No, DU is not anti-Christian. It is anti-bigot, anti-hypocrisy, and anti-theocratic.

[madfloridian]

No, DU is not anti-Christian. It is anti-bigot, anti-hypocrisy, and anti-theocratic.

I speak for myself a lot about the way I think certain religious groups are forcing views on others that are anti-science.

Refuting Evolution (from HBO's Friends of God)
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1046

The speaker in the video is preaching that the earth is only 6000 years old, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. The speaker's credo is this:

God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

And I and many others here are anti-"my way or the highway" attitudes about religion. We think God gave us minds with which to think and choose. We don't think the Bible should be taught in public schools to influence and evangelize, and we disagree with those who want the public schools to be used to convert to Christianity.

Texas school board member tells parents to "kiss my butt" over religious class.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1330

That school board member who was just promoted to vice president of the board said that parents who disagree with him were:

Foreman said. “They’re just looking to impose their beliefs and their views on everybody, and we don’t put up with that crap out here.”

I am anti that type of Christianity. It assumes the rest of us other than Foreman are not capable of forming our own conclusions.

And I and others are anti those like Katherine Harris who says God chooses our rulers. First off I believe we have "leaders" not "rulers", and I notice God was wise enough not to choose Kate.

Remember when Katherine Harris said "God is the one who chooses our rulers"?
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1357

and we have to have elected officials in government and we have to have the faithful in government and over time, that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers.

It is very simplistic to ask if this forum is anti-Christian. I would say the vast majority here have their own faith in God. I come from a Southern Baptist background, now recovering, and I have my faith. It is no longer the faith of Al Mohler, whom I knew long ago. He says we should not use contraception, should not have sex without procreation. What happened, Al? He is head of the Southern Baptist Seminary.

I don't know who the recent comments have been directed at here, but I do know that this is most certainly not an anti-Christian forum. It is a forum that demands far more of its participants than just a narrow ideology which wants to control our government, go into our bedrooms, and permeate all areas of our lives.

[Elspeth]

1. I attend a liberal Christian church every Sunday

Ask me about my Jesus.

[Flabbergasted]

80. Could you tell me about your jesus? nt

[Deep13]

2. I don't think that the "vast majority" of DUers are theists.

It may be a bare majority. Still, if you ask specifics I think you will find that the divinity many DUers accept is so vague and non-interventionist that it really does not amount to a god in any practical sense.

[PassingFair]

7. Polls show that the majority of DUers are

not monotheists. Poll after poll after poll.... In one way or another.

Of course, polls only reflect the numbers of
those who answer them.

I do not make the case that this holds true for
Americans in general. Or Democrats in general.

Religious beliefs are "ideas".

"Ideas" are up for debate here.

[smoogatz]

10. A plurality of DUers identify as atheist, agnostic, or "spiritual but not religious."

http://www.blogreaderproject.com/Blogs/democratic-underground?q=14

[Perky]

34. ummm ok but what we are talking about then is a healthy reciprocal respect

in a pluralistic society.

The Christian DUer perspective here is we do not launch invective against classes of people on DU and we would ask that others not launch invective at us by starting ad nausea flame wars which

a) have nothing to do with the political power of the religious right.
b) are clearly designed to denigrate of the whole of the faith by pointing to the accusation of criminality of individuals who are not DU members. And sets up daily flame wars.

We object to the ad hominen broad-brush and are told that we are pulling the "persecution card". No one here is going to defend the politics of the religions right. But when the whole of Christianity is referred to as "scum", we have an obligation to voice our objection.

When we are told that to believe in the creation myth is idiocy or moronic, we have the right to say we object and for our view (which we never raise btw) to be respected even if you roll your eyes.

We do not attack the morality of atheists, of mormons, of Hindus, of gays. We don't do it because our faith tells us not to. Some of the Christian community outside of DU certainly feels differently, which is their right I suppose, but that does not mean we agree with them or challenge those errors. Liberal Christians are certainly a minority voice within the faith, but we are making great inroads in our individual congregations and more globally through groups like Habitat and Sojourners. We could use a little more support here on DU and a lot less ad hominien hostility.

To us, deliberately interchanging fundamentalist and Christian is not unlike someone saying that all gays are pedophiles or that all the wealthy hate the poor.. It is on its face incendiary and utterly inaccurate.

[PassingFair]

42. "on its face incendiary and utterly inaccurate."

Like over-reactionary posts! LOL

:rofl:

[smoogatz]

52. Look, yours is a religion which claims moral superiority over all others

and especially over non-believers--you can't reasonably claim that that's not the case when one of your founding precepts is that all non-Christians go to hell to suffer eternal torment. So, when professed Christians (almost invariably far-right whackos) are in the news for sodomizing young boys or cavorting with prostitutes or murdering their families or other not-strictly-moral acts, it's reasonable that those actions may be of interest to the majority of DUers who are not Christians. If that's offensive to you, you might want to take it up with your Christian brethren, rather than blaming the messengers here on DU.

[Perky]

93. Christians are not almost invariably right wing whackos...

An we are not obsessed with the machinations of sinners whether they are right wing whackos or not.

[Duncan]

162. I believe smoogatz was refering to those christians who are

"in the news for sodomizing young boys or cavorting with prostitutes or murdering their families or other not-strictly-moral acts", not christians in general.

[smoogatz]

183. 'zackly.

Thanks for clarifying that.

[roguevalley]

168. 'my religion' doesn't. the heretics in my religion do. attack hypocrites

wherever they lurk. don't assume that is what believers in various religions all believe or do. that is the rub. blaming us all for the actions of a segment. its like Islam getting it for the terrorist segment that use it for their own agenda. Muslims shouldn't bear the brunt of the radical minority and the same with us. I am sick of the mocking tone that is delivered to the entire group because someone hates the minority of dumbasses that get the press. there are millions and millions and billions of believing people in hundreds of religions that do good everyday. don't lump us with the fuckers that bring us all shame.

[smoogatz]

182. So, you don't believe that only those who accept Christ as their savior

are going to heaven (and everyone else is going to hell)? That's, like, the defining tenet of Christianity, dude. What are you, some kind of Unitarian?

[roguevalley]

198. no. I am a Christian- non denomination. I follow the path of Jesus, not the fuckers who

have taken his life and teachings and voted them into what we have now. Hell is bullshit. Whatever God created us all would not close the door to paradise to people who suffered and died in Sudan and other places because they didn't believe in Jesus and go through that born again bullshit. What about all the people before he came? Its a crock of crap that even if you don't believe in Jesus that you would be isolated in Hell. Fuck the fundies. ALL PATHS LEAD TO THE SAME HOUSE. Period.

[smoogatz]

200. But Jesus said

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (Jn. 3:3)

I'm not sure how it's possible to navigate around that one, and still call yourself a Christian. And then there's:

"Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matt.18:3)

And:

"I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." (Jn.10: 9)

And the Big One: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

Are you SURE you're a Christian and not a Unitarian? There's nothing wrong with being a Unitarian, you know.

[roguevalley]

204. I think that the meaning of Jesus, built into a mystical point of view

based on gnostic principles has been lost due to the machinations of 2000 years of church influence. What does born again mean? The heretics that have hijacked religion have said its one thing and the gnostics say it another. I believe his message has been perverted for political and business reasons by fallible humans for centuries.

I'm not Unitarian but I respect them greatly. Jesus is my rabbi and has
taught me a lot. I believe his message is buried under layers of man's ego. I don't believe you have to have religion encumber your belief in Jesus and what his intentions were. Love each other and forgive each other and prepare to know wisdom. That is what Jesus intended. The rest is man.

And since his words are reported by men, they would be changed and massaged over centuries. We can't help ourselves.

[smoogatz]

205. Now you're denying Biblical infallibility.

Heretic. All kidding aside, the other thing Jesus really wanted us to do is help the poor. If the Gospels are to be believed, Jesus was practically a commie.

[roguevalley]

207. I agree, sweets. Try reading the new books about Jesus by

Borg and others and you will love the man. He was a good and great man.

[wryter2000]

54. I can't see why such a bright group of individuals...

...can't see the difference between religious and theocratic.

Barry Lynn, head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is a Christian minister. I'm sure he could explain the difference.

[Zhade]

133. They don't want to - persecution complexes are more fun.

NT!

[roguevalley]

169. you can include atheists in that 'persecution complex' too. just read

the threads. no one is immune here or exempt.

[smoogatz]

185. Atheists are a tiny minority in this country. We're also the least accepted

minority of any kind--religious, ethnic, or gender. Many of us are appalled at the government's recent drift toward theocracy, but we're told again and again that America is a "Christian nation" (as opposed to a nation which is majority-Christian) and neither our opinions nor the Constitution nor the clear intent of the founders matters, and what Americans really want us to do is shut the fuck up and go to France, where we belong. What do you expect?

[roguevalley]

197. I expect the same tolerance to the 'tiny minority' of us who are

believers who are not assholes that I give to the atheist community. I expect as much tolerance given to us, who are also persecuted among our own kind, that I have always given to atheists. My family has believers, agnostics and one extremely vile atheist - vile because he's as in your face
with his point of view as Jerry Falwell was in your face with his. In the end, we will find out who is right when we die. all the noise here is so much smoke and mirrors. the truth will be known at death and that will come to us one by one.

[smoogatz]

199. Why aren't atheists allowed to "evangelize"?

Everybody else is. I'm not supposed to be annoyed when the Mormons or Jehova's Witnesses come to my door or some nitwit campus preacher harangues me on my way to teach my poetry class (that would be disrespectful of people of faith, or something), but everybody's allowed to go ballistic if an atheist does the equivalent? Huh. Oh, and we won't know anything when we're dead. We'll just be dead.

[roguevalley]

201. who says they can't? and if they do, if some turn them off, welcome

to the world of the rest of us. I don't like ANYONE evangelizing me because the inference is that I don't have a faith or system of belief. I find anyone evangelizing me offensive, not just Christians. Go, evangelize for your beliefs. If you get cut off, then its like when Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons come by. And maybe you might win a 'convert' or two. You never know. :)

[smoogatz]

202. Not for me, thanks.

I'm personally of the opinion that what people believe or don't believe is their business, except on those occasions when it affects me: like when the government starts giving my tax dollars to religious organizations to teach "abstinence only" sex education, for instance. Or, you know, when it tries to stir up Armageddon in the Middle East. (And I don't view my non-theism as a "belief." It's non-belief, which isn't the same thing at all.)

[roguevalley]

206. I agree. I have oceans of Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons coming

to my door. It makes me wish my doberman, Pagan, was still around. :) He was the best defense against this I ever had.

[Warren DeMontague]

101. Er, I don't think you have the right to "expect respect" for asserting that the Earth is 6,000 years

old. You don't have the right to "expect respect" when claiming as a scientific proposition that "intelligent design" is true, and evolution, despite literally mountains of evidence, is false.

Beyond that, you're right- I don't think broad brush slams against "all Christians" are fair, nor are they legitimate, nor should they be tolerated. But they're also against the rules. As for "we do not attack..." I hate to break it to you, but as an atheist on DU I *have* been told that I am incapable of having a moral framework, that I'm willfully ignorant, I'm "just angry at God", and that if I only were to end up in the right kind of foxhole I would figure out how misguided my views about reality are.

It's true, we shouldn't interchange "fundamentalist" and "Christian", but (And fuck me if I haven't said this countless times before) that logic works both ways. If Christians on DU don't want to have their belief systems confused and conflated with that of far right, fundy whackjobs, hey, that's great. But then they shouldn't get reflexively apoplectic when other DUer's specifically criticize those same fundy whackjobs, taking any criticism of the Creation Museum, Pat Robertson, James Dobson or the dominionist nutjobs who are -without a doubt- attempting to turn our nation into a Christian Theocracy.

And yes, that is their version of Christianity.

Oh, and speaking of the Creation Museum- am I to take from your post, now, that you are objecting to any criticism of creationism? Of so-called "Intelligent Design"? We're not supposed to fight back against broad-sided, idiotic attacks on science because, hey, the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old is part of someone's faith?

Please, do tell. Because I'm sorry, if the only way I can "show respect" is to not object to, yes, idiotic notions like: "both sides" of the evolution "debate" should be taught in public schools no can do. You are welcome to your own beliefs, but not your own facts. There is no "debate" on evolution, any more than there is "debate" on global warming. Plenty of people can reconcile their religious beliefs with evolution, just as people reconciled their religious belief with knowledge that the Earth is round. Demanding people pretend that it's flat is another matter entirely.

If "respect" means dumbing down clear scientific fact because it may step on someone's toes, that's not gonna happen.

[Clark2008]

112. Perky didn't say she believed the Earth is 6,000 years old her post.

Where did you get that all Christians believe that?

I'm a Christian and I don't. That "belief," btw, is a relatively new one amongst the rightie Christian crowd. I went to both Baptist and Catholic churches when I was growing up and not one of them said the Earth was only 6,000 years old.

In fact, I was taught that the whole "God created the world in seven days" was a parable: that surely we knew the Earth was older than that and what is a day to God could be millions of years to a human.

[Warren DeMontague]

114. Where did I *SAY* all Christians believe that? See, this is part of the problem.

I'm responding to one, specific matter, and you take it as a broad brush slam on all Christians. You're reading shit into my post that simply isn't there, and you're ignoring what I *did* say. I said specifically in my post that many people are able to reconcile their religious belief with the facts around evolution. Presumably that means they can accept the geological fact that the Earth is around 4.7 Billion years old, too.

Here is the relevant part of Perky's post:

When we are told that to believe in the creation myth is idiocy or moronic, we have the right to say we object and for our view (which we never raise btw) to be respected even if you roll your eyes.

Now, okay, maybe I shouldn't have used the word "you" in response to Perky's use of the word "we", here. Or, maybe Perky should explain herself what she specifically meant in that line.

But from where I sit, it's certainly plausible that her demand that the belief of "the" (as another poster pointed out, which is "the" creation myth?) creation myth be "respected", means that intelligent design and yes, "creationism", should be somehow off limits from criticism, becuzzz, well... they're what someone believes. And that's not how it works. Right now legitimate science is under attack by "faith-based" waterheads from places like the Discovery Institute; and expecting people to shut up about the scientific facts around evolution, because the mention of those facts may step on the toes of some* religious people is totally fucking unreasonable IMHO.

*please note the use of the word "some"

[bigmonkey]

155. From a point of view of respect, word choice is the key.

The use of the word "you" can be problematic - the emotional reaction can take off too fast to be stopped. Similarly, if I may suggest it, respect for a myth would suggest that calling it "idiotic" might be more inflammatory than calling it "mythical," for instance. Both someone who finds a story powerful as a myth and another who finds it powerful as a literal history will be offended if it's called "idiotic," but the condemnation may only be intended for the one believing it literally as history. My experience is that when someone says they "believe" a religious story, they may mean either as a myth or as history.

[Warren DeMontague]

181. Fine. But the fact of the matter is, creationism is being pushed as science.

And I don't care what you want to dress it up as, it's idiotic to believe the Earth is literally 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs were on "Noah's Ark".

[bigmonkey]

195. Wouldn't an atheist feel attacked if someone said that atheism was idiotic?

Note - I don't know if you are an atheist, and I don't think atheism is idiotic. But, wouldn't the same restraint on everyone's part be helpful in promoting rational discussion? It's axiomatic in the academic study of religion that the customs (both of speech and of action) of the other seem arbitrary and often farcical, but the emotional attachment to those customs exists anyway, and needs to be accounted for in interpersonal relations to promote discussion, as opposed to name-calling.

[fishwax]

116. the belief is actually not that new among the rightie christian crowd

it was a big issue at the Scopes Trial in 1925 for instance. Catholic teaching doesn't hold that the age of the earth is literal, but conservative fundamentalists generally do, and have for a long time.

[Zhade]

135. "God" is a parable. Ever consider that one?

NT!

[Zhade]

134. Exactly. Where religious people get the idea they deserve automatic respect...

...for their often-ludicrous beliefs is beyond me.

WE DON'T HAVE TO RESPECT BULLSHIT, GUYS. Sorry. Learn to live with it.

[personman]

161. I was raised Christian, and I agree.

(eh off and on, didn't go every sunday, probably for the better in hindsight)

I wasn't taught the earth was 6,000 years old that I can recall, but regardless...

Not only do we have a right not to respect bullshit, we have a duty to call it what it is.

Truth IS important.

Myself and others who were indoctrinated with this garbage against our will when we were too young to do anything about it, have every right to express resentment.

That shit is child abuse.

-personman

Am I the only one who gets a kick out of it when Christians laugh about how rediculous mormonism or scientology is?

"When you know why you reject all other gods, you'll know why I reject yours."

[eridani]

105. "The" creation myth? I've heard dozens of them myself. n/t

[Zhade]

132. Criticizing beliefs will never be an attack on you, no matter how much you may wrongly think it is.

And I don't care how it makes you feel - a literal belief in the bible in the face of contradictory facts IS moronic, and always will be. The earth is not thousands of years old. Rabbits don't have cloven hooves. The sun has never stood still. Etc.

Get this straight: we are under no obligation to respect ANY of your views, only your right to hold them. Period.

[EstimatedProphet]

158. I'm a Christian and that's not my experience here

Occasionally there will be a few people who try to get in my face about my beliefs, but the vast majority do not. I don't look at them as trying to overrule religion for the entire board so much as they are basically jerks, instead.

[brentspeak]

27. The credibility of anonymous web polls, esprecially here on DU, is ZERO

No sane person would consider a DU poll to be believable, let alone even remotely accurate.

[Warren DeMontague]

115. Yes, seeing as Atheists are pretty much expected to remain invisible in most parts of U.S. Society

it's fair enough that you should have the right to ignore the large numbers of us and pretend we don't exist here, too.

[Sander]

156. DU'ers are not monotheists?

Most Americans are not monotheists either. If you are a Christian and believe in the Trinity, or even simply in God plus Jesus, you are not strictly a "monotheist." I know Christians argue that the Trinity represents the three aspects of one God, but, to the traditional Jewish view, this is simply a rationalization or "spin." Commandment #1: "I am the Lord, thy God...you shall have NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME." "No other Gods" means, to Jews, no Jesus, no praying to Mary, the saints, etc.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with being Christian or worshiping the Trinity, or Jesus, or praying to saints, or Vishnu, or Allah, etc. - simply that one must be careful in how one throws around such accusations of polytheism.

[Politicub]

175. I couldn't agree more

"Religious beliefs are 'ideas.'"

What gets me is how defensive people get about that statement. If religious beliefs are anything, they are ideas. And as a liberal, ideas are ALWAYS open to discussion to me.

[eridani]

104. Did you ever notice how all those "practical" deities--

--always seem to tell people to do what they feel like doing and intend to do anyway?

[roguevalley]

172. these deities say nothing. their mouthpieces have done that. if

you look for the truth in belief systems, it pretty much boils down to loving each other and forgiving each other. the rest is the blabberings of men. period.

[Maat]

166. I'm kind of in that boat.

I believe in New Thought philosophy; there's a consciousness, if you will, that I can avail myself of, but I believe Spirit is non-judgmental and that's each has his or her unique version of the Way (and that's a good thing).

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. I do rain dances naked at night, and bay at the fool moon.

and I think that all religions can and many do corrupt people and create ignorance where curiosity and learning should exist. BUT I also believe that every person has the right to chose his/her/its beliefs and to practice what they believe.

[yardwork]

4. I see very few broad-brush attacks on Christianity here.

Criticism of right-wing fundamentalism - that is common here on DU. I contribute them regularly. Some so-called Christian theocrats are a serious threat to the Constitution, and I call them as I see them. I also point out hypocrisy when I see it.

[Elspeth]

8. Some of us do not believe that the right wing fundamentalists are real Christianity

I see them as a cult, like the Moonies. They are also primarily political and serve Caesar's ends, not God's. I also believe that God gave us brains to use them, not to give them away to someone, even if that person is the best person in the world.

[yardwork]

9. I agree with you on all counts.

[Elspeth]

21. Thank you

:)

[durrrty libby]

12. Why discriminate? I say ALL religions are cults

[Elspeth]

22. Any system requiring a certain mindset might then be a cult

(Including a political one) I don't see it that broadly.

To me, a cult does everything it can to destroy independent thought and action. The DU word "Sheeple" sums that up for me.

A religion should NOT destroy independent thought and action. It should require ethical behavior and thought about ethics. (Sometimes, it's not so clear where the ethical line is, and people of good intent can disagree.) A religion should also connect one with the spiritual, but the spiritual is very personal, even though communal celebration occurs.

[Xenotime]

150. Careful how you step...

"Any system requiring a certain mindset might then be a cult" DU could be viewed that way.

[truedelphi]

38. Sadly they are a cult. They follow whatever the

Preacher in the pulpit tells them.

War is good; hate is love; the end of the world is at hand because of Gays; the rapture will save them etc.

Dinosaur fossils are put there by the devil to confuse us;
global warming has nothing to do with per capita energy use; most science is like the dinosaur fossils - just there to trip you up and deny you your spot in heaven.

[canetoad]

32. If they lost the tax exempt status

do ya think the career would be so attractive?

[wryter2000]

56. Sadly, I see them all the time

Referring to God as an "imaginary friend," calling religion "opiate of the masses." The assumption seems to be that people of faith can't see the difference between faith and science and want to take over the goverment.

[madfloridian]

66. Actually that is just about what I am posting about.

People who are letting religion blind them to reality and fact. People who think they hold the secret to everything.

I have been one of those people and now am appalled by the arrogance of thinking one knows all the answers to life and death and everything else.

Let's face. People of faith in many denominations have had their faith hijacked by extremists....

[Zhade]

137. And yet, those statements ring true, considering the lack of evidence for gods.

The truth hurts at times. It's not always pretty. Yes, it could be couched in nicer language, but no matter how it's said some believers will take offense.

Those are attacks on the belief systems, not the believers for being believers.

[yardwork]

154. Religion can indeed be an opiate of the masses.

Pointing out the ways in which religion is often misused to control and distort is not the same as attacking people for being religious.

[Zhade]

136. That's because you don't nurse a persecution complex.

NT!

[madokie]

5. sounds about right to me

believe what one wants just don't push it off on me is my belief. kinda like keep your christian off my constitution and we'll get along just fine.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Generally, DU is anti-dogmatic.

I find a variety of opinions on this board and I appreciate the diversity.

[cgrindley]

17. In general perhaps, but there are highly dogmatic elements

There are, on this site, certain groups of people whose ideologies have very little to do with the general support of a progressive democratic stance and whose dogmata one does not cross without incurring an all out and highly personal flamewar. I am reasonably certain that these cliques have to a great extent chilled all manner of debate and dissent.

[ellisonz]

67. Seconded.

:hide:

[More Than A Feeling]

53. Yes, I'd agree with this.

Nobody can make their ideas immune to challenge here.

[smoogatz]

11. I said this another another thread already today, but

I think that a lot of Christians who come here aren't used to being confronted with direct, unfiltered criticism of their beliefs and of those who profess to hold those beliefs--so the environment may feel a bit hostile to some of them, at least until they get to know us. The majority of DUers are, in fact, non-Christian--unlike the rest of the country--and we're not exactly known for tiptoeing around sensitive subjects here. Note to Christians who find their sensitivities jangled at DU: it's good for you. Everyone should have the experience of being in the minority from time to time.

http://www.blogreaderproject.com/Blogs/democratic-underground?q=14

[Elspeth]

14. Some of us believe that Christianity is about a loving mindset.

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1194629#1195812

[smoogatz]

16. And others believe that gay people are to blame for Hurricane Katrina,

that George W Bush was placed in the White House by God, that the Earth is 6,000 years old, and that everyone who doesn't agree with them is going to burn in hell for all eternity. You can see where the problem lies.

[Elspeth]

18. If you read my post at the link, you will see where I come from

There are many of us who do not agree with the right wing pseudo Christianity that is out there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1194629#1195812

[smoogatz]

19. Too bad there aren't more like you.

The public face of Christianity in this country is crazy, ignorant and terrifying. You guys need to fix that.

[Elspeth]

23. I know. It is really frustrating

:(

[LanternWaste]

184. Does that mean we'd have to take...

Does that mean we'd have to take our Christianity and faith outside of home and church and into the public arena?

I'm confused? Aren't we supposed to be quiet and private about it our faith (that's what good little Christians do, right?), keeping it out of the public arena-- or are we getting carte blanche in this one particular situation?

:shrug:

[smoogatz]

186. If you don't think you can enter the public arena as a Christian

without violating your beliefs, then the answer to that question seems obvious to me. And no, I don't think anyone's asking you to be quiet or private or a "good little Christian," except maybe Jesus, when he said "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...." (Matthew 6:5-6). That cat seems to be well out of the bag. Just don't do it in a way that threatens, oppresses or insults religious (or irreligious) minorities, who have exactly the same right to practice (or not) their religion (or lack of it) as you.

[madfloridian]

24. Nice post

:hi:

[Elspeth]

28. Thank you. I was so grateful that you put this thread up.

:hi:

[PassingFair]

20. Many believe that you don't have to be Christian to have a "loving mindset".

It's NOT a prerequisite.

[Elspeth]

26. No. That is true. But

a formalized religion gives structure and community to that mindset. Christianity's biggest symbol is the crucified Christ, an image of sacrifice and love. Yes, it has been misused, and we can talk about the crusades and all that. But the image reminds us of two things. One is that loving service is not always easy, but we have to do what needs to be done. Second, Jesus was crucified as a criminal. Often, when we do the "right" thing (like whistleblowing), we are made into the criminal by the powers with vested interests. It is a reminder that the path of virtue is a hard one. We may not get rewarded. We may in fact be punished.

[PassingFair]

51. "a formalized religion gives structure and community to that mindset."

Formalized religions gives structure and community to
different mindsets in different circumstances.

[spoony]

55. Nice word twisting.

As if that poster said anything, ANYTHING close to that.

I don't suppose there's any way for a Christian to win with you, since even those who are devoted to the peace and love Jesus taught are castagated for the Inquisition amongst other things, eh?

You're a perfect example, actually.

[PassingFair]

58. We have an Evangelical COUP going on in our ARMED FORCES

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/065

and a pRESIDENT who has taken us into an
ADMITTED CRUSADE against ISLAM.

How intermingled do CHURCH AND STATE have
to get in this country before people start
jumping up and down and saying.

NO!!!!!!!

We can't wait for the "religious left".

I LOVE the religious left.

There are TOO DAMN FEW of them.

[Elspeth]

74. I guess I count as the religious left

And you're right. There need to be more of us.

[PassingFair]

100. And you need to speak up.

IN your churches and OUT of them.

[Elspeth]

106. You are right about that

There are more of us out there than you think

[PassingFair]

110. I am glad of that.

The Catholic Church spent MILLIONS of dollars
on a ballot proposal (anti-marriage) in my
state a couple of years ago. That's millions
of their parishioner's dollars.

Both my best friend and my sister-in-law ended
up leaving their churches over it. My sister-in
law ended up finding a more liberal parish.
My friend just left the church.

One of them walked out in the middle of the service,
but neither one of them made their feelings known to
the congregation at large, or denounced the PRO-WAR,
ANTI-CHOICE, BIGOTED agendas of their churches.

[Maat]

174. I think that we all have an EQUAL obligation to speak up ...

and address what we members of Americans United for Separation of Church and State call the "Religious Right."

I'm not a Christian and I'm not an Atheist; I do not think that my Liberal Christian friends have a bigger obligation to address the Religious Right than anyone else, for they will not be listened to any more than anyone else. We all have an equal obligation to address the political and social implications of a Religious Hardright gone crazy, and one very effective way to do that is to join AUSCS ( www.au.org ).

[Elspeth]

75. Thank you for standing up

Some (very few) folks go from 0-60 when it comes to religion, forgetting that some of us have read Elmer Gantry and know the difference between a thoughtful Christianity and a traveling roadshow meant to fleece the public.

[canetoad]

36. I read the same post

It was good sense. Criticism does not equal persecution.

[hfojvt]

63. so reading the opinions of bigots is good for the reader?

How nice for the bigots. Direct, unfiltered criticism. Isn't that what Ann Coulter does? A one-line, outrageous disparaging remark is not the same as direct, unfiltered criticism. It is name calling without substance.

This would be an experiment, replace the word 'religious' or 'Christian' in the remark with the word 'black' or 'homosexual'. Does the statement then make the person a racist or a homophobe? Then the previous statement was religiophobic. Religiophobia should not be tolerated here any more than any other kind of bigotry.

[smoogatz]

64. Religion is not analogous to race or gender identity.

You chose it--you weren't born with it. Your ideas/beliefs are not sacrosanct, and those who disagree with them are not bigots. Sheesh. This is one of the stupidest arguments ever put forward by theists--it's a bald attempt to shut down any and all critique of their beliefs and practices, and it has absolutely no basis in logic.

[hfojvt]

71. it's not about critiques

Unless you would consider this a valid critique - "This movie sucked. The director is insane and the actors and actresses are ugly."

"I hated this movie" can be a true statement, but it lacks substance. Not all criticism would be religiophobic. I guess though, that bigotry against feminists and atheists would be okay since they chose it. Disagreement does not make a person a bigot, but my experiment is a way of demonstrating the bigotry of a statement, and a bigoted statement says something about the sayer.

[smoogatz]

77. Okay, let me make your argument for you

since you don't seem to understand it. Here we go: bigotry is about pre-judging groups of people (all Christians are morons) versus forming negative opinions of ideas or belief systems (the precepts of Christianity are appalling and absurd). If I say that I dislike all Christians, I'm probably a bigot. If I say that I reject the teachings of Christianity, does that make me a bigot? (Hint: no, it does not--it makes me a Jew or a Muslim or a Buddhist or a non-theist, etc.) If I say further that I dislike being "evangelized" by Christians, does THAT make me a bigot? (You might want to check your probable reaction to having groups of atheists appear on your doorstep, intent on informing you that your beliefs were both ludicrous and dangerous, before you answer that one). If I say even further that I would actively resist the injection of religious magical thinking into the formulation of public policy (and the dispensation of my tax dollars), does THAT make me a bigot? Or is the real bigot the person who wishes to impose his mythology on everyone else? Really, if you're going to argue this stuff out here in public you should try to move past your goofy Catholic League talking points, or whatever they are.

[Elspeth]

79. Has anyone on this board tried to impose their religious beliefs on you?

This is not an in-your-face challenge. I'm just wondering. I am new here and might have missed something.

[smoogatz]

84. Not directly, but there are plenty of anti-choicers and creationists

posting on DU who would happily impose their mythology on the rest of us, given the chance. And outside DU, it's happening with alarming frequency to me, you and the rest of the country, thanks to the theocrats within the Bush misadministration.

[Elspeth]

87. I agree that that right wing "Christians" are aggressively recruiting

I don't know how many DUers fit that description though. I do not try to impose my beliefs on others. I figure that my actions speak for me: "By their actions you shall know them." I also believe that you can cry Lord, Lord until the cows come home, but if you're not connected to the suffering of real human beings and trying to help alleviate their suffering (and NOT by throwing literature at them) then you are wasting your time.

[smoogatz]

95. I have no quarrel with you and those who believe as you do.

Peace.

[Elspeth]

98. And peace to you too!

:hi:

[hfojvt]

127. there are anti-choicers and creationists on DU?

Plenty of them? I would be surprised if there are even three creationists on DU. I have never seen such, and I frequent evolution threads. Are they in the R/T forum?
And anti-choicers? I cannot think of any DU regulars who are anti-choicers. I have not noticed it, although it is plausible that there are some, and perhaps more who have not outed themselves on that issue.

[smoogatz]

178. They come out of the woodwork from time to time--

the anti-choicers pop up every time there's an abortion related thread, or a morning-after pill related thread. The creationists (disguised as ID nuts who think we should "teach the (nonexistant) controversy" pop up on evolution, astronomy and science threads. Often they're low-post trolls, but we have a small stable of resident nutballs who think the world is 6,000 years old and/or that women are really just machines for making babies. I'm surprised you haven't noticed them--I sure have.

[smoogatz]

179. They come out of the woodwork from time to time--

the anti-choicers pop up every time there's an abortion related thread, or a morning-after pill related thread. The creationists (disguised as ID nuts who think we should "teach the controversy") pop up on evolution, astronomy and science threads. Often they're low-post trolls, but we have a small stable of resident nutballs who think the world is 6,000 years old and/or that women are really just machines for making babies. I'm surprised you haven't noticed them--I sure have.

[hfojvt]

82. you seem to think I am talking about you

rather than talking about religiophobic bigotry here in general. I have not said anything about you, unless the shoe fits.

[smoogatz]

85. What makes you think that? Because I use myself as a rhetorical example?

Good grief. And there you go again, claiming you're the sad victim of something called "religiophobic bigotry," which I seem to remember hearing about on a Catholic League radio station, driving through southern Wisconsin a couple of weeks ago, and which seems to consist of all expressions of opinion or belief that contradict yours.

[hfojvt]

89. you seem to forget that not all DUers follow your example

and that somehow I am unable to distinguish criticism from bigotry. I don't think I said anything about sad victimhood. How can I be a sad victim, when I am fighting back (and kicking a$$ in doing so :P)?

[smoogatz]

94. Fighting back against what?

The temerity of the tiny minority of Americans who dare to reject your beliefs? Being a member in good standing of the majority religion (sort of, if you're Catholic)? Good gravy, what a brave soul you are, standing up to such dreadful oppression.

On edit: I think it would be helpful if you defined your terms. What IS "religiophobic bigotry," other than some completely made-up talking point that doughy homophobe Bill Donohue's been throwing around?

[hfojvt]

129. you have been trying to redefine religiophobic for me

but I defined it in my first post on the matter #63

"replace the word 'religious' or 'Christian' in the remark with the word 'black' or 'homosexual'. Does the statement then make the person a racist or a homophobe? Then the previous statement was religiophobic."

that's better than a simple definition, which would be 'fear or hatred of religion, or the religious'. Statements or actions can be judged on how they would look if the same statement was made or action taken based on race, sexual orientation, or gender. If you know what racism, sexism and homophobia look like then you know what religiophobia looks like.

[smoogatz]

180. Okay, so it's about people.

Fine. I have nothing against Christians or religious people, as long as they don't proselytize or otherwise try to shove their goofy beliefs into the faces of those who aren't interested (including through the misappropriation of my taxes, thank you very much). I do object to being preached at, evangelized, etc., some degree of which seems to be a component of the practice of numerous Christian or pseudo-Christian sects. I'm appalled by much of what many Christians seem to believe, and most of what they seem to practice--this is especially true for me of Christian fundamentalists, whose beliefs and practices seem to be based mostly in ignorance, fear and aggression. In general, religion seems to me at best a pleasant delusion--like the old lady in my grandmother's nursing home who thought she was on a cruise--and at worst it's been the excuse for countless incidents of oppression, torture and murder, and at least a couple of mass murders approaching genocide. Not to mention what Marx said, about religion being a weapon the rich and powerful wield to maintain the economic/political status quo, which seems to have been alarmingly near the truth in our last two presidential elections. So, dislike Christianity, like the Christian (except when he/she displays specific kinds of annoying behaviors). That sound okay to you?

[Zhade]

141. Man, you win so hard. What a great way to break it down.

Well-said.

[eridani]

107. The science fiction writer James Blish was once asked--

--how he dealt with negative criticism. He said that a serious critic should state how and why a particular work was bad, and if criticism didn't do that it wasn't "negative criticism" or any kind of criticism at all--it was simply abuse.

[Zhade]

140. Atheism is not chosen; it is the default position.

No one is religious - this includes children - until they know about religious ideas. Some of us don't fall for them; that's not a choice, that's how our brains work. We have a nice healthy desire not to buy in to unproven ideas. Go figure.

[Nevernose]

121. "Gender Identity" and homosexuality are not synonyms.

Just for the record: "gender Identity" and homosexuality are not synonyms.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: don't confuse sex (in any definition) with gender. Even if you already know that, that's what came across in your post (the beauties of the Internet, right?).

[Zhade]

138. Religion is chosen; race and sexual orientation is not.

Nice try, but your analogy doesn't hold up. At all.

If people are hating on believers for BEING believers, that's wrong.

Criticism of unfounded beliefs is not bigotry. Sorry if you can't grasp that simple fact.

[DeSwiss]

13. madfloridian, very well put....

K&R!!!

We've Got A Winner!!!


:D

[Bjorn Against]

15. Anyone who claims to know what God says does not know anything

If there is a God, there is certainly no real record of God ever actually saying anything. Is it not a fact that God did not write the Bible, but rather the Bible was written by humans? The Bible is not God's word, it is other people telling us what God's word is. I don't mean that as an attack on Christians, I just mean it as a simple statement of fact. I mean honestly can anyone deny that this is the case?

[durrrty libby]

30. They deny anything that doesn't suit them. There is already one stating they are

the real christian and others are a cult.
As in all religions, the BS is deep

[Elspeth]

39. Are you referring to me?

Maybe it would help to understand that Christianity has not been a single entity, at least since Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation. There is not a single block "Christianity".

In my mind, if a religion is primarily political in orientation and exists for the sole purpose of catapulting a particular political group or party into power, then it is not a religion, but a marketing tool, and if it requires people to think in lockstep with NO independent thought, then it is a cult.

[durrrty libby]

43. Well of course you and your mind can make up your own religion, and the

established religions will call you a cult.

In my opinion it is all BS

[FloridaJudy]

65. Excellent response

Unfortunately, the sort of "religious" folks who get the majority of publicity are the fanatics who believe that their religion gives them license to ride rough-shod over anyone who disagrees with them: the lunatics who fly jets into office buildings, the preachers who blame natural disasters on unbelievers, the ones who open fire on mosques and synagogues, the bigoted, the misogynistic and the homophobic.

We forget that people of faith have also been among the visionaries and the social reformers: the Ghandis, the Martin Luther Kings, the Thich Nhat Hanhs, the Desmond Tutus, the Dalai Lamas, the Philip and Daniel Berrigans.

The "God Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It" mindset is horrifying, and it is promoted by all too many religious leaders.

But the "God/Tao/Unifying Force Is Love In All Its Aspects" still works well for those that embrace it.

[Elspeth]

33. We know God through our empathy with others

If God tells someone to get lots of money from you, then that person isn't listening to God, but his own selfishness. But if you see people suffering and you get others involved to help, you are acting from a true empathy.

[mondo joe]

49. That's your theology. This is a political message board - not a church.

What you think god is or wants is really your personal matter.

[Bjorn Against]

111. You can believe in or know God in a spiritual manner, but you can not say you know what God says

I have no problem with what you are saying, I have a problem with those who say "We know this is true because God says it is true". We have no record of there even being a God, much less that God actually saying anything. You can believe in God and thats fine, I think you could even make a good case that there is a God. It is simply those who think they can quote God when there are no quotes available that drive me nuts.

[brentspeak]

25. It's pretty lame-brained to believe there's a "DU concensus" on anything

[ellisonz]

68. How so?

I would say that there is a DU consensus that Dick Cheney is a sack of shit. I would say there is a DU consensus that the War in Iraq is lost. I would say there is a DU consensus that the American healthcare system is a disaster. Just for starters...

[eridani]

108. Some people would disagree about the very term "war" on Iraq

You've seen it around here, and Lynn Woolsey reiterated it last week. The war was over in 2003, and we are now in a occupation. You can't win or lose an occupation, you can only leave or stay.

[ellisonz]

125. Semantics.

Oh and consensus and unanimity do not mean the same thing.

[eridani]

145. Or "framing"--this is pretty important n/t

[ellisonz]

126. Semantics.

Oh and consensus and unanimity do not mean the same thing.

[SmokingJacket]

29. DU is not one thing. It's a mass of things. nt

[nini]

99. agreed.. I was a bit surprised to see it narrowed down as it was

There are far too many varying views and opinions here to make those claims though I do see what she was getting at.

[madfloridian]

109. I made it too narrow?

I thought I left a lot of room for others' views. I just assumed everyone here was against bigotry, hypocrisy, and religion in government.

Maybe I assumed too much or failed to word it just perfectly.

:shrug: :shrug:

But I did not see anyone else even trying to answer that other thread. So I tried.

[JNelson6563]

31. Amen sister!

:toast:

[madfloridian]

41. Hi there.

Thanks for the comment. There were two letters to the editor in our paper today pushing the theme that the bible is infallible. It just got me started.

:hi:

[ellisonz]

72. Clearly those people only read chosen parts of the Bible...

The notion of infallibility smacks of Popery IMHO. Ironically, if those folks knew a damn thing about how the Bible was put together they wouldn't be so quick to make their arrogant spiels.

[Elspeth]

76. Maybe someone can correct me on this, but wasn't infallibility a 19th century invention?

I don't think the Catholic pope was considered infallible until then.

[Adsos Letter]

35. Well, now...let me say this about that...

I belong to a Christian denomination with fairly conservative views on many things, except one...the right to impose our beliefs on anyone else.

And that is the key here, IMHO, and it is what I think is the general view of the majority of DUer's if my reading over my "lurking times" is correct.

I have weighed in on a couple (only) of debates here in which I made my views regarding my faith pretty explicit; yet no one here has ever reacted in any way that doesn't fall under the heading of "the right to hold a personal opinion".

Our denomination (many of whose views would, without doubt, be classed as fundamentalist and open to ridicule here) has also maintained over a century's worth of involvement in the struggle to maintain the "Separation of Church and State" which so many "Christians" seem to abhor. And we interpret "Church/State Separation" in precisely the way the majority of The Founder's and The Constitution have defined it: Freedom of Conscience is a right inherent to humanity, not something "bestowed" by a benevolent government, as are the other "inalienable rights" we are supposed to cherish; revisionist Historians of David Barton's ilk be damned.

As a previous poster noted, if you start presenting your ideas/beliefs publicly (in ANY venue) you had better be prepared to acknowledge in others the same right you wish for yourself: the right to express ideas freely, and to have those ideas held up to scrutiny.

I have read my Bible through on more than one occasion; I know what portions some "Christians" use to justify to themselves their program to end Church/State Separation but I have never, for the life of me, understood how they could harmonize that belief with what I interpret as the clearest of teachings of Jesus. Just my understanding of things; however, the writings of The Founders, The Constitution, and the Lessons of History all speak to the wisdom of Church/State separation, and the danger of abrogating it.

I think the majority of DUer's are rightfully outraged at the incursion of Religion into the workings of Government, as those "Christians" ought to be at the incursion of Government into Religion: It is neither healthy nor safe for either one.

This is a Secular government. It was intended to be just that. Most DUer's seem to realize this, and I support them for it.

:D

[Elspeth]

37. This is a really good post

I feel the same way about the separation of church and state. The WORST thing that could happen is for the government to sponsor any religion. It taints both government and religion. It creates a caste system by religion and it creates religious impetus for warfare.

[Zhade]

142. Secularism works!

NT!

[Bluerthanblue]

40. DU is a community- and some people within this community

view any 'religious' anything- in a negative light.

I think it is wrong to define the entire sight by the narrow confines of a few- no matter how large and loud the few may seem.

Just as i would appreciate not being judged as 'less than' simply on the basis that i acknowledge having a spiritual/faith- rather than my personal individual words and actions.

Bigotry and prejudice are everywhere- we all have areas in our lives where 'pre-conceived' notions about people are sometimes used to distance others unfairly.

It isn't just 'religion' it can be anything.

I don't recall anyone proselytizing on DU in the years i've been here- I have seen some sweeping negative comments made about people who identify with "Christianity"- on many occasions.

I don't think it would be fair to get frustrated with DU as a 'whole' - but think it would be better to direct comments to the individuals making the statements.

I am anti- bigotry and prejudice. I hate it when my own prejudice is exposed, but grateful to those who take the effort to point out my 'issues'- because then i have a chance to change.

peace,
blu

[porphyrian]

44. I just don't care about religion.

I want to respect others' beliefs, but I think many of them are just stupid. This is in part because I believe tradition for the sake of tradition is stupid, and much of the ceremony involved in many religions is just there for tradition's sake. I don't tell people what they should or shouldn't believe or practice, but I won't pretend something I think is stupid isn't.

[spoony]

45. DU isn't anti-Christian, but quite a few DUers are

Anti-theist, arrogant, nose-in-the-air pseudo-intellectuals who peer down in disdain at people holding "superstitious" beliefs. To them it is certainly NOT about RWers; it is about the supposed inferiority/mental illness/stupidity/etc. of ALL theists, and most especially Christians. They are bigots, plain and simple.

DU, however, is not those things. DU is everyone, and so it is a disingenuous misnomer to say anything about DU in general.

[ieoeja]

57. Ah! That would be me.

I do, in fact, look down on people who believe in the literal existence of fairies and the like.

I would not, however, say, "most especially Christians". As far as superstitious nonsense goes, Christianity has a lot to recommend itself over much of the rest out there. An interesting bit of history that never makes it out to the pop culture is that one emperor tried re-introducing the old religions. After decades of Christianity they were severely disturbed by animal sacrifices and the notion of the Gods having to be feared and placated rather than loved. Ultimately the Saturnalia, in which gangs roamed the streets of Rome raping women to honor the God Saturn, caused the people, not the church or some political entity, to riot bringing down the emperor.

All in all Christianity has been a pretty decent religion. Even some of the bad things aren't so bad when you take the full view. The Crusades was essentially a counter offensive against the Muslim invasion of Europe. Galileo based his work on prior knowledge that would not have existed had the Church not protected it during the Dark Ages. Furthermore, he was a research scientist employed by ... the Church. Under modern law the fruits of his labors would belong to his employer which gave them the right to suppress it.

Frankly, I am a whole lot better at defending Christianity from many of the attacks than any Christian I know. That is probably because I take a critical look at everything while Christians take everything on faith. Of course, if you started taking a critical look at everything, you would end up an atheist. So better to leave the defense of Christianity to me.


And, by the way, there is nothing "pseudo" intellectual about me. I really am fucking intellectual, you twit. That, and humble. I have lots of humble.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[ieoeja]

62. Yet they'll vote for a Christian.

Despite the fact that many Christians look down on non-Christians and think Atheists are Satanic (apparently having no concept of what Atheism means).

They can apparently tell the difference between good and bad people who happen to be Christians. You'd think they could do the same for people who happen to be Atheists.

[hfojvt]

86. I thought post #57 was very cool

intelligent, funny, and not totally anti-Christian. At least some of the ideas were explicated, unlike above with the simple, unexplained comment that all religions are cults.

Some people are proud of being edjumacated and well-read. It's not a fatal flaw if they can demonstrate such.

[mondo joe]

92. Why? Do you need to have your beliefs ass kissed to vote for

someone?

[spoony]

122. Lol, so you regularly vote for people

who openly state they think you're an idiot and insane? Doesn't sound like a terribly sound voting strategy to me. Seriously, do you really think you've made any kind of legitimate point?

[mondo joe]

149. Where did you get "atheism = people who think you're an insane idiot"?

I vote for Christians often enough - what do they think of me?

[dmallind]

167. Why not?

I manage to regularly vote for people who think I will and should burn in literal lakes of fire for eternity.

Seems like being considered an idiot or insane is quite amicable compared to that.

[pingzing58]

60. Did you mean to say lots of humility? If not, my bad. nt

[YankmeCrankme]

81. You need to freshen up on your crusades history

Actually, the crusades were the response of two major factors, neither of them in response to a Muslim invasion of Europe. First, the Eastern Roman emperor, ruling in Constantinople was losing territory in Asian minor to Islamic empires and requested help from the Pope in Rome. Secondly, the Pope in Rome decide to use this as an opportunity to l) recover the Holy Land from the infidels, i.e. Muslims, and to establish Christian control over those lands and, 2) as a way to reconcile the many war-like princes and kings, who were fighting and killing each other, with the doctrine of Christ's love and peace message, taught by the Church, by directing their fighting toward a common and non-Christian foe (much to the chagrin of Eastern Orthodox Christians and Jews, as they were systematically slaughtered along with Muslims, as the crusaders advanced into the middle east).

You may need to rethink the term "intellectual".

[ieoeja]

113. I didn't go into as much detail. But...

..., that was pretty much what the same thing I said.


"losing territory in Asian minor to Islamic empires"

Correct. They were not responding to the Muslim (Islam = religion; Muslim = people) invasion of Europe "exactly". Sure, they had already conquered Iberia and been defeated in their attempt to invade France in western Europe several centuries before the Crusades. But the Crusades were not a a direct response to that. It was, as you say, instead a counter-offensive against their attackes against their invasion of the Byzantine Empire. But, as you very well know, and as the European nations knew would happen, the moment they conquered Constantinople, their armies began advancing into, and conquered much of, eastern Europe.

So it was a "virtual" counter-attack.

I also know about the whole 100-Years War aspect. However, your "systematic" slaughter of Easter Orthodox Christians is incorrect. The Crusaders who did that were ex-communicated en masse by the Pope in Rome. The Crusaders who did that represented Christianity in the exact same fashion that Terrorists represent Islam. Which is to say, "a minority segment", not, "the whole or even the majority".

And if you couldn't get "intellectual", then... well, this is why I tend not to engage your average moron online. For cripes sake, I said I have lots of "humble". Thing about it.

[YankmeCrankme]

130. First of all, I'm not your average moron...

I'm your above average moron. :)

Secondly, the killing of Middle Eastern Christians and Jews by Western European Christians was more common than you indicate. The first big wave of crusaders numbering in the tens of thousand killed many Jews, wiping out entire Jewish communities, in Europe on their way to Constantinople. After making it to Asia Minor and the Levant they did not discriminate between Jew, Muslim or Christian when it came to killing. Even the more organized second wave that followed, when they captured/sacked Jerusalem, killed as many Jews and Muslims as could be found in the city, including women and children. Many Christian residents of the city were indiscriminately killed along with them. In a later crusade the Western European Christians sacked Constantinople, killing many in the city and the majority were Christian, as well.

So, my comment that the crusaders systematically slaughtered Christians and Jews is not incorrect.

Lastly, in my reading your comment that you were a "true" intellectual while bragging about lots of humble seemed to imply an arrogance. It appears I misinterpreted that, I apologize.

[EVDebs]

173. That's what i love about DU ! I'm a Christian and want to work WITH YOU

to get HR 676 passed for one thing. Ending the Iraq fiasco and moving on to post-oil economics for another. The hypocrisy of * gags me and has done more to distance people from this pseudo-Christianity they put out than anything else I can think up.

In other words, tolerance, as brought to us by the Founding Fathers, who saw the effects of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre etc in their not too distant past and wanted no part of it.

[hfojvt]

88. so far after 83 posts

I count 8 of them which are anti-Christian or anti-religion. Kinda makes your point and refutes the OP.

[pingzing58]

46. I'm very committed to Christianity and Roman Catholicism (although I lament some of the decisions of

our Popes and bishops).  And, as I've said before, I enjoy the
DU forum where everyone can express their thoughts and
opinions as well as the information and reports I can get
instantly.  Dicussions here help me grow as a human being and
citizen of the world.  I see discussion of issues are more
important than Christian or bashing of any kind for someone's
religious or other beliefs.    

[madfloridian]

61. Nice post.

Thoughtful.

[redqueen]

47. Thank you, madfloridian, for responding to that.

Gets old, it does.

[BlooInBloo]

48. That would RULE!

[tbyg52]

50. I am not anti Christian

Except for the kind who feel sorry for me, want to convert me, and think I'm going to hell if they don't. Aside from those, no problem.

[cobalt1999]

69. People don't like being told how to live their lives, nor what to believe.

Those topics always rile everyone up. Atheists don't like believers (of whatever) telling them how to live. Theists don't like atheists telling them their beliefs are superstitious. PETA threads go like gang-busters because no one likes that moral code imposed upon them.

It's not so much WHAT the moral code, just don't try to impose it on others. Saying you are a christian, muslim, vegetarian, etc. doesn't gets a big negative reaction here. Saying you are "right" and your way of life is "better", generates a lot of hostility.

[sampsonblk]

70. Often, that's code for anti-christian-nt

nt

[uppityperson]

73. anti-fundamentalism also. Good post,thanks.

edit for the typo (5 words and I misspell one. geesh)

[Flabbergasted]

78. Well Done Bravo

[cmkramer]

83. Actually there are quite a lot of bigots on DU

Most of them post on the religion threads.

[AuntPatsy]

90. alot more freepers i would say attempting to make du look bad....

I wouldn't call those intolernt of religious domination bigots, more like realists.

[brentspeak]

103. Exactly

I wish DU would implement a policy of putting disruptors' IP addresses on the tombstones. It would help in ID'ing the trolls.

[Nihil]

148. Really?

> I wish DU would implement a policy of putting disruptors' IP addresses
> on the tombstones. It would help in ID'ing the trolls.

Fortunately the DU admins are sensible and know about things like NAT and
dynamic addressing ...

:hi:

[Cha]

91. Thank you, mad..I was going to

answer that thread, thusly, but never got around to it. But, thought about it a lot.

[Miss Chybil]

96. I've always wondered if it's o.k. to be bigoted towards bigots.

It's just one of those burning questions...

[mzmolly]

97. DU has a forum for Christians no?

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

102. This man's influence on my church had a devastating effect on me.

I am anti those who would control women's private lives. They have no right.

I can talk about Baptists because I was part of that church through my childhood and into adulthood, as were our children. When the Iraq invasion happeneed, when the pastors preached war from the pulpit....we left the church.

Then I started doing more research on leaders in the SBC movement. Many of them came from my area of Florida, it was central to the hijacking in many ways.

The change I have seen in Dr. Rev. Al Mohler, who is in charge of training pastors at the seminary....was the most shocking thing to me.

Baptists have never been against these things, and it was alarming revelation to me.

Southern Baptist leader says deliberate childlessness defies God's will.

Just a couple of the brief, blunt statements Al made.

"I am trying to look at this from a perspective that begins with God's creation," Mohler said. "God's purpose in creation is being trumped by modern practices."

"I would argue that it ought to be falling short of the glory of God. Deliberate childlessness defies God's will," he said.

...."..."First, we must start with a rejection of the contraceptive mentality that sees pregnancy and children as impositions to be avoided rather than as gifts to be received, loved, and nurtured. This contraceptive mentality is an insidious attack upon God's glory in creation, and the Creator's gift of procreation to the married couple."

[dysfunctional press]

117. actually, i am pretty much anti-christian...but i despise all religion(s) equally.

until/unless people get past all the myths and superstitions and try to focus on real problems in the here and now, rather than worrying about their chances at a fairy-tale future in some cosmic candyland, we're ALL fucked.

[madfloridian]

118. But one or two or 3 people does not make the site that way.

Most of us here are not against religion.

[dysfunctional press]

119. you should be-

it's at the root of so many of our societal problems.

more people really need to be trying to focus on the real issues, rather than spending their time playing make-believe.

[madfloridian]

120. Well, you are just as judging then as the religious right.

If you are telling me how I should be. That was basically the point of my post.

[dysfunctional press]

146. it's not just you- it's everyone who is idiotic enough to believe in a mythical deity.

the morans are fucking up the planet for the rest of us.

[madfloridian]

153. Well, call me a moran then.

Because I do believe.

[upi402]

123. Sick of having my real life messed with by fantasy beleivers

who are trying to asuage their fears by fucking up my reality.

ugh

[AZBlue]

124. "I am anti that type of Christianity"

Yes, but many here are just "anti Christianity."

[madfloridian]

128. Well, I tried. I really did. I tried to word it right.

I absolutely give up.

Of course there are some here who just hate Christianity...but the forum itself is NOT NOT anti-Christian.

That was my point.

I do have faith. It is your right not to have faith.

[Zhade]

144. And of course, hating christianity is not hating Christians.

I have nothing against believers - I just find their beliefs in the unproven ludicrous. But I wouldn't treat them differently than anyone else, and don't.

[AZBlue]

188. No, I understood your message - I really did. And I appreciate it very much.

But, as much as I'd like to believe that the forum as a whole isn't anti-Christian, it sure feels that way very often.

[Zhade]

143. You know, we're allowed to be, and we don't need your permission to be so.

I'm anti-belief-in-unfounded myths. Don't like it? Too bad. There is NO requirement that DUers be pro-religion, period.

[Zhade]

131. Great post. I'm anti-religion, but that applies to ALL unfounded religious beliefs.

And of course I have no issue with people believing what they wish, no matter how preposterous. Insisting we live by it is where I start putting my foot in asses.

[dmallind]

171. That point is continually missed

Anti-Christianity is a perfectly rational position. Would anyone say that being anti-belief in Peter Pan is such a horrible and unforgiveable thing? I don' think it's sensible to believe in that for which there is neither evidence nor inductive argument of any validity whatsoever. I am anti-irrationalism, and Christianity just happens to the most prevalent form of irrationalism in this society. As an idea, it is neither more nor less credible than belief in fairies or reincarnation. Where it becomes the target for more vitriol is because fairy belief does not have the massive social and political influence Christianity does, and is not holding back scientific progress and individual rights like Christianity is.

So yes if you believe people should be able to marry who they love, and women should control their own bodies, and that we should seek out cures for living breathing humans even if that harms undifferentiated microscopic globs of cells, then yes it's appropriate to be anit-Christianity. There may be thosands of DU Xians who believe just that, and may be millions more in the nation, but they are Christians. Christianity on the other hand is THE, bar none, by a country mile, main force which is standing against those things, and the main weapon used against them.

Again - "S" DOES NOT EQUAL "ITY". Christianity as a political force should be opposed. We should be against what it is doing in these areas and many more. Individual Christians on the other hand? We should only be anti-Christian when they stand in the same foul corner against freedom and progress and justice.

[Mythsaje]

139. I said my piece on that subject

and a little more...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1198102

[Dragonbreathp9d]

147. Though I would say I am Christian

it is getting harder and harder to identify myself as such just because of how fucked up some "Christians" are making it (not that I even think that there should be such narrowly defined labels). I guess the fact that I have an open mind sets me so far apart from most other Christians (not all mind you, as I know many like myself) that I myself am no longer a "Christian" but an agnostic or some other label.

I hate labels.

[jwirr]

151. I almost quit coming to DU because of the ridicule when I merely

tried to explain WHAT the church teaches. I do not try to proselytize. I agree with what you are saying regarding religion but one aspect of the above is the idea of not being able to say "I believe". I believe Democrats are our only hope of straightening out the mess we are in. I also believe that they may not be doing all they can at the moment. Yet I cannot believe in a religion? All I want is to be able to say what I believe, I do not demand that you agree with me - only respect my right to believe.

[mr blur]

163. I certainly accept your right to believe,

but you must acknowledge that the things you believe aren't automatically worthy of respect because you believe them.

[jwirr]

187. Worthiness is a two way street.

[MedleyMisty]

152. Like I've said before

and like several other people have tried to explain, dislike of an idea or a belief is not the same as dislike of a person or group of people.

I'm trying to think of an analogy.

Okay, a lot of people on DU don't like rap music. Does that mean that a lot of people DU hate all rappers and everyone who listens to rap? Or country, because country music comes in for a lot of hate too. But yeah, I would actually say that a few of the anti-country posts qualify as bashing.

Here's how I tell bashing from criticism. If it helps you, good; if not, ignore it.

Criticism would be, "Magical thinking isn't exactly helping us right now, and denying scientific facts and supporting bombing and torturing people just because of religious differences and trying to legislate morality just makes things worse." If you're Christian but you're not engaged in any of that, that statement is not about you at all. And even if you are a rightwing fundamentalist and it is about you, it's still not personal and it's still not bashing you. It's just saying that your actions are messing things up for everyone else, which is pretty much verifiable fact. If you don't like it, good. Think about why you don't like it.

Bashing would be "Christians are stupid bigoted mouthbreathers." That is an attack and it's an attack on all Christians. It's personal and it's insulting and it's not just a criticism of a concept.

And I'm sure it happens occasionally on DU, because I see the same thing directed towards all people who happen to live in the South. But hey - that's what the ignore user function is for. Instead of getting mad at all of DU for the actions of a few posters, just remove those posters from your DU experience.

[RevCheesehead]

157. .....

:popcorn:


:hi:

[gkhouston]

159. what? Run out of communion bread to nibble on? n/t

[Sequoia]

160. "I am an infidel," he insisted. "I know what an infidel is, and that's what I am."

Luther Burbank was widely known as a botanist and scientist. His fame as an inventor of new fruits, plants and flowers inspired world-wide interest in plant breeding, for which he was recognized by an Act of Congress, among many other honors.

What was not widely known, until just before his death in 1926 at the age of 77, was that Luther Burbank was a freethinker. Those who had read his writings and attended his lectures on evolution knew that he was a "naturalist," in both the scientific and philosophical usages of the word; but the general public, loving him for his work as a gentle horticulturist, knew nothing of his iconoclastic opinions.

Burbank had always been frank about freethought with friends and colleagues. He had read the rationalist press, and was fond of E. Haldeman Julius's "Little Blue Books." Robert G. Ingersoll was one of his favorite writers: "I do not think there is a person in this world who has been a more ardent admirer of than I have been. His life and work have been an inspiration to the whole earth, shedding light in the dark places which so sadly needed light," Burbank wrote.

Until 1926, Burbank had preferred not to publicize his freethought views broadly, devoting his energies to the Burbank's Experiment Farms in Santa Rosa, California. But two events caused him finally to go public with his opinions of religion.

http://ffrf.org/fttoday/back/burbank.php

[PassingFair]

193. Thank you, Sequoia!

What an ENLIGHTENING read!

I did not know this about Luther Burbank.

I live near Greenfield Village, where they have
relocated and preserved a little studio/office
of his. I will print a copy of his eulogy and
leave it near by the next time I go!

Thanks again.

[Sequoia]

194. You're welcome.

Look at all these posts! Good lord!

Luther's home is right down the street from where I work. There are rose bushes and it's pretty nice and peaceful. Little cats creep in now and then and the people who work there are very dedicated. The town has since grown all around it so that country look is long gone.

[Maat]

164. Mad, you knew Al Mohler?

About 4-5 years ago, my in-laws, having raised Hubby in SoCal for all of his life save 6 months, decided to follow his sister, Sister-Who-Walks-On-Water (because she can cook and sew) to Oklahoma. Sister's husband had gotten a job as an ob-gyn back in a small town there (and the local hospital paid him a large salary and his medical insurance).

Well, MIL, FIL, SIL, BIL, and the two kids move back there and become intense Southern Baptists. Needless to say, that did not go over well with their pretty-much-an-atheist son (a Pastafarian - www.venganza.org ).

Anyway, I started researching the Religious Hardright, and found out that Al Mohler and Richard Land shape the theology to a large extent, along with Page Patterson et al. They are both proud of their participation in secretive organizations such as the Council for National Policy.

I read their stuff often for a laugh (I'm laughing, because, if I weren't laughing, I'd be crying). Al Mohler now self-identifies as a 'Young-Earth Creationist." My husband got hung up on when he laughed at 'creationism' when Papa was on the phone.

We're Unitarian-Universalists, and Beloved Daughter is being brought up to respect all paths (at least show a modicum of respect, anyway)(I'm personally more into the One-Energy-One-Consciousness concept of Spirit, and believe that we are all equally unique and divine, but, that's me).

Thanks for letting me spout off! And I agree with your OP!

[madfloridian]

189. And his family as well.

They were special to me. When I saw him on TV in 2003 naming off all the people who were going to hell except Baptists....I started looking up stuff about him.

I don't remember that narrow ideology when I knew them. I think I would have noticed, even though it was before I was aware of the hijacking of our church.

Intelligent people, very nice. Something got inside his head and turned things around.

:shrug:

[Maat]

190. I think that it's all about money and power ...

he had his chance to rise up the hot political (yes, I said political) hierarchy, and he took it. Am I wrong?

That's too bad ...

Anyway, thanks for the reply.

:) :hi:

[ryanus]

165. I'll take that as a yes

[EVDebs]

170. Truth invites testing and questioning

Being pro-truth is being pro-God since God is truth and love. Or something like that ! DU is pro-truth from what I've seen. Keep up he good work.

[Handsome Pete]

176. FSM said it, I believe it, that settles it.

Ramen!

[HonorTheConstitution]

177. madfloridian, congratulations! Can't say it better.

No, DU is not anti-Christian. It is anti-bigot, anti-hypocrisy, and anti-theocratic.

Very good point. Our America has become a lough for other countries if they hear about Creationism. Just one example.

With the help of brainless bible readers that cannot interprete words into a 21th century context, this Bush regime got into power and is killing every day!

And where is the separation of church and state?

BTW, I am a catholic and struggle every Sunday seeing hypocrits in church and have to listen to anti-abortion but pro death penalty, pro war conservatives!

[DemBones DemBones]

191. Your thread header shows itself to be false.

"No, DU is not anti-Christian. It is anti-bigot, anti-hypocrisy, and anti-theocratic."

There are far too many DUers who ASSume all Christians are hypocritical bigots who want to force a theocracy on them. ANY post remotely related to Christianity attracts people saying "Hypocrites," "Bigots," "Theocrats," "Asshats," "Morans," etcetera ad nauseam.

You're trying to justify the anti-Christian posts by saying they are anti-bigot, anti-hypocrisy, and anti-theocratic but that's just not true.

MF, your idol Howard Dean has tried to warn the Democrats that they need to reach out to religious people but obviously you disagree with him on that because with this OP you are defending all the attacks on Christians, the "Fuck Jesus" thread of a few years ago, and other blasphemous threads and posts.

If anyone bashed Jews or Muslims, posted "Fuck Allah," etc., he'd get banned in a New York minute.

But it's always open season on Christians. You phony liberals are as disgusting as the trolls.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

192. Original sin is abusive.

The starting point for Christianity, Original sin, which says you are sinful just because you're breathing, due to this fairy tale they believe about Adam and Eve, is emotionally and mentally abusive.

Original sin is a fake problem. Substitutionary atonement is a fake solution. It's like advertising that tries to convince you that there is something wrong with you, so you have to buy this product so you will be "normal" or "cool".

I've known people who had to stop going to church so they wouldn't be suicidal after hearing the preacher rant and rave about how sinful all of us are.

I can make enough mistakes on my own, without some goddamn asshole preacher, who doesn't know a thing about my personal life, or what I have done in my life, screaming about how sinful the whole audience is.

:puke:

:puke:

If that's being anti-Christian, so be it. I've seen the horrific mental and emotional damage it does, not to mention Jesus talking about splitting up families for several generations. He was right about that.

Anybody that gives me a commercial about Jesus is gonna be a person I refuse to speak to, ever again.

[madfloridian]

196. I am a Christian.

I have no idols.

I think you have some understanding about my post wrong.

[Bluebear]

203. 'But it's always open season on Christians.'

Has anyone actually put into 'print' here the words "Fuck Jesus"?? Really?