dunno...

[cosmik debris]

167. Sounds like silly amateur psychology to me.

But sometimes that is necessary in order to shift the blame.

Did it ever occur to you that the behavior that the OP complained about might be offensive? And that the OP has every right to be offended? And that the OP might not have psychological problems just because he finds pushy religious people to be offensive?

Do you realize how insulting it is to blame the victim? To hypothesize about his mental health? To assume that it is all in his head?

[geeyourharesmells]

168. Why don't you stop making everything about victimhood?

You act so full of your goodness, but you are overreacting to that post. Perhaps you are accusing others of crimes which they have not committed?

[cosmik debris]

169. That's the subject of the thread,

The OP is concerned about being the victim of over zealous religious people.

The only thing I accused that poster of was using amateur psychology and assuming that the OP was mentally defective. That's pretty offensive.

Sometimes religious zealots are just assholes. And sometimes other religious people defend the assholes by implying that the zealots are right to be assholes and that the people to whom they are being assholes are at fault. That seems to be the pattern into which that post falls.

[cosmik debris]

170. Now who is the victim Ms. Tombstone! n/t

[FM Arouet666]

174. R.I.P.

:evilgrin:

[DainBramaged]

171. One, I'm no better than you are, two, if you were drowning or in a fire

I might save you, otherwise, you are on your own, goodnight.


:hi: