The prejudice of many people on the Left...

[ClassWarrior]

...against religious and spiritual people, the view that they must necessarily be on a lower level of intellectual or psychological development if they believe in God, is a view that is elitist and destructive.

We need to make that kind of elitism as unwelcome in the Left as we once had to make sexist or homophobic approaches to the world. I do not deny that there have been many distortions and destructive elements in the actual realities of most existing religious traditions. I can say the same thing, however, for most existing societies that called themselves socialist or communist, that they too had many deep distortions, and yet I don't accept the notion that their actual embodiments discredited the fundamental visionary elements in a socialist or communist worldview. So I don't accept the notion that the distortions in religious and spiritual communities discredit the fundamental visionary elements in religious and spiritual aspirations.

We have to recognize that Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, the two great leaders for nonviolence in the last century, were both deeply embedded in their own religious traditions, and that there are great capacities for religious or spiritual people to contribute deeply to the development of a progressive world. But today the hostility toward religion and spirituality in many corners of the liberal and progressive culture (though not all corners certainly) pushes away many people who would otherwise be involved and who might contribute major new elements to the thinking and to the successful outreach of a movement for peace and justice.

Leftists have to decide if they are more attached to winning peace, justice, and environmental sanity in the world -- in which case they need to make hostility to religion and spirituality an unwelcome sentiment on the Left -- or if they are more attached to their cynicism and elitism and ability to laugh at or ridicule those who hold on to a religious and spiritual vision of the world.

http://www.alternet.org/story/32032

16-5.

NGU.

[merh]

1. I couldn't agree more.

Leftists have to decide if they are more attached to winning peace, justice, and environmental sanity in the world -- in which case they need to make hostility to religion and spirituality an unwelcome sentiment on the Left -- or if they are more attached to their cynicism and elitism and ability to laugh at or ridicule those who hold on to a religious and spiritual vision of the world.

[Erika]

7. Who in your opinion are the leftists?

The Greens, the LaRouches?

[Erika]

17. I didn't post the article or even suggest democrats

are leftists.

Your definition?

[merh]

38. Anyone

who "is against religious and spiritual people, the view that they must necessarily be on a lower level of intellectual or psychological development if they believe in God" and believe that they are the only ones with progressive and/or liberal views and those views are supreme.

Many different folks fall in the category of "leftists" as described in this article, whether they be The Greens, the LaRouches, the socialists, or members of the Democratic party.

And, I might add, this is just my simple opinion.

[JanMichael]

47. Me?

Yep.

[muntrv]

2. King and Gandhi

did not tell people that they had to follow their faith, they believed in free will.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. And that makes all the difference, really.

[teriyaki jones]

14. We're not talking about winning the hearts and minds of their

disingenuous leaders, but of those who follow, however misguided they may be.

I agree with the original poster. We had a discussion about this at a Moveon vigil last night, instead of doing what the vigil was intended for (a Bill of Rights "eulogoy" of sorts).

If you need to remain cynical, that's OK. But understand, that for those who have been blindly faithful to this evil administration, the only way to get through to them is to speak to them on the same level as the Repugs. Get their attention through acknowledging their faith. Then show them that true faith doesn't tolerate the actions of those who have, in fact, betrayed their faith.

[riderinthestorm]

32. I live in Wheaton, IL, bible capital of the world

You can acknowledge their faith all the live long day (and night), and unless you are a fundy you aren't one of the fold and they will never accept your positions. My sisters ARE good Christians, and Democrats, and they are shunned in our community because they don't acknowledge Bush's fake Christian pretense. At least I have dropped all pretenses and openly acknowledge my atheism.

Have you ever tried to rationalize with a fundy? They KNOW you aren't "one of them" and are labelled to be as much an infidel as Muslims....

[Tigress DEM]

61. Maybe I don't deal with many real fundies anymore.

I live in MN and it's usually pretty tolerant and blue here.

But just cause fundies shun someone doesn't mean they don't hear them - unless the fundies are playing the old "la la la" putting their fingers in their ears game.

I don't know if I'm a good Christian any more, but I sure know how to stick a good Bible verse in someone's craw. They can always retort that Satan himself knew the Bible, though.

I keep it simple. I talk about the words and deeds of Christ and how miserably this administration fails the poor - even persecutes them by slashing the programs that would help them and giving that money to the rich, how a man who lies constantly can't be in line with God's will, and then I will even equate what things either Bush or Cheney have done and ask a Christian, "What would you expect God to do to YOU if you did these things?" "Isn't God ABOVE all people including our leaders?"

I know I nearly went apoplectic when that pastor in NC forced those people out of "his" church because they wouldn't bow to Bush's righteousness..... I was so tickled when someone told that pastor that it was not "his" church, but HIS church and thank you very much God would be represented by someone a little less ...(don't know exactly what they said, but fruit loopy will suffice).

I find myself spending a lot of time apologizing to atheists or those whose beliefs are different from MSR ( mainstream religion ) for the behavior of those in the religious right. I know it isn't my fault, but the way religion is being used to abuse people is still so awful, it's like condolences at a funeral.

I don't know if it helps and it certainly doesn't change anything, but I have to make the attempt to recognize the suffering of another human being and at least bear witness to the wrongs done to them by people claiming to be righteous in Christ.

I just feel I have to point out that what we know about the life of Christ does not support ANYTHING this administration does.

[riderinthestorm]

73. The OP talks about the prejudice of the left

And the article mostly discusses atheists who denigrate believers..... In fact,
Class Warrior highlights THAT particular portion of the article.

But virtually my entire life experience has been believers denigrating MY lack of belief and marginalizing me in daily life.

Don't get me wrong, at this point in time, I am generally immune until I face this kind of crap from believers who want to paint me (and those like me) as the bad guys driving off potential Dems.

Trust me on this, it's NEVER me talking about my religious beliefs or lack thereof at any gathering whatsover, especially where I live - I have learned to keep my mouth tightly closed on religion completely.

You sound like a real Christian. Congrats! You are certainly special.....

[Tigress DEM]

83. I think on this issue the Left has BOTH extremes present...

and lots of room for improvement in each DEMs way of handling it. We all have our little areas where we are blinded to certain truths until someone points them out, hopefully kindly.

It really hurts me to see people using Christ as a battering ram. I know I'm not the best Christian I could be, but I know that Jesus went out among people who were hurting and who society had rejected and He simply loved them as they were and basically said, "Stop doing that crazy stuff that is making your life hell. Come follow me and we'll figure it out along the way."

So when someone pisses on the poor or the gays (or anyone who to me looks like they could use a little Christian kindness) in His name I just don't consider them to truly be following God's will.

I see the reaction by those who have been abused by religion as pretty valid, and I think that trying to silence that in the name of party unity is wrong BUT I ALSO THINK that anyone who HURLS ABUSE at Christians in the DEM just because they are Christians or spends an inordinate amount of time focusing on how pitiful the fundies are etc... is NOT helping the party.

So I agree with the concept of unity and bringing the party together, but I also think that honest dialogue and even anger at the abuse in the name of Christianity is needed too.

[riderinthestorm]

87. Uhm, why the capital letters? And are you assuming I do this shit?

"BUT I ALSO THINK that anyone who HURLS ABUSE at Christians in the DEM just because they are Christians or spends an inordinate amount of time focusing on how pitiful the fundies are etc... is NOT helping the party."

Cause I don't.

Frankly, I've found that atheists typically receive the brunt of "abuse" in this country.

Peace.

[Tigress DEM]

109. No, subj line wasn't directed at you, more at the discussion.

Furter down I just thought that I had switched gears and because the paragraph talking about what the OP was actually addressing was kind of buried in there I felt I had to emphasize it.

Also, I put the caps in because I wanted to be clear that simply telling Christians not to be abusive isn't abusive, but that the "excessive type" of reactionary ABUSE where all Christians are thrown in with the mix and labeled as doing this stuff is what I see happening right now at this time because of the buildup of resentment over the use of religion to subjegate the masses and by individuals to make themselves feel superior at the expense of others.

I agree that the right wing does tend to abuse atheists a lot and that even a lot of the jargon of religion is inherently offensive if you don't believe in MSR (Main Stream Religion), but I have seen some people who are sick of the whole religion thing lump all religious/spiritual people into catagories that are offensive as well.

Making it personal either way is what I see as the mistake, and I simply hope that BOTH sides get to have their freedom back soon.

It is difficult for people who do really believe in living a Christlike life to live in the midst of these lies. Even if we aren't seemingly getting directly abused with religion, it's misuse is something that diminishes everyone. I hurt for the atheists and other non-Christians who are abused and I hurt to see people who are sick and tired of being abused strike back in anger, and I honestly have more sympathy for people who strike back than for those who started it.

[Tigress DEM]

51. Ironically, people who have a true faith only need to be convinced...

of the facts about what evil things this administration is doing in their name and behind their backs while all the while lying to their faces.

Pharisees is what Jesus would call this administration.

Blasphemy and Sacrilige is what he would call their words and deeds.

Boy, would I love to follow Jesus around throwing the moneychangers out of this country's temples of power.

But I digress.

[FreedomAngel82]

45. Exactly

[Tigress DEM]

49. Good point by a relative newbie. Welcome to DU on your 90th post.

We had a discussion on the subject of the OP last night after an athiest posted a beautiful piece about how the Mystery of Life is good enough and someone newer than you used some religious phrasing that was pretty insulting without meaning to.

Things wound up ok, and I made a new friend, but I'm thinking that respect of people's beliefs whatever they are (and I include athiesm et al.. as belief systems as well) is another worn and torn part of the fabric of our country that needs some tending to so we can live together and grow together as a country.

I think it is fine and dandy to talk about how angry we are at specific incidents or types of things that are done, but the lumping people into catagories and ripping good caring individuals to shreds for other people's crimes isn't very Democratic to my way of thinking.

And as a society we have to find a way to really respect other people's rights to not believe the way we do, not just with lip service, but with real actions that show everybody is entitled to their own way to live and think and grow personally.

[Virginian]

64. Just as I don't have to become gay to respect those who are,

I don't have to embrace a particular religion to respect those who follow it.

I believe some of the fundimentalist have attempted to corrupt the teachings of Christ. It is not their religion I object to, but their distortion of it.

[ruggerson]

3. If you wish this to happen successfully

we first have to completely eradicate the hatred spewed at certain segments of society in the name of "religion."

End that and I'll gladly back your cause.

[FreedomAngel82]

46. Right

Both sides have to be together. Religion is one out of a couple of reason's in my opinion there will never be world peace. There will always be fanatics everywhere.

[Tigress DEM]

96. Religion is a structure around faith.

Some people get caught up with obeying every rule (like the Pharisees in the Bible) and they lose track of the real goal of established religion, to support a person in persuing their faith in something greater than themselves.

I'm not a real fan of religion, but it has been a safe place (mostly) for me to explore and deepen my faith.

I think the ratio of fanatics is purportionate to how powerful we allow the structure of Religion to become and how thin the line between government and religion is.

I think that when the churches are about their own business on their own time and not in the business of governing the people or conforming the masses by forced ideology, then they attract people who are looking to be supported in their belief and their spiritual journey and doesn't attract people who want the magic solution to their problems.

I also think fanaticism is a symptom of social dis-ease where because our society is out of whack people are graspig for something, anything to make sense of it all. And there are people who are poised and ready to take advantage of that.

The more we can get our country back on track with the "reality based" methods of government the sooner that people will be able to recover from that. It will take a few generations. Just like the depression scarred people and caused a whole generation of people to hoard things (even though intellectually knew they didn't have to) our generation will move forward as bravely as we can and hopefully repair the damage and create a climate for prosperity on even more levels. But it will probably be a bumpy ride.

To me the real moral bankruptcy is people judging others when none of us is perfect. Those who follow the example of Christ should truly get, "Judge not lest ye be judged."

I truly only know what works for me and I respect that others have different views and opinions.

There is not enough proof in the world that God exists for someone who does not believe and for one who does believe the lack of proof is just not a problem.

None of us can really prove or fully disprove God's existence so it really is best left as a personal choice that we all are allowed to make without interference. Hence, the (former) greatness of our country's establishmet of separation of church and state.

[RPM]

54. word

100% agreed

[Cronus Protagonist]

71. I'm with you on that - and let's also ask that the Holy See change too

No more sheltering and promoting child molesters. What I can't understand is why there is not an upswell of opinion from the rank and file against this practice. The same goes for others here in America who don't want to be tarred with the same brush as Falwell, Robertson, et al, yet do nothing within their own organizations to condemn them, or to excise them, which would be even better.

[Tigress DEM]

75. People who spew hatred are making that choice, so hold them accountable.

I don't know if I personally would say that the "Left" needs to "make hostility to religion and spirituality an unwelcome sentiment" in order to win peace, justice and environmental sanity.

However, I think that we can look at being hostile toward specifics that really deserve the full import of reactive rath and at the same time not irrationally brand anyone who says they believe in God as being a bush-bunny-sheeple hybrid.

In my opinion it is ineffective to yell at a fellow DEM who stands beside you and supports your rights and freedoms for the crazy stuff someone else does.

Now if that person is mouthing crazy stuff that really impinges on your rights and freedoms (even though they claim to support your rights and freedoms) it is appropriate to shine a big old light on that error. But I still think we can create more solidarity if we keep the focus of the anger on the specific words - what they imply and how they are hurtful or specific actions and tangible evidence while keeping in mind that the individual has learned these things over time and that unlearning them will take time too.

Since we need to work together to "completely eradicate the hatred spewed at certain segments of society in the name of "religion" I think it would be setting up a road block to progress to expect the solution for one group to be dependent upon first solving the problem for the other.

Still, I think anyone who seriously wants our diverse elements to work together must always stand up and speak out against the Fred Phelps of the world for example and never defend their actions if we want to be seen as serious in our committment to America as it can be.

[Erika]

4. I believe Christ was a democrat. He shares our ideals. n/t

[Texacrat]

66. I didn't know the Democratic Party was that old

n/t

[bpilgrim]

5. painting the whole left is absurd

are folks upset about religious wackos, you bet... and it ain't just the left.

don't waste time on RW talking points :hi:

peace

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[bpilgrim]

12. i am good at it

but painting the whole left as anything is even a bigger fallacy

peace

[Erika]

13. Who's the leftists? n/t

[ClassWarrior]

23. It's an excerpt from an article. The idea is to...

...read it. See how that works?

16-5.

NGU.

[Erika]

27. So, who are the leftists?

Think. See how that works.

[Tigress DEM]

149. How about painting the Left -- Whole?

WORD :woohoo: PLAY!

[omega minimo]

6. All it takes is not being a hypocrite

Simple!
:grouphug:

[Tigress DEM]

146. Walking the walk are ya' now?

Good deal.

[zalinda]

10. I don't think that the left has hostility toward religion or

spirituality, it's the so called Christians that the left has trouble with. I have an uncle who is a priest and a great aunt who is a nun. My grandmother was a devout Catholic all her life, even though she could no participate in communion for the majority of her life, for something that was out of her control. I admire all of these people. I admire any religious person who walks the talk.

The RW has taken over the WORD Christian and these people really aren't Christians. They do not walk the talk, they walk over people. When the left seems hostile to these "Christians", the RW says we are anti Christian, which is further from the truth.

You would find almost all left wingers agree with real Christianity, and real religiousness. The fundamentalists of any religion does not agree with the left, and the left doesn't agree with them.

zalinda

[Erika]

15. Fundies don't meet most people's meaning of Christian

Look at the war-mongering W they supported. He's cutting food stamps, military care, education, medicare, medicaid, etc.

But he loves dreaming of bigger and better nukes.

[Tigress DEM]

112. Amen. ex: Prince of Peace - not the war-mongering type. n/t

[Tigress DEM]

111. Agree somewhat.

I've personally found that your statement, "You would find almost all left wingers agree with real Christianity, and real religiousness" to be true once people get past all the labels and name calling.

I really agree with this statement, "The RW has taken over the WORD Christian and these people really aren't Christians. They do not walk the talk, they walk over people."

I think the problem may be the "over broad terms" we use as descriptors.

See, I'm not attached to religion as much as my personal faith in Christ which makes me a Christian even though I'm a recovering Catholic who hasn't stepped foot in a church for a long time because it's difficult to reconcile what I personally believe with the crap that is flying around within the political structure of the Catholic church and the churches of the fundy movement.

I think a lot of the people that Lefties would recognize as real Christians who walk the walk have walked away from the shell of religion or found a non-crazy religion and yet have taken their personal faith in Christ away with them.

So attacking the WORD Christian is worse for me to hear than to have the religion itself or the fanatic right wing interpretation of the Bible called into question.

I don't see fundies being able to twist Christ's words, except the parable with the servant who buried his money and got bubkis. You have to read before and after that to get the context, then you see why the fundy version of being rich is being godly is not the right read on that section.

I still have never found any thing Christ said that is against homosexuality. I know there is some verse in the Bible, but I've scoured the New Testement pretty well and still don't see anything that Christ said that gives people permission to kill or persecute gays.

Most of the things Christ said go out of the way to say, "Don't judge, Don't be concerned with others sins as much as take care of your own problems and try to be caring and compassionate toward others."

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Huh?

I am hostile to religious fundamentalist lunatics establishing theocracies, going on holy wars, and otherwise making the planet a goddamn unpleasant place to live. Otherwise your personal belief system is generally of no interest to me.

[ClassWarrior]

37. Then we're all on the same page. Read the article.

Otherwise that's just a lot of hot air.

16-5.

NGU.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. I read the article.

Apparantly we are all pathologically hostile to religion and don't know it. Sorry, I reject the premise. Mixing religion and politics invariably ends up with witches getting burnt.

[Dervill Crow]

177. Really, weren't the witch hunts political?

There's a school of thought that a lot of the burning/hanging of witches had as much to do with seizing of property and shutting people up as with any real problem with their religion or lack thereof.

I will say that I know more Christian democrats than pagan repuglicans, for whatever that's worth. :shrug:

[Touchdown]

77. Hot air. Much like this author you linked to.

One thing he does, that most of us don't is paint with broad brushes. He needs to take that log out of his eye before he tries to remove the splinter from ours.

[Tigress DEM]

113. And yet...

While maintaining an intelligent anger and intent to prevent fundy theocracies, holy wars and other nasty stuff done with the excuse of "God told me to...."


Wouldn't it be a fair goal to build solidarity by having both sides be respectful of each other's belief systems - whether they be based on God, science, humankind's higher potential or whatever combination a person chooses to hold dear?

A person's belief system is part of who they are. If we respect a person only in the most superficial general way, it is kind of dismissive. I understand that for someone who has actually earned it.

But in cases of people trying to reach across the belief divide and learn to be more supportive and less dismissive of those who don't do MSR (Main Stream Religion)or of "real Christians" it would be nice if that kind of gesture could be met in kind vs dismissing the Christian or Athiest as being "_____" or having the Athiest or Christian stand in for all the fundys/angry left and take it on the chin until it's determined they really aren't THAT kind of Christian or Atheist.

I am over simplifying, but basically it would be nice if each person could be considered an individual and not lumped in with something awful just because they mention certain key words that raise people's hackles. If at least on DU we could make a committment to check things out before going balistic, maybe we could figure out how to carry that out into real world in a constructive, consensus building way too.

[theoldman]

16. If the left hate religion, why do most Democrats attend church?

[Erika]

21. and why do so many of us worship the Prince of Peace

Not the warfare of W.

[ClassWarrior]

28. Where in that article did it say anything about the left hating religion?

:shrug:

You did read the article first, didn't you?

NGU.

[Katherine Brengle]

97. By this, do you mean Dem politicians? I don't think most of anyone

attends church--at least not consistently...

And if you mean Dem politicians, do they really have a choice? To do otherwise would run contrary to how our political system works--the citizenry seems to expect its representatives to be people of faith--it's very absurd...

[Occulus]

18. I don't legislate against christians, but they legislate against me.

They fired the first shot- and the second and the third and the fouth and the fifth and.....

I think you get the point.

The day christians stop legislating against me is the day I stop calling their religion a WASTE OF FUCKING TIME.

[Cronus Protagonist]

74. Are Mormons Christians?

I'm just wondering because they're one of the worst political offenders and I didn't want them to be missed out of your statement, whith which I agree wholeheartedly.

Educate a Freeper Today!
Buttons, Stickers and Fridge Magnets made in America for brainy people
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Tigress DEM]

148. Christians consider Mormons to be a cult.

Mormons on the other hand think they are the only true expression of Christ's doctrine AND Catholics had that button holed long before (let it go after Vatican II in 1962 - we actually had a lot of non-denominational cooperation going on with other churches for many years ) then the Catholic church took "only Catholics in Heaven" back into doctrine sometime in the 1990's.

[Pushed To The Left]

19. I agree.

The religious right does not represent all people of faith. The right wing has used/abused religion to push forth their agenda, which might be causing people to view religion in a negative light. I have no problem at all with people of any religion. However, the religious right/conservative political movement is a different story...

[riderinthestorm]

20. Great tolerance by the so-called Christians.

"But today the hostility toward religion and spirituality in many corners of the liberal and progressive culture (though not all corners certainly) pushes away many people who would otherwise be involved and who might contribute major new elements to the thinking and to the successful outreach of a movement for peace and justice."

If I can tolerate Christians and their obnoxious religiosity, then they can surely tolerate my atheism, right?

[ClassWarrior]

35. The man whose words I quoted is a Jewish rabbi. Read the article.

16-5.

NGU.

[riderinthestorm]

62. I HATE it when posters say this, like I would be stupid enough to post

without reading the article.

My experience is in Wheaton, IL, self-declared fundy capital of the world, Billy Graham's spiritual home.

I understand the article is written by a lovely Jewish rabbi. I am speaking of my experiences in real time.

[Tigress DEM]

114. I think this article is too broad in it's assessment.

Certainly I have been in some real shit storm posts where everything religious was being blasted. And I myself will take false Christians to task because there has been such a huge amount of religious persecution in this country, by the people claiming to be Christians.

As long as the hostility is directed at the specifics that are out of whack and aren't just general smears, it does help people to see what needs to be changed, how it is hurtful etc..

However, people of DU tend to be good one on one with tolerance and that is what I hear a lot being said in this post, "But I AM respectful - it's the other guy." Maybe it isn't as much direct one on one attacks as it is broad sweeping generalizations that don't leave people room to step into a comfortable place on the issue.

Because when we hear a broad generalization, we can take that personal even if someone didn't mean it that way because of how society as a whole pumps these definitions at us daily and worse so lately.

Personally, being slapped up side the head for being a Christian hasn't really hurt me much. It's made me examine my faith more and try to be a better example and more open to listening to people with opposing views - who aren't slap happy toward Christians. (Never said I was a maschocist.)

I am more hurt when I see Christianity being used against someone.

[Burried News]

22. There is a need to be civil and pragmatic but the line below is

unacceptible.

"I can say the same thing, however, for most existing societies that called themselves socialist or communist, that they too had many deep distortions, and yet I don't accept the notion that their actual embodiments discredited the fundamental visionary elements in a socialist or communist worldview."

Stalin's purges and gulags
Pol Pot's killing fields
Mao's purges

are no different than the Church's Inquisitions or Hitler's Concentration Camps or Tojo's mass murders in Nanking and elsewhere.

[EFerrari]

24. Oh CW, please.

Am I just too naive to live?

"or if they are more attached to their cynicism and elitism and ability to laugh at or ridicule those who hold on to a religious and spiritual vision of the world."

I thought this was a progressive site. Am I wrong? :(

[ClassWarrior]

26. Look at how you're ready to ridicule me without even taking...

...five minutes to read the article - which is actually someone else's opinion. Please read it first, then decide if you want to roll your eyes.

16-5.

NGU.

[Erika]

29. What's your opinion CW?

Define the leftists. Thanks. You posted the article.

[EFerrari]

36. Ridicule just isn't one of my speeds. I'll look again.

peace
Beth

[Tigress DEM]

115. "laugh at or ridicule"

Isn't being progressive being tolerant? Do tolerant people laugh at or ridicule someone for their religious or spiritual beliefs?

DU is probably not as big of an offender in this area because we do a lot of checking ourselves to be sure we aren't doing personal attacks in our posts.

But think about a lot of the "humor" that floats generally around in the left and how it paints the people who have faith as all being koolaid drinking sheeple or worse.

One thing I agree about with the article is that if we take a look and can make improvements in being even more tolerant and respectful of one another, we can bring in more of those who have finally realized what a sick evil administration this is, but fear being ridiculed for their faith because of that faith's association with *ush's gestapo policies.

I think the people who voted for *ush because he lied and wake up to the truth one day and walk away from that side to this one should be welcomed and handed a shovel so they can start helping us dig out of this mess. It will help them remember to not do that again.

[still_one]

25. look how many deaths have been done in the name of religion

[ClassWarrior]

34. Correct. Read the article.

16-5.

NGU.

[still_one]

40. i did

[SPKrazy]

30. Absolutely!

Religious and spiritual people are very often also liberal people!

To assume that belief in a creator is a sign of lesser intellect is just plain insulting!

I don't push my beliefs on people, but I am not ashamed of my beliefs either and am more than willing to share them.

I buckle at the threads that seem to bash religion, or equate all Christianity with fundamentalism!

Thanks for the post

[JanusAscending]

95. First reasonable thing I've read on this thread.

Thank you, and a great big AMEN !! Those of us who are followers of Christ need to show the "fundies" how it's really done! Without judgment, with love and a great big WHAT WOULD JESUS DO ?? I think He would have been the epitome of a liberal (or as you're all referring to as "leftists") DEMOCRAT ! If I'm not mistaken, it was He that said "render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's. See?? He believed in the separation of Church and State !!!O8) PEACE

[riderinthestorm]

101. Do I get a big "Amen" too?!

Atheists are very often also liberal people!

To assume that non-belief in a creator is a sign of lesser intellect is just plain insulting!

I don't push my beliefs on people, but I am not ashamed of my beliefs either and am more than willing to share them.

I buckle at the threads that seem to bash atheism, or equate all atheism with elitism!

See, I find the prejudice of the religious against atheists to be intolerant and all.....

[JanusAscending]

102. Yes you do, my fellow Democrat!!

Whatever floats your boat, as long as I have the same respect in return! On second thought, I would probably "turn the other cheek" if ya' pissed me off !! Peace !

[ClassWarrior]

103. Thank you.

16-5.

NGU.

[riderinthestorm]

105. Then you need to tell the Rabbi Lerner needs to STFU

... cause he sure as shit is unrighteously dissing.

And I get sick and tired of it. The blame passing for Dem failures always gets shifted to people like me and some bizarre assignation to our lack of faith and acceptance, our "prejudice" against religious folks when frankly, in my perspective it almost always works the other way around.

Religious peoples' lack of respect is more generally the norm in my opinion and experience.

And I wouldn't even know to turn the other cheek, or even expect you to turn the other cheek since it wouldn't even be a part of our conversation if you were to meet me.

Politics should be separate from religion!

Peace!

[SPKrazy]

142. Who The Hell Is "the Rabbi Lerner"?

and I'm sorry you think that "religious people's lack of respect" is more the norm.

I think you've just been exposed to the mouthy, judgmental type of religious people.

Government should be separate from religion, but politics is always going to be affected by the beliefs of the supporters of that political party.

But belief should never be an exclusionary practice, and rather we should all work for common goals. Liberal goals of helping humankind, taking care of the sick and needy, peace, saving out habitat (our planet will survive, but humankind may not) etc.

[Warren DeMontague]

135. AMEN.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[SPKrazy]

141. Yes You Get A Big Amen!

I'm not an atheist basher, and I've seen few threads here on DU that I would characterize as anything of the sort.

So Amen my friend!

Liberals need to stick together, we have more in common than we do differences when it comes to believing in the noble notion of humans helping humans (aka Humanity) as we are all in this boat together!

[Warren DeMontague]

136. Can you please provide a link

to these threads?

Who has said that a belief in a creator is a 'sign of lesser intellect'?

You say you are not ashamed of your beliefs.. presumably, that means you think that, on the concept of a creator, you are right, and someone who doesn't believe in a creator is wrong.

Is thinking someone wrong on this issue equivalent to thinking they have a 'lesser intellect'?

Because if you have the right to share your belief that those of us who don't believe are wrong, don't we have the right to share our belief, or lack thereof, even when the implication carried is that YOU are wrong?

I think the problem some -many- here have is that in our society, you usually don't come across athiests -certainly not outspoken ones- in large numbers. There are a good number of us on DU. To the one, I think we all respect everyone's right to believe whatever they want. However, if people take the statement "I don't believe in (your) God" to be a direct insult to their intelligence, that's really not our fault.

[Tigress DEM]

150. Treads that got nuts like that here usually get locked up.

I can try to do some searching, but I usually only jump into the "Greatest" and hit the highlights unless I'm on a specific hunt and those pages don't search well.

It isn't "just" here, but people do say more than "I don't believe in (your) God" and even Christians who are mad at the way the "reich wing" is using Christianity to abuse everyone did a lot of distancing ourselves with degrading humor toward "fundie" Christians. Have you never said, "Yup, those fundies gotta quit drinking the koolaid." ? Or wondered aloud if people who voted for *ush were imbred? I mean, there was a long desperate time when we DEMs had to vent or blow up. What I'm hearing these days is, ok, let's move on.

Maybe you've never gotten into it with anyone on DU. That's a good thing. Just keep up the good work.

I believe in the concept of a creator and I also think that if someone believes differently that it is fine for them to do so. I don't think it's my job to know all the answers, but I also think that we, with the possible exception of Stephen Hawking, are still pretty primitive in our ability to understand what science has been able to uncover.

I wouldn't teach creationism as science, but I also think there are a few holes in Darwin's theory of evolution. I don't see why humans absolutely could NOT have been created and then evolved - but if it turns out homo sapiens are a result of cross breeding with aliens, it won't be any skin off my nose. Whatever the truth is will suffice, but until I know for sure, I choose to believe.

If you don't believe in (my) God, that's your choice. It doesn't have to make one of us right and the other wrong because no one has the final answer at this point. Science is relearning all kinds of stuff and quantum physics has flipped a lot of theories over on the table.

[hyphenate]

31. While I am secular and mostly an atheist,

I would not say that I think people who believe in a higher power are less intelligent, nor would I say I'm an elitist in that respect.

I personally want to keep my personal beliefs to myself out in the world, and wish that more people would as well, instead of trying to lecture me on why their belief system is in any way superior to my onw. The point that I try to make is that what I believe is none of their goddamned business, and that their beliefs are none of my goddamned business. It's only when they start preaching to me when I get defensive and in any way "uppity" as most people would take umbrage if their beliefs were questioned in such a manner.

I will deride their choices at such times, because they were warned not to discuss their beliefs with me and they did it anyhow--how does that make me elitist? I will make pointed comments at these times, and will do so with some glee--after all, what is it that these people can't understand when someone says they aren't interested in hearing their opinions on a specific topic? An agreement to disagree is all we request at times like this, and tendentious preaching about their so-called "Christian" god, with their interpretation of "his" laws is, above all, an invitation to tell them all to go to hell.

I worked for nearly two years for a company where large part of the administrative employees were "Christians" but for the most part, they left me alone, and never learned how I felt in general about their beliefs. I do not speak first about such matters as to me, it is a very personal topic on which to speak, and in RL, there is little excuse for bringing it up overall. It is only in such a place as DU where I feel I can vent about all the people who I have encountered in reality who believe they are "Christians" but refuse to give people who believe in other things the same rights that they request for themselves. My best friend and I rarely talk about the subject for that reason--we are at oppposite polls and know that a heated argument begins every time we do bring it up--I tend to allow her to rant a little more than I do other people simply because I view it (for her) as a coping mechanism at a time when her life is very complex and filled with upheavals both in her health, her life and her job in the school system. People tend to lean on some element in their life when things are not going exactly to plan, and if religion is their crutch, that's fine with me. My own crutch is a state of depression, sleeping, and stress eating. In many ways, my crutch is a lot less healthy than belief in a god who purportedly loves you regardless of who you are or what you do in your life.

[Erika]

33. There are many of us who believe in Christ's message

but who cannot believe in God.

The democratic party is open to all. The GOP has been hijacked by the Bible Belt Christians (?) who have a convenient belief that acccumulating wealth is honorable and ignoring our needy is justified.

[H2O Man]

39. It might be worth noting

that those on the left that are hostile to religion and spirituality are a tiny, tiny minority. They do not have the numbers to be considered of any significance in any political contest, including primaries in the democratic party. No one courts their votes, because they are a powerless political entity. Hence, the hostility towards religion and spirituality is nothing if not a self-defeating attitude politically.

[riderinthestorm]

65. Okay, Class Warrior, here's an example

Atheists who may be "hostile to religion and spirituality" are heretofore able to be marginalized. And this is articulated by one of DU's most respected members and contributors.

"They do not have the numbers to be considered of any significance in any political contest, including primaries in the democratic party. No one courts their votes, because they are a powerless political entity."

I face this every single damn day here in my life. And I never have been, nor am I now "hostile". I made my peace with my lack of faith, and moved on.

But clearly nobody else can. I am labelled as "hostile", "insignificant", "powerless" and "self-defeating".

There's no inclusion here for atheists.....

[Zenlitened]

131. And yet atheists have the power to drive huge numbers of voters...

... out of the Democratic party*. It's not a contradiction in logic -- it's a miracle!


*And into the arms of the Republican Party. Such unshakable progressive values these ex-Democrats had, huh? "Those atheists are being mean to me -- therefor I will abandon my own principles and join a political party working to undermine progressive ideals."

:crazy:

[Tigress DEM]

153. Let me clarify something...

I persoanlly think the article was overly broad in it's statements - to the extent that it created a backlash.

However, consider this. How many worms do you need to find in an apple to not want to eat it? 1? 2? 10?

It's the behavior of being HOSTILE, not the person or their belief system, the behavior of being hostile is what is not helping us bring more solidarity to the party between these two diverse elements.

Also, we've been getting converts from repub world that have gotten a bit and piece of the truth here and there. Have family that keep yapping at them. Their faith piece is a bit more prickly, plus they've been taught in the party to not question authority and such. It doesn't mean they are stupid people, but they have to unlearn a lot of garbage that was taught to them as (pardon the pun) Gospel.

[Zenlitened]

179. So you're saying the the "Democrats are hostile to religion" meme...

... is based on fact? That atheists in the party are indeed driving potential voters away?

[Tigress DEM]

152. But if you AREN'T HOSTILE then you aren't the object of that sentence.

Disagreeing with religion and spirituality, having your own opinion about it without making personal attacks on others who do believe ISN'T the problem. From everything you have said, you don't attack others or make fun of their faith.

Lot's of posts here even on this thread talk about this tolerance going both ways. I know - I made them.

Atheists are just people like the rest of us. A call for tolerance has been made and "Yes" it does need to go both ways and many of us who do believe in God also believe in your right NOT to share that belief. You are your own person. You are fully welcome here.

[Tigress DEM]

151. And on DU that number might be even smaller because...

those who we think are hostile leftists towared Christians could just be freepers stirring up the pot.

However, I think a lot of us have done things that while not openly "hostile" may have come off more as a personal slam than we intended and such. It's a good thing for everyone to be mindful of how they present themselves to others.

[ananda]

41. pissants just don't get it...

I'm very left liberal. I believe in God, spirituality, peacelovedove,
and all that jazz.

I'm also a humanist with great respect for atheists and agnostics
who believe in human and civil rights for all.

One problem with extremists of any belief system is that they
operate with huge wooden medieval blinders -- blind to their
own faults and unable to see the good in others.

I hate that because it causes so much harm and killing in the name
of some manufactured, delusionary "good" that people must
subscribe to in order to keep functioning, while society, the country,
and the planet's capacity to support human life are put in dire peril.

In fact, it's probably too late for humanity and the ecology of the planet.
It's just a matter of time, sooner rather than later, that societies will
collapse and humanity with them.

Carpe diem, eh...

[Tigress DEM]

154. Tough day?

"In fact, it's probably too late for humanity and the ecology of the planet.
It's just a matter of time, sooner rather than later, that societies will
collapse and humanity with them."

I don't know what to say to make you feel better but here is some irreverence...

Hang in there. It's Friday.

Rhode Island is trying to start Impeachment proceedings and Ohio is retrying the 2004 case against Blackwell for his messing with the election.

My grandson is cute.

[Mythsaje]

42. The sad thing

is that while it's not all that difficult to see and understand the value of strong religious values when it comes to following a path to peace, it's equally easy to see how dangerous religious sentiments can become if channeled by the wrong people. Unfortunately, the dangerously religious, the fundamentalists, have become the most vocal proponents of using religion as a form of political expression--or, using politics as a means of religious expression.

I doubt that any clear-thinking person would argue that this isn't a dangerous thing, and a road that's fraught with the potential for terrible calamities.

Our founding fathers came here carrying the memory of the horrible religious conflicts that exploded across Europe, wars that used religion as an excuse. Their desire to see America free of such conflicts has been lost in the "culture war" particularly propagated by the Religious Right.

Religion is a double-edged blade. It can heal, but it can also destroy. It simply depends on whose hands it rests in.

[ClassWarrior]

44. If you read the article, you'll see this is one of the points Rabbi...

...Lerner makes.

NGU.

[Lindacooks]

48. The left isn't hostile towards religion - we are hostile to

proselytizing and the fascist religious who think they, and only they, are right and everybody else is condemned.

[Ksec]

50. Im neutral on religion

I really dont care who someone prays to. My interests color my opinions. If your interests hurt my interests then we have a problem. If your religion hurts me or my family I have a problem with your religion . If your corporation hurts me or my family, I have a problem with your corporation.

Im not against anyone who doesnt mess with me . Or my family.

[autorank]

52. Oh, really...

Lets see, according to many of the religions, if I fail to get baptized and accept Jesus as my personal savior before I die, I'll go to Hell, suffer for eternity, and that's it. Read it again, that's what many of the religious people think.

I find it difficult to generate thoughts of tolerance when I hear this. Call me a heathen, but that's how I feel. After all, most ten year olds, upon hearing this drivel, ask their mothers something like this: "What if I'm in China and I live a perfect life, mommy. Will I go to Hell just because I've never heard of Jesus."

Moderation, tolerance, and humility are highly admirable qualities. Out of respect for my mother, I'll hesitate to say what I really feel about this topic. After all, her answer was, "Well, Michael, God really doesn't care about what church you go to. He's really concerned about how your treat other people and the good you do."

How about that, saved by tolerance.

[EstimatedProphet]

57. I think this is the difference between big religion and small religion

or if you'd rather, religion and spirituality, or maybe church and spirituality.

True spirituality should teach tolerance and respect for others. It is after all your personal relationship with God, however you picture God to be. There are 'religions' that put more emphasis on forcing other people to conform, but that shouldn't define the entirety of spirituality.

[autorank]

60. That's why I used the term "religion". It's difficult to imagine

spirituality and intolerance coexisting. There are any number of religious that exhibit and exemplify tolerance. I'm just referring to the belief systems that condemn nonbelievers to eternal damnation. I think that's a bit much.

[EstimatedProphet]

72. Quite true

I personally believe those types are anti-spirituality.

[autorank]

59. The problem is transitory, btw...

Science will return as our new god. It's official, 60 Minutes announced it, we're facing the end of the world as we know it. As global warming comes faster and in more disruptive forms than we've ever imagined, it will become more and more apparent that our our only salvation is rational exploration, discovery, and implementation of reality-based scientific solutions to the mess we've created. Who's you daddy then?

[Tigress DEM]

147. Auto! Howya? Long time no see!

Did I ever share my Mom's little sampler she had up in our Kitchen when I was little?

There's a little bit of good
in the least of us.

And a little bit of bad
in the best of us.

So it hardly behooves
ANY of us

To talk about the
REST of us.


She was dead probably 5-6 years when I read a Sci-Fi book and it dawned on me that this little sampler is partly based on pagan philosophy.

Still, what I took from it was that God sees us as who we are and that we are all lovable in His eyes even if we make mistakes. And that the mistakes that people think are SO big may not necessarily be anything that God can't help a person with.

I also thought that it implied the whole, get the log out of your own eye and don't worry about the mote in your neighbor's eye.

[RPM]

53. When religion is less hostile to me, i will be less hostile to it.

sorry - i won't let it kick me around.

[ClassWarrior]

56. Did you read the article?

16-5.

NGU.

[Tigress DEM]

155. You can have and discuss problems with religion here...

the hostility toward the people who believe (and I've also made a point to extend tolerance both ways) is what we are primarily discussing.

Christians new to DU should learn about all the shit being done in our guy's name now and about the historical context of using religion to subjugate people in the past. People who can stand to be in church may be our best hope of getting it to change from within.

[Zhade]

55. I absolutely reject the premise that King and Gandhi did good things...

...solely because they were religious.

I have no problem imagining them to be outstanding examples of humanity had they been a- or irreligious. That's just the kind of people they were.

[ClassWarrior]

58. Where did the Rabbi contend THAT?

I think their characters and their spirituality were intimately entwined. You'd be hard pressed to separate them and say "solely" one thing or the other.

16-5.

NGU.

[Timbuk3]

63. Religious extremism exists in all monotheistic religions

Witness Fred Phelps hateful protests at the funerals of soldiers. Witness the wall in Israel. Witness the reaction to a cartoon (or a statue of Christ in a glass of piss.)

It's not Islam or Christianity or Judaism that "we" protest.

It's monotheistic, apocolypse-hungry religious zealotry, regardless of flavor.

Being absolutely certain you are right, that "my God is bigger and better and badder than your God", and being absolutely certain you are going to heaven and any-and-everyone who disagrees with you is going to hell makes compromise impossible.

We are in wars, and electing Presidents who appoint pro-fascist judges, because of the certainty of a very few that their views should over-ride the constitution.

It's extremism that should be feared, and "the right" fears it just as much as "the left", although you could argue that the flavor of the extremism may differ.

[bonito]

67. This is true

While I have no religious adherences, I Meditate, and it blows me away. Peace

[jbnow]

68. For a spiritual progressive

the author doesn't seem very spiritual or progressive.

On the political side I don't believe that the Dems can trick people into voting for them. That was the major error in selecting Kerry
OK. So kerry isn't the real thing but bush was?

And what my research showed was that many people were seeking a world of love and kindness and that they only heard that kind of language being articulated in the Religious Right. Now, I'm talking not of the hard-core Right, but of the formerly Democratic voters who have been moving to the Right politically

Oh, that's how we lost? The love and kindness shown by/spoken by the Right?

I didn't hear a lot of that myself. The Religious Right used bias and judgment from what I could hear. They use the punishing, judgmental God...

While the author feels the right honors their spiritual needs I say they play to their fears and insecurities. In this atmosphere of fear people want some certainty and the political and religious right seem to offer that by us and them, rigid wrong and right...

Loving words. Because they say words like family values, christian values and sanctity of marriage? But the words they day about those things are not words of love and kindness.

I thought words and kindness would be about...being loving in kind. Peace, not war. being care takers of the earth, not causing its ruin. Caring for the sick, elderly, the children. Acceptance. Crazy things like that.

[Ksec]

69. This part of the article

"Leftists have to decide if they are more attached to winning peace, justice, and environmental sanity in the world -- in which case they need to make hostility to religion and spirituality an unwelcome sentiment on the Left -- or if they are more attached to their cynicism and elitism and ability to laugh at or ridicule those who hold on to a religious and spiritual vision of the world."

Doesnt give me much of a choice .

Pretty extreme IMO.

[BurtWorm]

80. It's rather typical of spiritual "thought," in my experience.

It sets up a phony ultimatum based on false premises and gross generalizations. Does Lerner really think the left *needs* to make "hostility to religion" "*unwelcome*" on the left in order to achieve peace, justice and environmental sanity? Would he be willing to make the choice between those principles and tolerance of hostility to religion and spirituality on the left? In other words, if all of those ends could be achieved without sacrificing freedom of some leftists to be hostile to religion, wouldn't he be willing to tolerate different views about and values for religion from his own?

I don't care if other people are religious or spiritual, so why should anyone care if I'm hostile to or cynical about spirituality? I wish leftists would be more unwelcoming of attempts to curb freedom of thought and belief, even when (or especially when) that freedom entails being critical of others' thoughts and beliefs.

[Touchdown]

70. So we should kiss christo-ass?

I reject this author's premise. What this person sees as hostility is actually a backlash against a theocratic putsch, for which most Christians are doing nothing to curtail. Until the good Christians clean up their own house, they've got no cause to cry to the victims of their beliefs for sympathy. Prejudice? What a crock of horseshit!

By their works, ye shall know them.

The thin skinned-ness of the faithful needs to end here. It's not healthy, and I will not be an enabler. King and Ghandi both would agree with me.

[Cronus Protagonist]

76. Exactly: Remove the log in thine own eye

Sorry, can't remember much from my indoctrination, but I seem to remember something about that in the mix somewhere along the line.

Educate a Freeper Today!
Buttons, Stickers and Fridge Magnets made in America for brainy people
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[ClassWarrior]

79. This author is a Jewish Rabbi. Read the article before you judge.

NGU.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[ClassWarrior]

86. "A percieved hostility to religious faith with (sic) doesn't exist?"

You're kidding, aren't you?

This entire thread is riddled with hostility. And I expected some give and take, but I honestly did NOT expect this level of hostility.

16-5.

NGU.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[Warren DeMontague]

98. Touchdown!

:applause::applause::applause:

[Touchdown]

121. Nope! I'm not kidding. There is no hostility.

Shall I make it clearer for you?

[Touchdown]

123. I did read it. The rabbi is full of it.

...and I don't appreciate the insulting tone of your posts. Don't make assumptions, whether you try to silence me by getting my posts deleted or not.

[nofurylike]

94. thank you for your calm in being able to express that, Touchdown. i was

too upset on finding this thread here, and in GD, to express that so clearly.

you said it so very well, thank you so much!!


peace and solidarity

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[seabeyond]

81. considering there is over 80% of this nation that are christian

and the repug party doesnt have nearly 80% of the nation in their back pocket. and the democratic party doesnt have ALL the non chrisitans in their back poscket, i can only conclude there is a pretty strong majority of christians in the democratic party.

i think this is a stupid article that feed the republican is the christian party bullshit that i detest so much. not only does it not make sense, or it is not factual...... but it is total bullshit. dont paint the democratic party as non christian, helping repugs out

[ClassWarrior]

82. You didn't read the article, did you?

16-5.

NGU.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[Erika]

89. Ah, you answer no questions n/t

[seabeyond]

91. i read what you gave me

the article is huge.......

no i didnt read it. what i got from what you gave the person is suggesting we accept the right wing religious bullshit. that is not embracing the christianity you talk. i can still be a christian and say no to what the fundamentalist and extreme right catholics want to do with our nation. it doesnt make me an anti religious elitist. from what i read that you posted it suggested dems were beating up christians. bullshit. campaign, the dems were very good keeping quiet about religion. too good. a fine catholic man kerry is and that very right wing christian acted in the most unchristian ways. the dem party, and the liberal christians have to absolutely stand up to these "christian" bullies. that is our job as christians, and that is our leaders job to keep religion out of government

[ClassWarrior]

93. All correct. And all supported by the article. I was hoping to prompt...

...people to read it, not get all pissed off at the excerpt. Please do read it. It's very thought-provoking.

16-5.

NGU.

[nofurylike]

90. witness the persecution of many people on the left. eom

[Warren DeMontague]

92. No, we're hostile to the fucking THEOCRACY that is being forced on us.

People can believe whatever they want. More power to 'em. But I sure as fuck am not going to bend over backwards to 'avoid offending' folks who want blather about a 6,000 year old Earth and Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark being taught in public school SCIENCE class.

But, you know, we're clearly overdue for another "You atheists need to shut the fuck up and get to the back of the bus" thread from the poor, oh-so-persecuted religious folks. Bravo.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[trotsky]

119. Well said. n/t

[iamthebandfanman]

99. lol

just untrue completely.
my husband is an ordained minister, and is very much a part of the 'liberal left' ideaology of thinking.

infact, i believe that the 'liberal' agenda is more in line with the teachings of most religions anyway.

no religion teaches the worship of money (that im aware of, if there is lemme know) and thats all the right does. worship their false idol. sad really.

[porphyrian]

104. Horseshit.

There are just as many religious lefties as there are us non-religious ones. We just choose not to stuff it down everyone elses' throats. We also believe that, in a democratic country of diverse people that embraces freedom of religion and Constitutionally declares no state religion, our government should remain separate from religion. As such, laws should be based on reason rather than faith. If we're guilty of prejudice, it's against stupidity, corruption, and all the republicans have come to symbolize.

The fight over religion described in the article isn't designated by political affiliation, however, it's bullshit right-wing propaganda. The real fight is between those who believe religion is irrational and those who are offended by those who take this position. Both sides are defensive and unlikely to budge much, as it relates to core beliefs, like with issues such as abortion and the death penalty. As a nearly unresolvable issue, it makes a perfect wedge with which to divide us unnecessarily. When someone brings this bullshit up, ask yourself what it is they are trying to distract us from.

[Pushed To The Left]

106. Interesting website from the article

http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/

This looks like a pretty progressive website to me! I bet O'Reilly might call Lerner a "secular progressive".

[Warren DeMontague]

107. So, what constitutes this 'elitism'? What constitutes this "view that they

(religious and spiritual people) must necessarily be on a lower level of intellectual or psychological development if they believe in God?"

What members of the "left", you know, that "We" need to purge ourselves of, have expressed that? Where? Can Rabbi Lerner provide some kind of backup? Because, you know, FOX NEWS says that there's a "War On Christmas".. Bill O'Reilly says that "Secular Progressives" are waging a war on the poor, persecuted religious folks in our society.

And here's Michael Lerner, someone I've agreed with on a bunch of things, echoing utter right wing bullshit, full of AM radio buzzwords like 'elites'. WHERE are these 'disdainful leftists' running around laughing and mocking these poor, fragile, people of faith? Funny, I can't seem to find them. Sure, we're told it happens here on DU all the friggin' time, too... But no one ever seems to be able to back these claims up, or when they do, it's invariably with a link to a thread about fundamentalist beliefs on global warming or attempts to teach creationism in public schools.

Meanwhile, the SF Chronicle ran a story just a few days ago about atheists 'coming out of the closet'..

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/20/MNGV3HBONH1.DTL

As is duly noted in the article, "You can be elected as an openly gay politician in this country, but you can't be elected as an openly atheistic one"

Who is persecuted, here? Who is liable to be descriminated against?
... Yet, the noise machine drones on, it is 'people of faith' who are being 'ridculed' by these mean old leftist secular elites.

Well, I'll tell you what I think the problem is- you have certain people of faith (even here, as has been demonstrated time and time again) who go absolutely fucking bat-shit CRAZY when someone dares to publicly and unapologetically state "I don't believe in God".

You know, we're okay-- as long as we keep our mouths shut about that sort of thing.

Here's a news flash- the whole POINT of a belief or a belief system is that you think you are right, and presumably, someone who disagrees with you is wrong. Shit, personally, I don't even think "atheist" begins to cover my ever-evolving system of semantic maps by which I make a pathetic attempt to describe 'reality'.. I'm certainly not a strict materialst, I'm probably more of a Discordian Taoist who thinks words fail miserably when trying to describe the infinite or the ineffable. But for the purposes of the inane, lowest-chakra fucking political debate in this country, I will gladly count myself in the "Atheist" camp, because I certainly don't believe in anything remotely resembling the notions of "God" promulgated by the big western religions. (I don't believe in Zeus, either- but for some reason people aren't automatically supposed to be divided into Zeus-believers and Zeus non-believers)

So, anyway, if I don't happen to believe in your interpretation of "God", I can be nice about it, but if you're as thin skinned and hypersensitive as some of these believers apparently are (Leonard Pitts: That's not persecution, it's a Persecution COMPLEX), the only possible way I can ever avoid making you feel like I think you are intellectually incorrect on at least one issue is if I keep my mouth shut about my views on the universe.

Which is, I guess, the whole point. But I wonder whow strong any 'faith' can assert to be, (especially in a country where so many claim to believe) if it constantly recoils in spastic terror when confronted by any public assertion of a differing view.

[InaneAnanity]

108. Think its hard winning now??

Add another 5% once you drive us atheists away.

[ClassWarrior]

110. If a plea for tolerance is going to drive you away...

...that's more your problem than mine.

16-5.

NGU.

[Tigress DEM]

116. I think you have a solid idea here, but tolerance needs to go both ways.

The article is making one specific point and that is fine, but it seems to me the real issue is about tolerance for both sides.

Give it some time to sink in. People's reactions may be a bit raw because of the general statements in the article.

The fundy right has been raping US with its religion and telling US if we don't go along we'll go to Hell. At this point many people are empowered to speak up and say, "Fuck Off" and it's hard to tell a fundy from a real Christian sometimes because of religious jargon that has been conscripted.

Just like a woman might not be able to sleep with her husband after a rape due to PTSD so are the people who have been abused by the right a bit punchy right now. But they'll get over it someday if we work on building MUTUAL respect and tolerance and don't act like they have to do all the work.

It would be a good thing to welcome more Christians to come over and join us, but with all the work that needs to be done, there isn't a lot of patience for whining here. Because of the last years of outright abuse from the right, Christians who want tolerance and understanding better be prepared to give it out first if they expect to get it.

[ClassWarrior]

117. Agreed. Thank you for this.

And I think any plea for tolerance is by definition about both sides equally and about taking the first step. The Christians I know who want tolerance and understanding - not to mention members of other faith traditions who feel that way - have been sharing it first without expecting anything in return their whole lives.

16-5.

NGU.

[Warren DeMontague]

134. And let me guess...

everywhere they go, they are surrounded by crowds of jeering, taunting atheists, pointing and laughing at the god-folk.

Give me an ever-lovin' break, bub. I was the eight year old who got the crap beaten out of me by older kids behind the school bus for answering "atheist" (and then explaining what it meant) to the perennial question "What religion are you".

So what, precisely, kind of 'tolerance and understanding' do these Christians you know feel they aren't getting, in a country where EVERY person who aspires to higher office has to at least pay lip service to some version of the Deity they worship, and none of us can spend four bucks on a vente frappuccino without seeing "In God We Trust" on our money?? (Alan Greenspan having retired, after all)...


I ask, again, without much hope for an answer, where are these 'liberal elites' who are committing this horrible sin of 'disdain' of people of faith, and what is the PRECISE behavior that we are supposed to put a stop to? What are those of us with NO faith, or a faith so vastly different from Western Religion (Most buddhists could, technically, be considered "atheists", as well- buddhism doesn't contain anything remotely resembling the western "God") supposed to do to display this 'tolerance' that the poor, persecuted, religious MAJORITY in this country apparently thinks it isn't getting from us?

If the answer, as I suspect, is 'shut up and make yourselves invisible', I'm sorry.. but that's not going to happen.

[Touchdown]

137. Forget it. You'll never get an answer.

There is only an interest to silence dissent of the POV that Christians, and other faithful are persecuted in this thread. If one disagrees, then the dissenting post is to be deleted by a like minded moderator, only after haveing their intelligence insulted by an accusation that a long winded diatribe wasn't read.

[Tigress DEM]

158. Aw, come on. I've been dissenting up and down the thread....

There are also places where the OP has said that tolerance needs to go both ways. I've certainly said it and no one has deleted me.

And if you don't think people have been jumped on for making religious statements, you are incorrect. It's happened to me, but I'm the kind who keeps working with someone to get a real understanding if stuff blows up like that. I tend to own my own stuff too - we all make mistakes - especially if a post gets heated.

I've learned a lot from those situations and this kind of discussion. And it isn't because I was stupid to begin with.

I personally think it's most important to go easy on the newbies. If I'm thinking of burning someone's ass cause they made the most ridiculous post, I check their post count and if it's under 100, ratchet it back a little, under 50 - go easy, I explain why their post bugs me.

[Tigress DEM]

145. Speak up, be seen, be accepted for who you are. Really.

When a person actually looks at various religions for their similarities (and I include any "belief system" including Atheism) one sees the threads of building communities that can work together and support each other with kindness and respect. So what the fundies have done to Christianity is turned it upside down and pissed on the altar.

Buddhists actually consider it a "way of life" rather than a religion if I remember correctly... I asked a Buddhist once. I still believe that the influence of the East has been good. A lot of kids who have learned in martial arts to develop their strength so they didn't have to use it, may have gotten headaches trying to figure it out, but it makes sense to me that if you know who you are and what you are about people have a hard time turning you into their victim. Of course we are all vulnerable at one point or another.

I am really sorry to hear that you ran into people who only gave lip service to faith and beat you up. They were completely in the wrong to do that. If I had been there, I would have kicked their asses and tossed them in their preacher's face and told him if he didn't school 'em right, I'd be glad to school 'em again for him. I am a very odd Christian. Kind of liked that whole "Jesus throwing the money changers out of the Temple" bit. I used to walk the short kids home so the bullies would leave them alone. I didn't get into too many fights, though. The other person had to start it and I'd be telling them all the time not to be stupid.

I think the "liberal elites" who are being referenced may have even been myself occasionally.

You know how angry we all have been at the way this faith war has ratcheted up and been unbearable. People like Fred Phelps can parade in the open, but Al Gore is a bad man for telling the truth about *ush. A preacher in NC kicked people out of "his" church because they wouldn't promise to vote for *ush. (He got schooled on whose church it really was.) On and on goes the list of insanity - you probably have a bigger list.

Anyway, when we have been down in the trenches being kicked and before we got any support from DEMS or MSM we started making jokes about stupid Christians who voted for *ush, as a way of venting. Kind of like, take a redneck joke and use Christian instead. And simply just saying over and over again how stupid these people are not to see through *ush. Drinking the koolaid - you know?

Then you get an honest Christian who believes in the way Christ walked into the circle with the prostitute who was about to be stoned and challenged these people to find one among them who was without sin to cast the first stone (as he was writing their sins in the dirt in front of them). This type of Christian who learned from that story not to judge others gets the same jokes and disrespect and all the angst and anger of people who have been pissed on by the religious right when they open their mouth and say the wrong thing.

It's like that poor white trucker in the middle of the riots after Rodney King. The Left isn't issuing a beat down, but there is an element among us and maybe a bit inside all of us that is so mad at the way religion is being used to hurt people that don't deserve to be hurt.

It's easy to just snap and say something sarcastic or degrading to Christians who don't seem to "get" how others who "call themselves Christians" but who act like, ya' know? Satan's buddies are really making people HATE Christianity. Inquisition, Crusades, Joan of Arc, Salem, the Crusades again... it all makes a person REALLY distrust organized religion. Even a person who professes to be a Christian, but who can't go into a Church lately because I feel like I make more of a difference here.

[Warren DeMontague]

165. What do you think I'm doing?

I didn't apologize for who I was then, I'm certainly not about to start now.

I don't know if the kids who knocked me around gave any lip service to any particular faith (given where I grew up, it's probably at least as likely that they were Jewish as it was that they were Christian) ... it wasn't about faith, it was about conformity. Everybody HAS to believe in God, see. You just have to, and who do you think you are to say you don't? You're not allowed to question certain things, buddy.

It's still that way, and I'm sorry to say that I see that kind of thing even here. Some people clearly flip out when their bedrock assumptions are challenged, particularly with the same kind of logic they themselves might use to challenge other people's "extraordinary claims". (extraordinary claims requiring, as they say, extraordinary evidence)

I understand what Christianity is, AFAIC, Supposed to be about. Of course, I think it's perfectly possible to find excellent reasons to behave in those ways which don't involve supreme beings with mystical powers, rewards or punishments in an afterlife, or the need to put a name-- or an 'ism' or an 'anity'-- around it. That's just me.

I certainly respect people who follow what I consider to be the real deal with regards to Jesus's words. And I have no doubt that it must be maddening to watch what is done, particularly in this country politically, by some in the name of "Christianity". But here's the gist with regards to this thread. I don't buy that folks of faith here on DU are constantly being harassed merely for their faith or belief in a "God", many "Gods", what-have-you. I think some people tend to forget the fact -and it is a fact- that right now in this country we have a gang of far right fundamentalists at the highest levels of power, people who are VERY interested in implementing some form of "biblical law" in this country. But when I rage against the religious right and the folks who want to turn this nation into a Theocracy, that only includes YOU as a "Liberal Christian" if you choose it to.

I do not believe that the atheists, agnostics, and otherwise aligned on DU spend an inordinate of time, as others in this thread have alleged, calling anyone who believes in "God" stupid or of lesser intellect. What I'm sure does happen, and I don't think it needs an apology, is the questioning of the intelligence of people who, for instance, honestly believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old- and who want that 'information' to be taught in public school science class. I'm sorry, but someone who is unable or unwilling to grasp the mountains of scientific evidence pointing to the 4.5 billion year geological history of the Earth, or the common evolutionary ancestry of all life including us, or the facts around global warming... You're damn right, intellectually I think they are several fries short of a happy meal. People who use their religion as an excuse to bomb gay bars, or to try to make the birth control pill a controlled substance? They're fucked six ways to sunday in the head.

But we (the loosely defined community of unbelievers here on DU) are also constantly being hectored to remember that THOSE PEOPLE don't speak for liberal Christians, or "Christians" in general. So which is it? If, by questioning the intelligence of the Creation Museum cretins in Ohio, we are slandering the brainpower of all believers, it is YOU who are aligning yourselves with that gang- not us.

FYI, this is a general response to some of the arguments in this thread, and not necessarily directed at you, TD. :)

[Tigress DEM]

168. I hear you. Good points.

It's been a long day and I can't get into all of it, but MY main issue is when someone is bent out of shape, has had a hard day maybe and directs a post at someone here on DU that is INTOLERANT I feel the need to speak up. And as with your post to me this post is about the general thread and not directed at you.

The article wasn't about DU, but I think DU tries more than most to be aware and respect all opinions.

Some of this may be propoganda the right is trying to push onto us. Maybe there isn't a problem with it. But I agree with you that in general the intolerance faced by non-Christians is more likely to happen, especially with the people in charge right now. Religious expressions are embedded in our language, so even when people are having what they consider to be a general conversation it can rub the lister wrong.

It may be a question of verbal style too. When a person starts with a phrase that says, "All people in such and such group ......do XYZ " Then if someone is considered to be in that group, but doesn't do that, it's fair of them to make the statement."

My son has a pitt bull and it's been raised from birth to be the sweetest tempered thing. Most people would say that is impossible.

There are some fundies that despite a lot of mis-information are beginning to see clearly that *ush isn't a good person. To put them in the lot with the fundies that march with Fred Phelps is like putting my son's dog in the group of pitts that are trained to go fight to the death and can be turned on people if the owner is unprincipled.

Fundies are still just as capable of using the religious fodder they've been fed to become these out of control lunatics, but it takes something more than just believing in the Bible as the definative word. You need an authority figure in the pulpit or in the home pushing them toward the far right of the spectrum and beating the message of hate into them from an early age.

My son's pitt still looks scary when he yawns and you can see the extent of his cavernous mouth and powerful jaws - the potential is there for him to hurt someone. Doesn't mean he will do it. My son has had to put his hand down that dog's throat because a piece of bone got lodged in such a way that it was the only way to get it out. The dog didn't even bite down in reflex.

I've known fundies that are like that too. Irritate the hell out of me by their insistence that gays are bad and such, but they would never think of committing a hate crime and would not condone anyone who did.

I would personally love it if even the fundies turned away from *ush and wanted to get at the truth and put our country back together. I think the level of this administration's insanity has gotten through to some people. I guess at some point in Nazi Germany even some people who appeared to support Hitler in the beginning did what they could to hide the Jews and such once they realized what was really happening. I know people hate comparing Bush to Hitler, so insert any other dictator if it bothers you.

I dream of the day *ush wakes up and looks out the window to see he is surrounded by citizens who won't go away until he gives up the pretense that he belongs in the Oval Office. And beside him, only his inner circle, the trusted stooges who actually know what went on in all those meetings congress and citizens aren't privy to. Everyone else has bailed.

[Tigress DEM]

143. Yeah, that is the way a person behaves if they really....

follow Christ's example. (You don't love others to get something in return.) Christianity is all about "Loving one another as Christ loved us."

I am fever pitched mad at the "reich wing" for turning Christianity upside down, but I also think that there are honest Christians who can't help but try to "sell" Christ to Aethiests because they believe that person could die and lose out on Heaven if they don't speak up.

I do think there is a time to speak about your faith and I do it fairly often, but the "sales pitch" vs "this is what works for me, make up your own mind if you want it" seems to actually give people the choice and if they see by my actions that I am sincerly practising my faith that is more of "selling point" than any glossy handout.

[Warren DeMontague]

167. As well intentioned as those people may THINK they are...

(quoting you, here)

but I also think that there are honest Christians who can't help but try to "sell" Christ to Aethiests because they believe that person could die and lose out on Heaven if they don't speak up.


Can't you understand how we might find that sort of thing obnoxious and patronizing? I mean, we're being hectored up and down this thread for allegedly implying that anyone who believes in "God" is somehow less intelligent than we are.. So, we're supposed to be understanding and tolerant when someone bangs on our door univited in the middle of dinner, someone who apparently assumes that whatever classes we took in college about Quantum Physics, and our subscription to Scientific American, not to mention the No Preaching Plaque we have on our front door.. all those don't amount to a hill of beans--because obviously, we just haven't had enough Jesus people deliver "the good news" to us?

But fortunately they have been placed on this planet to straighten out our misguided interpretation of the universe, while presumably attaining some bible brownie points for themselves.

Why is THAT not an insult to OUR intelligence?

[Tigress DEM]

169. I just said that it is my belief they are "well intentioned."

I can totally see how you would find it obnoxious and patronizing.

One of my pagan friends from Spain got so fed up that he answered the door stark naked with a beer in his hand and invited them to come join the orgy going on.

Not that I'm suggesting... but I simply laughed so hard envisioning their reaction - been a time or two that the watchtower people have done their spiel on my porch too.

RE: But fortunately they have been placed on this planet to straighten out our misguided interpretation of the universe, while presumably attaining some bible brownie points for themselves.

Why is THAT not an insult to OUR intelligence?


I'll have to think about that, but my first reaction is that it's in the presentation. If someone states their belief and you tell them your position and they thank you and leave, that's one thing. If they keep on like a vacuume cleaner salesman - determined to finish their whole pitch - then that I would find insulting.

[trotsky]

118. Just another example of the left blaming itself.

Who's doing this scaring away?

Where is it happening?

Because when I watch the Democratic Convention, when I see & hear Democratic politicians speak, when I see ALL the Democratic Senators go stand up on the Capitol steps to join hands with Republicans and scream the pledge with "UNDER GOD" in it while "Onward Christian Soldiers" plays in the background...

I don't see any religion-bashing. Quite the opposite.

[Tigress DEM]

159. Self examination isn't blaming ourselves... but you are correct in a way.

The article is a bit broad in it's stroke and it really should have called for MUTUAL tolerance, something we got into discussing on this thread last night at O dark 30.

Air America Radio. Randi Rhodes. The left's answer to Ann Coulter. Except she often has her facts correct. I used to like her, but she's gotten a bit into the yelling for 1/2 the program. Mike Malloy is another one whose content I usually agree with, but occassionally he goes on an anti-religious tirade that blows me away and it isn't just against the religion, but labels the people as well. Also I just can't listen to someone who screams most of the show. Getting old I guess.

On DU it hasn't been too severe lately that I've seen and if someone points it out there's usually a discussion and things get worked out.

I do remember getting my ass handed to me early on. Course, I just get back up and do it some more.

[Silent3]

120. When I post here on DU...

...I'm here to speak my mind, and I don't feel I should have to hold back out of fear of driving oh-so-sensitive folk away from the Democratic Party, restraining my free expression based on some sort of strategic consideration concerning The Future of the Party.

People who are truly committed to core Democratic values aren't going to be driven to vote Republican just because some mean ol' atheist said their God was a silly fiction. People who are floating around in the undecided middle, who might vote either way, are generally undecided not because they've got strong opinions which don't fit too well in either party's camp, but because they're ignorant and apathetic -- these are the people you have to try to win with stupid 30-second political ads. Raging debates on DU are completely off their radar.

I'm completely capable of making common cause with religious folk who share core Democratic values. And while I might not have the highly-developed skills of a professional politician or diplomat to function well as a party organizer, I'm capable of switching modes when I have to when the goal is winning elections.

I think we need fewer tax breaks for the rich and more opportunities for the poor and middle class. I think we need to limit corporate power, demand more corporate responsibility, and put more power back into the hands of common people. I think we need much greater transparency in government. I think we need a reliable health care system which covers everyone automatically, at least at some basic level, regardless of employment and employer. I think we need a foreign policy which builds on cooperation with other nations rather than functioning with unilateral arrogance. I think we need courts which interpret individual liberty broadly, and government power narrowly.

Do you agree with me, more or less, and want to promote a party that at least goes in that general direction a whole hell of a lot better the the Republicans do? Then we can and should work together to promote Democratic victory, and I don't see why differences of opinion outside of those common goals, or about the implementation of those common goals, should stand in our way. Do you really need me to get go all wishy-washy "whatever works for you is good" about religion in order for us to accomplish these goals?

[Inland]

124. that's a tautology.

You say the "truly committed" won't be driven away. Aside from it being a trick of definition--if they can't stand it, they weren't committed in the first place--I'm not sure what kind of philosophy makes good people put up with unfair attacks. I guess my true commitment to party unity means that I have to watch it get torn up over sectarianism, and my devotion to common goals means that no sort of intra party fighting is out of bounds. Ironic, huh?

Because it isn't limited to the comments that god is a silly fiction. One of the mighty conceits on DU is that the atheists are rocking the world of believers by forthright declarations of disbelief. Yeah, like liberal religious have never been exposed to atheism. It's right up there with the news that christmas trees were originally pagan symbols.

No, it's not the atheism. It never was. It was the declarations that christians are clinically insane, have unnatural fear of death, worship authority, are irrational, are the sole cause of all evil in the world, and my personal bete noir, that not believing in god means that one is smarter and more rational than any believer and should say so in the snottiest way possible. That's not including the nice call for putting them all in concentration camps.

It's about people being complete and utter fucks about the entire religion question to their liberal and moderate allies. If that stops, then it's really possible to talk not only to those christians willing to eat a shit sandwich to be on DU but people who are not "truly committed" bit merely committed.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[arwalden]

127. Oh Brother!

[Silent3]

128. No "trick" meaning intended...

...all I mean by "truly committed" is willing to put up with the normal rough-and-tumble of sometimes heated political and philosophical discourse. If a person would rather put up with the awful things the Republican party is doing to this country, just because they feel their ego gets stroked better or their feelings less hurt by religion-friendly Republicans than by Democrats, I'd say that's not a person with great committment.

Putting the good of the country above personal hurt feelings caused by what some Democrats might say, especially when there are plenty of religion-friendly Democrats out there to balance things out, is hardly that much to expect from a person.

[Inland]

129. It's not normal rough and tumble. In fact, it's not discourse.

I think I can tell the difference between a heated disagreement over philosophy and politics and out and out bigotry and namecalling. After all, what exactly IS the ACTUAL disagreement between believers and the certain atheists on this board? It's NEVER about the existence of god, which exhausts itself in one post anyway. It's ALWAYS about the characteristics of liberal and moderate believers as nutty, conservative, irrational fellow travelers with evil, funders of evil, source of evil, and the characteristics of atheists as smarter and better than them---oh, and that christians should stop complaining. It's always a pile of shit.

One would wonder why putting the country above feelings isn't applied to the atheists as well. Hostility and bigotry is an emotional reaction, as are hurt feelings. The only question seems to be whether one values the hostility as hostility. Where venting against liberal and moderates is acceptable because the actual dangerous conservatives aren't around.

And there are plenty of religion friendly democrats. There are plenty of religious democrats. They are merely dismissed as not "truly committed" among other things. In every other section, I don't know anyone's religious background and nobody, nobody would think it important to ask. Atheist, religious, nobody knows and nobody cares. Somehow, philosphical and political discourse continues.

[trotsky]

130. Hey, Inland!

Do you think the atheists at FreeRepublic are scaring people away from the Republican Party?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1507915/posts
To: Tzimisce
I refuse to believe in God because I refuse to believe in Leprechauns, Werewolves, Superman, and other fictions whose sole evidence is folklore and mythology.

The burden of proof is not on me...it is on the shamans and witch doctors.
9 posted on 10/23/2005 6:27:27 PM PDT by Wormwood (Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fhtagn!)

[InaneAnanity]

133. How prejudiced of you

[Warren DeMontague]

140. You got any links to back that up?

Or is it just more of this 'common knowledge', like when FOX NEWS says "Liberals are waging a war on Christmas"?

[Inland]

162. It's more of the common knowledge like

"this is the religion and theology section". Feel free to look around yourself.

[Warren DeMontague]

164. Mmmm Hmmmm.

I thought so.

[Inland]

171. Hmmm, hmmm.

You didn't look. Knew so.

[Evoman]

156. So let me get this straight

So basically:

Most republicans call gays evil names

Most republicans tell people who don't think taxes should be lower they are evil communists

Most republicans tell you your a pussy if you don't want to go to war, and should think things through instead

Most republicans called black people who are trying to survive thugs

Most republicans call latinos border crossing animals

Most republicans want to shoot latinos crossing borders

Most republicans think we should put all drug users away and or execute them

Most republicans think we are unpatriotic scum that should be killed or thrown out of a country because we dont agree with them.

Some small percentage of democrats call religionists loony because they believe in an unprovable god.

OH MY GOD. THAT ONE ATHEIST DEMOCRAT CALLED ME CRAZY. I'M GOING TO VOTE REPUBLICAN.

That just makes em crazy in more ways than one. Yeah, you heard me. FUCKING CRAZY.

Evoman

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

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

[Evoman]

166. You have got to be shitting me

*jaw drops*

You have got to be fucking kidding me. Rebuplicans are careful?!!! ARE YOU SHITTING ME? Have you ever listened to Rush Limpballs or Coulter, or Hannity, Or Savage, or ANY FUCKING REPUBLICANS? Did I say anything about republicans being stupid? Their leaders are certainly not stupid. Their not stupid not because they're careful, nuh uh. They're smart because they ARE prejudice. Were you not watching TV or listening to the radio when the Katrina shit was going?

All the democrat leaders are religious. All the Republicans leaders are religious. The only difference is a small percentage of Democrats are atheists, of which a small percentage are vocal like me (and only on this website). Yeah, we are really scaring away all those christians.

Maybe many christians are fucking crazy if they're basing their vote on what three people say on one forum of a "far left" unofficial democratic website.

Why are you still here? Why do you vote democratic? How come we haven't scared you away? Is it because *gasp* you actually have a brain, unlike all those other idiot christians we are scaring away?

Whatever Dude

Evoman

[Inland]

170. More careful than you. That's not saying much, but it's true.

To the exent the truth still matters, repubilcans are smarter about "it" than you.

Every single statement you made was...well, cue John Lovitz and note that it never happened.

But of course, it's a lot easier to argue that moderate christians are the same as Pat Robertson if you just fabricate an "example", and it's a lot easiert to pretend that your insults and mockings aren't going to drive anyone away if you pretend that republicans are as obvious as you are in the intolerance category. They aren't. They don't come right out and call the wavering populace idiots. They don't revel in their prejudices. They at least have the intelligence to deny them. You don't. YOu let your flag fly.

And no other group has to be liberal AND eat a shit sandwhich just cuz. No other group has to be both liberal AND put up with whatever crap comes to someone's mind. Well, sometimes in a fit of openmindedness, liberals of any religion get to eat the shit sandwich for the honor of being on DU.And the best one can say for it is, well, it's fun for some and no harm done. Too bad the latter isn't true.

Thanks a lot. Maybe it's just you and the four others on my ignore list, but all it takes is three or four with some sort of crusade and no restraint in terms of reference to the truth or the good of the party.

And why am I still here? Because I'm not a christian, dude, might be one answer, but your prejudices probably don't allow for that truth either. But the better question is, Why were you ever here? Did someone mistake the party of tolerance and the big tent for a welcome mat for bigots and invention?

[Strong Atheist]

173. Welcome to D.U., Evoman!

:-)

[Tigress DEM]

157. Partially agree.

Your first paragraph seems to indicate you have seen a few of the threads that are concerning people enough to keep at this issue.

However, regarding your second paragraph, this part, "One would wonder why putting the country above feelings isn't applied to the atheists as well."

In real life in this country, atheists put country above feelings everyday. There is a lot of "moral" discourse that claims a person who is religious is more moral than one who is simply spiritual and if someone is an atheist, they do get pounded. Sometimes literally. Christmas music in the mall drove me nuts this time because of all the evil being done in His name --- and I am a Christian and I normally love Christmas music.

Every dollar we spend has "In God We Trust" on it. South Dakota is trying to overturn Roe V Wade already -- so the abuse out there continues.

What I have tried to explain to some atheists I've talked to is that the shit that gets done and blamed on Christ is hurtful to me as well as something I can't tolerate. It hurts me to see someone I know would never have done things like this be used as a symbol to do awful things.

[YankeyMCC]

122. This smacks of defeatism

Others have made the point here but this sort of thing just strikes me as self-destructive at best. Yes we should definitely discuss and debate the points we all differ on but always with the fact that we have common core political goals. It smacks of the same-sex marrigage and now the homosexual child adoption issue that the right tries to use as a dividing issue.

And of course I'm always mystified by the claims of the godless elitism on the left. Every candidate I've ever seen has claimed a belief in a god of some kind or another.

I remember when my local Dem Town committee book club read "God's Politics" and in the discussion I made the point that we not only had to show respect for people of different supernatural beliefs who shared our goals but remember that those who did not believe in any gods needed to be included as well because they have the least power at this point in history and the treatment and inclusion of the minority is a key measure of the strength of a democratic movement. All I got were blank stares and someone quickly changing the subject.

But I did not then leave the group or the party. Yes, I was disappointed but I remembered that I had much more in common with these people in terms of political goals and that the party and committee (and the book club, it's a great place for stimulating discussion) was the best place to put my political efforts.

[muriel_volestrangler]

125. ClassWarrior, you really need to define who you mean by "The Left"

which you've been asked repeatedly to do, but have so far failed to.

I think the position of Lerne is profoundly wrong:

What I'm suggesting in this paragraph is that many of the millions of people who get attracted to the Religious Right are not motivated by excitement for their political program, but by the experience of community, caring for others, and its ability to recognize and address the deep distortions in life that are caused by a societal ethos of materialism and selfishness.

You can't undermine that attachment by arguments against what is really peripheral to their motivation. Yet there is nothing fundamentally irrational about being motivated by a desire to be part of a loving community or to want a world with less materialism and selfishness. What is irrational is that the Left is unable to see that this very desire is a positive and healthy desire, and that it could best be addressed by a progressive spiritual critique of capitalist society which is, as I show in my book, the source of the materialism and seflishness that people are seeking to escape.

By its tone-deafness to the spiritual suffering of the American people, the Left continues to miss the fundamental crisis that demands a social transformation, and in so missing this reality, it clears the path for reactionary forces to enter the spiritual arena and manipulate that crisis in destructive and potentially fascistic directions.

This is rubbish. The Right talks about self reliance and materialism, with low taxes for high earners. The Left talks about communal help like universal healthcare and decent welfare. The Religious Right doesn't attract people with "a world with less materialism and selfishness" - it does precisely the opposite. It attracts religious people with the bogus conflation of God and patriotism, and scaremongering about 'traditional values' under threat - when those values are a rigid morality which rejects homosexuals, or pre-marital sex.

You write that "each week on TV ... humorist Bill Maher, in the presence of liberal intellectual glitterati as his guests, accuses Red State people of being stupid and assails religious people as being irrational -- to the laughter and applause of an adoring audience. This humor is hilarious only until you put yourself into the place of those being ridiculed." I know you're not attacking Maher, per se, but rather the intellectual environment it reflects.

Well, that does look like an attack on Maher to me. But this seems to show us what Lerner's definition of "the Left" is - someone like Bill Maher. Now, as a Brit who lived in the USA for 2 years and regularly watched "Politically Incorrect", I never thought of Maher as left wing. He's a libertarian. If that's who Lerner is criticising, then it's a complete strawman argument. Is that who you think of as "the Left"? Not Denis Kucinich? Nancy Pelosi?

The Left needs to be challenged on its religiophobia. Most on the Left are as unaware of how deeply they disrespect and demean religious and spiritual people today as they once were of how deeply they disrespected and demeaned women or gays and lesbians.

So whoever "the Left" are, Lerner thinks most of them are disrepecting religious people. So we know it's not the Democratic party, since most Democratic voters are religous themselves, and you don't see Democratic politicians demeaning spiritual people - in fact they go in for the "Gold bless America" stuff too. So, apart from Bill Maher (!), who are "the Left"?

[Zenlitened]

132. So which is it? Is it "A belief in God" that the author wants us all...

... to embrace and praise?

Or is it the desire for "community... caring for others... less materialism"?

Which is it? And when have the terrible, awful leftist elitists ever been against the latter?

...What I'm suggesting in this paragraph is that many of the millions of people who get attracted to the Religious Right are not motivated by excitement for their political program, but by the experience of community, caring for others, and its ability to recognize and address the deep distortions in life that are caused by a societal ethos of materialism and selfishness.

You can't undermine that attachment by arguments against what is really peripheral to their motivation. Yet there is nothing fundamentally irrational about being motivated by a desire to be part of a loving community or to want a world with less materialism and selfishness. What is irrational is that the Left is unable to see that this very desire is a positive and healthy desire, and that it could best be addressed by a progressive spiritual critique of capitalist society which is, as I show in my book, the source of the materialism and seflishness that people are seeking to escape.

Sounds as if the author is shifting terms when it suits him, moving the goalposts as necessary in order to conflate belief in god with progressive ideals. But then he's asked to clarify... and argues against Democratic god-talk:

So your view is that by claiming The Left Hand, Dems can win electoral victories. Are you suggesting that Dems should, like Hillary Clinton, affect the rhetoric of religion? Will that work?

No, it will not work. I don't believe that the Dems can trick people into voting for them. That was the major error in selecting Kerry, and that will be a huge problem for them should Hillary be the candidate. I think that Dems can win electoral victories through all kinds of tricks, but that they cannot through trickery actually be empowered to bring substantial healing to our society unless they run on an honest program that articulates a different worldview from that of the Right.

So... pandering to these presumed Repub-voting-but-Democratic-minded voters with god-talk is out. Glad to hear that.

Courting them with discussions of programs and policies aimed at implementing progressive ideals is in. Very glad to hear that, too.

But the hordes of atheists taking up the airwaves disssing religion-- wait... where are these hordes? On TV? On cable? In the newspapers? On streetcorners, preaching at passers-by?

Where is this problem? I'd argue that it doesn't exist. That, in fact, the author himself has identified the real problem: our party isn't talking up its own ideals anymore.

Why he gets bogged down in the "atheists are driving voters away" fallacy is beyond me. :shrug:

[trotsky]

138. Why he gets bogged down in the "atheists are driving voters away" fallacy

Because we're a convenient scapegoat.

People can't be hearing a liberal religious message and rejecting it in favor of a conservative one, they just can't, you see, so it MUST be something (or someone) else. Oh, I know, it's those liberal elites that bash religion! Yeah, THAT'S the ticket!

[Warren DeMontague]

139. Well, it's either the atheists

or it's the people who support reproductive rights, the people who support gay rights, the people who persistently insist that creationism not be taught in public school science class... you know, all 'those' folks who are costing us that all-important "Values vote" that (not Diebold, dammit!) lost us the last big election.

Blah, Blah, Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

[Tigress DEM]

160. Talking about DEMS is like herding cats..

We are very diverse. So many different levels of this issue.

People who can honestly dialogue with the religious right using their own language to prove to them how they are NOT following the example of Christ can do so. And a DEM can be a Christian without suscribing to the fundie beliefs.

If someone isn't coming from that background, they should do what is comfortable and honest for them in these situations.

Rabbi basically said to the reporter that lying to get elected is still lying even if you dress it up with religious rhetoric, that doesn't make it the correct thing to do.


Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy do occasionally get loud and obnoxious and insult the intelligence of anyone who supports *ush.

We've all (I'm sure) posted, "Quit drinking the koolaid" to someone who just didn't seem capable of "getting" it.


If I can happily support an atheist not believing in God and feel that if it works for him/her that's great. (Not my cup of tea, but good for that person.) Can I get the same back from an atheist? I have on occassion gotten that from pagan friends.

But does being an atheist mean you have to choose between embracing my religion or being offended by the fact that I believe as I do? Isn't there usually somewhere in between that works better?

[Zenlitened]

178. So where and when is it permissable to state one's views critical...

... of religion?

Or does criticism of religion automatically equate to "being offended by the fact that" someone has a religious belief? Are the two actually one and the same, and not the strawman it appears?

:shrug:

What if a person truly, honestly feels that all religion is bunk? Is there ever a a time and place where he or she may say so? Or will speaking his/her mind instantly trigger a horde of Democrats to bolt the party, and Repubs on the verge of 'converting' to suddenly reconsider?

[Odin2005]

144. "Religious Left" describes my family perfectly.

I'm Atheist, but the rest of my family are all devout Lutherans and thier religion is a large part of why they are left-wingers. I find it pathetic and insulting that my fellow non-beleivers are so full of themselves to think they are the enlightened few and that religious people are mentally disabled degenerates to be looked down upon.

[Coastie for Truth]

163. If you look at the Unitarian Universalist Community

(as well as other "Leftie" Communities of Faith) - you will find very well educated people well on the left of contemporary America.

[Goblinmonger]

172. Hope you aren't including UU

in the "communities of faith" cause that ain't UU, sister.

[father_of_hope]

174. As if

cynicism against the divisiveness, prejudices, torture and mass-murder that religion has brought to humanity could be something that an intelligent mind could avoid.

[Strong Atheist]

175. Welcome to D.U.! nt.

[heidler1]

176. IMO for every Atheist who is down on religion there are 7 the other way.

I mean seven with religion who are down on Atheists. I base this on the ratio of the one group compared to the other group.

Democrats on DU tend to see Christianity as having went for Bush and still see religion as a threat. Until Christians prove that they have gotten out from under Bush's spell this will continue. Yeah it is probably self destructive now, but if the people who saw through Bush hadn't rubbed the Christian's face in being suckered where would we be now?