The reason Christians are the target of anger

[Az]

We speak to what we know. Our society is not under siege by fundamentalist Buddhists. Our schools are not being infiltrated by Hindues trying to supplant science nor are Shinto prayers being foisted upon our children. Taoist teachings are not being surpeticiously placed in our Court Rooms.

Our society is being assailed by Christians. Not all Christians. But it is a very vocal number of Christian activists that are undermining our rights and our identity as a free nation.

It is unnnatural not to expect that those who resist their efforts are not going to accumulate an emotional response to these Christians. It would be preferable that everyone could make the distinction between the religious right and liberal Christians. But this is not a perfect world.

[stepnw1f]

1. It Seems There Are Those in Christian Circles That

cannot accept what you have stated. I started two polls to show both sides and how easy it is for each side to go after the other. Stay together. Don't let the righties use religion to divide us all.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. You forgot the Muslims who just want to blow us all up.

:rofl:

[jackthesprat]

3. Christians (Bush,et al) are killing in Iraq.

That ok?

[BlueEyedSon]

7. sorry, wrong smiley

:sarcasm:

[jackthesprat]

9. ok.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

6. actually, the same percentage of muslims that want that

are probably the same as the christian fundie morons who are destroying our country.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

25. That's an interesting point

I wonder if it is true? I wonder what the percentages are?

I have memorized the number 26 million for evangelicals who voted for Bush.

The rest of it..somebody hit Google, okay?

Are both religions' fundamentalists factions equivalent?

[Skittles]

4. you are correct

I get really, really tired of Christians trying to force their views on me.

[firefox]

14. My idea for a television show

It used to be common for the Christians, as witnessed by the Mormons, to knock on your door and ask if you are saved. Could you imagine a person going around to Christians doors and asking when the hell are you going to see through the falseness of it all?

Now here I will be a Christian basher for saying they are wrong. But their act of professing their religion, automatically says that I am wrong, yet my views are not being bashed.

[jonnyblitz]

35. interesting point!! i never thought of THAT before...

:thumbsup:

[EST]

40. We people seem to like to use anything at all,

or nothing at all, to demonstrate that the other fellow is, somehow, inferior.
Names, nationality. skin color, hair color, eye color, shape, size, on and on , ad nauseum, are all fodder for feeding our own superiority and sliming others.
Gook, jap, kraut, hadji, wop, all terms we've used so we can think of others as inferior and kill them without offending our vaunted morals. Mankind, bless their stinky asses, makes me sick!

[MindPilot]

5. yer right, and when we see things like the whitehouse

seeking the approval of the christian leadership for a SC nominee, or the huge support for Israel coming from the government, it can only serve to turn those of us who aren't religious into second-class (or lower) citizens.

Given the cozy relationship between Christian leaders and the Bush administration, the message to non-christians is pretty clear.

[indepat]

8. Those who profess to be Christians, yet support policies and actions anti-

thetical to all the teachings of Jesus merit the anger and enmity of everyone who despise the contemptuous sanctimonious reichous hypocrisy they hear and see everyday.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

10. As a non-fundamentalist Christian

I think you have good point. BUT I'm worried about this statement:

"It is unnnatural not to expect that those who resist their efforts are not going to accumulate an emotional response to these Christians. It would be preferable that everyone could make the distinction between the religious right and liberal Christians. But this is not a perfect world."

We have to fight against the comfort of stereotyping. Just because there are many black men in jail does not mean I should fear black men, and I know you believe that, too. We must demand that even in an imperfect world we just an individual by his or her deeds.

And the same argument can be made regarding moderate and radical Muslims.

And it is a challenge to accomplish, I agree.

[RethugAssKicker]

12. Just because ALL serial killers are white men

shouldn't mean that I live in fear of white men!!

[Dogmudgeon]

16. Sorry, 'tain't true

There have been plenty of female serial killers, and a couple who have been non-white.

Still, the white men are the overachievers.

--p!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

20. Exactly.

oh, but there was those snipers in DC And Eileen Wuernos. Oh and that guy in Atlanta with the children. Forget his name.

but you get my point.

[Az]

13. I agree

It is important to draw the differences. But you also have to realise that the battle may exasterbate some individuals rejection of dogmatic beliefs. And in exasperation they give vent to the entirety of their rejections instead of focusing on those that are an immediate threat.

As John Lennon said, "Imagine there's no heaven". We all become exasperated by the things we percieve seperating us. We would all like to see a brotherhood of man (and woman). There are many things that seem to interfere with this vision. We have to work to see if they truly do or if we can find common cause despite the differences.

[Lerkfish]

15. so....lemme get this straight...we have to be understanding of the

prejudice of others. We need to be tolerant of their stereotyping. Is that it?

[Az]

17. Not what I said

In fact I had a thread in GD about this very subject a couple days ago ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5025875 ).

Tolerance and intolerance are nuanced subjects for liberals. As ours is a moving understanding of what is just and unjust over time our tolerance and intolerance may change. Not all change at the same rate and as a result we have constant disagreement about what is tolerable or not.

[Lerkfish]

34. okay, how about this hypothetical post?

The reason Atheists are the target of anger

We speak to what we know. Our society is not under siege by fundamentalist Buddhists. Our schools are not being infiltrated by Hindues trying to supplant science nor are Shinto prayers being foisted upon our children. Taoist teachings are not being surpeticiously placed in our Court Rooms.

Our society is being assailed by Atheists. Not all Atheists. But it is a very vocal number of Atheist activists that are undermining our rights and our identity as a free nation.

It is unnnatural not to expect that those who resist their efforts are not going to accumulate an emotional response to these Atheists. It would be preferable that everyone could make the distinction between the Atheist right and liberal Atheists. But this is not a perfect world.


The reason white males are the target of anger

We speak to what we know. Our society is not under siege by fundamentalist Buddhists. Our schools are not being infiltrated by Hindues trying to supplant science nor are Shinto prayers being foisted upon our children. Taoist teachings are not being surpeticiously placed in our Court Rooms.

Our society is being assailed by white males . Not all white males . But it is a very vocal number of white males activists that are undermining our rights and our identity as a free nation.

It is unnnatural not to expect that those who resist their efforts are not going to accumulate an emotional response to these Atheists. It would be preferable that everyone could make the distinction between the white males right and liberal white males . But this is not a perfect world.


The reason Illegal Immigrants are the target of anger

We speak to what we know. Our society is not under siege by fundamentalist Buddhists. Our schools are not being infiltrated by Hindues trying to supplant science nor are Shinto prayers being foisted upon our children. Taoist teachings are not being surpeticiously placed in our Court Rooms.

Our society is being assailed by Illegal Immigrants . Not all Illegal Immigrants . But it is a very vocal number of Illegal Immigrant activists that are undermining our rights and our identity as a free nation.

It is unnnatural not to expect that those who resist their efforts are not going to accumulate an emotional response to these Illegal Immigrants. It would be preferable that everyone could make the distinction between the Illegal Immigrant right and liberal Illegal Immigrants . But this is not a perfect world.


The reason gays are the target of anger

We speak to what we know. Our society is not under siege by fundamentalist Buddhists. Our schools are not being infiltrated by Hindues trying to supplant science nor are Shinto prayers being foisted upon our children. Taoist teachings are not being surpeticiously placed in our Court Rooms.

Our society is being assailed by gays . Not all gays . But it is a very vocal number of gay activists that are undermining our rights and our identity as a free nation.

It is unnnatural not to expect that those who resist their efforts are not going to accumulate an emotional response to these gays. It would be preferable that everyone could make the distinction between the gay right and liberal gays . But this is not a perfect world.



How does each differnt permutation of your original post make you feel? Do you feel differently if you are the group being targeted? Why? Do you feel its fair to tell people who are targeted that they "asked for it?"

This thought experiment has been brought to you by the letters F, Y, and I.

[Az]

36. Lets examine each case

Atheists attacking our society? Not really the case. In fact atheists seem to be defending rights that we all benefit from. They are not attempting to foist their beliefs on society. They are simply defending the notion set down in our constitution that the government should remain out of religios entanglement.

White men a problem? This may have some merrit. There are still contingents of white men that seem to operate under the belief that women and minorities do not measure up to their position in society. Sure I am a white man and I feel it is my responsibility to be wary of overstepping my bounds. To this extent it is my responsibility to speak up to other white men that seem it is their right to abuse women and minorities.

Gays have an agenda? I suspect they do. Gays agenda seems to be demanding the rights others take for granted. Again this doesn't seem to fit the situation being compared to.

Let us be specific. There are some Christians that are determined to overwhelm our nation. They wish to rewrite our rights and set their goals as the path our nation walks. This is clearly not all Christians. There are many many Christians that oppose these actions and defend our rights along side us.

You are mistaken if you think the anger is directed at all Christians. But the trouble is that if liberal Christians do not speak up against the religious right and defend those they defame then their silence will be taken as tacit agreement and they will be seen as part of the problem.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Okay, that

was a good post.

Well said.

[bee]

50. "But the trouble is that if liberal Christians do not speak up against

the religious right" exactly. exactly. exactly. While the minority group, the fundies, continue to wreak havoc and piss people off, the majority group, the real Christians (their words), are silent and inactive. Is there a Christian group that lobbies FOR or advocates the separation of church and state? I dont believe so. And why not? Maybe it doesnt bother the real christians that much after all? Because if the real Christians do disagree with the fundies and feel that theyre ruining the reputation of their religion, then shouldnt there be some evidence in the form of public opposition?

[Maat]

52. There are a few groups getting started.

It's a tough road. Christian Alliance for Progress and the Interfaith Alliance are making an effort (tough for them to get media coverage).

[shrike]

63. How do you know we're silent?

Just because we're silent on DU doesn't mean we're silent in our lives.

I personally get tired of the religious wars on this board because, frankly, there's no pleasing some people. If you don't suscribe completely to their point of view, no matter what it, is you're in for it. So, why bother jumping in on any bash-the-fundies thread beause, no matter what you say, it it's never enough. You never say enough, acknowledge enough, say you're sorry enough, be ashamed enough. And in fairness, there are plenty of people on the other side who have the same attitude. (I haven't engaged in this type of discussion in a while, and I'm remembering why.)

There are plenty of religious people in the anti-war movement, plenty of religious people who support the separation of church and state (there's a group called Faithful America, I get regular emails from them. Martin Sheen is one of their members, they're on the right side of nearly every issue, and yes, they support the separation of church and separation).

On edit:

Here's another group I was thinking of. Found their website, and their mission statement. Non-sectarian, and the religious and non-religious. Granted, I haven't worked with them, but there they are

Since 1947, Americans United has led the way in defending the separation of church and state, the cornerstone of religious liberty in America. As a non-sectarian, non-partisan organization, AU's membership includes Christians, Jews, Buddhists, people with no religious affiliation and others. Democrats, Republicans and independents have joined our ranks.

www.au.org


And a few more, all of which support the separation of church and state.
Got this from Theocracy Watch. Interesting website; you might want to check it out.

The Interfaith Alliance "is a non-partisan, clergy-led organization dedicated to promoting the positive, healing role of faith in civic life and challenging intolerance and extremism."

Sojourners for Peace and Justice is an evangelical progressive Christian commentary on faith, politics, and culture.

The Evangelical Environmental Network, is a coalition of Christian groups promoting environmental protection.

A web site by a former Catholic Priest turned methodist minister, Christ as a Liberal demonstrates a religious/political alternative to the Religious Right.

Christian Alliance for Progress : A Movement to Reclaim Christianity and Transform Politics

Leaders of the Religious Left from Beliefnet

Also:

Every Church a Peace Church: A movement to reclaim nonviolence for all churches. http://www.ecapc.org/
Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America http://www.bpfna.org/
Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty http://www.bjcpa.org/
Fellowship of Reconciliation http://www.forusa.org/
Network of Spiritual Progressives http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/
Interreligious Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons--just starting.
Faithful America: http://www.faithfulamerica.org




Just because these folks aren't immediately in DU's orbit doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Az]

65. You are not silent

Unfortunately we only have one of you. There are many many liberal Christians that speak up against the excesses of the religious right. But they are not enough.

I am sorry that the constant squabbling on matters of religion bothers you. But religion is a very strong part of the US political scene these days and you are going to hear it where ever you go.

And yes, until the religious right is brought to it's knees and their attempt to strip our rights away is done away with I will not be pleased. Our society is being strangled by their actions. It is causing us to turn on each other in frustration. Their hold must be broken.

[TreasonousBastard]

67. It's not a question of "not enough," but of...

who has the energy and resources to get the microphone.

Your typical rabbi, Presbyterian minister, or Catholic priest has far more to do than get involved in politics, and most likely didn't get into the religion business because of an overarching interest in politics or public policy. Once in the business, they have been usually told time and time again by their mentors to stay out of public life-- there's the ol' tax exemption thing to worry about, and you don't want to alienate your parishioners.

Early Quakers who petitioned Washington to end slavery, churchmen and women like Elizabeth Cady Stanon and Martin Luther King might belie the idea that religion is always a negative in public policy, but their type seem to be in short supply lately, and the the other side has the microphone for the minute.

My own view is that the cream will rise in a genuine crisis. There are other Kings out there, but the time just isn't right for them and their causes. Their time just might come again in the not so distant future.

[shrike]

69. But should it be a strong part?

I hear what you're saying, Az, I truly do. But ... should we, on the left, engage in this squabbling or try to take control of the agenda ourselves?

You're right that we turn on each other. Which only helps them, I might add. My husband, usually apolitical, says, "All progressives want to do is argue with each other." And this observation of his goes beyond religion. There are other philosophical differences which keep us apart.

One thing I think we can learn from our republican counterparts is the art of organization and building a coalition. This involves pragmatism and compromise, two things that don't do well in the face of ideological and philosophical differences. You don't think Big Business really gives a rat's ass about Jim-Bob the Bible Thumper and his tirade about morality? However, they value his vote and give his concerns an airing. Likewise, Jim-Bob has evidently become practical enough to calm himself down a little in their presence. He may not even understand the arcane environmental organizations Big Business wants rolled back, but hell, it's part of the Republican platform. So he'll support it.

We may hate the fact that Republicans are lock-step, but I honestly think we can learn something from them. No one in a coalition gets exactly what he wants. I've heard my uber-Catholic cousin complain that GW has not gone far enough (I'm not kidding) and I hear businessmen complain that GW's betrayed them by not getting rid of their pet tax. However, they stick with the party because they are all getting SOMETHING.

I think a strong coalition could be formed of all the disparate elements of the progressive movement. There's a place at the table for everyone, including secularists and others concerned with religious rights. I think we're all going to change our attitudes, though -- we can bitch all we want on DU, and the fascists go on, blithely raping the country.

[Az]

76. I think its a little more subtle than that

The reason the right is so readily unified is because they are making progress. Its not that they are making progress because they are unified (though it does help).

Hope. Powerful thing hope. There are two types (at least) of hope. The dim hope that there may be light at the end of the tunnel (ours). And the hope born of triumph (theirs).

The right fights amongst itself all the time. But when you are too busy advancing your cause the turmoil of such infighting has little impact. In our case because we have stopped advancing our infighting becomes all we have.

So its not quite something as easy as saying lets stop fighting with each other. We disagree. We settle disagreements by arguing and discussing things. There are issues that are very important to me that I will not let go just as there are issues important to you that you will not let go. Our combined voices (disagreements and all) are what make up the identity of our group.

This why I have been speaking up about the necessity of our leaders to stand up for things whether they are popular or not. It is not money or power that alters the course of societies. It is hope and leaders who can give hope.

Our diagreements will become lite if we were to start moving forward again. They would still be there but our burdens would be lifted by the fact that we see progress.

[shrike]

80. We'll have to agree to disagree on this topic

There's a lot to be said about disciple and unity. And staying on message. Of course, it is easier to STAY on message and unified when you are winning.

But I suppose we don't want to turn into goose-steppers, anyway. Nothing worse than turning into what you hate and fear most. Happens a lot in this world -- almost makes me believe in karma.

[Maat]

51. Hi, Az!

When atheists defend THEIR rights, as far as I'm concerned, they defend mine.

I rarely disagree with you, Az, and greatly admire your posts. I, however, want to cut my liberal Christian friends some slack, however. I work with an interfaith group at addressing the rancor generated by the Relgious Right. It is VERY difficult for any group, usually a smaller, struggling one, to effectively stand up to people who are MASSIVELY well-funded.

My group includes everyone from Unitarian-Universalists to Muslims.

Just getting to know some ways of fighting their hostility that are even semi-effective.

The key seems to involve networking, educating our kids and young people, and educating the community in general (hope this post makes some sense).

[Az]

53. Difficult is understood

I agree with your post though in that networking and education are key.

Just think of it as a gadfly to the liberal Christians. Its not just that the right is misrepresenting their beliefs. There are real people being effected by it as well and we find it difficult to speak up to them as well.

Lets just say that if they show up to speak against the hatred we will already be there and will add our voice to theirs.

[Maat]

55. That sounds great!

Another thread referred to "What is 'respect?'" I'd say your posts are the epitomy of respectful. You and I don't agree on everything - but we don't insult each other. I just want you to know that many of us have a great deal of RESPECT for you, Az.

Well, like I said, we are getting an 'interfaith' group together to try and educate each other, then our kids, family and friends, and to branch out. The idea I love is that each meeting is hosted by a different member (sometimes in a different mosque/church/temple/service-place). A few meetings have occurred with great success.

Developing ..

[RethugAssKicker]

11. You're so right... I'm tired of hearing Christians

say that those ones are not the "real" Christians. After a while, this argument holds no weight. We are under a Christian attack, call it a CINO attack or whatever, but it is still a Christian attack!!

[jonnyblitz]

18. this "real" christiian crap that liberal christians use to distance

themselves from christians who act terribly or have unliberal beliefs is bullshit. If we went by their criteria the current Pope isn't a "real" christian.

[Az]

19. That opens a can o worms

There are those that believe the Pope is the antichrist. So ... yeah the no true scotsman fallacy gets thrown around quite a lot.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

23. I don't pesonally

consider myself any more of a "real" Christian than anyone else. I just happen to be a Christian who does not:

speak in tongues
profess to be born again
evangelize
believe only Christians get to "heaven"
demand others live by my creed
believe God engages in retribution


I guess that about covers it.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

21. Would you then extrapolate

that terrorism is a Muslim attack?

[Az]

22. Its not just used by Muslims

Its a concept used by anyone that sees merrit in it.

But when a Muslim that holds extreme views uses terrorism to attack others then yes it is a Muslim attacking the world. He is a subset of Islamic belief. Not representitive of all Muslims. But a Muslim none the less.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

24. Yes, and therefore

I guess I agree with you!

And it makes it hard for Christians who are not fundamentalists and for Muslims who are not radicals (or I guess fundamentalist works here too) to make our way in the world.

AZ, I always enjoy your thought-provoking posts.

[More Than A Feeling]

38. Don't call us "not real Christians" when we fuck up

call us BAD Christians.

[Zhade]

75. Once again, H&E - thank you for that intellectual honesty.

We atheists appreciate it.

[arwalden]

26. I Suspect It Would Be Easier To Spot "Liberal Christians" ...

... if they were more vocal and visible in their opposition to the assault on our country and our rights that's being done by the "Christian activists".

Although their silence and muted grumbling puzzles me... is it any wonder that they find themselves being lumped in with, scorned, and ridiculed with the rest of the Christian assailants?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

27. Well what the heck

DO YOU THINK I'M DOING WRITING THIS POST!


lol

Go here and see what you think:

http://www.thewitness.org/


These folks aren't lying down and taking it.

But it is so interesting that I have heard the same "argument" about Muslims, that the moderate Muslims are too quiet in their disagreement with their radical brethren.

[Az]

29. It takes time Grannie

I am sure you know that. Perceptions change slowly over time. There are still African Americans that don't trust whites. Doesn't mean they are right. Just that its going to take more examples of people standing up for the fellowship of all people more often and more vocally from all beliefs and quarters.

As I mentioned in the thread in GD the other day. Until our society unsticks from this crag it is on things are going to seem dark and dire to many within it. But if we can get this ship moving forward again and free of the holds that keep it from progressing it will likely seem as if the storm has lifted and we won't be as concerned about the specifics of what others believe.

Thats the thing. We do not see progress right now. If any occurs it is in drips and drabs. Thus we start casting about for whatever we percieve is slowing progress down. And we turn in ourselves in this as well.

A society that does not advance becomes oscified. It will turn in on itself and eventually tear itself to pieces.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

30. Yes, you are right

I had to do some research today about child abuse. I discovered that our culture, which I had assumed was just awful and riddled with all kinds of abuse, is but the tip of a dark, dark iceberg.

Evidently other cultures, some in the past and some in the present (in rural areas) routinely do things do and with their children that astonished me. And I am no naive babe in the woods.

So there has been progress, I guess. It's hard to see when we're smack dab in the middle of it, I guess.

[shrike]

45. I've heard the same thing

About Muslims.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

28. Re read your post and want to add...

How to spot a Liberal Christian. Okay, here goes:

1. no fake eyelashes
2. no toupe'
3. Birkenstocks
4. We drive Volvos and cars like that
5. No fish symbols
6. No big hair
7. We hang out in health food stores


Yes, basically most of us are old hippies.

[beam me up scottie]

32. You're pretty cool, Grannie!

I get sick of seeing the fishies down here.

It's like a type of private country club.

Many of the business owners will only patronize businesses belonging to other fish heads (not to be confused with Phish-heads, who are also pretty cool).

I figure the liberal christians are the ones that don't draw attention to themselves, unlike the other ones who constantly advertise how much more special they think they are.

Say it with me now:

"Well, isn't that special?"

[shrike]

46. I'm not an old hippie

But I wish I were.

Personally, I feel that with our White House occupied by gangsters (who'd be gangsters even if they followed the Flying Spaghetti Monster), our national debt soaring, the Mideast a powderkeg, our environment in ruins, our cities and infrastructure falling apart, the gap between the rich and poor growing every day, my efforts are better geared towards worldly concerns. There's only so much money, so much time, so many hours in a day.

I'm beginning to feel that all this emphasis on religion is a distraction. A purposeful one in many quarters, but a distraction nonetheless. It's a good distraction, sad to say. Nothing like appealing to people's prejudices.

Thing is, people on the left are buying into it. I went to a progressive meeting recently, and much, if not most, of the talk was on religion. Not the nuts-and-bolts issues, like those benighted faith-based grants, but discussions on the invisible cloud being, the fascist Catholic Church, etc.

The group appeared absolutely astounded that I am Catholic and a progressive. I said simply, "Life is complicated, not all religious people are bad, and not all atheists are liberal." (I know at least one who is a neocon.) I, frankly, would preferred to talk less about religion and more about this country's many problems. Since no one will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of God (and because fundie assholes will always be with us no matter what we do) I'd like to spend a little more time (not ALL time, because I know religion is important to people) talking about the poor, social justice, wrong-headed foreign policy, etc., etc., and what we can do about them. Surely there must be something.

The Sisters of St. Joseph have an order in my area, and they spend a lot of time providing education and support to the poor, social justice projects, etc. One of the reasons I'm still a Catholic, I suppose.

[trotsky]

48. I'm not astounded to meet a progressive Catholic.

There's lots of you. I'm just disappointed that the time & money you give to your church is helping the cretins who run it.

[shrike]

54. It does more than help cretins

Church organizations, such as the Sisters of St. Joseph, are doing a lot of good.

Church donations are entirely voluntary and I'm pretty picky about where mine go. Usually I reserve them for a special occasion, or donate clothes and canned goods to St. Vincent De Paul.

Our local organization (Vincent De Paul) is strapped, BTW. Too many needy and not enough "stuff" to go around. The local shop-with-a-cop programs, too (something the FOPs do around Christmastime) are swamped.

It's gonna be a long, hard winter.

[trotsky]

56. But every penny you give to a part that actually does some good

means the church doesn't have to make up for it out of their riches, and thus allows it to continue fighting progessive ideas.

No such thing as a free lunch, as they say.

[shrike]

59. OTOH, if people like me leave

there'll be no one left on the inside to take the church back on track -- liberation theology, Dorothy Day; good stuff, and it'll happen again. The church will still have plenty of money if I, and everyone like me, leave. But it won't have us. John XXIII happened because he was there, and his time came. So will ours.

May not be your way, but it is mine. For the same reason I resist leaving this country, I suppose -- I love its ideals, if not its leaders and actions.

[trotsky]

60. But America is still a democracy.

No such luck with the Catholic Church. You didn't get to vote for pope, did you? When the pope literally gets to pick who will select his replacement, it's going to be pretty rare to get change.

I dunno, your reasoning kind of sounds like "Well, I shop Wal-Mart, and even though I know they destroy labor rights, use sweatshop labor, and ruin local tax bases, I still shop there because I've always shopped there and they might change their ways. Besides, my local Wal-Mart is different. They have a really nice manager." ;-)

[shrike]

62. Don't know much about Walmart

Don't shop there. I do know a few people who work at Walmart. They like their jobs, enjoy the company. I don't patronize the store and recognize all the bad press the store gets. But I don't judge them -- though apparently, in your world, I should.

Anyway, the church is not Walmart, however much you think it is. It does good that you apparently don't wish to recognize, and change does occur, albeit not in ways that you would like, whether or not I get to vote for pope.

Apparently you would not be satisfied unless I did leave the church, and I am not particularly interested in pleasing you, nor am I interested in leaving a faith I think is worthwhile and worth salvaging. Ergo, a fruitless discussion. And the country is in the same mess it was at the beginning of the day. This is why religion is such a great distraction. You and I discuss the 21st century equivalent of angels dancing on a pin and meanwhile, our treasury is raped, Iraqis die, our environment goes to hell, on and on and on.

No wonder the right wing loves religion so much. We get all riled up and they get fat. And I'm talking about people on both sides of the fence -- the people who want the ten commandments on every goddamn building in sight and the people who talk about invisible cloud beings and flying spaghetti monsters. To paraphrase Shakespeare, a pox on all our houses.

[trotsky]

64. It's not that hard to see the comparison.

Anyway, the church is not Walmart, however much you think it is.

Didn't say that. I said your reasoning in defense of your church sounds like the reasoning Wal-Mart apologists give when defending the store's harmful business practices.

It does good that you apparently don't wish to recognize, and change does occur, albeit not in ways that you would like, whether or not I get to vote for pope.

I do recognize the bit of good the church does, but if someone gives me a dollar and then beats me up, should I have an overall good opinion of them? Wal-Mart does some good in hiring people and providing low-cost (low-quality) goods for people who don't make a lot of money. Doesn't change my overall opinion of them that they're a blight on our country's economy.

You and I discuss the 21st century equivalent of angels dancing on a pin and meanwhile, our treasury is raped, Iraqis die, our environment goes to hell, on and on and on.

Right, and what was your church doing to address those things? Some aspects of it might help alleviate some of the suffering at the hands of the Bush agenda, but overall your church is empowering the right wing. Oh yeah, the previous pope DID condemn the Iraq War, but then the church supported the man who started that war versus the CATHOLIC who happened to think women should have control over their own uteri.

I think religion and religious beliefs lie at the heart of most of our problems today, so it's quite important to discuss it, discuss the validity basing policies on it, and discuss making your voice heard by not perpetuating a dinosaur that's fighting the progressive agenda.

[shrike]

68. Oh well

I could give you a list of Catholic organizations, funded by the Church, which are a: In Iraq at the moment. B. Working on environmental problems. C. Vigorously opposing Bush. (BTW, while the Church did not support Bush as a candidate, although frankly he asked them to; certain Catholic bishops did, which is their right.) But what good what that do? So I'll take another tack here.

I suppose this all comes from a basic disagreement: that religion is at the heart of all problems today. The operative word here is all. It is certainly at the heart of some, even many: only a fool would deny that. However, there appear to be those who believe, were religion wiped from the earth, life would dramatically change for the better. No offense -- and I'm not accusing you of that view -- but that opinion borders on the naive.

Humans have a seemingly unlimited capacity for hate. They also have almost a pathological need to look down on someone else. And to covet each other's stuff. Religion becomes folded into this hatred, as does many other things. I'll give you an example: the Aceh and the Batak of Indonesia, who are far removed from our world. The Aceh and Batak were arch enemies. Historically, they were Deists (as were most tribes of that region), ergo, their battles and rivalries had nothing to do with religion. Their divisions were mainly ethnic -- and resource-oriented: you have what I want, etc.

The Aceh eventually became Muslim, and the Batak Christian. (Personally, I think the Batak converted just to piss the Aceh off, but that's just my opinion.) Religion became one more tool in their arsenal. One more grievance. Didn't really change anything, although it certainly exacerbated the situation. I have no doubt that without religion, their feud would still have continued into the 20th century, the way it did. (Of course their Dutch overlords, who were there for the money, not religion, didn't help matters, but that's another post.)

Beyond the basic human need to connect with God (which is not in all people, I understand, and is not in you, which is fine with me) many religious creeds seem to have sprung up, at least at their very beginnings, as a way to control these baser instincts, for the greater good. (as have civil laws, and we know, this is not working out so well, either; at least in many places.) I have no problem admitting this is not working. Man corrupts what he touches, it seems -- everything from the glorious ideals of U.S. constitution to Thou Shalt Not Kill. As I understand it, the burka is not in the Koran. It was rather a Persian tradition incorporated into the Muslim creed as Islam grew in power and influence -- and came under the gaze of important people.

So if religion were removed, we'd still have ourselves -- we are who we are. I have to chuckle at the notion that science is "the candle in the dark" -- I love science, devour my Discover magazine each month (Good current issue, you might want pick it up.) Science might well do what these folks say it will. Trouble is, it involves scientists. They are as human as the rest of it: squabble, fight, do irrational things, build weapons of mass destruction, become corrupted by money. They are bigots, misogynists, anti-semites; admire fascism (read "A Beautiful Mind"), and on and on. Anything that involves human beings usually ends up in a mess. Human progress is measured by who fucks up the least, when all is said and done. Frankly, I don't know what the answer is. I wish I did. And, my years on earth have taught me, nothing is the "answer."

This is why I'd prefer to focus on bread-and-butter issues. We may not be able to solve the great issues and mysteries of mankind (I'm beginning to think we never will.) We can, however, oppose the elimination of the health care tax credit -- which would likely leave millions of working Americans w/out health care. That post on DU drew about 20 responses. This post, if I'm not mistaken, has drawn hundreds.

[trotsky]

70. Well it's a good thing I didn't say "all" now, isn't it?

Anyway, this goes back to what I've said dozens of times on DU. The religion factor is unlike just about any other. Religion is impervious to reason. It's faith. If you are CONVINCED that your god wants something, then no amount of logic or evidence is going to sway you.

That's the problem. Living together is all about compromise, and few things halt the ability to compromise better than religion. John Kerry, by supporting abortion rights, EVEN THOUGH he was personally anti-choice, became eeeeevilllll in the eyes of many Christians, and thanks to bishops in your church, in the eyes of many Catholics. Enough Catholics to tip the overall vote to *, perhaps.

I refuse to simply throw up my hands and say, "People are just bad, what are you gonna do?" We can find out just what institutions and memes help bring about and perpetuate those bad actions and try to deal with them. Like we did with slavery, for instance.

You can try to treat the symptoms all you want, but until you deal with the underlying causes it's going to be a losing battle.

[shrike]

71. Racial prejudice is also impervious to reason, no?

And ethnic hatred -- and tribal hatred. Nationalism. And greed -- is greed rational? We may have rid ourselves of slavery, true, but racism is alive and well. Racism is not a system. It exists in the human heart, and psyche. Try legislating that.

Fact of the matter is, you're not going to change human nature. No matter what you do. (Unless gene therapy figures out a way, somehow. Who knows?) You do, however, search for ways to contain its basest aspects. (and, you are right, eradication slavery is one.) That is what civilization is about. We can't live together otherwise. What you call treating the symptoms is what I call pragmatism. We are who we are.

And if you think religious people don't compromise, you're sadly mistaken. We do it every day. Although I do see a certain rigidity in many areas of society. I go to progressive gatherings and see the leftists, the socialists, the ideologues (atheists all) who are as rigid as any fundy.

I do agree that we need to compromise, and the unwillingness to compromise is holding us all (progressives) back. I would argue that this rigidity exists at many different levels of our community. I suppose what we have to do is agree to disagree -- and accept the fact that we're going to be unhappy a lot of the time.

[trotsky]

72. Oddly enough, religion has been used to justify all of those.

In fact, it could almost be seen as a thread that unites them all. People feel they are JUSTIFIED in hating black people because, well, the bible says so. Mark of Cain and all that. (At least their interpretation of it, and we all know how well it goes to convince someone they've read their bible wrong.)

And please note, I never said that religious people don't compromise. It's frustrating how many times now you've put words in my mouth.

You're going to see resistance to change, and certainly resistance to what may be perceived as a weakening of one's own status in society. We have to work through that, though, and religion as an agent increases the strength of resistance to change immeasurably.

[shrike]

73. I'm afraid prejudice pre-dates christianity

As does slavery. Most religions jump on the bandwagon, though, much to their detriment. Sometimes I think it's in-born in some humans to dislike dark people: the Montagnards, of Vietnam, were darker-skinned than their neighbors. They were called the Meori, or dark ones which, as I understand it, is a little like the Asian form of nigger. This animosity appears to pre-date the arrival of westerners, Catholic missionaries, et.al. And, as I've noted before, the new arrivals took full advantage of the eons-old hatred. Happens a lot, sadly.
Of course the bible is used to justify hatred. So is patriotism. But hatred pre-dated (current) patriotism and the dominant religions of today. (Although I beg to differ on one point: religion is illogical, suggests a rigidity of thought, and therefore thwarts compromise. It takes people to compromise. Ergo, religious people are more likely to thwart compromise due to lack of logic and rigidity, no?)
You see religion's sins as a root problem. I see religion's sins as one more symptom of human pathology. So this is, I guess you would say, a philosophical difference. One that can't be solved on a message board, which is why I think we spend too much time discussing it on DU.

But I have work to get to, and I'm sure you have better things to do than talk to me. Have a good day, and I mean that sincerely.

[Az]

74. True but

But irrational issues such as racism, sexism, and all the other isms are combatted by rational discourse. As we learn more about each other and as our world shrinks (due to technology and exploration) we come to know and understand each other better. Thus these irrational fears are countered by knowledge.

But Faith based religion sets up a resistance to such advances. Particularly a religion based on a fixed doctrine. It creates an unmovable source of turbulence in a progressive society.

When the religion meshes with the social advances it is a force of good. For then the followers act to embrace the progressive ideas with a force of righteousness. But when the social advances do not agree with the doctrine the conflict can be unrelenting for they are still charged with a sense of righteousness.

That is the problem. Religions reinforce and justify their positions. Racism is just fear of the unknown. When religion gets something right it is good and powerful. But when it gets something wrong ... it is wrong and powerful.

[shrike]

79. Guess you're more hopeful than I am

Or maybe grew up in a different part of the world. I've known some bigots that who were unshakeable -- all the rationality in the world wouldn't change them. The desire to hate is just unbearable sometimes.

But you and I can agree about this -- when religion is good, it's good, and when it's bad, it's terrible. It all depends on the human beings involved. I suppose the same thing can be said about our government.

Been nice talking with you. Got a busy weekend ahead of me.

[beam me up scottie]

33. They're pretty mum around here.

I think they may be out numbered and intimidated.

Maybe their leaders think they will be safe under a theocracy.

Guess again.

[nemo137]

39. As I've said before,

we're at a disadvantage in the media because we have, you know, some ethical priciples and don't bilk gullible people, perhaps in need of real Christian love, out of huge chunks of their money to build propaganda stations. We don't have the cash money to make a 700 club, we might be too busy putting it in places that actually matter, rather than aggrandizing ourselves like clashing cymbals. If a real liberal media network ever gets off the ground, it might could feature some liberal Christians on ethical issues, as a counterweight to Messrs. Falwell and Dobson.

[arwalden]

44. I'm Not Buying That Any More. One Would Expect That Even In Places Where..

... progressives gather together (here for example) there would be more vocalization from "progressive Christians" in opposition to the assault of the "other" Christians. I'm just not seeing it.

[nemo137]

47. Really? I see very little defense of the pharisee wing of our faith

and many statements by progressive Christians against them, and outlining ethical and/or biblical reasons why they're wrong? What more do you want us to do?

[arwalden]

49. What I See Is Mostly Silence.

I also see more "liberal" Christians who would prefer to nitpick and defend the honor of all Christians everywhere whenever they can ferret-out the (mostly) unintentional broad-brush swipes at Christians in general.

Surely you've seen it too. You know how it goes. Fred Phelps protests another funeral and someone hastily and carelessly writes something like "those mean old Christians". Obviously the writer is referring to Phelps and his band of idiots... but it never takes long before some hypersensitive delicate-type comes along to take exception to the comment. Never mind how OBVIOUS it was in the context of the thread topic and the event and people that were being scorned.

<< What more do you want us to do? >>

All you can do is all you can do. But those who do all they can are clearly in a minority. The rest remain silent or seek to find insults where none were intended.

[nemo137]

57. Fair enough. I actually hadn't thought about how quickly posts are written

And yes, there is a large degree of nitpicking. I'm sorry.

[arwalden]

58. Actually...

... just so that we're clear. I wasn't suggesting that you were among the hypersensitive nitpickers. Just pointing out that they existed in numbers that appear to exceed the number of folks--like you--who do care enough to speak out and fight back.

~Allen

[nemo137]

61. I have played the nitpicker game, though, albeit much less in the R&T

forum. The thing with loonies fuckers like Phelps, though, is that after a while, because I'm not directly threatend (although if he's slandering my religion that much, maybe I should be), I tend to tune him out after a while as, well, just another looney fucker. It's pure apathy, it's totally wrong, and I am sorry.

[DanCa]

31. I think the majority of it has to do with Dubya being such a hypocrite

It really doesn't bother me that much any more it used to but not anymore. Probably because I went thru such hell when i stood against the prolifers and humour is my deffense mechanism. I am more worried about the gop outlawing christianity for democrats than what people say about me. Sides I have a 3.2 gpa the proves I am not stupid for praying to a god of reason healling peace and equal rights.
I remember what tab hunter said on larry king the other night. Christianity is not a popularity contest and only god alone can judge what is in your heart . Az your a cool and decent person if you need to talk please pm me.

[LaurenG]

41. I truly don't believe that Christians are targets of anger, but

fanatical idiots trying to control humanity by tightening the reigns on what is acceptable should be investigated and sent to countries where the rule of religion is the rule of law. I have little tolerance for such beasts. I am really VERY sick and tired of their mental illnesses and I would like to see them practice their "religion" away from the good and decent folks who truly know what love is supposed to be.

[trotsky]

42. What scares me

is that many Christians here on DU either continue to support (with time and/or money) their churches that are part of an organization working to rollback liberal accomplishments, or actually agree with some of the goals of the religious right, including putting "intelligent design" into the science classroom or keeping religious phrases in our government. I'll defend myself and my rights against those kinds of Christians whether they consider themselves conservative OR liberal.

[DanCa]

43. Actually I like the fact that you said many and not all

Please read my excummunication thread I have been fighting these loons on my own for the better part of the decade. I finally went to a leftist church the anglican but your right we can't stick our heads in the sand. We and I mean everyone not just christian have got to start picketing and protesting the fundies.
As someone who needs stem cell research as a possible cure for parkinson's disease i agree with you one hundread percent. The time for complacency is over. We have got to stop infighting and form an effective protest group. Imagine the look on the say bishops council - for example - if all of du - went down then and armed linked around the building and we didn't leave until they promised to stay out of politics.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

66. I sure haven't met any!

DU'er who support Intelligent Design?

I'm intrigued!

[kwassa]

77. and exactly who would these DU people be??????

trotsky:
"is that many Christians here on DU either continue to support (with time and/or money) their churches that are part of an organization working to rollback liberal accomplishments, or actually agree with some of the goals of the religious right, including putting "intelligent design" into the science classroom or keeping religious phrases in our government."

If you don't have names and specifics, I don't think that you know what you are talking about. I certainly haven't seen that here.

[trotsky]

78. That would be "calling someone out," wouldn't it?

You have a search function as well as I do.

[Disturbed]

81. Christians are not the problem.

Cristo-Fascists are the problem.

[mikefromwichita]

82. Get real

this one is over the top ridiculous.

[Az]

83. Your argument is subtle

yet convincing.

[madeline_con]

84. One teeny tiny problem...

the group you speak of wouldn't know Christian if it slapped them upside the head.

[Az]

85. That is part of the no true scotsman fallacy issue

Trust me. They say the same thing about liberal Christians. Each person thinks they have the right beliefs about Jesus.