I'm sick of flame wars between Christians and non-Christians.

[Ladyhawk]

Perhaps there should be a forum for religious debate. I don't know how others feel, but my patience is wearing thin with all these stupid flame wars. I just read a flame bait posted by a Christian. There have been others posted by atheists.

Who the hell cares what religion you are? As long as you don't act like a fundamentalist Christian or dogmatic atheist or whatever, I don't give a dandelion in a windstorm. Hell, you can worship pink and purple magic zebras from the planet Alagaxar for all I care. Or you can claim that you know for a solid fact no gods exist.

As for myself, I'm pretty sure no gods exist, but don't see why everyone has to believe this. My problem comes when someone else uses their religion or lack thereof to tell me how to run my life. Yes, that has happened on this forum, but it was pretty easy to put the person on ignore.

Hiding all the religion war threads is a bit trickier.

I already went through this debate and have arrived at a conclusion that works well for me. Others may want to continue the debate, but maybe it should have its own forum. It clutters up GD and, quite frankly, it's starting to get on my nerves. I try not to read the threads, but sometimes they're disguised as something innocuous and I get drawn in.

Maybe I'm the only one who's fed up. If so, I'll just learn to hide the threads so everyone else can debate (or flame) to their hearts' content. Mostly, this is just a suggestion from someone who is really, really tired of the religious flame wars. Yeah, people have to find their own path, but fighting amongst ourselves about metaphysical issues seems to be a huge waste of time.

[Boosterman]

1. Sign me up

I am religious somewhat and I fully agree with you. All posts that have something to do with religion should be moved there. Not because they arent relevant but simply to confine the arguments.

[lazarus]

2. Amazingly enough

There is a forum for religious debate. The Religion and Theology forum.

[ladjf]

3. You may be tired of the debate between Christians and

non-Christians. And, you may be tolerant to any religious practices. But, the fact remains that the religious practices and views of the right-wing fundamentalists in the U.S. are the linchpin of Bush's political power. Without them, he's no factor. The result is that while we are being "tolerant" of our religious fellow citizens, they are driving us over the cliffs of war, terrorism, and environmental degradation. In short, they are in the process of ruining our lives forever and if carried far enough into the future, the existence of the human race.
They are far to dangerous to be "tolerated". They must be taken out of the Geo-political theater and isolated to their churches, where they can only do local damage to the human race.

[Wright Patman]

8. Ah, but see

that's just what they want you to do. They cannot exercise political power responsibly. That has been proven all through history.

But when they are "persecuted" by the heathen (e.g., denied political and other rights), they experience explosive growth. Just look at the early history of the church versus the Roman empire.

I do not know how to deal with the zealots except to say just tuning them out may be the best way to handle the situation. If enough people do that, they will end up talking to themselves (as they had been up until Reagan invited them into his coalition).

In short, the more attention you draw to the Dobson types, the more they get off on it.

[ladjf]

12. I'm not concerned about whether or not they "get off" on this

or that. I believe that zealous religious activity is a sign of mental illness and that there is a global epidemic of religious fundamentalism. This epidemic is threatening life as we know it on planet Earth and like all epidemics, scientific, objective, systematic approaches must be used to counter the threat. The first step might be to discover what contextual circumstances are making certain individuals susceptible to it's influence while others seem impervious or immune. The answer to that question will lead to fewer people being infected. Next, what, if anything, can be done to cure them of their illness. Finally, beyond that, what strategies are going to be needed to wrest control from their rabid hands, placing government back into the hands of well people who will work for the best interests of life on Earth.

[Enquiringkitty]

4. I'm all for it! Religion is a belief that doesn't have to be based in

fact. Politic is different. The facts of an issue must be addressed. No spirit or God is going to come down and vote. I would like for Democrats to drop the religious issues between us and just look at the facts of politics and deal with the Republicans with logic. If they can't hold up their position under an attack of logic, only reverting to the religious platform then our logic will show that they aren't working for the good of the country but for the good of special interest and the corporations. Fighting among ourselves is what they expect.

[Spinzonner]

5. You're right

it was a lot more fun when the Christians were having REAL flame wars amongst themselves and burning each other - singly and individually - while the rest of us of various theisms, atheisms, and antitheisms just looked on.

As Mr Applegate once reminisced - Those Were The Good Old Days.

[markus]

6. Or, as a famous Texas newspaper editor once opined

"the trouble with the Baptists is that they aren't held under water long enough."

Actually, it's wrong to villify all Christians.

It is the right thing to do to demonize "Evangelical" Christians. I realize all evangelicals aren't the devil incarnate. Well, neither to liberals eat babiesl.

But the evangelical political movement is indistinguisable in my mind from the radical Islamist movement. The fact they haven't started walking into abortion clinics with explosives strapped to themselves is largely a matter of timing and tactics. The main difference is that there are tens of millions of the former, and they live right here in the U.S.

[bowens43]

7. Use your 'off switch'.

You are not required to read any posts here on DU. If you find the subject matter not to your liking , don't read it.

[liberalpress]

9. I love you ladyhawke..

..but polite discourse in DU is as rare as a compassionate conservative.

[Inland]

10. Why do DUers feel the need to argue religious beliefs anyway?

Political debate doesn't require theology. Yes, its true that there are people who take political stands because of their religion, but thanks to the fact that we can argue religion's role in our society, argue what tolerance means, argue what commpromise and democracy requires, we don't have to "win" in theology, a boring topic and a dead end.

For example, the debate over whether the ten commandments should be posted on the courthouse lawn doesn't mean I have to prove God doesn't exist, or that the ten commandments have been superseded by the beatitudes. It's tangential, it's a dead end, it's a distraction, and frankly, going out of my way to declare one's religious beliefs wrong is overly personal and rude, not tolerant, and destructive in a pluralist society.

Besides, in my mind, a religious debate is exactly what the people whose politics I dislike want to have. Defining an issue by making it a test of belief--for example, making your position on the ten commandment monument a question of whether you are pious or not--is a winner for them. Being confronted over their faith is another winner. They, of course, don't mind that you are being destructive of a pluralist society. They know they are in the majority in their communities.

[anarchy1999]

11. Beautifully said. " ...you can worship pink and purple magic zebras

from the planet Alagaxar for all I care. Or you can claim that you know for a solid fact no gods exist."

Thank you for putting it out so well.

[More Than A Feeling]

20. doing either is no problem

It is when people become disrespectful about either that is becomes a problem, I think.

For example, I think one would have to be very careful in defining the terms if you want to equate religion with mental illness, as was done by a poster above. Even if you only mean right wingers, leaving it broad will only offend people needlessly.

Some people still identify themselves as religious, even if you would call them spiritual. Others think that organization is one of the ways in which the religious can increase the amount of good that they do, in terms of charity. Attacks on organized religion would therefore not go over well.

But if there is courtesy and respect for all beliefs among us (I doubt you'll find fundamentalist right wing pharisees to attack here, so respect for the religious here does not mean you would be saying the same to them), then we can be in harmony and focus on the ties that bind us.

[Thtwudbeme]

13. Perhaps there IS a forum for religious debate. It's in the Non-

Political Forums under the title "Religion."

Sorry you don't enjoy the conversation...I know you don't like people "telling you how to run your life..." but my advice is so simple: Don't click on those threads.

Stephanie

[Just Me]

14. It's as if we're allowing the right-wing to define our issues for us.

:shrug:

Since there is already a forum set up for discussion about religion, I see no reason to allow those flame bait posts on here.

Like you, I tolerate of all religious beliefs as long as they're not extreme and/or harmful.

[jarab]

15. In a more perfect world

I would propose that metaphysical issues/religious beliefs remain private.

In a 1960s or earlier political setting, this might have been possible. Today, the parties have connected politics and religion to an extent that it must be discussed in some manner because it comprises or largely affects many planks on each platform.

I would agree with the OP that the threshold for DU discussion has been crossed in many instances. The solution is quite complex. The exercise of the First is extremely important - perhaps paramount - to our side.

Religion cuts across boundaries; many of us despise certain fundies because of their political influence, not their religion. We errrantly transfer this "hate" across the religion threshold - whatever that imaginary boundary is.
There is no solution short of speech suppression. mho.

...O...

[Deep13]

16. Live and let live.

I think what I think because I think my thoughts are right and that contrary thoughts haven't been given enough thought. Every person has that prerogative. Still, I am not out to convert the world and as a matter of civility and manners, I don't rub people's noses in it unless they bring it up first. If someone asks, I will tell him or her. If someone pushes his or her views on me, I push back.

I have a couple of pins I wear occasionally:
Guilt, Fear and Mass Insanity: 3 cheers for Christianity
and
All Religions Are Fairy Tales.

This is a way of pushing back when it seems like the whole world is trying to tell me I am wrong, even though I did not ask. No one around here cares about stepping on my toes, so why should I care about trodding on theirs? Anyway, it is no different than wearing crosses or posting "Pray the Rosery" on ones car.

[imenja]

17. the fact is some people thrive off of hating others

and from what I can see by many atheists on these boards, the entirely of their contributions here are to find an outlet for their own prejudices. They seek to justify what is nothing than pure ignorance and bigotry by pointing to the Christian Right. And since they dislike the Right, they use that as an excuse to hate all of those who are different from themselves.

Christianity is merely incidental to them. It is simply an excuse to imagine that they are better than others. They attack Christians here because they could not get away with attacking blacks or Jews. Like all bigots, including Falwell and his crowd, they hate for the sake of prejudice itself.

[trotsky]

18. That's awfully close to outright insults.

"Many" atheists? I have yet to see any atheist on here "hate all of those who are different from themselves." You should be prepared to back up such an outlandish and hurtful accusation, or stand accused of prejudice.

We attack Christians because we can't get away with attacking blacks or Jews? That's outrageous and absurd. If I posted the equivalent of what you just wrote, but inserted "Christians" for "atheists," it would cause an uproar.

[arwalden]

19. I Noticed That Too... Amazing, Isn't It?

Unfortunately, the attitude exhibited in that post isn't uncommon at all. For reasons that have nothing to do with reality, many theists feel like persecuted victims. I guess those feelings are manifested in posts like that one.

I believe that their paranoid feelings of these Christians comes from the fact that the ACTUAL victims of the rw Christian political agenda start to fight back. When their encroachment on the rights of others is stopped, and when their attempts to further blur (and erase) the line separating church and state is challenged... they feel victimized.

To the best of my ability, I'm pretty specific whenever I criticize zealot Christians... and when I do so, I'm critical or scornful of how fundies guide or establish bigoted or hateful policies. Particularly when it comes to equal rights for women, gays, birth control, abortion, and medical advancements, etc.

On the other hand, it's obvious that the position I take in debates about the existence of deities is bound to offend many delicate types across the entire spectrum of Christians (whether liberal or fundie)... but in those cases we're talking about theism and atheism. Even though some Christians choose to take the arguments against theism personally (because they cannot separate themselves from their belief in deities?) the actual arguments are not directed towards anyone personally. -- Unfortunately, the same can NOT be said for the post above.

[imenja]

25. I spoke in general terms

because I did not wish to offend anyone in particular. I could site many names, but did not do so. Objecting to fundamentalist alignment with the state is fine. I would imagine that every DU Christian agrees with you on that. But when you feel a need to condemn others who believe differently from yourself, you do nothing to accomplish your political goals.

You're quite correct that people do not separate themselves from their "beliefs in religious deities." Do you separate yourself from the fact you are straight or gay, from the fact you are white, black, Hispanic, or some other racial designation? Do you separate yourself from the fact you are a man or a woman? Religion is who people are. It is not a idea one picks up and discards with the latest fashion. It is handed down from generation to generations. Judaism is a religion, but people are identified ethnically because of their religious views. The Irish are Catholic, not because the idea suddenly came to them, but because of centuries of cultural traditions. They remained Catholic despite the fact they faced persecution from the English because of their beliefs. My family remained Catholic despite having a cross burned on our farm by the KKK.

People have a right to be who they are. If you have a problem with public policy, with the alignment of the Church and State, criticize that. But when you criticize 90% of humanity because of who they are, you engage in prejudice. Nothing more.

[Modem Butterfly]

29. You know, I've been on DU a long time...

but I've never read anyone making a blanket criticms of 90% of humanity...

[imenja]

31. I suggest you read though some of the religion discussion boards

for posts that condemn religion itself as the cause of intolerance. Well over 90% of people on this earth adhere to one religion or another.

[Modem Butterfly]

32. So?

Of course religion is the source of religious intolerance. Just as race is the source of racism, gender is the source of sexism, and class is the source of classism.

:crazy:

[trotsky]

37. How many is "many"?

A majority? A plurality?

You make it sound like it's widespread, and you also do it in a very accusatory and self-righteous tone.

And you're still confusing criticizing "humanity" with criticizing beliefs. With religious beliefs - conservative AND liberal - inserting themselves into politics, some criticism and debate is going to happen. You should acknowledge that just because someone criticizes what you believe, that does not mean they hate you or they are a bigot. And certainly calling them those things will do nothing to further dialog.

[Modem Butterfly]

39. I think, to this person's mind...

...any questioning of religion equates to a questioning of believers.

[imenja]

47. more than 3

you can count them yourself

[trotsky]

49. Like I said in my first response to you:

I have yet to see any atheist on here "hate all of those who are different from themselves."

That's what you're accusing people of. I know you can't name names, but I just haven't seen the behavior you claim. What I do think is that you are confusing criticism of beliefs with "hating" a person who holds those beliefs, and lashing out at those you feel don't afford others what you deem is proper respect.

[imenja]

50. there is no way for me to answer this without getting into personal

condemnations, which I do not what to do. But when a person objects to someone else's very right to believe, their deeply personal choices, and targets or ridicules them as a result, I see no way to interpret that other than prejudice or hatred. Why cannot we just accept each other for who we are? Why is it not possible to simply respect the fact that we do not all think or worship in the same ways? Would it really be impossible to treat each other with that kind of humanity?

[trotsky]

55. Not when someone's religious beliefs...

directly insult the humanity of another. I will not respect how Falwell or Phelps or Robertson or Swaggart or Bush or Ashcroft or DeLay or Lott or ANY of those assholes worship.

But as I and several others keep trying to tell you, in criticizing the beliefs of those people, SOMETIMES things are going to get uncomfortable for believers in general. As noted with our exchange on the issue of reading one's beliefs from the bible.

This is not disrespecting you, or disrespecting the "90%" (unproven) of people who supposedly believe in god. Religious beliefs affect all our lives in real ways, and for those of us who don't want to be ruled by religious zealots, we're going to use the weapons we have.

[imenja]

84. so who on DU does that?

Have you found one DU poster who has insulted the humanity of you or anyone else under the guise of Christianity?

If you think you are doing anything to combat Falwell here, you're wasting your time. You need to locate him elsewhere. You will not find his kind here. So why do you persist in expressing your disrespect for our religious views, when we share none of those prejudices you rightly condemn?

George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld are men. So are Falwell and the Pope. They are all part of a patriarchal society. Shall I target you for that? The fact both you and they are male would somehow justify my imagining that you share in their crimes? The BTK killer and Ted Bundy were also men. In fact, the majority of those who kill women are men. Sexual predators are overwhelmingly male. Shall I assume you are also a murder and a sexual predator? Your screen name is Trotsky. Don't you know Stalin killed millions of Soviet citizens. Shall I blame you for that since your screen name suggests an allegiance with communism? If I made any of these assumptions it would be farcical and ignorant, as is your assumption that the fact some on DU are Christians means that our beliefs are responsible for your persecution.

[trotsky]

89. I'll simply use your response.

"there is no way for me to answer this without getting into personal condemnations"

Why can't you let go of this? Your desire to read bigotry and hatred into things has, I think, prevented you from having any sort of respectful conversation with someone who disagrees with you.

[imenja]

92. provide the text without the name

simply print the text without the name, then you engage in no personal condemnations.

I would be surprised if you found it, but it is possible. Even if you do, does that justify your painting the rest of us with a broad brush? Would it be possible to deal with individuals' statements on their merits rather than targeting them based on your assumptions concerning what you think must be their beliefs because of something you've seen on television?

I edited my last response to you to include this:


If you think you are doing anything to combat Falwell here, you're wasting your time. You need to locate him elsewhere. You will not find his kind here. So why do you persist in expressing your disrespect for our religious views, when we share none of those prejudices you rightly condemn?

George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld are men. So are Falwell and the Pope. They are all part of a patriarchal society. Shall I target you for that? The fact both you and they are male would somehow justify my imagining that you share in their crimes? The BTK killer and Ted Bundy were also men. In fact, the majority of those who kill women are men. Sexual predators are overwhelmingly male. Shall I assume you are also a murder and a sexual predator? Your screen name is Trotsky. Don't you know Stalin killed millions of Soviet citizens. Shall I blame you for that since your screen name suggests an allegiance with communism? If I made any of these assumptions it would be farcical and ignorant, as is your assumption that the fact some on DU are Christians means that our beliefs are responsible for your persecution.

I can't let go of it because I believe intolerance is wrong. When you condemn a whole swatch of humanity because of statements by a few, I see no way of understanding that other than by bigotry. The mere fact I am Christian has been cited as evidence that I somehow defend bigotry. Nothing could be further from the truth. None of us behave justly when we defend prejudice, whether we are Christian or atheist.

[trotsky]

96. Would you PLEASE quit attributing things to me that I have not said?

I don't condemn "a whole swatch of humanity" - that's YOUR misinterpretation of my words and positions. And then you proceed to lambast me and any other atheist who challenges you on your desire to do exactly what you claim to hate - condemn a large group of people (atheists) on the basis of a few statements.

I am appalled at your continuing horrible behavior.

And for the record, Stalin had Trotsky killed, so they weren't exactly buddies now were they?

[imenja]

101. nor am I buddies with Jerry Falwell

the point remains the same. I provide your own words in another post and welcome your clarification.

I am reasonably familiar with the circumstances of Trotsky's death. I visited his house in Coyoacan, where he was murdered. My point was about broad, non-sensical ideological associations. It was not meant to be a reasonable comparison. Any association between progressive Christians and intolerance is similarly unreasonable.

[trotsky]

103. And I have never directly accused progressive Christians.

And I never said you were "buddies" with Jerry Falwell! Can't you just STOP and quit putting words in my mouth in order for you to fling bile and nasty words at me?

All I have done is point out how your faith (and your holy text) *can be* and *has been* used to justify all sorts of evil.

You can sit back and say, "Oh, none of them were real Christians." But all I can see is that they can point to bible verses to justify their behavior and condemn yours, while you can point to others that justify your behavior and condemn theirs. They'll simply come back and say that YOU aren't the "real Christian." And there we are. Who am I to believe?

But no, you take this simple observation and completely spin it into some sort of direct attack on liberal Christians, and then beat on anyone who tries to point out your error.

[imenja]

105. Obviously I acknowledge that religion has been used to justify intolerance

and I have made the same point in my own posts here. What I object to is your point that religion is the cause of intolerance.

Is your only point that religion has been used to justify bigotry? You have no argument from me on that score. We are all witness to the Republican party's political success in doing so.

What I have seen from you, however, is your insistence on going beyond that point to target Christianity and religion itself as the cause of oppression and bigotry. On that point I will not agree with you, because it simply doesn't hold water. Religion is pretext used by some to justify their own hatred. Nothing more. If your only point is that some have used Christianity as an ideology to promote bigotry, why feel the need to question the religious beliefs of DU members? How does that help solve problems of injustice to which you rightly point? Would it not be better to work to end that intolerance with those who share the same goals, regardless of whether or not they believe in God?

By the way, you made the comment about buddies in reference to Stalin and Trotsky. You implied the analogy. I merely pointed out that it was a false one.

[arwalden]

42. Here Is Your Reply...

>> Objecting to fundamentalist alignment with the state is fine. <<

So we have your permission to continue?

>> I would imagine that every DU Christian agrees with you on that. <<

Then you have quite an active imagination, or you have a very small circle of friends on DU, or you just don't read a lot of threads.

>> But when you feel a need to condemn others who believe differently from yourself, you do nothing to accomplish your political goals. <<

I suppose it really *is* a terrible thing for me to condemn people who TRULY BELIEVE differently than me when it comes to my equal rights and protections under the law. :eyes:

>> You're quite correct that people do not separate themselves from their "beliefs in religious deities." Do you separate yourself from the fact you are straight or gay, from the fact you are white, black, Hispanic, or some other racial designation? Do you separate yourself from the fact you are a man or a woman? <<

Religion is CHOSEN. The other example you give are not. Even if it's chosen for them (by their parents) by the time they are old enough to make decisions on their own and to participate in the political process, they CHOOSE to remain and CHOOSE to continue to *support* their denomination and its hateful and divisive policies and edicts and political influence. And although they may claim to oppose their denomination's bigotry, when they continue to attend, tithe, and SAY NOTHING... then they are actually giving their CONSENT.

You expect me to SAY NOTHING critical of these people? Do you think I'm going to let them hide their bigotry behind a cloak of religion? Do you think I'll remain silent simply because they try to label their bigotry as a "religious belief"? Do you think I'll be bullied by people who pretend to be victimized when it is THEY who are the ones doing the persecution? -- Think again!

>> Religion is who people are. It is not a idea one picks up and discards with the latest fashion. It is handed down from generation to generations. Judaism is a religion, but people are identified ethnically because of their religious views. The Irish are Catholic, not because the idea suddenly came to them, but because of centuries of cultural traditions. They remained Catholic despite the fact they faced persecution from the English because of their beliefs. My family remained Catholic despite having a cross burned on our farm by the KKK. <<

It's used as a shield and justification for bigotry and political manipulation. Are these people incapable of thinking for themselves? Do they not see how their continued support and their continued silence acts to enable and empower those who use the power of the pulpit to pursue oppressive policies, and to politically support regressive laws?

>> People have a right to be who they are. <<

And that trumps my right to call them on their bigotry and/or their support/silence of the bigoted policies/positions of their church? Not likely. Your complaints won't silence me!

>> If you have a problem with public policy, with the alignment of the Church and State, criticize that. <<

I do. And I criticize those that support it or who (by their silence) consent and approve of it.

>> But when you criticize 90% of humanity because of who they are, you engage in prejudice. Nothing more. <<

NINETY percent, eh? Ninety whole percent? Wow!

I'm not seeing the connection between "criticizing" and "engaging in prejudice". Although it's a charge that I often hear from many fragile and delicate religionists, it's a completely absurd accusation. The only purpose of those cries is to silence the critics.

Not gonna work.

[imenja]

48. My reply

You are obviously entitled to object to fundamentalists and anyone else you chose. The first amendment gives you the right to object to women, men, blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Despise whoever you like. It is entirely within your right. But when you do so, you reveal the nature of your own prejudice.

Religions is chosen: I suppose you are right. I suppose the Jews in Auschwitz might have said to Hitler: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't really mean it. I changed my mind. I'll become a Christian, and atheist, or whatever necessary to save my life. Muslims living in occupied Israel territory could immeasurably improve their economic opportunities if they would only have the sense to recognize that their religion is a mere choice. Something they can pick up and discard as easily as you do a worn shirt.

Slavery did not rid Afro-Brazilians of their religious traditions, despite efforts by the state and their masters to transform them. They continued to believe in and practice Candomble because of who they are, because of the relationship they had with their gods and goddesses. You would reduce that to simple choice. Only the extent to which people continue to practice their native religions despite every effort to eradicate them, despite the fact they risked their lives to do so, suggests it is far more than the superficial sort of idea you imagine. One one level it is a choice. It is a choice to be who you are rather than who others in power might like to force you to be. So do you have a problem with them? With Africans who endured slavery or Jews in Nazi Germany, or is it only Christians you object to?

Religion is chosen like heterosexuality or homosexuality is chosen. I could force you to stop having sex with the partner of your choice tomorrow, and you might do it. Does that change who you are internally? If I become an atheist today simply to please you, would that change who I am?

We all make choices. I choose to be tolerant. I choose to defend your right to believe anything you like. I choose to not be so arrogant as to condemn who you are, even if your choices and beliefs are different from mine. Would it be impossible for you to make that same choice? Would it be possible to treat others with the same level of humanity and respect that you expect for yourself?


I posted this to another DU member, and it seems appropriate to your response as well:

Religion is no more the cause of intolerance that the fact people have differing skin tones is the cause of racism. Religion is no more the cause of bigotry then the fact that women and men exist on this earth is the cause of sexism. People are who they are. Some are black, some are white. Some are men, others are women. Some are Jews, some are Muslims, while others are Christians, atheists, or Buddhists. Those realities do not cause intolerance. They instead provide a pretext through which some seek to dominate others. Forty years ago these very same people who draw on religion as their source of bigotry sought refuge in racism. The verbal articulation of their prejudice has changed, but the sentiment has not. If you were by some stroke of the wand able to banish religion from the minds of all people on earth, you would do nothing to solve problems of intolerance and prejudice.

When you target religion as the enemy rather than bigotry and a power grab by the Right, you misdiagnose the problem. You will never succeed in combating the Religious Right's hold on power if you feel a need to ridicule religion itself. Well over 90% of people on earth believe in one religion or another. If you set up the entirety of humanity as your enemy, you can only lose. And what's more you don't deserve to win. You cannot effectively combat a problem if you don't accurately identify it. Moreover, you alienate millions of possible allies. Why? What purpose does that serve you?

[arwalden]

51. Imenja.

You are obviously entitled to object to fundamentalists and anyone else you chose.

Gee. Thanks again... I appreciate that. :hug: That makes me feel all warm inside.

The first amendment gives you the right to object to women, men, blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Despise whoever you like. It is entirely within your right.

Oh that's a real piece of work! :eyes: A statement like that is based on an assumption. That assumption (incorrectly) being that on a wholesale level, I actively despise someone or some group. :eyes: Good grief! With that clever backhanded statement, you're implying that my wholesale and irrational hatred has been established and is accepted as fact. That is UNTRUE. It's a cheap shot.

Let's turn it back and say something like this: "I support your right to hate and ridicule gays and lesbians... that's entirely within YOUR right!" (How does that sound?)

But when you do so, you reveal the nature of your own prejudice.

There's no "when" about it. You're assuming facts that do not exist. What you are accusing me of is untrue. Another cheap shot, a personal attack, and you know it. CUT IT OUT!

Religions is chosen: I suppose you are right.

Yes I am.

I suppose the Jews in Auschwitz might have said to Hitler: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't really mean it. I changed my mind. I'll become a Christian, and atheist, or whatever necessary to save my life.

Strawman. That's not the issue.

Muslims living in occupied Israel territory could immeasurably improve their economic opportunities if they would only have the sense to recognize that their religion is a mere choice.

Another strawman. That's also not the issue.

Something they can pick up and discard as easily as you do a worn shirt.

Another strawman. I have not suggested that anyone "discard" their religion. Clearly you have not read any of MY posts or you've confused me with someone else.

Slavery did not rid Afro-Brazilians of their religious traditions, despite efforts by the state and their masters to transform them. They continued to believe in and practice Candomble because of who they are, because of the relationship they had with their gods and goddesses. You would reduce that to simple choice.

Yet another strawman. Sigh. How many more times will this continue? -- Let's see what else you've got to say...

Only the extent to which people continue to practice their native religions despite every effort to eradicate them, despite the fact they risked their lives to do so, suggests it is far more than the superficial sort of idea you imagine.

So you're saying that because someone's bigotry is faith-based, then it cannot be overcome. Because the bigotry is part of their religion, then we should just accept it? -- That's astounding. :eyes:

One one level it is a choice. It is a choice to be who you are rather than who others in power might like to force you to be.

That makes no sense. I don't understand what you were trying to say. Were you in a hurry when you typed this?

So do you have a problem with them? With Africans who endured slavery or Jews in Nazi Germany, or is it only Christians you object to?

WHAT? -- Well... look at the calendar...it's 2005. And it's the fundie Christians who are wielding their faith-based bigotry and whipping up politicians and middle-America into a frenzy to permanently relegate gays and lesbians as 2nd class citizens. Honestly now... what do YOU think? :crazy:

Religion is chosen like heterosexuality or homosexuality is chosen.

OH. MY. GODDD! WOW! Really? That's what you believe? Oh shit! -- I'm beginning to understand EXACTLY where you're coming from now. It's all so clear to me. And it's sad. That's pretty damn sad.

I could force you to stop having sex with the partner of your choice tomorrow, and you might do it. Does that change who you are internally? If I become an atheist today simply to please you, would that change who I am?

Strawman :shrug:

We all make choices. I choose to be tolerant.

:eyes: Talk is cheap. I don't believe that for a second.

I choose to defend your right to believe anything you like.

Okay, that's your set-up... I'm sure there's more. (Wait for it... wait for it... here it comes...)

I choose to not be so arrogant as to condemn who you are, even if your choices and beliefs are different from mine.

THERE it is! I knew it! -- I see, that's a backhanded way saying that I "condemn" others, and you're calling me "arrogant". I get it. Clever.

Would it be impossible for you to make that same choice?

But you see... you're wrong. That's a stupid question to ask, because I'm not doing what you accuse me of in the first place.

Would it be possible to treat others with the same level of humanity and respect that you expect for yourself?

Let me make sure I'm understanding you here. Bear with me... It's difficult to type while laughing so hard, but I'll try. --- You want me to "respect" someone's bigotry because it's faith-based? You want me to demonstrate "humanity" towards them because they want me to be a second-class citizen? You want me to tolerate someone's bigotry and regressive politics because it's "who-they-are"?? Abso-fucking-lutely NOT! No way! Nope. Nada! Ain't gonna happen! Forget it! Survey Says: Eeeeeerrnnnnh! -- I AM NOT AN IDIOT! I AM NOT A FOOL!

I posted this to another DU member, and it seems appropriate to your response as well:

I know that cut-n-paste boilerplate flaming appears to be all the rage... you might as well do it too. I'll bet that saves many folks from a lot of thinking and typing, eh? The "furious typist" and "tireless debater" tactic of responding with epic tomes does tend to intimidate and frustrate many people. But... if you must... go ahead. Let's get it over with.

Religion is no more the cause of intolerance that the fact people have differing skin tones is the cause of racism. Religion is no more the cause of bigotry then the fact that women and men exist on this earth is the cause of sexism. People are who they are. Some are black, some are white. Some are men, others are women. Some are Jews, some are Muslims, while others are Christians, atheists, or Buddhists. Those realities do not cause intolerance. They instead provide a pretext through which some seek to dominate others. Forty years ago these very same people who draw on religion as their source of bigotry sought refuge in racism. The verbal articulation of their prejudice has changed, but the sentiment has not. If you were by some stroke of the wand able to banish religion from the minds of all people on earth, you would do nothing to solve problems of intolerance and prejudice.

Another strawman... that's not what this is about.

When you target religion as the enemy rather than bigotry and a power grab by the Right, you misdiagnose the problem.

When the leader of the Catholic church calls me and mine "EVIL"... he and his church are the fucking ENEMY. Know what else? His followers who stand by and say nothing also ARE MY ENEMY. I haven't misdiagnosed anything. What an arrogant thing to say.

You will never succeed in combating the Religious Right's hold on power if you feel a need to ridicule religion itself.

Strawman.

Well over 90% of people on earth believe in one religion or another. If you set up the entirety of humanity as your enemy, you can only lose.

Strawman. Ninety percent of the people on earth aren't dictating the regressive and hateful and bigoted and myopic and intrusive "faith-based" policies. Why bring them in to this? What's the point? It's a non-issue. Clearly you just don't get it.

And what's more you don't deserve to win.

Oh now isn't *that* just lovely? Keep talking. Let it all out... Let us get to know you better. :eyes:

You cannot effectively combat a problem if you don't accurately identify it.

I assure you... the problem *has* been identified. You're trying to RE-define it and distract with all these non-issues and purposeful misrepresentation of what the actual problem is.

People who are not part of the solution are part of the problem. Which are you?

Moreover, you alienate millions of possible allies. Why? What purpose does that serve you?

If anyone is alienated because I oppose faith-based bigotry... then they aren't my ally. Those people serve no purpose. They are worthless. Vile. Scum. Beneath contempt.

Did you know GOD HATES FAGS?

[imenja]

52. dismissing as straw men

every point that proves the fallacy of your argument is far from convincing. Straw man, according to Websters: "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted." The examples I gave are historical. They are real. They are not imaginary. Evidently you feel unequipped to engage in this subject matter so have declined to do so.

The you in my discussion of prejudice was not directed at you particular. English has no distinct second person plural. You is used interchangeably for the second person singular and plural. I would have thought it was obvious I mean it in the plural sense. Unless of course you (singular) have voiced those ideas. My point was prejudice in all of it's forms is identical. Opposition to gays, blacks, women, and Christians, Jews, or Muslims is all born of the same seed: bigotry.

as for this point you make:

One one level it is a choice. It is a choice to be who you are rather than who others in power might like to force you to be.

"That makes no sense. I don't understand what you were trying to say. Were you in a hurry when you typed this?"

It only doesn't make sense to you because you refused to think about the examples I provided from Nazi Germany, Israel, Palestine, and Brazil of peoples who have maintained religion in spite of church and state oppression. You insist religion is a mere choice. I provided you an array of historical examples that demonstrate otherwise. You invoke the issue of choice as a means of justifying your dislike of Christians. Your distaste is apparently justified by the fact you see them as choosing religion rather than religion being a manifestation of who they are, ethnically and culturally. The issue of choice is the very one the Religious Right focuses on to justify their bigotry toward homosexuals. In neither case is the distinction legitimate. If we are to uphold values of tolerance and respect, we extend them to all, without exception. I share your political objection to bigotry espoused by Christian leaders. What I object to is your reliance on that as a justification for intolerance toward the rest of us.

You are correct that 90% "of the people on earth aren't dictating the regressive and hateful and bigoted and myopic and intrusive "faith-based" policies." Nor do DU Christians. Yet why your hostility toward religion itself? Can you actually know so little about human nature and history to imagine that religion itself is the cause of prejudice? You somehow think if you succeed in banishing Christianity from the earth you would rid the world of bigotry? How do you explain your own animosity toward Christians and Christianity? (Oh yes, I forgot. Antipathy toward Christians is okay. It's not prejudice because it's you who hold those views). How is this different from those who seek to rid the world of homosexuality? Prejudice is prejudice, no matter who espouses it or how one seeks to justify it.


Have you actually found one DU member who supports faith based policies or the Christian Right's alignment with the Republican party? I would venture that every one of us opposes those developments as much as you do. Yet you use that as an excuse to voice your own prejudice toward all Christians, a number of whom, I should point out, are also gay.


"People who are not part of the solution are part of the problem. Which are you?" I speak out against intolerance and bigotry in all varieties, including those who cloak themselves in religion to espouse that bigotry. I have done so consistently. I do not seek to justify certain kinds of prejudice as you do. Those who condemn others because they differ from themselves have far more in common with Jerry Falwell than I or other DU Christians do. They are part of the very same problem that Falwell represents.

If bigotry is your concern, make that clear. But if you choose to insist that belief in God itself is the source of your problems, you are tragically uninformed. Humans have used race, sex, eye color, body size, ethnicity, language and a myriad of other distinctions to assert their dominance over others. And yes, some like Falwell use religion, while others rely on their antipathy toward religion. The justifications they turn to are merely pretext. The essential problem is bigotry itself. The question you need to ask yourself is if you really want to end that bigotry, if you want to come together with other progressives, including Christians, who share that same goal, or if you prefer to find excuses to perpetuate intolerance?

[arwalden]

56. Your Arguments Are Repetitive And Tiresome, Imenja.

"dismissing as straw men" every point that proves the fallacy of your argument is far from convincing.

That's about the type of response I'd expect.

Straw man, according to Websters: "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted." The examples I gave are historical. They are real. They are not imaginary.

You've provided "real" historical examples for some OTHER argument... some OTHER discussion that his little to do with this discussion. Even your definition of a strawman is a strawman.

Evidently you feel unequipped to engage in this subject matter so have declined to do so.

:eyes: That is incorrect. Fact is, fighting your strawmen is a waste of my time. My refusal to do so is not to be interpreted as being "unequipped".

The you in my discussion of prejudice was not directed at you particular.

Ahhhh... so you say.

English has no distinct second person plural.

"They, them?" -- I'm convinced that you knew exactly what you were doing.

You is used interchangeably for the second person singular and plural. I would have thought it was obvious I mean it in the plural sense.

So you're thinking of someone else then? You're wanting me to defend someone else's actions that I have no knowledge of? Perhaps your arguments and accusations are best directed elsewhere.

Unless of course you (singular) have voiced those ideas.

What did you have in mind? -- Other than to create doubt or to make a backhanded accusation... what possible reason would you have for posing such a statement? Please stop.

My point was prejudice in all of it's forms is identical.

Oh please! That's not your point, and you know it. And even if it were... it's complete horseshit. Opposing faith-based bigotry--and those who defend it or approve of it or consent to it--is NOT "prejudice".

Opposition to gays, blacks, women, and Christians, Jews, or Muslims is all born of the same seed: bigotry.

Strawman. Opposition to faith-based hate and opposition to the "God Hates Fags" mentality is NOT bigotry. On this point we will NEVER agree.

as for this point you make: One one level it is a choice. It is a choice to be who you are rather than who others in power might like to force you to be. "That makes no sense. I don't understand what you were trying to say. Were you in a hurry when you typed this?"

Yes?

It only doesn't make sense to you because you refused to think about the examples I provided from Nazi Germany, Israel, Palestine, and Brazil of peoples who have maintained religion in spite of church and state oppression.

These examples are absurd. They are completely irrelevant to this discussion. That has nothing to do with the fact that people choose to support the anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-health, anti-science bigotry and hatred of their own religion.

You insist religion is a mere choice.

That is incorrect. You have stated that and accused me of that twice before, and I corrected you twice before. And now you repeat the same false statement?

These is becoming a circular argument in which you continue to ignore what I've said and you continue to repeat the same accusations over and over again. (Please look up-thread for my previous response to that. I'm tired of repeating myself with you.)

I provided you an array of historical examples that demonstrate otherwise.

You've demonstrated nothing that has relevance to this topic.

You invoke the issue of choice as a means of justifying your dislike of Christians.

You assume far too much about me. (Or is this another example of you using "second person plural" where you indicate me but you don't really mean me? Try using "they" if that's what you mean.)

Your distaste is apparently justified

My distaste? Really? -- For someone who's so insistent that others write clearer, your own clarity could use some work. It's difficult to know when "you/your" actually means "me/mine" or "they/theirs". I guess a good rule of thumb would be that you actually mean ME. That is... *unless* I call you on some backhanded personal attack or other baseless accusation. In that instance, you'll surely claim that the you meant "they" even though you said "you" and you'll demand to receive the benefit of the doubt because the word "you" is so vague an imprecise. Eh?

by the fact you see them as choosing religion rather than religion being a manifestation of who they are, ethnically and culturally.

Indeed many of them do choose to remain and support the faith-based hatred and bigotry being done in the name of their religion. There are no two ways about this. If they do not oppose it, then they support it. Their silence is their nod of approval.

The issue of choice is the very one the Religious Right focuses on to justify their bigotry toward homosexuals. In neither case is the distinction legitimate.

They are wrong... and so are you.

If we are to uphold values of tolerance and respect, we extend them to all, without exception.

Feel free to tolerate and make excuses for faith-based bigotry all you want. There's nothing I can do to stop someone who is as determined as you evidently are.

I share your political objection to bigotry espoused by Christian leaders.

You do?

What I object to is your reliance on that as a justification for intolerance toward the rest of us.

Does "you" = "me"? Or are you talking about "they"? -- I cannot speak for "they".

You are correct that 90% "of the people on earth aren't dictating the regressive and hateful and bigoted and myopic and intrusive "faith-based" policies." Nor do DU Christians.

I do not recall ever having made that assertion about DU Christians. Are you thinking of someone else?

Yet why your hostility toward religion itself?

Which "you" are you talking about. Me? If so, then you are mistaken. If not, then I cannot speak for "they".

Can you actually know so little about human nature and history to imagine that religion itself is the cause of prejudice?

Yet another absurd and loaded question based on false assumptions.

You somehow think if you succeed in banishing Christianity from the earth you would rid the world of bigotry?

Oh my goddd! This just gets queerer and queerer!

How do you explain your own animosity toward Christians and Christianity?

You assume things that are not true. Yet another backhanded accusation and loaded question.

(Oh yes, I forgot. Antipathy toward Christians is okay. It's not prejudice because it's you who hold those views).

So now "antipathy" is as bad as bigotry? Surely, I must have fallen down a rabbit hole.

How is this different from those who seek to rid the world of homosexuality?

You really and truly don't understand, do you? That saddens me. I'm at a complete loss to explain why your arguments and accusations are so disconnected from reality.

Prejudice is prejudice, no matter who espouses it or how one seeks to justify it.

As a stand-alone sentence, that's true. But my opposition to faith-based bigotry is not "prejudice". Those who do such things in the name of Christianity (or any religion) are *not* the oppressed victims. They're just pissed off that they can't have their way when those they seek to oppress start to fight back. Their only recourse is to pretend to be oppressed and victimized themselves. A laughable proposition on the face of it. Completely absurd.

Have you actually found one DU member who supports faith based policies or the Christian Right's alignment with the Republican party?

Actually, yes. But what does that have to do with anything?

I would venture that every one of us opposes those developments as much as you do.

Then you would be wrong. You could say that the "majority" oppose such things. But again, what does that have to do with anything?

Yet you use that as an excuse to voice your own prejudice toward all Christians,

Another false accusation. Another cheap shot.

a number of whom, I should point out, are also gay.

The ability for people to compartmentalize the bigotry of their denomination and to ignore reality with a "but-not-in-my-church" worldview continues to astound me. These people are wearing blinders. I cannot account for such behavior. It puzzles me.

"People who are not part of the solution are part of the problem. Which are you?" I speak out against intolerance and bigotry in all varieties, including those who cloak themselves in religion to espouse that bigotry.

Heh-heh-heh. Of course you do. :eyes:

I have done so consistently.

Yes... this thread is overflowing with examples. :eyes:

I do not seek to justify certain kinds of prejudice as you do.

This is about the dozenth time you've called me a bigot. Enough already.

Those who condemn others because they differ from themselves have far more in common with Jerry Falwell than I or other DU Christians do. They are part of the very same problem that Falwell represents.

Are you including me in "those"? If so, that's another cheap shot... another personal attack and insult. --- If not... then I fail to understand the significance of including it.

If bigotry is your concern, make that clear.

I assume that the reader of MY messages has more intelligence than you're giving them credit for and isn't hell-bent on casting themselves in the role of oppressed victim every time someone speaks critically of church leaders or church policy or church involvement in politics.

But if you choose to insist that belief in God itself is the source of your problems, you are tragically uninformed.

Which "you" are you referring to? Me or they?

Humans have used race, sex, eye color, body size, ethnicity, language and a myriad of other distinctions to assert their dominance over others.

Cutting and pasting your strawmen arguments again?

And yes, some like Falwell use religion, while others rely on their antipathy toward religion. The justifications they turn to are merely pretext. The essential problem is bigotry itself.

You're very skilled at trying to redefine what bigotry is... but your new and improved definition is wrong.

The question you need to ask yourself is if you really want to end that bigotry, if you want to come together with other progressives,

A so-worded question assumes that such a thing is not my goal. Clever... but false.

including Christians, who share that same goal, or if you prefer to find excuses to perpetuate intolerance?

... and that assumes that all Christians share the same goal... and they don't.

[Modem Butterfly]

62. I think someone is messing with you

No one in their right mind, theist or otherwise, would seriously expect you to embrace homophobes for fear of being a bigot yourself.

[arwalden]

63. I Think You're Right.

I'm done with this thread. It's so absurd and surreal that I'm a bit embarrassed at having spent so much time and effort with it.

[Modem Butterfly]

64. Don't be

We've all been there. Some ideas are just so crazy that you feel compelled to slow down and take a look, kind of like an accident...

:)

[imenja]

86. You have deliberately misstated my position

I no where supported bigotry. I have never done so. You will not find one post on DU where I support bigotry against any group, including Republicans. To insist otherwise is a slanderous lie. What I have done is challenge bigotry in its many manifestations. I do not believe it is okay to be prejudiced toward some and not others. Prejudice itself is wrong.

What I have done is challenge your assumptions that your prejudice is justified because you somehow have decided if someone is Christian it means they hate gays. That is clearly false. The TV Christians who ally themselves with the Republican party are not all Christians. Are you actually interested in knowing what people think? Or do you prefer to cling to your own weak justification to despise others simply because they believe in God?

It's very simple: bigotry is wrong, whether it is voiced by Jerry Falwell, George Bush, John Paul II, the KKK, or anyone else, including you. Is that really too difficult of a concept to understand?

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[imenja]

82. It is not I who justify bigotry

I have made no excuses for bigotry, and I have repeated that point ad nauseum. You have in fact relied on that as a straw man, a straw man for a point I have never nor would I ever make. In fact, your basis for assuming I maintain such notions comes entirely from the fact I have said I am Christian. It is your startling ignorance that assumes one follows the other. I nor any other DU member supports the idea that God hates fags. Few Christians do. The New Testament makes no mention of homosexuality. It instead discusses redemption, tolerance, and our responsibility to care for the poor. You might begin by looking at the Sojourners website. http://www.sojo.net/.

There are millions of gay American members of Christian churches. The American Episcopal Church has elected an openly homosexual bishop and is facing a schism as a result. Thousands of churches across this country welcome peoples of all sexuality, race, and gender. Even the Catholic Church, as misguided as the Pope is in his condemnation of gay marriage, is comprised primarily of gay clergy. My guess is that the pope has come out against gay marriage because he fears a full scale end to recruits of new priests. I no more support his statements on gay marriage than I do the Catholic Church's refusal to speak out against the holocaust, slavery, or right wing military dictatorships. If fact, you have made a choice to ask nothing about my own views. You instead have assumed that since I consider myself a Christian, I must be identical to the fundamentalists you see represented on television. If one's ideas of Christianity, history, politics, or any other subject is limited to what appears on television, one makes a deliberate choice to remain pitifully uniformed.

You assume I hate gays because I am Christian. You don't ask what my own sexuality is, whether I have been a bridesmaid in gay weddings, whether I have marched in gay pride and gay rights parades, whether I have volunteered as a Safe Zone ally, or what my views are on such matters. Instead, you assume all Christians hate gays. What does that say about your own view of the world?

You deny the relevance of history. Why? The historical examples I sited had to do with your insistence that religion was merely a function of choice. History tells us a great deal about who we are. It is with great peril that we refuse to recognize its importance. The historical examples I cited were not intended to justify Christian bigotry because I make no such argument. I despise bigotry in all of its forms. I dislike Christian bigots as much if not more than the other disguises the hateful wear. Your prejudice is no better. I will never justify prejudice espoused by anyone. Why do you?

As a gay American, I would think you would have some interest in Queer Studies. If you had done some reading on history and sexuality, you would know that the Catholic church has long served as a refuge for gay men and women. The history of the Catholic Church is not a proud one. It has been guilty of an appalling level of injustice. Yet it has also served as a refuge for homosexuals. If you should decide you want to learn something, you might do some reading on Colonial Latin American history as a means of examining this issues. The historical weakness of the Catholic Church in the US means that it's influence has been much less here than in Latin America. (Other DU members might point you to scholarly works on other churches or other parts of the world). Some works that explore the contradictory nature of the Church and sexuality are: _The Faces of Honor: Sex, Shame, and Violence in Colonial Latin America_; Taylor and Mills, _Colonial Spanish America: A Documentary Reader_; Infamous Desire: Male Homosexuality in Colonial Latin America_; or for the twentieth century, _Beyond Carnival: Male Homosexuality in Twentieth Century Brazil_ by James Green. These histories do not tell a story of tolerance. Nor do they reflect the simple-minded correlation between Christianity and bigotry to which you feel a need to desperately cling. They instead convey the complexities of the human experience, the contradictory nature of Church, state, and its relationship to the individual. You might also look at the poems of Mexico's greatest colonial literary figure, Sister Juana Ines de la Cruz, or see the film on her life by Maria Luisa Blomberg, "Yo, la peor de todas." Reading is good. It holds potential to broaden the mind. And because it broadens the mind, it threatens narrow ideas with which many feel comfortable.

By the way, they is not second person. It is third person. Apparently you slept through that part of third grade.

I realize that you will not read or contemplate anything I have said because you have a great deal invested in your particular view of the world. It is sad indeed, because in refusing to broaden your mind, you miss out on a great deal. For me, being a Christian doesn't depend on hating you. In fact, it requires that I make every effort to love you, no matter how difficult I may find it to love those who believe I have no right to my beliefs, to be who I am.* Why do you feel compelled to despise me and millions of others like me who happen to be different from yourself? Tolerance begins with oneself. If you are unable to develop that characteristic yourself, how can you expect society at large to promote such values?

*(Though, I freely acknowledge that I am hardly an exemplary representative of the Christian faith. For that I would direct you to Father Boyle, a Jesuit priest and founder of Homeboy industries. His interview with Terry Gross is available here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3911907 He has some very interesting comments on President Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives.)

[trotsky]

91. "those who believe (you) have no right to exist"??!?!?

Give me a break! When has ANYONE on here EVER said that to you? You lecture others on tolerance and respect, and then go and say ridiculous things like that.

[imenja]

93. put it this way

You have said Christianity itself is responsible for intolerance. Should intolerance rightly exist?

My right to believe would have been a better choice of words, or my right to be who I am.

[trotsky]

95. Can you only argue...

by putting words into your opponent's mouth?

[imenja]

99. Your words, verbatim.

"It is precisely religious beliefs that brings these things about.
Religious beliefs combined with intolerance, sure "

"I challenge religious beliefs because I see their effects in my life. Because of religious beliefs, my son cannot join the Cub Scouts. Because of religious beliefs, I might soon enter a public courtroom and be confronted by a stone monument essentially telling me I am a second-class citizen. Because of religious beliefs, a former president said that I shouldn't even be considered a citizen."


I understood your remarks to quite clearly say that religion itself is responsible for intolerance and persecution. You do not limit your condemnations to the political right in your remarks above. You instead portray religion itself as responsible for injustice. If I have misunderstood your remarks, I would greatly appreciate clarification on the matter.

[trotsky]

102. Your flawed interpretation.

You totally distort what other people say, so you can launch into ultra-righteous tirades about how bigoted and intolerant we all are.

It IS because of religious beliefs that all of these things are true. Do you deny that my son cannot join the Cub Scouts because of their religious beliefs? Do you deny that people want to post the 10 Cs because of their religious beliefs? Do you deny that former President Bush said I am not a citizen because of his religious beliefs?

You have totally and utterly misunderstood my remarks - by ASSUMING they are encompassing far more than they directly say - and then proceeded to judge me by your misinterpretation. Disgusting.

You LOOK for reasons to scream "BIGOT" at others. You seem to relish in trying to point out to others how flawed and evil they are. If what you believe and what you do is truly "Christianity," I see very little difference between you and Fred Phelps.

[imenja]

104. haven't you just reiterated my interpretation?

Rather than explaining that you meant something different, you go on to reiterate your assumption that religion is the cause of the intolerance. I obviously am missing something here. I can't engage in a discussion if I don't understand your point. What are you saying if not, as you say : "It IS because of religious beliefs that all of these things are true"? I would like to understand you here. It would be helpful it you would take time to explain what you do mean.

My point is quite simple. Religion is not the cause of such attitudes. They are instead the chosen justification of a few. The cause is bigotry itself. Religion is nothing more than pretext. There is nothing particular to religion that teaches intolerance. Quite the opposite.

I will repeat a point I made to you in another thread: What is the cause of racism? Is it the fact that people have differing skin tones? What is the cause of sexism? Is it the fact that the world is populated by men and women? Religious intolerance is not caused by the fact that some chose to worship. All of these forms of prejudice have the same cause: bigotry and a desire by some to dominate others. It is only their expression that differs. Pointing to religion itself as the cause of intolerance is no different from pointing to chromosomes as the cause of sexism. It misses the mark.

Moreover, it relying on such definitions of religion, you have surrendered to Falwell and his crowd. They are some of many Christian voices, yet you chose to listen to theirs alone. Why? You might just as easily look to Sojourners for your conception of Christianity, yet you choose not to do so. You could point to Liberation Theologians and nuns who gave their lives to fight for justice in Central America. You could point to the Archbishop of Sao Paulo and the protestant minister Jaime Wright who worked secretly to bring to light the truth about the atrocities of the Brazilian military. You could point to Father Boyle in Los Angeles who has committed his life to helping gang members and felons become productive members of society. You could point to those who live their lives in service to the poor. Instead, you have succumbed to Falwell's view of the Christian world. You have chosen to let his hatred limit your understanding of faith itself. I choose not to surrender so easily.

[trotsky]

106. This discussion is pointless.

You only hear what you want to, and you refuse to even consider that people can and do find religious justification for their intolerance. No, to you, when anyone points that out, we are attacking ALL members of that religion.

Do any of these quotes sound familiar?

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

"I came not to send peace, but a sword."

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

"All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman." (Yep, your own holy book says I should be executed!)

Right in your very bible are the words used to justify all sorts of oppression, violence, and hatred. Right there, and you can't deny their existence. Oh you can scream 'til you're blue in the face that others have misinterpreted them, but that's exactly the point. The bible is easily misinterpreted - and the outsider has literally no way of knowing whether you or another Christian has read it "correctly."

THAT is a flaw of Christianity. And your blindness towards it is why I and many other atheists feel it is important to post here and help remind people how easily religion can be used.

I am through with being insulted by you because of your prejudiced view of atheists. In my eyes, you have only confirmed the worst of your religion. How sad.

[imenja]

108. Let's try to understand your point

That the Bible can provide justification for intolerance? I have acknowledged that in previous posts. How odd that you should feel the need to repeat such passages to advance an argument I have never contested. You write: "You only hear what you want to, and you refuse to even consider that people can and do find religious justification for their intolerance." I have spoken to that very point repeatedly. Yet you ignore it. Why? Does your anger so completely consume you that you are unable to read what I have written? My point has been consistent. While religion is and has been used as a pretext to justify intolerance, it need not be so. It has also been used to fight intolerance and injustice. You prefer to focus on its hateful uses. Is that the view of the world you prefer? Christianity is not limited to a few passages from the Old Testament that you and the fundamentalists dredge up. Religion is certainly not limited to such passages, as most of the world's religions do not use this text you so despise.

My interpretation of your remarks was this: Religion itself is the cause of prejudice. I have in three consecutive posts asked whether or not this is correct. You apparently say it is not, yet offer no other explanation of your views. You have instead repeated this very assertion three times and chosen to ignore my arguments that says it need not be used that way. You point to the Bible as evidence for your own distaste of religion, as evidence for the point that you claim you did not make. Is the book itself so threatening to you, or is those who use the text of the bible to spread intolerance? Do you hate the US Constitution just as much? How about the discipline of anthropology? The law? All of these contain texts that have been used to justify the worst sort of bigotry, yet your concern appears to be only religious intolerance? Why? Are slavery, white supremacy, racism, and sexism so inconsequential? Another point I have reiterated at least seven times is that I consider all forms of bigotry unacceptable. Do you?

I am not prejudiced against atheists. Your disbelief in God is entirely your affair. Unlike you, I oppose in no way your personal spiritual beliefs. I am not threatened by them. In fact, I have not even raised that matter for discussion. What I object to is those who use excuses to attack religion itself. You say you dislike only Christianity but not Christians. What is the difference? Isn't that the very notion of intolerance espoused by some Christian leaders in regard to homosexuality: hate the sin but not the sinner?

You are correct that a discussion in which you have made not even the slightest attempt to understand the other person is entirely pointless. You accuse me of refusing to acknowledge a point I have repeatedly conceded. You react to my queries about your own views
with venom rather than reason or any effort to understand what I have said. Why? Do you have a vested interest in misunderstanding?

[arwalden]

107. Youre Reply

I have made no excuses for bigotry, and I have repeated that point ad nauseum.

Not directly. You're much to clever for that. Instead you attack those who refuse to accept faith-based bigotry. You accuse them of being bigots because they won't tolerate bigotry. (A concept that still puzzles me.)

You have in fact relied on that as a straw man, a straw man for a point I have never nor would I ever make.

Again... you're too smart to come right out and say such a thing. But the sum total of everything is clear to anyone who's been following along.

In fact, your basis for assuming I maintain such notions comes entirely from the fact I have said I am Christian.

Wow... you a mind-reader too?

It is your startling ignorance that assumes one follows the other.

The only thing with "startling ignorance" around here is your assertion that I assume such a thing.

I nor any other DU member supports the idea that God hates fags.

Obviously you haven't been paying close enough attention.

Few Christians do.

Yeah-right! I guess that explains why the anti-gay ballot initiatives PASSED all over the United States. :crazy: I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that you're quite uninformed on that matter.

The New Testament makes no mention of homosexuality.

This argument is frequently proffered... I've heard it before. You're trying to pretend that the old testament doesn't exist and that it's ignored by Christians everywhere.

It instead discusses redemption, tolerance, and our responsibility to care for the poor. You might begin by looking at the Sojourners website. http://www.sojo.net /.

The bible clearly condemns homosexuality, and all attempts to pretend it doesn't are missing the point. Attempts to pretend that the old testament is ignored by Christians is absurd.

There are millions of gay American members of Christian churches.

Okay... I'm not in research-mode... I'll assume your figures are semi-accurate. But this is starting to sound like the beginnings of yet ANOTHER strawman where you point to a few rare and isolated examples where homosexuals are accepted, and then expect that to somehow invalidate my criticism and my INTOLERANCE of faith-based bigotry.

The American Episcopal Church has elected an openly homosexual bishop and is facing a schism as a result.

Yes, I know. (See... I was right... it *is* another strawman! Sigh.)

Thousands of churches across this country welcome peoples of all sexuality, race, and gender.

Wow. Thousands. Ooooo.

Even the Catholic Church, as misguided as the Pope is in his condemnation of gay marriage, is comprised primarily of gay clergy.

Strawman. This is your defense of faith-based bigotry? The presence of gay clergy somehow excuses everything else? That's the most astoundingly pathetic reasoning I've yet to hear. Amazing!

My guess is that the pope has come out against gay marriage because he fears a full scale end to recruits of new priests.

That's one of the most idiotic statements I've ever read. --- You certainly do have a vivid imagination.

I no more support his statements on gay marriage than I do the Catholic Church's refusal to speak out against the holocaust, slavery, or right wing military dictatorships.

So you say.

If fact, you have made a choice to ask nothing about my own views.

Your views on the irrelevant subjects do not interest me.

You instead have assumed that since I consider myself a Christian, I must be identical to the fundamentalists you see represented on television.

You have ASSUMED incorrectly. I assume absolutely *nothing* about you. Everything I know about you is the result of what you've told me directly, or what you've actually demonstrated and unwittingly revealed with the things you've said. The evidence you've provided speaks for itself. And it speaks volumes.

If one's ideas of Christianity, history, politics, or any other subject is limited to what appears on television, one makes a deliberate choice to remain pitifully uniformed.

I wouldn't know about that. I suppose "one" should spend more time online, eh? :shrug:

You assume I hate gays because I am Christian.

That is untrue. I assume nothing of the sort about you. (Based on your previous pattern of not paying attention to my responses, I have very little doubt that you'll repeat that accusation three or four more times.)

You don't ask what my own sexuality is,

Because I don't care what your sexuality is. Trust me when I tell you that's the LAST thing about you that I'm interested in knowing anything about.

whether I have been a bridesmaid in gay weddings, whether I have marched in gay pride and gay rights parades, whether I have volunteered as a Safe Zone ally, or what my views are on such matters.

Again... I do not care because these things have nothing to do with the subject. Irrelavent.

Instead, you assume all Christians hate gays.

That is untrue. YOU are the one making the assumptions. -- Cut it out!

What does that say about your own view of the world?

Considering how many things you've already said that are UNTRUE... the question we ought to be asking is "What does that say about your obvious bigotry against homosexual atheists?"

You deny the relevance of history.

That is untrue. What I *do* deny is the relevance of your idiotic arguments.

Why?

Because they have nothing to do with this topic.

The historical examples I sited had to do with your insistence that religion was merely a function of choice.

And by so doing, you're demonstrating that your ignorance of what I've repeatedly explained to you. I do not understand the fixation you have with this. Whatever misunderstanding you might have had should have been cleared up after three previous explanations.

History tells us a great deal about who we are.

And repeated attempts to inject irrelevant "historical" examples tells us a great deal about the person making such arguments. It's not difficult to see that you're trying to defend and make excuses for the faith-based bigotry. We get it already. That doesn't make you right.

It is with great peril that we refuse to recognize its importance.

The only thing around here that's in "great peril" are your illogical arguments and irrelevant examples.

The historical examples I cited were not intended to justify Christian bigotry because I make no such argument.

I know... they were intended to be strawmen so that you could accuse those who oppose faith-based bigotry of being "intolerant bigots" themselves.

I despise bigotry in all of its forms.

You keep saying that. Exactly WHO are you trying to convince? Yourself?

I dislike Christian bigots as much if not more than the other disguises the hateful wear.

No, nope... I'm still not convinced. Say it one more time... but this time put a little more emotion behind it. Say it with FEELING! :eyes:

Your prejudice is no better.

You keep calling me that and saying that about me. But you're wrong. I can only assume that your own bigotry is manifesting itself in the form of absurd accusations like that.

I will never justify prejudice espoused by anyone.

Certainly you do. That's all you've BEEN doing all along.

Why do you?

Clearly there's been a disconnect between you and reality. Faith-based bigotry is INDEED what I oppose. Do you even read what I type?

I guess a better question would be: do you even read what YOU type? Try it... you might be shocked at some of the horrible things you've been saying about me and others in this thread.

As a gay American, I would think you would have some interest in Queer Studies.

Oh brother!

If you had done some reading on history and sexuality, you would know that the Catholic church has long served as a refuge for gay men and women. The history of the Catholic Church is not a proud one. It has been guilty of an appalling level of injustice. Yet it has also served as a refuge for homosexuals.

As if it weren't already obvious... I see that you're continuing the "furious typer" combat strategy, eh? The object being, of cours, to drown your adversary in a tsunami of angry verbiage. So far, you have ignored all but the barest essentials of any argument. Your replies indicate that you've only briefly appraised the gist of my posts before rapidly firing off long rambling messages replete with absurd accusations, insults, and factual errors. This is tiresome.

If you should decide you want to learn something, you might do some reading on Colonial Latin American history as a means of examining this issues. The historical weakness of the Catholic Church in the US means that it's influence has been much less here than in Latin America. (Other DU members might point you to scholarly works on other churches or other parts of the world). Some works that explore the contradictory nature of the Church and sexuality are: _The Faces of Honor: Sex, Shame, and Violence in Colonial Latin America_; Taylor and Mills, _Colonial Spanish America: A Documentary Reader_; Infamous Desire: Male Homosexuality in Colonial Latin America_; or for the twentieth century, _Beyond Carnival: Male Homosexuality in Twentieth Century Brazil_ by James Green. These histories do not tell a story of tolerance.

More furious typing. Blah, blah, blah-blah-blah! Holy cow... Get on with it already!

Nor do they reflect the simple-minded correlation between Christianity and bigotry to which you feel a need to desperately cling.

Yes... I get it. You're calling me simple-minded. Nice. :eyes:

They instead convey the complexities of the human experience, the contradictory nature of Church, state, and its relationship to the individual. You might also look at the poems of Mexico's greatest colonial literary figure, Sister Juana Ines de la Cruz, or see the film on her life by Maria Luisa Blomberg, "Yo, la peor de todas."

Good lord... move on... (zzzzzz)

Reading is good. It holds potential to broaden the mind. And because it broadens the mind, it threatens narrow ideas with which many feel comfortable.

Enough of the fortune cookie philosophy.

By the way, they is not second person. It is third person. Apparently you slept through that part of third grade.

So you choose to sacrifice clarity for THAT? Wouldn't you prefer to actually be UNDERSTOOD? Wait... never mind... If you actually wrote CLEARLY and used more precise language, then it wouldn't be as easy for you have a "plausible denial" for all of the cleverly inserted personal attacks directed towards me. I see what you're doing.

I realize that you will not read or contemplate anything I have said because you have a great deal invested in your particular view of the world.

Oh darn. You've figured me out. That's right... I read NOTHING you write. :eyes: I just pick RANDOM points in your vicious screeds and insert RANDOM comments hoping that you won't catch on that I haven't read a THING you've said. Oh brother!

How odd (and revealing) that your baseless accusations of me, are in reality the things that you yourself are most guilty of. If anyone is NOT READING, it's you. What other reason could there be to explain why you repeat the same tired arguments and accusations that I've already responded to. What else would explain why it is that you refuse to answer my direct questions. Clearly you're hiding something. You're afraid of something. -- What are you hiding? What are you afraid of?

It is sad indeed, because in refusing to broaden your mind, you miss out on a great deal.

Sorry... if broadening my mind means that I must accept, condone, and "tolerate" faith-based bigotry, then I want no part of it. You can keep that shit to yourself.

For me, being a Christian doesn't depend on hating you.

That's nice. I wasn't aware that I had accused you of that. Other than to distract, what purpose does it serve to insert such comments?

In fact, it requires that I make every effort to love you, no matter how difficult I may find it to love those who believe I have no right to exist.*

(Martyr-alert! Martyr-alert!) ROFLMAO!! Your right to exist??? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Too fucking funny!!

Although you're quite adept at pretending to be a poor persecuted victim. You're NOT the victim. Nobody is proposing a constitutional amendment that permanently relegates you as a 2nd class citizen because you are a Christian.

Why do you feel compelled to despise me and millions of others like me who happen to be different from yourself?

Why do you feel compelled to ask loaded questions? Your question has no basis in fact.

Tolerance begins with oneself.

And I suggest that you start as soon as you can.

If you are unable to develop that characteristic yourself, how can you expect society at large to promote such values?

I will not tolerate faith-based bigotry for the tolerance's own sake. That's an idiotic philosophy. But feel free to continue to live by it yourself... there's nothing I can do to stop you.

*(Though, I freely acknowledge that I am hardly an exemplary representative of the Christian faith.

No comment.

For that I would direct you to Father Boyle, a Jesuit priest and founder of Homeboy industries. His interview with Terry Gross is available here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=39... He has some very interesting comments on President Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives.)

I'm sure you think so.

[imenja]

114. Crib notes

How many times to I have to make a basic point? I have repeated it simply because you seem unable to understand a few simple words.
I do not attack your right to criticize bigots or anyone else. I challenge your assumption that all Christians share those bigoted ideas. I make the point that when you do so you reveal your own prejudices. I won't make the post much longer. You have not been able to get beyond this very basic point, because you choose to ignore arguments you are unable to counter.


The rest was a futile effort to point you to some sources that might help you educate yourself. Obviously you have no interest in doing so. You guard with great zeal your constitutional right to remain as uninformed as humanly possible. Given that you think it unreasonable
that you should know even grade school grammar, it is clearly ridiculous to assume you would be willing to do reading in history or cultural studies. You react to suggested academic readings with boredom (zzzz). Fair enough. That is entirely your prerogative, but don't pretend to be able to refute arguments you are unequipped to understand.

[arwalden]

115. Heh-heh...

"Crib notes" How many times to I have to make a basic point?

If you actually HAD a point to make, the answer would be "once". I'm still waiting to see anything written by you that resembles a valid point.

I have repeated it simply because you seem unable to understand a few simple words.

That is untrue. I understand you better than you realize.

I do not attack your right to criticize bigots or anyone else.

Yes you do. Did you zone out while you were typing? Have you lost your short term memory? That can be the only rational explanation for such an irrational statement.

I challenge your assumption that all Christians share those bigoted ideas.

Once again, that is not what I assume. Cut it out!

I make the point that when you do so you reveal your own prejudices.

The premise of that statement is untrue. There are no prejudices to reveal.

I won't make the post much longer.

Because your games are tiresome and I'm not the only one who sees them for what they are.

You have not been able to get beyond this very basic point, because you choose to ignore arguments you are unable to counter.

I will not argue with the strawmen you set up to defend faith-based bigotry.

The rest was a futile effort to point you to some sources that might help you educate yourself.

The only thing "futile" around here are your efforts to not reveal your bigotry and hatred towards homosexuals and atheists.

Obviously you have no interest in doing so.

Because it's a waste of my time.

You guard with great zeal your constitutional right to remain as uninformed as humanly possible.

Oh. charming.

Given that you think it unreasonable that you should know even grade school grammar, it is clearly ridiculous to assume you would be willing to do reading in history or cultural studies.

Lovely.

You react to suggested academic readings with boredom (zzzz).

No. I react to your strawmen and irrelevant arguments with boredom.

Fair enough. That is entirely your prerogative, but don't pretend to be able to refute arguments you are unequipped to understand.

Isn't that sweet? Three personal attacks. What are you so afraid of that you must resort to such anti-social and disruptive behavior?

[imenja]

117. intellectual interchange

"I will not argue with the strawmen you set up to defend faith-based bigotry." "That is untrue. I understand you better than you realize."

Your response to issues of faith and intolerance is "he he"? How old are you anyway? If you have nothing to say, just ignore a post.
If you were actually interested in intellectual interchange, you would respond to what I say rather than creating a false ideological foe. The only logical conclusion is that you prefer fictitious arguments because countering real ones is overly taxing.
Dismissing arguments as "strawmen" makes clear that you have nothing to contribute on the subject. If something does not reinforce your own world view, it is a "straw man." Refusing to engage in a discussion on its merits is not a prescription for intellectual growth. I've had enough of this sandbox brawl that you pass off as discussion. I'm done reading your posts. They say nothing anyway.

[arwalden]

119. Okay... If That's What You Want.. Goodbye. :-)

Well, if you were actually interested in intellectual interchange, you would respond to what I say rather than creating a false ideological foe.

Your messages would FIRST have to actually contain something *intelligent* before something like that could happen.

The only logical conclusion is that you prefer fictitious arguments because countering real ones is overly taxing.

Your previous messages contain a conspicuous absence of logic. The only thing that was "over-taxing" in your posts was the overabundance of falsehoods, accusations, name-calling and innuendo.

I've had enough of this sandbox brawl that you pass off as discussion.

Wrong again... there has been NO discussion, and I have never claimed such a thing. I have been too busy fending off your baseless accusations and insults and personal attacks.

I'm done reading your posts.

Indeed. The ignore feature is a safe refuge for many who prefer to hide from the truth. Why are you running away from me? What are you afraid of?

C-ya! :hi:

ON EDIT... HERE ARE MY ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO YOUR EDITS:

Your response to issues of faith and intolerance is "he he"?

Do you think you deserve more?

How old are you anyway?

As old as my nose and a little older than my teeth.

If you have nothing to say, just ignore a post.

You don't dictate to me.

Dismissing arguments as "strawmen" makes clear that you have nothing to contribute on the subject.

That is false. It makes clear that I see your false analogies and distractions for what they really are. The fact that I refuse to entertain you by doing battle with them causes you to be extremely overwrought.

If something does not reinforce your own world view, it is a "straw man."

That is false. Your off-topic attempts at defending faith-based bigotry and faith-based homophobia were strawmen.

Refusing to engage in a discussion on its merits is not a prescription for intellectual growth.

Pharmacist... heal thyself before offering others "prescriptions" on what you think ails them.

I'm done reading your posts. They say nothing anyway.

Such rude and dismissive words are a sign of fear. What are you afraid of? Why do you fear me? Is it because I'm gay? Or do you just hate me because I'm an atheist who won't tolerate faith-based bigotry?

So... are you really-really done this time? Or will you add more comments later? I'll check tomorrow to see if you're able to resist.

[Tux]

46. Er

Religion is who people are. It is not a idea one picks up and discards with the latest fashion.

Actually it can. A religion is a set of beliefs with some cultural elements. SOme cultures have religion so ingrained in them, it's next to impossible to separate them. In America, we are free to choice our religions and are easily separated from the rest of culture. For those that say otherwise, are supporting a theocracy in development.

[JanMichael]

66. Your "general terms" are outright nauseating.

They are condeming, slanderous, and obnoxious as well.

Nice values.

[imenja]

83. if you have made no such comments

There is no reason for you to take offense. My post referred only to those who have espoused intolerance.

[Modem Butterfly]

21. Wow. That's pretty hateful in and of itself

Why do you have such a problem with people who are religion-free?

[imenja]

23. I have no problem with anyone's spiritual or atheist choices

I believe in tolerance. I have never, nor would I ever, attempt to persuade anyone to adopt or change any religious or atheistic faith.
My only concern is prejudice, and I've seen far too much of it to find it tolerable. I believe we all need to respect each other for who they are: if they are gay, straight, black, white, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or atheist. Is that too much to ask?

On these religious discussion boards, I have seen a startling amount of intolerance. Yet those who voice that intolerance feel entirely justified in doing so. I am simply saying I do not find it acceptable. We must respect others for who they are. Religion is not an opinion one picks up for the next election. It is who people are. It is related to ethnicity and one's ancestral past. Why do some on DU find it acceptable to target those who differ from themselves in this regard? I see it as nothing but bigotry, no matter how they try to justify it.

[Modem Butterfly]

24. Hmmm... and yet, I note nothing about any other group at all...

I wonder why that is?

I think there's a lot of people for whom discussion of religion at all from those who do not share their views is considered criticism, even intolerance and bashing. Yet religion remains an extremely important topic, both personally and politically. I think it's tempting, and too easy, to simply put those who disagree with us in a box marked "bigot" and pretend that that somehow makes their views less valid than ours. I believe we should challenge ourselves to look beyond ourselves and attempt to understand where others are coming from, even agree that they may have a point (assuming, of course they do). To do less is to never truly embrace diversity.

[imenja]

27. certainly not all critics

and I did not say all. But there is plenty of intolerance evident on these boards.

I don't understand the meaning of this remark: "Hmmm... and yet, I note nothing about any other group at all. I wonder why that is?"

[Modem Butterfly]

28. I wonder why it is...

...that you're not railing about any other "intolerant" group, just one particular group.

[imenja]

30. I've talked about many

I frequently report to mods examples of anti-semitic posts on DU. I also posted a long analysis of sexism in language last week, that very few male DU members appreciated. They also defended their misogynistic choices. Well, more often they simply insulted me.
I pointed out homophobic references laced throughout the Gannon discussion.

I condemn it where I see it. To me they the prejudice is the same, only its articulation differs.

[Modem Butterfly]

33. I'm sure you have.

[imenja]

34. you can always do an author search if you don't believe me

[Modem Butterfly]

35. I'm sure I can.

:crazy:

[imenja]

87. true, but it would be inconvenient to admit you are actually wrong

How awkward of me to interfere with your preconceptions.

[arwalden]

123. She Would First Have To Actually BE Wrong.

The only truly awkward things here are your MIS-conceptions.

[arwalden]

22. Hello Imenja...

You may be interested in this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

"As a general rule of thumb, posts about ideas are generally okay, but posts about groups of people are often inappropriate."

[Thtwudbeme]

57. imenja

persecution fantasies are fine if you really want to follow your myth to the cross...but, for us mortals, that is not going to earn us a place in history, nor a special place with God.

[imenja]

88. I have no persecution fantasies

I instead object to intolerance, the assumption made by many in this thread alone that all Christians are bigots. Prejudice is wrong, no matter who espouses it, be it Jerry Falwell or an atheist. I make no distinction. They both seek to justify their own prejudices, but neither does so convincingly or justly.

[trotsky]

90. Jerry Falwell has the bible to point to.

The atheist has no such "support."

[imenja]

94. ?

How does this relate to my post?

[trotsky]

97. You just threw the terms together -

I thought I would differentiate them and how they can justify their bigotry.

[imenja]

100. what terms?

I am not following your point here. Are you saying that Falwell points to the bible in justifying bigotry but that atheists have no text to rely on, so they turn elsewhere? What difference does it make where one finds justification for intolerance? Some have used the US Constitution to justify slavery, white supremacy, and patriarchal rule. Others have relied on science to justify racism. Still others have appropriated Karl Marx to justify anti-semitism and mass slaughter. The problem is intolerance itself. The rest is mere pretext.

[Modem Butterfly]

26. What on earth is a "dogmatic atheist" anyway?

Isn't that a little like being a slutty virgin?

[Lerkfish]

36. not really....

dogmatic is defined as:

Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.

there are some atheists who exhibit that quality

Just as theists have not proven the existence of God to the satisfaction of some atheists, likewise, atheists have not proven the NONexistence of God.

Therefore, it would fall under "unproved".
And, certainly many atheists behave in an arrogant, authoritative assertion that God does not exist.

so, to answer you, "dogmatic atheist" is not an oxymoron. Perhaps the reason you thought so is that "dogmatic' is often misunderstood to be solely religious

[Modem Butterfly]

38. You really have to have dogma before you can be dogmatic

Just as theists have not proven the existence of God to the satisfaction of some atheists, likewise, atheists have not proven the NONexistence of God.

You can't prove a negative. If I tell you I'm the reincarnation of Jennifer Garner, it's not your responsibility to prove that I'm not. Likewise, if you point out that I couldn't be the reincarnation of Jennifer Garner because A) she's still alive and B) she was born after me, you're not being dogmatic.

[Lerkfish]

40. You're missing the point. n/t

[kwassa]

126. A "lack of belief" is a belief in itself

which is the dogma of Athiesm, as limited a dogma that it is.

We've been through this several times already.

Want me to post the definitions of dogma again?

[trotsky]

128. Naw, you proved it to yourself.

The rest of us remain unconvinced, so further efforts on your part are worthless.

[arwalden]

129. Heh-heh... Those Words Are Becoming Quite Mantra-Like

The "lack-of-belief-is-a-belief" meme is repeated (and thoroughly debunked) so often that it's lost any real significance. It seems that the only people who believe it are the ones who chant it incessantly. But even *then*, I remain unconvinced that they actually believe it... they lack conviction... it almost sounds like they're trying to convince themselves.

It's gotten to the point that those words are used at the most illogical moments. It's a last resort that's used to end an argument... or that's used to revive old threads, and rekindle old flame wars. --- It's turned into a throw-away statement that's just randomly inserted into responses, and haphazardly inserted into threads for no other purpose than to provoke. (It's the new equivalent to "Oh-yeah?-Well-so's-your-momma".)

-- Allen

[trotsky]

130. Great observation.

To "rekindle old flame wars" - oh yes, I have no doubt. And we get yelled at for stirring the pot?

[kwassa]

135. I ask only for a rational position

And "lack of belief" is not the definition of atheist.

a·the·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

atheist

adj : related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings" n : someone who denies the existence of god

[trotsky]

138. And if atheists got to write the dictionary,

you probably wouldn't agree with its definition of Christian, now would you?

[kwassa]

140. Perhaps "atheists" could create a new name for themselves.

"Atheists", as defined here, fit neither the classic definition of atheist, and find "agnostic" to be unsatisfactory as a definition, as well.

Perhaps they could create a new term that would more accurately reflect their concepts of their belief system, that wouldn't co-opt a word that other atheists use in the classic dictionary sense of the word.

[trotsky]

142. We already have.

Freethinkers.

[kwassa]

148. Then call yourself freethinkers, and not atheists. Right?

You will be continually misunderstood by others who use the conventional definition of "atheist". If you wish to change the common meaning of the word, it will require the re-education of all who use the word in the other sense, a monumental task.

[trotsky]

149. Like the common meaning of the word "Christian"?

Christian
1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

Jerry Falwell professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. So does Fred Phelps, so did Adolph Hitler, etc. They're all Christians, are they not?

Now, now, no specifying that they only CALLED themselves Christian - after all, the dictionary says only that you must *profess* a belief in Jesus' teachings.

How's that? You OK with it?

On edit: Typo.

[kwassa]

152. I have no problem with this definition at all, actually

Here are many more:

Chris·tian ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krschn)
adj.
1) Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2)Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3)Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4)Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5) Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

n.
1)One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2)One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

[trotsky]

156. Ah ah ah

*I* get to pick the definition. Just like *you* pick the one for dogma, or religion, or whatever else it is you are trying to cherry-pick to your liking.

[kwassa]

157. No, I gave the complete definition from the dictionary

I didn't pick and choose one.

Here is the original, however, and a second one.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheist

a·the·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

atheist

adj : related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings" n : someone who denies the existence of god

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

[trotsky]

Nope, you picked, and I picked.

And now you're picking at nits.

[kwassa]

162. You still avoided my question as to why you don't call yourselves

freethinkers, rather than atheists.

And I don't concede on the definitions, either. You picked one of many, I picked one of two, but the two are the same essentially, and neither carry the "lack of belief" idea.

[trotsky]

178. You picked one of many on the definition of dogma.

Now you've changed tactics by picking a different word to defend.

If you can't keep a consistent position, why do you expect others to?

[kwassa]

134. no one has managed to de-bunk it yet

You've provided no argument that has proven it false.

[arwalden]

136. Why Do You Cling To That Fallacy?

What are you afraid of? What is your emotional investment is such an outrageously false statement?

LOL... still demanding that someone prove-a-negative, eh? Heh-heh!

[kwassa]

141. If you would like to debate it with me, then why don't you start here?

[arwalden]

145. The Bait Will Have To Be Sweeter Than That.

The burden of proof is not mine to bear.

Besides, others have thoroughly shredded that little mantra elsewhere, and several times, in this forum. I have no incentive to try and out-do their outstanding efforts. I'll let their words stand.

Clearly you only motivation for offering such a challenge is so that you can soothe the wounds of the humiliating defeat suffered in the previous "debates" you've had with people who are far wiser than I.

[kwassa]

147. I believe that you are avoiding debating me, from your response

I have yet to see anyone here penetrate my argument. Do you think you can do it, or to wish to lose the debate by forfeit?

It appears the latter, at this point.

[arwalden]

150. What You "Believe" And What The TRUTH Is Are Two Different Things...

... if it comforts you to "believe" that I'm avoiding you, then please indulge yourself.

Nice try at "sweetening" the bait... uh... challenge. Your repeated and insistent challenges to me are a clear sign of your embarrassment over previous losses.

Turning a blind eye to the thorough trouncing your arguments have been subjected to does not change history... it does not change the facts. However, I do understand why you would be so eager to try and run from the truth and to try and hide your defeat.

[kwassa]

153. I am still waiting for you to debate me. You seem to have no argument.

arwalden says:
"Your repeated and insistent challenges to me are a clear sign of your embarrassment over previous losses."

No, they are an attempt to engage you in debate about this topic. You continue to avoid such debate, which leads me to think that you can't debate this topic.

[arwalden]

158. No Do-Overs! The Arguments Have Already Been Made... And You Lost.

I will not indulge anyone in such vanity requests. No do-overs! No Mulligans.

No matter how you try to frame it ("avoidance", "can't debate") the fact is that this fight has already been fought, and you weren't the winner.

I know that was a disappointment for you. And I can certainly understand your motivation and desire to try and "settle the score" (by proxy) against those who previously trounced your arguments so thoroughly.

[kwassa]

163. I was right, you have no argument, so I win, again

I actually don't believe that you know the arguments.

It appears that YOU are afraid of ME, rather than the other way around. What scares you so much about me?

[arwalden]

165. If That's The Fantasy You Want To Believe, Then I Shall Not Deny It To You

Enjoy it!

[kwassa]

167. I give you a standing challenge to debate atheism/ theism. Will you hide?

You certainly have so far.

[arwalden]

169. This Has Been Done Already... And You Lost. --- No Do Overs!

[kwassa]

171. You haven't debated me at all! You only avoid me

Can't do over something that has never been done

[arwalden]

175. I Have No Need To Debate You. -- It's Been Done Already By Others.

I can't improve on their perfection. You can't rewrite history. No Do-overs!

[kwassa]

179. I guess you can't do it, can you?

[arwalden]

180. It's Been Done. -- I Won't Indulge Your Vanity Demands. Cope.

[kwassa]

132. hey, the truth is the truth, even unacknowleged.

it will ultimately win out.

[trotsky]

137. How modest of you.

How Christ-like.

[muriel_volestrangler]

177. Yes, let's post a definition of 'dogma'

1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dogma&x=0&y=0

The key words here are 'established' and 'authoritative'. Atheism has no central organisation, so it cannot be authoritative, and personal beliefs are not established - they are what each person holds at the time. Other viewpoints, such as deism, are similarly free of dogma - there's no body that puts forward the beliefs that people must hold to be one. People end up arguing whether the description of 'atheist' applies to people or not - which is a good sign that there's no dogma associated with it.

[trotsky]

181. Excellent point, m_v.

People end up arguing whether the description of 'atheist' applies to people or not - which is a good sign that there's no dogma associated with it.

If there were an "established opinion" there wouldn't be any need to argue about it, now would there?

[trotsky]

41. Is it dogmatic to say that something remains unproven?

Clearly there has been no proof offered for any god - are we being dogmatic in pointing that out?

[Modem Butterfly]

43. Shifting the burden of proof

I think this is part of the classic "shift the burden of proof onto the atheist" argument. Many theists like to argue from the point of "You're the one saying there's no god, so you prove it" because it shifts the burden of proof from theism to the atheist.

[trotsky]

44. Agreed.

"A majority of people believe in god, so you should have to prove your case." Essentially.

[immoderate]

45. So look at dogma.

dogma: 1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets *pedagogical dogma* c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

I could allow that someone could be dogmatic without there being a dogma. Or one could make an argument that the atheist's dogma is the whole of rational knowledge since the enlightenment.

However atheism, as such, is an absence of belief. Moreover, unlike religion, it does not tell you how to live your life, in terms of sex and food and does not impel behaviors, such as prayer and ritual and animal sacrifice. There is no hierarchy or authority of atheism. I don't have to perform any obeisance to the "head atheist."

Theists want to believe that atheism shares their rationality or lack of it. There is not that equivalence.

Another item of non-equivalence is that theists will argue their religion against an atheist, but not against another religion, which is just as antithetical to their beliefs.

Saying I'm an atheist is enough to offend some Christians, while saying that I'm Jewish, which is just as much a rejection of their beliefs, is tolerated.

--IMM

[Stunster]

54. You should maybe read the postwar history of Albania

You will say that atheism as such does not require you to behave in any particular way. True, but the government of Enver Hoxha forced people not to practise religion in Albania. That policy is not logically entailed by atheism, of course.

But hold on. Telling someone what to eat or how to conduct their sex life is not entailed by theism either. In fact, simply believing that theism is true does not entail any behavior whatsoever.

True, some theists have tried to regulate behavior. But so did Enver Hoxha, who proclaimed Albania to be the world's first officially atheist state, from which all religious expression and practices were ruthlessly banned.

As for atheism not having a 'head atheist', true. But theism doesn't have a head theist either. Some theists have no religious affiliation, but adhere to theistic belief on solely philosophical grounds. And in fact, there have been 'high priest' figures within atheism. M. M. O'Hair had a whole organization doing her bidding at one time, while others such as Sagan were held in awe and had loads of groupies hanging on their every word. Dawkins attracts a similar cult in certain atheist circles. And of course, millions of atheists revered Lenin, Mao, Fidel Castro, Kim Il Song, Marx or Trotsky, or Chairman Gonzalo (leader of the Sendero Luminoso revolutionary movement in Peru)---and hung on their every word and quoted them, as if their writings were Sacred Scripture. True, atheism doesn't logically entail such cults of personality or textual fundamentalism. But believe me, hang out with Trotskyists, and you'll find militantly atheist types engaging in exactly that kind of behavior. I know. Seen it in Berkeley numerous times.

But nor does theism logically entail such exhibitions of devotion to personalities or written texts. You can be a theist without paying the slightest attention to the pope, Jerry Falwell, Jim Wallis or any other theist on the pressing matters of the day.

Saying I'm a theist (and even worse, a Catholic) is enough to offend many atheists, especially members of Trotskyist and Maoist political parties.

[immoderate]

60. A good point.

Stalin, Mao, Hitler created pseudo-religions to rake advantage of a natural tendency to seek faith. They had their sacred texts, and god heads and their faithful followers. It's not their atheism, but their exploitation of faith that made them dangerous.

It's "followers" that are relieved of their responsibility to rational thought that are the problem. Still, the cults take control of the natural lives of the followers and lead them to these nefarious deeds. Free thinkers in the true sense do not fall for that.

--IMM

[Stunster]

144. How are you defining 'freethinker'?

Your implication seems to be that the only attitude a 'freethinker' ought to have towards theism is one of disbelief (or lack of acceptance, if you insist).

But what's so 'freethinking' about that?

However, if you admit a definition of 'freethinker' such that being a 'freethinker' does not logically entail being an atheist, then it's possible for someone to be both a theist and a freethinker.

But it seems you're claiming the word 'freethinker' exclusively for atheists. In which case, I ask again, what is so 'freethinking' about that?:shrug:

[immoderate]

186. I deliberately used freethinker instead of atheist.

I wanted to designate that which is not dogma.

--IMM

[Stunster]

187. Are you implying that atheists are dogmatic?

Of course you're not. ;-)

But.... in your use of the term, is it possible for a 'freethinker' to be a theist?

[immoderate]

188. The way I intended, yes.

I used freethinker to indicate someone who develops their own theology as opposed to one who just accepts dogma.

I allow for the fact that freethinker is usually used to mean atheist, but I was using a broad meaning which could include pantheists, deists, etc.

--IMM

[Stunster]

189. Thanks for the clarification (n/t)

[onager]

53. Reality is not decided by popular vote

Or as I've seen the same thought put, somewhat more bluntly:

"If millions of people believe a dumb idea, it's STILL a dumb idea."

[kwassa]

131. And I think many atheists use the "lack of belief" posture

so they are not required to prove a thing.

[Stunster]

133. Posturing is a good word for it (n/t)

[GOPBasher]

58. Who isn't sick of those flame wars?

The only people who aren't sick of those flame wars are the usual suspects who keep them going. I try to never post in those threads, so they won't be kicked. I am totally sick of the few people ON BOTH SIDES who can't stop bickering with each other.

[Thtwudbeme]

59. Unfortunately, the flame wars will continue as long as

we are living in a Theocracy, and US support of Israel contines.

It's sad.

But, I do understand where you are coming from.

Stephanie

[GOPBasher]

61. I totally see what you're saying, BUT

the Christians ON THIS BOARD are NOT theocrats. So I can understand your frustration -- in fact I share it; I can't stand the Falwell crowd -- everyone should point their animosity toward those responsible. The Christians here are not resposible; we support the separation of church and state whole-heartedly.

Of course, those responsible for the flame wars here are people on both sides -- believers and non-believers.

[trotsky]

65. Well, that's kind of why this forum was created.

People got sick of them in GD. Don't like em? Hide 'em. Let us bicker in peace. ;-)

[GOPBasher]

67. But can't you debate without being jerks to each other?

Well, I must say, you're right, I can just hide them. From now on I will. But I really don't understand why people can't just debate points without being assholes. That's what I hate about Republicans. I hate to see my fellow liberals doing it.

[trotsky]

68. Religion is obviously a sensitive issue.

Just stating a point is enough to upset someone.

[GOPBasher]

69. If you're honestly polite in they way you state your point, and

they still take offense, then that's their fault. But if you're incredibly demeaning and rude, then it's your fault.

[Thtwudbeme]

70. The problem is (and I am sure you know this)

that it is extremely hard NOT to be demeaning and rude when people are determined to hang on to a myth, and continue to validate church doctrines that have caused so much damage in the history of mankind.

On an internet board, it's even easier to say "oh fuck it, I am going to say what I think" without too many social repercussions.

Atheists have been shut out and shut up in the US; it's just extreme frustration.

[GOPBasher]

71. I understand frustration.

I can understand the frustration of being "shut up," as you say. But you should direct your anger toward those responsible, not all Christians. I'm pretty sure that at least more Christian on this board are not theocrats and are 100% behind the separation of church and state (myself, for example). You just shouldn't chastise all Christians.

[Thtwudbeme]

72. I am in school to be a minister

and need to be working on a paper right now about the Gospel of John compared to the Synoptics. (I know, dull AND too much information)

I don't blame ALL Christians; I am sick of the lack of understanding of the persecution complex--and I am sick of the piss poor job that churches have done in educating folks on the gospels...canonized or those pesky other ones.

Funny; you and I keep answering each other and saying the same thing! ;)

Stephanie

[GOPBasher]

73. That is pretty funny.

It's like we're debating except that we're on the same side. LOL :-)

[Lerkfish]

74. oh...I dunno...TRY not to be demeaning and rude, and see what happens...

maybe a worthwhile discussion will occur, wherein both sides achieve a better understanding of the issue, each other, and ultimately themselves.

try it next time...as an experiment. :)

[kwassa]

77. and you are studying to be a minister?

Or do I have you mistaken for someone else?

One person's myth is another person's religion. All in the point of view.

[Thtwudbeme]

78. Yes Kwassa I am studying to be a minister.

My hero, Bishop Spong, often gets mistaken for a heathen...so, I suppose I don't mind.

As far as your point on myths, I would suggest that you read Joseph Campbell for a more in depth definition of "myth."

[Thtwudbeme]

79. And no, you don't have me mistaken for somebody else

I am very often opposed to the orthodox Christian view on this board, and I was on your thread.

The orthodox views of churches in America are for people who are only capable of conventional thinking (per L. Kohlberg's theory) in my opinion, and the fault lies squarely with both the churches for narrow minded education programs, and on the individual for not taking advantage of both the internet, and huge public libraries.

Stephanie

[arwalden]

80. I Think Someone Was Having A Bit Of A Go With You....

... on a personal level rather than addressing anything specific about what you said. You've made no secret about studying to be a minister... and anyone who spends as much time in this forum as that poster does is well aware of your goals.

-- Allen

[Thtwudbeme]

81. Either that or I was mistaken for a heathen again!!!

;)

On edit: My husband will be so proud!

[kwassa]

110. Nope

I don't believe that I addressed you in this conversation, and no, I did not know what church she was trying to become a minister in.

[Thtwudbeme]

112. LOL, did you really just tell someone to mind their own business

on a public website?

Arwalden is one of my favorite DU posters, and has been for years. I am always glad to see his name on a thread--

btw--you didn't ask, but I am an Episcopalian.

Stephanie

[arwalden]

116. Hello Kwassa...

Heh-heh... "mind my own business", eh? I saw what you originally wrote that before you edited it. Why all the anger and hostility towards me?

>> I don't believe that I addressed you in this conversation, <<

And if you'll look closely, you'll see that I was not addressing YOU either. Do I detect a... DOUBLE STANDARD??

Oh! I think so!

>> I did not know what church she was trying to become a minister in. <<

Were you asking her telepathically? You didn't ask that question in your post. Your original post is righ up there for anyone who cares to check.

[kwassa]

125. I should have left the original title.

Yeah. Do it. Mind your own business, Arwalden.

"Why all the anger and hostility towards me?"

It is very little anger and hostility, really, but you did butt into the conversation to attmept to read my mind a little bit. Since you know next to nothing about me, it is not a wise idea.

[arwalden]

127. I Do Not Understand, Kwassa.

Again, I ask: why all the anger and hostility towards me? What have I said or done to deserve being treated like that? Cut it out, will ya?

You cannot dictate to me where I may or may not post messages, nor can you order me about in that manner.

[kwassa]

139. I think you protesteth too much

You seem to be responding out of proportion to what I actually said.

[arwalden]

143. People Who Say: "Mind your own business" Are Usually Hiding Something

Are you hiding something? Or are you are afraid of something? Or both?

Obviously the motivation behind such a statement as the one you keep making is to shut someone up. People only want to shut someone up when they fear what they have to say... or when they know that their arguments and "logic" won't hold up to critical examination.

Why do you fear me? What are you hiding from? Whichever question it is, and whatever the answer is... it certainly does explain posts such as your previous ones.

Oh dear... "protesteth?"... please! :eyes:

[kwassa]

146. I am quite willing to debate you at any time on this issue.

So what exactly is your argument?

[arwalden]

151. My points have already been made.

Your refusal to acknowledge them indicate fear. Why are you afraid of me? Is your hostility towards me a way to try and hide your fear?

[kwassa]

155. What points would these be?

They are not apparent in this thread. Can you re-state them, or am I left to assume that you haven't made these points?

I will certainly accept a link to these points, as well.

[arwalden]

159. You'll Have To Exercise Your Brain And Read For Yourself.

I will not indulge your vanity requests and "perform" for you by allowing you to dictate to me what you want me to re-type and re-explain for you. You all grown up... you don't need to be spoon-fed. I'm not about to do it for you.

[kwassa]

164. I guess I win this argument, too

You really have nothing to substantiate you, do you?

It would appear, once again, that you are afraid of me, rather than I of you, because you continually duck and avoid debating the issues with me.

As I said before, I will be happy to debate you any time any place, but I now suspect you will not be capable of doing it.

[arwalden]

166. Enjoy Your Fantasy Victory!

[kwassa]

168. I will, and it is no fantasy at all, you are ducking and avoiding

[kwassa]

111. What denomination are you studying to be a minister for?

"My hero, Bishop Spong, often gets mistaken for a heathen...so, I suppose I don't mind."

Well, I like Spong, too. He is Episcopalian, as am I.

I've read lots of Joseph Campbell, too, who I like a lot.

What is the orthodox view of churches in America?

[Thtwudbeme]

113. We are both Episcopalians then

I have a long day tomorrow...so will just toss in the short answer:

Orthodox Christians believe in the bodily resurection of Jesus- the premise that Jesus was risen in body as well as spirit is central to the faith of Orthodox Christians.

[trotsky]

76. Either way,

the flames follow. Sad but true.

[YankeyMCC]

75. It's a little disconcerting to me

That in DU the R & T forum seems to be filled only with posts by christians and atheists and agnostics.

Even when a discussion is opened up as a discussion between "theist" and "non-theist" ideas it always seems to come down to xian vs atheist.

Perhaps I haven't been here long enough to notice others. It would be nice to discuss ideas with a wider variety of ideas included.

[Desertrose]

98. Try the S.O.U.P. group/forum...Seekers on Unique Paths

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=292


It seems to have escaped the atheist vs theist wars....so far anyhow :)

[Dookus]

109. That's because it's a group

and people who even MIGHT disagree are prevented from posting.

[Desertrose]

118. true ...but ever think there's maybe a reason they set them up that way?

Far as I know, only those who have caused frequent problems with the same subjects in the past have been asked not to post at all.

Every group set up their own individual rules as per SKINNER'S suggestion as to what they wanted from and for their group....nothing wrong with folks not wanting to argue about every thing they post. Not every post has to be a battle. More can be gained by respectful discussions than having flame wars in every thread.

Seems like many have been able to adapt to these rules andfor those who are unable to or choose not to, there are still enough forums left in which to "duke it out".

[Dookus]

120. I haven't ever broken a rule

in your astrologers group, but I'm not permitted to post there. I think it's silly.

As for your insinutation that I've caused frequent problems, you are mistaken. If you look through the old Meeting Room threads, you'll see far more attacks AGAINST me were deleted than violations I made myself.

I know you think disagreeing with magical thinking in the meeting room was somehow "disruptive", but I assure you, it was not. The astrologers and homoepaths, et. al., had no proprietary claims to that forum.

You also might notice that I almost never posted in any pure astrology thread, such as Nancy Waterman's. I did, however, start plenty of my own questioning the efficacy of astrology. You, like everybody else, were free to ignore them.

[onager]

121. Ignore them?

You'd think they'd want to answer, forthrightly and completely, any questions you might have about the efficacy of astrology. :evilgrin:

[Dookus]

122. heheh

Yes, one would think, until one tried.

[Desertrose]

124. whoa Dookus...take it easy...

First of all...I don't make the rules.

Second...its not "my" astrology group...I have repeatedly said I do not consider myself knowledgable enough to call myself an astrologer and am not big on labels anyway. (added this on edit)


Third..I was insinuating nothing...why take this so personally...there were many who seemed to have problems with what was posted there. You certainly were not the only one.

In spite of your assurances, I completely disagree that those posts were "not disruptive" and probably anyone who cares to read back over them will see that they were. But oh well.... I know you feel differently. Another place we disagree. :)

FWIW ...umm ...we never claimed to have any "proprietary claims" on the MR.

I don't particuarly want to rehash this stuff...just remember you could very easily not have posted in the threads you didn't agree with, yet you made the choice to join in and interject your personal opinions. Why are you surprised that many did not agree with you? (BTW, do you keep some sort of score as to what was deleted by whom or something??)

At any rate, the posts in reply to yours certainly make a point as to why many of the groups worded their mission statements the way they did.

Peace, Dookus
:)DR

[Dookus]

154. I never once objected

to people disagreeing with me. I sort of enjoy it.

However, a multitude of people objected vehemently to my disagreeing with THEM. Hence, their constant whines and complaints allowed them to have their own little circle-jerk group free from the presence of rationality.

I ask you, how is it that *I* was disruptive when far more posts attacking me were deleted than posts I wrote? I simply disagreed with people on a public forum. How is that disruptive?

[Desertrose]

160. You "sort of enjoy it", eh...

That sure tells me a lot, Dookus.

You admit you enjoyed the disagreeing & disruption...but not everyone else did, so you call them "constant complainers & whiners" if they simply gave back to you what you dished out to them?

...and really, why would you even care if they have, as you so charmingly put it, a "circle jerk" group free from your opining? (Skinner's rules, remember, not ours. We were merely given the option to discuss free from disruption.)

Are you telling me now, that you are the arbiter of rationality???

As far as your statement about being "attacked"....let me get this straight....you are saying that its ok for you to disagree, but not ok for other posters to respond in kind back to you? That because their posts were deleted, you are the innocent victim in all this? That perhaps the content and bias of your posts never had anything to do with other posts in reply to yours being deleted?

:evilgrin: wow...talk about suspending disbelief...

[Dookus]

161. I never said I enjoyed disruption

I enjoy debate. Evidently, you do, too. Trying to score a cheap point off that is silly.

My point was that people had posts attacking me deleted far more often than MY own posts were. I followed the rules. Others didn't. I think that's a good measure of who's more disruptive.

[Desertrose]

170. Guess we see things differently.....

Trying to score a cheap point? ah no....I was merely making a point. Nothing silly about that.

As far as you having fewer posts deleted...my point was that it doesn't mean you were not attacking or less disruptive....but only better at staying within the rules. Big difference.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to believe you are the aggrieved party, then go for it :)

[Dookus]

172. oh good lord

you attribute false words and ideas to me, then attack them, and think you've somehow scored a point. How silly.

[Desertrose]

173. its not a game ....not looking to "score" points...just making some points

please....is this the poor little me game again?

I only quoted your words back to you and pointed out a few things. Hardly an attack.

Feels like I've been around this same circle before...hmmm....:)

[Dookus]

174. you did NOT quote my words back to me

you made up words I never used and attributed them to me. In respectable circles, that is called a cheap shot.

[Desertrose]

176. actually I did....with one exception....

You said...
"I never once objected to people disagreeing with me. I sort of enjoy it."

My post:
"You admit you enjoyed the disagreeing & disruption.."

I will retract the word "disruption"..never actually stated, but however, implied by the statement of your "enjoying having people disagree with you" ...and where do most disagreements usually lead to here on DU?

..." constant whines and complaints allowed them to have their own little circle-jerk group free from the presence of rationality.

My post:
"...so you call them "constant complainers & whiners" if they simply gave back to you what you dished out to them?"

I used your words,Dookus. (If someone complains and whines, aren't they considered to be complainers and whiners?)

My point still stands...and by you trying to make out I've taken cheap shots at you only furthers my point.

[Dookus]

182. You can say it until you're blue in the face

but you did NOT use my words. You made up words, and attributed meanings to my message that were not there. It's dishonest. It's cheap. It's tacky. It's childish. It's churlish. It's immature. It's stupid.

[Desertrose]

183. been here ....done this....

".....but you did NOT use my words. You made up words, and attributed meanings to my message that were not there. It's dishonest.It's cheap. It's tacky. It's childish. It's churlish. It's immature. It's stupid."

I *made up* words?? LOL

Actually, I think its called either being in denial or deliberately dense.....whatever....

(LOL....hope you weren't stamping your feet as your said this.)


Yes, I agree this whole discussion is pretty stupid....and has reached its usual wall.

ta :hi:

[Dookus]

184. Yes

the wall where you make an easily disprovable claim, and I call you on it.

I never said I enjoyed disruption. I said I enjoy when people disagree with me. That means I like to debate. So do you. So why imply that it's some sort of character flaw with me, and then make up the connotation of "disruption"?

I don't like when people impugn me and make up lies. I doubt you do, either.

[Desertrose]

185. I decided to log back on

to edit my previous post but see you have already replied to it.

Believe it or not, I really have no desire to fight wth you, Dookus...we obviously disagree on a lot of things and our thinking is very different and unfortunately we never seem to get anywhere but circles.

You say you don't enjoy disruption - fine, but I have seen you posting some things that have done just that- whether intentional or unintentional, I can't judge. Do you think because you enjoy people disagreeing with you that in order to continue the debate, you might say things some people consider disruptive?? just asking here ...not "implying" anything.

BTW I have not implied a *character flaw* - this is your statement ! ( Do you realize that you are doing exactly what you accused me of!!!)

I just call 'em as I see 'em...you don't agree, fine. We'll agree that we see things differently and no offense intended.