For Those Of You That Keep Defending Rightwing Fundamentalists

[ruggerson]

For the hundredth time, there is no moral equivalence between the "religious" rightwing and the groups they seek to oppress.

Sure, they have the constitutional right to speak out. Just as the Klu Klux Klan does.

But, that doesn't mean their views are morally equal to the views of the people who oppose them.

There are no gay groups seeking to pass constitutional amendments to prevent religious rightwing couples from having civil marriage rights.

There are no feminist groups who are seeking to push an agenda where religious rightwingers cannot fully participate in the workforce.

There are no medical right to privacy organizations that are advocating governmental control of how and when religious rightwingers die.

There are no gay and lesbian groups seeking to ban religious rightwingers from the armed forces of the United States.

There are no gay and lesbian groups seeking to pass legislation which would permit employers to fire religious rightwingers without cause.

Yet, the religious rightwingers do ALL OF THESE THINGS and more to groups they wish to marginalize and disenfranchise.

Their agenda is evil and wrong; they seek to OPPRESS people and stop them from fully participating in society.

They are the enemies of liberty.

Thus, opposing them is NOT the moral equivalent of what they are doing. This is not a zero sum game. There are NOT two legitimate sides to this question.

The religious right is seeking to destroy the lives of entire populations of human beings. The other side is merely seeking to not be destroyed.

The human beings who are fighting back against the religious right are fighting organized evil.

And fighting evil is not morally ambiguous.

[ClassWarrior]

1. Actually, the corporatists are the enemies of liberty and the fundies...

...are their tools. But who's counting?

NGU.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Useful idiots. (nt)

[NewJeffCT]

3. The "whackos" as Abramoff's buddy called them

the foot soldiers of the RW, or "whackos" as Michael Scanlon called them.

[FreedomAngel82]

27. It's only for money and power

Try to find the films "God in the White House" and "With God On Our Side." They show how the republicans use the religious voters for issues such as gay marriage and abortion just to gain votes and than they can turn around and blame the democrats/liberals and they fall for it hook, line and sinker each time.

[applegrove]

42. I concur. Slavery in the 1800s, Labour in the early 20th Century, Civil

Rights in the middle of the 20th Century - the religious were out in front & arm & arm with Liberals.

The wedge is a neocon one. And a GOP one.

To separate the devout from the Liberals.

[bloom]

110. Seems to me - there have always been liberal and authoritarian

Christians - at least in this country.

It was the Quakers leading the fight against slavery. Not the Baptist (or other) churches in the South - or even the North to begin with.

The "religious" are not categorically "out in front & arm & arm with Liberals" - although - there seem to be more and more Fundies who are more and more authoritarian - whose "God" is more and more like the "God of War" than anything else. ( P.S. I agree that the neocons are capitalizing on that and equating religious differences to political ones.).

[applegrove]

122. In my experience - the churches in the late 1800s were all intersted

in things like women's rights (that is how temperance started - men working in factories who for the first time had some coin and became alcoholics was a scurge - before alchoholism had a name and a few ways of treatment) and those were presbyterians and christians all around. In the USA - perhaps because of slavery - baptists may have been warped. But the religious were fighting on the fronts against poverty, child labour laws, for unions etc. They were.

There is an authoritarian arm. For sure. They were also on the front lines and dealing with the social issues. So yes - in the USA it was the quakers who protested slavery. Around the world - it was christians as well as liberals. You have to separate out the sickness (slavery) from the community. Churches only reflect the system they are a part of.

And if the righ wing now reflects neocons and the GOP agenda - it is because there is a sickness again. And only the radical independant churches - will fight against the evils. Abortion complicates it. Cause it is a sorry thing. And then gay is thrown in and not paying taxes (social services money will go to your churches). So there is a sickness again.

That was my point.

[bloom]

124. Most of the women involved in Women's rights

were either Quakers or Atheists...

"Stanton had an early introduction to the reform movements, including encounters as a young woman with fugitive slaves at the home of her cousin Gerrit Smith. It was at Smith's home that she also met her husband Henry Stanton. Soon after their marriage in 1840 they traveled to London, where Henry Stanton was a delegate to the World Anti-Slavery Convention. There she met Lucretia Mott, the Quaker teacher who served in many of the associated Temperance, Anti-Slavery, and Women's Rights organizations with which Stanton is associated. Denied her seat at the convention, as were all the women delegates, Mott discussed with Stanton the need for a convention on women's rights. The plan came to fruition when Mott again encountered Stanton in the summer of 1848 in the home of fellow Quaker Jane Hunt. After a month of missionary work on the Cattaraugus Reservation of the Seneca Nation, James and Lucretia Mott were attending the annual meeting of the Religious Society of Friends at Junius, near Seneca Falls, and staying at nearby Auburn with Lucretia Mott's sister, Martha Coffin Wright."

http://www.nps.gov/wori/ecs.htm

Elizabeth Cady Stanton also had her "Women's Bible" - she was pretty far left of the mainstream.

http://www.undelete.org/library/library0041-241.html

---

I don't mind denominations getting credit for what they actually accomplish. But most denominations go along with the mainstream - not really rocking the boat. And that is their history.

Just like now - the liberal Quaker denominations support gays in their churches (the conservatives - not so much), the Unitarians do, the United Church of Christ does. For many denominations the acceptance of gays is at least a huge source of controversy.

And then you have the American Family Association (and many fundies that support them) that are actively working against gays being recognized in society at all.

[applegrove]

125. I agree the gay thing is warped. Banking is allowed. The bible was

against it. The dark ages were the result.

But on the front lines - dealing with the homeless, orphans around the world. That still is and has always been often churches.

So to paint them all with the same brush - is not fair. This incarnation of xtianity is surely a mixture of neocon doctrine and wedging enough voters for the right.

Still - abortion is not a good thing. Morning after pill is fine. Cells die every day in our bodies. Abortion can very easily be used as a wedge. I understand.

In all places in the world - except for China - religion has its very important role to play. It is a human thing. And just because atheists or liberal humanists do not partake - they should not be demonized as they are by LaHaye. That is another wedge. To keep people from working together for a better world.

[Sparkman]

111. Good point. BUT, many fundies are central to R vs. W and Gay bigotry

and xenophobia. Are there any racists NOT claiming to be GOD's warriors?

[applegrove]

127. Yes - you would think religion itself would have a history of realizing

that lining up with power-mongers is the wrong thing. History tells them so. But then a whole pile of Americans of all people - seem to have forgotten it too.

People are stupid.

[chefgirl]

4. You nailed it.

I would add:

There are no groups seeking to prevent them from practicing their own religion the way they see fit, yet they are seeking to do that, however surreptitiously, to ALL other forms of religious worship, besides their version of Christianity, in this country and others.

-chef-

[radio4progressives]

10. It's the Christian Taliban afaic... or Christo Fascists.... NT

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. Talibornagains

[Peter Frank]

43. Talivangelists... n/t

[Freedom_from_Chains]

5. Been reading Sam Harris? EOM

[Nerdling]

6. Preach it yo!

Amen!!!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. You are right, of course

but to hear some of these people, you'd think that the foremost thing on every homosexual's mind is to destroy marriage, make everyone turn gay, and put golden calves into the sanctuary of every church. These people are so fearful and ignorant that they mix up homosexuality with pedophelia and God only knows what else.

I've always found it funny that I could never tell if someone was a homosexual unless someone else told me. I mean, I never have a clue, even if I go to the home of established partners. Now it would seem to me if homosexuals had this dark and ruthless agenda that the rw talks about, I wouldn't be able to get away with not knowing the sexual orientation of someone immediately. Could it be that the reason I don't is that I believe someone's private life is private and not any of my business?

[radio4progressives]

8. Fully Agree...

ruggerson and i have been in other battles, but this is one we are in agreement.

[Rhiannon12866]

9. And who among us is doing this?!!!

:shrug:

[ruggerson]

11. Well, right here for starters:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x78886#79244


and that sentiment rears its head here almost every day.

[rucky]

13. The first Amendment - ain't it a bitch!

that poster had a valid point that most certainly belongs here.

having said that, I think we need to make a case that fundie outrage is HATE speech. If we can tie their speech DIRECTLY into inciting conduct towards a specific group, then we can shut them down. They know that, too, and they've turned treading the line into an art form.

[ruggerson]

15. Uh, re read what I said

no one is saying they don't have a right to speak. It's liberals who honor the first amendment.

My point is that opposing hatemongers is NOT wrong or hateful. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, the only thing we should be intolerant of is intolerance. (I'm paraphrasing).

[Rhiannon12866]

24. And Jefferson was also the first to insist on the strict separation

of church and state. You're right, opposing the hatemongers should be at the top of our agenda. And the RW fundies blur, distort and oppose the truth.:-(

[hfojvt]

39. I hear the sound of me being called out

If I can be called out, then let the "hatemongers" I was opposing be called out too. To me a hatemonger is someone who says "Evil fuckwads one and all" "Exactly" (agreeing with the previous) "He's just a jerk" "a whole lot of other people who are sick and tired of their religious bigotry and dictatorial attitudes about morality." "why dont we ever picket these loons?" "This guy is an horses ass. How about go take all your fucking protestors down to a homeless shelter, or a soup kitchen." "McManus has too much time on his hands."

Opposing hatemongers is a great idea, but if you do it with your own hate, it begs the question, is the only way to stop a hatemonger by becoming one?

"There are plenty of reasons for fighting, but no reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God Almighty Himself hates with you, too. Where's evil? It's that large part of every man that wants to hate without limit, that wants to hate with God on its side." Kurt Vonnegut "Mother Night" re-read your OP and tell me you are not suggesting that we can hate fundies without reservation or limit.

"Go ahead and hate your neighbor, go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of heaven. JUSTIFY IT IN THE END ..." One Tin Soldier

[Warren DeMontague]

46. When my neighbor starts spouting off that it's a shame "unelected judges"

took mandatory Christian Prayers out of Public Schools...

uh, I start to get a little pissed off.

[hfojvt]

51. double standards are so cool

You may then be very happy if Alito gets confirmed and starts to make changes from his unelected lifetime sinecure. Whereas I feel that it is that very usurpation of democracy which requires him to be kept off the court.

Is getting pi$$ed off part of the scientific method? I prefer reason and logic myself, for sentimental reasons. Just nostalgic for my childhood when I wanted to be an astrophysicist.

[Bluebear]

54. "Is getting pi$$ed off part of the scientific method?"

You're glib, I will give you that.

[hfojvt]

65. inside joke

the ghost of arguments past, which I was responding to.

Given the connotations of the word glib, I do not think I will accept your gift. Personal attacks are not part of the scientific method either. :P My glibness, or lack thereof, is not the issue, unless somebody wants to start another thread calling me out for that.

Stick with the hypothesis. If I say "X is true" the statement that "It pi$$es me off when people say that" does not prove that X is false. Might as well say "You should say 'X is false' or I am going to hit you."
:hide:

[Bluebear]

66. More victim-speak

If someone called me glib I waould hardly say they "ATTACKED" me.

It's the same way some (emphasize SOME, read again SOME) people of faith take any criticism of another person of faith's action as a big "ATTACK" on their religion. It's dramatic but not often the reality.

[hfojvt]

69. glib

"ready and fluent, often thoughtlessly, superficially, insincerely so"

is this a compliment where you are from? Or are you using a meaning different from my dictionary?

criticism - the act of passing severe judgement; censure; faultfinding.

That is not an attack?

[Bluebear]

75. You don't think "attack" is a little melodramatic in this instance?

I know you enjoy semantics but I can't play thread spar with you anymore, it's really so fara afield of what is being discussed.

[hfojvt]

81. again, semantics sounds so empty and fake

instead of carefully straining for the truth. Anytime the discussion strays from the truth or falsehood of the ideas to personal characteristics, either good or bad, of the people making the arguments the discussion is going astray. However, I will graciously accept any compliments offered :evilgrin:

As for melodrama, I believe that I playfully laughed it off, instead of trying to make a federal case about it.

[Warren DeMontague]

70. And still, you don't answer the question.

You think it's 'curious' that mandatory school prayer was considered constitutional until the 1950s. You want other examples? Women, minorities and gay people are generally considered to have equal constitutional rights, at least in most aspects of modern life. That's according to the CONSTITUTION, although it's only relatively recently that our legal system has figured that out.

Likewise, it took over a century for our legal system to figure out that the Establishment clause meant you couldn't force people's kids to pray in public schools. That's not an indictment of the decision, that's a reflection on the slow learning curve for certain people in this country. I should hope that the constitution, brilliant a framework as it is, will continue to evolve in interpretations as the human race, and our society, does.

But, c'mon- lets cut to the chase. How do you FEEL about mandatory school prayer, especially since you keep complaining that it was 'undemocratically' (along with other things, like segregation) taken out of public schools?

[hfojvt]

77. those are bad examples

Women were given the right to vote first in Wyoming, legislatively. Other states followed, and finally an amendment was passed. Because of the southern states unwillingness to abide by the Democratic election of Lincoln, slavery had to be decided by war, but amendments, three, I believe, were passed giving blacks full citizenship rights. A lot of the equal protection for gays was passed legislatively as non discrimination based on sexual preference was written into law.

I could be wrong about all of that, since I am not a lawyer or legal scholar, but I am pretty sure about the amendments.

[kevinbgoode]

102. First , the Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until 1863

and Lincoln was on record as being in favor of preserving slavery in the South right up until that time. The Civil War, or, as they like to say in South Carolina, the "War of Northern Aggression" wasn't over the issue of slavery THERE - the political issue was state's rights and then the expansion of slavery to new states.

Gays do not have equal protection in most states - not even in employment or housing. In fact, the Right is categorically against even these initiatives, despite public opinion polls in favor of the legislation. Moreover, we don't "give" people rights - if they are citizens of this nation, they are supposed to be automatically endowed with equal rights.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. It's not a double standard.

The GUIDELINE isn't elections, it's the CONSTITUTION. If the majority of the people in this country, because of their religion or whatever, decide to pass an unconstitutional law, that doesn't make it okay.

And just because something 'was the norm' for most of our history does NOT make it constitutional.


But really, I'd like to know- just how do you feel about mandatory prayers in public schools?

Just wonderin', because AFAIK, you still haven't given a clear answer on that one.

[hfojvt]

76. I thought I had

If they came up for a vote I would vote against them. I think they are hypocritical and empty, about as useful as the Pledge of Allegiance.

The constitution established the process of deciding things by elections. The majority of people can pass an unconstitional law any time they want. They are called amendments. AFAIC 'being the norm' when the constition was written does make that norm constitional, or it should have been thrown out a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. That is what precedent means, which is how SCOTUS is supposed to be making their decisions. They can cheat a little, but they keep pushing the envelope.

[Warren DeMontague]

79. Well, you ought to be quite pleased with the "Strict constructionist" GOP

movement.

The "norm" two hundred years ago didn't include rights for women. minorities. Gays and lesbians weren't even on the radar.

Ridiculous that you would think two hundred year old interpretations of a document clearly written to grow and evolve with society should have such sway.

A couple more things- the threshold for amending the constitution is much higher than that for merely passing a law- and for good reason. And the first amendment, which you seem to have very little grasp of whatsoever, was put first for a good reason as well.

I'm glad you wouldn't 'vote' for mandatory school prayers, although your reasoning- "I find them hypocritical and empty" strikes me as a little odd.. Really, the fact that forcing religion on people's children, people who may not share the religion.. that doesn't bug you? Because that- not the 'hypocritical, empty' nature of the prayers- is what bugs me about the notion.

And I take it, prayers or no, you're still in favor of teaching so-called "Intelligent Design" in science classes?

[hfojvt]

84. I have no position on ID

I merely think that evolution and materialistic science are religions too (or metaphysical theories, of which religion is a subset, and many of our previous discussions have gone around and around on this.). I find it odd that evolution cannot seem to be defended. Instead ID, and the people supporting ID, everything about them, is attacked. I would not feel the need to do that if Pythagorus was attacked by the theory of "intelligent right angles". Rather I would get some chalk, or these days, a marker, make some drawings and do the math.

[Arugula Latte]

112. "Evolution" is a religion?

Wow.

Wow. Wow. Wow. Evolution IS DEFENDED all the time! Because fundies don't accept facts doesn't negate the truth of evolution.

Wow. I'm amazed you said that.

Are you sure you belong here?

[hfojvt]

118. what does it take to belong?

Unquestioning acceptance of some dogma?

Sometimes I feel like some kind of Carlos. Is there anything on which I will agree with a majority of DUers, or do I just post when I have something critical to say? Or am I in the conservative wing of this board, except on economic, working class issues which rarely get discussed.

Whatever else I may say in discussion that angers many other DUers, I am quite certain that I wrote this LTTE

"from October of 2000:

Dear Editor,

I notice with some dismay that all the letters I have read have been pro-Bush. Are no Gore supporters writing, or are no Gore supporters being printed? Let me at least write for Gore and see if it is printed or suppressed.
First, I will give 520 billion reasons not to vote for Bush. That is the amount of money that the top 1% gets from the Bush tax cut. The public needs this money much worse than the millionaires who 'earn' it. Four percent of that tax cut goes to the bottom forty percent, compared to 40% to the top 1%. Such an unequal distribution is not inevitable in an income tax cut, but a result of Bush's
desire to cut the top rates which most Americans don't pay. Only a cut at the bottom is for all taxpayers.
One of the pro-Bush letters mentioned "It's a Wonderful Life" which is also my favorite metaphor because the Republican party is the part that serves the Potters of this world and tilts the field even more in their favor. Gore promises to fight for the George Baileys and the Ernies and Berts, and I trust him far more than I trust Bush's 'compassion'.
Bush promises to end partisan bickering, and I believe that because his own party will run everything. Unless the Democrats filibuster and appoint special prosecutors (and they probably can't as a minority) the Republicans will compromise with the Democrats by allowing the Democrats to do what the Republicans want - help the rich people and the corporations make things that much harder for ordinary working people. Their Iowa platform includes abolishing the minimum wage doesn't it?
Gore proposes to use the imaginary surplus to reduce the debt and shore up social security which is surely a much more noble plan than using it to line the pockets of the wealthy. Surely Bush's tax cut is the last thing we should do if there is no surplus, and I still think that most of the surplus comes from Social Security and needs to be saved for my imaginary retirement.
I have mostly spoken against Bush instead of for Gore, but it is usually easier to be sure of what you do not want. A Bush presidency quite frankly scares me, whereas I am sure that Gore will be safe based on the last eight years. Eight years ago I did not see that much difference between Bush and Clinton, but now there is enough between Bush-2 and Gore to go with Gore."

and I wrote this one after the most recent election

"Headline says it all.

I saw the headline at my local store - "It's Over, Bush Wins". A fitting summary, but what is "it"? Is it western civilization? Is it the American experiment with democracy? Or is it just the hopes and dreams of people like me?
I hate to be negative and divisive, but that is how I feel. Unlike almost sixty million of my fellow Americans, I know enough about Bush's record to feel sadly confident that he will not prove me wrong."

and I now feel it is time to write another one saying "I TOLD YOU SO"

For those who may have felt that my statement that Bush's re-election meant the end of American Democracy. Well, we now have a President who lies about taxes, about war, and about almost every policy he promotes. He illegally spies on American citizens, endorses torture, and claims he can do all of this because of the "unitary powers" of the Presidency. This is from the same party which voted to impeach and convict President Clinton because he lied about sex.
When we have a serially dishonest President, which we do, and one who defies the law, who openly claims he is above the law, and who wants to prosecute those who would inform the public that he is violating the law. If this President is not held to account by Congress while he is allowed to stack the Supreme Court with partisan cronies, then it seems clear that American Democracy has received a serious wound. Unless the American public decides to hold them accountable in 2006 like we did with Nixon, then we no longer have a democracy. A President who does not uphold the law and the constitution is not a President. He is a dictator.

*********

There. How's that?

And let me just add parenthetically. Evolution is a religion. Neener, neener, neener. :evilgrin:

[Raster]

119. "Evolution is a religion." Really...?

[Warren DeMontague]

113. "evolution cannot seem to be defended"

That statement implies, again, a total lack of understanding of how science works. Evolution is 'defended' all the time- as well as updated, revised and examined according to new physical evidence (Like the DNA record of humans and other animals, which was unknown in Darwin's time. Wanna guess which "theory" it corroborrates 100%?)

What evolution doesn't NEED to do is 'defend' itself from the promulgators of ideas -like socalled "Intelligent Design"- which cannot compete, or even survive, on the playing field of actual science... and whose supporters, therefore, demand a wholesale redefinition of science (while spouting nonsense about how it, too, is a 'religion') and demand that THEIR 'special' ideas be given SPECIAL treatment.

[hfojvt]

117. again, evolution is not defended

To return to my analogy, you have not defended Pythagorus as I would, you have instead defended your Religion of Science, and you prove there is no such thing as a religion of science not by logic or evidence, but by fiat. So, you would prove Pythagorus to somebody not with a diagram and math, but by telling them "doubting Pythagorus implies a total lack of understanding of how math works, mathematicians defend this all the time based on evidence."

I guess I should accept it on faith then, just like you do. How dare I doubt the high priests of science?

That is my point. I have read thousands of words from defenders of evolution, but they never show any evidence. Instead they shrilly claim, "the evidence is there, the great and powerful SCIENCE has spoken, anybody who does not accept SCIENCE is an idiot or a lunatic."

Sorry, but I know enough about logic and math to know that you can test and re-test and make proofs within an alebra. Things are logically consistent within their own framework, but if the assumptions are never examined, or even admitted to exist, then you have not really proven anything except consistency. In my worldview, everything is open to examination, even the pre-suppositions of science. I have examined those pre-suppositions and found them wanting, and I also have observed, like a good little scientist, that they are accepted on faith by worshippers of science. Their existence is scoffed at or they are declared to be the best of all possible pre-suppositions because SCIENCE SAYS SO, TANJ IT!! and science gave us the electric shaver, the cell phone and the polio vaccine. It is a great and powerful god, not to be doubted :spank:

That is how learning works. People learn things like "evolution is a proven fact. It is scientific." And those become tenets of their personal faith, and yet these same people scoff at the faith of those who doubt it. When asked to "prove it" they can only point to the high priests of science, and scoff at the very concept of faith while at the same time taking the words of those high priests of science apparently on faith, and demanding that all others do the same. This implies a total lack of understanding of how proofs work.

[Arugula Latte]

120. That is such BS.

Evolution has been proven time and time again, and not by "scientific priests" -- by people who come from all types of religious and non-religious backgrounds examining concrete evidence, on many different levels, in many different countries, over many decades. Saying evolution can't be proven is like saying that "the Earth is round can't be proven." Just because you refuse to accept facts doesn't mean evolution can't be proven ... Boy. How pathetic. Such ignorance on DU makes my heart hurt.

How about this. A type of butterfly that was once predominantly white lived in a town in England that became industrialized. As soot settled over the town, the white butterflies resting against dark, soot-covered foliage were easy prey for birds. The butterflies that had slightly more dark pigmentation were left alone to reproduce. The offspring that had yet more dark pigmentation survived better than the rest. In time, natural selection favored all-dark butterflies, which became the norm. That is evolution at work. That is a documented occurence, with many witnesses, one among hundreds and thousands. If you don't call that evolution, what do you call it? ... Maybe you think the Magic Jesus Fairy waved his magic wand over the butterflies?

[Warren DeMontague]

123. Round and round and round we go.

You can say "science is a religion" until your face turns blue.

Sorry, Chum. That Don't make it so.

You can say "Atheism has killed far more people than religion"

Nope. Doesn't change the fact that, even for an ambiguously unprovable statement either way, it's still a flamin' pile of BS. If anything is true, it's the opposite of that statement.

I'm all for questioning everything.. I just find it a little specious to assert that, by questioning everything, we somehow arrive at a place where the experimentally verified truths of the past 500 years are all bogus, and -lo and behold!- the BIBLE had it right the whole time!

Wow, that's a really radical, outside-the-box line of thought you've just travelled, bub.

Merely QUESTIONING everything isn't enough. You have to accept the answers even when you don't want to hear them.

To believe 'science is a religion' you have to question things like physical evidence and logic. Well, that may be all well and good. But there ARE learnable truths about the world and reality, and the scientific framework is an excellent, inherently self-questioning system by which we can arrive at them. There are no "high priests" of science, because science -and scientific truths- are constantly under revision and examination.. but, you don't get that, apparently, and I've sure as shit got better things to do than keep explaining it to you. Want to doubt the scientific method and the underpinnings of logical thought? Be my guest. But you really shouldn't expect to trundle onto this board and have folks clap with glee when you suggest peddling those notions in the public school SCIENCE classes of other peoples' kids.

[ruggerson]

48. Those are words. On a political chat forum.

On the one hand we have a group of people (religious rightwingers) who try to amend our laws and use legal and legislative means to make entire classes of human beings into second class citizens.

On the other hand, we have people so angry at the bigotry of the first group, that they spout off and call them evil on a chat forum.

And you EQUATE THE TWO??????

You actually call both "hate" and in so doing assign them both the same moral equivalence????

You don't see the problem with that?

[hfojvt]

60. what is the tool of the hate monger

if not the written and spoken word?

Actually, religious rightwingers are not trying to amend our laws. What they are trying to do is to STOP judges from amending our laws. The laws forbidding same sex marriages are already on the books, have been for hundreds of years, just like laws forbidding sodomy, which were recently thrown out by SCOTUS.

Please note that I am not against that SCOTUS decision. Those laws should be thrown out. However, as I understand democracy, I am not the only person who gets to make that decision, nor is that decision made by a dictator, nor a committee of the ruling class. "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

I look forward to the day when an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman is soundly defeated by a large majority. Sadly and bizarrely, we are not there yet. Not even close. I do not think that our cause is advanced by calling the other side loons, fu#$wads, jerks, or even bigots, especially if such epithets are backed up by zero evidence.

The fundies think they are opposing evil, at least at the grass roots level (the spokespeople do not seem that sincere). If we spout words of hate, that doesn't really prove them wrong. All I asked was for some reason behind the vitriol, and I seemed to get a sliding justification - hatred in search of a reason, or they were hated for using the same tactics that progressives use.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. You, like the President, obviously don't understand the sep. of powers

The Judicial Branch is charged with determining the constitutionality of laws. That's how you get SCOTUS decisions like Lawrence, as well as the one throwing mandatory prayers out of public schools- you know, the one you keep whining about.

The Judicial branch is equally as important as the executive AND the legislative. That's the way it's set up.

[hfojvt]

67. I think I understand that

however, they are supposed to make their decisions based on laws that have been written, democratically approved - not write new ones. It just seems curious to me that prayer in public schools was constitutional in the 1930s, the 1940s, and most of the 1950s, and then suddenly it wasn't - without a single law or amendment being passed which created that change. Has that happened alot? Someone offered to cite other examples. Bring 'em on.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. See post #70. nt

[tkmorris]

85. This has happened often enough yes

I believe that the reason this has happened is not that a judge or group of judges suddenly decided to change what the Constitution means, thus making the Constitutional suddenly unconstitutional, but rather because the law as practiced has been unconstitutional all along in many cases.

For example, the Constitution declares that all men are created equal. Did the prevailing law throughout the land reflect this principle in the following 200 years? For the most part it did not. This should have been corrected immediately but was not, usually because the very powerful, and indeed often a simple majority, did not want it to be. Slavery was always unconstitutional in principle, it merely took 180 years to fully codify this into reality.

The right to free speech is declared in the first amendment but the ghost of Eugene Debs would laugh at you if you claimed that it has always been enforced as written.

The point is that many things which have always been "unconstitutional" have nonetheless been allowed to continue in practice until such time as the people governed became enlightened enough or empowered enough to force the actuality of society to more closely reflect the ideals embodied in the Constitution. The seperation of church and state is clearly one such, and thus the change in it's enforcement in the mid 20th century required no special amendments, simply the courage of the USSC to see that it was overdue.

[Charlie Brown]

90. that's the Dec of Independence

you make a good point, though.

[hfojvt]

93. why shoud SCOTUS decide 5-4 that something is overdue

rather than school boards and state legislatures?

Also, it is the Declaration of Independence which declares that all men are created equal, not the constitution, although I believe many state constitutions adopted that phrase.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

What it took in the 1950s was an increase in Federal power against the power of the States and School boards to manage their own schools.

[tkmorris]

97. Because it is

Look, just because something was widely practiced in the 1920's or whenever does not mean that it was constitutional. And yes, I recognize that was the Declaration I referred to, stupid error that, but not essential to the point. If you want a laugh, I will reveal that I have a copy of both within arms reach here at my desk and a decorative copy of the Declaration hanging on my wall above it. Somewhere.

States were always bound by the Constitution. The fact that such was not enforced does not mean they were in compliance. It is certainly true that there has been an increase in Federal power versus individual states power over the years but this is a good thing I believe. The Constitution should never have been optional, to be interpreted by states as they see fit.

[Bluerthanblue]

68. did I miss something?

Where did Hfojt whine about 'mandatory prayers' being thrown out of public schools???

MANDATORY prayers have no place anwhere other than church-.... no, not even there. Especially not my church- or any other church I've ever been associated with-

[Warren DeMontague]

71. Give me time, I'll find it.

It's repeatedly been a stick in his craw.

[hfojvt]

96. I had to use google because

of the forum change

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5676733&mesg_id=5696565

[Bluerthanblue]

99. thanks- I

cannot support manditory prayer in any school- (other than a 'church school' and even then MANDITORY prayer is pretty ....counterproductive, and mechanical- in my personal opinion).

I don't think anyone should be prevented from a personal prayer in school- neither would I object to someone meditating, or any other personal spiritual practice, as long as it was not required by the administration, or done in a way which would exclude others in an offensive way or leave the person who was excercizing their right to freedom of religion- (which includes the right to engage in religious practice) to be subjected to harrassment, ridicule or 'special treatment'-

We sang thanksgiving songs as a kid- which mentioned god- we sang songs about the dreidel, we sang about mother earth, and nature- I wasn't offended by any of them, but I can understand how some might be- Jehoviah's witnesses aren't allowed to participate in any holidays- nor do they engage in any governmental 'election' studies- (it's forbidden by their religion)... There are a many ways people can be discriminated against in schools- don't know what the answer is, but I couldn't and wouldn't support mandatory prayer- of any kind.

[monarch]

107. There have never been laws FORBIDDING same sex marriage until now

and many states threw out sodomy laws, which have almost never been enforced against anyone but gays, completely on their own years ago.

I am suspicious of posters who talk about judges "amending laws."

[Occulus]

62. Question: If sinking to their level is the only thing they understand

or respond to, should we then simply throw up our hands and quit because it's wrong to "sink to their level?"

[Bluerthanblue]

78. tell that to

Gandhi- tell that to MLK jr.- yes indeed they died in the process, but the effect of their actions- the lessons they taught, continue to IMPROVE this world, rather than drag it down, or be just another loop on the downward spiral.

They are the most recognized people of our recent history to choose a different path.

[ClassWarrior]

16. You're right!! We can't have people running around here...

...giving others the benefit of the doubt!! Pretty soon we'll be respecting our fellow humans and stuff! Dogs laying down with cats!

:eyes:

NGU.

[ruggerson]

17. I don't give religious rightwingers the benefit of the doubt

There is nothing to doubt. They are very, very clear in what they stand for. Are you unclear as to what their agenda is?

[ClassWarrior]

19. I know lots of religious rightwingers with lots of different agendas.

Like most things in life, it's not all black and white. It's shades of grey. Actually, it's shades and colors. Some people would say understanding that is what makes us Progressives. Sorry if that frustrates you.

NGU.

[ruggerson]

31. What is gray about trying to destroy people's families?

Seems pretty black and white to me. They are monolithic in their opposition to gays formalizing their relationships under the law. I'm sure there are a few contrarians, but their MOVEMENT is dedicated to destroying gay and lesbian families and the vast majority of them march in lockstep with their movement.

Maybe you're not one of the groups they target, so you don't see or feel the uniform hate.

[Zhade]

74. Remind me, the reason we despise rightwingers is...

Please note that we're not talking about religious conservatives, but rightwingers - i.e., the type of mindset that usually wants to dominate and bend others to THEIR will.

I find nothing wrong with not tolerating such would-be fascists.

[Rhiannon12866]

21. Yikes! Well, I agree that I'm against censorship, but I also am against

crossing the line that separates church and state. This country was built on that principle. I agree that the fundies are getting way too much access and air time, these days, but the thing that upsets me the most are the lies and the distortions that even the MSM is able to get away with, without challenge. I would think that anyone on DU would recognize that and realize that the proliferation of their message harms us immeasurably.:-(

[Usrename]

45. Nothing to see here. Just move along.

Let em wallow in their self delusion and biggotry. (Do I need a sarcasm thingy?)

[immoderate]

12. Yeah!

What?:shrug:

--IMM

[HereSince1628]

14. The choir says we've done that sermon.

you've read on DU posts supporting rw religious radicals??????????

[Moochy]

18. Thanks for posting this, it can't be stated enough

"... there is no moral equivalence between the "religious" rightwing and the groups they seek to oppress."

Amen to that! ;-)

But But.... we have to be nice to them and respect them, since we "progressives agree with dobson", we dems and dobson both want to change society. :sarcasm:

If your only tool is relgious zealotry, every problem looks like a crusade.

[inchhigh]

22. Wow

Thank you for this post. Both sides are not equal.

[zippy890]

23. yay for that post

I strongly agree with you.

the religious right are the enemies of freedom and justice

great post

[toymachines]

25. Well Put

http://shameandskandal.blogspot.com/">Faith: the legitimization of insanity
A belief that cannot be logically defended and results in actions that harm others, is not a belief that should be held. I believe in progress, and freedom to believe and act in an illogical manner does not fit with my goal of progress. Allowing such "freedoms" inevitably results the errosion of all other freedoms. Screw fundamentalism and all the pain it has caused.

[FreedomAngel82]

26. There is this quote I grew up with all my life

and I always remember it when making decisions on positions such as gay marriage and abortion and that's: "your rights end where my nose begins." I don't live in a police state and with marriage if the law is going to be involved than it should be equal or non at all. They aren't religious issues. My religion is for my personal life. My spiritual life and if someone else wants to live a differnet life let them. I hate it when they stomp on the Constiution in the name of religion. Jesus said: "Give that which is Ceaser's unto Ceaser and that which is God's unto God." God loved and trusted me enough to give me freewill so why don't they? If you don't like abortion, don't do it. Don't like gay marriage, don't do it. Don't like a certain tv show than don't watch it. Good grief. They need to stop trying to be my parent(s)! My parents did a fine job raising me and I'm now a legal adult and can make my own decisions (within the law of course).

[Usrename]

47. Exactly.

It is a religous freedom. Marriage should be an all or nothing deal. Either give em the same perks, or take em away from everyone.

The State does have an interest in making it easier to raise kids. Allowances in the tax code should be made for people with kids. But it shouldn't matter who (or if) you marry.

[Bluebear]

58. "My parents did a fine job raising me."

You got that right. Thank them for me :)

[leeroysphitz]

28. Well said! n/t

[tlsmith1963]

29. I Don't Defend Them

I can't stand fundies. And it's not because they are Christian. It's because they are fascist. We should make this perfectly clear because they keep whining that they are being picked on because they are Christians. I have no problem with anyone who is Christian as long as they aren't completely flipped out like the fundies are. Moderate & liberal Christians are fine. Neocon ones aren't.

Tammy

[greiner3]

30. My brother is a minister care of Oral Sex University;

Lives in Tulsa and attends a church there where they openly praise hitler and all that he stood for. Don't tell me about no fundie. I got em in the family.

[Bluerthanblue]

32. One place where this argument falls flat

on its face-
When you condemn all religious people in a 'group think' mentality- which like it or not, you, and other people do here- You lose the 'moral high ground' that you claim is yours- And when you say-

Thus, opposing them is NOT the moral equivalent of what they are doing. This is not a zero sum game. There are NOT two legitimate sides to this question.

The religious right is seeking to destroy the lives of entire populations of human beings. The other side is merely seeking to not be destroyed.

The human beings who are fighting back against the religious right are fighting organized evil.

And fighting evil is not morally ambiguous.

All I can hear is the sound of bush claiming 'yer either with us or against us'-

What litmus test do you use to seperate those who are truly "religious right"
and those Christians, who are people of faith, people who harbor no desire to legislate
anything based on biblical or other 'religious' dogma-?

Because I've been damned here for openly admitting I am a person of faith- and the fact that I have absolutely NO desire to legislate 'faith' or restrict others freedoms to live and let live- (with the possible exception of 'hate speech'- because a persons freedom to speak freely should not trump another persons freedom to live without being verbally assaulted without provocation.) And I would be burned upon your stake as one who could be said to be associated with that 'organized evil'.-

Hate is hate no matter what end of the spectrum- Intolerance is intolerance no matter how you may try and couch it.-

Isn't there any place of true freedom, any party of real inclusion???
Or am I just a dreamer- because I can 'Imagine' such a world- though I can't seem to find it, Maybe Mr Lennon was alone- maybe he is in the only place that such a place exists.

There IS grey- and a whole rainbow of colors between black and white. Who are you to put another person in the 'trash bin'? Isn't that what you detest about what you call the "religious right"?

[ruggerson]

37. Read the friggin OP

I did NOT say ALL religious people.

Your entire post is a red herring worthy of a Republican.

I said religious rightwing fundamentalists.

It's REPUBLICANS who use this tactic. When one objects to the hatred of the religious right, they scream "anti religious bigotry!"

Well, pardon me, but religious rightwingers do NOT represent all religious people, and you just fell for their bullshit.

[Bluerthanblue]

52. I read the post- and

all the ones which followed- Did you read mine?

I am telling you that I- a NON 'right wing' Christian have been lumped with the 'religious extreemists' who you are railing against. There is an enormous danger about using the 'group condemnation' method - your 'view' of who you are against, may be clearly defined- (in your mind at least) but those you are inciting to join you, may not make the same distinction.

I had a relative who claimed to hate black people- a racist bigoted relative. When I asked her about a long time family friend, who had shown great kindness and was very respected and admired by her who was black she replied..."Oh, Charles isn't a black man, he's a colored person"-
She drew her line with strange boundries.... known only to her- Most of us do- But there are those who read your words, and don't make the distinction.- EVEN (and this depresses the hell out of me- especially- here at DU). To many, all Asian people are Chinese- all Middle Eastern people are A-rabs- I could go on and on.

There are many Republican politicans especially the ones with the greatest power, who use 'tactics' I find deplorable- There are also, some Democrats who use tactics I find deplorable. We can't just take the opposite side, and 'claim we are in the right'. That is bullshit. You make the distinction between what you call the 'religious rightwingers' and 'religious people'- There are posts on DU right now that argue vehemently against your assertion that the distinction exists- If you'd like proof, I'd be happy to PM you the info.

I'd love to be able to just hate 'them' and think that makes anything better- all it does is make everyone worse.

[ruggerson]

44. And the litmus test is a simple one

If one can separate one's religious belief system from the system of laws and liberty that we have set up in this nation, then one understands what America is all about.

If one wants to impose their religious belief system by codifying that belief system under civil law, forcing others to legally adhere to the aforesaid belief system, that is utterly wrong and alien to the freedoms on which this country is based.

Religious rightwing fundamentalists are a militant political movement in this nation. Led by people like Dobson, Bauer, Falwell, Robertson and Reed. To say that confronting their hatred is in and of itsel hateful is simply and totally wrong.

Again, it is Jefferson who said that the only thing we should not tolerate is intolerance.

[Usrename]

49. That's one way.

And here's another. :)

Luke 6:43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Methinks Jefferson knew his Bible. He never watched TV. Especially the televangelists.

[The Straight Story]

104. Well I find all that interesting-but what idea/law is not based on belief?

I think this is where a deeper root of these problems forments between right/left dem/pub religious/non and so on.

You have a belief, you seek out others with same belief and ideals, you get together, and when able help in bringing about the passage of laws and such.

This is true of all groups - and they all have a belief that their way is right. Some found their beliefs on a book (which is interpreted many ways by many people) and some on ideas they got from other books (political ones for example). All them seem to progress and change over time because they are all belief systems.

Now what with religion(s) is that the common thread stays through the life of things a lot longer. As people and generations come and go the core ideals remain. In a non-religious and organized group when the people die off and not recruited into the same thinking method that belief and it's ideals wane over time, perhaps hundreds of years, and then a younger generation finds them and brings them back to fashion for awhile.

I don't want some extremist islamic group making law here for me, but I understand their desire to codify their beliefs - I just don't agree with their beliefs. Our society is based on a larger group of people who all want to live in freedom and make choices in personal matters well....personal.

but let me use a recent DU thread as an example - some guy had to pay child support even though the kid was not his. Why does our law allow this? Well some people 'believe' it is the right thing to do since he was raising, others on the thread feel that is not the case and some feel both men should pay and so on. Beliefs and ideals will always fight for life and to grow and live on.

We do need to contain the growth of beliefs (which one may want to put into law) that will erode the freedoms of people, but we must also see that others feel that we are doing the same - to wit, a small community that is of a particular faith may have many students who want to pray at a game and feel they should have the freedom to do so - but even if 100% of the people there agreed to it we would fight it and say they cannot. To THEM that is restricting the freedom of the people, to us it is protecting against erosion of freedoms.

Banning smoking in bars is similar and divided here as well at DU - some see it as a freedom issue, others as employer health issue.

We cannot both be right, but we can both input our beliefs. I am not a 'smoking fundie' but my beliefs are based on freedoms for the small business owner and patrons. I want laws changed based on my beliefs to allow more freedom, others here on DU want it changed to erode freedoms based on their beliefs that adults cannot decide for themselves what is best for them.

So we 'tolerate intolerance' by finding other ways to justify it (ie it is best for you)....

[chefgirl]

50. I am a Christian too, Bluerthanblue

I can sympathize with how you've felt, Bluerthanblue, being damned here on DU for admitting to being a person of faith, because I've had exactly that same experience here.

I have to say, though, that the OP wasn't damning ALL Christians, or ALL persons of faith, only the RW Christian Fundamentalists. I don't take issue with that, in fact, I think the OP hit the nail right on the head. It's the political stance and tactics of the RW Fundies that is being called into question here, not their particular religious beliefs, or even their right to free expression of them.

The truly ARE a divisive political force in this country, though, based solely on their narrow religious belief. When they seek to have laws written, for you, for me, for every American, based on any one religious discipline, THEY are disregarding our Constitution. There really is no 'rainbow of colors' to be found in their agenda, not even any grey; just black and white. You're with us or against us.

I don't personally care one whit what any other person holds as their personal religious belief, as long as they do not seek to politically, legally impose the tenets of those beliefs on me or any other American.

Advancing their cause is not what they are about. Destroying other peoples rights to legally hold and practice differing beliefs is the true agenda of the RW Fundies.

-chef-

[Jamastiene]

128. Keep talking. You make a good point.

If the RW fundies spent half as much time reading their Bibles as they do thumping them and using them as weapons, they would see that their positions and the tactics that they use on many issues are hate-filled. Unfortunately, they have decided to be jerks and spread as much hate as humanly possible.

There is a difference between tolerant and accepting liberal Christians and RW fundies. I have seen that time and time again on this board. I once made no differentiation between the two, because I didn't know any liberal Christians. I see that difference most of the time here now. And I am not even a Christian.

The OP was obviously differentiating between left and right wing Christians. It kind of makes me wonder who some of the ones who are taking such a defensive stance in this thread really are. Granted great ones like Jesus, MLK, and Ghandi led through peace and love, we still have to let the wounds of fellow DU'ers heal and let them get it off their chests when they have had it up to here with RW fundy blather. I did it and I'm glad there were compassionate Christians and others on this board who helped me through it. It is not until that healing can begin for more and more people on here who have been personally wounded by RW fundies that we can begin to work together to fight the right effectively.

I agree with your assessment of the OP.

[chefgirl]

130. Well said

You made a wonderful point about the Fundies using their bibles as weapons, but I would mildly disagree with you that they would see how hate filled their positions are if they were to read them more often. I believe they already know how hate filled they are, but they justify it all in the name of JESUS.

They want to wear His name and buy themselves some instant respectability, yet exclude anyone and everyone who disagrees with them, and that is NOT what Jesus taught.

His main message was to cultivate a personal relationship with God and be an example to others by treating even the least among us as our brothers. That is a guiding principle I can live with proudly.

As far as I'm concerned, the RW agenda is completely antithetical to the principles of Jesus' teachings.

I may not always be successful in living up to His example (MAY not? lol), but whenever you hear someone profess to being a Christian, the effort they make to live by His message is what will bear them out. You shall know them by their fruits.

I was so glad to read that, although you never made a distinction before between the RW Fundies and Liberal Christians, you've been able to see the difference in the examples of some of our fellow DUers.
Those are the people who truly carry His message.

-chef-

[Jamastiene]

131. You can thank many good ones on DU for the difference in my

thoughts on the subject, especially Rev Cheesehead. And you may be right about the RW fundies. They have used their hatred as a clutch for so long, they'll never stop. The truth is that they will never question who their real master is.

[Bluebear]

53. rightwing fundamentalists = "all religious people"??

:crazy:

[Zenlitened]

56. Ain't that something, huh?

Second time I've seen that odd little claim lately -- that describing the religious "rightwing" is an affront to all christians, or not descriptive enough to mollify the feelings of all christians.

Interesting...

[Bluebear]

57. But not surprising. nt

[Bluerthanblue]

64. Wouldn't seem so

odd to you if you'd been in a recent discussion I bumbled into just lately- here on the "Democratic Underground".
There are some people I've come across, who call themselves Atheists- and who do not trust anyone who admits to believing in any kind of spiritual higher power- People who embrace a faith, who also have ABSOLUTELY NO DESIRE to legislate 'biblical' interpretation into the running of this country- people who are hated not only by the Atheists I just mentioned, but by the religious extremists, who DO want to legislate "Theocracy"- And we, those of us who feel fine allowing others to hold their beliefs, without needing to 'convert' or 'educate' anyone are stuck between those who lump us in with the 'theocrats' and those who consider us 'heathen pseudo-christians'.

And i'm sick and tired of stereotypes- If you have a beef with me- direct it to me- I cannot direct you to the specific instances on this sight because of the rules- but I will offer specific proof, if you desire it, or don't believe it exists here.

I personally desire that this party- that the Democratic party be a truly DIFFERENT party than simply the left- extreme on the same level as the right wing. The ground is crumbling and barren. We don't need to be 're-active' we need to be PRO active and PRO gressive.

I'm not your enemy- please don't ask me to see you as mine- because I won't do that. There are enough chasms in this world- we need more bridges.

[Zenlitened]

73. Well, if people are going around calling themselves "right wing"...

... I expect the reception they get will be a bit on the chilly side.

And if they're calling on everyone to be just hunky-dory with the religious right-wing, well... that seems to be a particularly clumsy bit of subterfuge, aimed perhaps at silencing criticism of any and all things religious.

As for the atheists -- not to mention gays, women, etc -- who might feel inclined to view all things religious as a potential enemy these days... that ain't hate. That's common sense, born of bitter experience.

You wanna sing kumbaya? It's going to be hard to be heard above the constant mewling by some of the so-called christian progressives so busy around DU complaining how they're so terribly misunderstood. Even when posters go out of their way to use phrases like "right wing" and "fundamentalist."

Makes ya wonder what they're really after...



(edit typo)

[Bluerthanblue]

83. no, I'm not associating

myself with 'right wing' or calling myself that- However, that doesn't stop folks here from hearing the word christian, and putting me right there in the 'right wing seat'-
Hate is hate Zenlightened- often born of opression and abuse- I can't excuse hatred by Athiests, Gays, Women, Democrats, African Americans, Impoverished, Stigmatized, Disabled, Any Ethnic group, on the grounds of yeah but they made feel this way because no one can MAKE us do anything- when you come right down to it- and I belong to many of the 'groups' I've cited here- and I've struggled against, and continue to struggle NOT to be caught in the web of hatred that is so easy to fall into, yet difficult to escape, and which binds us up, rather than freeing us to live full lives.

I don't write this without compassion for the hurt that many 'religious extreemists' have wrought upon people who did, and do nothing to deserve harm. I DO understand the wounding, and the effects of being condemned by the 'church' and 'religious extreemism' more than I want to go into- But if we adopt the same tactics, then we have lost everything- most especially ourselves.

And hate, has won, yet again. And everyone loses.

[Zenlitened]

89. Thus my statement: "that ain't hate. That's common sense."

Or do you confuse all strong motivations as "hate"?

Being passionate about our principles is not a bad thing, dig?

[Bluerthanblue]

98. so the 'theocrats are guilty of common sense'????

no- not as I see it-
And judging a person as less than 'you' or not entitled to be assessed NOT by the color of their skin, their religios or NON religous affiliation, their socio-economic status, their sex, their sexual orentation, their ethnic background, age, IQ or any number of other 'classisms' rather than the content of their character, as exposed by their life, and words, is prejudice.

I'm all for passionate principles- but against prejudice-
Not only for myself, but for EVERYONE- even those who would oppose me, and desire to harm me.

Prejudice is a form of hatred-

from Wikipedia-
"Prejudice is, as the name implies, the process of "pre-judging" something. In general, it implies coming to a judgment on the subject before learning where the preponderance of the evidence actually lies, or formation of a judgment without direct experience. Holding a politically unpopular view is not in itself prejudice, and not all politically popular views are free of prejudice. When applied to social groups, prejudice generally refers to existing biases toward the members of such groups, often based on social stereotypes, and at its most extreme, becomes denying groups benefits and rights unjustly or, conversely, unfairly showing unwarranted favor towards others "

[Zenlitened]

108. This artificial construct of yours, in which everything is viewed...

... in terms of "hate," seems to make it impossible for you to view reality as it truly is. In your scenarios, the one who objects to getting punched is just as guilty as the one who throws a punch.

That's warped. No matter how many high-handed statements about "not judging people" you toss into any particular post." No matter how you try to insert the disgusting and dangerous meme that objecting to bad behavior is itself "prejudice."

Seriously, that's a sick, sick way to distort the discussion here:

I'm all for passionate principles- but against prejudice-
Not only for myself, but for EVERYONE- even those who would oppose me, and desire to harm me.

Opposing your opponents -- people who wish you harm -- is not prejudice. I don't know where you got the idea that it is. :puke:

[U4ikLefty]

88. Let me say as a Christian Progressive I have not felt slighted

on DU and I think some on this board are making too much out of nothing. There ARE a load of fundamentalists that are proppong up the neocons & they should be criticized as bad Amercians. They have taken the word and twisted it to fit their own power-hungry adgenda...that has no relfelction on ME as a Progressive Christian.

[Zenlitened]

91. It's very encouraging to hear you say that.

:hi:

[Bluerthanblue]

94. I'm really

glad to know you have never encountered that, or have felt condemnation.
My desire is that you never will- I do NOT, and never have here on DU or anywhere else, supported the 'theocratic- fundementalist- extreemism'- Which has hijacked the label of 'Christ'ian- and taken it to places I cannot go, and caused me to have to vocally distinguish myself from those who have extreemist and opressive views- Guilt by association- I used to call myself a follower of Christ- but even that refrence can lump me in with 'those we don't speak of'-

Predjuce and opression are wrong, the slight may not seem big to those who don't bear it- but that doesn't make it ok.

[jonnyblitz]

80. gee i wonder what discussion that was..

:hi:

[Bluerthanblue]

87. one that opened my eyes-

and enlightened me as to how this jaded old soul, still had foolish notions of a united community of diverse views-
much to my disapointment, and regret.
Peace-

:dunce:

[Zenlitened]

92. Eyes open... check. Mind open... please stand by.

It doesn't seem to me, from what I've seen of your statements, that your notion of a united community has room for diverse viewpoints at all.

Seems like lockstep is what you're after. Or at least lockjaw, for those whose views might tend to ruffle your feathers a bit.

:shrug:

[Bluerthanblue]

101. wow- guess

perceptions can be pretty subjective eh?

I have a wonderful Zen story I'd love to share with you if you are interested- I have to get to sleep, as I only have 3hrs. before it's up and out with my kid to school/work but I'd be happy to send it to you if your interested.

I'm not looking for lock step anything- I'm only looking for OPEN MINDS- hold the judgement- Not asking you to drop what you hold dear to embrace what I hold dear, but also not standing by silent while you knock what I (or anyone around me) embrace- .... like... live and let live???

no lock jaw- no lock step- dance to your music- as freely and fully as you like- just don't dis me cause i won't stand and jeer at other dancers- it doesn't build community- it is what destroys it-

And if someone is dragging you into their dance, I'll come and stand between you and them if it takes that- unless you want to dance with them, but no forcing anyone to be or do what isn't 'them'- AKA-
Controling Theocratic Extreemism- "you must conform or die"-

You are free to be- just who you are- and you cannot dictate anothers dance- Acceptance, Diversity, Community???? how do you get "lock-step" out of that????

I gotta get some sleep- sorry, i'm not slinking away- i gotta honor my responsibilities-
way too late as it is-

peace.

blu

[Zenlitened]

109. "Live and let live"? That sounds so very nice...

... until the jackals are feasting on your liver and spleen.

:eyes:

[Pacifist Patriot]

121. I think it's enough that the right wing is an affront to Christians.

I'm not a Christian but I can tell the difference between followers of Christ and oppressive hatemongers. I knew exactly about whom the OP was talking. Fortunately they are a minority among Christians. Unfortunately they are a very loud and well-funded minority.

Christians should be offended by the right wing, not by those who find the right wing offensive. But that's just my opinion.

[dsc]

33. It depends on how one opposes them

I have certainly seen people here advocate that they not be given free speech. That would clearly be the equivalent of denying free speech to gays. It does matter how we fight as well as who we fight.

[Bluerthanblue]

34. I couldn't agree more DSC- thanks for the clarity-

and succinctness.

[ruggerson]

38. I thought I specifically advocated their free speech

As for what others do, that has nothing to do with this OP, which is about confronting evil and not being seen as merely one side of a two sided moral question.

[dsc]

40. I never said you didn't

but your OP, without providing any quotes, suggested that people were defending fundamentalists. What I have seen have been people defending free speech for fundamentalists which is a rather large difference.

[ruggerson]

41. I've seen people defending rightwing fundamentalists

by saying that they have "deeply felt beliefs" and that to attack those "beliefs" is just as hateful as what the fundamentalists do.

My point is that those "deeply held beliefs" are nothing more than deeply ingrained bigotry, pounded into people's heads from childhood. DISGUISED as spirituality.

[Charlie Brown]

35. Has anyone here defended fundamentalists?

I've never seen that.

[H2O Man]

36. Right.

Haven't seen anything remotely so.

[Bluebear]

55. .

withdrawn

[Charlie Brown]

59. self-delete

[Zenlitened]

82. I think, for the sake of clarity, you should say...

"...right wing fundamentalist-type christians in name only and by that I mean they're not like christians on the left, or progressive christians, if you will, who actually follow the teachings of christ so please don't think this is in reference to you because it's not even thought I understand how you've been persecuted on DU by militant atheists and other people who gee whiz are just as mean as those right-wing "christians" and please note I put "christians" in quotes to show they're not really christian like you are and they deserve a little bit of criticism as long as we make it clear we're not criticizing their faith per se but they way they interpret it and live their lives."

See?

Something quick and to-the-point, like that. A simple lit bit of clarification to help make sure the religionist crybab-- er, enforcers of decorum and good will toward people whose values are utterly alien to our own and who exist only to destroy us -- will help make sure the kumbaya crowds' feelings aren't bruised by reading strong statements about the role and effect of religion in politics.

Hope this helps!

:hi:


:eyes:

[jonnyblitz]

86. LMFAO

:thumbsup:

[incapsulated]

95. Who is "Defending Rightwing Fundamentalists" on DU?

What is this nonsense?

[incapsulated]

100. Never mind, it seems you were calling one person out

:eyes:

[Hekate]

103. All I ever ask is that the Talibaptists be clearly identified...

... so as not to be confused with mainstream Evangelicals or other Christians. Let it not be forgotten that Pres Jimmy Carter and Rev Jim Wallis are both Evangelical Christians and both are socially progressive.

Some DUers, in their understandable frustration, start slinging around references to "Christians," "fundamentalists," and "evangelicals" as if they were the equivalent of the following: far-right-wing fundamentalists, wingnuts, Dominionists, Reconstructionists, Fred Phelps, fundagelical, Talibornagain, etc.

I completely agree with the OP that any group, no matter what it calls itself, that preaches hate and fear and lays it on God is no friend to humanity. Those people are really dangerous; I long ago figured out that Pat Robertson would like to murder me and all of my friends.

I just like to keep my terms clear; it helps to keep my vision clear.

Hekate

[Bridget Burke]

105. If you create a thread to protest messages in another thread....

Why don't you post a link to that thread in the OP?

Or--why don't you answer back in the original thread?

[Inland]

106. Not posting in original thread leads to arguments over its content, tone

Which is what this thread is.

The OP set up a straw man of people defending fundamentalist rightwing politics, when it seems to me that the most that people were doing was criticizing particularly emotional and content-free statements about them.

[bloom]

114. I don't see a Strawman

A poster posed this line of thought:

"wow, there is alot of hostility in this thread...I do not see this "fundy" talk-show person spouting hate here, the way hate seems to be thrown at him here. He does not like the show, does not want to see it stay on the air. Does this make him evil? Isn't this the same way we feel about the O'Reilly factor? or perhaps "The Agency". What is the real problem here?"


The American Family Association is at odds with the entire Democratic Party - as well as feminists, gays, art and freedom as we know it. They have set themselves up at odds against us and they are well organized. I think they are modern version of the KKK. And the previous poster sees no problem? And neither do you?


About the people leading the Boycott:

AFA’s principal issues:
American Family Association targets the media and entertainment industry’s “attack” on “traditional family values.”
Two of the main duties that AFA assigns to itself are “promoting the centrality of God in American life” and “promoting the Christian ethic of decency.”
“Indecent” influences in American culture include: television, the separation of church and state, pornography, “the homosexual agenda,” premarital sex, legal abortion, the National Endowment for the Arts, gambling, unfiltered internet access in libraries, and the removal of school-sponsored religious worship from public schools.
Back to Top


AFA Activities:

Among its hundreds of boycott targets over the years are "Cheers," "The Johnny Carson Show," "Saturday Night Live," "Roseanne," "Nightline," "NYPD Blue," and “Ellen.” AFA has called for widespread boycotts of all businesses that “promote” pornography, homosexuality, or other forms of “indecency.”
A major target has been Disney and its subsidiaries. According to the group “Disney’s attack on America’s families has become so blatent, so intentional, so obvious, that American Family Association has called for a boycott of all Disney products until such time as this activity ceases.”
Other boycott targets include American Airlines for their policy of providing domestic partner benefits and K-mart for selling music that has a “parental advisory warning” sticker, even to adults.
Donald Wildmon has called for the shutdown of PBS and as a result of the AFA's campaign, many state legislatures reduced funding for public broadcasting. The AFA spearheaded the attack on the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in the 1980’s, using direct mail and extensive print advertising to distort the NEA's record of sponsorship of the arts.

AFA Quotes:

Quotes from the Reverend Don Wildmon on behalf of AFA:

"Now the Bush Administration is opening its arms to homosexual activists who have been working diligently to overthrow the traditional views of Western Civilization regarding human sexuality, marriage and family… AFA would never support the policies of a political party which embraced the homosexual movement. Period.” (4-16-01, AFA Press Release)

“We believe the national motto incorporates the foundational belief of our culture, and its words ‘In God we trust’ are a message our children need to see in school.” (July 2001, cover story of AFA Journal)

“But the National PTA continued right along, increasingly becoming a tool to promote a left-wing philosophy instead of helping the children with their educational needs. The latest project for the National PTA is the promotion of the homosexual agenda…Stop the PTA from using your children to promote their left-wing political agenda. “AFA Journal, February 2001 Edition

From AFA state affiliates:

“The church and this nation cry out for a revival of masculine Christianity, which is to say that we church leaders need to stop being such, for lack of a better word, sissies when it comes to social and political issues. We need to spend as much time confronting perpetrators as we do comforting victims. We need to do less fretting, and more fighting for righteousness. For every motherly, feminine ministry of the church such as a Crisis Pregnancy Center or ex-gay support group, we need a battle-hardened, take-it-to-the-enemy masculine ministry like Operation Rescue (questions of civil disobedience aside). For every God-hating radical in government, academia and media we need a bold, no-nonsense, truth-telling Christian counterpart: trained, equipped and endorsed by the local church.” –Scott Lively, Director of AFA California and Abiding Truth Ministries, author of “The Pink Swastika.” (quote source: http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/archives/editorials/masculinechristianity.html)

"Under homosexual activists' political agenda, our children would face a future in which traditional marriage and families have been legally devalued, while state government -- despite the severe threat it poses to personal and public health -- not only legally endorses but uses our tax dollars to subsidize deadly homosexual behavior." –Gary Glenn, Director of AFA Michigan (2-17-01 Press Release)

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=3796#6

[Inland]

115. It's the "for those of you who defend" aspect.

and the further response that defense includes denying defending them or wondering about tone and lack of content.

Some people don't like the voicing of hatred, that's all. They talk nicer than some of us.

[ruggerson]

129. Largely because the OP was not specifically in reference to

one other thread. I see a lot of this at DU, as others do too, apparently. And no, it's not about being nice or free speech, per se. I see a number of folks conflating the movement we know as the "religious right" with religious people in general. And getting very defensive about it. The Republicans actively try to do this; their modus operandi is to scream "religious bigot" if you object to the religious right, even though you and I know the objection is not to religion but to bigotry and an attempt to codify that bigotry. And obviously the Republican spin meme is so pervasive that even some progressives have bought into it.

[Nikki Stone 1]

116. This is a good list. But who has been in support of the fundies here?

Are you upset about support for their first amendment rights?

Their right to run their mouths is our right to speak out. And, yeah, it's more work than running the fundies off the continent or lobbing various incendiary devices at them. But it is our right to point out what they really believe and what they are doing.

Your post has done that well.

[Warren DeMontague]

126. I don't think anyone is objecting to their first amendment rights

Best thing that ever happened with regards to Pat Robertson was the First Amendment, although that bastard would certainly eviscerate the Bill of Rights if he could.. every time he opens his mouth it becomes that much clearer what a sad little wackjob he is.

No, I think the objection of the OP had more to do with the strenuous protests of a very small vocal minority here, who don't want ANY recognition or mention of the fact that a large part of the Republican threat to Democracy in our country IS theocratic in origin, and who feel (this small group) that ANY mention or critique of the religious views of the far religious right -no matter how ridiculous- amounts to, in effect, 'anti-religious bigotry'. Like, if you make fun of, derisively refer to, or even openly criticize the folks who not only believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, but ALSO want that particular "information" taught in public school SCIENCE classes, then you are 'christian bashing'. :eyes:

But, like I said, it's a VERY small minority that seems to feel that way.