Is DU a "big umbrella"? Are we trying to welcome any people

[pnwmom]

who sincerely feel they share Democratic ideals?

Or is a person only welcome if s/he shares the Democratic point of view on every single issue?

And let's suppose a Southern Baptist comes here who was active in the civil rights marches in the 60's and was back in the trenches after Katrina -- but who believes in the Bible and isn't sure what s/he thinks about abortion.

Would you make that person feel welcome? Or would you flame him or her for being a fundamentalist Christian? Or, at the very least, try to convince that person that Christianity was at the bottom of everything that's wrong with the world today?

I'm tired of seeing all the aggressively anti-Christian posts on DU, and I wonder how people can think that is helpful to the larger cause.

[Bluebear]

1. Is it that time already?

Time flies.

[Swamp Rat]

11. LOL!

:D

[RB TexLa]

15. or time for the "DU gun ownership" poll

with that guy who says everyone who owns a gun fantasies about shooting people as a reply to anything you say.

[jonnyblitz]

18. it's that time.

:hi:

[readmoreoften]

28. Hello my friend Bluebear...

Yes, it IS that time again.

Yes, why is pro-choice sentiment so prevalent at DU? Also, do we have to always be so "pro-gay"? What if children under the age of 28 are reading these posts?

Besides, homosexuality is a sin according to the platform of the Southern Baptist Convention. All these posts demanding that fundamentalists treat gays and lesbians with respect is pure and simple Christian bashing. These are my beliefs and you have to respect them!

Hey, guess what. Belief systems are like assholes, everyone has one. I don't have to respect yours. You don't have to respect mine. (And, in fact, if you are a Southern Baptist, you don't respect my beliefs. You think I am deluded by Satan and will spend eternity in Hell.) You, of course, have every right in the world to be a Southern Baptist at DU. In fact, I'd love it if there were more Southern Baptists at DU who were earnestly committed to "democratic principles".

But that doesn't mean that we will condone your rhetoric and behavior if it is socially conservative. You'll have to live with that.

[Blue-Jay]

92. Was that satire?

What time is it again?

/checks watch.

[XemaSab]

235. Jimmy Carter is a Southern Baptist

Care to rethink your statements?

[Maven]

268. What does that have to do with the platform of the Southern Baptist

Convention?

There's an obvious logical flaw in your implied argument.

[Kerrytravelers]

101. Want some popcorn?

:popcorn:

How about a beer?

... or maybe something a wee bit harder?

[icymist]

133. Hello Bluebear! It's been a while.

Ah yes. Fundamental Christians are afraid that their voice isn't being heard since they only have the ear of the President Of The United States, have an office in the White House, have the ears of Justice Scalia and Thomas of the United States Supreme Court, Senator Frist, Majority leader of the United States Senate, and most other Republicans who feel that kissing the collective a$$ of this group is in their best political interest, then yes, it's that time already!

[butterfly77]

241. I am a christian ...

Jesus is Lord!

[Bluebear]

267. Hey, whatever gets you through the night. nt

[tavalon]

282. Actually, it's late this year

It usually comes around March.

[muntrv]

2. Robert Casey Sr. & Jr. of Pennsylvania

come to mind. I don't know about Jr., but Casey Sr. was a Democrat on everything else except abortion. We should be a big tent.

[last1standing]

3. Is the definition of "big tent" supposed to be "pro-Christian"?

If you want a big tent then you're going to have to accept those who are not Christian and don't share your views. If you are anti-choice and fundamentalist then I'd say that you are in for a rough ride here as most Democrats don't share your views. That doesn't mean you're not welcome, but don't expect everyone else to bend over and accept what you say with no rebuttal. This is a big tent and I'm glad to have you and anyone else in it, but I'm not going to moderate my views to please anyone else.

[pnwmom]

30. Not at all. You're twisting everything around. I'm NOT asking

people here to be pro-Christian. I'm NOT asking you to moderate your views on the issues. And I'm on the far, far left end of my own church.

I'm just asking that DU'ers here give Christians the same benefit of the doubt that they give everyone else. For the sake of the cause. I think our party does NOT benefit from all the gratuitous, needless attacks here on Christians, like the person that started the thread titled "'NEWSFLASH' -- Jesus didn't exist", and went on to say that "anyone with an ounce of understanding" would share his views. I'm sure some of the more aggressively negative posts are driving people away who could be our allies.

I have no problem AT ALL with people arguing about particular political issues , and of course someone who is pro-life would get a lot of arguments around here. Including from me. (Note, however, that my hypothetical person wasn't sure what his or her beliefs were.)

But I do have a problem with the number of posters who go out of their way to attack people of faith. Isn't the Democratic party supposed to be a place for all people, regardless of whether they have a faith or not?

The Christians who come here do so because they want to help make the world a better place. We can argue with them on particular issues, but we don't need to ridicule their religious beliefs. Not if we're trying to live up to our own ideals.

[riderinthestorm]

36. look that topic is in the Religion/Theology forum

And that OP posted historical data to support their position that Jesus didn't exist.

Your whining is really off base considering the circumstances and I welcome anyone to go check out the real facts over at that forum!

In light of that, YOU are posting flamebait!

[pnwmom]

45. That post was NOT started where it is now, it was moved there.

And this is not flamebait.

I'm concerned that if we, on DU, make Christians feel unwelcome, then we are only hurting the Democratic party. We need to find ways to pull together, not attack each other.

[riderinthestorm]

49. yes, it was moved there precisely because it is not a Big Board topic

You are confusing real Dem issues with the marginal ones. Religion IS marginal. Or at least it should be to real Dems. Separation of church and state and all that!

[pnwmom]

64. I disagree. For some REAL Democrats, their religious faith

is at the foundation of why they have progressive ideals.

For others, obviously, it isn't at all.

[riderinthestorm]

74. Okay, so the question is, can you live with the rest of us?

You keep wanting the problem to be about the rest of us, but actually, as you have articulated, faith is your foundation. Can you live with us? Since for most Dems, church and state separation IS fundamental.

[pnwmom]

83. Actually, I wasn't speaking for myself. My faith is far more

tentative. But there are people who could be our allies -- our strong allies -- who do have a strong faith, and I don't think we should be trying to drive them away.

The only way we're going to win in November is if huge numbers of voters get out and vote for Democrats. The majority of voters in this country consider themselves to be Christian. Why alienate them when we don't have to?

Why is this so hard to understand?

[riderinthestorm]

87. Who do you think is driving these voters away?

Non-believers? People who want a separation of church and state?

Why do you think we would be driving these voters away? Cause we believe in abortion? Listen, then there wasn't a middle ground there to begin with?

Do you think a post challenging the historicity of Jesus on the R/T forum is driving potential Dem voters away? Do you honestly believe potential Dem voters' faith is that fragile??? That they can agree with the Dem platform but because there is a debate on DU about Jesus, we are turning voters away?

This is the Rawstory article all over. Anyone else see it? Are you perchance the author of that article?

[pnwmom]

96. No, I'm not the author and I didn't even read it. But now I'm

going to.

Non-believers won't drive them away, nor will honest discussions about differences in beliefs.
It's the tenor of some of these discussions that I object to, it's using words like "ridiculous" and "deluded" to describe religious beliefs.

[riderinthestorm]

99. Then alert them and get them yanked

Or get the discussion moved to the appropriate venue. I'm not sure why you think most Dems are ridiculing believers.....

From what I can tell, the vast, vast majority of Dems are believers. IMO ridiculing (if/when it happens) has just got to be such a small fraction of our population it's really stretching it to think the Christians are so persecuted. Especially on DU.



:shrug:

[pnwmom]

103. I didn't say most Dems do that. Just that I'm tired of the ones

that do. And I think they should think about whether that is really helping the party.

[riderinthestorm]

114. So non-believers should shut up for the good of the party?

And if most Dems aren't being offensive, then I'm not sure why the vast majority of potential Christian Dems can't understand that? And find a place in the Dem party??

[pnwmom]

124. To some of those who live in red-state areas, their

exposure here may be their biggest exposure to Democrats. They might be getting most of their impressions here . . . and in what their Republican neighbors have to say about us. Do we want to prove those neighbors wrong, or right?

Are we better than the Repubs, or should we descend to their level?

[Warren DeMontague]

298. I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question.

In case you missed it, it was:

"So non-believers should shut up for the good of the party?"

[hfojvt]

128. perhaps, since they believe in the separation of church and state

they should keep their own religious opinions private instead of waving their noodly appendages about.
I am not sure if the question was about most dems, or "most DUers". I found the situation with the TSed DUer "Jesus Saves" to be somewhat illustrative. A large contingent of DU was certain that this person was a troll, merely on the basis of the username. Because, of course, no real progressive believes that Jesus saves. A large part of the "disruption" caused by that person was not so much due to anything he did, but mainly by a reaction by our community to his username.

[Warren DeMontague]

142. The guy who supports mandatory prayer in schools is talking about

separation of Church and State?

That's rich.

[hfojvt]

147. I have not ever supported

mandatory prayer in public schools. I simply think that such an issue should be (or should have been) decided democratically, rather than judicially. Also, I am not really talking about separation of church and state, as if I am claiming to believe in it, merely asking those who espouse such a separation to live up to their proclaimed values and keep their atheist religious beliefs to themselves.

[Warren DeMontague]

149. So, let's be clear- you DON'T believe in separation of church and state?

...

[hfojvt]

150. it depends on what the definition of "is" is

Well, the definition of something. Do I believe we should have an official religion or church, or a religious or church-run government? Heck no. But neither do I believe that Christians, or Zoroastrians or Wiccans, etc. need to stay in the closet politically and cannot talk, or vote based on their religious beliefs, and that includes voting for legislation.

[Warren DeMontague]

254. That's not what separation of church and state is.

As far as prayer in schools- you think it shouldn't be "decided by judges", and it should be or should have been decided "democratically", which presumably means you think it should be "up to" the voters. You may not call that an endorsement of Christian prayer in schools, but I do- because we both know damn well something like 80% of this country calls itself "Christian".

Okay, then- if "the voters" are to decide, then, at which level? Town? County? Precinct? State? Nationally?

Because in all of those eventualities, particularly if you're talking about "letting the voters decide" in, say, parts of Mississippi where almost everyone is a particular strain of Christian, you will end up with, for example, the one Jewish kid in town being forced to say Christian Prayers in public school.



Which, to me, is unconstitutional, because it amounts to an official government endorsement of not just religion but a particular religion- and it violates the constitutional rights of the religious (and un-religious) minorities.

Which is why it doesn't matter if 99% of the "voters" want prayer in schools, it has to be "decided" by Judges because it is clearly against the Constitution.

And, BTW, THAT is what Separation of Church and State means.

[hfojvt]

261. separation of church and state means that 1 judge outvotes 99% of America?

I certainly do not believe in that.

SCOTUS decided in about 1818, when the ink was still wet on the constitution, that prayer in public schools was constitutional. Where it was decided was at the state level, until 1957 when the Federal government took control away from the states. Town, county and precinct laws need to be in accord with the State constitutions.

I call that an endorsement of democracy, since if the issue came up for a vote, I would vote against it, but am more willing to live with a democratic decision that I disagree with than I am to live with a tyrannical decision that I agree with. Process trumps result, although it is not a big deal to me either way.

But I believe separation of church and state was defined above as meaning that Christians need to keep their religion out of politics.

[Warren DeMontague]

273. Yes. That's EXACTLY what it means.

Because forcing anyone's kids to say a prayer in public school is the definition of Government "establishment of religion". It doesn't matter if that was figured out in 1818 or 1957. It is unconstitutional. Period. It wouldn't matter if 99.999999% of the people wanted to force that last one citizen to kiss the toe-ring of the great God Baal... That one person has constitutional rights which can't be violated no matter how many people want to "vote" that they can.

[hfojvt]

277. strange understanding of the constitution you have

Your hypothetical is wrong. With that kind of majority, they could easily vote to amend the constitution, throwing out the first amendment and making Baalism the official religion of America.
What you say about school prayer may be true. That it is government establishment of religion. However, the constitution applies to the Federal government, and it is not the Federal government establishing religion. Check it out -
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

First amendment

CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

and

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Thus, an education system started by the state of Indiana, or Colorado or South Dakota is allowed, under the Constitution, to mandate prayer in its schools. Because, clearly, they are not "Congress".

There are ways to change those laws - school boards are elected, legislatures are elected, an amendment could be added to the constitution, but for SCOTUS and the federal government to over-turn 130+ years of precedent and seize more power for itself is not democratic, even if you happen to like the decision that the deciders made. The Constitution, SCOTUS, POTUS, Congress, State and Local governments are supposed to serve the people. They derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed".

[Warren DeMontague]

278. Guess so.

If you want to believe that the Constitution protects the rights of states and municipalities to not only make, say, Christianity the official religion of the land, but also to forcibly foist that religion upon citizens, hey, you're entitled to your interpretation.. However utterly wrong-headed I may be convinced it is.

But I do happen to think you should offer a little truthful disclosure about your views before you march into another one of these threads talking about how DU atheists are somehow the ones who are "extreme" or "out of touch".

'Nite.

[Maven]

269. "should be decided democratically"

The legislature is not the ultimate guardian of the Constitution. The courts are. And there are many Constitutional reasons for prohibiting prayer in schools, not the least of which is the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. Courts often take on the role of protecting minorities from Constitutional transgressions by the majority-elected legislatures.

And why should atheists "keep their beliefs to themselves?" Should only religious people be allowed to speak their minds? In fact, it is atheists and other nonbelievers who SHOULD speak up because we are in the minority. There is no shortage of lawmakers in this country looking to mix the Bible into our system of laws. Find me one willing to say publicly that he doesn't believe in God.

[AbbyR]

238. No, but...

there are many posts, and not in the religion forum, that indicate that anyone who is a Christian or believes in God is a deluded fool. I find this offensive,and am am so far left of center that I'm about to fall off the edge. I believe respect for all religious beliefs is essential to the survival of the world.

And I agree with all the posts that say we should keep religion and politics FAR apart - but I don't see that happening in my lifetime. That's why I'm a member of the ACLU.

I can respect that an atheist does not believe in God and I will not cut him down for that. I expect the same consideration if I DO believe in God.

[Common Sense Party]

208. That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. nt

[Ron Green]

217. Religion is certainly not marginal. You believe it should be,

and I respect your belief, but I disagree with you and feel that religion is an important institution in a liberal society, so important that it must be discussed and wrestled with in the light of day, so that harmful and fear-based belief systems will be seen for what they are, and will eventually die a natural death. I have always disagreed with the prohibition of discussion of religion on the "big boards" for this reason. People keep saying that "religion is personal" without considering what that really means. To relegate such an important institution of society to the margins is just naive and blind. It's like telling kids not to talk about sex.

I'm not pro-religion. I welcome discussion with atheists. I do not go to church, but I think about things and I'm not threatened by ideas that are different from mine. As liberals who care about inclusion and progress, we ought to welcome all discussion of the most important issues of our society: government, business, and religion.

[pnwmom]

225. Thanks for the thoughtful post.

I agree that it isn't a peripheral issue, especially in these days of militant theocracy.

[riderinthestorm]

247. The OP was specifically referencing a thread that got moved to the R/T

forum. The thread dealt with the question of whether Jesus was a true historic figure.

Do you think that topic belongs in GD?

I don't. You can check it out yourself if you like but the topic had nothing to do with politics etc.

The OP extrapolated from that thread (and obviously other threads and posts that she hasn't yet gotten around to posting as backup) that Christians are getting "gratuitous slaps" and that topics like this aren't welcoming, etc.

Religious topics have a place in GD if/when they are appropriate. The mods decide - but in this case, I believe the thread was appropriate relegated to the R/T section.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

270. there are a growing number of people who think christians are the root of

all evil. I happen to agree.
Sure, we have a big tent. And if you give me a chance, I can show you why such faith-based systems are destructive, dangerous and demented. But that is just my view.

[TygrBright]

276. Well, I'm a Christian and I've never felt unwelcome...

...of course, Dobson et. al. would not agree with my "qualifications" as a Christian, since I never read the part of the Bible where it said "Thou shalt turneth off thy brain which offendeth the Lord, and let Fundy Wackjob preacher-types do all thy thinking for thee."

heeeblah heeeblah!

reverently,
Bright

[last1standing]

47. I can understand that, but then you have to remember....

many of the people here voice those opinions here because everywhere else they're ridiculed and belittled for their beliefs. I always look at those posts as being the blow off valve for those who can't express themselves anywhere else.

I'm not anti-Christian, myself. In fact, while I'm personally a Deist, I think following most of what Jesus is said to have supported is a good idea - with some exceptions. However, if you spent most of your day in a world that equated Atheist, Agnostic, Deist, or anything other than Christian as deluded or even evil, wouldn't you look forward to spewing out some vitriol toward those who have slighted you? Even if it was only in a semi-anonymous website?

Really, these people have very few other places to go. I'd suggest ignoring the anti-Christian threads and focusing on the thread dealing with the real issues.

[pnwmom]

100. But the people who are using a Democratic site as a religious

relief valve may be hurting the party's standing among the large group of middle of the road Christians who are looking for an alternative to Bush & crew. Particularly in parts of the country where they might not have that many progressive Democrats to talk to.

[riderinthestorm]

106. I'm not sure why you aren't alerting on offensive posts then?

Or are you saying anyone who isn't a believer, and questions believers' POV, should shut up cause they may somehow hurt the Dem party?

Anyone who is being religiously offensive is usually tombstoned or their post is deleted. Threads that are overtly religious are moved off the big boards.

I'm not sure what you are implying.

[pnwmom]

107. Are you saying that offensive posts are never read by

anyone BEFORE they're deleted?

[riderinthestorm]

115. How many offensive posts, to Christians, are allowed to stand for

any real length of time on DU, out of the millions of posts daily?

To think that the small fraction that may get through are potentially turning off such vast swathes of potential Christian Dem voters stretches credulity if you ask me.

[pnwmom]

117. Well, they bothered me , and I'm not much of a Christian.

And I doubt that my reaction would be all that unusual among believers.

[hfojvt]

131. I cannot remember from my atheist days

ever being ridiculed for my beliefs, and I hung around alot of fundies from Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship. It's not like I stood out because of my Jethro Tull t-shirt or 666 tatoo on my forehead and people would have known, just by looking at me, that I was an atheist.

Certainly none of the fundies that I knew would ever ridicule anybody. The ones who did the ridiculing were the preppy jocks and frat boys and packs of snobby cruel girls. They certainly did not do it because of their deeply held religious convictions.

[readmoreoften]

152. No they don't "ridicule" atheists

They condemn them, pass laws against them, debate whether or not they are capable of any sort of real morality, and CONSTANTLY complain about anything and everything that upsets their religious sensibilities.

Fundies don't ridicule non-believers, they wage war against them.

[hfojvt]

161. I have missed some of the anti-atheists laws

that have been passed in the last 26 years. Since I was an atheist from about 1977 until 1989 or so it is hard to believe that I missed this, when the moral majority was in its prime. Anti-gay laws I have seen, but some of that even seems to be stopping pro gay laws, more than passing new anti-gay laws. Anti-feminist laws, yes, but there again it seems to be more of a desire to build a bridge to 1972, but since that is within my lifetime, that is, again, more of a desire to over-turn what they see as an anti-Christian law more than it is a desire to pass an anti-feminist law. Anti-working class and anti-poor, definitely, since the MM is just a branch of the Republican party.
But I do not see the laws that have been passed or are proposed against non-believers, although they doubtless support many laws which offend the sensibilities of non-believers who are constantly complaining on DU, but many Christian moderates and Christian leftists are just as offended by those laws and proposals, and not just because they empathize with non-believers.

[readmoreoften]

165. They can't hold office in many states. /nt

[trotsky]

168. See, here's the thing.

Unless you can point to a specific law that calls for the internment and execution of atheists, many people will say there is simply no problem at all. Never mind that we can't hold office in those states. Never mind that we can't serve in juries in some, either. Never mind that our tax dollars are being used to prop up churches everywhere, directly and indirectly. And most of all, never mind that a former president said that we shouldn't be considered patriots, or even citizens. Those things don't count, and so we should quit our whining and stop trying to get the Democratic Party to listen to our concerns. *sigh*

[pnwmom]

184. I'm not asking you to stop trying to get anyone to listen to

your "concerns." I'm just asking people around here to stop taking gratuitous slaps at each other.

[trotsky]

185. As many others have pointed out...

if someone is an anti-choice Democrat, they're going to receive a few gratuitous slaps. If someone is either militantly vegan or militantly anti-vegan, likewise. You are singling out one group as "special" enough that we have to be extra-careful what we say so as not to piss them off.

Try looking closely at your own religion and see what it is that draws so many believers in it TO the Republican Party, rather than approaching it from the perspective of thinking that a few posters on an anonymous message board are somehow scaring those people AWAY from the Democratic Party.

[pnwmom]

193. People who call themselves Christians are just as broad a

group as those who call themselves agnostics or atheists. So I don't know what you mean by why so many members of my "own" religion are drawn to the Republican party.

I know why conservative and fundie Christians are drawn to the Republicans, but there are many progressive Christians who don't fit those labels. Those people should be welcomed by the Democrats, not blamed for the wrongs of all "Christians" everywhere.

[trotsky]

197. You're a Christian, and so are they.

You're members of the same religion - Christianity. Now I'm fully aware that your particular spin on Christianity is quite different than theirs, but you likely agree on at least some precepts, or you couldn't both self-identify as Christians. As a 3rd-party observer, I can see how each of you can justify your version by picking & choosing different parts of the bible. THAT should be the focus of your efforts - finding out why it's so easy to steer people toward right-wing Christianity, and working to stop that, because I guarantee you there are millions more voters lost due to that than could EVER be "scared" away from the Democratic Party by a handful of posts on an anonymous Internet message board.

[pnwmom]

214. I could as easily say you and all other atheists are "members"

of the same non-religion, but it wouldn't make any more sense than to lump all Christians in together.

[trotsky]

218. Then what's the point of identifying as a Christian?

You & Falwell probably both believe that Jesus was the Son of God.

You both probably believe that his alleged death on the cross acts as a sacrifice to forgive us of our "sins."

You both probably believe that he rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven.

I'll try to make clear again: I am not lumping you together with him, or right-wing Christians, or even saying you're responsible for them. You are different kinds of Christians, but you're all still Christians. "Christians" are a group defined by a certain set of core beliefs. "Atheists" really have no beliefs in common, just a non-belief.

What makes someone a Christian? Are we going to descend into the pointless exercise of declaring that bad people aren't really Christians?

[pnwmom]

220. One of the big divisions in Christianity is whether you are a

Christian because of what you SAY or believe -- or because of what you DO, that is, your actions.

Like most progressive Christians, I happen to be from the latter school of thought -- without "good works" all the words you say, all the "beliefs" you espouse, mean nothing.

[trotsky]

222. So to answer my question,

yes, you DO want to descend into the fruitless argument over who's a "real" Christian.

Because what that comes down to is, the "real" Christians are the ones who are just like you, right?

[pnwmom]

226. Why is that a fruitless question?

Any more than "what is a good person?" is a fruitless question?

Or "what is a progressive"? Or "what is a DINO"?

[trotsky]

228. Because it can't be answered.

You swear up and down that Pat Robertson isn't a Christian.

He'll swear up and down that you aren't.

The only evidence you each have supporting your declaration is your own particular Christianity.

So who's the REAL Christian?

Pointless. Just go about BEING a good Christian, and you'll attract far more people to your cause than the mean nasty horrible atheists are scaring away on (feeling like a broken record here)... an anonymous Internet message board.

[hfojvt]

244. you have already assumed many things by singling out those beliefs

The belief-o-matic quiz on beliefnet.com asks not only what you believe, but also how important such beliefs are. And yes, I do make, what to you is a pointless distinction between "people who believe in Christ" and "people who follow Christ". All three of the beliefs you listed I would consider to be irrelevant to being a Christian, which to me means "following the teachings and examples of Jesus". Falwell and I would certainly disagree about that. That is also the thing that makes it so easy for most "Christians" to veer right, because they are taught to believe and also taught empty morals such as "goto church, don't cuss, don't dance or drink, and don't enjoy sex." Not much I can do about that, although I try to write and talk about the alternative and have given away a score or two of copies of "In His Steps".
To return to the examples you and readmoreoften gave of anti-atheist laws. All the examples you gave are not laws that Christians today are passing, or trying to pass. They are laws that we have inherited as hundred+ year old laws. I also cannot believe you are actually complaining about not being able to do jury duty. In fact, the next time the county clerk writes me I think I will tell her that I am an atheist. I just converted when I found out that was a benefit.

[trotsky]

248. "People who follow Christ"

Well that's kind of a sticky point too, isn't it? Surely Falwell has his own ideas as to what it means to FOLLOW Christ, too. And he no doubt thinks he's following Christ better than most - certainly better than you are. So you haven't answered the question, just shifted it. It all comes back to essentially saying "Real Christians are Christians who believe as I do." I.e., a definition that's meaningless.

I'm sorry the unconstitutional laws don't bother you. They would bother me no matter what group is being discriminated against. Nice how you can be so flippant about the civil rights of others. No doubt you would never behave this way if talking about any other minority group - so why such a hostile attitude toward atheists? Why are they OK to hate?

[hfojvt]

253. it is not meaningless if "believe as I do"

is defined. The essential point, whether Falwell has his own widely divergent idea of what it means to follow Christ, is that he is going to put "believing in Christ" ahead of "following" (or he is going to be sneaky and put a whole bunch of beliefs in his definition of following). Also, it is not about what I believe, since the purported teachings of Jesus are in the four gospels, including such admonitions as "why do you call me 'Lord, Lord' and do not do what I tell you?" and straining at gnats and swallowing camels, etc. Thus I believe I can make a case that Jesus himself, unlike Falwell, puts following ahead of believing.

As for flippancy. It means a "lack of seriousness" and I consider the complaint that "atheists cannot be on juries" to lack that seriousness far more than my response does. I can assure you that I would have the same response to any minority group which chose to include that "problem" in their list of injustices. I seriously doubt whether every complaint of other people is going to bother you as if it was your own. You call that hatred and hostility? Yes, I hate atheists so much, that I quote one in my sig line.

[trotsky]

260. Yet you can't define it.

You think Jesus makes a case for following ahead of believing?

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. - the oft-quoted John 3:16

You'll never extract a unique and consistent theology out of the bible. It's too much of a hodge-podge of individual agendas and beliefs, many blatantly contradictory.

And it isn't just about atheists not being able to serve on juries, it's about running for office, fighting for paretnal custody, and having to draw attention to ourselves and receive the bigotry of even "decent" Christians when we stand up to these practices and laws. You don't think it's a problem - fine. Let me know why I should give a rat's ass about YOUR concerns, then.

[hfojvt]

262. Perhaps what I tell you three times is true

You find one contradiction in a teacher and you will discard all of his/her teachings? Falwell et. al. make Matthew 25: 31-46 bow down to John 3:16. I say that 15 verses trump a mere one. Nothing is going to be convincing to everyone, particularly those whose meal ticket is tied to believing and/or preaching something else. If my 7800 posts on DU were compiled into teachings, first of all it would include alot of bad jokes, but it would also probably include some foolishness and some contradictions, but hopefully also some wisdom, humour and inspiration.

You raise more serious considerations here than jury duty or GHW Bush saying mean things about your group. Obviously I care about even personal injustices and personal attacks even to strangers, but that is more of a specific thing. If there is legislation preventing atheists from running for office, even to change that law, is probably going to change nothing if opponents make religion an issue, but that cannot be legislated, except in the sense that I try to teach people not to be bigots, but rather to follow the Asimov quote.

[trotsky]

284. Ah, if it were just ONE contradiction.

That's the problem - there are so many contradictions, and on top of that, so many vague and ill-defined sayings, that it's really quite simple to pick out whatever message you want from the bible. There are quite a few verses talking about how bad homosexuality is - surely you don't think those are valid, right? Yet the Falwells of the world would say those "trump" other verses - using the same logic as you.

I understand your attempt to compare it to your DU posts, but then you're not the son of a god whose time on earth is limited, and your sole purpose is not to spread the word of your existence and sacrifice. Considering this would have been the agenda of this Jesus fellow, it's alarming that not only did he not leave a scrap of his OWN writings, but that those who did write about him came a generation or two after he supposedly died - and gave us this contradictory and confusing collection of texts that is so easy to intrepret any way you see fit. Falwell is a nasty guy, and a horrible human being, but he is a Christian, at least as he feels the word is defined.

If there is legislation preventing atheists from running for office

Not just legislation, but enshrined in some states' constitutions. But if we bring that up, all we're doing is distracting from the "important" issues and giving the right wing "ammunition." It's quite clear that many Democrats would love to blame the non-religious community for losses.

[Warren DeMontague]

295. Nice quotes around "concerns".

"REAL" nice. :eyes:

You want the gratuitous slaps to stop, okay then, stop with the gratuitous slapping.

[Bill McBlueState]

200. what are the "pro-gay" laws

you're talking about?

[readmoreoften]

252. Yes, an apology for anti-gay rhetoric under the veil of "reasonableness"

"Anti-gay laws I have seen, but some of that even seems to be stopping pro gay laws, more than passing new anti-gay laws."

What an apology. Anti-gay laws aren't actually anti-gay, they're just stopping pro-gay laws (I assume the gay agenda?) which makes them, what? Gay neutral? That's absurd.

Please. When you talk like this you're my political enemy. And I frankly don't care if you have D or R next to your voter registration anymore when you talk like this. If you threaten my ability to see my partner in the hospital, for me to take care of her when she's ill, for us to be able to get jobs without discrimination, then you are a threat to my life and that trumps all politics.


Now, I'll probably be accused of "christian bashing" or I'll be reminded of how gays like me alienate the coveted homophobe vote.

[Warren DeMontague]

289. Yeah--- What's a "pro gay" law?

Example?

[abester]

281. Awesome reply

"No they don't "ridicule" atheists. They condemn them, pass laws against them, debate whether or not they are capable of any sort of real morality, and CONSTANTLY complain about anything and everything that upsets their religious sensibilities. Fundies don't ridicule non-believers, they wage war against them. "

I was laughing out loud but I suddenly realized that you are speaking the full truth here. After all, let the Supreme Deity speak for himself:

He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him (3:36 John)

In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God ... Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction.(1 : 7-9 Thessaloinans)

The fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone (21:8 Revelation)

Cheers dude!

[NMMNG]

155. I've been called an "atheist f*ck",

Told that "America is a Christian nation and if you don't like it you can leave",

and told that all of my shortcomings are because I am an atheist.

All of this from a Christian who claims to be my best friend. :eyes:

[hfojvt]

159. Are you friends or not?

and what is the context of those statements? I cannot imagine any of my fundie friends of old throwing an F-bomb, although one did sorta threaten to beat me up after I hit him a few times. (which was totally justified on my part as he was crushing me at the time with the bathroom door as I attempted to push my way out of a bathroom stall.) Are these statements coming towards the end of arguments in which you have "slain" the opposition, or is there another context? Is your relationship with him/her mostly like that?

[NMMNG]

160. We've been friends for nearly 30 years

And lived together for 20 years. That will be coming to an end within the next few months due to irreconcilable differences.

The statements have come during discussions we have about various and sundry issues where she ends up spewing countless right-wing talking points (Seal the borders, nuke Iraq, dismantle Welfare, kids are animals because prayer isn't allowed in schools, etc), while claiming to be a Democrat. It's like I don't even know who she is anymore.

[Dorian Gray]

204. Wow...

That "friend" is an asshole. You should cut him or her loose, cause that ain't no friend.

[NMMNG]

274. As I noted above

We'll be parting ways shortly. I've determined for various reasons that the friendship is no longer in my best interests.

[cushla_machree]

198. I don't think anyone here attacks christians

People are entitiled to their beliefs. I draw the line when those beliefs violate the rights of others (ie abortion, gay marriage).

However, I am not going to bite my tongue and be silent on what i view as a large fairytale. I don't have to tiptoe around other peoples beleifs.

They control the whole country, yet still pretend they are being persecuted. I would argue the only people being marginalized are those of us who aren't religious, because we are 'amoral' and bent on 'attacking' those poor poor christians. I don't havbe to be polite to people who attack me, but i will; be polite to christians who show me the same decency.

[rman]

140. no, just pro freedom of religion

[gaspee]

4. It's called

Fighting back when you've been pushed against a wall. And for the record, I don't believe christians are persecuted anywhere in this country, including DU. It's pretty much the state sanctioned religion these days, the way federal money is being alloted. If you're not a christian group, and more importantly, an evengelical christian group, you'll get no help from the feds.

Just look at all the grants and programs defunded over the past few years under chimpy and see where the money is going.

And for the record, I won't vote for someone who is anti-choice. Period. For people who don't make my laws, I have no beef at all with their personal convictions. Are you anti-abortion? Well, the decision to not have one will be awfully easy then. (That you is not a specific you, btw)

[onehandle]

5. Sadly, some DUers do go too far. A liberal can be a jerk.

This is not an anti-Christian forum.

All are welcome at DU.

Except trolls. We invite them to get off our planet.

[billbuckhead]

13. I notice Christianity is singled out from other organized religions

I don't think Islam, Hinduism or Judaism right now are held in high esteem either by the reality based community.

[pnwmom]

34. I don't see those groups attacked around here, do you?

[Random_Australian]

157. I haven't seen Christianity get attacked either.

Funny that.

Edit: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1198557&mesg_id=1201524

[Donald Ian Rankin]

162. Try looking in the "religion and theology" subforum.

There is stuff there other than Christian-bashing, but not all that much of it.

That said, I think it's only a DU-specific problem. In the Democratic party as a whole, and certainly in America as a whole, there are very few unjustified attacks on Christians compared with the number by them on other groups, especially atheists. However, here the numbers are dramatically reduced.

[Random_Australian]

163. I frequent R/T. Rarely even there, but perhaps that is the choice of

threads I frequent. Sorry for sounding like a stick-in-the-mud, but I rarely make up my mind without seeing quotes.

Post some links, then.

[ghostsofgiants]

302. You asked for links...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1198557&mesg_id=1213110

And then there's this thread in the lounge right now:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=5171751&mesg_id=5171751

[rman]

141. Then again, not all DU-ers are liberals -

anyone and everyone can post on DU (making him/her a DU-er), but not everyone is a liberal.

[trotsky]

6. Religion is perhaps the most powerful tool the right wing wields.

And sorry, but that religion is in the form of Christianity. Might not be your particular brand of Christianity, but it is what it is.

Besides, what's "aggressively anti-Christian" to one person is mild criticism to another, and is water off the duck's back for yet another.

It's a political message board. Religion is not off-limits for criticism, especially with how entwined religion & politics have become - on the right AND the left. There are rules that prohibit insulting of believers or excessive bashing of religion - alert on posts you feel meet those criteria, and let the mods deal with it instead of whining in your own thread.

[Clovis Sangrail]

26. The OP has a point

I've seen a lot of people flamed (myself included) for little to no reason by "liberals" acting like they just graduated from the Michael Savage school of logic.

You're right - the best thing to do is just hit alert and let the mods deal with it.
But it IS a real issue and bringing it up isn't whining.

[trotsky]

31. It's been brought up.

Many, many times. All it does is start up a flamewar. The non-Christians feel unfairly castigated, the offended Christian feels justified, and it does more harm than good.

[Clovis Sangrail]

39. religion seems to have that affect

though I was speaking in more general terms, not specifically about religion.

[mdmc]

190. I've never seen any religious bashing here at DU

:shrug:
And I often post religious OPs. Check out my sig line.

[pnwmom]

37. I'm not whining. I'm saying that pragmatically speaking, we're

making a huge mistake if we think that attacking Christians is going to help us build a majority that will push the Repubs out.

We have to look for common ground, not for ways to antagonize religious people who come here because they can't stand what Bush has done to the country.

[riderinthestorm]

46. Then don't frequent the religion boards

On the big boards, those posts are removed to the religion boards since the mods KNOW that they aren't common ground - they are marginal. That's why the R/T board is marginal.

[pnwmom]

61. I wasn't on the religion board. The post was on the main

discussion page, and it was obviously titled to provoke Christians.

[riderinthestorm]

78. It was framed as a historical debate as anyone who goes to the R/T board

can suss out for themselves. Wherever it started out, that's where it appropriately ended up, marginalized on the R/T board (disclaimer: not impugning the R/T board, just trying to place it in context with the vast majority of posts on DU).

It was not flamebait, as you would know if you spent any time researching the historical facts. You are getting worked up over historical data and people who you are purporting to attack "Jesus/Christians!"

There was no attack.

[trotsky]

171. You missed my point.

I've seen many Christians say that even the worst of DU hasn't offended them. Of course, there's the other extreme where some folks have complained bitterly whenever anyone uses a foul word on DU. If we had to water our discourse down so that no one would ever be offended, this would be the most boring place on the web.

I think there's a fine system at DU in dealing with over-the-top posts. Use it. If you're worried about the few minutes that something might be visible in a major forum before being deleted or moved, I have to tell you, your priorities are seriously out of whack. You could bring probably a hundred times more people INTO the party by simply volunteering to register people to vote for a couple of hours than would ever be scared AWAY from the party by a post on an anonymous message board. For fuck's sake, look at Free Republic. Nobody there whines about scaring people away from the Republican Party, and there are atheists and Christians aplenty there, too. Plus the absolute worst I've seen on DU (a troll post that said they were happy American soldiers were dying) is NOTHING compared to the worst of FR.

[pnwmom]

232. I'll concede my complete lack of familiarity with FR.

Again, I wouldn't want DU to sink to that level and I doubt that you would, either.

[riderinthestorm]

7. I never understand these kinds of posts

You either feel you belong as a Dem or you don't.

I'm tired of all the aggressively anti-atheism/agnostic noise by Dems. I'm also tired of the aggressively Christian noise by Dems.

The Dems are a big tent. But why does that have to mean that discussion and/or even disagreement has to mean the Dem party is somehow not inclusive?

And I am very wierded out that religion-as-a-marker-for-inclusion/exclusion threads are starting this early in the campaign season! ouch!

[MelliMel]

12. You left one out.

You aren't tired of the aggressive anti-religion spew by some as well?

Why not leave each other alone? Those who are Christian (or Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, etc) leave alone those who are not religious (no proselytizing) and those who are not religious stop antagonizing those who are religious with posts about "fairy tales".

[riderinthestorm]

24. Uhm, I've never said you believe in fairy tales

And for whatever it's worth, I would agree that leaving each other alone would be perfect!!!!!! Religion (or the lack thereof!!!) should be private.

Peace!

[MelliMel]

25. Not you.

No, I cannot say I have seen that from you in my short time here. I meant others who feel as though they need to mock those who are religious as a way of showing their inherent superiority and intelligence as "rational thinkers".

And leaving each other alone always works. :-)

[Warren DeMontague]

297. Methinks you doth protest too much.

If you're really secure in your faith, you shouldn't give a fig what anyone says, claims to rationality or otherwise.

And no one seems to be able to produce any real examples of what is being complained about here; we're just supposed to take it (on faith, I suppose) that "those people" are always "out to get" (meaning make fun of, mention the lack of scientific proof for various religious claims, or otherwise engage in unaccptable, mocking behavior) the religious around here. Oh, it's not you- it's those other atheists.

Meanwhile, downthread, we are told to "shut up" about our beliefs -or lack thereof- and, essentially, get to the back of the bus, lest we alienate red staters.

Sure. Like we haven't heard that one before.

But back to being secure about one's belief system. I really could give a rat's ass what anyone else thinks about the universe- if I find their ideas interesting, I may listen to them for a while.. but most large organized religions on this planet interest me about as much as your average Julia Roberts film. That said, let me give you an example: Say I like a certain band, see- and say I work in a place where a lot of my co-workers consider that band their "parents' music".. I hear all day about how much they can't stand the so-and-so.. right? So what do I do. Do I flip out? Do I question my own taste in music? Do I feel the need to endlessly proseltyze to them? Do I act peevish about it?

No. No, No, No and No. What do I do? I don't give a shit. At all. Why should I? If anything, I figure it's their loss. But I don't run around acting like a chicken with my head cut off, the way some self-professed believers do when confronted with a statement like "I think it's just as logical to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster as it is to believe in 'God'"

[acmejack]

33. Aggressive anti religious spew?

People run around emblazoning their posts with religious symbols and in the same breath feel no apparent incongruity in complaining about aggressive anti religious spew! Amazing...

[MelliMel]

35. I haven't asked you

if you've heard the good laws of Moses yet, have I? :)

And I have no problem with atheists at all, so why do some atheists feel the need to degrade those who are religious?

[riderinthestorm]

38. Acmejack's post wasn't degrading. It was factual. nt

[MelliMel]

40. And where did I say

his/her post was degrading? Do you not think that those who are not religious like to dump on those who are? As I said, I am more than happy to leave those who aren't religious alone, if they will please show me the same courtesy. And referring to another's religious beliefs as fairy tales is not courtesy.

[riderinthestorm]

43. You appear to be generalizing

I personally don't like it.

"those who are not religious like to dump on those who are?"

[MelliMel]

44. Yes, some of them do.

And that is what I said in my original post on this thread. It's the truth. Why can't those who are not religious just leave those who are alone and vice versa?

[riderinthestorm]

53. Why do you feel the need for religious iconography for your avatar?

Why can't you leave it off?

[MelliMel]

56. Is it offending you?

Do you feel as though it is somehow forcing Judaism and all it's laws upon you? I suppose you might also be offended by the fact that I am an observant Jew as well with a large family. A double offense to some.

[riderinthestorm]

59. Nope, but clearly religion is big in your family

Yet anyone who espouses a lack of religion can't articulate that without causing offense? Or they are somehow (as the OP posits) offending potential Dems??

You can be loud and proud of your belief, but others cannot?

[MelliMel]

62. They can articulate.

I never said they could not. But why do some need to articulate with insults?

[riderinthestorm]

80. Why don't you bring up some examples and ask them? nt

[pnwmom]

70. You know you're deliberately misunderstanding her.

There is a huge difference between espousing your own non-belief -- which is perfectly fine -- and ridiculing the beliefs of others, which some people here on DU do. (I don't know about you personally.)

When a person says that another DUer with a religious faith is "ridiculous" or "deluded," then that poster has crossed the line.

And it isn't doing our party any good to associate ourselves with that. Do we want to win in November or not?

[riderinthestorm]

82. Bring those examples to the table and let the debate begin.

I haven't done any of that. So bring it up to the posters who feel are being "ridiculing?"

Although in my admittedly short experience on DU, those posts are pulled fast, and those who persist are tombstoned. I'm not sure what the problem is here.

And yes, I want to win in November. Perhaps you saw the Rawstory article that said that atheists need to step away from the Dem party for the Dem party to win?

So are you sure you want to associate with atheists???

[redqueen]

207. Did *anyone* *ever* post any examples?

*sigh*

Too soon for this $#&@.

[Warren DeMontague]

257. It's like the "War on Christmas"

We don't need to actually SHOW what it is, everyone KNOWS it's happening because we KNOW how much THOSE PEOPLE "Hate God" and "Mock Believers".

(Shit, I bet Giordano Bruno wished he could have gotten off with a stiff mocking)

[redqueen]

259. Yep... the "War on Christmas" all over again.

*sigh*

[Dorian Gray]

90. Why is that a problem?

Seriously... I wrote more about it in my last post, but I don't understand why religious iconography is a problem here. Why is this an issue at all?

[riderinthestorm]

93. Context.

It's not a problem - I was simply pointing out the irony of her position.

[Dorian Gray]

94. I don't think it's particularly ironic....

I expanded on what I think elsewhere, so no need to do so again. I just think we should be careful in being critical of criticizing other's beliefs, particularly religious beliefs, and I want people to feel comfortable (whether they be atheist, Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Islamic, Pagan, Shinto or New Agey, hell... even Scientologist...) posting and being proud of who they are and how their religion is a part of who they are.

My Catholicism is a big part of who I am and a big part of why I am here. I've seen talk of "fairy tales" and the evil Vatican, though I don't really give a shit about that. There are bigger things to worry about than whether a handful of people think I'm a fool for believing the way I do. (Which is why the resurgance of topics like this one are pointless.) As long as I support your rights to believe as you wish, I would hope that I am returned the same favor. Which is why the criticism of the Star of David initially jumped out at me; I thought it was not apropos to the discussion. But, it's not my argument. I just had to butt in and voice my opinion. :) Sorry!

[riderinthestorm]

95. Thanks for the input.

Peace!

:hi:

[pnwmom]

98. Why are you apologizing? There are huge issues that

we all need to work together on. We shouldn't be alienating other Catholics or anyone else who want to join us.

[Dorian Gray]

199. Personally,

I'm trying not to argue because I think it's almost a "non-issue." I don't particularly get offended by something I read on a message board, and if I think that something is unfair, I will say what I think then I'm done with the issue. I did that, and I'm done with the issue. I don't feel the need to beat a dead horse into the ground on the subject.

I believe, and I think it's quite clear, that equating a poster using the Star of David in his signature in no way equates with bashing someone's beliefs. The people who I posted to stated that they don't actually have a problem with a poster posting his or her religious symbols as an avatar. I stated that I thought their examples were not good examples, in my opinion. They acknowledged my thoughts. What else is there to say on the subject?

:shrug:

[pnwmom]

97. There is no irony in her position. She doesn't go around

verbally slapping non-believers in the face.

[riderinthestorm]

102. Are you insinuating that non-believers "slap others in the face"??

I don't get your point.

[pnwmom]

104. Some do, verbally that is. Not the "non-believers." The

anti-believers.

[riderinthestorm]

112. Ah yes, I forgot believers are allowed to label atheists/agnostics

and assign them their beliefs.

I always forget my place!

[pnwmom]

119. So when I distinguish between one group of people

who simply explain why they personally don't espouse religious beliefs, and another group who attack people with those beliefs, I am guilty of labeling?

So be it.

[readmoreoften]

156. Why can't those who are not religious just leave those who are alone...

The answer to your question: "Why can't those who are not religious just leave those who are alone and vice versa?"

Because religious fundamentalists will NEVER LEAVE US ALONE. EVER. They seek to control our culture and our lives.

Why is fundamentalist Christianity the focus of such ire? Why not complain about Judaism or Islam?

BECAUSE ISLAM HAS NO POWER IN AMERICA. AND JUDAISM IS NOT AN EVANGELICAL RELIGION. There are only 13 million Jews in the world. When I'm at home in Texas, there are about 13 million fundamentalist christians in my goddamn county alone who want to keep me a second class citizen.

[pnwmom]

195. I agree. Religous fundamentalism is a threat, everywhere.

But not all religious people, Christian or otherwise, are fundamentalists.

Don't you think progressive people in general should welcome progressive Christians, not blame them for what fundamentalists do?

[readmoreoften]

250. Of course progressive Christians are welcome on DU.

They are not always agreed with, but they are certainly welcome.

[pnwmom]

48. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. You weren't being

aggressive at all, but you were insulted anyway.

[MelliMel]

57. Of course.

Being religious is a leprosy of sorts.

[pnwmom]

71. I hope you hang in there, MelliMel -- and a belated WELCOME!

[Clovis Sangrail]

65. It's not just religious issues

though those are the most pronounced.

If you don't like Hillary there's a group of people who will vicously attack you.
If you don't like Kerry there's a group of people who will vicously attack you.
If you don't like Dean there's a group of people who will vicously attack you.

...regardless of any of your other views they will completely villify you.

Luckily you can usually spot these people pretty quickly.
Just like in real life - avoid them.

[Phx_Dem]

291. you missed a few....

1. Chavez
2. Castro

Critical remarks regarding these these two don't go over to well here on DU.

[Clovis Sangrail]

52. not the same

a cross, star, or some other religious symbol as an avatar or in a sig isn't an attack.

People with a cross in their sig being upset about "anti-religious spew" is NOT incongruous.

[Dorian Gray]

89. This is interesting, Acmejack...

I don't understand why one would find a poster who "eblazons their posts with religious symbols" suspect, nor do I understand why there is "an apparent incongruity in complaining about aggressive anti religious spew!"

How that reads to me is that you find the symbol itself as an "in your face" thing, screaming the religiosity of the poster who includes it on his/her signature. But, is that a fair comparison? I suspect that those religious posters around here (including myself) would not balk at any symbol that you might choose to express your beliefs. You can identify yourself and your beliefs in anyway you want, and I would never find that offensive or aggressive.

Seriously, that's what I don't understand. It is one thing wanting to separate religion from the public running of our country. I understand why that is necessary and I completely support that. It's a completely other thing to find offense in a religious symbol that nobody is foisting on you. And it's even further perplexing to me that one would believe that symbol is actually being foisted upon you solely by someone displaying said symbol.

The only symbols that would offend me are hate symbols. (i.e. Swastika!) I don't see how The Star of David, a Cross, or a Pentagram (or any other religious symbol) should be seen as an attempt to shove religion in your face. Am I missing something here?

[acmejack]

175. Actually, I could care less!

The religious continually erect their strawmen positing they are discriminated against due to their religion, which I suggest is totally untrue. The mere fact they CAN emblazon their posts with said avatars would seem to make my point, which was what I was trying to do, not attempting to demonstrate that I was a pinhead-judging from the responses, I was quite effective at accomplishing the latter.

[pnwmom]

42. Do you consider this thread to be anti-atheist? It's NOT. It's

anti-shooting-ourselves-in-the-foot.

Look around. This country is full of Christians, many of whom share most (if not every single one in every single case) of our ideals.

We have to find a way to work together with them or we'll never get out from under Bush.

[mwooldri]

109. In any case, what the ____ does religion have to do with politics?

So, I'm an Anglican type Christian. Does that make me a better person than by Buddhist-leaning workmate? Does that make me a better person who believes that there isn't a god? That there are zillions of gods? That it's the flying spaghetti monster who created the earth?

Personally I think religion should be kept out of politics. Ethics should be included but because someone says "I'm a Christian" shouldn't mean that ethically they're whiter as snow. I think some politicians put on the religion tag to hide some of their ethical deficiencies.

Anyway, thanks for listening. Mark.

[pnwmom]

196. I agree with you. I am completely for separation of Church and

State.

[trotsky]

173. And what about the atheist perspective?

Just how welcome are we supposed to feel in a party that has ALWAYS nominated religious candidates? A party where all its major officeholders end speeches with "God bless America"? How about a party whose members in the Senate stood up on the Capitol steps hand-in-hand with Republicans to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, emphasizing "UNDER GOD" while "Onward Christian Soldiers" played in the background?

Does anyone care about the party scaring away the non-religious?

[Dorian Gray]

205. Personally

I care about the party scaring away anybody. I wonder whether the religion of the candidate is focused on more than it should be, and I think any laws prohibiting atheists from running for election in any state should be deemed unconstitutional and illegal. I suspect that many candidates "pump up" their religious CVs in order to appeal to the 83% Christian Nation.

As atheists are the minority in our country, much like Jews and Muslims and Pagans and any other religious minority, we don't have enough representation in our political ranks.

It is important, however, that we attack any laws preventing them from running in any election in our nation.

[trotsky]

209. The Catch-22.

It is important, however, that we attack any laws preventing them from running in any election in our nation.

Yet when we do, or attack laws or policies that weaken the wall of separation, we're criticized for giving the right wing ammunition against Democrats and distracting from the "real" issues. Or again, further scaring away the nice, decent Christians who otherwise hate everything about the Bush administration but just can't abide a few anonymous comments on the Internet. No way, no how.

[pnwmom]

224. I think the wall of separation of Church/State should be

strengthened, not weakened. And I agree with Dorian and others that there shouldn't be any laws on the books that prevent atheists from running for anything.

Agreed that the laws shouldn't exist -- but are there examples of them being enforced? I've never heard of these cases. Which states?

[trotsky]

227. Here you go.

http://www.infidels.org/activist/state/code.shtml

The double-whammy is when one of us DOES stand up to challenge these things, we get branded as another Michael Newdow who is distracting from the "important" issues.

[pnwmom]

231. Thanks. I agree they shouldn't be on the books, but a lot

of wrong-headed and unenforced laws remain. I noticed that the S.C. law got thrown out, but you still have S.C. on the list. Is S.C. or any other state still trying to enforce these laws?

Are there really still states that ban shopping on Sunday? Hard to imagine.

[Dorian Gray]

246. Do you really think that is what the Christians

are concerned about? I assume that we don't like being condescended to, but I believe that any "rational" (maybe I shouldn't use that word in a conversation dealing with atheists and Theists... :grin: ) Christian would see that it's wrong to restrict anybody from running for office because of their religious affiliation. (Or lack of one!) Sure, some may refuse to vote for an atheist, and I suspect it would take more than rallying behind atheism to be elected.

Would anybody here, even those who argue with the atheists on a regular basis, actually try to block atheists from running for election? I can't see that. Sure, some of the Right Winger Christians may want to prevent you from running for office, but that's not who we are dealing with on this site. I would be surprised if any single person here actually advocated for keeping atheists from politics. (If anyone disagrees with me, please let me know.)

[trotsky]

251. Go back and search for old threads.

Look for Utah Highway Crosses or Michael Newdow or the Pledge and see what reception those things get from Christian DUers. Oh sure, they'll nobly say it's wrong, but pooh-pooh fighting it because it's just not that important. Of course it's not - to them.

[Dorian Gray]

271. Those things are different issues, though....

Completely different, and I believe that they can be logically debated without calling someone a bigot for having differences of opinions. I would think someone was a bigot if they just believe that an atheist should not run for office. I suspect that you might not agree with me on the first part, though.

[trotsky]

285. I think that if someone is OK with their religion being forced on others,

they're a religious bigot. Or if they only have a problem with it personally, but just don't think it's worth pursuing. That's just my crazy opinion, though. Not having to endure the social pressure of being an atheist, I'm sure most believers cannot understand.

[Dorian Gray]

290. But you can't wipe out all public

displays of religion. Those situations should be argued in a topic dedicated to them. I am unfamiliar with the Utah highway crosses and who way paying for them. If it were a military or government program, theen I have no problem symbols on a gravestone representing the person's religion being paid for by the government. They served their government. If they want a cross, a Star of David, a book, A Darwinian sign, a Pentagram, or Nothing, then I am willing to comply with that.

That is completely different, however, than forbidding an atheist to run for government office.

[trotsky]

292. Who said anything about wiping out all displays?

The Utah crosses were about state troopers killed in the line of duty. The state was paying for and erecting giant 12-foot crosses next to the road where they were killed, complete with the state trooper graphic. I don't have a problem with a memorial to those who gave their lives for our safety, but why does it have to be a cross - especially one paid for with taxpayer funds?

Is it a different issue than forbidding atheists (as well as Buddhists, agnostics, and others) from running? Sure. But it's the same principle - government power being used to enforce or promote religion or a religious stance.

[Dorian Gray]

293. Ah...

the Utah case was different than I thought it was. I thought you were referring to some sort of government memorial. Utah is different than most other states as the entire state government is made up of, primarily, Mormons. It actually is closest that any state has to religion and politics mixing. The state residents, paricticularly the minority that is not Christian and Mormon, should speak up about this. I'm sure it happened awhile ago, and I am not sure if the crosses are still erect. Is it possible that all the police officers who died were Christian/Mormon, therefore the crosses were appropriate? I have no idea.

I really am underread on that topic, however, and can not argue against or for the crosses without knowing all the details. I recall seeing a topic about htat months and months ago, but I didn't pay particularly close attention. I would never move to Utah. I have nothing against Mormonism (they don't evangelize here in NYC), but I wouldn't be happy living in a "dry" state, and being a Catholic I would be vastly in the minority. Utah is a good example of what happens when religion becomes too powerful.

[trotsky]

294. Even IF the officers were all Christian, why would it be appropriate?

They didn't die as Christians, they died as public servants. Let their families commemorate them in a way they think appropriate - a public memorial should be just that: public. Not exclusionary or even appearing to endorse a particular religious belief.

The problem with this shit is that it creeps like kudzu. A lot of us want "under God" out of the pledge and "in God we trust" off our money because many Christians are now USING those items as "proof" that this is a Christian nation. It's enabling the right-wingers and their religious agenda.

[Dorian Gray]

300. Like I said,

I know little about the situation. I was throwing out ideas, not thinking about it. I didn't even know the goverment was paying for the crosses. I just saw that they were being erected in honor of slain policemen.

I said much more in that last post, including the fact that Utah is an interesting state. I don't know if you feel like I'm being argumentative or not, because I don't mean to be.

[trotsky]

301. Well think about it.

Think about the idea of the government paying for a religious monument. Be aware of state-church separation issues, because it's another one of those fronts on which we're losing bigtime to the religious fucks, with moderate (and even liberal) Christian Dems retreating out of fear of looking like they're pandering to those horrible evil atheists.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. Of Course It's A Big Umbrella. Everyone's Open To Attack LOL

Just kidding, kinda sorta. DU is full of all types of democrats. Whenever you have that inclusive of a community there is going to be infighting and difference of opinion. There is going to be passionate debate and regular disagreement. It's all part of what makes DU so fast paced and exciting: the fact we don't walk in lockstep. Every democrat is welcome here, but there is a certain level of thick skin needed to be effective.

[pnwmom]

51. A thick skin is needed, true. I just keep thinking of all the

people out there who don't post. People who might be sick of Bush and are willing to look at the other side. So they come here and what do they find? People who ridicule them for their religious beliefs.

Is that a good way to win an election?

[riderinthestorm]

55. On the big boards? Where the mainstream Dem ideas are debated?

Or the religious boards? Where Dems/religious ideas are debated?

And why is debate equated with "ridicule"? It's absurd. The OP on the R/T board had factual evidence to support their claim. That isn't ridicule, it's a debate!

[pnwmom]

63. When I read the post it was on the main discussion page.

"Latest discussion" or something. Very near to the top.

Besides, a newbie could very well look at the religious forum, particularly if that newbie had religious beliefs (such as "love thy neighbor" that informed his or her beliefs). I'm not saying we can't argue -- I'm all for serious discussions -- but why the need for ridicule?

[riderinthestorm]

85. It's NOT ridicule

It was a historical post.

Jesus can't stand scrutiny, historically?

You can't stand Jesus getting scrutinized historically?

You really don't seem to want serious discussion! That OP was as serious as they come and you are the one getting totally bent out of shape!

For those seeking to check it out, it's at the R/T forum.

[pnwmom]

105. That poster used the word "ridiculous" and said that

Christians were deluding themselves.

Why couldn't he have written that same post, in terms of his historical info, and left out the gratuitous insults?

[riderinthestorm]

116. Then you alerted on him/her right?

And the mods found your complaint legit, and they deleted the thread?

No, because the context of the post provided the rationale for the vocabulary that was utilized in the OP.

Right below that one was the "Thin Skinned Religions" thread which is somehow apropros here.....

:crazy:

Look, you've been here for more than a 1000 posts. I'm not sure why you are suddenly bent out of shape over one thread out of the thousands that are spawned daily on DU.

[hfojvt]

148. that one thread was only given as one example

of something that can perhaps be seen half a dozen times daily, and yes, in GD or the lounge, since the ubiquitous slams at fundies often include Christ as collateral damage, or often intentionally make Him or the Catholic church et. al. the target.

[JuniperLea]

9. Shares views on every issue?

Hell, the rest of us don't even agree on all the issues! I can't think it would be any different.

I see welcomes to all newbies and I've seen old timers made to feel they were no longer welcome.

If we can't handle religious discussion, we shouldn't be here... discussing religion is no more divisive than discussing politics.

We have an ignore button yet people would rather bitch about others instead of exercising their right to ignore.

I'm a fundie turned agnostic so my perspective of the religious issue is fairly middle of the road, but I don't see hating doing anyone any good. I've been accused of being a Christian hater because I'm fairly well versed on scripture and I can find a lot of conflicting verses to argue with, and to point out the hypocrisy in churches. People hate having their own words used against them. Still, there is a psychological need for myth and we should be open minded enough to be tolerant of anyone who worships bearded cloud men or flying hunks of spaghetti. We have become intolerant, and that sucks out loud.

How about we just diss the haters, regardless...

[pnwmom]

54. "Diss the haters" -- sounds good to me.

[Lars39]

10. Re: Southern Baptist

Most have no idea that the church was hijacked by conservatives.
They need to be looking at their leadership with a very critical eye.

[JuniperLea]

16. Many will come in Jesus' name

and will fool even the chosen.

They just need to re-read their Bibles and quit worshiping human beings.

[pnwmom]

58. What I understand, from a former Southern Baptist, is that

in the South,where the great majority of Baptists are members of the "Southern Baptist Church" the church at the moment is still a "big umbrella." That is, if you look at individual members -- not the hierarchy, which is extremely conservative. But in other parts of the country, the more liberal members have broken off into the American Baptists. And now I hear that the American Baptists are facing a split.

[Burma Jones]

14. I do not mix religion and politics

It sucks when the RW does it and it sucks when we do it.

Peoples' religions, or lack thereof, shouldn't matter here, this isn't a House of Worship.

We have a Religion Forum, so people can avoid it if they fear judgement from people whose opinions are meaningless in the quest for spiritual truth. We also have many people that fear an encroaching Christo-fascism.

[dogday]

176. This is about the best post I have read

in the entire thread. I thank you for your wisdom. :hi:

[Ron Green]

239. I have to respectfully disagree with you.

I suggest that the realm of spiritual belief has always been, and is still, so closely tied to the cultures in which people govern themselves and are governed by others, that to simply say "It's a private matter" or "There must be separation of Church and State" allows the right wing to do what it's trying to do. My view is that we must acknowledge the "church" (meaning the entire panoply of belief and non-belief systems in our society) as part of the PUBLIC life of our country and the world. Only in this way can we struggle against the anti-democratic nature of the fundamentalist and fear-based sects, and encourage the good works, education and peace effected by religions and other groups based in love and acceptance.

Similarly, to banish serious discussion of religion to the "marginal" areas of DU seems to me akin to putting our fingers in our ears and pretending it doesn't exist.

[Burma Jones]

243. I have no problem encouraging civility toward religious belief

I do have a problem when folks see animosity against religious belief espoused by some of the posters here on DU and ascribe that attitude to the whole Democratic Party. It's as though anybody that detests religion had just better shut the hell up. The party is a big tent, DU is a small part of that Big Tent.

If you want to appeal to religious people using the more generous aspects of Christianity and show that Democrats are somehow more "Christian" than Republicans, go ahead...although I don't think Jesus would approve.

However, what you're suggesting is antithetical to the Founders' goal of not allowing Clergy to dictate public policy.

If you acknowledge the "entire panoply" of belief and non-belief systems, I think you are pretty much acknowledging EVERYBODY anyway.....

[riderinthestorm]

245. The OP is referencing a specific thread that got moved to the R/T

section since it was dealing with the question of whether Jesus was a real figure in history.

Do YOU think it belongs on GD?

I don't. I think it was appropriately moved to the religion forum for debate. That particular debate deserved to be moved aside. Whether other religious discussions belong to be marginalized or not depends on context in my opinion. Some belong in GD, front and center, others deserve to be put elsewhere.

Beyond that, the OP feels as though questioning the historicity of Jesus is somehow taking gratuitous swipes at Christians. I disagreed with her on that point as well. This led to further back and forth over the abuse of Christians by Dems etc. etc.

[derby378]

17. Well, if it helps any, I'm a pro-gun Democrat...

...and these folks have welcomed me with open arms. We quarrel about stuff like reauthorizing the semi-auto ban, sure, but I think most DUers know I'm committed to Democratic ideals like supporting organized labor, reforming health care, protecting and strengthening civil rights, and bringing our troops home from Iraq.

[CTD]

19. I am always amazed when certain viewpoints consistently get deleted.

It doesn't matter how politely or delicately they're worded, post something about one of these topics and.... POOF!

Apparently some of the mods do not actually want open discussion.

We're not even talking about taking a "right-wing" position but, rather, a position that is largely party neutral.

I have been genuinely shocked at some of the posts I've seen deleted. They weren't trolls or freepers. But clearly liberals who happen to hold certain views on a few particular topics.

So the umbrella is big as long as you don't offend the thought police.

[Warpy]

20. I've seen few "aggressively anti Christian posts" here on DU

and I've been here for a very long time, so I'd heartily suggest you adjust your filters.

A lot of people here do post against the meanspirited Calvinists who are calling themselves Christians and giving all Christians a bad name, but I've seen little painting with the broad brush you accuse.

Most of the people who post on this forum are Christians, by the way.

[pnwmom]

66. You must have missed the Jesus/vampire cartoons.

[Jed Dilligan]

69. Where are they? Do tell!

I've always been impressed by how closely the whole resurrection thing resembles an old vampire movie.

[peacetalksforall]

21. I don't ever want to put-down a DUer, but I sure as heck want to point

out the hypocricies of Christianity when I see them - in a general way.

[porphyrian]

22. DU is a collection of 80 thousand plus individuals, each with...

...their own opinion. Anyone can find like-minded individuals here, as long as they're basically Democratic. That doesn't mean people with differing opinions are going to coddle you or censor themselves to protect your sensibilities. Just don't post anything in General Discussion you don't want challenged or outright attacked, because chances are your most accepted belief is someone else's pet peeve. Just sayin'.

[pnwmom]

73. Of course any post can be attacked. But posters should

also keep in mind, I would hope, that WE are the FACE of the party to many people.

Do we want this to be an ugly, hateful face?

Or a caring, thoughtful face?

[porphyrian]

76. I want it to be a true face. If people don't like it, they probably...

...don't belong. The kiddie pool is somewhere else.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

23. I've gotten used to the anti-religion posts

by atheists, who seem to like to post them on the Religion/Theology forum instead of in their own Atheist/Agnostic group. I try to be polite to them, and to anyone whose ideas are different than mine. I think the key is not to fight over differences but to work together to fight Bushco. Each person has a credibility and slant on things that can only help our cause. If a Christian posts here with some ideas of how to convince Christians who voted for Bush to see the light, I'm going to listen to their arguments, for they are far more likely to win over that segment than an atheist or a Muslim would. Same thing with gun owners (I have no problem with gun ownership personally, btw). And I know that talking with people here who don't like abortion, I've been able to rework my arguments so that the concept of choice rings loud and clear-and those people have kindly been a sounding board for me to tell me if my arguments are making them change their thinking a bit. Far better this be done in this setting with a friendly DUer who knows that though we are different we are all working together to find ways to convince others to see the light and vote Democratic this November.

[riderinthestorm]

32. So most atheists aren't "out there" on the big boards according to you.

The "big discussion forums" defined as GD, GD Pol, LBN etc. (not my definition by the way, DU's own definition).

So the OP can rest assured that anyone who is interested primarily in religion and/or the lack thereof, isn't in the mainstream of a big forum like DU.

Which means her concerns are even more minor in the broad scheme of things "Democratic".....

[pnwmom]

68. Ah! The Voice of Reason. Thank you.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

27. We're having trouble keeping from each others' throats as it is....

...What about all of the people that are dying or being maimed in Iraq?

What about the country's slide into fascism?

What about the failing U. S. economy?

What about the thousands of people who have never received an ounce of help after having their lives turned upside down by Katrina?

What about the 50 million Americans that no longer have healthcare coverage?

What about the millions of Africans that are starving to death, or dying from AIDS?

What about the impact of global warming, a dynamic, accelerating situation that may result in the deaths of billions of people worldwide?

And you're more concerned about "aggressively anti-Christian posts on DU"?

I could go on, but I'm afraid that my usually well-controlled blood pressure will shoot explosively out through the top of my head.

[pnwmom]

75. But that's exactly my point. When we face so many HUGE

awful issues, when the whole country is at risk, shouldn't we be seeking common ground with as many allies as possible even if they are (horrors!) people who are strongly motivated by their religious beliefs?

[AnnInLa]

29. I find that the "big tent" is a fallacy

regarding DU and the puke party both. I consider myself a good, progressive Dem, but if one doesn't blindly agree with every DU talking-point, then you are attacked by some. Divergence of opinion is not well tolerated here. Posters here are expected to show blind loyalty to certain left-wing prominent figures, even if we disagree with them on some point. There are some threads in which I refuse to participate because I don't like the aggressive way in which people disagree with you, implying that you are disloyal to "the cause." The other night, in some of the Randi Rhodes threads, I wanted to post this, but did not: "Who are you? The Thought Police? I have a right to my own opinions, and my opinions are just as valuable as yours are. We always accuse the bush-bots with walking, talking and thinking in lock-step, but we do the very same thing on this board." But, I didn't post that, I just thought it.

All that being said, this is the site at which I feel most comfortable, because most posters do show respect and tolerance for the opinions of others. The few that do not are not true Dems, IMHO. Their fascist tendencies are just as obvious as the freepers' are. Again, IMHO.

[The Jacobin]

41. Well, If you must know,

I am a gun-owning, mass-attending, mostly-anti-choice Democrat who is so BECAUSE of my religious beliefs.

[pnwmom]

77. And I'm sure there are a lot of other mass-attending democrats

here. And I hope you feel welcome.

[Jed Dilligan]

50. I don't know but I am fed up

with so-called "democrats" supporting border fences, cop shootings, and executions. I don't think the d in DU is "big-d" Democrat, the party. I think it's small-D democrat, the philosophy. People with authoritarian leanings are the antithesis of democratic and they don't belong here. Religious people I have no problem with, as long as they aren't authoritarian.

[The Jacobin]

60. Nope. It's Big D Democrat

Read the Rules:

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

[Jed Dilligan]

67. Well, I've never considered myself a Democrat

because I'm not rich, but I've never voted for any other party. Wonder where that leaves me?

[pnwmom]

79. Then you're one of the people who helped put Bush in office.

Alas.

Where did you ever get the idea that you need to be rich to be a Democrat?

[Jed Dilligan]

84. I had no effect on election 2000

geographically disenfranchised (Dem voter in CA).

I think the political system is a tool of the rich and identifying with its insiders would make me a deluded oaf. The Democrats don't want a better life for me, they are just less likely to destroy what life I have.

[charlie]

88. Help put Bush in office?

Though he's always voted Democrat? You need to dial it down, he did no such thing.

[readmoreoften]

158. what nerve you have...

saying that someone who has always voted democrat helped put Bush in office? why? because he doesn't call himself a democrat, per se. what nerve!

[pnwmom]

194. I apologize for my mistake. After reading the subject line

I missed a key word reading the post too quickly and thought s/he had written of never voting for a Democrat.

[pnwmom]

72. Have you seen many people with authoritarian leanings on

DU? I can't recall any. Ever.

And you're right, they don't belong here. That should be the limit of our "big tent."

[Jed Dilligan]

81. When a high-profile execution is coming up, or

when a cop shoots some mentally ill person for brandishing a plastic fork, or now with the rounding-up-Mexicans thing, they show themselves. Maybe it's not even one in ten. But the voice of authority is here and it's ugly.

[sandyd921]

86. Like a lot of people here

I am sick and tired and also frightened of the attacks on separation of church and state and the creeping theocracy that is unfolding in this country. Would I respond with open arms to someone who advocates ideas of that ilk? No, absolutely not! Do I welcome Christians and those of other faiths who also believe in true progressive values? Yes, absolutely!

[ContraBass Black]

91. DU Is little more friendly to anyone in particular than the general public

That's life.

[lonestarnot]

108. Get out... no one is going to flame a Christian here. Thicken up. Warn

him/her to get some skin. Stand up for what you believe. I'm a Christian. Nobody is gona bother me.

[IChing]

110. Well I joined after going to a re-education camp

Since I was once a Republican religious Right Bush supporter
But I am abandoning that sinking ship but still have delusions of grandeur of world conquest
and
am feeling better about myself because others are less fortunate
than me because they have not found religion, or at least mine.
that feeling the democratic party has not replaced
although now I realize
that I need my fellow man, but "respect is something that must be earned".

I am still educating myself at DU:
Welcome to the big tent of humanity.




sarcasm:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

111. when a majority claims discrimination its ALWAYS laughable

if you arent sure about abortion dont have one... but who are you to make decisions about my body?

its not my job to welcome people...its their job to vote with common sense and logic..if they cant deal with people who dont think exactly like them its their problem..if a few cracks at fundies get you all bristled...i think its your issue not mine....

[pnwmom]

121. The issue isn't my being "bristled." The issue is whether

we want to make Christians -- who make up a very sizable percent of the population -- feel welcome in the party. Or, by our conduct here, do we want to send them away?

[Bluebear]

126. I will make them a nice "Welcome cake" & festoon the place with streamers

But I will not cede my stance on same sex marriage, school vouchers, a woman's right to choose, etc.

[pnwmom]

183. I never asked you to. I merely asked for more civility.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

242. i think most christians understand when we are talking about fundies

and when we arent....besides why do christians get to make up rules about my body? i am not christian.

[philosophie_en_rose]

170. Exactly! This thread is laughable.

The Majority that controls everything and (with some great exceptions such as Quakers) has a bloody and oppressive history towards minorities of all stripes can hardly expect reassurance from those minorities.

[trotsky]

221. But... but... but...

You see, those Christians responsible for all that weren't really Christians. Oh, and neither are the current ones that are out bashing gays, minorities, or pretty much anyone not like themselves. They're not Christians either. So you see, you can trust Christians. Just the real ones. And it's really, really easy to identify the real ones, because they only do nice things. See? :sarcasm:

[Warren DeMontague]

288. Naw, it was "laughable" the first fifty or hundred times it was done.

Now it's just a tired fucking cliche.

[SammyWinstonJack]

113. I think religion sucks but to each his own. Go for it, just don't' try

to shove your religious beliefs down my throat. Live and let live on every/any issue.

[mikelewis]

118. When they scourge you in this Democratic Temple, let your Father speak...

There are a lot of people on this board who do not believe in Christ as our Savior and some who do not believe he existed at all. There's some who believe in God and others who believe the very concept of God is just a figment of our imaginations. This does not make them any less of a Democrat or lessen their necessary input. We are taught that God is Love and here on this board, there is Love; Love of country, Love of the Earth and Love of our fellow Man.

When Jesus was here, it was people like the ones found on this site that he sought out. Jesus ate among sinners and tax collectors because the wounds of their life hadn't hardened into a rigid philosophy.

"People do not put new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise the skins burst, the wine spills out, and the skins are ruined. Rather, they pour new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved."

Jesus is alive here even if the people who speak his message don't believe in him. His spirit is the wine and the skin is the minds of those who come here seeking truth, goodness and life. Where would you turn, if not for here? Would you turn to the Republicans or the Corporate Churches? Jesus' message shatters their rigidity. Even if they should see the light; they are no good to us broken and dispirited. They are the hypocrites and apostates, not the lost sheep. Those who follow Jesus in deed if not in word or spirit are like the wheat among the weeds.

But you must also realize that because the power of Jesus is coveted, evil souls have corrupted the Church to suit their own ends. Many who would turn to God are instead turned away by the voices of Legion. They become embittered and hostile toward "people of faith" because they can plainly see the hypocrisy and corruption that runs rampant in the Corporate Church. And who can blame them? The Corporate Church loves money, despises honesty, rewards wickedness and lends itself to corruption. Looking at our Corporate Churches, why would anyone want to tolerate Christianity; let alone seek the truth behind the deceptions?

But here, among these sinners and nonbelievers, the love of truth, the love of righteousness and the love of all mankind is not only tolerated, it's held in the highest esteem. Everything Jesus stood for and believed in seems to bubble up from the free souls here, regardless of whether or not the original poster even knows who Jesus is.

Christ needs no defense against ignorance and hatred so I try and refrain from viewing attacks on my personal issues as an attack on Christianity. Anti-Christian posts are rarely derogatory toward Jesus and those few threads are reliably removed. Anti-Christian posts are usually leveled at the Corporate Churches or the Republican Hypocrites and I tend to agree with most of them. I understand the frustration and anger people have but they seldom make distinction between Christianity and the Christian Corporations. But when I point this out, I try to reply as I was instructed...

"Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves. But beware of people, for they will hand you over to courts and scourge you in their synagogues, and you will be led before governors and kings for my sake as a witness before them and the pagans. When they hand you over, do not worry about how you are to speak or what you are to say. You will be given at that moment what you are to say. For it will not be you who speak but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you."

When someone lashes out at you or the church, fight back if you want and defend your position as best you can. But always bear in mind, when speaking of Christ, you have a duty to be tolerant, you have a duty to be respectful (even in the face of disrespect) and you have a duty to try and represent Christ as he is, not as the Corporate Church paints him. You must try and show them who Christ was and is and do it in a way that does not demand obedience but instead honors the greatness of our Lord.

If people are offended that I speak lovingly of my Lord and use the wisdom he has taught me to help lead me through a thought, that's their own tough luck. But more often then not, the wisdom of the Lord translates pretty well into modern political philosophy and his inspiration has helped me understand more than I ever could without him. Instead of growing frustrated that others mock your views, find the scripture that counters their claim and make it your own. Defend your position with the spirit of the scripture but don't quote, just write the scripture in your own words and you'll never lose a debate. But be careful, always let God speak through you and don't let pride lead you astray.

We need you in the Democratic party just as much as we need all others. Don't grow frustrated that others seem intolerant. Show them compassion when they are cruel. Show them mercy when they make mistakes. Show them humility when they are too proud. Show them Christ and the Mercy of God will lead the Democratic party.

[NMMNG]

120. Is it time for the non-Christians to STFU and go to their closets again?

Apparently so. We'll just join the gays, real pro-lifers, veg*ns, and everybody else who isn't allowed to speak around here for fear of "alienating the potential swing voter/new recruit".

[pnwmom]

122. It's not WHAT it is said, it is HOW it is said.

Just leave out the insults, please.

[NMMNG]

123. The same could be said of posts from "the other side"

Yet all we ever get is sniping about "anti Christian" posts. People post claims that non-believers are "swine" and "mentally challenged", yet we are the ones accused of being insulting.

Amusing.

[pnwmom]

125. I haven't seen those posts, but I would object to them if

I ever did.

[NMMNG]

127. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=64719#64933

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=68103#68105

There is one person in particular who takes great delight in telling atheists that they are immoral, unethical and "stand for nothing" (e.g., nothing good) in every post he makes (and he makes plenty). However DU rules prohibit me from "calling him out".


So yes, believers do their fair share of trouncing on us.

[pnwmom]

177. Looking at those posts in context, I think both sides were

over the top.

[Occulus]

129. Okay- FINE.

As a gay man, christians often make me cry, or want to. I don't remember any other religion supporting the MI amendment that makes it illegal for me to get married to someone I actually love, and I don't recall EVER hearing about American Muslims, Bhuddists, Jews, Wiccans, or in fact any other recognized faith except YOUR ********************CHOSEN******************** religion beating up and/or killing people like me just because we're gay.

Other religions, in my readings and my experience, DO NOT DO TO GAYS what yours does. That, in the end, is the line in the sand: will you beat me up and/or kill me because YOUR ************************CHOSEN************************ religion condemns people like me?

If not, are you still putting money in that (completely silly) "collection plate"? BEcause, if you are, you hate me, and it really IS just that simple from where I sit.

I was going to let this go with the first sentence, and leave it at that... but I can't, I just can't. christians (sic) are part of MY problem. You people are a BIG part of why my life in this state is miserable. I take no shame at all in saying that, because it happens to be TRUE. I couldn't pursue my dream of being a high school music director even if I still wanted to or had the means to get the degree because one of YOU might find out I'm gay and push to fire me, OR WORSE.

SHAME ON YOU. I'll insult you if I damn well please. I deserve at LEAST that privelege.

Or are you going to take THAT away too?

[Bluebear]

130. When he's right, he's right.

:hug:

[Occulus]

134. A broken clock....

(edited to add... the "you" here is used as a collective term.)

Look... I know quite a bit of what I have to say isn't received well here. Often, a lot of what I have to say gets me flamed. I'm sure I'm ignored by more than one poster.

But damn, damn, dammitall..... I should write a book. Really. I did everything right, by the book, took responsibility, got good grades, showed I had talent, yadda yadda yadda..... and NONE of the "good things" I did counted. None of it held water, at all.

The bucket might as well have no bottom at this point. The water just... falls through.

I've known FAR too many christians who will spout Jesus in one moment and flame gays in the next to believe or trust in anything they- as a RELIGION, not as a sect- say. Hey, christians- all your sects worship from the same book. Keep that in mind the next time you say it's just something associated with the sect.

It's not like each sect has its own book, you know. You all use the bible.

Again, SIC.

I'm NOT acting against your god when I say this, by the way. I feel I have an understanding of the Creator that transcends your entire religion.

Go study a blade of grass, and get back to me. That blade of grass contains more truth than your bible and every exposition upon it that was ever written.

Put that in your censers and smoke it.

[NMMNG]

132. Shhhh

We don't want to scare any Christians away, do we? :sarcasm:




:hug:

[Occulus]

136. Actually, I don't

What I'd like them to acknowledge is that their bible was written by men who had an incomplete and superstitious understanding of the world around them. I'd like them to acknowledge that the image of god in the bible is NOT the god that exists- their god is quite simply put an oversimplification that almost completely obscures the truth.

They MUST do this; simple, human minds require a simple, human god. It has always been thus, and will always be.

[NMMNG]

137. Indeed

I'd just like them (as you touched upon above) to stop falling back on the "not a real Christian" excuse every time a Christian/branch of Christianity does something distasteful. It's disingenuous and cowardly. As you said, they get their instructions from the same book. They worship the same father, son and holy ghost. Therefore they cannot rightfully disclaim an individual or group just to squelch the guilt they may feel when said person(s) commit atrocities in the name of the religion. The old excuse of "they did it because they took things out of context" wore thin long ago. (Apparently when somebody does good it's because they read the Bible properly, but when they do ill it's because they "took things out of context". :eyes:)

[pnwmom]

179. I'm not going to take personal responsibility for every wrong

another person does -- such as Bush -- in the name of Christ, any more than I expect you to accept blame for every wrong another atheist does.

Sick people use whatever excuse at at hand. "God made me do it" "My mother made me do it." Whatever.

[NMMNG]

275. I'm not asking you to take responsibility

I'm merely saying Christians can no longer use the "not a real Christian" dodge when someone does something evil in the name of Christianity. It is cowardly and dishonest.

And if somebody does something evil in the name of Atheism I will never disown them as an atheist.

[Random_Australian]

153. An excellent post. A sad society in which to live.

Though there is little chance with the fundies trying to take over, I hope you & yours find happiness some day.



Probably the day after people start listening to those they don't have to listen to. People like you.

For now, a hug. (Hugs not medals for bravery, wish I had an 'acceptance' smiley ;))

:hug:

[pnwmom]

178. My religion doesn't promote beating up or killing people

who are gay. As a matter of fact, the pastor in my father's church is gay and so is my father.

It's awfully easy to make presumptions about people, isn't it?

[Warren DeMontague]

145. Always!

You know, if you're not part of the problem, you're not part of the solution!

Or something.

[Skittles]

135. I am sick of whining Christians

good lord, if their faith cannot stand criticism how much faith can they actually have?

[Warren DeMontague]

144. You don't understand how hard it is being the vast majority

constantly picked on by people who occasionally have the nerve to publicly say hateful, bigoted things like "I don't believe in your God."

[Skittles]

154. you know it, id

I'm constantly being told I have to "respect their faith" - where is their respect for my right to criticize when it is clearly warranted???

[pnwmom]

180. And you apparently don't understand how hard it is for

many Christians to hear Bush claim Christianity as the basis for his actions.

[Warren DeMontague]

255. And that is the fault of Atheists on DU...

...how?

Sorry, but that has diddly to do with what your thread is obstensibly about.

[arwalden]

202. You See... It's Like This...

[Warren DeMontague]

256. Yep.

Shaddapangettothebackofthebus!

You're -gasp- alienating those vast herds of fundamentalist Value Voters roaming the great plains, who would (they would! they would!) only Vote Democrat if we didn't have so many pesky atheists, gays, pro-choicers, yadda, yadda, yadda

[mortlefaucheur]

146. No One's Said It Like That until Now...

For Fuck's Sake, Me too.

[mortlefaucheur]

138. I read your question, I'm new...

and I'll just jump right in.
Yeah.
The DJIA and NASDAQ are both down.
How can the Chimperor's MurKKKa be further isolated?
Any and all tips welcome.

[Binka]

164. Welcome To DU

I love a newbie who makes a splash in the pool. :toast:

[rman]

139. Just don't expect us to change every single issue to fit your preferences

(not you specifically, but anyone who wants to join DU because he/she feels they share Dem ideals)

[Warren DeMontague]

143. "all the aggressively anti-Christian posts on DU"

:eyes: :boring: :nopity:

[Random_Australian]

151. What? Someone chuck me a few examples, then I'll decide.

[GirlinContempt]

287. .....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=5160631&mesg_id=5160834

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1187564

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=4564542#4564543

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=4564542&mesg_id=4567085

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=4523629&mesg_id=4523640

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=4269836&mesg_id=4270909

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=4269836&mesg_id=4270925

[tlsmith1963]

166. It Depends

If the person is a Christian but doesn't have weird views like Pat Robertson, then they are okay.

Tammy

[Puglover]

167. It would seem to me that as a Christian

you should be more concerned with the "Christians" that are currently giving your religion such a bad rap and a bad name with many. If the majority of Christians that are in the news and the government showed Christ like values in their words and deeds I doubt you'd see any denigration of Christians at all.

[pnwmom]

181. I AM concerned about the way people like Bush are

wrapping themselves in the cloth of Christianity. AND I think the best way to fight the Bush-Christians is to welcome progressive Christians here -- rather than telling them that all Christians are the same.

[Puglover]

240. Give me a break. I call bullshit.

You and I both know progressive Christians are welcome at DU. To state otherwise is pure and simple crap.
As other posters have said, toughen up. There are Christian assholes, atheist assholes, gay assholes, guy assholes and gal assholes etc. etc. ad naseum. To think you are going to avoid them or change their behavior at DU or in life for that matter is silly and a waste of time IMHO.

[philosophie_en_rose]

169. Toughen up. If they can't stand to debate their position, they should go.

Your post is wrong on so many levels.

1. DU is a discussion board, where people have varying views. No one has identical beliefs, and it's not up to someone with opposing views to hold someone else's hand and make them feel good about their beliefs.

2. Pro-choice means that it's your choice. If someone disagrees with you on abortion, that does not mean that they're anti-Christian. It means that they expect you to stay out of women's uterii. You're free to believe what you want. And, by all means, never have an abortion. Discourage others from doing so, but the government needs to stay out of it.

3. You make the same argument that certain people make about "minorities." (I'm not calling you a racist! The logic is just similar). Basically: if you expect to be successful, you need to be a sycophant to ingratiate yourself --- even though they are the ones that need to change.

If you think that people are anti-Christian, why not debate those actual posts instead of posting such an accusatory thread? Do you think that calling DUers anti-Christian will help YOUR "larger cause"? :eyes:

[mdmc]

172. if they follow the rules here, they will be cool

I post here, at fr, and pi. I know that here it is party uber alles. At PI, you are welcome to voice your personal opinions, even if they are at odds with the DNC or DLC, at fr I only discuss my faith in God and how the actions of this administration concern me as a man of God.

So, in your OP, if that poster talked about the civil rights movement or poverty reduction, they would be welcome on DU. If they talk about how immoral Roe v. Wade is, they will be flamed. It is not enough to be civil, you also will need proper content (so discussion on the reductions of abortions would be okay here...a call to overturn Roe would not be).

[pnwmom]

182. It's really more the incidental slaps at religion that

I'm talking about, the gratuitous slaps that occur in the midst of a discussion on a political issue.

[mdmc]

189. As a liberal person of faith, that should inspire compassion

not fear, hatred, or anger.

My sig line contains a story about trying to save my local Catholic Church. I have asked for the help of DU'ers in this effort. Some people pm or post stating that the Catholic Church is a hateful institution, and that they would never support the church unless the church allows the use of condoms and women as priests. I fully understand their concerns.

We are all mortal, we will all pass. There are great mysteries that are unknown. Religion is not the end all of these discussions.

Instead of feeling "slapped", the faithful should reflect on the causes of these 'slaps'. In my case, the church is wrong on abortion, gay rights, birth control, the role of women, and divorce. A DU'er should have a problem with this dogma.

Bottom line, Bob Jones University is evil. Don't take it as a slap. It is just an opinion. I may be wrong.

[Bridget Burke]

174. You see a fairly wide range of ideas at DU.

The most virulent "anti-Christians" are working through childhood or adolescent issues. I consider myself Agnostic/Atheist & want 100% Church/State separation. But religion can have positive results as well as the all-too-familiar negatives.

When someone's first thread at DU emphasizes beliefs that they do NOT share with most Democrats--I do stop to wonder. Better they should first let us know what they share with us.

[El Fuego]

186. Remember the repugs and BLOWJOBS and Clinton?

They had all this self-righteous outrage that their precious tots were learning about oral sex from the TV news.

Where's their outrage now, when actual beheadings can be viewed by their kids on the Internet, thanks to bush and his war?

[ContraBass Black]

187. What has that to do with this?

:shrug:

[El Fuego]

191. Not much to do with National Geographic.

Just a comment on people's attitudes about what their children see in the media.

[ContraBass Black]

192. Is this supposed to be in the "I'm not thinking of the children" thread?

This is the "Some of you are mean to Christians" thread.

[El Fuego]

219. OMG! I posted in the wrong thread! Sorry.

:blush:

I'm an idiot! I can't do anything right today! :banghead:

[seg4527]

188. people also get shit if they are too "radical'

i wish people would keep that in mind when criticizing DUers. there have been so many people who have left for getting criticized for being too "radical".

right after the primary's and before the election there was a mass exodux of "leftists". although there are obviously lots of more radical folk still here, we did lose a lot. i like the big tent, and think all progressives, leftists, and democrats should be welcome here. but people tend to ignore the other side.

don't even try to bring up the palestine/israel situatoin. that is the elephant in the room, or however the saying goes. idon't have strong feelings on this issue,but havebeen ganged up on just for posting a round up of a pro-palestine civil disobedience that i went because i wanted to observe CD for the first time.

it's better just to keep your mouth shut about a lot of issues, both if you're too far left and not left enough, and that's really sad. some times this place seems like it wants more "group think" than honest discussion.

all that being said, it is still a good place.

[arwalden]

201. Oh Ricky-y-y-y-y-y-y!

[LynneSin]

203. It's a big tent and I'll even share it with Joe Lieberman

Seriously, there is one person who has the political ideologies that matches mine 100% and that is ME

Everyone else is a compromise.

You can post the name of any democrat out there from the extreme far left to the bush-ass-kissing right and I'll tell you things that I like and dislike about each person.

I have to take what is important to me and weigh all issues carefully and right now my highest priority is getting a democratic congress which means I'll compromise a bit in order to get the majority & chairs of important committees.

Right here, right now - if every democrat opposed the war and wanted to impeach the president - absolutely NOTHING would happen or change. We need a majority

[Strong Atheist]

206. Christianity is singled out because it is

OVERWHELMINGLY the majority religion in this country, and is being used to control the culture and laws by those in power for most of the last 26 years. If another religion were the major power, and was being used to deny women choices, stigmatize GLTB people/prevent them from marrying, and was oppressing atheists/agnostics/wiccans/other minority believers; then it would be receiving the heat on this board from all those so oppressed, and deservedly. With overwhelming power, comes justified criticism for the oppression that seems to come with it...

[redqueen]

212. Great post.

Considering that the religion bashing is against the rules, and the posts are deleted if alerted on... I say this thread is nothing but baseless flamebait and should be locked.

[slackmaster]

210. The term is Big Tent and I think most of us are accepting of others

The term was coined by Republican strategist Lee Atwater who was a genius, and a fine musician to boot.

...And let's suppose a Southern Baptist comes here who was active in the civil rights marches in the 60's and was back in the trenches after Katrina -- but who believes in the Bible and isn't sure what s/he thinks about abortion....

That's a non-problem for me because I believe, strongly, that it is not only possible but imperative for people to maintain a set of personal values that are separate and distinct from political positions. There is no inconsistency IMO for a person to believe that abortion is wrong and to live his or her life accordingly, while allowing others to make the decision for themselves. Rather than adopting the far right authoritarian view that abortion should be banned, a traditional liberal/libertarian Democrat who is a Christian should allow others to make their own private decisions and let the consequences be handled by God.

...I'm tired of seeing all the aggressively anti-Christian posts on DU, and I wonder how people can think that is helpful to the larger cause.

I believe the anti-Christian statements are coming from people who feel either as individuals or as members of one group or another that they have been burned by Christianity in general or by their Christan parents or some other individuals who had authority over them. They're in the discussion for revenge, not really in an honest effort to make things better.

[pnwmom]

215. Here in Seattle, it's the Big Umbrella.

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

[arwalden]

230. Bumbershoot!

:hi:

[pnwmom]

233. Yes, it's almost here! Might have to bring my parasol, however.

Based on this ridiculously sunny weather lately.

211. Why can't we just get along?

They ask: Why can't we just get along

We ask: Which side are you on?

This was a sticky note - I love it!!


Also I would say if something is wrong and needs to be changed, because it is hurting someone, then it doesn't matter how many people are on either side. Social conformism allows for a lot of repressive, nasty stuff to keep reproducing itself for generations.

213. Also I find that term "believer" is a superiority term

people say it, like they are the "in" crowd. We all are believers in something or other. I think it matters what you actually do with your beliefs, and I think Jesus would agree. Going around saying "I am a believer", doesn't say anything about if you actually practice what you "believe".

[Greyhound]

216. Depends on what you define as "the larger cause"

If electing Democrats in the hope that they'll be able to mitigate some of the damage that has been done to our country, thanks in no small part to the "Christians", then no it isn't.

If, OTOH, the larger cause is to expose "religion", as it is and has been practiced for the last several thousand years, as the utter fraud that it is, then yes it is helpful.

[pnwmom]

229. Well, this is the "Democratic Underground" not the religion

underground, so I think the larger cause is to help elect Democrats, for the reasons you state.

[BlooInBloo]

223. I'm with ya!! God bless those poor oppressed CHRISTIANS!!!

Because it isn't enough that they control every political lever in this country. It isn't enough that it's impossible to get elected to public office without being christian. NOTHING is enough!

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

[XemaSab]

234. You're absolutely right

This should be a big tent, and people who are down on Christians should ask themselves why it's okay to rip on Christians but not Jews, Moslems, or members of other faiths.

[mdmc]

236. I've never seen this christian bashing here at DU

have you?:patriot:

[Douglas Carpenter]

237. so-called progressives who are hostile to the religious are enemies of the

progressive cause.

In a society where 94% of the population believes in God/80% are certain and only 1% are convinced atheist it is ludicrous to imagine that a progressive majority can be built without the support of lots and lots of religious people. See Gallup poll:http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001659292

Furthermore, many progressive Christian groups are decidedly on the progressive/left end of the political spectrum. This is the reality.
Religion may not be my thing. But that's beside the point. The abolition movement, the civil rights movement, the peace movement and almost every other movement for social change in American history could never ever have gotten off the ground without their help:

Again I hope that progressive religious people always feel welcome here on DU. the progressive movement and the Democratic Party.

BTW I am a secularist and no one who knows me can accuse me of being the least bit religious in any way, shape or form.

Websites:

Sojourners Movement:

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm

The Christian Alliance:

http://www.christianalliance.org

The American Friends Service Committee

http://www.afsc.org/

The Catholic Workers Movement:

http://www.catholicworker.com/

Catholic Democrats:

http://www.catholicdemocrats.net/

[riderinthestorm]

249. In your opinion, is DU hostile to religious people?

Does Skinner and the other mods allow it?

I really want to know what level of hostility you believe the religious encounter on DU. With more than 94% of the population believing in God, and only 1% as atheists, do you believe that DU is just a hotbed of atheist progressives?

I'm not trying to be snarky, just trying to figure out your post.

[Douglas Carpenter]

258. no certainly not most and certainly the DU Admin discourage it

but I have seen it unfortunately. Fortunately I have not seen very much of it lately. But it does indeed appear from time to time.

It is simply a matter of political necessity if one is the least bit serious about building a progressive majority to make religious people feel welcomed.

There is no doubt that the incorrect and unfortunate perception that there is something anti-Christian about progressive politics causes enormous harm to the cause and empowers the right-wing who of course cease on every available opportunity to nurture that perceptions. If this perception cannot be eliminated or at least reduced, right-wing domination is guaranteed forever.

[riderinthestorm]

263. If it only appears from "time to time", and the mods are on it

I really just don't get why this is a "big" issue. I really don't.

There are literally THOUSANDS of religious people on DU. The VAST majority of DU participants are religious. Our Dem leaders (virtually shame themselves) proclaim their religiosity over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over... ad nauseum.

If "religious" folks cannot see the anti-Christian values the repukes are putting out there, and the Dem leaders' values and religiousity, then I'm just not sure there is anything we can do.

And a few posts/threads from "time to time" that MAY be interpreted as 'offensive' won't change a damn thing.

Have you checked out the post in the R/T forum that sparked this? It's a statement about Jesus as a historical figure. The OP gives a few concrete (historical) examples of why he/she believes Jesus is fictional and lets the debate rip. And this is ostensibly so offensive to Christians that us non-believers should just shut up? It's beyond bizarre and moving right on into shoving non-believers off the bus. Talk about the "big umbrella"!

Just for the record if I don't respond, I am on a slow dial-up (I'm a farmer in a rural area), and the thread is getting pretty unwieldy for me to open - it's taking a long time, and I crashed once already trying to open this to respond to you. I'll try again to get on later but just wanted to know you come across as a gentle soul with a wonderful perspective. It's been nice talking with you. Peace!

[patricia92243]

264. I'm a VERY conservative Christian, and nobody has ever said anything

hateful to me. I feel free to post anything I want to.

[Gregorian]

265. And you're on DU. That is so cool!

I would rather include, and get along, than exclude and be at odds.


It isn't easy. But the alternative is not desireable.

[democrank]

266. DU is a giant, jumbo umbrella and I love it.

Little of this, little of that, whole bunch of something else. DU is a slice of our society...some brilliant ones, some funny ones, some mean ones, some lofty ones, some down-and-dirty ones.

I couldn`t care less if a person claims to be a Christian, an atheist or an alien fresh off a spacemobile. What I care about are their actions, which reveal the most about what and who a person really is.

I don`t want to see anyone demeaned because of their religious beliefs. On the other hand, I don`t like to see some people use their claim to Christianity as a classifying wedge.

[Solon]

272. Would you like some Croissants with that Whine?

:nopity:

[BreweryYardRat]

279. I'm on your side here.

This "religion is fake, religion is worthless, Christians control everything, Christians suck, I'm superior because I'm an atheist" crap that shows up in any remotely religion-related thread, generally from a very small, very vocal group, is insulting.

Folks, here's a little list:

1: Those many, many people in public offices who claim to be Christians, and act in completely un-Christian ways (persecuting gay/atheist people, screwing the poor over to benefit the rich, etc...) are not really Christians. Call them hypocrites. Call them false prophets. Just don't assume they represent the true face of Christianity.

Additionally, a lot of people in this country claim to be Christians, but they aren't necessarily so, just blind people following a false image of Jesus.

2: Religion is not fake or worthless. Everyone needs something to believe in, and there are plenty of times when it's helpful. Even most atheists tend to substitute faith in science for belief in some aspect of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, or the various gods of other religions.

3: I don't think I'm superior because I'm a Christian. I don't think my faith elevates me above those who don't believe as I do. I'm also willing to acknowledge the fact that organized Christianity has committed a lot of atrocities over the course of its history, generally through the manipulations of the type of people from point 1. How about some of the atheists on here-hopefully a minority of all atheists, just like people who think their flawed interpretation of Christianity does make them superior are a minority of all Christians-returning the favor?

A friend of mine said it best: "Believe whatever you want, just don't be a dick about it."

[Bluebear]

280. "I'm superior because I'm an atheist"

I have never seen that particular sentiment stated other than in threads like this; I DO love your quote though: 'Believe whatever you want, just don't be a dick about it.'

[rman]

283. Looks like an attempt to create a wedge issue,

an old wedge issue at that, and many attempts went before this one. It's one of several reoccurring themes on DU.

It is presented as though anti-religion sentiments are prevalent on DU - which it is not, as any DU poll on the matter will show, and as one will find if one looks objectively at the contents of threads on the subject of religion.

Which is not to say that there are no anti-religion posts at all on DU, but it is not the huge issue that some make it out to be.

[donheld]

286. Only if they share MY ideals

not yours, MINE! And yes on EVERY single issue :grr::sarcasm::silly:

[Mr_Spock]

296. Do you like brain-steaks?

Good, 'cause neither do I :rofl:

[bloom]

299. I think that

the anti-religious people can be just as annoying as the anti-atheist (or anti-any-religion-but-mine) people.

Some people seem to think that they are going to save the world by getting rid of all religion and mocking believers - the evangelical atheist wing (the Sam Harris followers).

I think the world is better off when people respect each other despite their beliefs.

But there is only so much that should be tolerated - and when you have fundys who want to turn the country into a theocracy - and shape public policy around their faith - that is going too far.