Where is the enemy, and what do all of us affirm?

[Thats my opinion]

Come on, people. My guess is most if not all of us believe in the same values and similarly define the opponents of reason, good will, peace, justice and truth. So why all of this bickering and trying to put each other down?

Concerning our national and world crisis don't we all believe in:

The rights of GLBT people;
The cause of economic and political justice;
The cause of working people;
The diminution of poverty;
The ending of our current wars;
The solution to the current recession;
The need for people of good will to act, not just talk about dealing with the major problems;
The separation of church and state and the confrontation of both religious and non-religious bigots;
The solving of the world's hunger problems;

and a dozen other serious matters?

I suggest that those of us seriously concerned enough about religion and theology to pay attention to this forum, and how these disciplines relate to the above problems, rally our joint efforts to attack the real enemies instead of trying to make points against each other or searching out nasty stories to prove a point.

[HopeHoops]

1. The politicians who invoke "God" and "Jesus" the most are the ones furthest away from those goals.

Their "god and jesus" are cash and checks.

[trotsky]

2. Why yes of course we all believe in that.

However you are in the R/T forum, where the topics are generally about religion, theology, and related matters.

That's how these discussion forums work, you see. There are ones devoted to specific topics, and then ones that are more of a catch-all like General Discussion.

This forum is, however, what YOU help make it. Your topics in the past have been less about addressing issues and more about bashing atheists and some of their contributions in the forum. You get what you give, dontchathink?

[Thats my opinion]

6. This website is the DEMOCRATIC underground.

It is not just a general selection of topics without an underlying motif. Many of us believe that religion and theology have a direct bearing on the things Democrats are concerned about. Both religious and non-religious people who hold to democratic goals find their perspective deeply intertwined with what is going on in the rest of the world. Many in this forum have made points as to how some forms of religion negatively affect GLBT people. Do you suggest that this is out of place and that if someone wants to address GLBT issues they do it elsewhere?

I believe that what we affirm or even what we disavow religiously has serious social implications, Many of us are spending our lives focused on the interconnection between questions of value (the essence of religion) and the dynamics of society. It is important to separate church and state. It is impossible to separate religiously derived values from pubic policy. I call to witness Martin Luther King Jr. and the whole of the civil rights movement. When religion has nothing to do with what goes on in the world it is effete and useless. When its involved itself in the sorts to values I listed in the my posting, it can be part of the answer--but only part. it seems to me that all of the forums in DU somehow need to have a relationship to the essential values of the Democratic party.

[trotsky]

8. Yep, it sure is.

It's not the CHRISTIAN Democratic Underground.

"Many of us believe that religion and theology have a direct bearing on the things Democrats are concerned about."

Many of us don't, and in fact see religion playing a larger role in propping up the things we Democrats are AGAINST. In particular the attitudes against women, homosexuals, and nonbelievers. Some of us think that we Democrats should be able to justify our policies WITHOUT appealing to religious beliefs. We don't like it when the right wing does this; in fact, we find it divisive and counter-productive. Why should we have a different set of standards for ourselves?

[Thats my opinion]

10. What seems obvious

is that there are a handful of those who have dominated this forum for some time who only want to use it to bash religion. You have that right, so go ahead. But there are increasingly others who are showing up, and who will show up, who have a very much broader agenda. You have no right to say they shouldn't be here. As I look to the future I see the need of cooperation from a variety of perspectives, to provide serious ethical underpinning to dealing with injustice, war, bigotry, etc. Fundamentalist religionists are on the other side, as you well point out. But the stronger voices emerging see how ethical values which may flow from both religious and non-religious perspectives are important in addressing societal issues.

[trotsky]

11. You do a lot of accusing and attacking.

And complaining that everyone doesn't respect your particular religion enough. You accuse me of saying certain posts don't have "a right" to be here, yet that is exactly what you are saying to anyone who holds a less-than-admiring opinion of religion. You dodged my points and instead attacked me.

No wonder you simply cannot get the dialog you claim to desire.

[Thats my opinion]

13. this is what I said and believe

That those who not only hold a "less than admiring opinion of religion" have every right to be here and should do what their consciences suggest. No one has the right to say that others with a different perspective ought to go elsewhere. Didn't somebody tell me to take my commitment to the relationship between values and Democratic principles somewhere else?

And why should I attack you? Do what you need to do and let me do what I need go do. Maybe we ought to pursue our separate agenda without attacking each other. The issues that face our nation are too important to spend time haggling.

[trotsky]

29. I don't know why you attack me.

That's mystified me since the moment you graced DU with your presence. I assumed it was because I had the temerity to disagree with you on a topic you posted, instead of fawning over your beautiful religious opinion.

Didn't somebody tell me to take my commitment to the relationship between values and Democratic principles somewhere else?

Nope, no one did. What people DID tell you is that if you don't like to hear from people who have a contrary opinion on something, you should post in one of DU's many Groups, where people who are more like-minded on an issue (like the alleged importance of your brand of Christianity to Democratic politics) congregate. I don't know why you feel the need to exaggerate and insult others when you claim to be the tolerant one.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. There's so many callout in your post it isn't even funny. And call-outs are against the rules.

But hey, maybe the rules don't apply for you.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x597884#597978

[rrneck]

9. An interesting turn of phrase.

It is impossible to separate religiously derived values from pubic policy.

For you maybe, since you have a vested interest in attaching your ideological product to every aspect of our culture, including government, that you can. That puts you in some pretty questionable company.

It's the same old bullshit: Claim religion is the source of human values and sell them back to people at a profit. And when they threaten to take their business elsewhere use the power of government, since it depends in those inseperable values, to make them guest of honor at a barbque.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

30. That's it in a nutshell. -nt

[dmallind]

3. Sure - but I can multitask, and this IS R/T after all. nt

[Deep13]

4. 1. Who's bickering? I thought we were just talking.

I guess an argument in the academic sense of the word can be pretty pointed and still be just a discussion. Apparently, it becomes "bickering" when someone doesn't like the conversation.

2. What exactly do you mean by "religious and non-religious bigots?"

3. And what do you mean by "all of us affirm?"

4. And you do realize, do you not, that this is the R&T forum which exists for purpose of discussing religion and theology. Personally, I think a call to rally the troops belongs more properly in GD or the activism forum (if DU still has one of those).

[Thats my opinion]

7. I'll try to answer

1-I think we all know what bickering is. It is taking shots at somebody without trying to hear what they have said and simply making debaters' points.

2-There are religious bigots and plenty of them. And there are non-religious bigots whose prejudices are crystal clear. When those in either camp claim that their side is pure and only the other side bigoted, the point is proved.

3- I assume what I listed is what we all affirm, and that is why we are in the DEMOCRATIC underground.

4-See my longer answer above.

[Deep13]

15. Prejudices are just that, pre judgment.

Suppose someone is convinced you are wrong after knowing the facts. Based on what you have written in the past, I think you call it prejudice whenever someone disagrees with your religious view regardless of its factual basis. And if insisting that a religious proposition is factually wrong based on actual evidence is bigotry, then the belief in the veracity of ones own religion and the implicit rejection of all the others based on nothing more than conditioning as a child (there's a reason why certain religions occur in specific geographic areas, after all) is far more bigoted. Do not confuse informed disagreement with bigotry. Frankly, throwing that term around is a violation of the Ninth Commandment (or is that one of those outdated parts of the Bible you no longer follow?) I'm happy to discuss these matters based on actual facts, but I am not willing to consider ideas for which there is no good reason to accept. And the thing about the basic facts of nature is that they are always the same. So if the arguments sound repetitious, then that's why. Pulling out the bigot card because you lost the argument is a resort to childish name calling. So far--be it here or any place else where I have talked about religion--I have not heard any religious argument that could not have been made (and usually was made) a thousand years ago. So excuse me if I am unimpressed by repackaging the same arguments. That's why I often don't listen--I've already heard it.

Anyway, I believe what FDR asserted. To the degree that there is a benchmark for American liberalism or progress thinking, he's it. Of course, we have since made progress--and back-sliding, obviously--beyond what he accomplished. That includes freedom of religion. I sure don't walk into someone's religious house and start telling everyone that he or she is wrong. Similarly, I stay out of the DU forums reserved for liberal believers. This isn't one of those forums. And as a practical matter, in the voting booth I would much rather have a liberal Christian, Jew, Muslim etc. than a Randian atheist (not that there are too many candidates of any political persuasion who openly admit to being atheists.) I have and will again vote for religious people who agree with me (or are at least better than the other guy) on public policy matters. Art. VI of the Constitution says that there shall be no religious test for public office and I take that seriously.

[LeftishBrit]

5. I basically agree. The Right are happy enough to exploit divisions. We need to fight them in unity.

'I suggest that those of us seriously concerned enough about religion and theology to pay attention to this forum, and how these disciplines relate to the above problems, rally our joint efforts to attack the real enemies instead of trying to make points against each other or searching out nasty stories to prove a point.'

Agreed again.

Certainly, there are some atheists who end up bigoted against *all* religious people because of the religious right. (I would say that Pat Robertson has turned far more people against Christianity than Richard Dawkins has; and that of the two Hitchens brothers, Peter has engendered more anti-Christian sentiment in British atheists than has Christopher.) However, it's not all in one direction. There are some people, even some on DU, who consider that atheists and secularists are a danger to society and responsible for many social evils; that atheism is all about ridiculing believers; that outspoken atheism leads to totalitarianism; and (one poster, not on a very recent thread) that we're going to hell.

[okasha]

12. Historically, throughout the Americas,

religion and efforts toward social justice have gone hand in hand.

Native American religion, for example, is at the heart of both the Native rights movement and the many legal efforts currently in hand by Native groups to protect the environment and its human and non-human inhabitants.

Mexico's Father Hidlago raised the banner of Guadalupe against Spanish oppression. Oscar Romero died at his altar for his opposition to the Salvadoran death squads. Jean Donovan and the three nuns who accompanied her were brutally raped and murdered for the same cause. Nuns and priests have been murdered for defending indiginous people's rights in the Amazon rain forest.

Most of the leaders of the American Civil Rights movment were ordained ministers: MLK, Jesse Jackson, members of the SCLC, rabbis, priests. Later they became involved in efforts to stop the war in Vietnam, along with such figures as the Berrigan brothers. Catholic churches offered sanctuary to Latin American refugees at the time of "las matanzas," the civil wars in Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua.

The American Episcopal Church has basically told His Grace of Canterbury to go fly a kite in re: the ordination of women and LGBT persons to the episcopate and priesthood. Other mainline denominations are already there or closely following. Father Mychal Judge, a gay Franciscan, was the first responder to die on 9/11. It may take the Vatican awhile to catch up, but in some denominations and in the popular mind he's already a saint.

There's a whole lot more examples where those came from, but the idea that religious values don't contribute to social justice is simply mistaken.

[Thats my opinion]

14. You are right

And beyond that you just said, there are hundreds of other examples. Indeed America would not be great without this input into our history.

[rrneck]

32. One of the first rules of successful marketing any product:

It doesn't matter who actually invented it, only who is most successful at popularizing it.

[skepticscott]

17. Religion and "religious values"

have opposed the causes of social justice with equal fervency, starting with some of the earliest colonization, through slavery and women's rights, to name a few. You know this, right? Or do you need to have all those examples laid out for you before you'll present an honest and balanced argument?

[okasha]

18. You're aware, I hope, that it's 2011?

Yes, there were terrible abuses. All but the fundamentalist attack on women's rights occurred at least a century and a half ago.

Society changes. Understandings of faith change. Unless you still believe that maggots are spontaneously generated from rotten meat, or that the sun orbits the earth, you should understand that process of change.

[darkstar3]

19. The year where atheists and homosexuals are villified daily on hateful Christian radio?

Yes, I'm quite aware. Are you aware that "abuses" continue en masse to this day, and that your "respect my faith because it's my faith and for no other reason" attitude isn't helping either one of us?

[okasha]

22. I'm aware that abuses stem from a number of sources, not all.

of them religious--the Cato Institute, for example. I'll have to take your word about Christian radio; I don't listen to it.

It's also the year when, for the first time, a majority of Americans supports equal marriage. A Black man has been President of the United States for two and a half years. A woman is the Presiding Bishop (American equivalent to Archbishop)of the Episcopal Church in the United States, and there are now two openly gay, partnered Episcopal bishops. It's not a perfect world yet, but it's distinctly improving.

I've never said that anyone should "respect my faith because its my faith and for no other reason." I invite you to find any such quote and produce it.

[darkstar3]

23. Improving in direct opposition to faith-based initiatives trying to take us the other way.

And you and I have had many a conversation on respect, with you always falling on the side of "my faith deserves it."

[okasha]

24. Produce the quote or belt up.

Improving in part because of faith-based liberal action.

It occurs to me that you don't even know what my faith is.

[darkstar3]

25. Belt yourself, and then take a look at the sheer volume of faith-based action

and tell me honestly if you think "liberal" can be used to describe even close to half of it, because I gotta tell you, I've seen a lot of faith-based action, and not even a tenth of it could fall under that category.

[okasha]

31. Still can't produce the quote, I take it. Typical.

Possibly the problem is your perspective. I believe you once claimed to know "thousands" of Christians--a thread about a job you did for a Christian client who preached at you, if I recall correctly--of whom perhaps two were not raving fundies. I'd call that confirmation bias, besides unlikely.

[darkstar3]

33. The reason you keep digging for that quote when it was clearly a summation of your talking points

is because you somehow feel that if you can shift the focus of this discussion to the idea that I am somehow being dishonest, you can then invalidate the points I've made. That's why you refuse to acknowledge the point I made above about the sheer number of faith-based initiatives, and why you refuse to acknowledge the number of conversations we've had regarding the concept of automatic respect for religion.

Tough shit.

[okasha]

34. Okay--then demonstrate that it's a summation of my "talking points."

I've never advocated "automatic respect for religion," and your suggestion to the contrary is pure fiction.

[skepticscott]

20. It was you who raised the issue

of the long history of religious contribution to social justice, not me. Do you honestly think that there aren't consequences of religion's attacks on social justice right up until the present day, regardless of how long ago they occurred?

And "Understandings of faith change"? WTF does that mean? The abuses and corruption of religion have been brought to light more and more and its influence over people's rights and freedoms has been diminished (but not by any means eliminated) by decent people who fight against the idiocy, not because religion has reformed itself or become more sensible. Religion has never voluntarily relinquished its power over people's lives.

[Thats my opinion]

21. I certainly know that and take the same dim view that you do

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

26. Interestingly,

religion and efforts AGAINST social justice have ALSO gone hand in hand. Funny, that.

[darkstar3]

16. Channeling Gozer, I ask "Are you a {m}od?"

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

27. Now I know. And...