I am an atheist who strongly believes in freedom of religion

[mopaul]

and i wish that the religious majority in America would be so kind as to return the favor.

i used to be a religious person, and i never advocated killing entire cultures or warring against them, and i never killed anyone for my god or tried to influence anyone else to believe in my god. now i am an atheist, but i do not have any problem with the literally thousands of religions, cults, sects, denominations, and creeds in America. that's what i love about America.

don't care if you're a catholic or a snake handler or a unie. i support your religious beliefs and all the freedoms associated with it. i love America's diversity and tolerance of all cultures. i truly do.

but i'd like to be invited to the table and eat just as you'd invite anyone of a religion other than yours. i'd like to be equally as welcome in all phases of life, including government. i'd like to see 'atheists for Kerry', or, 'atheists for the democratic party', or any other such example. atheists proudly serving and openly representing themselves without fear of being hated or voted against merely because of a voluntary lack of religion.

i tend to think the democratic party would embrace this concept more readily than the republican party. in fact, the repubs wouldn't even consider it. if a candidate running for office clearly stated that he or she were an openly, unabashed proud atheist, he'd most likely lose in a landslide.

it shouldn't be that way though. atheists are pushed out of a lot of areas, literally and figuratively. and of course, being an atheist doesn't make one any smarter, or more logical, than the next person. assholes come in all stripes, atheists too, i'm living proof.

i get along fine with anybody, and i give everyone an even break. unless they personally screw with me, then i don't give a damn what religion they are, or are not. and religious fanatics DO screw with me. in my own family, my community, and my government. and when they screw with me, i screw back, if i can.

but in real life, not here in DU, you'd never know i was an atheist.
i don't go around saying, 'hi, i'm mo and i'm an atheist, how ya doin?' unless it is directly asked of me, you'd never know. and if you're a seventh day advocate or a mormon, you won't get any trouble or grief from me. unless that's what you want.

[cheezus]

1. how about those Jehovah's witnesses?

you know, the ones whose kids die because they won't allow a blood transfusion.

how should freedom of religion apply there?

[mopaul]

2. wish i knew

that's a fuzzy area. there are many of those cases being argued in courts all the time now. a recent one in which a little girl was killed during a excorsism type of thing. a phychiatrist went throught the same a few years back in a 're birthing session', in which a blanket is put over the kid to imitate being born. really.

personally, i think the police should be called in and the kid forcefully taken to the hosptial. but then, the branch davidiots would intervene. i'm just glad i don't have to make such king david type decisions

[truthspeaker]

3. they should be jailed for child neglect

[Cleita]

41. I think it should really be easy for the law to distinguish between

spiritual beliefs and the physical needs of those who don't have the power to make those decisions for themselves, like children. If an adult knowingly chooses not to have a blood transfusion of his own free will, or has signed a living will saying this is what he wants then so be it. But in the case of children or those who haven't made their wishes known, I think the law has a right to step in for the physical well-being of the child or comatose patient, whatever it might be. IMO

[drdigi420]

62. personally, I believe raising a child with religious delusions is

akin to child abuse

but freedom of religion and all that, ok, as long as my freedom FROM religion is respected

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Because of your belief in tolerance and Constitutional freedom, I believe

that you are a humanist as well as an atheist.

[demnan]

5. I am an atheist too

Really I must say that being an atheist in America usually means being lonely. I don't talk about religion unless to my very close friends. I have friends who are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Mormon, Muslim and my college roommate years ago was a Christian Scientist. That reflects the diversity of where I live. I try to get along with people. I'm not here to convince or be convinced about religion.

Atheists will probably never be accepted in America now. People are too afraid. It was different when my Mother was growing up. She constantly tells me that people have gone "backwards". I believe it, I saw it coming up. All this God Bless America crap and everything - FDR didn't have to say that, Truman never had to say that. I don't think Eisenhower said it either. Kennedy never used religion to make a point. But today you have to say it. It comes unconvincingly off Kerry's lips (I suspect he is a doubter!) - and of course Bush blathers every religious platitude he can get away with.

You won't be accepted today as an atheist. I just think of that fish that comes along and eats the little Darwin figure on the back of cars. That's what they're doing to us.

[sangh0]

6. You are an atheist who believes stereotypes about the religious

i wish that the religious majority in America would be so kind as to return the favor.

Actually, the overwhelming majority of religious Americans do return the favor. The intolerant Christian make up only a very small proportion of the religious in America - They're just very loud about it. If you took some time to consider the situation, you might realize that the majority of religious Americans are not bothering with you.

And if you want to see an "Atheists for Kerry" organization, go and start one. I don't see how you can blame the lack of any organization on anyone but yourself. No one, absolutely no one, is stopping you from starting such an organization.

[truthspeaker]

9. Then why do they insist on keeping their God on $ and in our Pledge?

Many religious Americans ARE bothering with us.

[sangh0]

10. Who is "they"?

Are you talking about the very small minority of right-wing fundie Xians who care about this, or the overwhelming majority who do not care?

Many religious Americans ARE bothering with us.

The overwhelming majority are not bothering you, and misportraying the overwhelming majority based on what the minority has done is called racism when it's done to minorities. It's not any prettier when you apply stereotypes to the religious.

[truthspeaker]

11. If the overwhelming majority do not care, why did the Senate vote 99-0

to keep "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I'm not stereotyping about all religious Americans. I am speaking of experiences I have had with many religious Americans.

[sangh0]

12. In a word "politics"

This might surprise you, but there are people who vote on the basis on one issue. They are called "single issue voters". If a politicians agrees with them, they will get their vote.

I'm not stereotyping about all religious Americans.

Yes you are. Whenever you speak of a group with a diverse range of opinion on a subject as if they all agree, then you are stereotyping. You speak of the religious as if they all agreed on The Pledge, even though they do not all agree.

[truthspeaker]

13. I said "many" not "all". You are deliberately misstating what I'm saying.

[sangh0]

16. No, you said "Then why do they insist...

..on keeping their God on $...."

That was in response to a post of mine about "the religious". You said that "they", meaning "the religious", believe that God should remain on our money, even though "they" do NOT agree on this.

I would suggest you avoid using unclear pronouns like "they", and instead identify who you are talking about. Clear speech is often taken as a sign of clear thinking. The opposite is often also true.

[truthspeaker]

18. I was referring to the "overwhelming majority"

Who, last I heard, were not writing their Congresspeople to demand that "In God We Trust" we taken off US currency.

[sangh0]

23. You can't be serious

The majority of atheists are not writing those letters either, so I guess atheists want God on the pledge too.

[truthspeaker]

32. Many of us were, and an atheist brought the suit

I give money to Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Do you?

[sangh0]

34. Prove it

Prove that most atheists wrote letters about this. Otherwise, according to your logic, the athiests must want the word God on their money, because they didn't write letters about it.

[Cheswick2.0]

129. I do give money to groups dedicated to the separation of Church and

state. The suit was a really dumb idea. Try again with some one who is actually suffering damage.

[Selwynn]

7. I have a question for you: why are so many posts obsessed with religion?

Why are so many of your posts obsessed with religious discussion? You are free to post whatever you want of course, at least in accordance with the DU rules, and you are free to your opinion, and I am not questioning either of those things.

But I'm just curious - I am a spiritual man, but if I had my way I would never see another religion thread on these boards ever again. I don't understand the preoccupation with the subject in some people's minds. I participate in this community because of its commitment to politics. Yes, to be sure, religion and politics sometimes overlap, and when they do, I'm sure we should discuss it. But these philosophical threads about religion or lack there of - why are there so many of them? Why is it an issue that matters?

I've been on the forums for.. I think almost two years now (but I kind of forget) and in all that time I rarely see threads from religious folks trying to put the screws to non-religious folks our really even making their faith the primary issue. But it seems like every time I turn around there are non-religious folks that just seem obsessed with the subject of religion. Why?

I'm worried that what I want to say next will offend you, but I'm going to test the waters anyway. In reading all of your posts over the last few weeks dealing with religion, I get the distinct impression that you are a person who is unsettled, and not fully comfortable with your own beliefs. That's what it seems like to me. If you are comfortable, then I'm comfortable with you too, and I'm certainly comfortable with me, so what is there to talk about?

I'd like to state again, that of course you have the "right" to post whatever you want inside the rules and I'm not questioning your freedom to have an opinion. I'm more or less just trying to understand it. I admit my bias, which is that I really hate all the philosophical discussion about religion itself that has no direct relationship to politics. If we want to talk about how the fundamentalist fanaticism of Bush and crew are ruining the world, then we can talk about that. But these generalized meta-discussions on religion are so frustrating for me.

I feel like I have done nothing but be extremely gracious toward others of non-belief, and I have rarely - if ever - initiated a conversation on religion myself. But every time I turn around it seems there is yet another thread from yet another non-believer on the subject of religion. For people who don't believe, you spend and awful lot of time fixated on the subject. Here I am a spiritual man and I wish we could just drop it more than it seems many non-faith folks do.

I don't understand why non-faith friends have to start endless threads about religion over and over and over again during the time I've been here. What is the point - they just turn into religion bashing threads within 15 minutes. I sometimes get the distinct impression that many of those who post are trying some kind of passive aggressive "evangelism" - trying to "witness" to people of faith about the "error" of their ways. If there is any truth to that, all I can say is: shame on you. I would never want to do that to non-faith folks, and if I ever do, I want to be called on it.

Why can't this be the end of the discussion:

a) I have spiritual beliefs.
b) I'm not asking you to have spiritual beliefs
c) I'm OK with the fact that you don't.
d) Good people can agree to disagree
e) I promise not to force me worldview on you, please don't force yours on mine - no matter how right you are or how wrong I am.

End of story. It seems like if we could agree on those things, we'd never have to discuss it again... ?

I apologize if something I've said seems antagonistic of disrespectful. That is not my intention.
Sel

[sangh0]

8. Because some people want "freedom of religion"

and will impose religious discussion on others until they agree with them on what "freedom of religion" means.

Some people are under the misimpression that "freedom of religion" means that if one is religious, one must not speak of it in public.

Some people are under the misimpression that "freedom of religion" means that the religious are not free to form their own religious opinions and speak of them in public, but athiests are free to talk about their beliefs day after day, no matter where they are.

Some people are under the misimpression that "freedom of religion" allows them to point out the faults in other people's beliefs, but that if a religious person should point out the faults in their beliefs, it would be "forcing their religion down my throat". This is demonstrated by your seeming need to post this following qualifier"

"I'd like to state again, that of course you have the "right" to post whatever you want inside the rules and I'm not questioning your freedom to have an opinion."

[stlchic]

14. Oh please....

“But every time I turn around it seems there is yet another thread from yet another non-believer on the subject of religion. For people who don't believe, you spend and awful lot of time fixated on the subject.”

I’ve seen this mentioned a lot by theists on religion boards where there are a lot of agnostics and atheists, and I’ve always found it to be a ridiculous statement. I find questioning a person’s motivation for wanting to talk about a particular subject to be rather judgemental and ignorant – as if there were rules to what a person should and should not take an interest in.

Just because a person is a “non-believer” (which, BTW, begs the question of what “non-believer” means. A Christian is a "non-believer" in Islam.) it is not an indication of their level of interest in discussions about religion. I am an atheist, and I find comparative religion fascinating – not to make fun of it, but to understand other people, since religion is such a fundamental part of some people’s lives. It’s amazing how you have tried to turn what, for some people, is a genuine effort to understand and learn about people with different beliefs, into a sordid “fixation.”

The reason why people discuss religion is because, for better or worse, it effects everyone in some way. From religious fanatics who use their faith to justify stripping away rights for women and homosexuals, to the religious background of the Middle East conflict – it effects the way we live, and will always effect our future.

Yes, there are many religious discussion threads that seek to only bash and ridicule beliefs of all kinds, but there are some out there (I know - I’ve participated in them) where there are people from all sides willing to share without resulting to mockery. Perhaps the proper place for this type of discussion would be on a religion board, but I was trying to address your question.

Hey, why should a straight person be concerned about gay rights?

[sangh0]

17. Please, go "please" yourself.

DU is not a religion board, it's a political one.

I find questioning a person’s motivation for wanting to talk about a particular subject to be rather judgemental and ignorant – as if there were rules to what a person should and should not take an interest in.

No one question anyone motive for wanting to talk about a particular issue. The question is why do a particular person want to talk about religion day after day on a POLITICAL board?

How are theories concerning the creation of the Creator in any way related to politics? I realize that there are religion-related issues that are relevant to political discussion, but I don't see how THIS question is, in any way, related to politics.

[mopaul]

21. freedom of religion is not a political idea?

so, it's strictly a religious notion and not a political one? my whole thread was about religion AND politics. must the two be seperated from your eyes in this discussion board? try the ignore feature please.

[sangh0]

25. mopaul, playing stupid is not becoming

You do know that you've been posting about religion on a near daily basis and that this thread is not the first, so why do you pretend that this thread about "freedom of religion" is the only religion-related thread you've started?

[mopaul]

27. not pretending

never claimed this thread was the only one i've started. any fool can plainly see that i'm interested in the subject, even though you ain't just any fool. and i'm not playing stupid. you are.

[sangh0]

33. Yes, you are pretending that "Freedom of religion"

is the only thing you've been talking about, as demonstrated by how you asked "freedom of religion is not a political idea?" and ignored your other religious questions, such as where the creator came from.

[mopaul]

38. i never asked where the creator came from

you have me confused with another poster. never ever typed those words. are you hearing voices?

[stlchic]

22. Perhaps I missed it, but...

I don't see anything in the original post that mentioned "...theories concerning the creation of the Creator...".

However, I DID see the part where there was a comment as to how atheists are rarely, if ever, elected to POLITICAL office.

How is that not related to politics? :shrug:

BTW: Do you also have a problem with the threads in the lounge area that poll people about what CD's they have? Because that is just SO political...

[sangh0]

26. That was a another thread

Selwynns post was not limited to this one thread, but instead, commented on MoPaul's obsession with religious issues that have nothing to do with politics.

[stlchic]

28. Well, as it has already been suggested...

If anyone truly has a problem with non-political threads, the ignore feature is available.

Feel free to also use it for the threads about the death of a DU member's spouse, latest CD releases, pet peeves, parenthood, or favorite movies.

[sangh0]

31. Bait and switch?

Before you realized that this wasn't MoPaul's only religious thread, you seemed to agree with me that non-politics related discussion didn't belong. Now that it's been pointed out that MoPaul has other threads that are truly inappropriate for a political board, it's no longer wrong. Now, it's my fault for not ignoring them.

Feel free to also use it for the threads about the death of a DU member's spouse, latest CD releases, pet peeves, parenthood, or favorite movies.

I suggest you take your own advice if you don't want to see me on the threads you frequent. Telling me to STFU is definitely not going to work. If you don't like my criticizing MoPaul, then hit ignore.

[stlchic]

43. Whoa....you got me partner....

When I first started posting in this thread, it was in response to the suggestion that non-religious people shouldn't have an interest in religion. I had already realized that this wasn’t MoPauls’ only religious thread when I read the complaint about MoPaul's "obsession" with non-political religion, and then I continued to point out that this particular thread IS (or was intended to be) politically related.

“Now that it's been pointed out that MoPaul has other threads that are truly inappropriate for a political board, it's no longer wrong.”

I was agreeing with the comment that if someone doesn’t like MoPaul’s threads, nobody is forcing them to visit them. And if they’re truly inappropriate, the moderators should have no problems moving the thread to the lounge.

“Now, it's my fault for not ignoring them.”

Well, if you don’t like a thread because it’s in an “inappropriate” forum location, and you still visit the thread, it’s hardly MY fault.

”I suggest you take your own advice if you don't want to see me on the threads you frequent.

I have no problems with you being on the threads I might happen to frequent, and I don’t believe I indicated otherwise.

“Telling me to STFU is definitely not going to work. If you don't like my criticizing MoPaul, then hit ignore.”

STFU? I'd be very much interested in hearing how observing your perogative to ignore threads you don't care for equates to STFU.

Besides, I don’t like putting people on ignore unless they’ve been identified by the forum administrator as trolls – and the admins here at DU are pretty good about it, so I don’t feel it’s necessary. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

[sangh0]

65. Now I see your mistake

When I first started posting in this thread, it was in response to the suggestion that non-religious people shouldn't have an interest in religion

Selwynn did NOT say that non-religious people should NOT have an interest in religion. Selwynn ASKED why the non-religious are so interested in religion that they post SO MANY religious threads with opinions that we ALL, religious and non-religious, agree with. Selwynn has also noted that those threads often sounds accusatory.

Maybe I've misunderstood your point, but it sounds as if you think that we should just ignore the accusations, and that it's wrong for someone (such as Selwynn) to ask about their obsession.

[stlchic]

116. Well...

I said that he "suggested" it, not that he explicitly said it.

I guess I misunderstood then - maybe he's genuinely confused as to why a non-religious person would want to talk about religion (although it has been explained).

Why is MoPaul's interest in religion being referred to as an obsession? If a woman always posted about feminist issues, would you call her "obsessed" with feminism?

[Cheswick2.0]

130. I am a feminist

I post threads about feminist issues about twice a year if that. In fact the threads where I think about feminist issues are almost always "abortion threads" started by people who are anti-choice. The posts I make about religion are mostly in religious threads started by anti-theists.

Mopaul averages a post a day, or every other day, about religion. Since he is an atheist I think asking him about this is perfectly reasonable.

[stlchic]

136. Asking him certainly is not unreasonable...

But I wanted to know why it was being characterized as an "obsession", like something he cannot let go, which can have certain negative connotations to it.

He has specifically answered the question as to why he posts about religion so much: because he likes to talk about it.

Why "obsession" and not "intense interest","focal point", "fascination", or "hobby"?

:shrug:

[Djinn]

108. I'd agree with you Sang0

IF this board's members weer predominantly from teh UK or Austrakia, or just about any other developed nation in the world but in the US politics and religion are ridiculously intertwined.

[Cheswick2.0]

131. you mean as ridiculously intertwined as having a state religion

like England does?

[Pithlet]

29. It absolutely is related to politics

As long as an open atheist cannot even dream about a successful run for a higher office in this country, it is a political issue. Think about that. Enough people have negative opinions about people free from religion to make such a thing impossible. I don't think we have to shut up about it because some don't deem it "political enough" for a regular discussion. If not at a place on the internet where atheists can be unusually open, then where? You do realize that places such as DU, on the internet and in RL, are rare? Even though we do still come across many posts ignorant of our situation (kind of like yours), it is still far better than most. Maybe you never thought of that because most people and places are tolerant of openly Christian people. You could counter argue that not all are, but a hugely fast majority of them are, compared to those that are friendly to atheists.

[sangh0]

35. No, it's not related to politics

The issue of "Where did the Creator come from?" has nothing to do with politics.

BTW, I was an athiest for the first 40 years of my life, and was never once subjected to any discrimination because of my areligious beliefs.

[Pithlet]

42. Freedom from religion in government is not political?

Mopaul did not post, "Where did our creator come from?". Your assertion that discussing religion has no place in discussing politics is naive, because who you are and what religion you belong to is still extremely important in this country when it comes to politics. The fact that W wears his "Christianity" on his sleeve to pander to a deeply religious base makes it political. Religion has been used as a political tool for thousands of years in society. You can have a deep, meaningful discussion without politics, to be sure. But, you can also have a deeply political discussion about religion, contrary to what you're asserting.

And good for you if you suffered no discrimination while an atheist. It doesn't mean that discrimination doesn't exist. I've never personally been turned down for a job because I'm a woman. I've also never been in a physically abusive relationship, and have never been raped. I would never use myself as an example to show that these things aren't issues, or are issues that are exaggerated by others. These are issues that I care deeply about even if I don't perceive myself to have suffered directly because of any of them. I think the argument "It's never happened to me..." is a dumb one.

[sangh0]

60. More self-pitying accusations

NO one has said that freedom of religion has nothing to do with politics. It's been pointed out that some of MP's other threads have nothing to do with politics. Even you admit this in your response to Selwynn.

And good for you if you suffered no discrimination while an atheist. It doesn't mean that discrimination doesn't exist.

Which is why I haven't denied that atheists are discriminated against. I just disagreed with the idea that "dirty looks" and "uncomfortable moments" were signs of oppression.

[Pithlet]

69. Bullshit

I'm countering your arguments. This has nothing to do with pity or accusations.

YOU are the one who said this didn't belong in GD. YOU'RE the one who used gardening as an example. You'rethe one who popped up in a thread about separation of Church and State and made the claim that it isn't political.

You didn't "just disagree" with me. You're the one who is asserting that I even equated those things with oppresion. Funny, I didn't even use that word!

Now, why would you claim that you've never been discriminated against when you were an atheist? It comes across as It's no big deal. I wasn't discriminated against. The whole thing is overblown. I can't think of another reason, unless you didn't provide some other context.

[sangh0]

80. No, you're misunderstanding nearly every argument made

You misunderstood Selwynn. You thought he was criticizing this thread, when Selwynn clearly said otherwise.

You misunderstood patcox2, and you've misunderstood my posts.

YOU are the one who said this didn't belong in GD

No, I didn't. I said threads that aren't politically related belong in the Lounge.

YOU'RE the one who used gardening as an example.

Yes, I used it as an example of a thread that has nothing to do with politics. Does gardening have something to do with politics? Do you think gardening threads should be in GD?

You'rethe one who popped up in a thread about separation of Church and State and made the claim that it isn't political.

No, Selwynn "popped up", and noted that MoPaul had an obsession with religion, and asked why MoPaul constantly started threads like this. I then pointed out that some of the threads in GD have nothing to do with politics, and so they belong in the lounge. I never said THIS thread belongs in the lounge. This thread is political.

You didn't "just disagree" with me. You're the one who is asserting that I even equated those things with oppresion. Funny, I didn't even use that word!

That's because you did equate them with oppression, and while you never used the word "oppression" this thread does deal with the *discrimination* atheists face, and discrimination is a form of oppression.

[Pithlet]

86. No

I didn't thin Selwyn was criticizing the thread, and apparently neither did he. I don't know where you got that from.

I think I misunderstood you regarding the political comments. Although, I don't know why you would bring up threads that belong in the lounge. It was confusing in I don't understand how that relates to this thread or any of the comments at all. Yes, not all threads belong in GD. What does that have to do with what we're talking about?

I was agreeing with Mopaul in that it can be difficult to be an atheist in this country. I never equated it with oppression. You are the one reading that into what I said. You are the one convinced I'm saying that when I'm not. Many people are uncomfortable when someone mentions they're atheist, and some are downright offended. I said nothing about oppression. Nothing. YOU are the one who's stating that is what I said.

[sangh0]

93. See post #49

Where Selwynn responds to a post of yours (#47) by saying he thought you were making some mistakes. Also see your #47 where you refer directly to Selwynn.

Your #47 was in response to Selwynn, and you criticize Selwynn's post by saying you didn't see anyone speaking against religion in this thread. Now you're trying to say that you've always know that Selwynn wasn't talking about this thread.

Although, I don't know why you would bring up threads that belong in the lounge. It was confusing in I don't understand how that relates to this thread or any of the comments at all. Yes, not all threads belong in GD. What does that have to do with what we're talking about?

I can see how it could be confusing. To explain, I have noted that MoPaul sometimes raises religion-related issues that have nothing to do with politics. I think those should go into the lounge.

I was agreeing with Mopaul in that it can be difficult to be an atheist in this country. I never equated it with oppression.

Well then, you should. Atheists are discriminated against, and discrimination is a form of oppression. Maybe you don't connect discrimination to oppression, and that's why you feel it was unfair of me to link discrimination (which you did mention) to oppression (which you did not mention), and maybe it was unfair. I just assumed that the connection between discrimination and oppression was clear.

[Pithlet]

95. For crying out loud

I know exactly what happened between me and Selwyn in this thread. I was there.

There is some miscommunication indeed, because I never responded to anything regarding posts of Mopauls in general. I am now and ever in this thread only talking about what is happening in this thread. It is very possible that some of Mopaul's threads belong in the lounge. But, not this one. That was my only point all along.

[Cheswick2.0]

132. I have many members of my family who are atheist and or agnostic

none of them has every suffered because of it either.

[Pithlet]

145. There are women

who say they've never suffered from sexism. That means that sexism and feminism aren't really issues? I've never been turned down for a job, or paid less because I'm a woman. Does it mean those things never happen? That it isn't an issue?

Nothing pisses me off more when I'm discussing the feminist issue than someone coming into the thread and saying "Well, I've never suffered from discrimination" or "i've known women who say they've never suffered", implying that because it never happened to them, or the women they know, it must not be an issue. I know you've probably been frustrated equally by posts like that. It is why I don't understand how you can, with a straight face, post "well, I know atheists who've never suffered" as if that means that everything in this country is hunky dory for those who do not share in the dominant religion's beliefs.

[Swamp Rat]

151. Don't bother

See post #148, etc.

Poor mopaul. His wonderful post began to devolve long ago.

[Cheswick2.0]

153. I didn't say no one had

I said members of my family had not.

[Pithlet]

154. What was the point of posting that?

If someone came into a sexism and thread and said "But I've never suffered from it" would you not assume that their post is implying that it must not be as big of an issue, or none at all? Unless they qualified it with "Even though I know this issue exists, and needs to be addressed..." Otherwise, it is a tactic that is used by many to belittle issues of racism, sexism and other minority issues. I had posted where I had suffered and suffer daily because of my atheism, and someone else's response was "Well, I never did when I was an atheist" Followed by your post about your family.

Was that meant for me to feel like I was just exaggerating the problem? Because, that it what it felt like.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Pithlet]

24. Maybe it is hard to understand for many

But I think the last part of his post is important. For many of us, DU is the only place we openly discuss our atheism or agnosticism. I don't think that most faithful people really understand what it is like to be an atheist in the US. They take it for granted that they could openly express their religious views just about anywhere without fear of dirty looks at the least, and possibly worse. They take it for granted.

Another part of Mopaul's post resonated with me. Very few people outside of an extremely close circle even know what my religious views, or lack of them, are. I never ever make it known that I'm an atheist unless I trust the person I'm disclosing it to with my life. Even though I'm extremely guarded about it, it can some ties be at least suspect, particularly if there is a deeply religious subject in a group, and I'm mum. My office was full of very openly religious people with cubicles full of Christian chochkis. The fact that mine was completely void of them, and that I never talked about going to Church was suspect with some of my co-workers. It sometimes led to uncomfortable moments. I realize that not all workplaces are as bad as mine were (I live in the bible belt, which doesn't help). And I'm sure such an environment can be annoying to those who are Christians, too.

I do think that many of the faithful here at DU, while they may be in agreement with our right to be free of religion, don't truly understand what it is like for us.

[sangh0]

36. For many of us, DU is the only place we can openly discuss

our gardening, but for some odd reason, us gardeners restrict our threads to The Lounge, where non-political discussion belongs.

They take it for granted that they could openly express their religious views just about anywhere without fear of dirty looks at the least, and possibly worse

Dirty looks? How horrible? Don't people know that "freedom" doesn't give them the right to give others "dirty looks"?

It sometimes led to uncomfortable moments.

And since when does the Constitution grant you freedom from uncomfortable moments and dirty looks? IMO, you are trivializing our rights, and the political debate, which is about rights and powers. It's not about what makes you uncomfortable

[Pithlet]

45. Gardening

does not have the deep emotional, spiritual, and yes, political meaning that religion does. Your insistance that we atheists cannot discuss our political clout, or lack of it, in GD is ridiculous.

Where was I talking about freedom? Was I proposing a law against dirty looks? No, I was talking about experiences that atheists have when they're open about it in this country. Shut my mouth!

I'm not trivializing anything. I wasn't even talking about the constitution. I was talking about atheists and our experiences in a Christian dominant society. What the hell does that have to do with the constitution? If we're going to blithely just bring that up, then I'll turn it back on you. The constitution says nothing about religious topics and General Discussion at DU :silly:

I would suggest, that instead of attacking those of us who would dare speak out openly about our lack of religion, and comparing such an issue to something as benign as gardening, telling us that we should be limited to the lounge, where un-serious discussion takes place, that maybe you should stay out of these threads, the Constitution notwithstanding. I think the presence of non-faithful may just get you a little bit too riled up.

Maybe I was wrong about DU being an atheist friendly spot on the net.

[sangh0]

70. Please stop putting words in my mouth

I've never said that freedom of religion has nothing to do with politics.

What the hell does that have to do with the constitution?

The Constitution is the document that provides the govt with power to protect your rights, including your right to freedom of religion.

I would suggest, that instead of attacking those of us who would dare speak out openly about our lack of religion

What is daring about speaking openly of your atheism on DU? Have you ever suffered in any way by posting about your atheism on DU? If not, then what's so daring about it?

Maybe I was wrong about DU being an atheist friendly spot on the net.

I think it's very intolerant for you to think that my disagreement makes DU "atheist unfreindly". DU has done nothing to place my opinions over yours. We BOTH have the equal right to post.

What you're looking for is an "atheists only" web site

[Pithlet]

78. Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand everything I say?

It is very daring to post openly about being atheist ANYWHERE. I'm suffering from it right now, in your responses to me. If I were a Christian backing up what you're saying, I don't think I'd have accusations like "self pity" being thrown at me. But, because I dare to back up the original poster's assertions, you're throwing things at me that I didn't even say, telling me that this subject isn't controversial, and basically arguing with me just to argue, from what I can see.

My comment about DU not being an atheist friendly spot was hyperbole and an overstatement. But, your reaction to me in this thread is not. You clearly have a problem with those who want to talk about their atheism and how it affects them. All I had to do was note how difficult it is, and you sneer at me with crap about the "constitution" and "I was never discriminated against when I was an atheist" and "You're just looking for an 'atheist only site" I have no idea where your hostility came from, but it was evident from the very beginning.

This is probably one of the very few times I've ever come out on this site about being an atheist, and backed up what another had to say, these were your responses to it. That surely makes me feel welcome about being open about my beliefs and my experiences about them.

[sangh0]

83. Get used to hearing about self-pity

If you think that the suffering you are experiencing as a result of my posts is notable enough to comment publically about, then you might as well get used to hearing the phrase "self-pity" very often.

If I were a Christian backing up what you're saying, I don't think I'd have accusations like "self pity" being thrown at me.

What would you're being Christian have to do with this? Did you assume that I'm a Christian? I'm not, and my opinion of you wouldn't change if you were.

My comment about DU not being an atheist friendly spot was hyperbole and an overstatement

It also misportrayed the level of discrimination that atheists face. Since that seems to be something you are concerned about, I have to wonder why you would deliberately exagerrate it.

[Pithlet]

91. I did not deliberately exaggerate it

I mentioned my own experiences.

If you think that you can respond to people, throwing accusations at them without them being hurt or aggravated by your responses, then you should get used to hearing "Jerk" more often.

You are very clearly not an atheist. If I were backing up your claims that atheists over exaggerate, then you would not have started your attacks on me. Unless you're like this to everyone, even when they agreed with you. I was downright civil and personable when I started in this thread. You have done nothing but attack me in this thread, even when I'm not even responding directly to you. I don't give a shit what we're talking about, and whether you and I are Christians, Hindus or Buddhists, your treatment of me in this thread has been despicable.

[Djinn]

113. F'n hell

OK Mopaul posts alot about religion...big deal, certain people can't see one of his posts without jumping in to say that, some people post about abortion all the time, others jump in all the time to those threads, some people never stop babbling on about their cats.

If you don't like a thread don't get into it and argue the same shit over and over again - just ignore it and let those of us who ARE interested read and post to it.

[Cheswick2.0]

133. I love it when you get mad at how many posts someone posts

rather than what they say. Try the ignore button.

[ulysses]

46. actually,

I would say that aspects of gardening - the use of gen-mod seeds, for instance, or environmental best practices - *would* involve political meaning and belong, therefore, outside the lounge. :)

[Selwynn]

39. That's probably true - still though, I'm left with this question...

...ok I get that DU might be the only place, or one of the few places where atheists and non-believers might have a sense of community - but that still doesn't explain the fixation on discussing religious topics to me?

I mean, it would be one thing to talk about how as skeptics, rationalists or any other name (I like both of those names) you could promote issues that matter. But to me, that's different than the bulk of posts that I continually see (not directly accusing OP of this) that seem to be basically evangelical in nature, i.e. yet another post about why we're right and you're wrong. To me, that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense...

In other words, what I'm saying is - to me it seems like the majority of posts have more to do with being "against" religion rather than about creating a positive ethos filled with the things you are for, share in common and value. And I have a hard time identifying with that. As a person with spiritual beliefs, I have no interest in writing "against" your point of view.

For one thing, you could be right - there are some very compelling cases for non-belief. :) For another thing, I have no problem with different people seeing things differently. So instead, I desire to talk about what I am for, the things that I believe in, and focus on how to build the kind of world community that I deeply desire. I suspect that there is much more than unites us in our ultimate goals and desires than divides us, and personally I'd much rather focus on that.

But here, I question whether that feeling is fully shared with my non-believing colleagues. Now here's an honest question -- because you have so few opportunities for community, is coming together to "gripe" about religion some kind of catharsis? I could really see that and in fact, almost understand it...

No disrespect intended.
Sel

[Pithlet]

47. I saw no griping about religion

in this thread. I don't even see a whole lot of us coming together to gripe about religion all that often here on DU. You can do a search on my own name to find that I've never done such a thing. IN fact, I've defended the Christians on this board when true Christian bashing occurred. But, just by evidence of some of the posts in this thread, even here, it is hard to bring up one's lack of religion without being met with some disdain. Gardening, indeed.

It's great that you desire to talk about the things that you are for. But, I also don't see you doing what one in this thread is already trying to do. Telling us that we shouldn't be discussing it here at GD, and that the discussion is on the level of gardening and should be relegated to the area of DU where such non-serious issues are discussed. Honestly, I don't see why the non-religious can't shouldn't post about their political power in the USA. I think the insistence that we should just shut up or post in the lounge is highly offensive, and is an example of how hard it is to be an atheist in the US. That same poster who insists otherwise is proving my point!

My point about this being one of the few places on the web was that you're going to see some discussion about these issues. I think the reaction against them stems from just how taboo this topic really is in society. It's shocking to see because you almost never see it. It almost seems like an assault to those who aren't used to hearing the other side of the story, and so feel they must react by telling us it isn't political, so shut up, or go somewhere else.

[Selwynn]

49. You are making some mistakes I think...

First, I said directly that my "griping" comment was not relating specifically to this thread. However, it is related to the persistent pattern of what seems to me to be a fixation by the non-religious on the subject of religion. There is a big difference.

Second, there is nothing disdainful in my comments - I have zero problem with non-religious people, especially since its always possible that they more accurately perceive the world than I do. But I do still have questions about the amount of time devoted to discussing religion by the irreligious. Here I am, a spiritual guy, and I wish we didn't have so many threads about philosophical questions of religious belief or lack thereof.

Third, my point is not to tell you that you shouldn't post here. In fact, I don't have a point hehe. I am trying to understand WHY there is such a need to post so much stuff on this subject - what is the motivation? I mean, if you're not religious, then that's that and we can move on. Why is there so much continuing posting about it by non-religious? I'm trying to understand the motivation...

You seem to be putting words into my mouth at several points. I'm asking questions, not telling people to shut up or go somewhere else. I have also been very honest about my biases and the things that might keep me from seeing things clearly. I will tell you that I do have a few theories...

I think that there is a big push by some non-religious folks to post lost of threads that are critical of religious beliefs, without concern for their fellow community members who value and find meaningful such beliefs because they are actually attempting to convert people on some level. I feel like there is a lot of passive-aggressive conversation attempts by some in the non-religious circle. Personally, I honestly believe a need to do that comes from a lack of security in one's own beliefs, though I'm sure that will make you angry for me to say that. I know for a fact that's true on the religious side of things. Half of the reason for "evangelical" faith is to overcome the doubt that maybe our beliefs are wrong.

I also think that some of the reason behind the fixation on this subject is in fact the cathartic nature of it that I mentioned before. Atheists and non-believers are in a minority in America - and they are consciously ostracized by a society that drips religious language from almost every pore. There are not a lot of places to feel safe and free, and people are always trying to convert or change non-believers rather than creating an atmosphere of inclusion and welcome....

...so I think that when there is a community like this, there is a little bit of therapy going on, when the tables can turn, and a majority population of non-believers can sort of turn the table on believers and put them on the defensive for a while. And I guess I understand that...

But what I would REALLY like is to not do that AT ALL on either side. I'd like to talk about religion insofar as it directly relates to politics, not talk about philosophical questions about whether beliefs are "right" or not. I'd like for there to be an environment wherein the non-religious could agree with the five (or were there six?) points I gave in a previous point above - if we could ever get there, it would really be an amazing thing.

Sel

[Pithlet]

50. I'm sorry I wasn't clear

My points were about this thread, not anything you said.

I do take issue with your comments about a fixation by the non-religious of religion. Religion and its influences are everywhere. It is very hard to escape it. I don't believe that atheists are fixated on it anymore than women are fixated on feminist issues, blacks or gays are to equal rights. It kind of implied that we're making too much of the issue. Don't get me wrong. I do not place my atheism anywhere near the hardship or gripe worthy level of those other things. But, it is a worthy discussion, and I would never qualify it as a fixation. That's really the only issue in your thread that I really took to task.

Edited to change a word to stay on point.

[Selwynn]

67. Agreed.

I understand where you're coming from.

[ulysses]

44. I guess I don't understand

why people who want to discuss religion without trying to proselytize in either direction can't do so. I know, I know - I've seen the flamewars too. But honestly, given the culture, we *have* to be able to discuss religion if we're to fully discuss politics. Politics doesn't exist in a vacuum.

[mopaul]

114. oops, this is in response to selwynn's query about my obsession

i enjoy the hell out of discussing religion and this blessed forum is the only place in my life where i can do so, if i behave myself. i love DU is the answer to why i post about religion so much, you may call it an obsession if you wish.

some seem to obsessively post about certain subjects, i'm not the only one. some seem to obsessively jump into my religious discussions and insult me, which i also enjoy. i enjoy debate, and i love debating religion and politics. there is virtually NO ONE in my actual life that i can discuss these two issues with. not my wife or son. my older son loves to discuss religion like me. but not my daughter. not my brother or mother because they are fundies.
not my neighbors, or co workers because i don't inflict my atheism on anyone in person.

i discuss it here in DU because i can and because i enjoy it so.
so what?

[Selwynn]

125. Thanks.

I can't allow my personal preferences to restrict discussion. Wasn't trying to imply that in the first place. But I hear what your saying, and it makes sense.

[stlchic]

126. Suggestion....

"I enjoy the hell out of discussing religion and this blessed forum is the only place in my life where i can do so, if i behave myself."

Well, if you’d like an alternative place to discuss religion where you won’t have people jumping all over you for being "religion obsessed", there are some options, if you're interested.

The NYT religion board was pretty good, and The Atlantic Monthly has many forums, and one of them is specifically called Religion & Spirituality.

One of the people I knew from these forums started up her own (and has some really good religious satire on her site, if you’re into that kind of thing), and quite a few topics, one of them “Religion” (you would have to sign up). All of the people are very open minded, especially the moderators. It can be found here:

http://www.morallybankrupt.ca/forums/





:-)

[morgan2]

15. i don't believe in freedom of religion

in the sense that I don't believe religion should have any special freedom's relative to any other kind of thought. Thats what religion is, an idea in someone's head. Just because they call it a religion, doesn't mean they deserve special treatment. The line is too fuzzy. The protection of thought and belief should be enough to protect everyone's right to religion as long as they don't get too nutty, like the christian scientist example above.

[stlchic]

20. Get involved...

“i'd like to see 'atheists for Kerry', or, 'atheists for the democratic party', or any other such example. “

Hook up with a nearby chapter of American Atheists (or affiliate), and start one up!

The reason why atheists haven’t done it so far (that I know of) is probably because they are already members of other groups not defined by religious belief that support Kerry.

[noiretextatique]

30. i strongly believe in freedom from religion

i know that many are concerned about the use of religion by this misadmistration (and others), including those who are religious.
i'm not exactly an atheist, but i stongly support further separation of church and state.

[Cleita]

37. So do many of us.

As much as I often feel like poking fun at the rabid faithful, I don't (well unless they are really obnoxious and deserve it), I recognize their right to believe in what they want to believe in, just don't include me in that vision of spirituality and religious practice.

[noiretextatique]

51. amen :) eom

[patcox2]

40. Whats this about? Do you think anyone seriously disagrees with you?

There is a reason people think you have an ulterior motive to these posts, or a personal issue, or whatever. Its because the post is sorta, well, obvious, at least, it is if its taken at face value.

You raise the issue over the "exclusion of atheists from public life." I am not sure its true that no atheist can be elected to any public office in america, but its certainly true that in national politics, and in the majority of localities, openly professing to be an atheist would be the kiss of death for a politician. (I will leave aside the idea that discretion is the better part of valor and that I am certain many many atheists in fact hold public office, and when asked they just say something hopefully agnostic about their "beleifs." I have come to understand that single issue true beleivers define themselves by their rejection of compromise).

The thing is this is an issue, but its not much of a good topic for discussion, because I don't think anyone disagrees with you, regardless of their religious faith or non-faith. I don't think any person who posts to DU disagrees that it shouldn't be this way. Or should I say, I think everyone, every single person without exception, agrees with you on this and thinks this is wrong.

So, what else is there to say? As far as the sole issue you raised, you are 100% right, its true. Its wrong, it should be changed.

Pretty boring topic.

So, you have no argument there is an injustice, and you are the victim. Not much of a state of victimhood, but it counts.

Although now that I think of it, there is an irony in your beleif that this is an injustice. Because I think you would agree with me that religion should actually be irrelevent to public service, to government. A candidate's religious beleifs, or non-beleifs, should not matter at all, only their political beleifs. So long as they agree with the political position of strict separation of church and state, they should be able to represent you as well as anyone else, right? But thats not good enough for you, you are demanding the right to vote for someone on the basis of their religious beleif or lack thereof. And the basis for your demand is your beleif that their religious beleif or lack thereof should be irrelevant.

Anyway, one thing is for sure, I would never vote for anyone on the basis of their religious beleif or lack thereof, and I really doubt anyone who posts at DU, disrupting freepers excepted, would either. Its not our fault. Its the fault of our political system, under which a single issue minority can, if it is just large enough to swing an election, force the minority view on the majority. Look at it like this, if 90% of voters in a given district could care less about a candidate's atheism, but 10% would never vote for an atheist, and the vote is split pretty much evenly, that 10% is the margin of victory.

Its unfortunate, but it doesn't make it the fault of everyone who beleives in god.

So in the end, what what kind of response are you looking for? Congratulations on your high level of evolution and maturity? Commiseration from people who hold the same beleifs as you?
A fight from religious people who think you are wrong and that atheists shouldn't be allowed to hold office?

Because you sure aren't going to get much of a debate over this.

[Pithlet]

48. This is indeed controversial, even on DU

I think some people, while progressive, and truly believe themselves to be for religious freedom, still have a knee-jerk reaction when they see the word "atheist". We already have one person puffing about how this should be in the lounge, because the discussion of freedom of religion isn't political :crazy:

[Swamp Rat]

54. Actually, it belongs in "Civil Rights/Equality/Privacy" and not in GD,

as it is a very divisive topic that already has a forum. I say this because I am irritated and tired of seeing x-tians proselytizing their religion in GD.

[Pithlet]

56. I disagree

While this is easily a subject for the CEP forum, I don't think it is out of place in GD. Most of the threads in GD could be categorized into one or more of the other forums. If this were strictly enforced, there would only be about 10 posts a day that would be allowed in GD. This subject is politically relevant to most people, and is broad enough it its scope that it could function in GD.

[Swamp Rat]

68. Well, the mods have agreed so far.

I seriouly doubt that GD would have just 10 posts if topics on religion were moved there.

OK, so let folks post topics on religion in GD. Watch how the threads devolve. I came to DU to get away from X-tians who mix their religion with their politics.

[sangh0]

71. You shouldn't speak for the mods

For one thing, no one may have alerted this thread, so the mods may not even know about this. Secondly, in the past the admins have BANNED religious threads from GD.

Finally, there seems to be a misunderstanding spreading that there are DUers who think religion should not be discussed on DU. That's not the point being argued. Selwynn asked why non-believers are so interested in religion that they post ideas that both believers and non-believers agree with, and why those posts have such an accusatory tone to them

[Swamp Rat]

81. OK, if you stop trying to speak for the mods too

"Secondly, in the past the admins have BANNED religious threads from GD." Why? Could it be that the subject is very devisive? I'm glad they brought it back and made a forum for it. If I want to talk about how much I love Satan I know where to go. I'm not going to "alert" on threads in GD that talk about religion and politics, but I have noticed how the threads tend to devolve.

"Finally, there seems to be a misunderstanding spreading that there are DUers who think religion should not be discussed on DU." Fine, but I am not one of those people.

"Selwynn asked why non-believers are so interested in religion that they post ideas that both believers and non-believers agree with, and why those posts have such an accusatory tone to them" Maybe because some non-believers are sick of religion? I cannot speak for others and Selwynn may have a good point.

[Pithlet]

72. Well, I was a mod for several terms

And I do know for a fact that just because something could be posted in another forum doesn't mean that it doesn't belong in GD. It can easily be and either or thing.

I'm not arguing that all religious threads have a place in GD. Clearly, they do not. But, I do not think that just because a discussion includes religion means it doesn't belong in GD, particularly in a discussion about politics, and where religion comes in. I do think that separation of church and state is a valid political discussion that can easily serve in GD.

Now, if I were a mod this term, and they decided to move this to another forum, I wouldn't be opposed to it, particularly if it got heated. I just disagree that this thread clearly did not belong in GD.

[sangh0]

74. Breaking News

We agree

I'm not arguing that all religious threads have a place in GD. Clearly, they do not. But, I do not think that just because a discussion includes religion means it doesn't belong in GD, particularly in a discussion about politics, and where religion comes in. I do think that separation of church and state is a valid political discussion that can easily serve in GD.

No one has said there should be no discussion of religion in GD.

I have argued that discussion about aspects of religion that have nothing to do with politics do not belong in GD. This thread is related to politics, and is appropriately in GD

[Pithlet]

79. Breaking news

This wasn't a response to you.

[sangh0]

85. When you put words in my mouth

I will respond to your posts, even if they weren't in response to one of my posts.

[Pithlet]

88. WTF

I wasn't even thinking of you or any of your posts.

I was responding to someone who said this belonged in another forum. I was responding to THEM. DIRECTLY. I didn't even mention you for god's sake!

Please, leave me alone, unless I'm responding to you, mention you, or discussing things with you.

[sangh0]

98. You said

I just disagree that this thread clearly did not belong in GD.

No one has said that this thread does not belong in GD.

[Pithlet]

100. It's the title of the frigging post I responded to.

Swamp_Rat (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-30-04 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #48

54. Actually, it belongs in "Civil Rights/Equality/Privacy" and not in GD

Emphasis mine.

And it doesn't change the fact that I wasn't responding to you, or referring to you in any way.

[sangh0]

58. It's not controversial at all

1) most of the religious people on DU, including myself, rarely post on MoPaul's religious threads. Go do a search, and you'll see that this is true.

2) I've yet to see anyone of DU who disagrees with MoPaul when he says atheists shouldnt be discriminated against or that atheists should be able to get elected to a national office

3) What happens on DU has little to do with "freedom of religion". The "freedom of religion" we are talking about here isn't even in the Constitution. The Constitution prohibits the GOVERNMENT from ESTABLISHING a state religion. The Constitution says nothing about what DU does with religious discussion.

IOW, which forum these threads go into has nothing to do with "freedom of religion"

[Pithlet]

64. LOL

You post in a thread disagreeing with someone, and then argue with me that it is not controversial.

"I'm not arguing" "Yes, you are" "No, I'm not"...

[sangh0]

73. LOL

You post in a thread disagreeing with someone, and then argue with me that it is not controversial.

No, you said the idea that this thread should be in the Lounge was a controversial one. It's not.

[Pithlet]

75. I did not say that!

I think you're reading my posts standing on your head, or something.

The issue of separation of church and state is a controversial issue. Someone posted that this isn't controversial here at DU, because everyone would agree about that. I assert that this is obviously not the case, because there are some, including you, who are arguing with the OP.

I do disagree with you that this belongs in the lounge, but that wasn't what I meant when I said this topic is controversial. When I said "This topic is controversial" I meant "This topic is controversial"

[sangh0]

87. No one said "freedom of religion is not controversial"

and no one here is disagreeing with the OP.

I do disagree with you that this belongs in the lounge, but that wasn't what I meant when I said this topic is controversial. When I said "This topic is controversial" I meant "This topic is controversial"

Regardless of what YOU meant, you responded in the middle of discussion about non-political religion threads, which do belong in the lounge. You misunderstood Selwynn, which you admitted in a response of yours, and you misunderstood what was being spoken of when you said "It is controversial". We weren't talking about freedom of religion.

[Pithlet]

94. I never admitted to misunderstanding Selwyn

Selwyn and I are cool on this thread, and everywhere else on DU. I wasn't clear in my response to him that I was talking about other things in the thread, and not anything he said. It's been worked out. There's no need to keep bringing it up, especially since it didn't involve you in any way.

You and I, however are not, in this thread. When I brought up controversial, I was responding to someone else who stated that the OP wasn't bringing up anything controversial.

[sangh0]

99. You also said you didn't criticize Selwynn

even though you also said "I do take issue with your comments about a fixation by the non-religious of religion" in response to one of Selwynn's posts. I guess you "take issue" with Selwynn without criticizing Selwynn.

wasn't clear in my response to him that I was talking about other things in the thread,

No, you directly addressed issues Selwynn raised. Your post was not just about "other things" in this thread. Your post also criticized some of Selwynn's comments.

When I brought up controversial, I was responding to someone else who stated that the OP wasn't bringing up anything controversial.

And again you mistate what's been said in this thread. It was patcox2 who first said that something wasn't controversial, and in re-reading the thread I see that what patcox2 called uncontroversial was the idea that atheists should not be discriminated against.

You misunderstood this, and you claimed that someone said "Freedom of religion is not controversial"

[Pithlet]

101. Leave. It. Alone.

For the love of all that is wonderful and good on DU.

It's not all about you. Really.

[patcox2]

59. Wrong, NO DUer would say that atheists should be excluded from office.

There will not be one post that agrees with the proposition that atheists should not be able to get elected. Not one.

These posts are passive aggressive, and thats what people are criticizing, not the substance.

Coming in and saying "I think its wrong that atheists cannot be part of public life" in a forum where absolutlely everyone agrees, is sort of strange.

It could almost be intrepreted as accusatory. Like if someone kept posting long self-congratulatory rants about how they beleive in the equality of the races, and its wrong that there is a minority of racists who still beleive certain races are inferior. I am like "what are you telling me for, I agree with you."

Sorry, but MoPaul's continuing string of slightly self-pitying religious posts, with their sorta weird vibe of inplied accusation, remind me of the scene in Monty Python, the character who is so happy that he is being "oppressed:" "Look, look, he's oppresssing me, this is what I have been going on about, look at the oppression inherent in the system."

Thats why I think they are passive aggressive. He is stating things that everyone agrees with, with an accusatory tone, then when people take issue with the tone, he has the satisfaction of saying "see, they hate us atheists." And you buy into it too. Of course, martyrdom is an emotionally satisfying posture, you get to feel all noble and heroic, if thats your thing, I hope it works for you.

[Pithlet]

61. Now

Where did I say that any DUer would say that atheists should be excluded from office. I never made such a claim, although I would disagree that it is impossible that there may be at least one DUer who would object to an atheist in public office. A progressive person who is deeply religious and happens to believe that faith is an essential requirment to hold office is not entirely out of the sphere of possibility. But, I digress. I never claimed that there indeed were, or that there is any evidence of any.

There is at least one poster who is saying that this should never have been posted in GD because it is not political. THAT is what I'm taking exception to. Your insistence that this is NOT controversial was what I was questioning. I was making no accusations to any one person or group of people.

[sangh0]

77. You should pay more attention to the other posts in this thread

Where did I say that any DUer would say that atheists should be excluded from office.

No one did. THAT'S THE POINT!!!

MoPaul, in his OP, noted that atheists couldn't get elected to national office due to discrimination against their (non) religious beliefs. Patcox2 asks why would someone repeatedly raise an issue when everyone agrees with it, and why raise it using such an accusatory tone?

There is at least one poster who is saying that this should never have been posted in GD because it is not political.

You are wrong. I never said that. I said threads that have nothing to do with politics belong in the lounge. I never said THIS thread belongs in the lounge.

[Pithlet]

96. Again

I'm not even responding to you in my previous post.

I was accused of saying just that, when I never did. By another poster who is not you. See, this is another exchange, with another DUer, that happens to not involve you.

Please stay out of my exchanges with other people. Normally I don't mind, but when they're bringing up things from other sub-threads that don't even apply, and doing it repetedly, it gets extremely annoying.

[stlchic]

66. Most of the threads I see at DU are about "preaching to the choir"

How many threads have you seen about (not verbatim) "can you believe * is that stupid" or "Cheney is a foul-mouthed warmonger"

What was the purpose of those? To provoke a debate on whether or not * is "really" an ignorant ass?

:shrug:

[patcox2]

90. Nah, they are to reassure the poster that he/she is not alone.

Its one of the best things about this place, when everyone around you seems to be insane, thinking things are just great, buying the media lies, when you just can't beleive adult intelligent people in this world think Bush is a fine and honest man, when it gets so bad you begin to wonder about your sanity, you need to hear people agree with you. Noone really wants a debate on those threads.

You know, maybe thats what this is about. MoPaul needs that agreement, but on this one topic, atheism, isn't getting it. This thought and this comparison makes me more tolerant of this type of post. Many of us on our worst days when we are surrounded by republicans and it seems the world is insane, we need agreement, not debate. Is that what every day is like, for some of the atheists? Is it that they need, as we as liberals often need, just to hear some others who "see it" too, who share our viewpoint, just to convince us we are not going nuts.

Thats a legitimate need, we all need that sometimes.

[stlchic]

118. I think it's like that for a lot of people for many things

Otherwise why does a person join any organization of any group of people with a common interest?

It's very rare that a person purposely joins a club or group because they don't agree with anything they represent.

[JanMichael]

103. Not true. I've seen posts on DU, by DU'ers, that said Atheists should be..

...excluded from Public Office or some reasonable facsimile there of.

It's been awhile, and I think the main culpret has been tombstoned, but it has been said here.

There have been some real nasty Christians on this board, some nasty Atheists too, I suppose just like in the real world.

BTW I'm an Atheist married to an Episcopal Minister in the making so I'm perfectly capable of playing nice:-)

[Cheswick2.0]

144. I have never seen those posts

But you do mention that those posters get banned pretty quickly. So you aren't really taking about DUers so much as trolls.

[Swamp Rat]

52. I'm with you mopaul

Though I would have posted this in "Civil Rights/Equality/Privacy" I understand and agree with you. I say this because I am sick of X-tians posting "god this and jesus that" in GD. I'm sick of all the proselytizing on DU. They do it then won't even admit they are doing it.

I want freedom from religion yet X-tians everwhere refuse to let atheists live in peace. They just don't see it, especially the newly converted. It's as if they REFUSE to see the persecution of atheists and folks who believe in "other" religions.

[yorgatron]

53. i am a devout agnostic

and i'm sick and tired of athiests and religious folk calling me a "fence sitter" and "wishy-washy"

[stlchic]

57. Is is really accurate

to say that Christians "everywhere" refuse to let atheists live in peace?

I live in a neighborhood surrounded by Christians, am friends with many Christians, and we're pretty darn peaceful - and this in MO, a very conservative region (how Carnahan and Gephardt got elected still pleasantly puzzles me).

[Swamp Rat]

76. Yes, "everywhere"

What's wrong with that word? I thought DU was a place where I could be free of X-tianity but apparently not. Can you name ONE city in the USA where there are no X-tians, no churches, no bibles, no hints of X-tianity? Look at the money in your wallet. Doesn't it say "in God we trust?"

Those who do not believe are force-fed religion everyday, but the religious REFUSE to see it. Oh yes, they can be "nice" about it, and be genuinely good natured, but why do others even have to hear about it? Sometimes I find that even "nice" X-tians are offensive, just by mentioning their religion. When I ask X-tians not to mention their god to me, our relationship is never the same since in the first place they view me through christ-colored glasses.

[Pithlet]

82. That is ridiculous

When you venture out into society, virtual or otherwise, there are going to be a mix of people you don't agree with or believe the same way.

I have no problem with people expressing their spirituality and beliefs. It can even be a beautiful, moving thing, even if I don't share that belief.

I don't want a world free of that anymore than I want a world that states you can only believe one way.

[Swamp Rat]

84. What's so ridiculous?

My opinion? My life experience?

[sangh0]

89. What is ridiculous is your belief that DU is "Christian-free"

when it obviously is not "Christian-free"

[Swamp Rat]

106. "Christian-free" are your words, but I'd sure like to see LESS of it in GD

since the threads tend to devolve into useless arguing and insults.

"What is ridiculous is your belief that DU is "Christian-free"

So MY "belief" is ridiculous sangh0? Are you trying start a fight with me sangh0?

[Pachamama]

157. I like to think of the DU as having "Separation of Church and State"

even in the discussions....I assume nothing about people's religous beliefs and assume that there are people of all faith's and some non-faiths as well.....

:eyes:

[Pithlet]

92. Your assertion

that everyone else has to hide their beliefs because you don't agree with them. That you shouldn't "have" to hear about their religion. That is what I think is ridiculous.

[Swamp Rat]

105. I did not say that everyone must "hide" their religion

Stop putting words in my mouth. I DID say that I should not "have" to hear about it, but I didn't say that I wanted to STOP others from following their beliefs. If that were so, I would agree with you that it is a ridiculous position to take, if not un-American.

edit: Swamp Rat forgot to use spell-check

[Pithlet]

107. I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

By stating that you shouldn't hae to hear it, I thought you meant no one else should ever talk about it.

[Swamp Rat]

109. No problem

:pals:

[Pithlet]

110. ...

:)

[stlchic]

117. Interesting...

Why did you think that DU was a place where you could be free of Christianity?

"Can you name ONE city in the USA where there are no X-tians, no churches, no bibles, no hints of X-tianity?"

Probably not. Are you suggesting that the mere presence of Christians and Christian churches constitutes "force-fed religion"?

"Look at the money in your wallet. Doesn't it say "in God we trust?" "

Yes, it does. While I am an atheist, the small words on my currency that even most Christians don't pay attention to on a daily basis don't bother me that much. I'd rather concentrate on things that actually harm people, like "marriage protection" laws. But that's just me.

"Sometimes I find that even "nice" X-tians are offensive, just by mentioning their religion."

I don't quite understand that, but okay.

[Swamp Rat]

119. This is no longer interesting

But out of politeness I generally resopond to folks that post on my sub-threads. If you want to talk about religion, why don't you start another thread about Jean Paul Sartre and I'll join you there.

"Why did you think that DU was a place where you could be free of Christianity?" Why are you trying to speak for me?

"Are you suggesting that the mere presence of Christians and Christian churches constitutes "force-fed religion"?" It's not just a "mere presence" - it's dominion.

"I'd rather concentrate on things that actually harm people, like "marriage protection" laws. But that's just me." Then why you are so interested in telling me all this? You could start that marriage thread instead of wasting your time with me.

"I don't quite understand that, but okay." You don't have to, but I'll leave you this quote: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

[stlchic]

120. Thanks for the "politeness"...

"Why are you trying to speak for me?"

This is a DIRECT quote from YOUR post (#76):

"I thought DU was a place where I could be free of X-tianity but apparently not."

I didn't try to "speak for you", I asked you about your comment. Do try to remember your own posts.

"Then why you are so interested in telling me all this?"

Uh, you asked: "Look at the money in your wallet. Doesn't it say "in God we trust?"", and it appeared that you thought it was of some importance, and I commented on why I didn't.

Why are you interested in telling people about how offended you are by other people expressing their religious beliefs to you?

"You could start that marriage thread instead of wasting your time with me."

I didn't think I was wasting my time with you.

[Swamp Rat]

121. Now you are correctly quoting me. I used the word "X-tianity"

"I didn't try to speak for you, I asked you about your comment. Do try to remember your own posts." Are you are fucking with me now? What is your problem stlchic?

"I came to DU to get away from X-tians who mix their religion with their politics." Did you understand this sentence (also by me)?

"Why are you interested in telling me about how offended you are by other people expressing their religious beliefs to you?" You posted on MY sub-thread, not the converse. I was NEVER interested in "stlchic's opinion" because I've never seen you before nor have I read your posts. I was talking to mopaul... but you already know this.

"I didn't think I was wasting my time with you." OK, we're done. Good luck.

[stlchic]

124. I see you decided to abandon the politeness thing...

"Are you are fucking with me now?"

If you define "fucking with you" as "wondering why I'm being accused of speaking for you when I was directly referring to your particular comment", I suppose - but I wouldn't personally characterize it that way.

And yes, I understood your next sentence, but it does not explain WHY you thought DU would be the place to "get away from X-tians who mix their religion with their politics." It's not like the DU home page says "Religion Free Democratic Underground."

"I was NEVER interested in "stlchic's opinion" because I've never seen you before nor have I read your posts."

Well, if you're not interested in my opinions, then why are you commenting on them?

"I was talking to mopaul... but you already know this."

If you want to make sure you're only talking with MoPaul and other people don't intrude, perhaps you should send him a private message. (And that was a "suggestion" - nothing more.)

"What is your problem stlchic?"

Well, it appears to be my tendency to assume "X-tianity" is shorthand for "Christianity" and intrude on sub-threads.

:wtf:

[patcox2]

138. You came to the wrong place, then.

There are in fact more than a few progressives and liberals here on DU whose political beleifs are inspired by their religious beleifs. I am nto one of them, its more the opposite for me, but I happen to admire them. I have never once seen one of them proselytize, though I have seen them try to explain that there is in fact such a thing as a liberal christian. When they try to distinguish themselves from the fundamentalists they will often say good things about their variety of christian belief. Some people think that saying anything good about religion is proselytizing, which is absurd. Its called conversation and debate, you tell me what you beleive and why, I tell you what I beleive and why, hopefully we learn something (the only thing I have ever tried to convince anyone of is that people you disagree with are not stupid and wrong). Big freaking deal.

But anyway, this is not the "atheist democratic underground," and if you expected to "get away" from religious people, its not going to happen here.

And your disappointment in your misguided expectations does not give you the right to demand that DU become a religion-free zone just so you can turn DU into what you wanted it to be.

[Swamp Rat]

156. Dog pile on the rabbit... Dog pile on the rabbit

Do you write fiction for a living?

Anyway, I've been coming to DU since it began. Spare me the lecture as to what you know about my expectations.

All I have to say to you is: vote for Kerry.

[Cheswick2.0]

146. Maybe you can get Skinner to ban all Christians from this site

That would kind of limit the pool of posters though.

[Cheswick2.0]

134. Yes "Everywhere"

What's wrong with that word? I thought DU was a place where I could be free of gay people but apparently not. Can you name ONE city in the USA where there are no homos, no gay TV shows, no men holding hands or redesigning your home, no hints of homosexuality?
Those who do not believe are force-fed tollerance of homos everyday, but the perverts REFUSE to see it. Oh yes, they can be "nice" about it, and be genuinely good natured, but why do others even have to hear about it? Sometimes I find that even "nice" lesbians
are offensive, just by mentioning their sexual preference. When I ask homos or lesbos not to mention their significant others to me, our relationship is never the same since in the first place they view me through rainbow colored glasses.

[Swamp Rat]

139. Why don't you publish this little story? Show everybody how smart you are.

It's too bad you exploit homosexuals to make your point. The gay folks in my household do not appreciate this bigoted little screed of yours.

[Cheswick2.0]

142. That's your bigoted screed

Don't pin it on me.

[Swamp Rat]

148. You pinned it on yourself

And by the way, why are you posting to my sub-threads? You obviously don't like my comments in mopaul's post, nor do you seem to like his, yet here I am again, reading yet another attack on me. Why are you SEEKING conflict? Did you grow up with an athiest in your household, and does it bother you so much that you must hunt for them on political boards?

You butt in a conversation and pretend to understand, beginning with an attack on me.

[Cheswick2.0]

152. No You pinned it on yourself when you first posted it

And by the way, why are you posting to my sub-threads?

Is there a rule against that?

You obviously don't like my comments in mopaul's post, nor do you seem to like his, yet here I am again, reading yet another attack on me.

If I attacked you you would know it. If people disagreeing with you weirds you out so much you should get a new hobby.

Why are you SEEKING conflict? Did you grow up with an athiest in your household, and does it bother you so much that you must hunt for them on political boards?

LOL, no, I am just answering your post. That's what we do here.

You butt in a conversation and pretend to understand, beginning with an attack on me.

Where's the attack? I simply used your post to show you how bad it sounds if you substitute another word for Christian.
As for butting in, maybe you need to PM each other with your "private" conversation.

[Swamp Rat]

140. dupe

dupe

[Cheswick2.0]

143. Yes "everywhere"

What's wrong with that word? I thought DU was a place where I could be free of atheism but apparently not. Can you name ONE city in the USA where there are no atheists, no Godless sunday morning sloths, no hints of Atheism? They evern want to infect the money in my wallet by taking off the words "in God we trust?"

Those who believe are force-fed atheism everyday, but the atheists REFUSE to see it. Oh yes, they can be "nice" about it, and be genuinely good natured, but why do others even have to hear about it? Sometimes I find that even "nice" atheists are offensive, just by mentioning their lack of religion. When I ask atheists not to mention their hate for God to me, our relationship is never the same since in the first place they view me through black and white colored glasses.

[UdoKier]

55. Atheism and agnosticism are the most perfect of theologies.

They don't bar the possibility of some sorrt of deity or another, they simply recognize that ther is no credible evidence of such, and thus don't require worship of any sort.

THe various religions, however, lock their believers into worshipping only one given set or deities/ tenets, thus condeming their believers to hell in the event they've picked the wrong religion.

Why not play it safe and be an atheist? When you die, whoever's there to greet you, just say - HEY! so it's YOU! Okay, I'm down with YOU! You ROCK!

And if nothing happens - no biggie, no time on earth wasted worshipping and praying and flattering and scraping...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

97. To be fair, some religions don't mind your opinions about other dimensions

Buddhism comes to mind. The abrahamic ones seem to be the worst offenders in the "you're either with us or against us" department. ("seem" because maybe there's others with a more extreme history of rabidity that I don't know about)

[Warren DeMontague]

63. ditto.

http://au.org

[mopaul]

102. jesus! all i said was, i'm an atheist who supports freedom of religion

i don't really see how that can be so controversial or how it is an attack on religion, it ain't.

sure, i like to talk about it, but that don't mean i'm self-pitying or obsessed or trolling for a fight with fundies. i was actually trying to be rather tolerant and diplomatic about it. but i'm not a writer, just a schmuck with a keyboard and modem.

basically, that's all i said, and i don't understand sanghO's attacks. what'd i say? what'd i say?

[Swamp Rat]

104. You are being tolerant mopaul...

Threads on religion tend to devolve, even though the original posts may be most enlightened.

Your posts are usually funny if not enlightening, so I guess I should thank you too. I came to DU because of people like you. I registered after 3 years of lurking because of you (thread on "rebels").

Please don't stop. Like you, I'm just poor schmuck with a keyboard and modem that I don't even own.

[noiretextatique]

112. i've noticed that some religious people

1) expect a certain reverence for their beliefs, regardless of whether or not you share their beliefs. this is especially true of christians (probably because i know more of them).
and...
2) some religious people here don't like their religious beliefs lumped in with the beliefs of fanatics on the right. i don't think you did that, but i can see how those looking for a fight would find something to be offended about.

[Djinn]

115. exactly

I used to have arguments with a departed (but mainstream) DUer who insisted that if I said "I beleive that the contruct of God is a human invention that a creator does not exist, that Jesus was an amalgum of several "deity" figures" (it was a thread about christianity) then I WAS disrespecting his religion.

He couldn't understand if that was the case that what HE beleived was "disrespectful" to Muslims, Bhuddists, Seikhs, Hindu's, Jews etc etc.

Not to beleive and to question is NOT disrespectful.

[BlueJazz]

122. You didn't say anything wrong. It's just the fact that the...

"Sky Fairy" believers are so unsure about their (supposedly) Faith that they start feeling threatened and scared that when they die there won't be any reward for their adherence to illogic

[Swamp Rat]

123. Right on!

Harmony of the spheres brother!

[Cheswick2.0]

149. uuuummm sure, you got us there

we're all shaking in our little christian jack boots.

[patcox2]

155. When you have an idiotic conception of god, is not hard to refute it.

nt.

[Cheswick2.0]

135. "i'm an atheist who supports freedom of religion"

We have seen your 1500 other threads on the topic.

[mopaul]

137. yeah, they sure get to you don't they?

almost like an obsession. you should pray for inner peace.

[Cheswick2.0]

147. not at all

I think it's funny that you are so transparent.

[Swamp Rat]

141. Yes, and you've posted your opinion on those "1500" threads.

Do you enjoy harassing athiests for a hobby? Are you an "X-tian" too??? I really hope not! Well, I've re-designed the X-tian flag for everone's viewing pleasure. Maybe you will like it too, since you are such a creative writer and all.

[Cheswick2.0]

150. LOL

Yes you caught me. I live to harrass anti-theists on DU.
Yes Dear I am a Christian too.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

111. I support your freedom to be an athiest and agree EOM

[Cheswick2.0]

127. So who are you expecting to start that Atheists for Kerry organization?

Christians? Get going, all it takes is a web site to start.

[mopaul]

128. y'mean like the log cabin republicans?

or the chickens for col. sanders? i just said i'd like to see atheists for Kerry. there are plenty of atheists who support Kerry already i'm sure. and more atheists in general all the time, i've never seen so many in all my life. when i was a kid, i only knew one atheist family and they were considered freaks. now, there are literally millions of us, in the underground, awaiting reason and logic and free thinking.

we don't need no steenking website.