OK, so it's all kicked off in GD.

[Taxloss]

Some anti-Christian threads went up, then a backlash snapped into action, and now there are even posts bemoaning critics of Christianity in the Lounge.

A post bemoaning critics of Christianity in the Lounge:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=2456303&mesg_id=2456316&page=

An anti-Christian post fron GD:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x6528

Will Pitt's defence of his values:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2966996

And Az's stirring call to us atheists:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2967108

Now, religion is going to be a defining factor in American political debate for the next four years, so we would be fools to shrink from it. But we do ourselves no favours launching fights against allies. We need to define the terms of our argument and to know how and when to attack. It is the fundies we should challenge, and those miguided DU Christians that repeat fundie talking points in the lounge and GD, specifically on evolution, reproductive health, and stem cell research. We need better coordination and better public relations - no more flamebait posts. We should not be out to convert - merely to convince. Who's with me?

[fshrink]

1. As much as I respect AZ

I will not compromise with believers (outside of my office that is).

[fshrink]

2. This is a historical dead-end.

Education, or rebellion, whichever comes first, is the only key. Compromise ain't.

[Az]

3. No need to compromise

That is not what my call was a request for. Let me restate a concept. I want to win. I want to make a difference.

We are currently in a war. It is a very real war. It has been going on for over 500 years. Slightly over 500 years ago we rested control of society away from religious institutions. With the signing of the Magna Carta the process began that unseated the Church from the center of power. People had rights. Rights that were no one's to take away. This created the path to the age of enlightenment.

The age of reason. Great leaps were made because we had thrown off the shackles of religious dominance. But just because we had thrown off the shackles did not mean the institutions that put them there in the first place disappeared.

They have continued to exist along side us. As society developed new means of determining morality and ethical codes the Churches continued to search for ways to retake the control they once had. But the freedoms and new knowledge that the new age brought about were to compelling for people to turn back.

It is important to note that it was not atheists (though some were involved) that brought about this change in society. It was believers that rebelled at the controlling nature of the religious institutions. They continued to believe with the shackles thrown off. But now they had to freedom to explore the possibilities of not believing without as much fear of persecution.

Thus the struggle for freedom and reason has always had believers and nonbelievers involved in it. In fact as new ideas flooded the society new sects and factions developed within the various religions. Some embraced freethought and others sought to undermine the new secular social concept.

Society is flooded with concepts of gods and mystical thought. The institutions that use such things as means of social control still exist (hence the struggle) but so to do new religious structures formed from the bits and peaces of notions of god swirling around in our society. Thus some of these new religious ideas are speculative and embrace the concept of freethought. They are not built on the doctrinare notions of control or dogmatism(though they may become prone to it in time). They view the orthodox churches with as much trepidation as we do.

This is the arena that the battle has come to. On one side the forces of freethought. Champions of reason and freedom. On the other the forces of dogmatic authority based on the word of God.

Unfortunately something happened over the centuries. The dialog of ideas has begun to stagnate. Each group has found its own niche and drifted away from the others. Meanwhile the orthodox old guard have marshalled their numbers. They have learned from our examples and have turned many of our tools against us (Post Modernism).

We do not agree with many on our side of the battle on many issues. But we do share many aspects. We cherish freedom of thought and belief. We value reason. And most importantly the notion that we can determine our path for ourselves. This is what the religious right and their institutions would take from us. And I for one am not going to let them. There is no compromise on this matter possible.

So that is the battlefield. Our weapons and tools are words. We need to use them as effectively as possible. Being right will not save us. We need to work with our allies to make them understand the battle ahead of us. We need them to be with us. We need them to see the sense of it. We cannot afford to create dissension over semantic issues that could be cleared up by carefully considering our words.

Do not back down. Be strong in the things you believe to be true. But do so in ways that can allow others to respect you and then they may be able to see the sense of what it is you stand for and may choose to stand along side you.

[Taxloss]

10. This is all true, but I think we are wrong to proselytise.

Leave that to the God squad. We should simply respond strongly if our right to exist and our right to express our beliefs is challenged; that way, the simple of our existence, outside the patterns of obeisance to a god, and beyond the recriminations of hypocritical priests, is all the advertising we need. That's why the pseudo-fascist far right, which would dearly love to use religion as a control mechanism, is so utterly terrified of atheism. We can let Falwell and Bush do the advertising for us.

That's not an argument for shutting up, on the contrary, we need to be visible, and we do need to talk with believing comrades to help them realise that the language of the religious right is being used to drive a wedge through the progressive movement. It IS an argument for discipline, and no more flamebait.

It's fine to say "God is a lie" in a discussion of God's nature, but not if someone just happens to mention beardy. If we're not strong in condemning flamebait from our own side, it weakens our ability to come down on flames from their side like a tonne of red-hot bricks.

[Az]

11. Some things are important to evangelize

Freedom of thought. Reason. Critical thinking. Science. Compassion. These things are important to us as they are to many believers. They are the cornerstones of the age of reason and they are the targets of the religious right. We must vocally defend these ideas.

I agree that we must be cautious about running around advocating atheism. That is not our job. But we must not hide it in the shadows either. We can be an open and strong representation of our position in public without cramming it down other's throats. Its the same thing we are calling for the liberal Christians to do. Stand up and show that not all Christians oppose freethought and tolerance. We need to do the same thing we demand of them. Stand up for the things we value in society and identify ourselves for who and what we are.

The benefits of these actions are that those that are waking from the haze of belief will have someone strong and open to go to for questions. Part of the machination of the religious hold on society is that those that drift from it have no where to turn to. Thus they are eventually pulled back in. With strong, fair, and open atheists in the environment alternatives present themself. And if we believe we hold to the path approaching the truth then more and more will find their way out of the mist.

[Taxloss]

13. I completely agree that the whole Enlightenment project is under assault,

and if anything needs vigorous defence, it's science and the scientific method over the ID-iots and their fake doctorates. And I was never endorsing the idea of hiding our beliefs in the shadows.

A lot of the reason for shrillness and flaming on the religious side is based in insecurity; their own questions and doubts about faith as evidence piles up. That's why we are wrong to rise to it, enormous though the temptation might be. Turning away from theism towards the sunlit uplands of reason and insight and free will scares the bejesus out of some people (if you'll pardon the expression). It's like leaving an abusive marriage.

[fshrink]

37. Nice statement. Keep it warm... We'll use it in time. nt

[Modem Butterfly]

7. Amen

Pun fully intended.

[Lithos]

4. Religion is not going to be a defining factor

It is just like the mythical "values" lauded in the last election, any discussion on a new found focus on religion is something which will give some pundits some airplay, but has little to do with reality. At best, it is just another smokescreen to mask the thievery and knavery by the GOP up on Capitol Hill and in the Whitehouse.

On Edit: BTW, please avoid doing things which you think might get you booted off. The mods up in the main forums are an overworked and quite cantankerous group who do not take kindly to people making extra work for themselves.

L-

[Book Lover]

5. I have been trying to reply to Az's post all day

and still can't come up with just exactly what I want to express; certainly not in GD! Since I'm safe here, let me try.

I do not respect believers, intellectually. I don't care about winning or losing "Does God exist?" arguments with them; I want them to shut up and get out of my life. Go worship whatever however out of my sight and don't pick my pocket to pay for your preaching. But that's just one fight; the fight with the Dominionists is quite another. That's a political fight where I will gladly shut *myself* up and take whoever calls themselves my ally.

Aw hell, that's still not quite right... but I'm overworked and overtired tonight; maybe I'll make sense in the AM.

[Az]

6. I know what you are trying to say

Unfortunately the nature of the dominant belief system is predatory. Or at least the dominant factions of it are. It would be wonderful to have a social system where mental constructs did not attempt to leverage themself onto people. But that is not the world we live in.

The world we live in has domionists. It has people that honestly believe that their job is to save souls. That resistance to this is evil. Structures like this are not going to go away or lose their potency on their own. Direct confrontation is not likely to work. But creating an environment that makes it difficult for such structures to take hold will lead to a better environment for those who simply want to be left alone.

[fshrink]

36. I see your point.

However, I think that equal exchange, free debate are only possible when the reactionary elements are contained. Actually, they simply contain themselves very well, out of shame and fear, which are their customary built-in leverages; but they do so only when some pressure is applied to them. This pressure is usually popular pressure: a few uprisings here and there and they go and hide. On the other hand, when the weather's fair and they are encouraged to yap, they all come out, proselytize about and, if nothing happens, they begin to persecute. As long as such a situation doesn't arise, it's like talking to a wall or to an Inquisition Jesuit. I'm an optimistic, and I think that society has the resources to compensate, once in a while or when badly needed, for such excesses. I love nasty weather! It'll come and then we'll be able to talk to debate.

[Modem Butterfly]

8. Personally I'm okay with believers.

I just wish they were okay with me.

I've had a number of friends, acquaintences, and well-wishers whose opinion and feelings about me change when they find out I'm an atheist. I don't wear a scarlet A or anything, but if it comes up, I'm coming out, and if I lose a relationship out of it, well, it's probably for the best. Of course, there's been a number of folks who could give a shit one way or the other, and those folks I value highly. I do wish that theists would get over the fact that some of us simply aren't believers in anything.

I think that the arguments over what part, if any at all, atheists will play in the Democratic party is akin to the finger-pointing that went on here after the election. We had a number of folks who were telling gay people that "their" issue, gay marriage, cost us the election. Hell, even Clinton himself advised Kerry to jettison gays and lesbians.

Democrats are in disarray at this point, and some desperate people believe we should try anything, I suppose. But unlike the other party, our strength comes from our diversity. When we begin insisting that minority groups hide in the attic and stay silent in the hopes that people who literally hate us will magically come to see the wisdom of recognizing us, we lose ourselves.

I'm a woman. I'm Hispanic. I'm an atheist. And I'm a Democrat.

[Az]

9. Be open, Be strong, Be vocal

Standing down was never my point. I agree too many are shocked to learn that someone could possibly be an atheist. This is ludicrous in the 21st century. It is because our society has stopped interacting philosophically and intellectually. Ignorance is socially prefered to intelligence. This must change.

We need to force atheism into the open. We need people to be aware that if they know 10 people they probably know an atheist. We need them to understand that their's is not the only way to see the world. We need them to understand that we deserve a place at the table and need not be feared. We are not going to get that respect by throwing food at them.

You can strongly represent your views without belittling theirs. In fact if you wish to have an impact on people you need to do this. If some believer approached you and proclaimed you a sinner and bound for hellfire would you listen to anything they had to say? You would immediately catalog them as a raving nut and walk away or demolish their belief. The same thing works the other way around.

You are a guide. You have a position different than others. It is your job to guide them to see the sense of your position. That is if you wish to bring them to a different understanding.

[Taxloss]

12. "Live and let live" is our strongest ground.

Even the libertarian right is with us on this one. But we must avoid becoming the image of those we hate - the spitting, shrill, evangelisers of the religious right. The message should not be "you're all wrong", it should be "don't tread on me".

[Modem Butterfly]

14. Neither should we sit silent on the sidelines

Which is exactly what many seem to want us to do.

These days, it seems theists have adopted a strange oversensitivity. The merest mention of a free thought seems to send them into some sort of towering, Jesus-based rage over their "persecution". There are many theists who will say that the simple fact of being openly atheist is shrill, spitting, evangelising. But the worst thing we can do is allow them to frame this issue and to have this discussion on their terms.

We've seen many, many examples of theists protesting meetings and businesses they don't like. When was the last time you saw atheists protesting a church?

[Taxloss]

17. The oversensitivity is based on insecurity.

Because of its origins, Christianity needs a notion of persecution. Even though the US is on the brink of turning into a Christian Iran, a lot of Christian DUers have, in my opinion, subliminally absorbed the RW line that someone is "out to get them". I think a lot of Christian DUers might be experiencing a level of cognitive dissonance at the fact that Christianity is approaching a high-water mark in the US, and yet things are steadily getting worse.

However, the simple fact that they have to discuss the existence of God, rather than take it as a given, means that they are not framing the discussion. That's what makes (some of) them so mad.

[Az]

15. Sometimes work must be done

Don't tread on me works as a social position as long as everyone respects that position. But there are factions growing that simply do not pay heed to such ideals any longer. They have jetisoned the notion that government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Instead they seek to erect their godhead and set it in place of government. They are going to tread. Insisting that they don't is not going to work. There must be counter pressure applied. And it must be effective.

[Taxloss]

19. What kind of counter pressure?

Just out of curiosity.

[Modem Butterfly]

21. An elaborate system of shock collars and counter-weight pulleys

:evilgrin:

Just kidding.






But admit it: Some of you were thinking along the same lines, weren't you?


:P

[Az]

23. Ha!

If only it were that easy. Keep in mind the heroes they put up as examples all got tortured to death. They would love for us to come at them with such tactics.

[Taxloss]

27. That's what I mean by "they need persecution".

The Christian tradition of honouring martyrs has twisted into a weird idea that if you're not persecuted, you're not doing your job right.

[Az]

30. I would go further

The concept of the soul and an afterlife inverts one's entire world view. By disconnecting a person's identity from their body and brain and promoting a notion that what happens after we die is better than before creates a very dangerous mental constuct. It is terribly easy to justify short term cruelty to save an eternal thing. And this has ever been the justification behind horrible acts committed in the name of love.

[Taxloss]

31. I agree.

I find it hilarious when theists attempt to justify faith by the fact that it lays down "rules", and say "without those rules, you could do anything!" (I paraphrase). Then you mention how many people commit crimes because "God made me do it". Then they get into the business of saying "oh, well, they're not REAL theists" which is always fun to watch.

Heavenly reward is the ultimate (literally!) carte blanche for crime and evil.

[Az]

32. It is the particular genius of the evolution of religious constructs

What better way to turn our own instinct for survival to the purposes of propogating a mental construct. By diverting an individuals sense of survival from their mind/body concept to one of a disembodied entity the individuals percieved survival becomes dependent on the survival of the mental construct.

This very concept above even to notion of god creates a drive to keep the belief alive at all costs. It has usurped our own survival instinct and set it to its own purposes. Chilling really.

[Taxloss]

33. Have you read Richard Dawkins' essay on this?

It is BRILLIANT. Written days after 9/11, he explains how it's all down to religion:

"Religion's misguided missiles"

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/2001-09-18misguidedmissiles.shtml

"The problem with the human guidance system is precisely this. Unlike the pigeon version, it knows that a successful mission culminates in its own destruction. Could we develop a biological guidance system with the compliance and dispensability of a pigeon but with a man's resourcefulness and ability to infiltrate plausibly? What we need, in a nutshell, is a human who doesn't mind being blown up. He'd make the perfect on-board guidance system. But suicide enthusiasts are hard to find. Even terminal cancer patients might lose their nerve when the crash was actually looming.

"Could we get some otherwise normal humans and somehow persuade them that they are not going to die as a consequence of flying a plane smack into a skyscraper? If only! Nobody is that stupid, but how about this - it's a long shot, but it just might work. Given that they are certainly going to die, couldn't we sucker them into believing that they are going to come to life again afterwards? Don't be daft! No, listen, it might work. Offer them a fast track to a Great Oasis in the Sky, cooled by everlasting fountains. Harps and wings wouldn't appeal to the sort of young men we need, so tell them there's a special martyr's reward of 72 virgin brides, guaranteed eager and exclusive.

"Would they fall for it? Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next."

[Az]

34. Yes

I have talked to him about it as well(at conventions and such). Belief is a defining thing. It defines us as well. It is the veil through which we see the world. It colors and shifts everything before us. A system that gains control of that belief has control of us.

[Az]

24. Reason

We proclaim ourselves to be the champions of reason and critical thought. Use it. Defend it. Represent it.

We don't have to convert everyone to atheists (but we can dream). We just have to work to move them to a more tolerant and open minded position. It has happened in the past. We are not charting unknown waters. We are simply acting as a counterweight to the pressure being applied by the old guard trying to drag us back into the dark ages. I for one will not go without a struggle.

[Taxloss]

29. That's what I said in the OP.

Not convert, convince.

I don;t think any of us are planning to go without a struggle.

[Modem Butterfly]

16. Just out of curiosity

When is someone going to tell the Xians that free-thinkers are their allies and that they should stop attacking us?

[Taxloss]

18. Isn't that our job?

I wonder if a similar discussion is going on in their group(s!).

[Modem Butterfly]

20. OUR job?

Since when is it OUR job to solve THEIR problems? Besides, it's kind of difficult to talk about this issue when every time it comes up they start howling about persecution.

I say that the theists should sort out their own internal problems on their own. Let them confront the bigots amongst themselves. We should work with them when we can, and work around them when we can't. But the theists will have to fix themselves.

[Az]

22. Its true, we could sit back and wait for them to get their act together

But in the mean time we are losing ground. The dominionists may even get the strangle hold they are going for.

Here is the problem I suspect. You seem to be addressing the issue as if we were two seperate groups that don't interact. But we bump into believers all the time. We can't simply work around them. They are too big. If we want things to improve we can take a roll in improving it.

[Modem Butterfly]

25. It's not an either-or proposition

Theists are far from monolithic, and we do have many of the same battles. For instance, non-Xian theists, and even some Xians, have played an important role in the fight against enforced religion in the schools. Jewish theists were instrumental in the Civil Rights era, which led to advances in religious tolerance such as allowing atheists to testify in court and serve on juries. Where the theists will work with us, we should work with them. Where the theists won't, we will have to work around them. This business of playing "good atheist vs. bad atheist" won't get us anywhere.

[Taxloss]

28. I wasn't playing "good atheist versus bad atheist"

I was making a plea. And I don't think we should work around anyone. Removal of religion from public discourse is impossible, but a line can be drawn and should be defended to the last.

Also, it is wrong to think of Xtians as monolithic. Many of them are battling with doubts and fears over their faith that we either don't understand or have forgotten. That insecurity breeds a persecution complex. We need to be developing NON-flamebait atheist "talking points". Not "Here's another reason I think your sky ghost is stupid". We need to be open, and not act like the club that Christians do.

[Taxloss]

26. I agree, hence my curiosity about whether this conversation is

going on elsewhere. But we do need to challenge atheist bigots, and Christian bigots. In a calm manner, not flaming.

[GOPFighter]

35. In the theists vs. atheists battle...

..the atheists will eventually win. No, let me correct myself: in the battle between literalistic theists (e.g., fundamentalist Christians and Islamics), the atheists will eventually win out. In the long run (possibly a very long run).

The literalistic theists subconsciously know that much of what they believe is illogical and that is why they despise education and free thought. They know that a literalistic interpretation of their scripture puts them in real danger of actual and embarrassing disprovals (is that a word?). That is why they are so fervent in their proselytizing, for in numbers there is strength and security. They subconsciously realize their only hope is to impose their belief system upon everyone by force if necessary (of course, at this point they will fragment and wage internal holy war upon each other).

When they try to impose their belief system on us, we have an obligation to firmly speak out and assert our rights. We must fight their assaults on reason, on science, on our right to question, but we've got to make sure we don't let them paint us as anti-religion.

I suspect that the current religious fervor that we find so stifling will begin to die down soon, and a backlash might even appear. The Bush Administration is almost certain to fall in disgrace eventually, and with it will go much of the power of the smug, overbearing religious leaders like Falwell and Robertson (and O'Reilly and possibly Limbaugh). It won't last. It can't.