Why do people on DU post stories about bad acting Christians?

[Perky]

Why do People on DU go out of their way to find bad actors and then claim with the claim they are only making comment on those individual not the faith in general?

Saying that you are making a distinction between true Christians and real Christian while hunting down stories like this is at once cold-hearted, adolescent and certainly disingenuous.

There are a billion Christian in the world who try to live by God's Word., who are charitable and pleasant, deeply spiritual and kind to all who pass their way. I would venture to say that there are something like fifty nominally evangelical Christians on DU. ANd I have yet to see in the several years I have come to DU a single OP that attempted to proselytize. There is nobody here who is out for your immortal soul or has disparaged your absolute right to believe or not believe in whatever you think God is. We are not secretly plotting a coup'de'tat in the Religion lounge. We mean you no harm.

What could possibly be your motivation for posting these stories? To expose hypocrisy of some apparently deeply troubled and angry individuals? To poke fun? Or to start yet another session of deriding people of faith under the guise of just wondering what people thought about this or that story? To feel good about yourself?

What you don't seem to understand about these threads....what we Christians find so incredibly insidious and hurtful, is that people on DU go out of their way to look for stories like these solely to post them on DU.

You know full well that there are Christians on this site who are good and honorable people who despise George Bush's politics and who hate what the fundies have done to faith in America.

The truly painful thing to us, is that reminded every night that we are here....that there are a good number of people who hate Christians and don't want us on DU or in the party. People who would treat us as second or third class democrats. People judging by the level of their animosity would likely spit on us if we walked into their homes.

Is it really you intent to be so unkind, so insensitive as to push us away from the party?

Will this ever end?

[usregimechange]

1. The religious and the secular left are lovers, so have sex damn it!

[GrumpyGreg]

2. Small minded people post those stories----ignore them !

[usregimechange]

3. Because bad Christians have hurt them in the past and they are...

resentful?

[DRoseDARs]

4. Will this ever end? you ask. Not until you put the Dominionists...

...in their place: Muzzled, straight-jacketed, and locked away in padded rooms. You liberal (for lack of a better term) Christians have allowed the the minority fundamentalist/Dominionist Christians to practically become the only majority voice of your religion. Until you take back The Word from them that they've corrupted, people are going to be jaded everytime they hear or read anything about the religion. It's no different than a USAmerican travelling abroad: People assume he or she supports Bush** Inc. even if the polar opposite is true. We have to take back our country, you have to take back your religion. Complaining about the bad-mouthing it won't do that in either case.

[Perky]

12. Ah so it is our fault.Tell me how pray tell would you

propose we do that? By leaving? By staring a religious war witin the "Family"?

[DRoseDARs]

25. If you have to ask if it is then it is. Otherwise...

...less whining about negative stories, more posting positive stories. Be more activist, rally support in your community for liberal causes in Jesus' name. Openly confront the fundamentalists/Dominionists at every opportunity and debate them into the ground until they cry "Uncle," or until they just cry. That works too. ;) Throwing snippy little strawmen at me or anyone else won't be of much help.

[Perky]

34. I am in a Church that is a republican stronghold thank you very much

I choos e to stay and fight. Not because they are wrong but because politics is a poor substitiure for the Beattitudes. To walk away is to surrender. I don't do that.

[DRoseDARs]

48. Then why did you suggest leaving in your previous post? I certainly...

...never said any such thing. And it isn't politics, it's bad religion. The fundies are corrupting many religions (in this case Christianity) and it is up to those of you on the inside to take your religions back. You can't do that from the outside. You're facing an uphill battle within your own church, but switching churches is not something I'd consider "walking away" or "surrender." You pick your battles to win a war of ideas and choosing a battleground that suits you and disadvantages your "enemy" is part of that. If you stay with your current church, that's your business. If you can make any ground there, good. If not, choose ground that's more advantageous to you and your beliefs.

[susanna]

66. Keep in mind one thing...

...that those of us who consider ourselves liberal Christians are actually abiding by our religion's beliefs...live and let live; there but for the grace of God go I; let he without sin cast the first stone. Yes, us liberal (for lack of a better term) Christians are some sorry people on this here planet...

Also, please realize that many of the fundamentalist type "believers" we share a religion with have broken every single one of Christ's tenets, and we do see that. Yet because of our beliefs, we must allow them their stance. Because that is exactly what our religion teaches...all people must come to God of free will.

Do not get me wrong - I truly believe that there are people who are killing Christianity, mostly through political alliances. Those of us following Christ outside of political ties find it very difficult to mount any sort of offensive against those of our brethren who profess mayhem and warfare as answers. In essence, personally, I am crippled by my very faith from calling them out.

In summation, it is very difficult to be a liberal Christian, especially as we watch those who would use Christ for worldly power gain the stage. The pseudo-Christian need for power, and the real-Christian need for forgiveness and love, create a very terrible paradox. Worse yet, I do not know the answer. I wrestle daily with it, if that is any comfort to you.

[Inland]

115. Is the Inquisition still around, and if not, how lock them away?

I'm not sure where this power to lock away certain christians is supposed to come from. I know that there isn't any pan Christian organization. The very point of the splintering of sects is to prevent anyone from preaching a different sermon, and the very point of the first amendment is to prevent the old tongs and water torture methods of forcing a change of heart. "Taking back a religion" is not only impossible, but nonsensical, because Pat Robertson never was in their religion. Pat thinks the Pope is taking people to hell, and vice versa, and they may both be right according to other sects. What more fighting do you think can take place than that?

Here's my counter point. If you want christians to speak up in public forum, try to help them feel invested in democratic or leftist politics instead of bad mouthing them with a spurious association with some doofus a million miles away from their own beliefs and their own church. If not, they can always the various disinvitations to heart and sit back. Just saying.

[podnoi]

206. And you think your "supportive" attitude is helping them?

[mrcheerful]

5. We don't care what faith you follow, just we are fed up with the

Born again biggots that want to force their religious dogma down everyones throats. Who cares what you believe? There are a lot more important things going on, like the Robertsons and falwels out there trying to take america from all who don't believe as they believe.

[Maestro]

6. There is a difference between wholly attacking Christians

and attacking hypocritical fundamentalists who give Christianity a bad name and who are the very ones that the Chicken Hawk right pander to. They are attacking the very extremism that abounds in any religion. If you are a liberal Christian you are more than welcome here. Don't take every story about bad "Christians" personally.

[Perky]

14. But that is not what is going on

Attack Dobson and falwell and Robertona ll you want. but on GD right now.. somone pulled up an article for June 2005 abot a pastor who beat his daughter over her boyfrined. WHy is that even being posted 9 months later?
It has nothing to do with RW poliics.

[Maestro]

89. I didn't notice the date on that one.

That one is suspect in my opinion, however, it is newsworthy in the sense that the idiot involved also ran a combat boot camp for young Christians to fight the "good" fight. He is a so called Christian calling for violence. Seems a bit strange to me.

[Cleita]

7. Perky, I'm with you on this.

We shouldn't post anything about bad acting Christians. When we find something good to post about the good Christians we will or maybe you could help us out with this.

[KittyWampus]

9. Several of them spoke at a widely watched funeral last week.

[Cleita]

11. Yes, thanks for chastising me.

I was being sardonic with the OP who seems to think that malfaesance shouldn't be discussed because it's about self-described Christians.

[Perky]

15. No that was not what I am saying.

I am simply asking about motivations for starting threads that have nothing to do with the power of religious right. Falwell/Robertson?dobson are all fair game. Intelligent Design is fair game. ABortion is fair game they . It these posts that have nothing to do with politics that I am asking why poeple go out of their way to find them and post them.

[Zhade]

95. No, you are assuming motivations.

That's part of the whole problem.

[Perky]

16. No that was not what I am saying.

I am simply asking about motivations for starting threads that have nothing to do with the power of religious right. Falwell/Robertson?dobson are all fair game. Intelligent Design is fair game. ABortion is fair game they . It these posts that have nothing to do with politics that I am asking why poeple go out of their way to find them and post them.

[SicSemperTyrannis]

23. Because many of us have grown weary of the constant....

...holier-than-thou commentary posted to the DU boards by people claiming to be Christians.

Why are you going out of your way to defend them?

[Perky]

30. Whoa....show me some of those post

Give me the links.. Seriously I have not seen anybody get "preach on here"

If I have just missed it. I will gladly sit down and shut up.. but honestly I have never seen a Holier than thou post on DU.

[Perky]

47. Still waiting

[Perky]

84. And I am still waiting

[greyl]

85. It would break the rules, I think, to post them.

But here's the title of one that definitely qualifies as holier than thou: "Why do non-believers have to be so rude?"

[Zhade]

96. You should probably offer proof of your own assertions...

...before demanding same from others.

Otherwise, it's called hypocrisy.

[stepnw1f]

8. To Highlight Self-Righteous Indignation

Once again.... to Highlight Self-Righteous Indignation

[Donald Ian Rankin]

88. I have to say,

That on DU I see *far* more of that from atheists than from Christians, although admittedly if you include non-DU sources it's the other way round.

[shifting_sands]

10. Christians

I agree Perky, although I don't take offense at the comments directed at those "pretend"Christians because I am firm in my beliefs and I don't feel any more connection to that faux right-wing Christian base than I do to the IRA even though I'm Irish.

But I do know there is a difference in what a Christian is and isn't, and perhaps we should come up with a different term to separate them from those who do follow Christian teachings and those who only use the word to promote hate and division. I do not think they see how close they are to the right wing Muslims. I have a friend who is Jewish but doesn't connect herself to Zionists, there is a difference. There's a difference between Catholic and Opus Dia. I think we might forget that sometimes, there is a difference.

[jonnyblitz]

13. As a gay person I am gonna TRASH right wing christians

all I damn want and I dont give a FUCK if it hurts your feelings. this is all the time i am going to waste on this idiotic damn thread. :puke: :puke:

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. Ah come on tell us what you really think

:evilgrin:

[FreedomAngel82]

26. You're missing what the person is saying

They are talking about ANY Christian that makes the news. Not assholes like Falwell and their ilk. I'm a Christian and even I am totally pissed with them.

[Zhade]

97. If a person does wrong, and happens to be a Christian, so what?

Now, if posters say "he did this because all Christians do that" or whatever, yeah, Perky'd have a point.

Absent any proof of this occurring, however, this thread is just self-pitying flamebait.

[jonnyblitz]

111. why should ANY christian be exempt from criticism if they do bad ??

I don't get what you mean. most, if not ALL of news discussed about bad xians I see posted is about RW christians although you in particular and a few others have hollered christian bashing in the past when people have criticized RW christians.I will never forget you freaking out in the thread discussing the movie, "Saved" , which poked fun at RW fundies. :eyes:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

204. May I answer that?

If someone is famous as a Christian, it's because he or she has made his career as a Christian, or he/she boasted or boasts of being a Christian. That being the case, we expect behavior from that person which is superior to, say, someone who does not hold himself up to being a Christian.

Often, the person who makes a career as a Christian, or who holds him or herself out as a Christian, is known for this because he or she goes to town criticizing non-Christians for their behavior. (One of many, many examples is when they, attack gays).

Then suddenly one day the person who has been behaving holier-than-thou is uncovered to have lived or acted in a way that is heinous. We realize the person has been a hypocrite and a liar.

That's when criticism begins. They deserve it.

[Judi Lynn]

65. Don't make us guess what you think. Do you think we're psychic?n/t

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

17. I just wrote what I thought was a thoughtful rebuttal to your post...

... then I read your post again and decided that you wouldn't be interested in it.

I think that you just want someone to help you nail the last spike into your crucifix, you poor victim... and it's not even Easter.
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

"Will this ever end?"

[Nevernose]

18. It's hypocrisy and ignorance we hate, not Christians

Heck, I even quoted Matthew for my latest sig line. I may not go to church as much as I should, and I hold some beliefs regarding Christianity that many Christians would find quite radical, but I still identify myself as a Christian (an "Ostensible Lutheran").

I neither hate myself nor hate other Christians. What I hate is ignorance and hypocrisy, and the total prostitution of everything Jesus ever stood for in the name of Imperial America. There're a lot of people who are either asleep or cockroaches; either way, we need to turn the lights on, and DU is a good starting palce for that, or a at least a nonthreatening place to vent our anger.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

20. There's only one appropriate answer for that:

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

38. I saw victimhood complex and answered accordingly.

I used the graphics because I am a...



If you don't like it, feel free to ignore me. EDIT: whoa, that was the Fastest Mod in the West!

[Judi Lynn]

80. Maxwell Burro? n/t

[PassingFair]

197. An 86 Donkey? ...n/t

[Judi Lynn]

69. Yay! Way to go. It's a treat to see that graphic recommendation.

Fantastic! :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[FreedomAngel82]

21. I know how that feels

Sometimes I wonder how much church would treat me if they knew I was an FDR/Kennedy liberal (as I call myself anyways). If it ever came to "turning over" the liberals would they do that to me? :shrug: Sometimes I feel like I'm too liberal for Christian's and too Christians for liberals/democrats. But than I remember what the party stands for and that my religion doesn't matter and I can still be a democrat even if someday democrats don't want me (which I couldn't ever imagine happening by the way). And of course if there's always a thread that I feel uncomfortable with I can just ignore it. :)

[Perky]

37. They know what I believe in my church. and they respect me

It was a battle well worth it.

[Zhade]

98. But that's because you're not into the persecution complex thing.

You're one Christian THIS atheist thinks rocks!

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. Because the bad Christians cram their religion down our throats

every chance they get. They belong on a political forum because they have injected themselves into the political discourse in this country. Their holier than thou attitude is offensive and repulsive.

If you aren't a bad holier than thou Christian, then don't take offense. No one is pushing you away.

[zonmoy]

221. yes it is precisely the bad apples

that bully people into their religion that I complain the most about.

[Katherine Brengle]

24. I don't think we "search" for the stories--when they are prominent in the

news, we talk about them just like we talk about any other news story.

I do believe that there are Christians who truly live follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and that there are "Christians" who do not. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with detecting this difference and commenting on it.

[zonmoy]

222. Sadly the ones that actually act and behave as christ would

are so very very rare. Most seem to act like somebody fused the borg and the Gestapo together with some form of twisted christianity.

[Hello_Kitty]

27. It's not their Christianity that is the problem

It's their (the fundies) underlying extremist, intolerant, and entitled attitudes. They wield incredible amounts of political and social power in this country. They are trying to take over the schools and every other institution in order to further the goals of the neo-cons and force a state religion on all of us.

I can see where some of the posts can get a little meanspirited. There's stuff posted in GD that I think really belongs in the Atheists and Agnostics Group. But as a card-carrying atheist, I can tell you that I'd be a colossal fool to suggest that I don't want religious people in the Democratic Party, given that you are 80% or more of the general population.

[FreedomAngel82]

29. This isn't about the fundies

This is about average Christians such as Jimmy Carter.

[Hello_Kitty]

31. Have DUers been posting unkind things about him?

I hadn't seen any. Not saying there haven't been but I usually see nothing short of reverence for President Carter here.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

42. What alternate dimension's DU have you been reading?

I have seen EVERY prominent Democratic politician bashed here EXCEPT Carter!

I want some of whatever you're having. Or the dimension-hopping device, whatever.

[Zhade]

102. Jimmy Carter's been "bad acting"?

NT!

[JanusAscending]

50. " We are known by our fruits", ALL OF US !!!

Ya can't judge all Christians in the same category as the "fundies" anymore than you can compare law abiding, peace loving Muslims around the world with the radical extremists ! I believe that the hate mongering, JUDGMENTAL "fundies" are as much a cancer in our society, as the Islamic "be headers" of innocent people over there. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!! :loveya: P.S. My late husband had a great saying; "beauty is skin deep, ugly is to the bone".....There are an awful lot of pretenders out there!!! (if you get my drift?)

[Bozita]

32. When I hear the word "Christian," my mind pictures Falwell and Robertson

I don't picture the local Catholic priest or Lutheran minister.

I see Robertson telling of his prayers deflecting hurricanes. I hear Falwell announcing God's reasons for 9/11, tsunamis, Katrina, and whatever the hell catastrophe is next.

I'm not anti-Christian. I am, however, totally opposed to any "Christian" who calls George W. Bush a "godly" man.

[Perky]

41. Ok but Christians on DU are not doing that

[Bozita]

55. Some people live their beliefs. Others just preach those beliefs.

For the most part, DUers go after the latter.

The louder the preaching, the closer the scrutiny.

[mandyky]

33. Not sure what stories you mean

I don't think anyone on DU has anything against Christians, except for those who act like the American Taliban. Many at DU are spiritual.

Now, pointing out hypocrisy, is another matter. Please don't be offended, we aren't talking about rational Christians. I think some of the hard feelings have been caused since the election, when the media bought into the values vote crap, and started running all these weird religious stories.
I am sick of hearing newscasters on TV telling people they'll pray for them - that is not their job, there job is to report the damn news. And I was raised Christian.

Maybe just stay out of the threads that look offensive. I use that little x to hide threads if they make me upset.

[Zhade]

103. Made-up stories, mostly.

I.e., this problem is a strawman that really doesn't exist except to whine about persecution that isn't happening.

[leesa]

35. I am so sick of whining persecuted Christians.

[Perky]

39. I am soo sick of that lame ass rebuttal

Nothing in the OP talked about persecution.

[anitar1]

81. Leesa, You are not alone. somehow they seem to ooze

through the cracks and get in your face.My thought is to them, just practice YOUR religion and stay away from me. Why they think they have to force their beliefs and tales on others is beyond me. It seems to me that they need some help. But there is always that faction that whines about their mistreatment.Sickening.And Perky, I can hear your whine loud and clear.

[Bluebear]

36. If they tell me I caused 9/11 or Katrina & want prayer in public school...

they have crossed the line from spiritual to political and their words are deserving of reprint here. If their agenda includes stopping same sex marriage or a woman's right to choose you're damn right their agenda will be highlighted here.

[Perky]

40. I have no problem with that either

[seabeyond]

43. i am a christian and it isnt painful for me at all. so please dont

include me in all that. further, i ask why... and have in the past ask why... if you stand in your faith in honesty, why should it hurt you, the anger people may have with christians. why arent you equally angry at the christians that have the balls of this nation and dictating law and behavior, with our religion

as a christian i do not even kinda understand you position. i dont understand why you take it personally. i dont understand why you feel you have to defend christ. do you really lack faith so, that you think christ really needs or wants you to defend him. at the expense of not being understanding to your fellow man. dont you think it is more christ like for you to understand those people that are angry at religion, dont you think it is more christ like to understand the cry of anguish from so many people that are being hurt by our religion

i really.... as a fellow christian.... do not get your position. and each person that brings up one of these threads, i dont get why you dont understand why people are angry. i dont understand why you arent angry too.

no it doesnt bother me when people speak the hypocrisy of those that claim themselves christians yet promote hate

i also love these people. i also know that they have been manipulated with hate, or threat that they wont make it to heaven if they dont follow the word of mans interpretation of the bible. i have compassion for them. and i sit with them often as they pray so hard, looking, praying, searching for faith

i have faith. it means it is already there. i dont need to question. i dont need to defend and protect jesus. he never asked us too. he is quite capable. he is in the heart of those that cry out. and he loves them anyway. why dont you love them anyway

[Perky]

45. I take it personally because the undercurrent

is that Christians are somehow not worthy to be democrats. It is as iof some of you want me to make a choice us or them?

[seabeyond]

51. since there are high 80's% christian in the u.s. i am going to

say a good number of christians are democrats. i have never heard anyone imply to be a democrat one should not be a christian. i think you are taking things way too personally. there are a few heavy duty atheist that speak with disdain for all that is christian, but i have heard only a few and is certainly not representative of the democratic party or even this board for that matter. this is internet, people are way more brave than they are face to face. also a lot of people say mean and hateful things just because they can in animosity. also some just like to start a fight

i go on about every religious thread. i find it the biggest division we face in this nation. i watch it take off when bush got in and especially in spring 2004.

again as a chrisitian that take my christianity very seriously, i dont agree with your position at all.

[seabeyond]

53. i also take seriously my obligation to fellow man and my faith

to challenge this. when schools are being asked to lie to my children, teach them things we know arent true because of someones own interpretation. though they have the right to believe what they want, they dont have the right to lie to my child in an academic environment



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x391804

[Zhade]

104. Thank you for seeing through the bullshit of the OP's premise.

NT!

[WritingIsMyReligion]

307. Very good post.

:thumbsup:

[Perky]

44. An example posted tonight

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x391133

This thing happened in June of last year. Why the heck would you post it in here 9 months later?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

46. Why, the Vast Atheist Conspiracy, of course!

We run a sophisticated network of propaganda hell bent on crushing God, America and Apple Pie! (Not necessarily in that order.) MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Or, the poster noticed that 9 months after it happened.

[Perky]

49. Nine months ago and it has nothing to do with politics

or the religious right.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

54. Suuuuuuure. NOTHING political about this. No sir.

From the site mentioned in that post:

"You have fought with Hollywood and the Music Industry to gain the minds and hearts of America's youth. Many today within the Church are ready to surrender our most valuable resource (our children) to the enemy's camp. I AM NOT!"

"Weapons Course: This course challenges the Christian Soldier to engage and eliminate his greatest enemies."

If that isn't political, Osama Bin laden isn't either.

Jesus H. Q. Rhyste on a pink, yellow-polkadotted, nuclear-powered pogo stick. :crazy:

[beam me up scottie]

70. shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Ixnay on the onspiracycay!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

59. Oh, and by the way

If not for you, I wouldn't have noticed that thread. Thank you. It needs to be kicked and recommended.

[beam me up scottie]

68. Yep-and because of this thread, I found a HUGH website about bad religion!

http://quinnell.us/religion/bad/index.html

Thanks, Perky, I never would have found this great resource!

[jonnyblitz]

91. great resource!! thanks for that link...

:hi:

[beam me up scottie]

93. Hey, Jonny!

Sorry I'm just now getting back to you, I was out persecuting the vast religious majority.

[greyl]

86. Gee, it just made it to the Greatest page for some reason. nt

[seabeyond]

60. why?????? because these are the very people calling us on morality

and family values telling us how we are suppose to behave, how they are our example on behaving and look at the hypocrisy. you are bothered by this being posted???? the asshole shouldnt be telling everyone to live their particular way in such jugdment and wrath as we hear these stories time and again

be pissed at the pastors hypocrisy, not the poster that is bringing this to our awareness.

you want to hide all the hypocrisy of church so we can all pretend it isnt there. nothing is healed in hiding this crap

i thought you were talking about posters bad mouthing christians, not true stories of the hypocrisy

i had an employee talking politics with me, and he says., well the repug does have family vaue. say what ,i told him. i know a lot of liberals with family and they take pretty damn good care of their children. i dont think many can question my family value

repugs took on the badge of being the holier than thou, .... they can fall on that badge of hypocrisy

[Judi Lynn]

72. I just did a search and discovered he's still in business in Tennessee

He's still at his Baptist church:
http://www.baptistassociation.com/-1999997211

The incident is mentioned in this assortment of odd behavior moments by people masquerading as pious:
http://quinnell.us/religion/bad/violence5.html

Very interesting.

By the way, I was raised as a "preacher's kid," and I'm completely aware churches are sometimes havens for very, very disturbed people, and they can serve to wildly intensify fear of the outside world. It's a real abuse of their weakness and ignorance.

Emotionalism is never a solution to deep questions and fear. People need something far more substantial. This is something they must learn on their own. Life itself teaches this elusive truth.

[prolesunited]

52. And you are free to counter

with as many stories of Christians putting their faith into action.

You can't control what others post, but you can make an effort in your posts to show all the wonderful contributions Christians are making to the party and to liberal ideals.

[upi402]

62. well put. I think 'control' is a key idea

When people who belive in things not of the real world, and then try to control people who live in the real world -then a backlash to that insanity is reasonable to expect.

Like the Muslims trying to control what a paper, in a foreign country, prints as a cartoon.
Radicals tend to wag the dog in religions. And they want to change, or control the world.
It's 'fear' -that comes out as anger when efforts to change and control others fails.

[BurtWorm]

56. Because there are so many of them?

:shrug:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

58. Bee Eye Ann Gee Oh.

[upi402]

57. feel repressed by phonies -it follows in response

[EstimatedProphet]

61. this is like asking why newspapers don't report crimes that didn't happen

I'm a Christian too. A liberal one. Just like Christ and his followers were.

The reason these stories show up is because these fundy hatelovers are nuts. They do believe murder is godly, just like it is shwon in the articles. Just because someone posts a story about them doens't mean that the poster is saying all Christians are like them. That's every bit as bad as saying all Muslims are terrorists. these stories are being posted because we need to be aware of the sickness of the Satan-worshippers that clothe themselves in Christianity. As a Christian, I don't take any offense to the posts, because they're not directed at me-they're directed at evil people destroying Christianity in the name of Satan, because they have been tricked into thinking that Satan is God.

[JI7]

63. because many of them are right wing types

the stories are mostly of the hypocritical type Christians. it's the same reason we see stories of the Islamic fanatics burning up and rioting things over cartoons instead of stories about the ones who aren't doing this.

this isn't just some fringe element without any power. they helped get Bush elected, Alito. we actually have debates about science vs intelligent design.

that's why we discuss them on here and should continue to.

[beam me up scottie]

64. Why does Perky constantly whine about posts on DU?

Will his persecution complex never end?

[radio4progressives]

67. Why Do you think? Because the Christo FASCISTS are Terrorizing Americans

get it now?

[varkam]

71. Good Christians don't make a lot of noise.

Just MO, but why I think when so many people think of Christians, they think of people like Robertson is because people like Robertson make the most noise. The Christians who murder their family in the name of God, the priests who molest young boys, those who invoke a civil-religious doctrine to help justify war, they all make a lot of noise.

Good Christians are like good people in general - they don't tend to do any of that. They go to church, they hold well wishes for their fellow man in their hearts, they donate to charity, they help strangers, they commit themselves to action for the benefit of those less fortunate. Those things, in my mind, are some of the things that make someone a good Christian.

Bad Christians want to talk to you about Jesus (as if you hadn't heard). They tell you you're sinning and will go to hell. They think being gay is an affront against god. They are so sure in their judgment that sometimes it just astounds me how fully one can believe in the certainty of their own judgments. Everything is black and white to bad Christians - there are no grey areas.

So why all the stories? Bad Christians stick out like a sore thumb because they break so many of the convictions that they 'supposedly' believe in without any apparent atonement which makes them incredibly slow-moving targets. It's a cheap shot - sure. But I'm going to echo a thought mentioned earlier: I would think you would be more upset about the people that commit such acts as opposed to people who bring it up. But then again, I'm not a Christian, so I wouldn't know.

[Judi Lynn]

73. I'd like to add a reminder of the admonition in the New Testament

against people who trumpet their religious beliefs publically, making a display of themselves, pointing out to others their spiritual superiority, as they see it, or want to be seen.

It was recommended that, as the poster before me mentioned, people of deep faith go about their business quietly, leaving the display of piety for more direct, personal, honest moments of prayer and meditation one-to-one with the One they claim to worship.

[radio4progressives]

74. Please move this topic to the DU Religion Spirituality forum. (link)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=245

[JackDragna]

75. Therein lies the rub.

There are 'good' Christians, to be sure. The problem, however, is that for most of its history the religion has been a cover for repression, a justification of wealth stratification and a general drag on the progress of Western society. Ergo, most liberals are going to take pot-shots at it.

[Withywindle]

76. Well...

Go read posts in the GLBT forum. Go read posts in the Women's Rights/Feminism forum. Go read posts in the forums for other faiths. Go read posts in the Atheists forum.

Open your heart to really acknowledging, really understanding, really feeling what so many other people have suffered for so long at the hands of Christians (the dominant, power-holding majority in this country). And understand why we are particularly observant when some member of this faith of "universal love" shows their obvious vicious, abusive side in some spectacular fashion.

Ask yourself how you would like living in a country run by some other religion that tries to arrange its laws to suit that faith regardless of what the Constitution says. Imagine living in a Hindu-run country that's supposed to be "open" and "free" yet no avowed beef-eater could ever hope to be elected to statewide, much less national office. Imagine living in a Dianic Wiccan-run country that claimed equality for all, yet men were only 20% of its Senate and no man had ever been President in over 200 years. Imagine living in an atheist-run country that claimed its laws were equal for all, yet no couple that wanted to have a Christian ceremony could be considered legally married.*

*edited to point out the religious descrimination in this issue: my own religion, Wicca, views all couples who want to make a life-long spiritual commitment to each other as equal regardless of gender. We've been doing sanctified, blessed, religious same-sex marriages for 40 years - that the state chooses not to recognize that is RELIGIOUS discrimination as well as gender-based discrimination, and I'm sick of it.

You'd be looking for bad examples and loopholes and contradictions, too, I bet, and I wouldn't blame you.

[JDPriestly]

77. Jimmy Carter's book Our Endangered Values

reminded me of that fact. He is one of the few voices on behalf of the religion of Jesus that is being heard. The Robertson/Falwell/Dominionist/anti-evolution crowd doesn't live or preach Jesus' message, but they are drowning out the true Christians. It's time for people like you to make your voices heard -- so loudly that you drown out the Robertson, etc. crowd.

[Zhade]

105. Really hard for people to fight real religious persecution...

...when they're too busy whining about imaginary persecution on a message board.

[NMMNG]

78. *You're* being treated like a second or third class Democrat?

Get a grip. Wait until you're told to shut up about your issues because they are "losing votes" for the Democratic party and then come whining. Until then this atheist, lesbian, woman has little sympathy for you.

[entanglement]

79. I'm sorry for you

But you have to look at things from the perspective of POWER. Who's more powerful in the US today? Fundies or atheists? Remember, ALL the 'persecution' faced by Christians in this country PALES when compared to that faced by other groups. Ask yourself:

Is it easier to be an openly gay person today or a Christian?
Is it easier to be a brown-skinned Muslim or a Christian?
Is anybody pulled over for 'driving while Christian'?
Are you refused a home rental because you're Christian?
Do people threaten to bomb your place of worship because you're a Christian?

I could go on and on, but I suppose you get the idea.

[varkam]

82. Nice points.

Yeah, those radical atheists are just running things - aren't they?

[rucky]

83. Of course it's about hypocracy.

Hypocracy: saying one thing and doing another.

SAYING: "I'm a Christian" (which means that person claims to be 'good').

DOING: Running a day camp that teaches kids to use assault rifles ("for Jesus"), and committing brutal abuse on your child.

If we expected Christians to beat their kids, then the act wouldn't be hypocricy. The posts are positive towards Christianity, and negative towards the actions that contradict the tenets.

Aren't you tired of criminals and sociopaths using Jesus' name to cover up or justify their inhumane acts?

[LWolf]

87. Religious "persecution"

will end when there are no more religions that claim to be the only path to "higher power," and when there are no more religions that advocate proselytizing, "saving" people, war on infidels, or any other form of promotion that seeks to make one faith the only faith, and infidels/pagans/sinners/etc. of the rest.

As long as those elements are present in a faith, there will be people who will speak out against them, protecting their own right not to practice that faith.

As long as there are faiths that seek to control governments and to claim whole nations, to control social norms and to claim whole populations, there will be people who will oppose them in one form or another.

[trotsky]

90. Why do some Christians go out of their way to feel persecuted?

Do you not feel your faith is validated unless you can believe that someone, somewhere, is putting you down for your religion? Even if it's just a handful of loudmouths on an anonymous Internet message board?

[Zhade]

106. Especially when IT'S NOT ACTUALLY HAPPENING?

Sheesh!

[WritingIsMyReligion]

308. Because the vast majority of them have persecution complexes

up the wazoo. It's an inherent part of many demoninations, I've noticed.

:eyes:

[catbert836]

92. If you're upset about it,

then post about positive stories involving good-acting Christians. They shouldn't be that hard to find. I don't think anyone here on DU would tar all Christians with that same brush. We freely acknowledge that there are good Christians, and that the faith has been used positively in a lot of ways.
But don't expect us to ignore these stories. Christianity has been used negatively as well, and there are many bad Christians (I don't feel compelled to give a list). We can't ignore the bad deeds of people just so we don't offend their fellow Christians.
If you want to balance out the negative, do positive things.

BTW: I used to be a Persectued Christian, much like yourself, and I have to say that I find your attitude rather sickening.

[Zhade]

107. I have to say, again, that I really admire your growth.

I remember when you whined like the OP. You've really shown a lot of honesty and grace since you took the path best suited to you.

I truly admire you for that!

[catbert836]

112. It's thanks to you

and people like you that I've been able to grow so much. I wouldn't have been able to come so far without you guys challenging me way back when. :toast:
Here's hoping others can do the same.

[Zhade]

119. Wow! That's very kind of you.

I like to think of it as a team effort. :D

:toast:

[Zhade]

94. Of course, you have no way to prove that assertion.

"What you don't seem to understand about these threads....what we Christians find so incredibly insidious and hurtful, is that people on DU go out of their way to look for stories like these solely to post them on DU."

You don't know this, but you assume this to be true.

You have absolutely no way to know if that is actually happening. If you insist you do, you're lying, to us and yourself.

"You know full well that there are Christians on this site who are good and honorable people who despise George Bush's politics and who hate what the fundies have done to faith in America."

Yep. Please point to where anyone said the opposite.


"The truly painful thing to us, is that reminded every night that we are here....that there are a good number of people who hate Christians and don't want us on DU or in the party. People who would treat us as second or third class democrats. People judging by the level of their animosity would likely spit on us if we walked into their homes."

Self-pity much? Most of this is your own sense of persecution. Get over yourself, seriously.


"Is it really you intent to be so unkind, so insensitive as to push us away from the party?"

Again, you of course do not know anyone's intent unless it is told to you. More self-pitying assumptions on your part.


"Will this ever end?"

Will your whining about persecution that isn't happening ever end?

[BiggJawn]

99. We go "out of our way"?

Shoot, I'd have to go out of my way to AVOID seeing tales of "bad-acting" Christians.

Oh, that's right, how SILLY of me! I forgot!

They're not "Real" Christians, My bad, I forgot.....


"There are a billion Christian in the world who try to live by God's Word., who are charitable and pleasant, deeply spiritual and kind to all who pass their way."

Cite, por favour, Perky... A "billion"? What about the OTHER 1.1 billion? They must be the ones we "go out of our way" to turn up tales of their mis-deeds...
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Sheesh...Whining about "Christian bashing" and you probably had NO idea of the number of youse goys in the world when you wrote "billion"... That's LESS than 50%...

Gee....50% of 'em are bad apples. shouldn't have to "dig" very far to turn up stories of their hypocrisy...

[beam me up scottie]

101. Oh, sure. Resort to using math, why don't you?

[InaneAnanity]

100. I have issues with christianity

And with christians. I fully admit it. I'm prejudiced. I don't like you guys.

[Zhade]

108. And this atheist has to say, that's not fair.

Sure, I don't like whiners like Perky, I'll admit that straight up - but there are awesome people here who happen to be Christian.

Just like us atheists, there are great and awful believers.

[InaneAnanity]

114. I know that

I make an effort not to discriminate. But I am certainly prejudiced against Christians.

It's not a good thing, but it's true.

[Inland]

116. It's pretty funny you bother to "fully admit" it.

First, the implication that it wasn't obvious without an admission, and second, the implication that admitting it somehow makes the prejudice more palatable. Last I knew, prejudice wasn't acceptable even if it was a personal favorite.

[InaneAnanity]

117. Everyone is prejudiced

Most people just won't admit it. We all hold prejudices and stereotypes. Whether we go so far as to discriminate based on these prejudices is something we can consciously try to control, but whether we have the prejudice itself isn't something we can choose.

I try not to discriminate based on my prejudice.

[Inland]

120. Nonsense, all of it.

Prejudices and stereotypes are misperceptions. Anyone who says that they can't control the accuracy of their own perceptions is wrong. Anyone who isn't interested in trying is a bigot at worst and detached from reality for their own personal convenience at best.

As to not discriminating based on prejudice, I'd like to see how that's done when the prejudice is accepted. I know what it means for a person to fight prejudices that creep up subconsciously, but you aren't. Having endorsed your own prejudices against christians as both unavoidable and morally neutral, what exactly does it mean to not discriminate? That you never act on your belief that christians suck..... besides saying so and encouraging others to think the same? That you never actually act in accord with your own perceptions of people's inherent value? I call bullshit.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FM Arouet666]

128. Such an absolutist

You have no prejudices? How holy of you. Prejudice is to pre-judge, to make an assessment before all the available evidence is considered. If you state to me that you have never mentally assessed another individual, and later found that your initial assessment was incorrect, I would be forced to call you a lier. Same goes for masturbation, 99.9% of males have, .1% lie about it. ;)

Accepting that one has prejudices does not prevent one from refusing to practice discrimination. How can a Christian accept that we are all sinners, yet endeavor to live a life free of sin?

I see, your argument is that atheists attack christians because of prejudice. Guided by misinformation and unfamiliarity we attack the liberal christian, enslaved by prejudices which we conveniently characterize as unavoidable. Funny, really!

A few thoughts

Belief that 'christians suck'?
'Calling Bullshit'?

I had to resist a few responses to your interesting assertions. :evilgrin:

[Inland]

129. It's not NOT HAVING any.

It's not accepting them as inevitable or morally acceptable. That's why I put the part about struggling against them. It's the difference between being human and being amoral, between at least acknowledging a standard of truth and not. It's the difference between finding the initial mental assessment was incorrect and changing it, and finding it incorrect and shrugging shoulders and keepting right at it.

What I posted was, in fact, precisely the endeavor that you speak of and the poster didn't.

And nobody made any broad brush attack against all atheists. I don't know anyone else who endorsed what the poster was saying. It was his personal position. If you were not indulging in identity politics and somehow assuming that I was speaking about all atheists, you would have realized he wasn't speaking for anyone but himself and I was doing the same. But you've picked a side, divided the world into them, and put me on the other, so you had a .... misperception. Huh. Now the question is, do you change your perception to the reality or embrace your misperception as something you enjoy?

If you are holding back, you really should do it more. You aren't coming up with much good.

[InaneAnanity]

133. Look, Inland

I'm prejudiced. I've admitted it's not a good thing. What more do you want??

My prejudice likely comes from my disagreement with hardcore christians. I'm tired of their holier-than-thou crap, and the B.S. they push as law that actually affects me. I don't like the fact that an incredible number of young children are brainwashed idealogues at the hands of these evangelical crazies. I don't like it when christians try to "save" me, or "fix" me, or ask me to come with them to church to see if they can "help" me. And I HATE it that a good number of moderate christians refuse to stand up to the evangelical crazies, and are letting these people take over the country.

So, whenever I meet a person and learn that they are christian, inside my head I hear the equivalent of "Here we go again...". I make sure I don't act on it, because that wouldn't be fair.

But I'm prejudiced, and I know it. And I'm sure that you are prejudiced too. But since you won't admit it to yourself, that makes you a more likely candidate to discriminate than me, I think.

[Inland]

138. I don't want any more than what I said.

I didn't want anything that was really all that different from, well, what liberals say about prejudice.

[InaneAnanity]

140. Can't give you that

I've already told you, I can't determine my prejudice. It is a natural mental phenomenon.

I ask you for honesty, but it's readily apparent you can't give me that, though.

[Inland]

143. Sorry, prejudice, even when freely admitted, is still wrong.

As to whether I am honest or not, I'd like to know what I said that was dishonest.

I suppose that your point is something really cute, in that you can be amoral, unable to improve yourself, and yet better than anyone, by a) stating you are prejudiced b) stating that it can't be helped c) stating that everyone else is too and d) despite this world of amorality and helplessness, you are still holier than anyone else because you are honest about it and everyone else in the world lies. Hm. A is true, but b, c, and d are false and therefore it's all bullshit.

[trotsky]

145. You really are incapable of discussing with someone...

unless you assign them the worst of all possible motives, aren't you?

That's really sad. As "fundie" as those you love to accuse.

[Zhade]

150. The hypocrisy is stunning.

But not forgotten.

[InaneAnanity]

152. Yea, I said it wasn't a good thing

It's not a good thing, but it is what it is. At least I admit it.

[Inland]

156. It's the least you could do.

The very least. Seriously. The very, very least.

[InaneAnanity]

157. Too bad you can't seem to do it n/t

[Inland]

159. Depends what you mean by "it".

If you mean being prejudiced, yeah, I admit it's not a goal.

Not the discussion I'm expecting in a liberal democratic forum. But I'm still prepared to be against prejudice.

Say, when the fundie con comes to me and tells me how much prejudice he has towards atheists, don't worry. I won't congratulate him on his honesty. I'll tell him how unfair he is, about most. But I hope he hasn't seen your posts on the subject of prejudice, because he'll beat me like a fucking drum, won't he?

[InaneAnanity]

161. You know what I mean

You refuse to admit that you are prejudiced, yourself.

[Inland]

163. Yeah, I am refusing to "admit" it.

Your prejudice leads you to misperception, which you would never know.

When the fundie con tells me that you are prejudiced, should I say to him, "aw, we're ALL prejudiced, and we are each welcome to our own"? That would thrill him, as it is all the rationale he needs, just as it is all the rationale you need.

Actually, I'm wondering if I could even now tell him that prejudice is wrong, since he can quote you as his authority for the fact that I too have prejudices and am just lying about it. I guess your idea of fighting the religious right is for religious to be tagged as prejudiced, irrational, etc etc and then go out to fight for your right to nonprejudicial treatment from people you are admittedly prejudiced against because it's their "responsibility". Looks like the first ten rounds of the fight is going be insisting that very few atheists actually feel the way you do. That is the case, isn't it, that very few accept prejudices even when directed against someone else?

End result, religious and atheist fundies working the same divide, and you lose. Same thesis that I have had all along.

[InaneAnanity]

165. Clearly

You have no understanding of what the word "prejudice" means. I suggest you look it up.

Also, casting things in the light of "right" and "wrong" is fundie speak. Everything is relative. There are certain things which are maladaptive and dangerous in modern society. Religion is #1 on that list. I'm not against religion because it is "wrong", just because it is maladaptive in our current state of affairs.

Religion endangers my life. This is why I'm against it.

[Inland]

182. It's not a different defintion.

It's a different idea of what's good and bad.

And when I go out on that battle the fundie con, and after he beats the shit out of me on prejudice as I've set forth above, then we can move onto why it's wrong for him to persecute atheists......except I can't, because it turns out you don't want me to cast things in terms of "right" and "wrong" and to concede those very concepts to him. Thanks for all the help.

But I'll just tell him that religion is maladaptive and dangerous, number one on the list... seems to me we both know how much success that's going to have, that is, zero in the short run. I've been looking for anybody dropping religion from all the arguments of the atheists on the board and I gotta say it's not looking like a groundswell of moderate and liberal religious dropping their religious beliefs. But if you decide there's nothing worth having short of that conversion, well, your choice to put the debate on exactly the divide the cons chose for you.

[InaneAnanity]

185. You can't change the mind of fundies

Haven't you learned that by now?? They're delusional.

Persecuting people isn't the same as prejudice. Again, check the definition. You have it wrong.

[Inland]

186. If they love their prejudices and misperceptions as much as some, no.

But then again, you can't stop groupnig every single religious person in with the fundies, and you don't limit your categorization of lost and delusional to anything less than the great majority, including the majority of people who want to be democrats. So thanks for all that help, too. If I can't convince the cons, give me a chance to give an equal presentation to the undecided or uninformed.

But wait, you thought you were going to "fight" the fundie cons. I wonder what YOU were going to use, since my rationality and reason and appeal to goodness and tolerance you aren't going to let me attempt. In other words, the mocking and insults borne of your prejudice isn't winning the hearts and minds of either religious moderates or conservatives to athiesm. If it WAS going great, there wouldn't be a danger in your picking religion/irreligion as the crux of every issue. But because it's going badly for you, or at the very least going slowly, the cons picked it. You just keep walking right into it. But I'm just repeating what we both know.

And no, persecuting people isn't the same as prejudice, and nobody said it was. What, do you want to be congratulated for not persecuting anyone now? First comes the prejudice. Persecution comes when the prejudiced get an opportunity. That's why I wouldn't want anyone in power who is prejudiced against me. So I can see why the atheists wouldn't want a fundie christian bigot with access to political power. But it works vice versa. And it works when the religious moderates see either group directing prejudice their way, too.

[InaneAnanity]

188. Inland, dude

You got problems.

[Inland]

192. .

No need to for me to keep repeating my thesis. Everything else is your choice.

[FM Arouet666]

167. Ouchy, you slay me so................

Identity politics? You need to be a bit more clear on this term. You mention it in another post, how do you define identity politics? The act of casting the purveyor of an argument into a general group which is more easily attacked?

A common method used by the reichwing, take an opinion and apply it to the whole, then attack the whole based on the single opinion. Guilt based on association.

A standard of truth? Finding it incorrect and shrugging shoulders? When you post these lines of text who do you mentally envision? A contemptuous enemy to be sure, are they atheists? Lets not frame this in terms of examples on DU, how do you perceive atheists? Yes, I know not all atheists think alike. However, what is a general impression that you have about atheists?

Just curious, I am holding back, constipation is a bitch. I need to come up with something good. Perhaps some prune juice while I wait for your reply...............

[InaneAnanity]

178. Try raw asparagus

That's gets stuff moving.

[FM Arouet666]

200. Makes your pee smell though ;) n/t

[FM Arouet666]

127. I agree

Prejudice is an easy trap to fall into. I think all humans have prejudices. Many will attempt to convince you otherwise, however, those which protest are practicing self deceit.

In reality, prejudice is not the trap. Prejudice is the immediate characterization of another person that the mind creates based on our prior experiences, an inner voice which casts others upon a measuring stick. The trap is how we act upon this superficial assessment.

[InaneAnanity]

134. Yep, prejudice is a brain-tool

Pre-judging things helps us learn, and allows our brains to work quicker than they would otherwise. People-wise though, we have to understand and accept our prejudices so they don't cause us to discriminate. When it comes to regular living, though, pre-judging things is a necessity.

[FM Arouet666]

109. I am a good German, not like those other hulligans......

Yes, that is an offensive comparison, but it is how I feel. Conservatism seems to be spreading like wild fire, western society is trending toward conservatism, and, in response, Islamdom is doing the same. The rising voice of anger concerning the offensive Muhammad cartoons is more than a perceived offense against the prophet. Much more. Muslims world wide perceive that the west is on an offensive, fueled by conservative thought bent on creating a modern crusade. Western response to raising muslim angst is to frame things in conservative ideology. Which tends to be Christian ideology. Anti Muslim rhetoric is rampant on reich wing radio, and the west has been dismissive about the recent cartoon controversy, failing to understand the underlying anxiety which generates the protest.

So why the crack about Nazi Germany? The way I see it, lines are being drawn. Christian vs. Muslim. The Iranian issue is the most dangerous situation currently facing the world. If Israel and the U.S. attack Iran, the whole of Muslimdom takes up arms. Christan America must defend itself. Who are the enemies? Muslims, Atheists, progressives, democrats, anybody who does not support a GOP Christian conservative God.

I generally accept your argument, believe as you like, the individual should not be judged by the sins of others in the same community. Christians, for the most part, are not defined by the fringes of extremism, nor are the majority of Muslims. Most Germans did not hate Jews, wanted peace, believe as you and I, yet a holocaust occurred, and millions died. As each day goes by, the world takes one more step closer to the insanity of the early thirties. I am in the minority as are all those atheists you find offensive, it is not you we hate, it is a world gone mad that scares the hell out of us.

Oh, and Merry Christmas :evilgrin:

[Goldensilence]

110. well it's nice to know

that other people are seeing the same thing as i am...and not feeling comfortable with the way things are headed. The rise of conservatism. The eroding of civil liberties. Two invasions of other countries. A third seeming on the forfront. A stretched armed forces(yes i am alluding to a draft). While I don't live in fear there is a growing concern in my mind about the near future. I think if there is another "attack" on US soil i think it's full fledged WW3. I'm sure the Elites would love nothing more then that.


I kind of get this feeling of....shit...here we go again....

[Inland]

113. You forget what the "good german" phrase meant.

It's not that there WERE no good germans, it's just that many of those who said they were, weren't.

The fact is that one can't just declare a category, be it germans or christians, and make each individual in the defined category guilty, or responsible. A person only does what he does, not what someone else does. His omissions are only to those things he could have done, nothing else.

Therefore it's nonsensical, in a country where there is religious freedom, to say that christians are responsible for the acts of christians. It's not like there's a single tightly knit organization where they can campaign or control. It's not even like the democratic party. The pope and Pat robertson think that they are each going to hell. There's a million churches for the sole purpose of NOT having to pay attention.

It doesn't make any more sense for them to be saddled with robertson as christians then you be saddled with him as an American. Or an Oklahoman. You've made your deal with the first amendment, too.

By the way, I think you are really mistaken about the christian vs muslim struggle. The muslims don't see the struggle with the west as one of muslim vs Christianity, but muslim vs secular and atheist and, yes, free society. Maybe Bush sees it as a Crusade, but the Danes don't, and the muslims don't. Personally, I would like to avoid both a useless clash of christian vs muslim and secular vs muslim and secular vs. religious. It adds nothing.

[FM Arouet666]

118. I believe you reiterated much of what I was saying.

I agree, you cannot brand the individual with the scarlet letter 'C' because he or she is a member of a religious group which currently wields influence over our current government. However, you can take the individual to task for supporting the group with word or with silence.

Christian vs Muslim struggle? Your protest sounds very familiar, yes, I recall, The Savage Nation. I heard the same protest on Mr, oops Dr Savage's radio program. The real enemy is the secularist, the atheist, evolution, gay marriage, stem cell research. Unite all, christian and muslim alike, defeat the beast.

I have to go, I need to drain my beast, too much gatorade tonight.

[Inland]

121. But why would an atheist endorse the con's framing as all as

struggle between all religion and atheism?

I know why the cons do it. There's an 80% of people or are either religious or for it in the same sense they are for exercise and saving. It suits them to say you are either on one side or another. People usually flog a wedge issue because they are going to end up on the bigger side.

What's INCREDIBLE is a few but vocal atheists in DU rise to the bait and actually say, YEAH, it's about the epic struggle between belief and disbelief. It's not about policy. It's about right and wrong, and nobody is going to tolerate wrong.

If not for the fact that the stridently fundie atheists have picked the 80% to be wrong, it'd be a rollicking good fight. As it is, they are doing little more than giving the cons everything they could possibly want. What could they want more, than for atheists to insult the majority OF MODERATE AND LIBERAL AMERICA by telling them that despite what they may think they see every sunday, they are evil or are aiding evil or are seeped in an evil tradition. By mocking them. By, frankly, being incredibly ignorant about their religious beliefs. By pretending that every single evil comes from religion.

What more could the cons want? Why, they could pray to god that some atheists declare that there's NO DIFFERENCE between liberal and conservative christians, that all christians belong in the republican party, making the very point the cons couldn't DREAM of making themselves!

It's a jubilee for the cons. By getting some unfortunately vocal atheists to accept THEIR version of the struggle and the relevant social divide, they are going to get the cultural war on the exact terms they wanted.

[FM Arouet666]

126. Sorry, missed my post giving an endorsement to Con thinking

Lets see, If I oppose the right wing religious war against secularism, but fail to accept the rantings of progressive christians, then I am supporting the religious right? Your argument sounds very much like the administration's condemnation of war protesters, if you oppose the war, you oppose America.

Fundie atheist? Love the attempt to cast the opposition in religious terms, similar to the protestations noting that atheism is a religion on par with other religions.

Accept liberal christian ranting on DU, to do otherwise is tantamount to supporting the enemy. "Sedition, you damn atheist, get back into the closet." I shouldn't put words in your mouth, especially since you have posted a clear example of your muddled logic.

Raise to the bait? Love it, casting the atheist as the ignorant reactionary. You should look into a career in right wing radio.

I seem to be getting close to a burst of ad homenem, time for bed.

[Inland]

131. Accept, play into it, don't avoid the trap. Yeah.

Caling the "rantings" of progressive christians doesn't exactly avoid the trap.

It does rise to the bait that the cons set. You aren't the best example, but there's plenty of them. And I have called them ignorant reactionaries, because you know what? Being an atheist isn't a ticket to smartville. That is, despite the best efforts at self congratulation, the defintion is someone who doesn't believe in a deity, and it doesn't mean by definition smarter, or more rational, or more empirical, and some of the empirical evidence in the threads is definitely to the contrary. If you stopped playing identity politics and stopped taking it personally, you could probably see that pretty easilty. But playing identity politics is exactly what the cons want. And to keep anyone from pointing it out and asking that the trap be avoided.

In another post you said that you would divvy up the country and atheists would take chicago, new york and south beach. That's probably too much. People who want a liberal democracy are a majority. People who want atheism to win over religion couldn't take more than a couple wards of chicago, and then you'd still have to move out five or six institutions. Anyone who says different is kidding themselves or a con trying to scare the pews.

[InaneAnanity]

135. The cons have it made, inland

According to you, if I speak up against them, I'm playing into their trap. If I stay silent, then my voice is never heard. If I agree with christian Democrats, then I get to maintain the status quo. Whoopee!!!

My voice is going to be heard, Inland. If it hurts politically, so be it, but that's only because christian democrats refuse to entertain my "heathenistic" ideas.

The problem is that the evangelical leaders have millions of minions who will do their bidding. 45% of this country or so (the evangelical part) doesn't think for themselves. Falwell, Robertson, et. al. have the equivalent of 100 million votes for whoever they pick.

[InaneAnanity]

136. Not quite 100 million

50 million is probably more like it.

Still, they have a ton of votes, and the idiots will be all to happy to cast them.

[Inland]

137. Against cons? No, against progressive christians because christian.

Christian democrats refuse to hear your "heathenistic" ideas? Who the fuck were YOU quoting? No christian democrat, I suspect, called your ideas heathenistic. You just made that up.

You could tell me what these ideas that christian democrats refuse to hear are. Iraq withdrawal, environmental, social justice? Christian democrats are status quo? You and I know the truth, that the "ideas" you are referring to are the idea that religion sucks and not much more. Everything else gets a pretty good reception, but you aren't interested in the everything else. It's all about the religion.

Because you've accepted the cultural divide just as the cons want. You are attacking christian democrats over christianity. Yeah, your voice is going to be heard, and yeah, it's going to hurt politically. Yeah, you are actively helping the cons because of all the reasons I set forth.

Just don't pretend you don't know the score and that someone is keeping you from attacking conservatives for being conservative. Don't pretend you are on the side of liberals when liberals are in your sights. It's your choice to go after christians, whether or not conservative. Your choice.

[InaneAnanity]

141. LMAO

There are uses of quotes that don't involve quoting people. I quoted "heathenistic" because I don't believe my ideas are heathenistic, although that is how they are perceived by holier-than-thou types like yourself. That is why the quotation marks are there.

Yes, in my opinion, it is all about the religion. You, and other christian democrats who refuse to take a stand against fundamentalists, are enablers. You are just like friends of the drug addict who give him the money to buy the drugs. As such, you are just as much of a problem as the fundamentalists are.

Until moderate christians recognize and address the problem of fundamentalist, evangelical christianity, the right wing is going to slowly advance this attack on the country as we know it.

As time progresses, there will be more people who recognize what the problem is and is not, like me. Until moderate christians recognize the problem, though, there will be a deep divide in the democratic party. That's too bad, but it's not my fault. Ignoring the problem IS NOT AN OPTION.

[Inland]

144. "That is how they are perceived by holier than thou types like

yourself." Like I said, you made it up. It sounded good according to your prejudices, had a ring of truthiness,it was a means to slam some christian democrats, so you said it.

And I know you think it's all about the religion. I know it, you know it, and we all know the consequences. When you say, "the problem", you don't mean anything except religion and religious poeple.

You think that telling religious people that they are the problem and insisting that they eliminate themselves is really the ONLY thing to do, considering all that.

And we both now the result. Cons love it, use it. In reality....not that reality it is your concern....belivers in liberal democracy, including some christian democrats, are the only thing standing between you and the fundamentalist christians. Not the handful of atheists who see the world as you do. If you were concerned about deep divides in the democratic party, you would consider that. But you, like the cons, are okay to have the party and the world divided on exactly the lines of religious vs irreligious and fight it out on those ground, because that's what you care about.

Just as long as nobody is fooled.

[InaneAnanity]

151. Religion is the biggest problem, yes

But religious extremism is what I'm talking about. Moderate religious belief, belief that doesn't impose on me or others, but is done privately, isn't a threat at all. I have no problem with it, and never will.

Literal belief in the words in a book is what is dangerous. Belief that "I am right, and you are wrong, and god says to kill those who are wrong" is what is dangerous. Religious belief that leads to war and killing is what is dangerous; peaceful religious practice is a nonthreat by comparison.

I'm not telling religious moderates to "eliminate themselves" or even to change their belief; all I'm asking is that they stand up to the fundamentalist indoctrination of millions of Americans, and stand up against the lobbying of political leaders to invest heavily in faith-based initiatives, and religious schooling.

It is YOUR responsibility to do this because, sadly, atheists don't possess enough populational clout to enact change.

[Inland]

153. If it was religious extremism, then why go after christian democrats?

What you are NOW nameing as "the problem" doesn't have much to do with the solution.

What you are asking is exactly what they are willing to do, and exactly what wasn't good enough to join the cool kid's club. It wasn't enough to keep you from declaring their beliefs "the biggest problem".

It wasn't enough for you to not dislike them, or to keep that particular belief private. It wasn't enough for you to change your prejudices against them.

Just what are you offering besides a demand to "take reponsibility"? Where's YOUR responsibility in this matter?

Here's my suggestion. Help them by quitting the rhetoric that accepts the con trap of dividing the world into those who want religion against those who want it gone. This goes back to everything I was saying. With the problem identified as religious extremism and fundamentalism, which I heartily agree on, there's no reason to pretend that christian democrats are the problem, or on the other side. It hurts the cause.

[InaneAnanity]

154. Read my earlier anecdote

Religious moderates are to religious fundamentalists as enablers are to drug addicts. You guys aren't the problem per se, but you are essential to the problem existing.

It's a complex issue, but railing against atheists doesn't solve anything. You need to take a stand against religious fundamentalism. All I see you doing is railing against atheism.

[Inland]

155. Actually, no. But you sure are helping the cons.

They go to the public with this lie that the democratic party is anti religion, and you make it seem true.

You're an enabler. If not for the statments that you can't stop making, the beliefs you can't keep private, and the agreement with the cons that religion is the crux of everything, the cons would be left with "happy holidays" as the proof that religion was under seige.

And adhering to the problem by perceiving there to be a railing against all atheists, or that I'm a religious person, as part of that general prejudgment thing, and that religious moderates that are anti fundamentalism and democrats could cure the problems of the country if they would just stop being religious.....well, the entire prejudice thing is exactly the same cultural divide the cons want.

The religious moderates, being moderates, don't need an insult to their religion and IMO it's not the best motivation, that is, Hey, fight those darn fundamentalists because all religion sucks and you are part of the suckiness. It's kinda a non-sequitur for every purpose except making sure that nobody forgets what you really think is the problem, religion, including the religious moderates. Not exactly party building.

But if what you want is to make it all about religion, with all the religious on one side and the irreligious on the other, well, there's plenty of cons that are cheering you on. Just realize what result you will be getting.

[InaneAnanity]

158. I guess we're all fucked then

You can't realize that religion is the problem, I can't ignore the problem, so the cons will win out in the end.

Too bad. We're doomed.

[Inland]

160. See? Now you know where you are headed.

Once your prejudice misidentifies the problem as religion and religious, there's no solution. Told you so.

[InaneAnanity]

162. There's no solution anyway

Religion has too much of a grip on people. I'm powerless to stop it.

[Inland]

164. Luckily, you don't have to stop "religion" this week.

Just stop fundamentalist, dominionist, the political power grab. Join with people who believe in liberal democracy, even if they also believe in god, stop demonizing them, stop insulting them, see them as they are rather than through your prejudices.

It's either important to you, or not. It's up to you to decide what to do. Just don't kid yourself as to where you are going.

[InaneAnanity]

166. Unfortunately

Religious fundamentalism is intertwined with religion. It is impossible to seperate the two, in the end.

Secular education is the only answer to religious fundamentalism. Education on what religion is, where it originates from, and what it's consequences are.

I don't know of any other way to stop religious fundamentalism.

[Inland]

181. That's your perception, your strategy, and the loss will follow.

Your choice to make it about a fight against all religion, your choice to accept the con's chosen battle, your knowledge where it's going to end up.

Just don't let anyone say you didn't know.

[InaneAnanity]

184. Not exactly

The fact that I've identified the source of the problem, and you haven't, doesn't make my decision to work against it a choice.

I don't choose the problem, I'm only reacting to it.

[Inland]

187. You've misidentified the problem.

Or, at least, chosen to forget or subsume all other problems and all other goals in order to engage in this meta dispute between religion and it's opponents.

[InaneAnanity]

189. I'm pretty sure I have it right

There isn't any other one thing that causes so many people to kill each other. If you find one, let me know.

[Inland]

193. Why would anyone restrain themselves to "any one thing"?

You decide that you want to pretend the "biggest" thing making people kill each other is the "only" thing. The first is arguable, to a certain abstract conclusion, but the latter is not. It's how you manage to make everything into the division of the religious vs. irreligious, a false dichotomy foisted on the nation by the fundie cons. EG, even if religion is the biggest reason for murder, you can find many religious doves, if there isn't a prejudice preventing you from looking and preventing you from perceiving them.

Just so you know.

[InaneAnanity]

195. It's not a decision

It's a conclusion I've reached. More people are killed because of religion than from anything else. That's enough for me.

[Inland]

211. It's a decision to pretend "the biggest thing" is "the only thing".

Born out of prejudice and a certain worldview. In the same way the religious fundie sees religion as the cure-all, you see it as the sole cause of evil, but you both agree it's the sole cause. You're both wrong. The only difference is that the religious fundies start with a huge majority. You know where it's going.

[InaneAnanity]

214. Where did I say that religion was the only problem in the world???

Check that. I didn't.

I only said it was the biggest. For sure, other problems exist.

[Evoman]

248. Hmmm...

Can you answer a couple of questions Inland?

First, is religious fundamentalism a problem? Yes or NO.

If yes, what DO YOU think we should do about it?

If no, what do you think we should do about you?

Evoman

[Inland]

257. Sure.

Yes, liberal democracy.

Care to answer your own questions? Specifically, anyone really want to defend the concept of mocking religious moderates as a method of fighting conservative religious fundamentalists? Because I really think it's more a question of a few people who see the all religion, not just some religion, as THE problem, plus a few who are getting some sophmoric jollies. Both are counterproductive, at best.

[InaneAnanity]

258. Why don't you concentrate...

...on criticizing fundamentalism, then, instead of atheism.

If you and other religious "moderates" did so, then religious moderation wouldn't be the problem that it currently is.

[Name removed]

260. Deleted message

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

[InaneAnanity]

261. Yes or No

Will you criticize fundamentalism since you have now admitted that it is a big problem??

[Inland]

262. Again? Sure. As will most ANYONE on DU.

Who was it that criticized the fundamentalists for their ideological divide of the world into camps of believers vs. atheists and their fellow travelers? Me.

Of course, that's YOUR ideological divide too. So you didn't agree with the criticism.

All you were interested in was your grip with religion in it's entirety and the fun you were having bashing moderate christians. You aren't interested in limiting your fire to the fundies, who aren't here for you to insult. You're here to piss off some moderate christians.

[InaneAnanity]

263. Well, then how come

The fundamentalists are steadily gaining strength?? If the majority of the country, moderates and atheists alike, would speak out against them, that couldn't happen, right?

[Inland]

264. Huh, maybe if there was more mocking of moderates

and more generalized prejudice towards christians, the tide would be turned.

Yep, your hate speech, for example, has done SUCH a wonderful job here on DU.

Of course, you never meant to change anyone's mind. Your goals begin and end at expressing your prejudices and congratulating yourself on being better than those people who believe in religion, smarter, more honest, the whole bit. Don't come to me and pretend like you've got a political goal of smiting the fundamentalists when you've been out and out refusing to exclude moderate christians from being the exact same problem.

Why don't you let the moderate christians alone without encouraging them to fuck off at every opportujnity? I mean, go read a fucking science textbook.

[InaneAnanity]

265. You should write Fox

You'd be a good analyst for them, what with the telling me what I think and all.

[Inland]

266. Dude, I just read your posts.

Unlike you, I don't let some prejudice tell me what other people think. And what you think sucks. It's prejudicial, irrational, corrosive bullshit that plays into the hands of the fundie christians. Well, your choice.

[InaneAnanity]

267. Reading comprehension class...

...then, seems to be in order.

[Inland]

268. Along with others. Come back after you are educated.

You know what else would be good? After the bus drops you off, turn on the TV and catch those AfterSchool Specials where they tell you that prejudice is bad. The rest of us learned it already, but you seem to need the remedial course.

[InaneAnanity]

269. Thanks, Inland

I'll take that into consideration.

Think of me when you pray. I'll be thinking of you when I learn scientific things.

[Evoman]

274. Response

Do I think its a problem? Yes. Do I have a solution? NO. I try to argue when I am confronted with intolerance, but them I'm accused of intolerance. As long as their is religion, there are fundies. And unfortunately, I don't really see an end to religion anytime soon.

Now, I'm going to try to explain how I, as an atheist (and understand, I'm not speaking for all atheists), see religious moderates. Now, to do so, I'm going to act out a little play. In this scene, the religious crazy, played by pat robertson, is in the company of a religious moderate, played by a great actor called skInland, and I will play the atheist...here goes.

Pat: Those fucking fags should all be stoned. And those atheists, they are so wrong and they are all going to burn in a lake of fire for all time, AMEN.

skInland: I disagree with you.

Pat: You don't think they are going to burn in hell, those blaspemous heathen atheists?

skInland: Well...no, I do believe that. They are going to burn in hell, but do you have to call them fags? Can't you be more nice Pat.

Pat: We should stone them all, or blow them up in the name of the lord, Amen!!!!

skInland: No, lets be nice, please pat. Although they will burn forever in a hell pit and tortured for the rest of existence, we should be nicer to them while they're still alive and not being tortured in hell.

Evoman: Man..those christians are crazy. They keep telling me I'm going to burn in hell. Why don't they just take their fairy tales and leave me alone. I'm tired of hearing about how bad I am for not believing in god.

skInland: OH MY GOD. WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE SO CRITICAL OF US. WHY DONT YOU RESPECT US. SOB. WHY CAN'T YOU SPECIFY THAT YOU MEAN PAT IS CRAZY INSTEAD OF ALL OF US. WHY DO YOU HAVE TO MOCK US. DON'T YOU KNOW US NICE CHRISTIANS (well for the rest of this existence anyways) LOVE YOU.

Evoman:????

end scene

[Inland]

276. Mind if my opinions rely on what DUers actually say?

Rather than an invented character? Golly, thanks, that would be great.

They are no more responsible for what Pat Robertson says than what the characters say in your little invention.

Now, if you want to own up to saying "those christians are crazy", maybe you should think of what else you are making up. Because the christians on DU aren't crazy. They are liberals. Fuck, dude, they aren't having conversations with Pat Robertson. It is not true that the only difference with Pat Roberson is the word "fags" or "being nice".

So no, you haven't explained how you see religious moderates. Because it's clear you aren't seeing them at all. Your perceptions aren't based in reality.

So did you vote for this guy? This religious moderate? Or did his connection with Pat Robertson turn you off?

[Evoman]

287. No

I didn't vote in the 2004 presidential election. There was no point showing up at the ballot for me.

[Inland]

290. No "point" for me, either.

But I found the time.

Nice dodge, though.

[Evoman]

292. Could you please stop being prejudiced

The only reason I didn't vote was because I'm not american. I can't vote. Your pre-judged me based on assumptions that are not true. "Evoman didn't vote, Evoman was trying to dodge the question".

So much for no prejudice huh Inland ;)

HEHEHEH

Evoman

[Inland]

296. BAHAHAHAHA

Who said you were an american?

Here's what you posted:
"I didn't vote in the 2004 presidential election. There was no point showing up at the ballot for me."

Now, why you were careful to avoid saying that you couldn't vote is beyond me. Apparently you were thinking that you could defend your prejudice by accusing me of having my own. And the best you could do is accuse me of wrongly thinking that you were an American. And that didn't even work.

So, back to your dodge. Let me know the country in which you have a franchise and I'll ask you whether you support various candidates who are believers.

[Evoman]

297. Ah, relax

I'm just having fun with you Inland. I know your not prejudiced, your wayyy above that petty bullshit. Anyhow, the candidate in my riding that I voted for was not a christian. He did lose, however. Our prime minister, though, is extremely christian (I.E. he is one of the first prime ministers EVER to say God Bless Canada).

Of course, since he is christian, I'm sure it will turn out okay. There is no way he could possible undo the current Indian treaties that the last party tried so hard to come to a conclusion about. Nope, no way.

And I am absolutely sure that in my riding, all the vast hordes of Christian moderates (of which there are a lot...this is Canada after all) voted for the non-christian progressive, rather than the crazy fucking christian conservative. Oh wait, no they didn't. Damn.

Evoman

[Inland]

306. "Canada"? Never heard of it.

And what is a "riding"?

Whatever. But the issue isn't whether one should vote for the candidate that is a crazy fucking christian. I don't think that one should vote for any crazy person. The question is whether you equate christians with crazy. The question is whether there are any progressive liberal christians in your worldview. Your portrayal of your prototypical christian who is moderate sure looks like a person who gives you every reason to just plain hate, and there sure wasn't any moderation in evidence. Because, after all, there are plenty of people who deny being prejudiced, they are just against an entire group because of xyz that they perceive as applying to the the entire group---a perception borne of prejudice. Can't say I'm seeing you walk the walk of not being prejudiced.

In other words, would you vote for Reagan or Carter? Carter, the devout baptist, or Reagan, the guy who never went to church in his adult life?

[Goblinmonger]

278. skInland

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Thank you. My day will now be a little better.

[kwassa]

139. "you know what? Being an atheist isn't a ticket to smartville."

Great line.

I might steal it!

[InaneAnanity]

142. Hows about this...

"Living in smartville is a ticket to atheism."

[kwassa]

147. Nah

[Inland]

146. At your own risk.

On one hand, I'm seeing statements that prejudging is a necessity. On the other, that believers are irrational because they believe things for which there is no evidence. I'm not sure WHERE "smart" figures into all of that.

[FM Arouet666]

170. Oh my, yet again.

How do you define prejudging? Are most humans capable of not doing so? Is it irrational for a human to sum up a set of facts, reach a conclusion, however preliminary, then proceed based on that conclusion? Education and experience will temper the resultant conclusion, guiding the more educated person away from a path to bigotry. What I, and others in this thread, are trying to convey is an understanding of human nature, if you disagree, please direct your arguments at the argument. If your argument is convincing I will be the first one to acknowledge that my initial supposition is in error.

Instead, you have suggested that those which have contradicted your opinion regarding prejudice are hypocritical. Hypocrisy demonstrated in the acceptance of prejudice as a normal human behavior, while dismissing human belief in religion as irrational for lack of evidence. Where is the "smart" in all of this?

If an atheist accepts the proposition that prejudice is a universal human characteristic, yet denies arguments supporting religious belief, then the atheist is lacking in "smarts"? Non sequiter. Please clarify your argument.

[Inland]

183. I've read your post several times, and it still doesn't' make any sense.

Relying on facts, that's judgment. Relying on education and experience is relying on facts, that's judgment.

Making a judgment prior to, and therefore dispensing with, facts, is prejudice.

I don't see how you can both accept prejudice as a universal human characteristic and have anything bad to say about religious belief. Prejudice is reaching a conclusion without evidence, and so is religious belief. But one you accept as just a means of reaching conclusions, without any particular harmful result and without any normative condemnation, while the other is irrational and whatever else.

It seems that anyone who dismisses human belief in god as irrational would also have do dismiss prejudices as irrational, too.

It isn't clear whether you accept prejudices because it's YOUR irrational belief that YOU find comforting and useful, that is, your prejudices include a rationalization of yourself as good and people who disagree as irrational and bad, and one can substitute "prejudice" and "religion" as similar sets of beliefs unfounded in evidence and unshakable despite evidence. Maybe you should clarify this.

[InaneAnanity]

190. Look up prejudice

You have it COMPLETELY wrong.

[InaneAnanity]

191. Definition

Religion is faith absent evidence.

Prejudice, or "pre-judging", is categorization based on previous experience.

They don't have anything in common.

[Inland]

194. Sure. Both are a belief existing regardless of evidence.

If one is prejudiced against blacks, one believes a number of facts about an individual in the absence of evidence.

If one believes in god, one believes a number of facts about the supernatural in the absence of evidence.

If rationality means that nothing is believed without evidence, then prejudice and religious belief are both irrational.

But you tell me why you admit your prejudice to be a bad thing.

[InaneAnanity]

196. Did you even read my post??

Apparently not.

[FM Arouet666]

202. Your logic is questionable, as are your definitions.

Rationality does not mean 'believed without evidence' it means to have understanding. Religious thinking is not irrational.
Your first lines demonstrates a logical fallacy. If A, then B. If C, then B. Therefore A and C are equivalent. Which is in error.

If a person accepts that people have prejudice, a human failing, then one must also accept religion? Another human failing?

Where are you going with this argument?

[Inland]

210. Actually, I'm not asking that people "accept" prejudice.

I didn't begin with a premise that prejudice was acceptable. It's abundantly cleat that "where I'm going" is that prejudice isn't acceptable, or at the very least not accepted by its targets! I wonder why you don't give the poster who found it acceptable and simply a means to process information grief, instead of me?

[InaneAnanity]

215. The fact that...

...you are talking about prejudice in terms of acceptability shows that you have NO clue about what prejudice is, and what it is not.

It's the product of an innate, biological mental process. We group things together, utilizing our past experience to form predictions about new experiences. It streamlines things.

Now, regarding people, that's not a good thing, but it isn't a choice. It's innate.

I'm losing my patience with you.

[Inland]

216. Prejudice isn't destiny, and it isn't acceptable.

After all, a prejudice is making judgments prior to facts. Quick, inaccurate judgments.

Prejudice supplies answers, just not correct ones. You, for example, think you know everyone and everything based on their approach to religion. That you are often wrong doesn't faze you at all.

After all, who makes employment decisions more quickly? The person who reads all the resumes, or the person who rules out all the blacks, women, hispanics all at once? But who gets the best employee? Ask the bigot and he will say he did. But it's not true.

So, if it's still okay to refer to reality, accoridng to you, all employers are prejudiced. It's innate. It's not a choice. There haven't been any advances whatsoever in employment, education, or anything else. Decisions aren't better, just longer.

Reality is nothing like you describe. Prejudice is not innate, and are a choice. Being divorced from reality is a choice, for example, when someone says they just don't want to hear constructive things about religion and really means it. It's the choice you've made and now want to fob off on biology.

[InaneAnanity]

217. Inland

SHUT UP, and read my posts before you respond.

mmkay??

[Inland]

218. Shut up? No more negative talk about prejudice for you?

More choices by you.

[FM Arouet666]

224. Bill Reilly Alert.

Shut up, SHUT UP, you Shut up. ;)

[FM Arouet666]

226. Oops, that is O'Reilly as in Oh so confrontational

[FM Arouet666]

223. Grief is my specialty

Perhaps clarity of argument is needed. How do you define prejudice?

I am defending the notion that all humans formulate an initial impression, correct or incorrect, before all available information is available. Call it prejudice or call it anything you like. Probably a defense mechanism that has evolved over many years. The mind which can size up the world in an instant, categorize things as friend or foe, is a mind which survives. Don't believe me? Listen to your own mental voice, walk around the mall and listen to what your own mind tells you.

"She is cute... Not her...... Scary guy..... What a punk...... Take off that silly ass hat." We all do it. The roots of bigotry are grounded in this little voice. If all humans sum up the facts, forming an initial opinion, then why are we all not bigots?

Again, education and experience temper the initial impression.

Your argument seems to be that if a person accepts the notion that humans have a tendency to prejudice, then humans also have a tendency to religion. After all, both involve accepting a conclusion without all available facts.

No, you did not start this line of thinking but this is where you went with it.

Prejudice is not acceptable? Prejudice is inevitable, it is how we as a civilization come to realize this and deal with it that matters. Accepting the initial impression, remaining ignorant, is what leads to bigotry. And that is what is truly unacceptable.

[FM Arouet666]

201. Oh my

Making a judgment prior to having all the facts is not the same as dispensing with facts altogether.

Judgment is important in tempering one's initial conclusion, judgment and prejudice are not mutually exclusive.

Unless, of course, you are wanting to think in absolutes. A troublesome characteristic of religious thinking.

When discussing prejudice, I am talking about a conclusion one reaches in a brief moment of initial exposure. Suppressing that initial impression while gathering more information is critical to reaching a cogent conclusion. Judgment, as you defined the term, is what is needed to make the step from prejudice to an informed conclusion.

Do you really want to argue that religious thinking is like prejudice? Do religious folks accept dogma without any judgment? Of course not, religious people do use judgment in molding their beliefs. Facts are needed. Looking for miracles, signs from god, centuries of christian apologetics, etc etc.

I have never stated that religious thinking amounts to irrationality. A failing in judgment would seem more accurate.

Your last paragraph is best classified as ad hominem.

[Inland]

219. Still not making a whole lot of sense.

There's a lot of words flying around, but you are managing to divest them of meaning. Calling something an "initial conclusion" is mush, as something can't be "initial" and the "conclusion". You show the same confusion with prejudice, as if "prejudice" is simply a step on the way to a considered judgment. I'd sure like to know how racial prejudices, for example, are a useful set of initial impressions, as opposed to the number of citizens who found their prejudices to be the first and last step in factual investigation.

Unless you are defining prejudice as the initial mistake, or an initial guess, that is worthless if not harmful in itself, then you are condoning judgment without facts.

And like religions, prejudice allows for the dispensation of facts. And like religions, occurrences tend to be perceived according to the prejudice. And like religions, facts that are inconsistent with the prejudice tend to be discarded.
To me, the sole difference is that religion can rely entirely on facts that are not disprovable, premised on a god that cannot be sense. But prejudice relies on facts we can all see are false if we only look.

Last I knew, the democrats had come out against prejudice. But I could be wrong. Let me know the official line on prejudice, starting with atheists.

[FM Arouet666]

225. 'Managing to divest them of meaning.' What a hoot.......

I am in the mall, I see a guy sitting on a bench looking at me from across the way. He is about 6'4", wearing a leather jacket and scruffy jeans with a Harley Davidson belt buckle. Looking closer his unshaven face bears a scar on one cheek and I notice a pierced ear with a 45 cal bullet hanging from a chain.

The man stands up when he sees me, his eyes glaring at me. He moves toward me, as if on a mission. My initial conclusion, I am scared, damned scared. My prejudice, this must be a hoodlum bent on doing me harm.

As he approaches he starts to smile, his hand out stretched, he grabs my hand and says, "Thanks Doc, I haven't seen you in awhile, remember me?" My heart racing, I suddenly realize that he is an old patient. Yes, I replied, didn't I treat you last year? "Treat me?, hell you saved my life."

A conclusion based on the current facts does not imply finality. Interpretation can be fluid, changing with available information.

Prejudice an initial mistake?

I am walking down the street on my way back from the local food mart. I take a short-cut. I see a small brown dog laying in a driveway. As I approach, he stands up. His stare is fixed on me, eyes seem intent. I walk toward the opposite side of the street, toward an open gate. As I get closer, the dog growls and suddenly bolts toward me. Slamming the gate shut, I hear a chorus of barking and bestial noises which define the dogs intent.

As for your third paragraph, please clarify. "Religion can rely on facts that are not disprovable, premised on a god that cannot be sense." sic

And your last line, seems very confrontational, seeing how you are a democrat, or at least, a progressive. Else, you would not post on this board. Right?

[Inland]

228. If you talked about the second meeting and the actual prejudice here

you'd see that it's entirely mush.

To complete your analogy, for it to be a prejudice, you would have to keep meeting bikers, keep making the same wrong assumption, again and again and again.

What you've described is precisely the acceptance of fact that never comes to a prejudiced person. If it did, they wouldn't have the prejudice anymore. Whether you want to call it prejudice or a temporary prejudice that is cured by more information, is mere sophistry when it comes to what is actually occuring right on this board.

So back to real life, and to complete the analogy, there's both a resistance to fact and a declared lack of interest in fact. There's the biker extending his hand, and you still run away. The dog is wagging it's tail, but the judgment is made as to all dogs, regardless. That's prejudice, and that's what's happening. For it, against it, or for it when it's against religious?

As to my statement about religion, it's clear enough. Anyone wanting to know about how the religious are really living and what the really believe can rely on their five senses and observe. Whether out of convenience or not, god is allowed to evade.

There's no excuse for prejudice, because unlike the examples you picked, there's no physical danger in reading a liberal democrat board where believers are posting. There's mistakes, there's error, but to condone the same is something else.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how to handle prejudice against atheists.

[InaneAnanity]

229. hehe

Your definition of prejudice sure is a strange one.

[Inland]

230. You plow the same ground.

The definition isn't different. It's that you look for some biological imperative entitling you to your prejudice, and I don't.

Say, are YOU ever going to answer what I should be telling the moderates and fundies about prejudice against atheists?

Didn't think so.

[InaneAnanity]

232. No

It's just that I understand biology, while you deal in the absolutes handed down to you by an imaginary sky wizard.

We work in different realms.

[Inland]

233. You try to fob your prejudices off on biology, but it fails.

You construct a fairy tale about how biology calls for prejudice, a myth that denies the power of reason and scientific observation in forming one's opinions, hypocritically citing science to explain why reason and science must fail, hypocritically substituting for an imaginary sky wizard's commands the dictates of an imaginary biological heritage, hypocritically avoiding all responsibility for yourself while bashing religious as bound by prejudices and misconceptions. You've a comforting, self serving, construct. Except for being false, it's perfect.

Wonder why you won't answer me when I ask how one should approach those prejudiced against atheists? Should I note their biology and move on? How should I approach those without prejudices against either religious or atheists? What would science dictate?

Wonder why no other atheists are jumping on the prejudice bandwagon?

[InaneAnanity]

234. You just like making stuff up??

Have fun.

[Inland]

235. If I did, could I call blame it on biology, like you do?

You, of course, can't answer the question about what I should tell the religious prejudiced against atheists, because all you wanted was an excuse for your prejudice, not someone else's.

But you knew that. It's your choice, all of it.

[InaneAnanity]

236. When did I ask for an excuse??

Check that, I didn't.

[Inland]

238. You didn't, you just helped yourself. Going to answer the questions?

Check, I thought so.

Really, you're just trying to bull me now, and nobody cares. You don't, I don't. It's all your choice, and you've made it for now.

[InaneAnanity]

239. That's nice

Next time you meet with your christian friends, tell me what you told them.

[Inland]

240. Hmmmmm, still won't answer the questions.

I asked you what I should tell them about prejudice, and you dodge. I know why.

[InaneAnanity]

241. Tell them whatever you want

I've learned not to expect respect. I can deal.

[Inland]

242. You haven't a clue. See, you deal yourself a

losing hand. You're so intent on justifying your own prejudices that you can't think of a single reason for me to argue someone else out of being prejudiced. You are literally without a single idea of how to keep your own thoughts on prejudice from being used against you.

Thanks for all your help. What a shocker that the religious right has won with people like you playing right into their hands. You both agree on the prejudice part. There's just a shitload more of them than you, and you're busy NOT earning the respect of religious liberals and moderates and, I believe, atheist liberals and moderates.

Well, I'm done. I don't know how many times that I can return to the same set of theses while you do this weak rope a dope with no greater thought than justifying your own set of prejudices.

[InaneAnanity]

243. so dumb

You can't argue someone out of being prejudiced. Again, it's a natural process.

I'm not making excuses or justifying anything. I'm just stating facts.

Read a science book instead of the bible. Maybe you will learn something.

[Inland]

244. ( rinse, repeat) Nothing new here.

We both know the score.

[InaneAnanity]

245. Me 1, You 0

[FM Arouet666]

250. No, you 50, him an irrational number. n/t

[FM Arouet666]

251. It is a tired argument

Beating a dead horse. An atheist posts a thought, you misinterpret, redefine, draw unjust conclusions, and the tread goes on.

How one should approach those prejudiced against atheists? Don't worry, the atheists on this board can take care of themselves.

You simply do not grasp the argument at hand.

I will try one last time, forget about what has been said about prejudice.

I suspect that the human animal has a tendency to pre-judge, to sum up a person or event before all the facts are in. If a person fails to change the initial impression, despite evidence to the contrary, they are prejudiced. Pre-judgment may or may not be a biological tendency of our species. Prejudice may derive from a biological tendency to pre-judge, but it is not defensible as a biological imperative. Prejudice involves a choice, a bigot chooses to ignore evidence contrary to his or her initial impression. No one is claiming that bigotry is acceptable because it is rooted in our biology.

I am simply exploring the notion that prejudice may have a basis in biology. I may be in error. Accepting that biology plays a role in our bias does not excuse prejudice against atheists, christians or any other group.

A word of advice, rather than post your interpretation of the argument as a definition of what your opponent is saying, ask for clarification on things you don't understand. You have a tendency to post a summary which is not accurate, a tendency toward ad hominem. I am trying to understand your point of view, but your are being too oppositional. Your argument style reminds me of right wing radio, Limbaugh summing up a situation, stating as fact what liberals think.

[FM Arouet666]

304. Snooze, Snooze Zzzzzzz Zzzzzzzz

Perhaps Inland should open his mind instead of his bible. Too much to ask? Perhaps. I wonder if dialog is possible with religious zealots? I used to think that I could establish a common ground, however small, with anyone. I see that I was wrong. Pity...........

[FM Arouet666]

249. I am not sure you understand.

No one is claiming some biological imperative that entitles bigotry. Your interpretation is in error. Accepting that the human species has a tendency toward pre judgment does not imply an acceptance of bigotry, or prejudice as you have used the term.

As for what you should be telling fundies about prejudice against atheists. I doubt that you could present an unbiased picture of atheism, as demonstrated by your lack of understanding in this tread. Oh, and why would an atheist want you as an interpretor?

[Inland]

252. I understand the sophistry of it.

Biological imperatives remove individual responsibility. Moreover, "Accepting that the human species has a tendency toward prejudgment" accepts the prejudice when the next step, the intake of information and correction of the views to a reality, never takes place. That's the fact you won't touch with a ten foot pole. As the poster said, he's not interested in favorable stories about christians, and therefore he keeps making the same misstatements over and over again. That's prejudice, not the rest stop on the way to truth you portray.

But once again, the question about what to say to fundies, or moderates for that matter, about prejudice against atheists is avoided. The purpose, as you've clearly figured out, is to demonstrate that you don't take such a removed, accepting stance when the prejudice is directed at you as opposed to by one of yours against others. You don't need an interpretor: you need standards that apply to yourself as well as to others.

[InaneAnanity]

254. Say whatever you want, Inland

Keep slandering atheists like you always do. I don't care. After all, to you, I'm just part of a minority group dragging down the party.

[Inland]

255. Dude, you condone prejudice. You aren't wearing the white hat.

I don't expect you to care what I say. I do expect you to stop pretending that you stand for anything more than your personal prejudices and flattering yourself into thinking that you belong to a minority group in the party. There isn't a faction that practices prejudice and make up excuses for it. You're all alone, thankfully.

[Zhade]

300. Considering your stances on gays and blacks, you've got some nerve.

NT!

[FM Arouet666]

303. Thanks again

Oh, the lack of understanding. "Correction of the views to reality which never takes place." Sorry, I didn't realize that I was communicating with someone of a pure mind. A mind mind which never pre-judges, never corrects an initial interpretation of a person or event because your initial interpretation is always correct. Is that what you are proposing. Then, sir, I must categorize you as a lier.

As for your last paragraph, might I suggest an enema. Perhaps, two..........

[FM Arouet666]

247. I have made my point, you fail to understand.

What is prejudice? A dictionary definition of the word lists a few meanings. What I am arguing is that humans have a tendency to pre judge, form an opinion before all information is available. You can call it prejudice or some other term.

What you are arguing is that prejudice is 'an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge'. Courtesy of the dictionary.

Both notions are correct in context. For my analogy to conform to your interpretation of the word, you are correct, I would have to repeatedly stereotype the group I mentioned in my analogy. However, I am not arguing according to your definition. I am astonished at your continued refusal to acknowledge the context of the argument I am putting forth. So be it, believe as you like.

Still waiting for me to tell you how to handle prejudice against atheists? As in christian bias against atheists? Ok, stop attacking atheists. There, that was easy. Next question.

[Inland]

256. All that remains is for you to stop being morally neutral about it.

Now that we have a definition of prejudice as an opinion formed without grounds, then there's no reason to keep pretending that it's either rational or accurate or morally neutral. It's none of those things.

Moreover, people who pretend to carry a brief for rationality or empiricism shouldn't be patting the backs of practioners of prejudice, much less apologists for it.

Because you can only have one reason for taking a stand against prejudice with regard to prejudice against atheists and not taking a similiar stand with regard to christians. And that is that you don't think there is any prejudice against christians here, because it's not prejudice if every shitty thing that thrown out is in fact true. Prejudice is the misperception that justifies itself, the error that keeps on giving.

[InaneAnanity]

259. Buy a science textbook

and read it

[FM Arouet666]

302. Pretending?

Oh, I see you can read my mind. My atheist agenda, what an evil bastard am I.

Believe as you like, I see there is no point in arguing further.

Funny that you were asking the atheist community what "you should tell religious folks about prejudice against atheists." I suspect you will tell them all the misconceptions that you have posted here.

Rarely do I find an individual which remains so intransigent in his or her beliefs that some tiny common ground cannot be met.

:hurts:

[trotsky]

132. That's Inland's S.O.P.

Atheists who speak up and confront bigoted religious views are actually totally AGAINST religion and everyone who practices it. We'd probably kill them all if we had the chance. It's how he has to pigeonhole those who disagree with them, so he can try to neutralize their criticism (at least in his mind). Attack the person, not the argument. Oh yeah and they're "fundie" atheists too, because that sounds neat. Tar them with the brush of religious extremism because they don't want religion dominating everyone's lives.

Kind of old, really, now that I've seen it so many times.

[FM Arouet666]

168. I agree, very old, a reincarnation of stunster?

An interesting exercise in logical fallacy. Oh shit, I guess I am trying to be the smart atheist again. Bad atheist. The exercise is getting tiresome.

[beam me up scottie]

169. Perfect example of Inland logic:

Thanks to Goblinmonger for posting this in another thread!

[FM Arouet666]

171. I love it!

How dare you confront the truth of the scripture. "My position is not to be challenged, I speak for the lard, if you challenge me, you challenge gawd."

I try to understand, but it is getting difficult.

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

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

[FM Arouet666]

173. Oh Yes

I will extend the rope to let him hang himself. Where do these people come from? I will listen to their arguments for a time, mental gymnastics I guess. But, as I responded to Trotsky, the exercise is getting tiresome.

[beam me up scottie]

174. I don't know.

I'm getting pretty sick of it myself.
I hear the same hateful talking points all day at work, it's a real drag to see them here, too.

Time for another break, I think.

[FM Arouet666]

175. I would have to agree.

Too much of a bad thing. I insulate myself, not too much religious nonsense at work, my greatest exposure to ignorance is on-line, exposure I can control. If I lived in the buy-bull belt, say in a place like Kentucky, I would probably tire more easily. ;)

[beam me up scottie]

176. I need tranquilizers.

Seriously, I'm using earplugs even when I'm in the lab.
The stuff I overhear daily is enough to make you want to claw your ears off.

Maybe this year I can move back home.
And then we can secede... muahahahahahahahahaha!

[FM Arouet666]

177. Secular America and Jesusland.

My hair dresser has been trying to convince me that this is the only way. The civil war never ended, he says, lines were drawn as they are drawn today. Segregate is his motto.

Sometimes I wonder if he is correct. Arguing with people who will not budge, steadfastly accepting the religious right party line, seems futile?

I can't take the nonsense anymore, I forbid political talk in the OR, I can't concentrate on what I am doing when I hear all the 'love Bush bullshit.'

Peace, and keep up the opposition, you are not alone. ~ FM..........

[InaneAnanity]

179. Just don't save them

If a creationist comes into the OR needing help, tell him/her that your surgical tools and skills are the product of science, the science they reject, the science they teach their kids to ignore in lieu of an old crusty book with disputed origins.

That can make up for their superior birth rate.

[InaneAnanity]

180. btw

The previous post IS A JOKE.

I don't advocate surgical selection. (hehe)

[FM Arouet666]

199. Except for trial lawyers.

Sorry, John Edwards, your profession is what makes my job miserable. Crazy, and I voted for him. Self sacrifice for a greater good or suicide? Who the hell cares anymore............

[FM Arouet666]

198. Interesting you mention that

I trained in a state with a large population of Amish. The Amish tend to follow the bible literally, refusing to use mirrors because they constitute graven images. When faced with arrest for not equipping their buggies with mirrors they relented under protest.

The lord will take care of them, except of course if Seth or Jim Bob has cancer or a heart attack. Time for the modern world. It always struck me as hypocritical to claim a superior life shunning the modern world, yet, as soon as someone is ill the modern world is accepted.

We treated them, simple folk.

[Zhade]

124. "The muslims" - so to you, all Muslims think alike, eh?

All fight for the same goal, versus secularism and free society?

What was that you were braying about people only being accountable for their own actions? Do you not apply that to Muslims as well as Christians?

[FM Arouet666]

125. delete

Just too tired to connect threads up correctly.

[Zhade]

148. No worries - I know YOU'RE not a bigot.

NT!

[Inland]

130. Nope. Nope. No. And no. nt

[Zhade]

149. Try "some Muslims" instead of "the Muslims", then.

After all, if it's necessary to say "some Christians" (and it is, since they aren't a monolithic group), the same goes for Muslims (which, of course, are not a monolithic group).

[FM Arouet666]

203. Yep, Yep. Yes and yes.

Just trying to be contrary.

[arwalden]

205. Because I Resent Christians Telling Me That I'M Bad-Acting Or "Evil"...

... or degenerate, or a pervert, or a pedophile, or mentally-ill... well, you get the picture. With all this Christian finger-pointing and fault-finding that's going on, one might come to the conclusion that Christians are PERFECT. Or at least that's what they'd have everyone believe. I think it's entirely appropriate to peek behind their curtains and look under their masks and point out where the REAL "evil" is.

<< What could possibly be your motivation for posting these stories? >>

I can't believe that you needed to ask such a question or make such a post in the first place. (How the weather up there? Pretty cool?)

<< To expose hypocrisy of some apparently deeply troubled and angry individuals? >>

Ah... you knew all along what I was going to say. Only... it's THEY who are deeply troubled, and I who is angry.

<< To poke fun? >>

Yeah... to poke fun. -- GOD HATES FAGS!

<< Or to start yet another session of deriding people of faith under the guise of just wondering what people thought about this or that story? To feel good about yourself? >>

Yes, I'm just another confused and tormented self-loathing homosexual who needs to bring other people DOWN to my level in order to feel better about myself. :eyes:

<< You know full well that there are Christians on this site who are good and honorable people who despise George Bush's politics and who hate what the fundies have done to faith in America. >>

Yet they often have surprisingly little to say when it comes to how badly the church treats my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Many of them even come to the defense of characters like the two recent Popes who constantly turn up the anti-gay rhetoric whenever they need some headlines.

I place full blame for the climate of intolerance and anti-gay hatred directly at the doorstep of Christian churches... both the "fundamentalist" kind and the more mainstream moderate "look-the-other-way" churches who feel that as long as it's not happening in THEIR church or THEIR parish, then they can just keep quiet about it.

Where's the "Christian" support when it comes to equality for gays and lesbians. It's clear that for most "Christians" (even the "liberal" ones) that they just don't care.

Rather than speaking out against it, and rather than helping to put an end to the behavior of the "bad-Christians"... I guess it's much easier for many folks around here to feign being part of a "victimized group" when the TRUE targets of "Christian" hatred get fed up enough to stand up, speak up, and fight back.

<< Will this ever end? >>

I don't know the answer to that... but I tend to think it's something that's rather up to the "Christians"... wouldn't you say?

[catbert836]

209. Arwalden- Good to have you back.

:-)

[podnoi]

207. Such a wonderful place for constructive dialog this forum is...NOT!!!!

I am sorry, but I totally agree with the poster. There are few defending because DU Christians simply stay away from this forum. It is not a place to get support, or talk ideas on how to approach change.

The reason I am even here to see this post is because I wanted to see if the great article on Common Dreams that did a great Job explaining Progressive Christian ideals was posted here. Probably not, as many folks aren't really interested in hearing anything constructive about faith on this forum.

[InaneAnanity]

208. Correct

I'm not interested in hearing constructive things about faith.

Move along.

[Inland]

212. Even if the constructive things are true? Well, your choice.

There may be every once in a while a true statement about faith that is not entirely negative. People who aren't interested in either faith or truth should move along.


http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/13807022.htm


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0602170178feb17,1,2510773.story

[InaneAnanity]

213. I am aware of the positives and negatives

of religious faith. The negatives far outweigh the positives.

[Inland]

231. "I'm not interested in hearing constructive things about faith.Move along"

Gee, it sure seems like you aren't aware of the positives, and indeed, would rather not be made aware.

Nobody respects a conclusion based on prejudice, or a conclusion reached by ignoring evidence. Where ARE all those atheists claiming rationality and empiricism as their intellectual property now? Curiously silent, with one exception.

[Name removed]

237. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[InaneAnanity]

270. Jesus

Inland insults me, I defend myself, some others come to defend me, Inland complains because that makes him look bad, moderator to the rescue!!!

[beam me up scottie]

271. Yes, well, you're not that delicate.

You can handle it. :evilgrin:

[InaneAnanity]

272. Sure

I can handle lots of things I don't like.

[beam me up scottie]

273. And don't forget,

uppity atheists handle it in style!



Unlike the posers:

[arwalden]

277. That About Sums It Up.

[Maddy McCall]

220. Because there's just so many of the fuckers.

There are a lot of bad Christians who think that their "saved" status and their "personal relationship with God" somehow exempts them from responsible, respectful behavior towards other people.

It's not a broad bash of all Christians, just the ones who are selfish, nasty assholes.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

227. :-) I think it's not real Christianity. I think it's bullshit, fake

profit-making corporate crap. I think the only Christians around are:

Quakers (peace-loving)
Mennonites
Amish (they mind their own business)
Some Catholics
Old-fashioned Protestant groups (Methodists, for example)

There might be a few more.

Those born-again, Bible-banging, holy-rolling, slick arseholes like Bush-it, are not Christian. They're demonic freaks posing as Christians.

[f-bush]

246. The problem with it is that the bad acting Christians...

the phony, fundy bastards are the ones in power, so they can make life miserable for everybody else. The only check to that power is the light of the "media" be it film or print, or computor!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

253. But the rest of the Christians say little or nothing.

In Spanish there's a saying: "El que calla, otorga." That means roughly, "He who doesn't speak out when he should, is an accomplice."

[Dogmudgeon]

291. Do they say little or nothing, or does nobody listen?

Liberal/Progressive religious people of any faith get very little attention in the press, probably because they don't make a lot of noise about how badly they're treated.

Jim Wallis, a Baptist who founded Sojourners, is a liberal in a religion that has long allied itself with the Religious Right. He gets occasional attention, mainly when someone wants to do a "Liberal Christian" article for the Sunday newspaper "Lifestyle" section. It usually gets treated as a "Man Bites Dog" story.

There is actually a fairly large number of Christians involved in progressive faith, but they are not nearly as "sexy" as their neo-Pharasaical co-religionists who threaten everybody with hellfire and damnation. They're not impossible to find, but you have to put some effort into looking for them.

--p!

[Goblinmonger]

298. I think the point a lot of people

are making in the forum, and not just this thread, is that the moderate christians need to start calling bullshit louder and louder until they are heard. Your countering of the fundies is going to be a lot more effective than mine. Mine is just passed off as some heritic son-of-a-bitch. You have some pull because you believe in the same god.

[Evoman]

275. How I see it

I made this post as a response to Inland, but I thought I would respond here as well.

Let me try and explain how I as an atheist feel (I won't presume to speak for all atheists). To do so, I'm going to act out a scene in my new play, Atheist Under Fire. In this scene, Pat Robertson and a religious moderate, skInland, are argueing nicely in front of an atheist bystander, played by me. Lets see how it goes

Begin Scene


Pat: Those fucking fags should all be stoned. And those atheists, they are so wrong and they are all going to burn in a lake of fire for all time, AMEN.

skInland: I disagree with you.

Pat: You don't think they are going to burn in hell, those blaspemous heathen atheists?

skInland: Well...no, I do believe that. They are going to burn in hell, but do you have to call them fags? Can't you be more nice Pat.

Pat: We should stone them all, or blow them up in the name of the lord, Amen!!!!

skInland: No, lets be nice, please pat. Although they will burn forever in a hell pit and tortured for the rest of existence, we should be nicer to them while they're still alive and not being tortured in hell.

Evoman: Man..those christians are crazy. They keep telling me I'm going to burn in hell. Why don't they just take their fairy tales and leave me alone. I'm tired of hearing about how bad I am for not believing in god.

skInland: OH MY GOD. WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE SO CRITICAL OF US. WHY DONT YOU RESPECT US. SOB. WHY CAN'T YOU SPECIFY THAT YOU MEAN PAT IS CRAZY INSTEAD OF ALL OF US. WHY DO YOU HAVE TO MOCK US. DON'T YOU KNOW US NICE CHRISTIANS (well for the rest of this existence anyways) LOVE YOU.

Evoman:????

End Scene

[Inland]

279. You see things that never happened, and bad drama.

That explains a lot, doesn't it? The conversation between a religious moderate and Robertson, that never happened, the religious moderate only disagreeing with Robertson on the word "fag", which isn't reality.

In fact, the plot pretty much breaks down in its initial premise, where the atheist is a bystander to the discussion on religion. As Ebert says, there's the fact that occurs because there's a movie, that is, if not for the fact that the atheist character is somehow a bystander to a rather rude discussion about his fate, he wouldn't ever have a reason to say that he's tired of hearing about religion. As the purpose of the play is to end up with the statement of the offended atheist character passing judgment and just telling the religious moderate to stop talking about religion, voila, he's in the scene and the scene is specifically about him, giving him all the excuse he needs to both butt in and end the entire mess. Pretty contrived.

If the play were rewritten with some realism, then the drama would be lost. Realism, in say, the atheist character was reading and posting on a message board in a Religion and Theology section of some web forum. But then a complaint that he was tired of hearing about religion would make him seem like a person who went out of his way to pretend to be insulted, and find an excuse to pass judgment on the sanity of people who have the effrontery to disagree with him. But hey, it's just a play and I'm just giving a review, right?

[Goblinmonger]

280. I know you are reading my stuff

because the alert button got pushed on us and not you, so hopefully you can hold off long enough to read this.

You said the following two things:

he's in the scene and the scene is specifically about him, giving him all the excuse he needs to both butt in and end the entire mess.

make him seem like a person who went out of his way to pretend to be insulted, and find an excuse to pass judgment on the sanity of people who have the effrontery to disagree with him.

Sounds like a dead-on description of you, my friend. These posts are not about you. You claim you are not a Christian, but you butt in all the time when there is a discussion between xians and atheists. That would certainly make you pretending to be insulted and you are the king of passing judgement: on atheists, on blacks, on gays, and so on, and so on...

[trotsky]

283. Bingo.

You claim you are not a Christian, but you butt in all the time when there is a discussion between xians and atheists.

Game, set, match.

[Evoman]

281. Pretty early review

*shakes head*

Dude, you can't base a review on one scene of a play. Don't be so PREJUDICED against my play before you even read the whole thing *grin*. I can't believe you have so much preconceived notions about my play based on one scene. But I understand, it is biological to prejudge, is it not?

Another Scene from my play.

Evoman: *walks down the street minding his own business, thinking of a response to a thread on his favourite website, one where he can vent around people like him*

Pat: Hey, you there boy. Have you found god?

Evoman: Excuse me?

Pat: Have you found god? Let me tell you about our dear lord who loves you so much. If you don't believe in him, despite no evidence, you are going to be tortured for eternity. I want to talk to you about how much he loves you.

Evoman: No thanks man. There is no evidence that their is a god, so in lieu of that fact, I don't think their is a god.

Pat: Burn in hell, atheist swine!

skInland: *walking down the street* Pat, leave him alone. Your terrible and un-christian like.

Pat: *leaves in a fury of indignation*

Evoman: Phew, thanks skInland, that was swell of you.

skInland: No problem. I understand faith...I have faith there is god, you have faith there isn't.

Evoman: No..its not really faith. Its lack of evid....

skInland: YES IT IS FAITH. ATHEISM IS A RELIGION

Evoman: well..no, not real...

skInland: Yes it is!! Quit being such a fundie atheist!!

Evoman: Wait a sec, thats not what I think, its offensive when you tell me what I think...

skInland: ITS WHAT YOU THINK. TOO BAD IF YOU FIND IT OFFENSIVE!!

Evoman: Um....can you stop saying that, I don't appreciate you telling me what I thi...

skInland: I don't care!! Your full of faith in a no-god!

Evoman: *frustrated* Huh? Whatever, why don't both you and pat just leave me alone with your dumb religion stuff.

skInland: WHY DON'T YOU STOP BEING OFFENSIVE. STOP TELLING ME WHAT I THINK IS DUMB. WHY DO YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO BE MEAN AND OFFENSIVE. YOU SHOULD BE WITH ME. I CAN'T FIGHT PAT WITHOUT YOU, BUT ALL YOU DO IS OFFEND ME. NOW SHUT UP, YOUR COSTING US VOTES. AND QUIT MOCKING ME IN YOUR STUPID PLAY.

Evoman:.......

*end scene*

[Goblinmonger]

282. Very nice. I was moved.

(Bravo, bravo, author, author--Yeah, I have too much time on my hands.)

I can't wait for the full production. You should start a thread in Athesits/Agnostics and we can work on the full script.

[Inland]

284. Well, it's taken a turn for the worse.

Keeping with it's theme that the atheist character is a victim and as further justification for teh atheist character making a declaration against all christians, the playwright contrives yet another confrontation.

In this case, the playwright's point is that one really can't disagree with his views on religion and the religious without being disagreeable, so every character that disagrees with him (there's no sense pretending there isn't a point of view) is drawn so repulsively they can't even qualify as characatures. First, he has Pat Robertson bumping into him on the street and condemning him to hell: then he has another christian shouting him down and interrupting him.

The portrayal avoids an honest examination of the disagreement that is there, apparently, for the sole purpose of a scene where evil christians haze the innocent the innocent atheist. The playwright doesn't explore the disagreement or alternative point of views, or even explore his point of view, but instead makes his opponenents into vile characters that are to be hated just because they don't have manners.

It's particularly of note that the playwright says his inspiration for these meetings were discussions on a web message board. However, it's impossible to interrupt and/ or shout down on a message board: in fact, it's impossible for the innocent atheist to become ensnared in a discussion he has no interest in be part of. It's painfully clear that the playwright was inspired to delete the substantive discussion that took place and substitute interruptions, shouting, and officious remarks in order to make an ad hominem against christians. He would have had a more interesting, and more honest, play if he had stuck to the actual debate and foregone demonizing his opponents, if he had related the debate fairly instead of ignoring it, or if he had a purpose besides painting an evil picture of the people who disagreed with him.

All in all, people who enjoy seeing christians (or anyone who disagrees with the playwright) portrayed as rude and cartoonishly evil, and enjoy seeing the playwright portrayed as a long suffering victim, and have no interest in any substantive issue or reality, have a play that speaks to them. Of course, you have to enjoy it through several acts of the same, so its appeal is going to be limited, thankfully. The reviews from people who have stated that they don't like christians and have no interest in hearing constructive things about religion have, unsurprisingly, given it a big thumbs up, so the audience, although small, has been found.

[Evoman]

286. HAHAHAHAHA

Your mistake is assuming that the only time the atheist comes across this bullshit is on the internet. No. Its an exxageration, thats true, but this shit happens in real life dude. As for being offended, I'm not. Honestly, arguing on the internet entertains me. Thats why I even bother. In real life, I usually ignore christian crap quite easily. And yes, I've been approached by a pat like character in real life. And yes, I've had liberal christians preach to me. And yes, I have been a completely innocent bystander while christians discussed atheist going to hell (to be sure, they didn't know I was atheist). You think my inspiration was only the internet discussion group.....

Your wrong

[Inland]

288. The playwright asserts that his

scenes with Pat Robertson and the "religious moderate" are based on reality, and it could be. There is indeed a "pat robertson" and there are religious moderates.

It's clear that everything else, from the two meetings with Robertston, to the dialogue, are contrived to make the religious look disagreeable and to give the atheist character the justification to make broad, derogatory remarks about religion. In other words, to the extent there is a link to actual occurances, the facts have been changed to drain the occurance of any interesting point or event, and now to serve solely as a vehicle to flatter the playwright and make nasty about those who disagree with his religious views.

While some might argue that people can disagree without disagreeable, the point of view of the playwright is that the people who disagree with him are disagreeable, a point that can only be made, apparently, through unrealisic fiction.. In fact, we learn nothing about the substance of the disagreement. The entire drama is in the innocent atheist character being abused until he has suffered enough to issue an ad hominem against the religious, and it's just as illuminating and interesting as it sounds. I'm sure he likes it, as much as he likes himself, and others like it, as much as they dislike christians. Everyone else should avoid it.

[Evoman]

295. Wait

You say you don't like my play, Inland, but we haven't yet gotten to the part where the skInland character meets Jessica Alba and eats ice cream off her, and Evoman turns to christianity so he too can get the hot chicks.

And you said I had no basis in reality. For shame.

Evoman

[Goblinmonger]

305. I worked on another scene for your play.

Let me know what you think.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=501969&mesg_id=508432

[Dogmudgeon]

289. The Cartoonish Evil of Christians

Well, of course Christians are cartoonishly evil. This is the Internet, remember?

We're good, they're bad.

We're also the MOPEs.

We rule, they suck.

(I'll send you a copy of the Official Memo if you didn't get it.)

:evilgrin:

--p!

[Goblinmonger]

293. Have you read Inland's posts on this thread?

I won't even break the rules to give you some of the heinous shit he has said about gays, blacks, atheist, et al on other threads.

He IS CARTOONISH. Yet, be careful, because he isn't a Christian, so says he. He seems to get pissed when anybody concludes that he is from the evidence in front of them. So I would back off with the "We" business when talking about Inland and Christians, because he isn't one.

Try a little experiment. Declare that you are an atheist for a day or two while you are on vacation. Should be the funnest days of your life. When you hear people talk about religion, let them know you don't believe in god and see what wonderful reactions you get. Do I do that? No. Because I know what I'm in for if I do. But when people do find out that I am an atheist, or they talk about atheists when I am around and don't know I am one, you should hear some of the wonderful, loving, caring, accepting, Jesus-like stuff that comes out of their mouths :sarcasm: And that isn't on the internets, my brother, that is in real life. Just here we feel a little more safe to sound off--but only just a little.

[Inland]

309. Yeah, he really should read my posts.

You sure don't. Nobody would recognize my posts from the ridiculous way you describe them, all because I put you through your paces in your little anti religion diatribes. So angry, so self righteous you are.

[InaneAnanity]

285. I'm liking this Evoman dude

Keep it up, bro.

[Goblinmonger]

294. I second that.

:toast:

[arwalden]

299. I Third It.

:applause:

[Name removed]

301. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.