Let me make it clear that I believe in God,

[dflprincess]

However, I do not believe in a candidate for President of the United States answering a question about how long it took to create the world. Or any other questions regarding their personal religious beliefs.

[TheUniverse]

1. I'm an atheist and I believe candidates should answer those questions.

If a candidate believes that the world is 6000 years old and evolution is a lie despite miles of evidence, that would make me question his judgment. (Huckabee Im looking at you.) And more often than not, zany religious views make it into the candidate's policy. For example, Huckabee wants no gay marriage because of what the bible says (disappointingly so do most democrats) and he also doesn't want science class to teach science.

[Fox Mulder]

3. I agree.

If a candidate is a fundy nutcase, I won't vote for him/her.

[dflprincess]

10. If the candidate is a fundy nutcase, I'm sure you'll know about it

without a forum like this. As a rule, the real nuts just can't keep themselves from spreading the "good news".

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

13. Oh what a load of garbage

People can choose to follow their faith and yet have very sound judgment.

[TheUniverse]

18. I think most politicians are atheists.

I think they are smart enough to know religion as you would say "a load of garbage." But they know they have to pander and pretend to be religous. It my experience that the more religion someone has, the less their judgment it. After all the definition of faith is to believe something with no valid reason.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

20. I think most pols are agnostic

but yes they pander, of that there is no doubt. My problem is you are taking one aspect of a persone belief system and saying well they believe in God and they believe the age of the earth is *x* and then you shut your ears to anything else they have to say.

If a 'pro' religious litmus test is bunk than so is a con test..

[TheUniverse]

26. A "con" religous test is not bunk.

Not even close.


And by atheist I mean the definition, "lack a belief in God." When I call myself an atheist I don't mean to say that I know there is no God. All I am saying is I lack a belief in God.



If someone legitimately believes in fairy tales, then that makes me seriously question their judgment. And over and over again, the results of fairy tale believing politicians shows me I am correct to have this litmus test. It is too bad that 99 percent claim to believe in that garbage, so its up to me to determine who really believes, and who is just pandering when I vote. Over all the system is simply pathetic, because I have to purposely vote for the politicians I think are liars.

[EOTE]

68. Your definitions are wrong.

You are by definition an agnostic, not an atheist. An atheist is a person who actively believes that there is no god. If you allow for the possibility that a god exists, you are an agnostic.

[Marr]

82. You're incorrect.

It's largely a game of semantics, but strictly speaking, an atheist is anyone without a belief in a god-- not someone who actively denies the existence of God.

I consider myself an atheist, because while I will leave room for the possible existence of god, I'm only doing so in the same way that I leave room for the possible existence of Hobbits and Fairies. If you show me one, I will start believing it exists. Would you call yourself agnostic on the existence of fairies?

I don't want to be lumped in with agnostics, because that word implies the person holds the two possibilities (the existence of God and the non-existence of God) to be equi-probable. I do not. I think one is very likely, the other very highly unlikely.

[Liberal Gramma]

89. Steven Hawkins, is that you?

Have you read his book?

[Marr]

107. Guilty. :)

I did read one of Dawkins' books. I believe he took a chapter or two to spell out just this argument. I really liked it, because it's a thought that I (being not so great a communicator) have struggled to describe for ages and he summarized it in a very straightforward way.

[Zynx]

27. You think most politicians are smart?

Also, the valedictorian of my school was the most devout Christian I've ever seen. Out of the top ten students, 8 were hard core Christians, one was atheist, one was agnostic. You don't have to be stupid to believe in God. There are those out there that want to believe in something more than the cold material world.

[TheUniverse]

29. 85 percent of this country is religious

If 8 of the top 10 students in your class were Christians, then that's actually a lower percentage of religious people than average.

[Zynx]

32. You are implying that intelligence has nothing to do with belief in God.

Statistically, that difference is meaningless. Under what you said, we would expect that the bottom 85% of my class would be dominated by the religious and the top 15% dominated by the irreligious, but that was not the case.

[TheUniverse]

34. There is a relation between intelligence and religious views.

I'm not talking about if there is a God or not, as I'm not smart enough to know. I call myself an atheist because I lack a belief in a God, not because I am saying their certainly isn't one.


If you want to see the differences in intelligence vs religion, look at views on evolution. Every statistic shows that the more education someone has had, the more likely they are to believe in evolution.


http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581

[spoony]

48. There is no valid reason to take you seriously.

[BurtWorm]

19. It doesn't speak well of someone's judgment to ignore incontrovertible evidence

for the weak principle of faith. It speaks less well of a nation that elects--or allows into office--someone operating under that kid of willful ignorance.

[mondo joe]

56. People CAN follow their faith - but I like to know if they're idiots who don't accept

science and reason.

[Winterblues]

62. And you believe faith in no way clouds judgement?

Do you believe the earth is only 6000 years old? Do you believe faith should be taught in science class along side regular science? I am suspect of those that put their faith ahead of reason...

[krabigirl]

25. They shouldn't even be asked these questions.

[B3Nut]

38. Frankly, I think it's a damning indictment of America that

a man who buys the delusion that the earth is 6000 years old can be taken seriously as a candidate for the nation's highest office. A man taking that mythology literally lacks the mental wherewithal to hold public office. Actually, I think people taking that mythology literally lack the mental wherewithal to vote intelligently, but that's me... ;)

[RedCappedBandit]

46. Agreed

[Breeze54]

66. Then the question should be about evolution, not religion.

That would also answer our suspicions and questions although Huckabee
or any of the RW freak GOP don't hide their 'religious' beliefs anyway.

[uppityperson]

2. k&r indeed. What the bloody hell is going on?

Am I in the right country anymore? This is appalling.

[dhill926]

4. Messiah College or whatever, says it all...

drinking heavily until "John Adams" is on and Jefferson gets elected....

[RainDog]

5. I am an atheist

and this bullshit about passing some loyalty test for the religious right is total bullshit that makes me want to scream because it is about the most anti-american crap I have seen in my lifetime.

the religious right has been the source of most problems in this nation for at least... oh, 200 years? I would cordially like to invite those who are fundamentalists to stfu because, frankly, you are wrong and have been wrong about every single issue in this nation since its founding.

religious tests are unconstitutional. if you can't deal with it, then YOU are the problem, not anyone else. (this is, obviously, not to you dfl... but to any of the fucktards who consider themselves "moral arbiters" of america.

[dhill926]

11. I am in complete agreement...well said...n/t

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

15. Hi raindog I have a question for you...

Is some kind of reverse test ok with you? lets say a progressive or populist young earth Christian runs does their belief on the chronology of time matter then?

BTW Fundi Christians were some of the *strongest* abolitionist where as many secular social evolutionist were in favor of slavery so please use a more narrow brush when painting people, ok..

[RainDog]

17. dad of 2 little angels

in the south, fundies were NOT anti-slavery. in the north, the abolitionists were often religious, but NOT of the same pov of fundies (as we now perceive them.) You are really misinformed about "secular social evolutionists" - which doesn't surprise me one bit b/c your remarks indicate your pov. MLK believed in social gospel, not fundie b.s., as far as current history.

the founders were deists who stated they thought there was probably a creator of some sort, but they didn't know what sort of god and that this amorphous, not anthropomorphic god certainly did not personally intervene in daily life and ABSOLUTELY did not have ANYTHING to do with proper governing.

The Enlightenment was the basis for democracy. The enlightenment is this anti-thesis of fundie religious belief. Benjamin Franklin was friends with Erasmus Darwin, Charles' granddad... who actually first presented an evolutionary theory... the religious dissenters in England at the time were not fundies, but they were the ones who supported American independence.

the white southern baptists opposed segregation in the south even after the fact... and, guess what, I know about these things b/c I am from the south and grew up attending a southern baptist church, so I know where your belief comes from... and it doesn't come from the bible per se. it comes from a pick and choose "literalism," and that's what I find really disgusting. you even lie to yourselves. they lied to me and every other child I knew about dozens of social issues and dumbed down the school systems. this is the truth. deal with it how you will.

I do not understand what a "reverse test" is... are you trying to imply that someone who does not accept geological science, biological science, astronomy, etc. should be considered "progressive?" It's my understanding that progressive is synonymous with a certain basic level of educated knowledge to understand how to work out democracy, etc. If there is a progressive who is also a science-denier, then hell yes, we should all know this because they aren't qualified to make informed decisions about sooo many things. and they shouldn't. that's not a "reverse test" as you try to snarkily include... see, that's the problem with religious fundies... you cannot differentiate between a belief system based upon tradition and unquestioning belief and a belief system based upon trial, error and reproducible results.

I assume you like things like antibiotics to keep ppl from dying at age 30 from some simple disease. Or you like to have varieties of foods in order to make us safer from the threat of famine... that sort of thing... well, those things are the result of science, not religion. Religion has consistently censored truth b/c it threatens their power. Just ask Galileo, or Darwin, or the many people now who suffer b/c of the religious stupidity of others.

as one of the most powerful nations in the world, there is no way an ignorant person should be in charge of it. look at the last 7 years if you have any doubt about that.

If you don't like my remarks, I do not care. I am livid that I even have to have these sorts of disagreements in this nation. I am so sick of the religious right I wish I could emigrate to a nation that is not still debating issues that were settled more than a hundred years ago and have NEVER been disputed by any reputable source (and there are these nations... and they consistently rank higher on quality of life indices... things like education, health care, equality... than the U.S.)

Spare me your attempts to justify religious stupidity. You cannot do it.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[RainDog]

24. Again, you cannot understand the diff. between reality and belief.

please read my comment below if you want to know why I am so sick of ppl who think as you do. but first, let me help you out a bit...

to "piss and moan" about religious intrusion into science is not the same as supporting freedom and practice of religion... but your freedom to practice religion ends where it intrudes upon others' freedom from constant intrusion by you and others into areas of life in which religion has nothing worthwhile to say.

Again, religious ppl have a problem understanding the difference between belief and fact... fact, btw, is reproducible results.

And my "intolerance" prohibits you from practicing your religion in what way, exactly? Because I am not tolerant of stupidity, I am bleak and shallow? LOL. again, you'll believe what you will.

Should I also have tolerance for those religious beliefs that insist women should be publically murdered because they don't accept that fundie belief system? How dare I be intolerant of that, huh? What a shallow and bleak existence I must have to care about people in this life, or to work toward a better world in the here and now.

LOL.

you're mad because you know you cannot argue your position with any integrity.

hint - just put me on ignore. you'll be happier that way... it's the fundie way, isn't it? Ignore the things you don't want to have to acknowledge, right?

[spoony]

50. Speaking of stupidity, I can't help but notice you

cite the Enlightenment as the "basis for democracy." Go crack open that history textbook your teacher is always alluding to. Look up the following words in the index: Greece, Magna Carta, and Napoleon.

[RainDog]

55. I am well aware of the history

and even Scalia admits that The Enlightenment is the foundation of democracy (as in the modern world's evolution from monarchy to...) he refers to this, in fact, as the *problem* for those who would like to live in a theocratically based nation in his speech, available online, called God's Justice and Ours.

My remark was a sort of shorthand. If you want to talk about democracy in all its forms, one of THE most influential philosophies for American Democracy was the Great Treaty of Peace (this may not be the exact name... ) for the nations of the Iroquois. They had a separation of powers to decide issues that Franklin, etc. all knew and admired and this admiration was noted.

Please do yourself a favor and do not assume that I am unfamiliar with Greece, the Magna Carta and Napoleon. Or with the Bloodless Revolution vs the French Revolution, etc. etc.

Your "gotcha" doesn't get anything. The philosophy of the Enlightenment was the precursor to American and French revolutions. Napoleon, after the fact, was important because he forced other nations in Europe to kill their priests and make church property state property, and overthrowing the power of the church was essential for democracy, of course... and there are so many other factors too.

however, it stands that the claim that The Enlightenment was the basis for democracy is true. Your comment seems rather pointless to me.

[smiley_glad_hands]

80. I do believe he meant modern democracy

was reborn from the the enlightenment.

[smiley_glad_hands]

79. If one wants to deny evolution and science...

then should stop driving a car, taking there medicine, watching tv, and buying food at the grocery store. They have all been a product of science. Kind of funny how many people deny on the one hand yet benefit from the fruits of science on the other.

While I do believe in God, I am more of deist like many of our founding fathers. It is true that Jefferson had no use for organized religion.

[smiley_glad_hands]

84. Dupe. Self Delete.

[RainDog]

22. and please, I must reiterate

the idea of a "belief" in a chronology of time.. or a "young earth" is not based upon anything other than ignorance. do you understand the reality of this? There is NO science that supports a "young earth." Do you understand that? --and by young earth, I am assuming you are talking about creationism, no matter what sort of lipstick religious fundies try to put on that pig.

do yourself a favor and watch this pbs vid about the Dover creationism issue.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

Every time any religious idiot has tried to insert his/her belief into the science curriculum, he or she has been shot down by reality. It is shameful that politicians in this land have to pander to religious idiots. It is a tragedy for this nation. honestly.

there are so many important issues we need to address.

if you and other religious reality deniers are offended by my remarks... imagine if someone told you, repeatedly, that your children were not yours... that you were not their genetic parents. you said.. but we have dna tests now (thanks to evolutionary science, btw) that can prove I am the parent of these children! but that other person said... well, god told me they aren't yours, so you have to take my belief into consideration.

wouldn't that make you livid? well, that's what your beliefs are like to others.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[RainDog]

35. apples and oranges

the issue here is that you fail to address the whether the basis for your belief in creationism is valid, not whether or not it should be taught in schools.

how am I a blind bigot to say that creationism is not true? how am I self righteous to note that creationism isn't science? You continue to try to insult me, but you offer nothing to back that up other than your anger.

[Lars39]

36. The internet may be the only place his beliefs are actually challenged.

Christians in the US are so used to being in the majority in real life,I think it just flies up some of their noses to have those views challenged whatsoever.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

40. LOL you have to be kidding...

People online only get upset because the online world is the only place they are challenged! Really?

I have worked with wicans, atheist, agnostics and all other suits of folks who disagree with me I get along fine in the real world with them (even when tehy challenge me) because in the real world people at least try to be *humane* on the internet people say and do things they would never say and do in public.

I would be absolutly ashamed if, in the real world, I carried myself in the manner that people on this tread do towards those with whom they disagree..

Point is I could vote for an athiest, or someone of a different faith in a second. I dont care how old someone thinks the world is I just wanna know they are going to take care of it going forward. Others here are so conditioned to hate Christians that they can be completely hypocritical and not even see it.

[Lars39]

41. Nope, not kidding at all.

I know of plenty of christians that live such an insulated life, surrounded by, and associating only with other believers, that anyone who disagrees with them, or even admits that they are a non-believer, cause a very big stir. I think a lot of christians also say and do things on the 'net that is contrary to how they behave irl.
There are so many different religious beliefs and churches, and many of those in shifting alliances with one another, it is very hard to keep up with who is trying to turn this country into a theocracy.

[mondo joe]

58. Voting for a creationist would be like voting for someone who doesn't believe in disease

but thinks illness is caused by demons.

The fact is that policy matters, and policy ought to be informed by evidence.

[RainDog]

61. thank you.

[Arugula Latte]

67. Yep. Why are we supposed to pretend that someone who

believes the Earth was created in literally six days is not a dumbass of epic proportions?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

72. lol

Ive sat in graduate level science classes with folks who assumed my faith made me a dumb a**, and I smoked them when it came to busting the curve.. So you go on making that assumption.

Ive had roomates in school taking philosophy, poly sci, and remedial match classes who would rail on how fundies are too stupid to 'get' science. Meanwhile I was nose deep in engineering, math, chemistry, and physics books..

[Arugula Latte]

74. Wow, so are you saying you believe the "six days" thing literally?

:scared:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

75. Im saying that if one believes

God can create a fully formed adult man with all the signs of someone who aged 30 years (or so) he can create a fully formed adult planet with all the signs of having ages 4 billion years..

And I say this as someone with a far better understanding of natural law than, I would presume, many people here..

[Arugula Latte]

91. I guess if one can swallow one ridiculous myth, one can swallow many.

Why not believe that a monster swallows the sun at night? Hey, it's based on "faith" and makes just as much sense as a six-day Earth creation.

As Mark Twain said, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

93. Because your insipid comparison is directly proveable..

But hey bigotry is all well and good as long as your a bigot against the right people in the right place..

[Arugula Latte]

96. So pointing out idiocy is now bigotry?

Wow, I gotta get a different dictionary.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

97. No,

The way you are acting towards people by minimzing htem in all aspects because of their beliefs is bigotry..

Let me help you with the dictionary

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance

Lets see

"believes the Earth was created in literally six days is not a dumbass of epic proportions?"

Different belief system = dumbass... yup yo uqualify

[Arugula Latte]

98. One belief system is based on mythology. The other is based on science.

The one based on science doesn't rely on silly stories.

That is the difference.

Different belief does not equate to equal belief. The Christian myth is equal to any other creation myth -- Gilgamesh or Native American or any other culture which created explanations for things before the basis for science was established.

Science stands outside and way above those stories. Mythology is not on equal footing.

I guess the truth hurts when you've invested so much in convincing yourself that a myth is literally true.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

99. Ive done nothing to convince myself

Were it my desire I could not, only the Spirit of the sovereign lord can restrengthen one enough

-regards

[Lars39]

100. You *were* taught to believe that way.

And to say anything different is totally disingenuous.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

102. To assume I was raised in the faith in which I now live

is whats disingenuous, its intellictually lazy *at best*...

I was not raised in the faith in which I now live, there are people in India being persecuted for becoming Christians they were not taught, they were moved by the spirit. Im sorry you disagree

have a nice day..

[Lars39]

104. Nowhere did I say that.

Children and adults are both taught the basic tenets of a religion.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

105. Well thats pretty meaningless then isnt it..

Of course someone spreads the gospel that does *not* make it more or less true... Kids are taught science as well no?

[Lars39]

106. You were taught stories. That doesn't make the stories true.

You chose to believe that they were true.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

70. That is an abysimal analogy..

Its not even worth addressing its so flawed..

But I keep getting sucked back in..

A creationist believes the earth is here and is bound by the same natural laws as someone who is not a creationist (hg in the water has the same effect on the human body, the mechanisms for global climate change are the same, ...) THe only difference is how we get here..

A better analogy is

A doctor who believes all disease was created by God (for whatever purpose) and a doctor who believes in the evolutionary account of a bacteria... both would prescribe penecillin (or some other AB) for an ear infection..

My friend who is a 26yo creationist (studying to be an overseas missionary) was diagnosed with cancer.. Guess what he thinks its a physical disease and got chemo...

Stupid analogy, just stupid..

[mondo joe]

77. Wrong. It matters to me that the President appreciates data and evidence, and

isn't basing policy on unproven beliefs.

Creationists don't understand or accept science - doesn't matter if it's carbon dating, evolution, or germ theory that they don't get it.

[coriolis]

78. Strange your 26 year old cretinist friend has no faith.

:eyes:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

81. I sure hope youre rolling your eyes at your own statement

A lack of faith in God does not preclude medicine or buckling your seatbelt, ....

[coriolis]

92. ROFL. Real faith would. I keep thinking of these assholes who survive a tornado

and credit it to a miracle from gawd...but they don't have shit to say about the family across the street that was
turned into hamburger.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

95. Real faith means not testing the Lord...

If he provided the means for a cure it woul dbe foolish and sinful to *not* avail onesself of it..

[smokey nj]

103. Why are you so bigoted against followers of the Christian Science faith?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science

[Echo In Light]

63. Kudos

[RainDog]

65. All Christians are not fundies

I have no problem voting for a Christian or Jew or Muslim etc. There are people who believe in a god who are capable of being great leaders. What has been demonstrated repeatedly in this nation is that fundies have not made good leaders. Again, this administration and the policies it has instituted are the strongest evidence for my claim. Until recently, all the christians, etc. who held office were mainline protestants, except for kennedy. I had no problem with Kennedy, either. In fact I think he was a great leader. A visionary. He sought to end the cold war... a war that was egged on by irrational fears of "godless communists."

The problem is those who deny reality, and we well better care if the leader of this nation thinks that we shouldn't fund this or that health initiative because, instead, we can give money to exorcists instead. (this is hyperbole, or exaggeration for effect... just to make clear.)

I work with people of different faiths and we are not at one another's throats. My initial post was a scream of anger that CNN even had such a repulsive program because it smacks of a religious test for fundies... it is pandering to them because mainline christians do not expect educated ppl to find a conflict between faith and science. fundies have the conflict - and fundies are a sect of protestantism, not all of it. In the same way, fundies are found in Judaism and Islam, too... and all of them are a problem in the world when trying to work out problems because it is nearly impossible to reason with someone whose final arbiter is "god told me so."

I apologize for my bluntness. That's a problem with the internet. However, I do not apologize for any of the substance of my posts. Again, my anger is the expression of my frustration. fwiw, I don't know why your other posts were deleted on this thread... I came here today and saw this.

It might help fundies if they were able to understand the anger others feel toward them. It has everything to do with political decisions. in real life, I have fundies in my family and I love them dearly. I love them IN SPITE OF their beliefs. And, as much as I love them, I would not want them making policy decisions in the govt. based upon their fundie beliefs.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

73. Please

George bush is *not* a fundy Christian he may play the part (and badly I might add) but other than most shallow Christians it smells to high heaven. If most Christians spent as much of their time and effort on Glorifying God as they do in defending a given political party the world would be a better place.

Ill be the first to say CNN giving such focus to faith is wrong, but the reaction by many here is just as bad..

My problem is you lump me (and other Christians) in with folks who put their faith, which should be on a Holy Sovereign and Worthy God, into the GOP it makes me sick to my stomach! How some have tied tax breaks to be so culturally integrated with Christianity ewww...

I was not ware I had post deleted Ill have to go back and ask why, still the mods are not above deleting a post they might have left up because of the faith position but I too can be too blunt and not loving in this medium so maybe I crossed a line.

[RainDog]

108. this is what confuses me

who gets to decide who is a "real" christian? Bush has science deniers all through his cabinet who have tried to insert religion into medicine and science. Bush claims a conversion experience via Billy Graham. Is Graham a real christian?

As far as tying you into others who profess faith as a reason for their politics... but they're the ones who have done that, not me. I mean to say that the religious right has done the pharisee dog and pony show with prayer breakfasts and all of congress rushing out on the capitol steps to pledge allegiance to the flag "under god" - an addition that came about thanks to McCarthyism, not faith.

In other words, they are the ones who have created that association and who have declared moral authority for tax cuts, not me. I find it is pretty close to heresy to claim Jesus would want them to shit on the poor via Republican economic policies, but, hey, they said it, not me. I cannot find any place in the bible in which Jesus said his followers should be associated with any political group whatsoever.

The reaction you see is the result of 3 decades of the religious right making a pact with the Republican party. Your fight, imo, is with them, not any of us here who object to these religious tests for candidates. If you want to correct that view, then you have a big fight ahead of you because big money supports them... and it supports them because big money uses religion to manipulate people.

But who, exactly, is a Christian? Who gets to decide, on this earth? Is James Dobson? why or why not? Was Jerry Falwell? What about Ted Haggerty (or how ever his name is spelled.) Jimmy Carter? Martin Luther King? Ralph Reed?

Are Catholics Christians? Can Christians believe in liberation theology and still be Christians? Can Christians believe in murdering via war and still be Christians? Who gets to decide?

I heartily agree with you about the phrase... if most Christians would spend time glorifying God... the world would be a better place (rather than being involved with a political party.) How do Christians reconcile involvement in pols when Jesus said to render unto Ceasar... when Jesus said he did not come to create a kingdom on earth? How do Christians glorify god on this earth?

To me, the answer would be in the example of the apostles, in Acts, who gave away everything they owned and ministered to the poor and sick. that was Jesus' example. Jesus didn't associate with the powerful. Jesus told the rich they, too, should give away all they owned if they wanted to follow him.

That is a literal reading of the bible. At its most important moment, when Jesus revealed himself to his followers after death. This is the crux of Christianity, and the example of Jesus and his followers, therefore, would seem to be THE most important doctrinal tenet for people who claim to believe in an inerrant and literal bible.

So where are the literalists, or fundies, on that issue in the U.S.? Where can I find anyone who claims to be a protestant fundamentalist who has given away all earthly goods to minister to ppl with aids (the modern leprosy) or who treats a Samaritan (or enemy group) as a friend and serves that person in the name of god?

If Jesus said that his life was the fulfillment of the laws,... i.e. rendering them void... why do literalists still spout OT as truth? which one of these phrases is true:

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death: their blood will be upon their own heads." (Leviticus 20:13)

"If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she shall be set apart seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean...." (Leviticus 17:19)

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 20:9)

If they are all literal instructions from the OT, why do you put your child to death if he or she curses you? Isn't that just as valid as believing that god created Adam at... what... around 30? -where did you come up with that age... I don't remember reading that one in any of the various creation stories in Genesis.... why do you believe one and not the other as a literal statement?

Why, among the three quotes above, might you consider one valid but the other two invalid? (i.e. forcing women into hiding for having a period and seeing them as filth; killing a child who curses a parent; or declaring a homosexual act as detestable and therefore worthy of death.

I do not understand how a fundie decides which of these is literally true and which is not. None of them are practiced in this society now. Why are they not literally applicable in today's society while a belief in a 6 day creation is? How is it not possible to read the story of the 6 days of creation and see that it is a metaphor for the awe that this world may inspire in all its random complexity?

When David sang "Create in me a clean heart, o god," - was he saying... god, take my heart out of my body, put it in the washing machine and have it back in two hours? that's literal. Or was he saying... god, I am asking you to help me remember the joy I felt before I did this particular thing that I now see was the result of my own ego... Do you believe the metaphorical version of this, or the literal one?

Honestly, these are questions I wonder if fundies ask themselves, and if they do, how do they answer them?

[spoony]

51. Yes, and God help us withstand the

brutal intellectual pounding from DUers. Lol. Sorry, I really tried to keep a straight face typing that, just couldn't though.

[RainDog]

60. please see my analogy about ones children and dna

if you want to understand why some of us are so sick of this sick we could scream.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[RainDog]

43. of course you're right...

My statement was that someone who does not believe in biology, astronomy, geology, etc. should not make decisions about imp. issues related to these topics as prez... you asked about a test for such an issue.

I told you I was livid b/c of my own experience with fundies. That's the basis of my anger... and it comes from lived experience of having ppl insist you consider their pov when their pov has no place in the debate (as in creationism in schools, etc.) You never addressed the analogy about scientific data that could incontrovertibly show something that is supposed to be weighted equally with the idea that someone's god says differently... but again, I think that's a very good way to try to show why some of us are livid about fundamentalism. You also fail to address other fundamentalisms - and whether I should be tolerant of those... are you tolerant of those? just wondering. I'm not because I do not want such world views deciding imp. issues.

the very existence of someone who is a creationist who is not a right wing whack job does not piss me off...that's your way to twist what I have said to empower yourself. I specifically stated that of course ppl can believe what they want, they just cannot force those beliefs into areas in which they are not valid and in which they intrude upon others' freedom of/from religion.

however, again, I do not want a science-denying person in positions of imp. decision making power. That does not make me a bigot. I do not accept religious fundamentalism as a valid view of the world. That does not make me a bigot. I also do not accept new age mumbo jumbo as a valid view of the world. that does not make me a bigot... and I doubt you would call me one because you aren't a new age religious believer.

but you'll think what you will. about me. about religion.

if you are here to do some good in the world, more power to you. I hope you succeed. That doesn't change my anger toward religious literalism, however.

[The Straight Story]

47. Well, therein lays the problem we have here

Because the people we want making decisions should not be solely beholden to science - there is something broader like philosophy and ethics, which lay outside of science (as does religion).

Speaking from a science mind one might deduce that the best thing for humankind is that we kill off most of us so that our resources last longer and the planet is able to thrive more. That might be provable by science, but that does not make it 'right' - which gets us into...what is 'right' and who decides that and why?

So while you may have a litmus test you apply based on whether or not someone ignores science, others have litmus tests on whether or not science should lead our decisions vs morality.

Science and morality are two different animals. One is science and can be reproduced in a lab while the other has to with something more intangible.

I don't want to trust my future and life to someone in power who sees me as a stat or worse.

And NO I am *NOT* saying people without faith can't or don't have morals. To repeat, I am NOT saying that at all. What I AM saying is that science has it's methods (and, btw, I love science and people who spend their lives in the many branches of it) but that the whole field of humanity is larger than facts about the age of the earth or what neutrinos are, etc.

If someone's specialty is in science, good for them. Mine is in computers and project management. Good for me :) But there are those who have specialties in human nature, psychology, social work, religion, et al who - while they may not have the expertise or agreement with others on some science issues - do know more about other things relating to human nature and making things better for all and not just a few.

I understand YOUR point in that it is hard to want someone leading a country who believes that 3 + 3 = 7, but I would counter that even if they don't accept that it does not mean they are not better suited on other things (morality, social issues, etc) because that is something outside a lab.

Telling people they should only listen to you because you know that 3+3=6 may sound good on paper and all, but people know that life is more than about facts and science - it is about humanity. And that is something you don't get in a lab.

LASTLY: My mom died on 12/31/2004. It hurt me in ways I cannot even begin to relate here. It did not bother you a wit as you did not know her (and that is fine with me). It bothered my siblings as well, only less so it appears than me. We humans react different to the same events. I still cry about that night I saw her slip away - I am sure they do but at different times and for different reasons (or trigger events).

While my sister is a RW fundie who strongly believes in creation (literal 6 days, etc) I also know that outside of that she is a wonderful person who has done a lot for many others, as mom did. She may not know jack about computers and may be in denial about scientific facts, but she can still accomplish a lot of good for others and lead them to do amazing things.

I might even believe that linux/unix is better than MS windows and can show that in a lab - but that does not really count for much in the real world :) (and I say that as a SUN certified guy who spends most his time on Windows machines...go figure).

I get what you are saying, I just hope you understand as well where others are coming from this. No flames and such, I like ya ;) but the facts point to DU being created a few years ago, even if the server they use was created before it was :rofl:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

52. As always

Thoughtful excellent post!

On a personal note: I cant imagine how you feel but you were blessed to spend your mothers last moments by her side, in our modern spread out world thats not often the case anymore. Just think the woman who gave you life was with you for, literally, the rest of hers. A bittersweet thought, Im sure..

My wife and I are deciding between a healthy met area (MSP) and moving close to fam in a dying area (WNY). Its not an easy choice to make.

Oh and BTW Linux rules (RHCE)..

[RainDog]

59. I am simply done with this argument because

my statement was about belief systems that are not consistent with reality. Obviously and of course science is not the be all and end all of decision making.

The inference is, consistently, that people who do not want to suffer fundies are, instead, eugenicists or some such b.s. - and yes, in the Victorian era there were eugenicists.

Ethics and religion are not exclusive. One does not need religion to be an ethical person.

Even an atheist like me actually has a heart. I nursed my stepmother and father through diseases in their last days... I dropped out of the work I was doing to travel 5 hours to care for them, taking my pre-school children with me. I've cared for homeless people... a woman in my town, particularly, who does not want to live off the street... I've cared for children with mental retardation and never once thought they should be euthanized! amazing! and I don't need a god to lead me to this conclusion!

The idea that only Christians care about people is total bullshit. (this, too, is not a slam at you, merely a sigh because this shit is so tedious. I'm sick of it. Now I know why, when I'm being more thoughtful, I avoid all this b.s. like the plague.)

[smiley_glad_hands]

88. You are not alone.

I have been hounded by religious fundamentalism my entire life.

[smiley_glad_hands]

86. Religion does not preclude morality. eom

[The Straight Story]

94. I didn't say that

You don't need religion to be moral, and you don't need to believe everything science tells you to be a good leader.

[smiley_glad_hands]

101. ok---agreed. eom

[Solon]

44. I find the ignorance of creationists to be appalling, similar to flat Earth believers...

and yes, they do exist. Whether the person's political beliefs are in sync with mine or not, they have every right to believe such things and I have every right to call them idiots.

Do note that these types of beliefs I categorize into the "nutty" territory, and are no better than believing in pyramid power, that crystals can cure illness, or that dousing rods actually work to find stuff. Its all nonsense, and frankly, I get pissed off at any attempt to legitimize such erroneous, unscientific, worldviews.

[mondo joe]

57. Ther creationist beliefs matter to me because I don't want a president who doesn't understand

or accept science or evidence.

[bpeale]

64. i, too, am an aetheist & proud to support your post

i am tired of hearing about other people's faith. I DO NOT NOW, NOR HAVE I EVER CARED about whether anyone believes in some mythical god. i don't want to even hear them spout off about it. and i don't think it's a proper subject to be discussed politically. politics is no place for religion ... anybody's religion. i believe that religion is just a way of controlling the masses. and i also think it's "feel good" bullshit.

[tularetom]

6. how long it took to "create" the world?

It took billions and billions of fucking years and the ninny that asked that question ought to be fuckin fired right now. And I hope the candidates told him/her to go shit in his/her hat. But I bet Hirraly gave a weaselly answer.

[RainDog]

7. exactly.

anyone who believes this sort of bullshit should not work in journalism because journalism, at least in every other western democracy, assumes people are not blathering idiots about issues concerning science.

god I hate the shit that passes for content on U.S. tv news.

[dflprincess]

12. I only heard Obama's answer

and he babble something about "a day" as mentioned in the Bible may not be what we consider a day...This is pretty much what the nuns in Catechism told us. I accept that explanation from a nun - I do not accept from a presidential canadate who should have refused to participate in this forum. I'm sure Clinton's answer was just as weaselly but I didn't hear it.

[Fox Mulder]

14. I know.

I nearly vomited when I heard that question was asked.

[arundhatiroyfan]

30. I think I'll try to boycott CNN from now on.

What a stupid and out of place question.

[we can do it]

8. Cool - I Believe In the Easter Bunny

Everyone has the right to keep their religion to themselves. I am tired of hearing my-god-is-better-than- you-god shit. Jeeeeeesusssssss

[Warpy]

9. Grilling a candidate about something as personal and private

as the religious and/or philosophical dictates of his conscience are as tasteless as grilling him on his favorite sex practices.

It all comes under the heading of "too much information."

I have no clue why they called this abomination a "COMPASSION forum." The whole tone is anything but. It sounds more like the Inquisition.

[TheUniverse]

31. I have no problem grilling a politician over personal matters

After all they have no problem doing the same to us (No gay Marriage, prostitution illegal, no drug use etc)

[leeroysphitz]

16. If we HAD to ask our candidates a question about their religious beliefs...

I would ask "Which film portrayal of Jesus Christ do you prefer? Gibson's or Scorsese's?"
I know this sounds ridiculous to most of you but the answer would tell me every thing I cared to know about how a person's religion might affect their judgment in office. Assuming the answer was honest. lol

[Hekate]

23. I devoutly hope to achieve a time when religion is once again a personal matter...

It used to be so in America. At some point -- I hope very soon -- we will awaken and find that the divisive reign of that kind of Republican wedge politics is over.

Meanwhile, ignoring the issue has cost the Democrats dearly. I fully understand why our presidential candidates are engaging it now, and so far they've been doing pretty well by emphasizing that the Democratic Party is the party of demonstrable compassion in the domestic policy arena -- i.e., the message of the Sermon on the Mount.

Hekate

[Disturbed]

28. I would vote for any real Progressive for any office that

declared she or he was an Agnostic or an Atheist. Any politician that claims that the Bible is the actual word of God or that the Mormon Bible is factual would not get my vote.

[Hekate]

49. Not every Christian or Jew thinks the Bible is literal. A lot of it is poetry and metaphor....

In my opinion, poetry and metaphor are about as close as we can get except for the few and rare mystics among us -- and when they try to describe their experiences, they end up using -- poetry and metaphor.

As for politicians, what I want is a record of their public actions as they affect me and my Constitution. I agree with Thomas Jefferson that it doesn't hurt me if a man believes in no god or in twenty gods, as long as he believes in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. As important as religious belief has been to the progress of this nation, it was not founded to be a theocracy.

I don't care what their private relationship is with religion, as long as they understand that theology is a separate branch of study from science, and not a substitute for it.

My Congressional Rep is a devout Lutheran, but she is also a Planned Parenthood supporting Democrat who was against the invasion of Iraq and who used to be a school nurse.

Hekate

[RainDog]

37. I think that time has come

because people have seen what has become of this nation when people who think there mission is to force their beliefs upon others are given positions of power.. and that issue isn't just one for this nation... but our nation is the one that we live in and in which we deal with these things.

the pendulum has gone too far in the direction of religious intrusion in private and public life.

I think this is true for people of faith as well as atheists, when those people of faith are not fundie literalists.

[BlooInBloo]

42. (shrug) It's well-known that the American people don't believe in the Constitutional ideals.

[Mz Pip]

45. Seems like forums like these

will be a rite of passage for candidates. I watched the second hald and was amazed by the questions being asked. Kind of creeped me out that this is what has to happen to advance to the next level of in the presidential arcade.

I only saw Obama so I don't know how Hillary did with this but as creeped out as I was by the whole premise, I thought Obama managed to walk that tightrope fairly well. I never felt he would sell me (an 85% atheist) out to the like of the Pat Robertson's of the country.

I wish we never ever had to go this route. But we do. Ugh.

[Hidden Stillness]

53. When Corporate Republican Media Starts Deciding Who Gives "Acceptable Religious Answers" ...

I am one of the most deeply religious people here on DU, but I am almost always offended by public displays of "religion"-pretense, whether a fake "spirituality" that is usually just personal arrogance (like Oprah Winfrey so often, etc.), wearing religious symbols vulgarly displayed as if they were jewelry with "Brownie points," or these too-easy references to the Bible or etc., as if you've already got it down pat, and are already on to the next thing. I did not listen to this "Compassion Forum" thing on CNN--the title alone made me angry--but I am sure they all, from the candidates to the moderators to the audience, just presume they all have it just because they say it. As soon as the corporate media started using the God-"routine," (as opposed to any honest discussion of faith), as a lure for sponsors, etc., telling us who was holy and who was not, "what Christians think," whether or not "Christians" are "offended" by liberals and feminists, etc., then I totally tuned these people out as a possible source for honest information on this topic. Corporate Republican media positioning of issues--fucking liars, corrupting the meaning of religion itself!

People who were true Christians used to be sensitive about throwing around the topic as a casual discussion, and didn't used to be so callous about public references for show, the way they are now, with no self-conscious awareness of what they really sound like, as they use the pretense for their own advancement. How can you even answer these kinds of questions "correctly," anyway? It is a worthless exercise, because you are under complete pressure to answer it--you have to give an answer to it--and yet there is no way to respond to some of this TV-production stupidity honestly. If you say, "I don't know," then you are easily attacked by all the rest of the phony people as "not a true believer," when it doesn't even make sense to equate it to that. If you challenge the premise of this media shit, or the hypocrisy of a profiteering corporate enterprise that makes rape movies for "entertainment" now being the official judge and definer of who is "religious" according to a "test," and who is not, then you are laughed at or attacked, as someone who is really out of it, and doesn't get the slick cool way of being media-savvy pseudo-spiritual at all.

Franklin Roosevelt called the New Deal the Sermon on the Mount put in practice, a truly Christian statement, but other than that and a few others, you would never have heard such direct references from Franklin or Eleanor Roosevelt, two modern saints if there ever were any. The more casually people spout these "religious" routines and premises publicly, with less and less attention every time, the more they lose the inward, felt truth of it, and the more it becomes a completely outward act, receding further and further away from life, and meaning. There is no sincerity at all to these casual, flashed-around displays of pseudo-"religion."

[Hekate]

54. .....

:hug:

[RainDog]

69. beautiful! thank you

:applause:

[dflprincess]

76. I wish I'd said that

n/t

[nichomachus]

87. Why do these Christians hate Jesus?

People who were true Christians used to be sensitive about throwing around the topic as a casual discussion, and didn't used to be so callous about public references for show, the way they are now,

I remember that too. I remember when the layperson who walked around with a huge cross around his/her neck was seen as a little whacked or as an attention getter. Now, it's de riguer -- apparently, the bigger the cross, the better the Christian you are.

What's always bothered me is that is flies directly in the face of what we were taught by Jesus:

Matthew 6

1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.


5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

[DFW]

71. I'll bet that most politicians, even including Huckaboo

Believe nothing at all, and have all the religious fervor of the fictional Arnold Vinnick.

[nichomachus]

83. I care about their positions on the issues -- not how they got them

Do they support same sex marriage?
Do they oppose endless war?
Do they think working people should have a decent standard of living?
Do they support total racial equality?
Do they support total gender equality?
Do they believe in the Constitution?
Are they opposed to torture?
Do they think public policy decisions should be made on the preponderance of scientific evidence?
Do they support government regulation of corporations?

And so on.

If they answer yes to all those questions, then I don't care whether they are atheist, agnostic, wiccan, Christian, Hasidic, Sunni, Shiite, or Rastafarian.

[smiley_glad_hands]

85. There is a difference between saying I believe and I know.

Beliefs reside in the realm of religion. They cannot be proven, otherwise they wouldn't be beliefs.

Facts reside in the realm of science, they are observable and reproducible.

Beliefs and facts are mutually exclusive.

I want a president that understands this.

[fascisthunter]

90. Raindog.... THANK YOU!

:applause:

Nice way of handling the "contrarians, who hide their POV because they can't afford to be honest. So sorry you had to deal with that in this thread. It would make for a more honest debate. You were honest, the least they could do is also do the same. Kudos to you!