Christians under attack!

[trotsky]

This is directed to the Christians who think the Democratic Party is becoming hostile toward them. Please explain to me why you think this is. I would really like to know where you see this hostility in your daily life.

And while you're at it, please provide:

1) The names of all the recent major candidates who ran as Democrats and professed atheism.

2) The Democratic Party's response to then-candidate George Herbert Walker Bush's comment in 1988 that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens.

3) The portions of the Democratic Party Platform that lay out a goal of suppressing Christianity and furthering atheism.

4) The number of Democrats who voted for, and who voted against, the bill "reaffirming" the pledge of allegiance to include the phrase "under God" in 2002.

After answering all those, I'd love to hear how you then think that Christians and not atheists are in danger being shut out of this party.

[ret5hd]

1. good logic...

thnx for adding to my (atheistic) arsenal.

[YOY]

2. Those who say this crap are only Christians by name alone

They'll gladly tell you just how Christian they are. They'll gladly excuse Enron execs because they've 'found jesus' and plunk down money for any service that claims to be "Christian based."

They're not Christian at all. They think it's about everything but acting like Christ said to act.


So fuck them....hard Say it loud and say it clear. If they don't want vote Democrat then tell them to stop calling themselves Christians...because they surely are nothing like Christ.

[rzemanfl]

3. Aw shit, I though you were going to tell me where to go so I could

join in...

[Old Mouse]

4. Don't you think it counterproductive

to ask someone if they feel threatened, or harassed, then giving them a list of reasons you think they should just shut up?

It doesn't seem as though you want a serious dialogue, just an opportunity to ridicule. Perhaps it is this sort of attitude that the persecuted Christians are speaking of.

Just saying...

[Az]

5. There have been repeated comments

That seem to suggest that a number of Christians believe they are under assault. Conversely we atheists believe we are under assault in ways too.

To us who experience direct forms of oppression it is difficult to understand the claims from those who are part of the group we percieve as oppressing us. We are clearly not the majority. We have to struggle to have our positions heard. And even when they are heard others may not apply the same degree of importance to it.

It is understandable that some believers may see themselves as oppressed as well. They see their church or religion going in directions they do not approve of so they come to political groups hoping to find common cause. Only to find a group of atheists angry at believers in general. I well understand how this can affect them.

Both sides need to work to express themself. We all have to find our place in this big tent. We all have to listen to the complaints the other side has and believe them and the emotions they feel about these issues.

[papau]

7. I agree :-)

:-)

[Old Mouse]

11. So, the atheist tactic to combat oppression

is ridicule of another's faith and feelings?

Facetious of me, of course... I have never known you to write a negative post about anyone, Az... you are truly a great credit to both the atheistic and religious community here on DU.

However, in the past I have asked about instances of extreme suppression of atheistic beliefs on these boards and have received scant more than ill-disguised atheistic evangelism in return. If trotsky feels under attack, he should start a forum "Trotsky Under Attack" and stop this baiting. This post is, IMHO, misguided intolerance.

[Az]

13. Then sincerely ask him

The problem as I perceive it is that hackles are raised so often between our sides that we tend to start out with guns blazing.

Turn the other cheek is metaphorical as you only have two cheeks to turn. I think advocates of peace can turn their cheeks more than that. Hear the pain and try to communicate. I know I am not always succesful in reaching fundamentalists. But I always leave the door open.

[trotsky]

21. Oh I myself don't feel under attack - at least on DU.

I just want to illustrate to a number of Christians on here that what they perceive as a party that's trying to marginalize them or push them out isn't quite what actually exists.

[papau]

6. LOL - well said :-)

:-)

[catbert836]

9. I agree.

But that doesn't mean Christians are being persecuted, necessarily. I think that both Christians and athiests feel an exaggerated sense of discrimanation. Our athiests seem to feel it on this board by intolerant Christians, and our Christians seem to feel persecuted on this board by intolerant atheists.
My message is this: Get over it. Rarely are comments made that can be considered persecution by anyone. All of you are way to sensitive about your faith or lack thereof.

[Az]

10. For atheists its not just comments

I cannot speak for Christians. But I have direct experience of bigotry against me for my beliefs and I have friends that have acts committed against them. Its real.

True its just talk here in DU. But the talk is just echoes of the oppression we feel in society. It hurts all the same. We hope for better.

[Rowdyboy]

12. Everybody's a victim......Christians, Athiests, Pagans, Jews, Muslims

I'm a non-church going, gay, southern Christian and I don't feel persecuted by anybody. I refuse to be anybody's victim

[Az]

15. I think its a good idea to fight for a society

Where even the timid don't have to worry about being persecuted. We are not all cut from the same cloth. We each bear our burdens in different ways. The strong ones don't need as much help. It doesn't mean everyone is as strong.

[Rowdyboy]

20. Its a beautiful dream.....And I feel genuine compassion for real victims

Like the desperately poor of New Orleans, the people of Iraq, AIDS victims, retirees who've had pensions stolen by Enron and WorldCom and anyone, anywhere who who goes hungry, or without medical care.

But there is a limit and many people push the limit. Hell, I've been guilty at times, but I really work hard to avoid it.

[trotsky]

17. I'd like to know if any Christian on this board has gotten a death threat

for expressing their feelings on religion.

I have.

Now I'm not going to compare that to true persecution, which I could only reserve for being forcibly stopped from practicing one's beliefs, or being killed for them. My guess is the death threats I got were from cowardly right-wingers who felt tough by leaving an answering machine message. They didn't have the power or real fortitude to follow through.

I'm just trying to get some perspective - because Christians on DU *have* complained that the party is shutting them out. I want to see the proof, and how it compares to other data that I know about how the party shuts out people with no faith.

[catbert836]

73. People are overly sensitive about their religion.

The sad fact is that many Christians in the Democratic Party (and otherwise) feel that any critism, even constructive, of their faith constitutes being persecuted. For example, one time me and my uncle (both non-Christians) went to see a movie back in 2004. The movie theater didn't have enough space on their board, so they put the titles "Passion of the Christ" and "Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights" next to each other. We started joking about how Christs' true passion was dirty dancing, only to be rewarded by a visit from the manager telling us to kindly shut up for fear of offending persecuted Christians.
But I'm losing my thread. The fact is that most religious people see their religion as absolute truth, unable to bend or be made fun of in a good nature. For most born-again Christians, it's a reality that God created the world in 7 days and that they have to be readying themselves for the apocalypse. You try to enlighten them, and you may end up on the wrong side of a puck to the stomach.
Also, I'd like to know why the rest of us are exempt from the war between athiest and Christian. Any thoughts?

[Az]

86. Blame the religious right

Actually blame history, but I will get to that later.

There is an active and effective group in American politics collectively referred to as the religious right. They are struggling to assert their their beliefs as the laws all must obey. They have tossed aside the Social Contract and are trying to dismantle the constitution.

Bottom line, if all Christians supported and abided by the Constitution and recognised the seperation of Church and State we would not be having this discussion. Because the religious right has done this though those who feel they are losing the most are standing up and fighting for it.

There are few nonChristian groups attempting this same tactic. Most seem to get that seperation of Church and State works for them too. Thus they are fighting on the same side as the atheists are (as are many many Christians).

There can be discussions about belief and truth of the universe between believers and nonbelievers in a desire to come to some understanding about the nature of the universe. These can be contentious or civil. But this discussion is focused on the politics of the matters and not the actual beliefs. Thus the focus does not fall on those that have beliefs that are not attempting to take over the government.

[catbert836]

89. What I always thought

I think that the fundies are so rabid and serious about their faith is beacause Christianity is going out of style, so to speak. People now have more choices and more freedom so they can make their own decisions about Christianity, which has gotten more discriminatory, old-fashioned, and just plain moronic over the years. We saw the same thing in the early 1800s, with the Great Enlightening. Many people were leaving Christianity, so the leaders lashed out. I think that time is comprable to today.

[Jim Bob]

14. Bingo!

Exactly.

[trotsky]

16. Don't you think it counterproductive

to whine about how a tiny minority that happens to be able to be vocal on an Internet message board is scaring away people of faith from the Democratic Party?

Because that's been happening on here for years, and I have yet to see ANYONE show me how this is happening, or how the party treats their faith inappropriately.

I'm not trying to ridicule, I'm pointing out that if you're going to make claims of being persecuted and excluded, try getting a different perspective for once.

[onager]

18. Well, I don't mind ridiculing.

Because here's what I see over and over in R&T threads, only slightly exaggerated:

Xian Poster: "Let's all talk about the scrumptious wonderfulness of Gawd today! Isn't Gawd just peachy-keen?"

Atheist Poster: "Excuse me, but I must respectfully point out that we atheists don't believe in your Gawd. It's nothing personal--we don't believe in anybody else's Gawd either.

In fact, we'd like to respectfully note that since approximately 500 deities are being worshipped somewhere on Earth right now, you yourself are an atheist when it comes to 499 of them."

Xian Poster: "You have the unmitigated gall to DOUBT that my Gawd even EXISTS?

W-A-A-A-H! Persecution! Insults! Where's the moderator?"

(Note: edited for spelling/grammar only. Since a few of the more anal-retentive Hallroom Monitors around here apparently think any edit means I'm up to something nefarious.)

[Modem Butterfly]

36. Um... aren't you ALWAYS up to something nefarious?

Isn't that required from a member of the EAC?

[trotsky]

37. Hey, you forgot something.

"Well it takes FAITH to be an atheist too, so there!"

[beam me up scottie]

19. Where did he give a list of reasons for people to shut up?

I must have missed that.

Just like I missed the "attitude that the persecuted Christians are speaking of."

Are there persecuted christians on DU?

[Jim Bob]

62. Az, this doesn't apply to you

4. Don't you think it counterproductive to ask someone if they feel threatened, or harassed, then giving them a list of reasons you think they should just shut up?

- Old Mouse

It doesn't seem as though you want a serious dialogue, just an opportunity to ridicule. Perhaps it is this sort of attitude that the persecuted Christians are speaking of.

- Old Mouse

19. Where did he give a list of reasons for people to shut up?
I must have missed that.

- beam me up scottie

33. Did Trotsky do that?
Geez, he must have edited the heck out of his post, because it sure doesn't say that now.

- Modem Butterfly

41.
If you're looking for a party that hates atheists, wants more God in the schools and in the public square, wants Christian holidays to be sacred and nothing else, well guess what - that party is NOT represented by Democratic Underground.

-trotsky

50. I think we need a new "Godwin's Law"
That states "When a Supernatural opinion, such as 'Intelligent Design' is presented as a 'alternate scientific POV' or is mentioned in a scientific discussion, then the thread is OVER. And the person guilty of trying to present said Supernatural as Science, owes everyone an apology. – BiggJawn

I guess you Atheists are right. No Atheist would ever give a believer a list of reasons that the believer should shut up. That just doesn’t happen. Instead, you just tell the believer that he is not welcome on Democratic Underground (post 41); that he “owes everyone an apology” and “the thread is OVER” (post 50); that he is “stunningly stupid” (post 42); that he is “disgusting” (post 41); that his opinion is “BUUULLLLL SHIT!” (post 47); that he belongs only at Free Republic (post 48); that he is “right wing” (post 48); that he worships “Zombie Jesus” (post 48) and “Zombie Christ” (post 51)

Yeah, now that you mention it, Atheists do seem to want a “serious dialogue,” and would never “ridicule” a believer. I guess Old Mouse must be imagining things.
:sarcasm:

Az, you are a class act. The rest of the Atheist lobby could learn something from you. And by the way, trotsky, your implication that I "hate Atheists" is a deliberately false characterization of my beliefs and I do not appreciate it. As you know from the other thread, I love Atheists.

God Bless all of you.

[trotsky]

63. I simply pointed out that

since your goals are to put God in the schools and make sure everyone reinforces your beliefs with a pledge, you are supporting the wrong party. Quit playing the martyr already!

Signed,
A member of the "Atheist lobby"

[Modem Butterfly]

64. Um, I'm pretty sure Old Mouse is a theist...

Also, re-posting comments in which people say they don't see what you're seeing as proof of what they don't see in the first place doesn't fly. Me asking if Trotsky said you should shut up, for instance, simply isn't the same as me telling you to shut up.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[trotsky]

69. When you support goals of the Republican Party,

it should not be surprising to be called on it, especially when you're posting on a Democratic message board.

Read the rules sometime, won't you?

[Modem Butterfly]

70. Someone told you you worship a zombie?

Wow, I must have missed that one. Must have happened while I was out of the room.

The rest of you do little but spew ridicule and contempt for people who have different views from your own on religious issues.

Well, you get out of DU what you put in.

:eyes:

[Old Mouse]

100. wow

nicely done.

[beam me up scottie]

102. Yeah! SOOOOOOOOO nicely done he got his reward!

:rofl:

[salvorhardin]

22. OK, let me try then

How do you feel threatened and harassed?

That's it. We really do want to know because frankly we just don't see it. A lot of our (atheists') mockery the last few weeks has been because we just don't see how you can possibly be persecuted, threatened or harassed on the basis of your belief in the Christan god when over 70% of the country shares your beliefs and only about 11% (on average)shares our disbelief.

So, for the sake of esprit de corps among progressives, let me apologize for my tone and attitude the past few weeks. It was uncalled for. Please help us understand though. It's the first question that should have been asked.

How do you feel threatened and harassed? It's an honest question.

[Old Mouse]

68. a more honest question

has there been an active campaign by DU atheists to malign fundamental Christianity on the boards?

[beam me up scottie]

92. You're confusing defense with offense.

An easy mistake for someone who can't tell a real christian when they see them in the White House.

[Modem Butterfly]

33. Did Trotsky do that?

Geez, he must have edited the heck out of his post, because it sure doesn't say that now.

:sarcasm:

[catbert836]

8. Ooooh, here we go!

:popcorn:

[More Than A Feeling]

23. Amen to that! ;-)

My fellow Christians, if you find yourself feeling persecuted, well, that's what the other cheek is good for.

[BillE]

24. Reasons given by Christians

I am new here, so forgive me if I seem presumptuous. This is a list of some reasons that some christians feel persecuted.

1. Not being allowed to force children to pray in school or read bible.
2. Having a huge block of granite ten commandments removed from a government building.
3. The pledge being found unconstitutional with the words "Under God" while forcing children to recite it.
4. Not being allowed to pray over the loudspeaker at high school athletic events.
5. Not being allowed to pray at high school graduations (from the podium).

There are probably other "persecutions", but can't think of them at this moment.

[Az]

25. Input appreciated but

Those are the issues of the religious right. I am not sure those are the same issues of the Christians that post here on DU. It would be easy for us none Christians to post what we imagine they believe they are being oppressed by. But that wouldn't really answer the question here.

There has been a unfortunate amount of consternation between the believers and none believers around here lately. What we are trying to do here is to ask the Christians that post here and are concerned about their marginalization to post what their examples of this are.

Oh, and welcome to DU and congrats on your first post.

[BillE]

27. Oops

I missed the context of the msg. I am a member of some internet forums that deal with Church/State issues and was still in that mindset when I read the msg. Not a really good start.

[Az]

28. Trust me

There have been worse. Its still another voice in the great DU choir. And thats fine by me.

[beam me up scottie]

26. Hey BillE !!!

Congrats on your first post, and a good one it is.

I peeked at your profile and I see you lurked for quite a while before joining in.

I did the same thing.

Anyway, Az is right about this thread pertaining to DU christians, but I live in a red state and I can definitely confirm your list is applicable to the christians around here.

The histrionics over Roy Moore's granite slab were ridiculous.

Oh, and I'd like to add one to your list:

6. Not being allowed to control women's bodies.

I think most DU christians would agree with you and I about the reichwing's perceived "persecution".

:hi:

[BillE]

29. Thanks Scottie

I think the poster meant is why some strong Christians feel persecuted here at DU forum. My opinion is that this being a progressive site, they would be in the minority and not many here have their world view. That in itself plus the fact that many here don't believe in god at all, is quite offensive to them. They are on the defensive here, and may perceive disagreement as persecution. Please note I am not applying this to all christians here.

[BillE]

30. Boy, I need some sleep

I read the original again and my last response was even worse off context, and I should be thoroughly flamed.

Ok, on topic: I can't really see where the Democrats are dissing the Christians, from my view, it seems the opposite.

[BillE]

31. Introduction (belated)

I have been lurking here a long time. I was first drawn here when I did a search for election fraud and been coming here ever since. I am a progressive democrat and an atheist. I feel that this administration is turning our country into a fascist state with a theological mix.

On topic: Looking at the questions and the tone of the questions, it could be possible that the questions themselves could be taken as an attack on Democratic Christians. I am sure that is not the intention. Strong Christians are seen generally as republicans and some that choose to be democrat are probably viewed with suspicion by some progressive democrats. Many strong christians feel they must spread the word and I think this is where the problem begins. Since many progressives are not as religious or don't want to be bothered by religion (this would include agnostics and atheists). Now, imagine a sceneo when a democratic christian tries to bring god or Jesus to a fellow democrat who is generally not religious. I may be going out on a limb here, but a strong christian will feel persecuted if they can't preach or pray (out loud) in their political meetings.

My earlier comment was meant for Politicians themselves toward christians which is generally very favorable.

edited for seemly conflict with earlier statement.

[trotsky]

32. Heya BillE

Actually I read your first post as being simply tongue-in-cheek so don't worry about it!

And you are correct, I am not intending to "attack" anyone but simply give a perspective on what it means to be shut out or driven out of a party or group. When liberal Christians complain about not being welcome in the Democratic Party, I think what makes a lot of atheists and freethinkers frustrated is the fact that they have no idea what the other side of the coin is like.

[MemphisTiger]

34. I'm a Christian and DON'T feel we're under attack

by the democrats, I DO believe our religion is being hijacked by the right for political gain, without much in return.

[trotsky]

35. Thanks for your comments, MT.

I agree with you 100%. I just get the feeling that many Christians on DU view atheistic liberals as a bigger threat to them than Christian conservatives.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Az]

39. Secular: It means neutral to religion

Our government is a secular one. That is due to the establishment clause in the first ammendment the govenment cannot take a position on any particular religion.

There is no preclusion of students praying while in school. What is not allowed is the government instructing the students to appeal to a diety of any sort. The pledge has a clear reference to god and as such violates the seperation clause.

Science in school teaches science. Science is not an atheistic teaching. Intelligent design is not an accepted theory regarding the development of life. As such it does not belong in a classroom where science is being taught. It may be applicable in a comparitive religion course. But only where it recieves equal representation with other creation myths.

The public square is the people's square. We can go one of two ways. We can allow all beliefs to be represented or we can keep it neutral. You will actually find the Christians to be the road block on the first one. They seem to object to Scientologists, Pagans, Satanists, and other groups representing their beliefs in the public square. Since common ground cannot be found here the neurtal path must be taken. It is as much our square as it is yours.

I well understand that the Under God issue is a losing one. It is politically expedient to dump the atheists and side with the religious right on this one. We would likely take one in the face for supporting it. But you know what? Its the right thing to do. It takes a spine to stand up for the right thing in the face of oppression. It takes leadership. And that is what is missing from the Democratic party right now. Spines and Leaders. Maybe if people start seeing Democrats standing up for things they are supposed to stand for they might start voting for them again.

Consider how things would be if atheists really wanted their positions pushed on the public as the religious right wants theirs. The pledge would not simply be minus the Under God phrase. Our way would replace it with Under No Gods. Our idea of science would be to directly state there is no god involved. And our public square would directly state there is no god. But as this is a secular nation we cannot have our way. We must join with the believers in a compromise and keep the government out of our religious disagreements.

[heidler1]

46. I agree, but I also agree with efforts to remove the under God from the

pledge. I do not want this effort to jeopardies the chance for Democratic candidates to win in elections. This is a tough balancing act and hopefully here on DU we won't blow it.

Bush's wrapping himself in Religion and starting a Religious war soaked in oil has I believe caused Atheists to get fired up and active. They were probably some of the first to doubt the Bush agenda and now feel pretty superior about seeing through the BS early on when over 70% did not and this must of included a lot of Democrats. At least I know that I was in that minority and never doubted that I was right. The fact that Bush could con so many into following him was and is scary, but like McCarthyism it looks like we will survive this.

In order to recover we must welcome back those who were deceived. Hopefully those who were deceived will accept some contempt and those of us who saw through it from the get go will be forgiving.
We must remember that politicians who wrap themselves in religion can be very dangerous. This is why the time does appear right to attack the under god in the pledge, but lets keep it civil and push the point of why the separation of church and state has again proved to be a good idea like our founding fathers knew from reading history.

[trotsky]

49. The crazy thing is,

removing "under god" and "in god we trust" actually HELPS Christians in the long run! What if Islam becomes the majority faith in this country - and if it's OK to have the majority religious faith put slogans on currency and in pledges, we'll all have to say "under allah"!

But it's not about the long run, it's always here and now - "Every head shall bow, every knee shall bend" - and that unquenchable thirst for the power of government to force their religion on everyone else.

JEEBUS, SAVE ME FROM YOUR FOLLOWERS!

[trotsky]

40. Establishing atheism as a "state religion" would mean

* That instead of saying "under god" in the pledge, we would want to say "under NO god".
* Evolution classes would start with explicitly saying "There is no god, and that is why evolution is true." They don't, and no one defending the teaching of good science from attacks by religion says that they should. Only religionists confuse the two.
* Replacing the "mention of anything divine" with explicit sentiments as to there being no gods.

Of course, none of that is happening. You confuse your inability to force your religion on others using government resources with persecution. Funny thing is, you wouldn't be in the position you are right now if it hadn't been for strict separation of church and state - in all likelihood, someone else's version of Christianity would be law and you wouldn't have a say in it.

And if you think atheists are a bigger threat to Democrats and Democratic value than religious Republicans are, then I suggest that you find another website.

[trotsky]

41. You know, this post made me really mad. I need to respond again.

What political impact did supporting the rights of homosexuals have in the last election? Should we tell our gay and lesbian friends to take a hike? It can be argued that we barely stood up for their rights at all - taking the wishy-washy stance of "leave it up to the states".

Our support of civil rights in the 60s sure did hurt us in the South - looking back, would you say that it was the WRONG thing to do, to stand up for the rights of all races?

You, who are in the religious MAJORITY in this country, who get your way on nearly everything, and on top of that have the raw nerve to demand that you get even MORE, disgust me.

If you're looking for a party that hates atheists, wants more God in the schools and in the public square, wants Christian holidays to be sacred and nothing else, well guess what - that party is NOT represented by Democratic Underground.

[Az]

43. It is the tactic the neocons and the religious right have been using

Our freesociety is difficult to maintain. Due to a diverse society trying to come together under one roof a new way had to be developed of determining morallity. This gave rise to the ideas behind Post Modernism.

Post Modernism keeps a diverse group together by establishing that no one group or position has the right to determine another groups morality. In order to determine right and wrong within the society each group has to make their arguments in neutral terms. Not able to rely on their particular beliefs for a moral authority. Instead they must make their case in a way that can be understood by others.

But over time the religious institutions rebelled at this structure. They chaifed at having to give up what they had had for centuries. Moral authority. Post Modernism denied them that authority.

But they learned. They found that they could use the tools of Post Modernism to regain their place. By twisting the issues so they appear to be the underdogs they are able to make a case that their beliefs are being oppressed.

But its simply not true. Tolerance of different beliefs does not mean allowing their intolerance to purvaid the society.

[Modem Butterfly]

42. What the fuck?

For example, prohibiting the speaking of the words "under God" in a public school (thanks to my erstwhile classmate Michael Newdow) is, in my opinion, an establishment of the Atheist religion, and an interference with the free exercise of all theistic religions.

At least someone admits it is religious.

Theists who want to practice their religion by inserting the words "under god" in the POA should be free to do so on their own free time. Mandating that everyone do the same on school time inserts religion into the pbuli schools.

This is being accomplished, at the insistence of Atheists, by outlawing any mention of alternate scientific points of view, such as Intelligent Design, in science classes.

This is stunningly stupid. There are no alternate scientific points of view: Intelligent Design, Atlas, and the giant magic turtle are not science, but are in fact religion.

Christmas and Easter have been thoroughly securalized. The only major Christian holiday that has not been corrupted is Good Friday -- but I'm sure Atheists are working on it.

:nopity:

If people aren't celebrating Xmas and Easter in the manner you wish, how is that the fault of people who don't celebrate them at all?

What political impact do you suppose the outlawing of "under God" will have during the next election? Good, or bad for Democratic candidates?

There is no danger of the words "Under god" being outlawed. Rather, there is a court case that may ultimately find that those words violate the 1st Amendment.

[Zenlitened]

44. Oh, man... where to start?

"Christian conservatives are not trying to have Christianity adopted as a state religion."

Really? Have you picked up a newspaper recently?

"...prohibiting the speaking of the words "under God" in a public school..

No, what's prohibited is teachers and school officials, as agents of the state, taking positions on pushing the god-meme. Like, with a little pledge modified for just that purpose.

"... I certainly wasn't forced to say any such thing."

It doesn't require holding a gun to someone. Children are vulnerable to being coerced.

{i}"... outlawing any mention of alternate scientific points of view, such as Intelligent Design..."

You're not still clinging to the idea that ID is science, are you? :eyes:

"... Christmas and Easter have been thoroughly securalized.

As the result of an atheist campaign of some sort? No, by the forces of the marketplace in a pluralistic society.

Oy.

Your reasoning really is weak, around this entire topic. Frankly, I wish atheists had one-tenth the power and influence you ascribe to us. The world would be a better place.

[arwalden]

45. Oh Brother. Do You Know The Definition Of "Atheism"?

:eyes:

<< I, of course, do not believe that public school students should be forced to say "under God," but I don't know of any instances of that happening. When I was a schoolchild in the South in the 1960's, I certainly wasn't forced to say any such thing. >>

Also a "schoolchild in the South in the 1960's"... I *was* indoctrinated this way in the public school system.

<< This is being accomplished, at the insistence of Atheists, by outlawing any mention of alternate scientific points of view, such as Intelligent Design, in science classes. >>

Heh heh. You really think that "ID" is scientific??

:spray:



<... but I'm sure Atheists are working on it. >>



Christians are such victims, aren't they?

[salvorhardin]

47. BUUULLLLL SHIT!

The others have made all the points I would have. Bull shit is the only thing left unsaid.

[onager]

48. Wow! Nice collection of right-wing talking points!

I thought I must be at Free Republic, for a second there.

BTW, those of us working hard here at the EAC (Evil Atheist Conspiracy) just don't have much interest in corrupting Good Friday.

Sorry to disappoint you. But the problem seems to be: frankly, most of your fellow Xians don't think Good Friday is that big of a deal. Somehow, Easter and Zombie Jesus rising from the tomb just never caught on like that whole Santa-and-gifts holiday thing.

Then there's the big problem of explaining why nailing some guy to a cross makes it a "good" Friday. Our latest EAC polls show a lot of confusion on that issue, so you guys may want to work on it.

Maybe you could change it to "Pre-Easter Friday," which at least uses terminlogy more familiar to the average American sports fan.

[Modem Butterfly]

51. Heh. Zombie Christ.

:evilgrin:

[SidDithers]

57. Scientific Fundamentalists of the Evil Athiest Conspiracy Unite!

Together we can take over and rule an incredibly small and isolated part of the World!

Sid

[BiggJawn]

50. I think we need a new "Godwin's Law"

That states "When a Supernatural opinion, such as 'Intelligent Design' is presented as a 'alternate scientific POV' or is mentioned in a scientific discussion, then the thread is OVER. And the person guilty of trying to present said Supernatural as Science, owes everyone an apology."

Y'know, I could GIVE A SHIT about your "Good Friday", but you're right. It *IS* a "major Christian holiday" because "Christmas" was ripped-off from the Saturnalia, and "Easter" used to be "Oester", a FERTILITY celebration, NOT a "resurection" rememberence. Perhaps there was a pagan holiday 3 days before Easter, but I don't have my "Book of Days" handy, so i can't tell you.

"Christmas and Easter have been thoroughly securalized."
Hey, you ain't laying THAT on us Atheists. Go blame Messrs. Woolworth, Macy, Sears, and J. C. Penny.

You poor, persecuted 80% MAJORITY in America Christians only want to tell PART of the story. when the fact is that the STATE, through agency of the Public School, is prohibited from promoting ANY religion, you TWIST that into "Nobody is allowed to whisper GAWD's name in school"...

That is an intellectually DISHONEST argument, and YOU, Sir, are an intellectually dishonest person for bringing it to this forum.

I'd say "you ought to be ashamed", but it's my experience that "christians" like you HAVE no shame, as long as the end justifies the means in your little Dominionist enclave.

[SidDithers]

55. Wow...

Just...wow.

Others have actually taken the time to respond to your post, I won't repeat what they have written. It must take an enormous effort to be part of the group that controls the White House, the Congress and the Supreme Court, and yet still believes that those few of us that are athiests are persecuting you for your beliefs.

That's just cookoobananas, man.

Sid

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[trotsky]

53. Provide proof that those individuals are atheists.

Or apologize.

I think you suffer from a bad case of projection.

[Old Mouse]

56. do the logical proof yourself n/t

[trotsky]

59. Oh that's easy - for "Christian" standards.

Person A says they are a Christian.
Person A does bad things.
Only atheists do bad things.
Therefore, Person A is an atheist.

You've just given a big "fuck you" to a whole bunch of non-believing Democrats who stand for religious freedom. Hope you're happy.

[Old Mouse]

72. You have a lot to learn about logical proofs!

I have actually converted people to moral atheism. Stop being so blinded by prejudice and think again.

[trotsky]

78. Which was exactly my point in illustrating YOUR proof.

Obviously, someone can't be a mean, shrewd, greedy SOB and still be a Christian - according to you.

[Old Mouse]

82. no you didn't

you pulled a cheap semantic trick attempting to change the point of contention.

[trotsky]

83. And you throw personal jabs

instead of answering any questions.

And there we are. You are truly enlightening me with your superior behavior.

[Modem Butterfly]

60. If you aren't even willing to back up an argument you make...

...why should anyone take you seriously?

[Modem Butterfly]

54. Translation: YOU'RE the one with the problem

Here's some news for you:

Gosh, I think that would be news to Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, George Bush and almost the entire Republican congress (not to mention everyone else in the world).

I think you suffer from oppression envy, a lack of empathy and a prejudicial use of religious study.

That's a mighty big blind spot you have there...

[Az]

58. No true Scotsman

Its a classic falacy. Because an individual does not fit the mold of behaviour you claim defines a particular category you proclaim them not a true member. Thus because Pat Robertson seems to be evil to the core to us you proclaim him not a Christian(in fact you go further).

But the thing is he has millions of viewers that believe he is a Christian. In fact they base their beliefs on the ideas he promotes. They send him money by the buckets. Despite their poverty. And yes he turns some of that to greed, but a great deal of it goes to power. Power that is exerted on our government. Power that is stripping our rights in the name of his god.

Sorry, but Pat Robertson is a theist. Jerry Falwell is a theist. George Bush is a theist. And the bulk of the republican party is theist.

History is full of theists behaving badly (as well as atheists). Its because they are human. They have the capacity to get society wrong. They can become twisted and turn their beliefs to evil. Despite their belief that they are acting in the name of love.

The trouble is that its not just four million evangelicals. Its four million active evangelicals combined with millions of right leaning nonevangelical Christians, bolstered (and this is the most important bit) by even more silent Christians that are letting their faith be defined by these noisy and active rabble.

Where is the liberal Pat Robertson? Where is the voice of left leaning Christians? If you do not want your faith to be defined by these hooligans then stand up and speak up for it. Shout them down. There are only four million of them. Why do we continue to hear only them?

[Old Mouse]

67. well put, but I disagree

they are no more Christian then the "help Katrina" web sites originating from Russia are Cajun.

Your prejudices toward the religions blind you to the simple facts of human greed. Christianity was simply the mose expedient route for these folks. If hermetic Judaism would have made more profit, they would have chosen that.

And don't blame people for inactive dissociation. That is an imaginary crime.. forcing people to prove a faith innocent by condemning anyone who abuses it is persecution.

[trotsky]

71. A true Christian can't be greedy?

Is it possible for a true Christian to sin?

Or are you a real live Mary Poppins, practically perfect in every way?

[Old Mouse]

76. the problem in discussing this with you

is that you fundamentally believe hypocrisy is a core value of Christianity. As such, you are only interested in activating your cerebral reward mechanism to get a neural endorphin happy-shot. Take a lesson from Az and think a bit.

Pat Robertson is a very very smart man. In order to maintain his power base he has had to study and learn not just the Bible, but most contemporary works on the subject as well, as well as contemporary religions. He knows marketing, branding, international finance and the workings of multinational incorporation. He has also helped finance genocide. If you took the time to study that which you profess to be untrue you would be able to figure out what Pat Robertson believes or doesn't believe.

[trotsky]

77. Answer my question

and put aside the judgments on my personal character for a bit, won't you?

Is it possible for a Christian to do bad things?

I will fully admit that atheists can be hypocrites, they can be murderers, they can be thieves, they can be liars. In other words, they can be humans.

Can you do the same with your religious group?

[Old Mouse]

80. MY religious group?

What sir, is that?

[trotsky]

81. Just answer my question.

That's all I ask.

[Old Mouse]

84. guess my religion

and I answer your question.

[trotsky]

85. What a fun little game.

I guess you have no answer. Thanks for playing!

[Old Mouse]

87. Here's a consolation prize

your transparent attempt to ridicule and trivialize religion posing as legitimate posts- and those of your co-conspirators - have diminished the quality of religious discussion on DU for some time. And it has nothing to do with atheism, it has to do with a presumptuous attitude, and aggressive evangelizing.
Is it not enough to practice your belief in peace? You seem to feel some sort of incessant desire to fuel your own self-worth by attacking the faith of others. This whole discussion, and others that have been popping up in clusters recently, are obvious and insulting attempts to draw people of faith into conversations just so you can attempt to logistically prove the invalidly of their religion.

[trotsky]

96. Your opinion is duly noted.

As is your total unwillingness and/or inability to defend your prejudiced and hateful statements.

If and when you decide to discuss things instead of descend into personal attacks, I'll be here. Bye now.

[Zhade]

103. So you can't - or won't - answer the question?

Would that be because you believe Christians are incapable of doing bad things?

I think Trotsky's got you pegged.

But maybe not. So, here's your chance to prove otherwise: are Christians capable of doing bad things?

[Modem Butterfly]

101. Hypocrisy is not a core Xian value

However, hypocrisy is a human trait. And, as the bumper stickers say, "Xians aren't perfect, just forgiven"

Pat Robertson is a human, fallible and capable of being mistaken. As far as I can tell, all Xians fall into this category as well. Robertson seems to sincerely believe he's an Xian, and I see no reason to doubt his word. However, he is a different sort of Xian than many others, of that there is no doubt.

[Az]

74. Jesuit vs Mainline

There was quite a bit of disagreement between the denominations. The Jesuits believed that the vow of poverty was absolute. The Vatican at the time believed that it just meant they couldn't own anything themself and instead filled the church coffers. Greed and belief side by side.

Not everyone believes the same things from the bible. This is one of the things that makes dealing with believers troublesome for nonbelievers. Its almost as if we have to run through an entire catalog of beliefs before we get the particular flavor of the person we are debating with.

Some people believe that the bible tells them they can obtain worldly goods through worshipping Jesus. Some people believe that worshipping Jesus means giving of themself to others to show the love they have. By nature each of them is going to believe they are following the correct path. And each of them calls themself a Christian.

There is no active authority in this plain of existance informing us of who is and is not a Christian. Therefore we have no basis upon which to definitively split this particular hair. If a person calls themself a Christian we have to accept their claim until we can definitively show that they do not believe in and worship an individual they believe to be Jesus.

[Old Mouse]

79. As always, well put.

But you still practice guilt by association over a civilization built on religion's back.

With all of the variants of faith there are still constant invariables. The people I used as examples, one and all, have proven without doubt they do not believe in any variation of Christian faith. The history of misusing Christianity (the Children's Crusade) is as old as the religion's history of misusing others.

I am certain the gentlemen I spoke of are not Muslim, or Jewish, so I assume them to be without faith, ie: atheist.

[Az]

88. The problem is still there is no original template

There is nothing to clearly define what is or is not Christianity. Without even addressing the accuracy of the bible the fact that it is such a large and often convoluted work means that there can be a huge range of positions taken from it.

Couple that with the fact that being a good Christian (ie getting it right) is not the criteria by which one identifies a Christian. A person can believe in God and the divinity of Jesus and believe that their salvation is dependent on them and still be a greedy SOB.

An individual such as Pat Robertson is also more than just one person. He is the front of a corporation. There is a small army behind him creating his image and feeding him topics to focus on. This creates an entirely different bubble of existance than most of us experience.

In science there are many scientists that maintain belief in god and a host of religious tenents that are often at odds with their profession. And yet they are able to maintain both paths. This is because the mind compartmentlizes such diverse ways of thinking.

Pat Robertson may simply be an example of this sort of thinking. He maintains a belief in God and Jesus but also fullfills his roll of head of a poliltical/corporate entity. Thus his actions are defined by the roll he is fullfilling at the time. Sometimes the conflicts in these rolls can make him utter platitudes which are the antithesis of his beliefs.

[catbert836]

75. Great post.

Too often, we get just the fact that theists/athiests have been behaving badly throughout the years. I'm glad to hear someone else say that it's both.
Peace

[opiate69]

99. LOL.. Love the Scotsman fallacy

[beam me up scottie]

61. No, those good christians belong to YOUR club, not ours.

You don't get to throw them back because they're not nice.

You all use your god to try to prove that you are morally superior to the evil atheists and other non-christians.

One more time:

They ARE christian.

They ARE representative of your religion.

And neither they, nor YOU are better than anyone else just because you put "christian" before "ity" when describing yourself.

It's no different than the changing the word "insane" to "insanity"

or

"stupid" to "stupidity"

or

"bestial" to "bestiality"

See how that works?

[Old Mouse]

65. sorry

you mistake what you assume

[onager]

90. Well, we can let your "atheists" speak for themselves...

These are all fairly well-known quotes, available all over the Internets. If the lack of links bothers you, too bad. Do your own homework:

Pat Robertson:

"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'"--"The New World Order," page 218

"The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society. And that's what's been happening."--700 Club, Dec. 30, 1981

Oh, now this next one sounds just like DU these days!!!

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."--1993 interview with Molly Ivins

Jerry Falwell:

"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being."

"The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country."

"There is no separation of church and state. Modern U.S. Supreme Courts have raped the Constitution and raped the Christian faith and raped the churches by misinterpreting what the Founders had in mind in the First Amendment to the Constitution."

"The ACLU is to Christians what the American Nazi party is to Jews."

"I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!"

[Old Mouse]

91. you should not join a conversation at its end

Robertson's claims of piety have no relevance to what is being discussed. Please follow Az's example of temperate on-topic discourse.

[beam me up scottie]

93. Please stop expecting us to follow your favorite atheist's lead.

We are not docile, we are not shutting up and we will not try to "reason" with religious bigots who think they are morally superior to atheists.

There's no point.

Just ask fred phelps to have a reasonable discussion about how he feels about gays sometime and you'll see how we feel.

Oh, that's right...freddy is yet ANOTHER christian following the bible JUST LIKE YOU DO.

Small world, eh?

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[beam me up scottie]

98. How?

I'm not the one who believes that vile xtians are actually atheists because they couldn't POSSIBLY be believers in christ and be bad people too.

That would be YOU.

I would be the one who correctly asserts that xtians are no better than any other people.

And that is that bigoted HOW?


And since you never answered Trotsky, I'll take your non answer to mean you do not believe xtians can sin.

[onager]

94. I've read the entire thread.

Robertson's claims have everything to do with what is being discussed, as do your fairly incredible claims of his atheism.

And I'll follow my own inclinations for the "discourse," thank you very much.

But I do appreciate the smarmy condescension. That always helps.

on edit:

Just as a reminder of what you said upthread:

Here's some news for you:
Pat Robertson is an atheist
Jerry Falwell is an atheist
George Bush is an atheist (or a satanist, I'm not sure which)
almost the entire Republican congress are atheist by action.

[beam me up scottie]

95. "atheist by action" ?

"moral atheism" ?

Sounds like somebody's been listening to Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell and the other christians who invent and use terms like those.

Short course on Rushology, maybe?