I for one think that religion should be bashed on a regular basis.

[trumad]

I mean come on---it's only the fundie extreme bastards like Dobson, Robertson, and Falwell who get all the media play. Why not bash them and on a regular basis.

Plus I contend that without religion, this world would be a far safer place to live in.

How many radical atheists are torching Embassies because of a stupid cartoon? How many atheists are trying to control a womans right to choose? I could go on and on about how intrusive religion can be on a free man or woman.

Shit---thank God or Buddah or the Wizard of Oz that we do bash religion--- because if religion was left to it's own devices, we'd be fucked. mhop

[CPschem]

1. amen.

[BOSSHOG]

2. Agreed

Radical christian clerics in this country want to involve themselves in politics and hate in the name of Jesus Christ and bash "liberals" in the name of Jesus Christ and all in a tax exempt status. I believe with all my head and heart that "christian conservatives" are the number one domestic enemy of the constitution. If they want to fuck with this veteran's constitutional liberties or the constitutional liberties of citizens they happen to hate because of their cherry picking justification in the bible then I will continue to bash.

[trumad]

3. I agree

100 and fifty percent.

[Zenlitened]

56. "christian conservatives" are the number one... enemy of the constitution

Totally agree: :applause:

[jus_the_facts]

4. holier than thou....

No more!
The craps rolls out your mouth again
Haven’t changed, your brain is still gelatin
Little whispers circle around your head
Why don’t you worry about yourself instead

Who are you? where ya been? where ya from?
Gossip is burning on the tip of your tongue
You lie so much you believe yourself
Judge not lest ye be judged yourself

Holier than thou
You are
Holier than thou
You are

You know not

Before you judge me take a look at you
Can’t you find somethig better to do
Point the finger, slow to understand
Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand

It’s not who you are it’s who you know
Others lives are the basis of your own
Burn your bridges build them back with wealth
Judge not lest ye be judged yourself

Holier than thou
You are
Holier than thou
You are

You know not

:headbang: ~Metallica~ :headbang:

[CatWoman]

5. LOL

I LOVE YOU, TRU!!!

:hi:

:loveya:

[trumad]

6. Ditto

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Yes, on that count you are right.. but religion also inspired Dr. and Mrs.

King to pursue social justice, as it has for many other people. And yes I imagine there are atheists who are out to kill off the world... particularly anyone that worships money and puts it before the welfare of people.

So by all means bash the fundies and zealots and extremists who bring misery into the world, but don't forget to help get some media time for the Kings, and Carters, and Moyers too. :)

[BOSSHOG]

12. Oh you and your level headed reasoned response

I'll take your advice and continue to bash the zealots. There is an old man who lives not too far from us. He is Catholic and he walks the walk and talks the talk of a Jesus Loving Christian. He never has a bad word to say about anything or anybody and is always helping others. How refreshing. I'd like to get him some air time but he wouldn't take it. Thanks for your post. Few subjects get me hotter than the actions of those who espouse their goodness by hating others in the name of Gawd!

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. *g* I was once asked if I had ever considered a career as a diplomat

I like the sound of your neighbor. He sounds like a sweet man. :) :hug:

[Greyhound]

15. Do you mean to imply that al of the good people that have done

good things for the world and their fellow humans, wouldn't have been good without belief in a plagiarized book of fiction? That is the impression that I get from your reply. I suppose that without the "war on drugs" we would all be raving crack-heads too.

[GreenPartyVoter]

22. "many other people" doesn't translate into "all people who did good in the

world". I simply made the point that there's no need for painting the subject with a broad brush.

[Greyhound]

33. Point taken. I do feel, however, that the good that can be attributed

to religion is tertiary at best while the evil that it has caused is the direct result of the brainwashing that is the basis for all of the current "mainstream" religions. Once the mind is trained to accept the patently false as an unprovable truth, it is a simple matter to twist it to justify any action, no matter how heinous.

[GreenPartyVoter]

37. Very true, but this can be applied to more than just faith. I suppose that

most KKK members are fundies but I guess there could be some that were programmed to hate from a source other than a church. Look at how Murikans were trained to cry for war after 9/11... yes ** threw a lot of religious lingo around but people wanted the war not for God but because they were scared and afraid and wanted to lash out. And terra threats and jingoism have been used to keep things rolling.

So I guess it's about the ability to program people as much as it's about what the means of programming is .. religion jingoism.. or some other extreme ism I can't think of just now.

[Greyhound]

39. Agreed, absolutely. One great example is the military. After thousands

of years of dedicated practice, in only 6-8 weeks they can turn a normal human into an unthinking automaton, a murderer without remorse. It is an applied science.

[GreenPartyVoter]

40. Yes. And I recall thinking once after watching a special about

Marine boot camp and seeing the quivering masses of people as they reshaped them and touted the improved product they turned out (and sometimes that is true), what happens to the wash-outs? After all that abuse and "molding" what do they take with them when they leave? Are they worse off than when they went in? Do they wander around looking for _something_ to fill that instilled need for a clique? Is this why washouts end up in those weird homemade militias? I just don't know.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

51. What makes you think that?

It sounds like the kind of claim it's impossible to prove or disprove, and difficult even to find evidence for or against, making it a slightly dicey position to advance.

What little evidence I have seen makes me doubt it.

It is certainly noticeable that the most of the overtly atheistic societies established have been communist regimes (not all - France is officially secular, although I believe most of the populace are Christians), and that as such largely-atheistic societies have probably on average behaved worse than the largely-religious ones. Obviously, that's only circumstantial evidence, and it's not but in the absence of any of the other kind it's possibly worth not ignoring.

While there are all sorts of conflicting claims, the more reliable looking studies I've seen seem to indicate that in America Christians give more to charity and do volunteer work more than America, *even when you've adjusted for correlating factors like income* (any study that doesn't do that it worthless).

On the other hand, a quick search on google suggests that disproportionately few people in prison in America declare themselves to be atheists (although that one doesn't seem to have been adjusted for other correlations).

Which makes me think that the claim that religion is more often an excuse for bad deeds and a reason for good ones than vice versa, I'm afraid. Remember that an awful lot of the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity (and I suspect the same is true of other religions) have in fact resulted in profit (e.g. the Crusades) or the maintanence of secular power (e.g. the persecution of Catholics by Protestants and vice versa) and it seems likely to me that these were often the real reasons.

[stevietheman]

16. This atheist agrees with you... it's the fundies who are the problem. n/t

n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. You bet. I have more in common with progressive atheists, agnostics, and

anti-theists than I do with conservative fundies, or so I have found over the years.

[Exiled in America]

50. Very well said - my thoughts as well! :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

[papau]

8. Be sure to cross post in R/T n/t

n/t

[Exiled in America]

48. Yeah..for what purpose exactly?

[gratuitous]

9. Gee thanks

I guess my teeny tiny congregation and the 746 soup packets we put together on "Souper" Bowl Sunday two days ago should just go shoot ourselves in the head. After all, we're only feeding about 3,000 people this year due to this effort, and apparently the radical atheists were doing much, much more that day.

[SixStrings]

10. What's that got to do with religion? You need a 'god' to tell

you to help the less fortunate???

[gratuitous]

14. So you're saying . . .

That because our congregation feeds the hungry (and houses the homeless, and marches for peace, and marches for gay rights) in response to the love of God in our lives it doesn't count? And yet it's the religious folks are routinely called wacko around here.

[mitchtv]

19. With all due respect I don't think

the poster was refering to your church, or ones like it, but to those who think they have all the one and only answers, and are somehow "saved". I remember JC said "faith without good works is dead" Good works doesn't mean buying a new lexus SUV for your wife. Most churches however are moribund institutions and have lost all meaning.

[immoderate]

20. Feeding the poor is not a religious activity.

Praying, adoration, burning animals and humans are religious activities. Charity and altruism are human activities that religions claim to promote their existence. All these good works can just as appropriately be done by secular civilization. Not to denigrate good deeds, but they are done by people, not deities.

--IMM

[GreenPartyVoter]

27. The only difference between a secular group and a religious group

feeding the poor should be a matter of personal perspective. What is important is that the needy are cared for. (Not abused, however. I am not condoning the sneaky trick of offering food for propaganda or anything of that nature.)

[Goblinmonger]

31. Silly rabbit

good deeds are for theists.

[SixStrings]

26. You are a 'wacko' if the only reason you do these good deeds

is because 'god' tells you to, or your congregation does, or you are trying to score points with the 'big guy' That's the point I'm making...Are you telling me that the ONLY reason you do these good deeds is because of your religion? You can't tell a person is hungry unless 'god' or your priest tells you?

[GreenPartyVoter]

29. I think this is a confusion between religion.. the structure of faith

dialogue... and spirituality.. the actual communion. It isn't that the church is supposed to order people to feed the poor, one should just feel it in one's heart. So far as I can tell in my own experience, the difference is simply that a secular person calls this their conscience and religious folk call it God. :)

[SixStrings]

Exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you. n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

36. Any time :^)

[Exiled in America]

47. Such a false, disingenuous way of putting it.

So bad in fact that I can make an argument back without even holding the position myself...

Of course I don't "need a god" to do the right thing. But it was through my spiritual faith that I first learned princples of love and compassion, through which I first learned to open my eyes towards the poor and people in need, first learned to feel deep love and respect for my fellow human being, and out of that place of understanding, developed a strong desire to take care of those needs as best I can wherever I can...

...why would I abandon that just so I could say I'm helping the less fortunate "without a god?"

[mariema]

17. You are welcome

"I guess my teeny tiny congregation and the 746 soup packets we put together on "Souper" Bowl Sunday two days ago should just go shoot ourselves in the head. After all, we're only feeding about 3,000 people this year due to this effort, and apparently the radical atheists were doing much, much more that day." gratuitous

I am not a radical atheist but I am in no way religious. I don't really think about religion at all. But I do volunteer work weekly, at a food bank that feeds hundreds of people every month. The attitude that only religious people are "moral" is something that should be bashed. Not that I think you are doing that, but I sure get tired of hearing that particular meme. I have done volunteer work all across the US and abroad, for most of my 50 odd years, all without any religious dogma telling me I should.

[converted_democrat]

11. Amen!

I grew up in a fundy household, and I know the horrors they can inflict first hand.. Religion is fine as long as it isn't used as a vehicle to hurt and harm others..

on edit- I will "bash" the fundies and any other "religion" that advocates hurting or hating anyone..

[flamin lib]

13. You're just jealous 'cause the voices aren't talking to you . . . nt

[donsu]

18. kick

nt

[Ladyhawk]

21. It's important to question everything, including religion.

A religion should not be considered off-limits simply because it is religion. The only way a religion can grow and evolve is to be questioned. Religionists should question their own religions constantly.

As an atheist, I question my own beliefs constantly. It's a lot of work, but no one can do it for me. Sometimes my opinions and beliefs change as a result of this questioning, but it's better than being stagnant and maybe developing a set of beliefs that would hurt someone else. :( That's something I worry about a lot. (I'm going to leave out the details...too long.)

[Exiled in America]

49. Irrelevant. Your statement is axiomatic and not what the thread is about.

We're not talking about questioning, though I couldn't agree more. We're talking about bashing.

[HERVEPA]

24. Good people would still be good people ....

without religion.

Bad people will be bad even with it.

Does anyone really think MLK Or Jimmy Carter would not have done (been doing) good works if they weren't religious?

[Goblinmonger]

32. Apparently

MLK and JC (Jimmy Carter, not Jesus Christ, that is) are just hedging their bets on Pascal's Wager. Otherwise they would be dancing naked around a fire while burning virgins (damn it, I KNEW I had something else going on this weekend).

[Angry Girl]

28. Great article: Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

<SNIP>

The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”

Continued....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-1798944,00.html

[happydreams]

42. JUst take Washington State where there is the least religion. You

41% of elected officials being women. In Mississipi it is about 8%. The latter is the poorest state as well as the the most religious. Washington State is probably the most progressive state.

[Angry Girl]

43. How interesting!

I was just reading an article about Amerika's Brain Drain and how most of China's top people in government hold science degrees. By contrast, Ameriks's government is made up of lawyers, half of which want to teach creationism over evolution! The irony....

[happydreams]

54. Here is something I was going to post as a topic.

How the right-wing whackos at the Discovery Institute try to kill Darwin.


In 1998, members of a Seattle nonprofit think tank drafted a secret five-year plan with an ambitious goal: to "defeat scientific materialism" and "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

By the end of the stated five-year period, the benevolent conspirators had seen much of their goal accomplished. There was widespread public debate with materialist Darwinists. Dozens of books had been published presenting a non-Darwinian alternative theory of life. There was widespread respectful press coverage of their cause, with innumerable supportive op-ed columns in mainstream media, cover stories in the national newsweeklies, and even a widely broadcast PBS documentary. School authorities in 10 states were looking into adopting some or all of the recommendations for high-school science curricula. So well was the campaign going that in 2004, some of the original antimaterialism advocates were confident enough of eventual triumph to predict in detail a complete meltdown of Darwinian science by 2025—the 100th anniversary of the notorious "Monkey Trial" of 1925.

However unlikely their optimism at the time, it looks a great deal more unlikely today. In December, a federal judge presiding over another case of Darwin versus faith in a public-school system handed the antimaterialists a defeat so sweeping—in the form of a judicial decision so detailed and so trenchant—that even the most passionate advocates of faith-based science seem stunned and confused about the future of their cause. They'll be back. But in this time of their momentary disarray, it seems appropriate to look back over the short but rocketlike rise to media celebrity of the idea called "intelligent design" and the small, dedicated band of true believers who sold the concept to the wider world.....more


http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0605/discovery-darwin.php

[greyl]

44. Great article, indeed. Thanks. :)

He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added.

It ties in lovely with the argument I'm making about our culture vs humanity.

[varkam]

52. Here's the actual published article....

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Published in the Journal of Religion and Society in 2005. It's a lengthy read, but definitely worth it.

[The Straight Story]

30. That's why I bash democrats

Just letting them follow around bush like a lost puppy has led to bad things. And being a democrat is just believing in something someone made up which we agree with in principle anyway.

Ideas need bashed when they are bad, as do those who follow the same poor path of that belief. Religion is an idea, a belief. Same as Political beliefs.

And wars are more about politics than religion, and more about power than piety.

You want peace, get rid of the politicians and lawyers :)

[Goblinmonger]

34. Getting rid of lawyers

was actually Shakespeare's first step to tyranny.

And no, I'm not a lawyer.


But my wife is. :P

[More Than A Feeling]

35. You have no way of knowing that for sure.

Ironically, proving that a world without religion would be better is equally as easy as proving the existence of God.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to the crusades (I'm taking a class on them, what did you think I meant?);-)

[trumad]

45. LOL

You're right... It's just a hunch.

[Pacifist Patriot]

38. I look at the Unitarians and Universalists inspired to social justice

because of their religious beliefs and I'm not sure I can accept your hypothesis. I have no problem calling out these fundamentalists on their hatred and hypocrisy, but to paint all religious people with the same brush would make me guilty of their behavior in my opinion.

Religion is a human construct and like any other human invention can be used for either good or evil. No need to live a life without automobiles just because some idiots drive drunk.

[happydreams]

41. K&R!! I've been saying that the world would be better off without

religion. Just look at all this idiotic shit going on over Mohammed, Piss Christ, or his "Temptations". Talk about weapons of mass distraction and brainswashing.

[Exiled in America]

46. I think that's hypocritical.

I don't believe that anyone's personal beliefs, no matter what YOU or I may think of them, should be bashed or attacked unless or until they attempt to force those beliefs on you.

That's just a basic principle of being "liberal" - see the dictionary definition. I staunchly protect and encourage every individuals FREEDOM to choose for themselves how to express their life experiences, to use religious language if they so choose, to embrace different ideas and doctrines, to lean more towards the mystical than the rational if that is what they wish.

Thats because I believe in pluralistic ideas and individiual freedom - I don't just pay lip service to them until it becomes "inconvenient" or until I discover someone has a personal belief I don't share.

And I'm sorry, but as a liberal, reasonable, pluralistic person I'm also aware that one person or one groups bad action in the name of some particular relgious believe is no excuse for the intellectually lazy and ignorant decision to sweepingly derride any/all people who have spiritual beliefs or the act of belief in general. Speaking in board unsubstantiated generalizations is the lazy way of the ignorant and closeted thinker, and its beneath each and every one of us.

When Focus on the Family does something ridiculous, I attack focus on the family. I don't derride every spiritual believer or any kind everywhere. When fundamentalists lash out, I attack the specific characteristics of fundamentalism. I don't have to make broad all-inclusive statements about "religion" across the board.

I find a lot of the attitudes towards personal, private belief at DU to be staggeringly hypocritical and fundamentally opposed to everything we "claim" to be about as open-minded inclusive pluaristic progressives. And its a shame.

[happydreams]

55. Even beliefs that involve brainwashing people to control them???

:eyes:

[varkam]

53. A thinking person's religion.

I agree with what you say to a large extent. I'd like to take it a step further if I might, and posit that it should be done to the end of getting people to challenge their own belief systems. I don't mean only xtians, but all world religions. I think a lot of the ills that religion creates stems from the inability to challenge ones own beliefs, or for that matter to be uncertain about certain aspects of physical and metaphysical reality.

"Fundamentalism is one answer to the human question of uncertainty." Was a line in an intriguing article I read a while back. We don't "like" to be uncertain about things. Feeling certain, feeling like we have a handle on things makes us feel better - myself included. Of course, challenging held beliefs - planting a grain of skepticism - tends to make people feel uncertain (which, after all, is the entire point of being a skeptic). A lot of people, especially religious individuals react poorly to having their systems challenged and subsequently take it as "bashing" - at which point they just tend to shut down or dismiss the entire argument as derogatory.

In sum, I think "bashing" is definitely a good thing - but only to get people to examine their own beliefs. It's not as though I think one should stand up and say "Xtians / Muslims / Atheists / Buddhists are poopy!" - because that's not productive at all, it's simply insulting.

<edit for this last bit>

I just want to clarify that I don't think that if religious people allow their beliefs to be challenged and think critically about them that the natural and inevitable result is atheism.

[manic expression]

57. Not true

are you aware of what happened during the Spanish Civil War? What about during the rule of "atheist" governments of China and the Soviet Union? Was that "intrusive"? Atheism does not make the world a "safer place to live in" by default, no matter how much you want to think it does.

Religion does cause many ills, but atheism is not nearly a cure for any of them.

Everything should be criticized, but not everything should be disrespected. Coincidentally, unreasonable disrespect is exactly what caused the riots you speak of.