Not all religious people are anti-progressive idiots.

[edhopper]

But pretty much all anti-progressive idiots are religious. And the basis of their anti-progressive idiocy is their religion.
Who and why do they oppose Gay Marriage, Choice, Countering Global Climate Change, Teaching Evolution, etc...?
Do you find any atheist in the ranks of the regressive Republicans?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. A subset of one set, completely contained within it.

The most conservative believers in any religion are delusional.

In fact, there is an increased correlation between the self-reported strength of religious beliefs and the incidence of mental illness.

[xoom]

2. I have met conservatives and libertarians who do not believe in any religion.

Or a god.

[pipoman]

3. I live in a

Mennonite community, many are, in fact, very liberal. As with anyone else, there are some aspects of the party/philosophy they belong which they do not agree, but over all they are very progressive/liberal. There are many facets associated with liberalism, you named some of the most controversial (aside from environmental).

[okasha]

4. Yes, there are atheists among the extreme conservatives.

There's the Rand contingent, just for starters.

[Goblinmonger]

18. Not all Randians are atheists, but, yes, Rand was an atheist. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

5. I don't know about nonbelievers among the regressive Republicans...

I doubt that they'd admit to being atheists in those circles even if they were.

But in other countries you can get atheists/agnostics who also happen to be right-wing loonies. Norman Tebbit here; Geert Wilders in the Netherlands; no doubt others.

[okasha]

6. There's a class distinction among regressive Republicans.

The fundamentalist religious sort tends to be lower-income and middle class--the classic case of people voting and working against their own economic and social interests.

Then there's the upper class. These tend not to be fundamentalists, may belong to mainline denominations and/or the conservative intelligentsia. You find the Randians, and yes, nonbelievers, in this group.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. I know religous progressives and irreligous right wingers

Religion or deism is not a litmus test for politics

[On the Road]

8. On Some of Those Issues

I think Ayn Rand and her devotees might qualify as right-wing atheist nut jobs.

[edhopper]

9. Perhaps on some

right wing issues.
But I have not heard RW Randians arguing against Gay Marriage or Evolution.
I mean even Paul is for liberalizing Pot Laws.

[okasha]

10. One of the most insidious homophobes and anti-feminists I know

is a Randian atheist. And she's insidious precisely because she thinks she's open-minded.

[trotsky]

16. Perhaps you could have this friend elaborate as to how those beliefs come together.

And share here for a laugh.

[ZombieHorde]

22. How do you know she is not open minded? nt

[okasha]

24. Please feel free to argue

that homophobes and anti-feminists are open-minded.

[ZombieHorde]

25. If there were no open-minded homophobes and anti-feminists,

then there would be no ex-homophobes and ex-anti-feminists.

Some DUers used to be conservatives, but they were open-minded enough to examine new ideas.

[okasha]

27. I'll bet you believe in "tolerant bigots," too.

n/t

[ZombieHorde]

30. You cannot address my argument, so you address me. nt

[okasha]

32. You have no argument.

"Ex-homophobes" and "ex-misogynists" become that way--on the very rare occasions when they do--only after a mind-opening experience. Example: a friend of mine was raised conservative Catholic and was adamantly opposed to abortion. When it seemed that Roe might be voided, he saw a television program about women finding preparing to provide abortions themselves. They were planting herb patches, stashing pharmaceuticals, even learning to do D&C's. My friend has two daughters. He signed a petition to keep abortion legal the next day. He said that if either of his daughters ever needed an abortion, he wanted it done in a hospital by a trained and experienced professional, not some "amateur hour" lay person. Figuratively speaking, he got hit on the head with a brick. His mind wasn't open; it got broken open by a hard chunk of reality.

[skepticscott]

36. "Only after a mind opening experience"?

And you, of course, have talked to every ex-homophobe and ex-misogynist to verify that none of them changed their attitudes in any other way. Examples don't prove a blanket statement, but then you know that. It just gets in the way of your happy little rant.

[ZombieHorde]

37. You've described definition one of open mindedness.

o·pen-mind·ed
–adjective
1. having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments.
2. unprejudiced; unbigoted; impartial.

Your friend was open to new ideas and arguments.

:graybox:"You have no argument.":graybox:

In argumentation, an argument is a reason for an opinion.

But sometimes the reason presented is simply a restatement of the opinion; e.g., country music sucks because it is lame. Restating an opinion as a reason is not an argument. This is a fairly common mistake, so keep on eye out for it.

I have offered a reason for my opinion. You may feel my reason is inadequate, but it is still a valid argument.

[okasha]

38. My friend was open to new ideas and arguments

after being presented with a metaphorical clout on the head. Before that, he was not. Ergo--someone who maintains a prejudice is not open-minded.

[ZombieHorde]

39. What you call "a metaphorical clout on the head" I call being open to new evidence.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[trotsky]

42. I agree with you.

A closed-minded individual in that situation would have said, "Well, good, the more dangerous it is for them to get an abortion, the less likely they will choose that option."

[ZombieHorde]

45. Exactly. nt

[LiberalAndProud]

83. How is that framed in her thinking?

I understand homophobia and misogyny in the context of "God said it's wrong, so it's wrong," and "God punished Eve, so this is the way we are condemned to live." With that framing, there can be no argument as long as one (A) believes in God, and (B) believes that the Bible infallibly reports the nature of God.

I would like to understand how one can have the mindset of an atheist and defend these positions. I suspect that the Randian component has a great deal to do with it, because it seems to me that philosophy requires an amoral mindset at the outset. But I don't understand the underlying thought process where one can arrive at a homophobic, misogynist worldview without God as a starting point.

[Thats my opinion]

11. You bet

All the political Republicans operatives who are followers of Any Rand.

[SarahM32]

12. Religious people are divided, as "Sheep" and "Goats," as Jesus said they would be.

Jesus of Nazareth said that when the son of man comes to deliver judgment to the world at the end of the age, he will distinguish between peoples according to their works, deeds and behavior, and “set” them on one side or the other, as “sheep” and “goats.”

According to Jesus (in Matthew) a modern son of man would explain that the “sheep” on one side are blessed, because they fed him when he was hungry, gave him drink when he was thirsty, took him in when he was a stranger, clothed him when he was poor, cared for him when he was sick, and visited him when he was in prison. But, on the other side he will set the “goats,” who he rebukes because they have not cared for him like that.

Both the "sheep” and the "goats" will ask the son of man, “When did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison?” And the “goats” will further ask him, “When did we not minister unto you?” Jesus said that then the son of man shall answer them all, saying: “As you have done to the least our brethren, so you have done to me.” (Matthew 25:31-46)

This is consistent with another thing Jesus said the modern son of man would do. When he exposes and rebukes the hypocrites, they will cry out to heaven, saying: “Lord, Lord, have we not cast out devils and done many wonderful works in your name?” But Jesus said the modern son of man would say, “I never knew you, depart from me, you that work iniquity.”

The above was gleaned from this article: http://messenger2.cjcmp.org/sheepvsgoats.html

[Deep13]

21. Just out of curiosity...

...by calling himself the "son of man," assuming he was referring to himself, doesn't that undermine the whole virgin birth claim?

[okasha]

28. No.

"Son of Man" is a prophetic title, not a genetic statement.

But even if one takes the virgin birth literally, Jesus would be a "son of man" through his human mother.

[Deep13]

33. Mary was not a man.

Prophetic title? Well, never mind, I don't want to hijack the thread.

[okasha]

34. "Man" as in "human." It's not a politically correct phrase.

It's been replaced in some newer translations by "child of humanity," in others by "one like a person" and in still others simply by "Man."

Re: prophetic title, in older translations, the phrase is used extensively in the book of Ezekiel, perhaps most familiarly in the episode of the valley of the dry bones, where Yahweh addresses Zeke: "Son of Man, shall these bones live?"

[Ron Goetz]

87. Wheat and Tares, too. Let God sort it out.. Jesus taught us not to judge.

Jesus urged tolerance of differences to Christians. He said wheat and tares (nearly identical to wheat) would grow together, and that we can't see into people's heart, and know how they'll grow and develop.

When I think of what a feisty fundamentalist I was for so many years, and how I have grown beyond that as an adult, it gives me insight into what Jesus taught.

In his parable, some people wanted to pull up the weeds from the wheat. He said, "No. While you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest."

(Matthew 24:24-30)

[onager]

13. Political tactics and elitism

Here's a fascinating article from Reason magazine on this subject. Back in 1997, Ronald Bailey looked into the attacks on evolution by well-educated neocons. It's full of the Usual Suspects, like Leo Strauss and the Irving Kristol clan:

Gross believes that the conservative attack on Darwin may be a case of tactical politics. Some conservative intellectuals think religious fundamentalists are "essential to the political program of the right," says Gross. As a gesture of solidarity, he says, these intellectuals are publicly embracing arguments that appear to "keep God in the picture."

Kristol agrees with this view. "There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people," he says in an interview. "There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work..."

Kristol restated this insight nearly five decades ago in an essay in Commentary dealing with Freud: "If God does not exist, and if religion is an illusion that the majority of men cannot live without...let men believe in the lies of religion since they cannot do without them, and let then a handful of sages, who know the truth and can live with it, keep it among themselves. Men are then divided into the wise and the foolish, the philosophers and the common men, and atheism becomes a guarded, esoteric doctrine--for if the illusions of religion were to be discredited, there is no telling with what madness men would be seized, with what uncontrollable anguish."

http://reason.com/archives/1997/07/01/origin-of-the-specious

[humblebum]

14. Nor are all atheists anti-religious idiots. Gee.

How astute and diplomatic of you.

[AlabamaLibrul]

15. Of course not. But it seems that those who are not anti-progressive idiots

seem more concerned with claiming those who are, are not true believers or don't understand this or that.

I, for one, have never confused the two. However I see it for what it is, that these people are often the most devoted, strictest, most direct interpreters of the very ugly parts of their religious texts, and I don't understand how one can try to disclaim parts of their chosen religious text they don't like.

[dimbear]

17. Greed is a more ancient trait than religious belief.

It goes deep. There are greedy monkeys etc. Check with your dog, if you have one.

[Deep13]

20. Well, the survival instinct is ancient...

...it is only when it becomes harmful as measured by our human standards do we call it greed. As far as civilized values go, a recent article in National Geographic explores the pre-civilized rise of religion.

[Deep13]

19. I agree with the subject line...

...but not with the conclusion that no reactionary, ultra-conservatives are atheists. First of all, we have no way of knowing the private beliefs of public officials. Second, both Randians and Stalinists are atheistic and repressive. (Yes I know, communism is supposed to be left-wing, but given it's authoritarian, oligarchical nature, it isn't.) Sadly several well-known atheist writers align with the Randian school of thought.

The real issue is not whether or not there are any progressive theists or regressive atheists, but the overall trend. A religious person is far more likely to be authoritarian and provincial in his or her thinking than a skeptic is. A liberally-minded person is far more likely to reject either the conventions and repressive rules of religion, or else to reject religion wholesale than a right-winger is.

[kwassa]

23. This is a ridiculous thesis.

Do you think that Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh are religious? Please. George Will? Most of the major Republican commentators?

Religious conservatives are a subset. That's all. They dominate the social conservative issues, but other conservatives who really don't care about these issues simply go along to get the support at the ballot box. The religious conservatives are being used, they know they are being used, but they have no place else to go.

I would point out that the victory for gay marriage in New York was a victory because Cuomo got support from rich Republican Wall Street folks with gay relatives. Read the story in today's NYTimes.

[dimbear]

26. Nailed it.

Possible add: Ronald Reagan. Unclear.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. The right-wing fundamentalists adored Reagan, but he was never known

to attend church (with the possible exception of funerals of major political figures--I don't recall any, though.) When someone asked him why, he mumbled something about not wanting to attract crowds. His actual religious practice appeared to consist of saying "God bless America" at the end of every speech.

[Critters2]

94. Yep. Couldn't even decide which denomination he was.

Sometimes claimed to be a member of the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ, the tradition in which he was raised. Sometimes claimed to be Presbyterian. Was never known to be active in either denomination as an adult.

[trotsky]

35. "Do you think that Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh are religious?"

They claim to be. Do you have proof they aren't?

[kwassa]

43. Where do they claim to be religious?

Where is evidence of their involvement in a particular church?

edit to add this bit about Karl Rove

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/interviews/slater.html

Karl was born in Denver but grew up really in Utah, in this area where almost everybody was Mormon, and he was not. He would see it almost every day in high school in a situation where students who were Mormon would go across the street for an hour of Mormon training, while the non-Mormon kids, the minority, would stay behind in study hall.

His family was not very religious. He grew up, he admits, in a nonreligious household. And even during his political career very early on, when I first met him in the middle '80s, it was clear that religion was not something that was particularly important to him. But the use of religious people, the constituencies, the advantage of putting those constituencies together for political purpose, was something that really intrigued him. Religion was something that was never important to Karl. He never really talked about it very much, I think, with people at the time. In fact, I got the clear impression that he was a person who was not religious at all.

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/interviews/slater.html#ixzz1QVTaZ2yb

[trotsky]

46. Why do you assume they aren't?

A vast majority of Americans are. What about these three makes you assume they aren't?

[kwassa]

47. Not an assumption, based on reading and observation.

Try it sometime, you might like it.

[trotsky]

48. What have you observed...

that makes you assume they are not religious?

[kwassa]

51. Their total behavior. None of them ever mention their religious beliefs,

their religious preferences.

and are not observed to attend any church on a regular basis.

Dick Cheney. What church does he go to?

[trotsky]

54. What about their behavior tells you they aren't religious?

Lots of religious people NEVER talk about their beliefs, and there are plenty who don't attend a church, so neither of those is valid.

Try again.

[kwassa]

55. oh, stuff it.

Do your own reading and your own research. I know you won't because I know how you roll.

[trotsky]

57. Yeah, I "roll" by asking for people to back up their claims.

I'm crazy like that.

[kwassa]

63. I did. You didn't. You don't.

and this goes back years.

[trotsky]

67. No, I did.

Post 59.

I eagerly await your retraction and apology for smearing me.

[trotsky]

69. Still waiting. n/t

[trotsky]

70. Still waiting. n/t

[trotsky]

72. Still waiting. n/t

[laconicsax]

92. Hey, are you still waiting? n/t

[LiberalAndProud]

84. O'Reilly and Limbaugh are on record.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzIoS9_0aA4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV1Y4sCEVtY

They may or may not truly believe, that is not mine to judge. But they use religion as a bludgeon against "secularists".

[ZombieHorde]

40. Why do you think those guys are not religious? nt

[trotsky]

41. Because they're evil right-wingers, of course.

Good people are Christians.

Bad people are just pretending to be. Only atheists are bad.

Honestly the bigotry on here just astounds me sometimes.

[ZombieHorde]

44. I did not consider your interpretation, but now that I have thought about it,

I think you're right. The poster seems to be implying the religious are good, but the non-religious are not.

[trotsky]

49. And more importantly, if anyone is bad, they MUST be non-religious.

All the more pathetic when it comes from someone who accuses others of religious bigotry. Mote, plank, eye, isn't there some saying somewhere about that?

[kwassa]

52. I never said anything of the kind.

Point to where I said it, Trotsky.

You just made that up.

[trotsky]

53. I know exactly what you said.

And it was clear as day.

[kwassa]

56. No, you don't. You have no proof, as usual.

[trotsky]

58. You won't provide anything to back up your claim.

However the context and the way you stated it couldn't make it any clearer. I do enjoy what a fine example of an upstanding, tolerant, loving Christian you are - and parading that for everyone to see.

[kwassa]

64. .

[kwassa]

65. Link it up. You invented your claim, and can't prove it.

You can't quote anything from me that proves your claim. You made it up out of thin air, of course.

You're busted, Trotsky.

I could say a few less polite things about you, and they would be true, and they would be deleted. You have a long history ...

[trotsky]

66. I went ahead and did your work for you.

Post 59.

I eagerly await your retraction and apology. Show me what a Christian can be.

[trotsky]

68. Still waiting. n/t

[trotsky]

71. Still waiting. n/t

[trotsky]

73. Still waiting. n/t

[trotsky]

74. Still waiting. n/t

Sure would be nice if you could serve as a counter-example to the stereotype of a smug, self-righteous, judgmental Christian.

[trotsky]

75. Still waiting. n/t

[laconicsax]

91. Hey, are you still waiting? n/t

[trotsky]

59. For the record,

Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh all claim to be religious.

I eagerly await your retraction and apology. Certainly a decent Christian fellow like yourself will acknowledge a mistake when one is made.

[dmallind]

61. I hear the sound of porridge being salted.......nt

[trotsky]

62. Hmm, hard for me to hear anything over the crickets. n/t

[kwassa]

77. Apology? You didn't support your position until I busted you on it.

Your three pieces of evidence?

I am not surprised they would claim to be religious, they have to do that to be politically correct in the Republican Party. I would like to evidence of involvement in a church community, I don't see that with Rove or O'Reilly at all.

Your link to Limbaugh requires me to join his site, and I am not going to do that, so I have no idea what Rush said.

Karl Rove is pretty weak, he claims to go the Episcopal Church. I don't know which one he goes to and if he actually does; overall, the church is liberal although there are conservative individual churches.

None of these guys has a religious profile.

[trotsky]

78. Busted *me*?

You were the one with the original claim. You made it plenty clear you didn't think they were religious. I asked YOU why you thought that. You hemmed, you hawed, you did your usual tap-dance, and tried to spin it back on me. I've seen this movie enough, so I called you on your bullshit.

And now that I proved you wrong, you backpedal and move the goalposts, or just refuse to go look at the evidence. Being "religious" does not require any of the conditions you are putting on it, and you know it. You damn well know it but you can't admit you were wrong - and would much rather continue to bash me personally for whatever the strange reason is you've got something against me.

Thanks for confirming the kind of Christian you are, though. That's always appreciated. Clearly one doesn't have to be a decent, respectful human being to be religious.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[laconicsax]

80. Starting with your post, #23:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x288743#288828">Do you think that Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh are religious?

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/contrary_to_persistent_rumors_karl_rove_says_i_am_a_believing_christian/">Yes. http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=29184">They http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020207/content/gws.guest.html">are.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x288743#288885">"Where do they claim to be religious?" (Your post, #43)

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/contrary_to_persistent_rumors_karl_rove_says_i_am_a_believing_christian/">Here, http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=29184">here, and http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020207/content/gws.guest.html">here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x288743#288955">"None of them ever mention their religious beliefs, their religious preferences." (Your post, #51)

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/contrary_to_persistent_rumors_karl_rove_says_i_am_a_believing_christian/">Yes, http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=29184">they http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020207/content/gws.guest.html">have.

[laconicsax]

82. One week later and still no response.

How very telling.

[trotsky]

81. "when you can't win a debate, divert it down another avenue, and claim that this is the argument"

You mean like posting a Wikipedia definition of conservatism in a thread about whether people are religious? :rofl:

You slay me, kwassa. You really do.

It is readily apparent that to you, anyone who disagrees with you politically cannot be religious. That, plain and simple, is religious bigotry. It is foul and disgusting no matter if the left wing OR the right wing is doing it. But sadly, I have come to expect it from you.

I suggest you go back to ignoring me, since I hand your ass to you every single time. Now post your attempt at a face-saving rebuttal. Change the subject again and claim I was the one who did it. But above all else, please continue to show everyone in this forum what a TRUE CHRISTIAN you are. I'm loving every minute of it!

[edhopper]

31. I must admit that

this topic is more nuanced than my OP. I was reacting to the idiots in my state (NY) who almost scuttled the Same Sex marriage Bill. All of them on religious grounds.
But obviously I was too strict in my premise.
Though "But pretty much all anti-progressive idiots are religious" may be too strong.
I would say the majority of anti-progressive idiots in this country come from the more religious end of the spectrum.

[ButterflyBlood]

50. Ayn Rand worshippers

What more needs to be said?

[Taverner]

60. I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

76. The religious around here are right-wing idiots that listen to Fox news.

They vote Tea Party, they hate "them illegal Mezzcans" which are the cause of all the job problems, they hate our Black president and refuse to speak his name because "they can't stand HIM".

It's all the problem of the minorities and "them Muslin terrorists, like the N***** President".

:puke:

[Ron Goetz]

88. Around here? Where's that? These threads, or you hometown?

[Critters2]

93. I wondered the same.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Taverner]

85. I agree with you there

And I also don't buy the "moderate theists enable the crazies" argument

HOWEVER - the crazies are doing a lot of bad things in your name.

Shouldn't you call them on it? Excommunicate them or something?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

86. I'm not a Christian. I study eastern traditions.

[Taverner]

89. Ayn Rand was an Atheist. As much as I wish she were not of our club, she was...

And she's about as anti-progressive as you can get - right down to the point of considering serial kiillers the pinnacle of morality

[Critters2]

90. I was about to post 2 words: Ayn Rand. You beat me to it. :) nt