The myth that DU & liberals in general hate the religious.

[Philosoraptor]

The only thing I personally hate as a liberal DUer, is religious zealotry as it manifests itself directly into my government and attempts to overtake it. I want strict separations of religion and government, that's all.

I support America's freedom of religion, and I also want to be free from any religious oppression. I don't care who or what you worship or don't worship, just don't try to take over the world an we'll get along just ducky.

DUers are often accused of being Christian bashers, but I think that's a myth, and the republicans use this meme against us all the time, claiming we are all hateful, secular, humanist atheists who want to put all Christians into concentration camps, its all bullshit, and its all a myth.

[trotsky]

1. I've said this before, and I'll say it again.

Most Christians take their religion's privileged status in society for granted. When they come to DU and see it discussed/criticized/commented upon like any other philosophical or political issue, without kid gloves, it comes as a real shock. And criticism of the religion then looks like personally attacking them as a religious believer.

As DU's rules make perfectly clear, attacks on the person are forbidden. Attacks on the religion or the tenets of the religion are not. Believers who feel something crosses the line should alert on the post and it will be deleted.

[BlooInBloo]

7. But... but... my bubble!

:rofl:

[SoxFan]

9. You might want to re-check the rules

"Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements."

Using your logic, if these rules allow outright attacks on certain religious groups, then they also allow attacks based on race and ethnicity. Post a race-baiting attack and you'll be banned; post a Catholic/Mormon/Baptist bashing screed and you're hailed as an enlightened progressive.

[stray cat]

10. The term freeper is also a term of endearment for republicans

:sarcasm: DU hates a different group of people than free republic but some of the rants sound similar at times.

[trotsky]

16. You might want to use the alert feature then.

And find out exactly how those rules are enforced.

[Political Heretic]

355. They are not enforced.

That's part of the problem.

Interestingly, I don't have a particular horse in this race, seeing as how I broke with organized xianity after seeing its contradictions and inconsistencies (as well as becoming an institutional critic of its coercive exploitation of followers)

And while this is true, the idea that someone can pretend that DU doesn't have enough openly hostile, aggressively anti-religion (which has nothing to do with informed critique or discussion of religion)members soas to make it an unwelcoming, unfriendly place for persons of faith is simply absurd.

Part of the reason this bothers me is the opposite reason it might bother some liberal persons of faith who want to feel welcomed at DU because of their common political views but endure a lot of hateful bigoted bullshit about their private choice to believe in something. The reason this bothers me is because I left the church precisely to get away from knee-jerk absolutism.

I can't stand it when people start implying that all people who hold any sort of belief are ignorant or stupid, or that all expressions of religion are destructive, or "all" this or "all" that. I hate atheist evangelism as much as I hate religious evangelism - both make me want to throw up.

Very much like some of the excuses racists and homophobes make to justify their own idiocy, I get sick to death of hearing other non-believers using the excuse "I'm attacking the religion, not the person" to justify the most vile of all-or-nothing knee jerk claims that are so obviously both inflammatory and personal.

Anti-religious bigotry is "safe" and acceptable here, so its an outlet for people who can't express their exclusionary need to build up an "other" and then hate on it any other way.

Having said all of this, there are what seem to be a minority of irreligious DU members who manage to talk about religion and their objections to faith in healthy, adult ways - that take all the childish petulance and insulting insinuation out of it. I love listening to them.

But that's rare.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

38. you take any valid criticism of religion as an attack and then make personal attacks

if your religion is homophobic calling it such doesnt make it a bigoted statement, it makes it a fact.

[polmaven]

196. There is legitimate and valid

criticism of SOME religious over reaching, which I criticize as well, and then there is the smug mocking of "religion" in general, and of anyone who is religious.

There is a BIG difference between the two, and several here engage in the latter for the sheer pleasure of it.

I am in total agreement that homophobia, anti-science, anti-choice, racism, misogyny, and the like should be called out. Do you agree that some of the statements about the shooting death of the Illinois pastor were without any merit and were completely uncalled for? Many of those obnoxious statements were simple religion bashing.

I would no more post the rantings of Fred Phelps, etc. than I expect the Richard Dawkins bus posters to show up in GD. If they show up in the Atheist/Agnostic forum...well...GREAT. Atheists do take al lot of crap from SOME of the religious NUTS...but not from the people of faith here at DU. Yet we are mocked and bashed endlessly..particularly since we lost our common enemy in the White House.

[Strong Atheist]

206. "Atheists do take al lot of crap from SOME of the religious NUTS...but not from the people of faith

here at DU"


Not an accurate statement. All sides tend to feel aggrieved; just go look in "groups" to see the discussions in each group about how they are being attacked. It happens to the Atheists, too ( and the catholics, and the GLBT, and, and, and ....)

[polmaven]

208. Please show me where

any of the religious people here have BEGUN threads in the General Discussion forums attacking or mocking atheists simply to mock or attack atheists. The groups are another matter. In MY opinion, if you want to go to the groups and bash....have at it!

Legitimate criticism is perfectly acceptable and is actually necessary, but off handed bashing, for the fun of it is not only insulting, but not worthy of a progressive discussion board.

[Goblinmonger]

248. Search for the "atheist whackjob" threads

in response to the Rawstory article about a year ago. You'll see plenty of calls for the Dems to purge the atheists.

[polmaven]

271. Well, since I have no inclination to

search all of the forums, and anything posted a year ago is archived, can you give me a link? Or, at least a forum to search?

[Strong Atheist]

305. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1007330

[Goblinmonger]

313. And this one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1035510

[La Lioness Priyanka]

231. i was talking about the very specific way that one poster handles criticism about religion

[hfojvt]

210. saying it does not make it so

Many Christians have argued religion back and forth. Certainly they will criticize the beliefs and practices of other sects.

In any case, using certain terms such as "religiously insane" as a way to describe all followers of a religion IS an attack on followers of that religion. Saying something like "Holy M-Fer the Church" is certainly an attack on anybody who considers themself to be part of that Church.

There was no discussion there saying "the church was wrong to excommunicate that mother in Brazil" or even the church was horrbly, terribly, no good, very wrong to do what they did. The criticism went waaaaay past that by several parsecs. The 'argument' was that the church is totally evil as demonstrated by this excommunication and also by the pedophile incidents. Even that was not presented as a rational argument as much as screamed profanity, the way an abusive parent might lay into their son when he spills paint in the garage after having previously set the living room rug on fire six years ago.

It's also pretty sad when a murder victim is insinuated to be a probable pedophile just because he is a preacher. No, that could not possibly be seen as an attack on all religious believers. Probably just a coincidence.

[trotsky]

240. The mods disagree with you.

using certain terms such as "religiously insane" as a way to describe all followers of a religion IS an attack on followers of that religion.

No it isn't. It's a descriptive term that refers to a specific subgroup of religious believers who have gone over the edge. The 9/11 hijackers were religiously insane. Keith Ellison, my Representative in Congress, is most certainly not. Are you really unable to see shades of gray and degrees of religious zealotry?

Saying something like "Holy M-Fer the Church" is certainly an attack on anybody who considers themself to be part of that Church.

Or it's just an attack on the church's leadership and you are taking it personally. You yourself don't have any input on church leadership, do you? Well, apart from leaving it.

There was no discussion there saying "the church was wrong to excommunicate that mother in Brazil" or even the church was horrbly, terribly, no good, very wrong to do what they did.

Yeah it's funny how people think that excommunicating a little girl who was raped but NOT her rapist is a little fucked up. People are strange that way.

It's also pretty sad when a murder victim is insinuated to be a probable pedophile just because he is a preacher.

I don't recall seeing anything about that so I can't comment.

[struggle4progress]

273. Since your general view is that the Church is complete BS, I can't see why you feel obligated

to weigh in on who is excommunicated or why

But if you do feel obligated to weigh in, couldn't you at least attempt to get your facts right?

Excommunicating a little girl?

Really?

Your apparent indifferent to factual accuracy is disheartening

[trotsky]

282. Oh pardon me, not the girl herself but the mother and doctors who cared about her health.

That's MUCH better. Gosh I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that, or the fact that the rapist remains a Catholic.

[struggle4progress]

286. But you never have any use for the Church anyway, so what's with your phony outrage?

You must know, after years of posting and reading posts in the R/T forum, that excommunication doesn't mean one is completely expelled from the Church but that one is denied participation in certain rites, such as communion. But you don't believe communion means anything anyway. So what's it to you whether the Catholic church excommunicates someone or not?

[trotsky]

288. Because it further illustrates the moral bankruptcy of institutions like the Catholic Church.

Which then go on to lecture others - and control the lives of others (NON-Catholics included).

[hfojvt]

279. often the term is used more generally

as in everybody who practices religion is religiously insane. I can tell the difference between a specific attack and a more general one. For example, to attack the leadership of the church, it is not necessary to attack "the church". To say "that Cardinal is a jacka$$" is not the same as saying "fark the Church".

There was no discussion there saying "the church was wrong to excommunicate that mother in Brazil" or even the church was horrbly, terribly, no good, very wrong to do what they did.

"Yeah it's funny how people think that excommunicating a little girl who was raped but NOT her rapist is a little fucked up. People are strange that way."

Yeah, I was not complaining about that. What I was complaining about was people instead of saying "the church did something really stupid" generalized that to say "the church is worthless at best" or more crudely "fark the Church".

[trotsky]

281. Is it wrong to say "Fuck the Republican Party"?

Or does that insult Republicans? Some of them are pretty liberal you know.

[Oak2004]

349. If there are any actual liberal Republicans left in the party, they're saying the same thing.

I was a no-doubt-about-it very liberal Republican. Emphasis on "was". I don't think there are any true liberals left in the party, but if there are, it's probably because they're so disgusted and ashamed by their party as it is today that they can't even bring themselves to show their face at the county clerk's office in order to drop their party registration.

I truly loved my party. There's a kind of party loyalty and comradeship within the Republican Party that you rarely see among Democrats. Unfortunately those were also the very traits that guaranteed that, once the party veered off into the extremes of American politics, the party would destroy itself with blind loyalty. Sometimes I mourn the loss of my party. More often, I say "fuck 'em", and can't wait till they take their place in history next to the Federalists and the Whigs.

I'm now a very liberal technically independent (on the national level), Vermont Progressive (on the local level) who inevitably supports Democrats when no VT Prog is running for office. So, you may quote me on this, as a "pretty liberal" (ex-) Republican: "fuck the Republican Party"

[omega minimo]

233. "without kid gloves" --- AS IF!

Many topics are attacked, subgroups considered fair game, by some who use vicious, dismissive one liners and gang tactics... then later claim is was merely "disagreement," "discussion," "without kid gloves."

It's the abuse and the abusers "privileged status in society (taken) for granted" that is objectionable.

DU Rules are based on "respect." If respect was evident, there would be no complaints and there might even be discussion.

[trotsky]

236. Hey, as I indicated above, use your Alert button.

And I would invite you to find one mainstream outlet that is allowed to print anything even close to what's found on DU when it comes to criticism of religion if the "abusers" are the ones at fault. :eyes:

[omega minimo]

253. Hey, the behavior is as I indicated and comes from the drive bys. They see "fair game"

the worst abusers that I see on various "fair game" topics don't distinguish b/w "attacks on the person" and "attacks on the" topic -- they just flail, disrupt and get threads locked without saying anything except piss on this.

[sniffa]

292. Is this about the Indigo Children again?

[Marrah_G]

310. Of course it is ! It ALWAYS is.

You must acknowledge her specialness!

[GoneOffShore]

363. Is that popcorn hot?

:popcorn:

[Goblinmonger]

251. Take a look at the number of people who

bitch about attacks on their Christianity that then turn around and talk about Religious Right Whackjobs, those damn Mormons, and the stupid Scientologists. What was that thing your Jesus said about the plank in your eye?

[omega minimo]

255. Yes, if everyone slowed down and used respect it wouldn't "degrade the discussion for everyone"

:thumbsup:

[redqueen]

293. Yep... comments about religion are taken personally by believers.

If the comments are insults directed at believers, that's one thing... but criticisms of religion are fair and within the rules.

[SoxFan]

2. It's not a myth.

While you yourself may not engage in anti-religious activity, there is no way that you can assert that a disproportionate number of DUers show a virulent antipathy towards organized religion. The venom is particularly toxic when certain faiths (Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, LDS, most white evangelical and Baptist denominations) are the subject of the discussion.

[Philosoraptor]

4. I could be wrong, I have been many times before, you could be right

[SoxFan]

13. Thanks for discussing this in a civil way

Too often, if I defend my faith (I'm Catholic), it quicky degenerates into a shitstorm of comments about pedophilia, men in dresses, and magical wafers.

[Philosoraptor]

15. I have many fine Catholic friends

And I never, ever get into arguments about religion, I actually try to respect everyone and give them an even break, until they fuck with me.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

37. I'll second that.

Mention the word "Catholic" and inevitably there will be some snark who will find some way to weave in the clergy sex abuse scandal, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

And let me not mince words about it, that type of behavior is a bigotry. Just like bigotry against race, sex, orientation, ethnicity, etc.

[Goblinmonger]

252. And I believe most of those are subsequently deleted.

But if you want to talk about how great Catholicism is, then certainly the discussion of the sex abuse and coverup is worth discussion. How is that bigotry? Sure, if I said YOU were a pedophile because you were Catholic, that would be bigotry, but to say that the Catholic church is a piece of shit because it allowed pedophiles to continue raping and then promoted Cardinal Law to Rome in an effort to protect him from prosecution certainly IS NOT bigotry.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

270. But I'm not here to talk about how great Catholicism is.

It's my religion, it's the one that I've found to reflect my personal philosphy and views after having considered everything else. That's my own personal belief, and I'm not here to convert anyone or persuade them to join or anything of that sort. I don't believe that's anyone's job--only you can choose to believe what you choose to believe. I simply ask that my faith beliefs be respected without mockery and not automatically associated solely with current events affecting the leadership ranks.

As to the statement that the Catholic Church is a "piece of shit" (your words, not mine) due to the scandal, it really depends. I have serious issues with the leadership of the Church and some of the things they have done administratively. That, I believe, is my duty as a Catholic, just as it is my duty as American to question its leadership. If one attempts to condemn the entire religion as a whole on those issues, however, then that is bigotry in my opinion.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

69. The reason talk about Catholicism degenerates into talk about pedophilia

Is because the Church made a concerted effort to sweep the pedophilia of priests under the rug and that is indefensible. Sure it isn't the entire Church and it doesnt represent everyone who is Catholic but for many years and still continuing today it was the very shameful face of the Catholic church. Go ask anyone who isn't Catholic about the Catholic faith and I am willing to bet most of the time pedophilia by priests will come up. At best you have a human relations problem and at worst you have a culture of corruption that goes all the way up to the Pope. I grew up Catholic and went to Catholic school my whole life, I experienced it first hand and I personally came away from that experience more confused about spirituality than most people I know. I am no longer confused because I see it for what it is now. I respect someones right to believe what they want but not even a Catholic can say that the Catholic church doesn't have a problem.

[Marrah_G]

75. They not only swept it under the rug- they allowed it to continue.

And then they gave the one in charge the reward of a cushy place of honor at the Vatican.

That was a slap in the face from the Vatican to the victims of Cardinal Law and his band of robed Pedophiles.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

82. Catholics do know it is a problem.

And its up to the ordinary rank and file Catholics, to address the problem. And trust me, we are.

But because it's a Catholic problem, then well, I'll just be blunt, if you're not Catholic, butt out.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

86. Children being abused are my problem and everyones problem

So it is my problem. Don't tell me to butt out when children are being molested and raped. You should really think about what you are saying when you defend your religion against child rapists next time.

[SoxFan]

93. Matters of church governance are not

[spiritual_gunfighter]

104. Continue to stonewall on the subject of priests raping children

and you won't get a lot of support from members on DU or society in general. But that is what the Catholic church has done so far so I expect nothing different. Ignoring the problem of child rape in the Catholic church won't make it go away even though the church and it's members think that is the answer.

[Two Americas]

174. there is a double standard

Rank and file Catholics are routinely bashed and blamed here, and much of it is a continuation of the strong anti-Catholicism and bigotry that has always come from the dominant WASP people in the country's history. Many people identify as Catholics as a matter of ethnic identity, tradition and family and that has nothing to do with what the hierarchy in the Church is doing. There is a long tradition of rank and file Catholics fighting for social justice and progressive politics.

In my view, apologizing and defending the inclusion of an Evangelical hustler - reaching out to people like that - does far more to advance and legitimatize bigotry than people identifying as Catholics does. The hustlers and charlatans running the Religious Right have far more influence and control over their followers, and far more clout in the media and influence on government than the Catholic hierarchy does - by far.

There is an implication that incidents of child abuse are more prevalent in Catholic institutions than in Protestant institutions and in secular schools and in society in general. But is that true? I think not. There is more visibility, more public awareness - and that is a good thing, not a bad thing - and that could only have come from rank and file Catholics blowing the whistle.

For Democrats to blame all Catholics for the actions of the few seems particular hypocritical. A far stronger case could be made that we are all to blame for the excesses of the Bush administration, since we identify as Americans and since we have been so weak and ineffective at opposing the Bush administration. To this day, there is a far higher percentage of people here who are wishy washy about standing up to the right wing and the Religious Right then there are rank and file Catholics defending the Church hierarchy.

I think that there is a massive abuse scandal within the Evangelical churches that they are much more clever at covering up and much more motivated and able to do, and that blaming Catholics is a way to distract people from that.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

192. Here, here. nt

[trotsky]

194. If you want to take that analogy a little further...

We can change America by lobbying and voting, because it's a representative democracy. The Catholic Church is not, of course. You don't get to vote. But you do have a formidable weapon to bring about change: you could leave the church. If there really are so many liberals and progressives that make up the rank and file, getting just a sizable percentage of them to excommunicate themselves would result in a huge decline in church attendance, income, etc. Because really, no matter how much your church or parish or diocese may be liberal in its views, ultimately your money and work support Rome and the status quo.

[Two Americas]

205. you could leave the country

But why should we surrender to the reactionary forces and allow ourselves to be driven out? They would be very happy about that, and that would only serve them.

Leaving is the coward's way out - a way to avoid a very difficult and very important battle.

The Church doesn't care about income or attendance. Modern Protestant churches, and especially the Religious Right cares about that because they use a modern American business model for their organizations. People are projecting a modern corporate business model onto everything. This is important to understand, because they also do that with the party and with the liberal advocacy organizations, and the same problem has happened in organized Labor. That is the main thing that is blocking progressive reform. We need to reject the corporate sales and marketing model, reject seeing ourselves as consumers, reject seeing everything in "free market" commercial terms. As modern Americans, that is not easy, because we are awash in commercialized culture and bombarded with propaganda about that.

Our money and work does not support Rome and the status quo - it feeds and houses the poor. It is much, much more true that almost every action each of us takes as an American citizen every day supports the status quo, the war machine and the interests of the rapacious and exploitative wealthy and powerful few who own us and control every detail of our lives. There is no comparison between that complicity and moral depravity and the mere fact that people stay in the Church to fight the good fight there. No comparison.

The cowardice and hypocrisy of pointing the finger at others and demanding that they do something we want them to do, while we are so compliant and complicit and compromised by our support - directly or indirectly, passively or actively, by commission or omission - in propping up and enabling the rule of the few at the expense of destroying the people and the planet - that is where the real problem lies. Pointing the finger at others is merely a way to avoid that and evade our responsibilities.


...

[WildEyedLiberal]

211. Yours are the best posts on this topic I've seen on DU

You GET it. Thank you. :thumbsup:

[Two Americas]

234. thank you

Very difficult topic, and I hesitate to weigh in. People want to see this - and so many other issues - as all or nothing.

Ironically, in the areas where we should see things as all or nothing - fighting back against the all-out class war that the wealthy and powerful few are waging against all of us, and standing against bigotry toward GLBTQ people to name two examples - there is no such rush to take an unambiguous stand. Those stands would cost people something, would incur risks and would demand courage.



...

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

212. Well put. nt

[trotsky]

220. But I didn't have to. As I said, we have the right to vote. We can affect changes in leadership.

The average Roman Catholic has no such say in the church. You have no other weapon than your money and membership.

The Church doesn't care about income or attendance.

That's all they have. You bet your life they do.

Our money and work does not support Rome and the status quo - it feeds and houses the poor.

It also goes to repay the victims of pedophile priests, to maintain the lavish displays of art and wealth in Rome, to keep people around the world chained to poverty and childbirth. You could take that money and instead give it to any number of charities that help the poor WITHOUT strings attached, and without the overhead. What do you think Jesus would rather have you do?

However I've heard all your rationalizations before. They're the same from any liberal Catholic I've asked. You treasure your church more than the principles you say it represents and you simply could never leave it, no matter how backwards and bigoted and horrible its leadership becomes. Even if that is the only way to bring about change.

[Two Americas]

244. that is an illusion

Do you really think that is all there is to this - voting?

I resent your blanket dismissal of all liberal Catholics as all the same, and your characterization of my remarks here as "rationalizations." I think that is your own prejudice talking now.

The "weapons" we have are our voices, our moral courage, and our principles and ideals. That is massively more powerful than voting, or walking out. I only wish that there were as many Democrats bringing those weapons to bear in the party as there are Catholics bringing that to bear on the Church. You would find rank and file Catholics to be reliable allies were you to take stands on social justice. I wish I could say the same about Democrats, let alone Americans in general.

Something about a mote and a log comes to mind in reference to this, as well as something about stones and glass houses.




...

[trotsky]

250. Illusion, eh?

The "weapons" we have are our voices, our moral courage, and our principles and ideals. That is massively more powerful than voting, or walking out.

Yeah because those weapons have worked so well so far, eh? Democratic voting rejected John McCain and elected Barack Obama. Can you point to change on an even remotely close scale that was affected by Catholics on their church leadership?

You would find rank and file Catholics to be reliable allies were you to take stands on social justice.

Except when their priest tells them it would be immoral to vote for a pro-choice candidate.

Something about a mote and a log comes to mind in reference to this, as well as something about stones and glass houses.

Yeah, it certainly does - but you might be confused about just who has that log.

[Two Americas]

275. well that is OK

We disagree. No problem.

[Oak2004]

362. No, they don't

The Catholic Church sees itself as the chosen representative of Christ on earth. It is far more important for the Church to perform its role as representative as it is to have X- number of members. If all that was left of the Church was the Pope and a few bishops, they would carry on, performing what they believe to be their God-appointed role.

When a person, or a group, believes it is doing what God wishes them to do, they will disregard seemingly practical matters. For example, the Catholic Church in the United States has a very serious shortage of priests. They could solve this problem in the blink of an eye by allowing Roman rite priests to marry. This would not be as radical a change as one might think: the Church allows married priests in the Anglican tradition to convert to Catholicism and remain both priests and married, and certain priests in the Byzantine rite of the Catholic Church can marry. Or the Church could allow women to be ordained. But, even though it is in the best interest of the Church to make these changes, it will not do so. The Church would rather there be no American priests than there be married priests or women priests because the current hierarchy believes that is how God wants it to be.

[Goblinmonger]

331. I don't get what you mean by reactionary forces

You seem to think the Catholic church has changed in the past decades. They haven't. Birth control, being gay, sex outside of marriage...all are mortal sins, always have been always will. It ain't going to change.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

216. Yes exactly

When you sit in the pews and tithe to the church, you are by proxy promoting the culture of corruption that go all the way to the Vatican. If you don't like the way the church has handled the child rape issue, then do something about it. Leave.

[Two Americas]

261. this is your agenda

You want people to leave, and are prejudicially deciding what "they" are all like and what "they" should all do. You want people to leave because that reinforces your position, for your own personal satisfaction, not because of any rational analysis. If you were secure in your position, you would not be aggressively seeking validation for it by pressuring others to march to your tune.

I have problems with my country. I have problems with my family. I have problems with the company I work for. I have problems with the "ownership society" and consumerism, the ascendancy of the investors and speculators and Wall Street to total power over our economy, and those things much more directly and powerfully contribute to inhumane and disastrous conditions and are things which we are ALL deeply complicit in every day in all of our actions. Failing to see that is failing to understand social justice, and to deny the very principles and ideals of community and the political Left we claim to honor. This individualistic - and highly Protestant historically and libertarian in modern culture - notion that we are an island onto ourselves, and merely need to worry about out own self-expression and then "take stands" only in personalized, safe and self-serving ways, is the root cause of the problems we are supposedly all trying to solve. It can never be a solution.

The hierarchy does not own the Church, let alone do the conservatives. Why would you have us surrender it to them? I can assure you the conservatives in the Church would love to see all left wing people leave. That would titillate a few anti-religious zealots among liberals, as part of their simple-minded comic book view of the world, but accomplish absolutely nothing for the causes we supposedly share.

What if all of the left wing people left America, and turned it over to the extreme right wing to run with no opposition? Do you think there is anywhere on the planet we could then hide from them? Could you do that and feel no responsibility, no obligation or duty to anyone or anything other than your own selfish desires? If so, we have a profound disagreement that is much bigger and deeper than your simplified for-or-against ideas about the rank and file Catholic people.

The battle is on, it is right here in front of us. Accusing all Catholics of failing to show up to the fight when most Democrats still refuse to reflects a seriously skewed view of reality, and it is that skewed view of reality that is the biggest obstacle to social progress. Petty little personalized and individualistic actions are a way to hide from the fight, to look after ourselves first and foremost and self-righteously deny any greater responsibility.

All of us are "sitting in the pews" of a corrupt and murderous state, worshiping at the altar of individualism and free market libertarianism, and tithing to the war machine in a myriad of ways every day, and promoting and defending and enabling it in everything we do so long as we are not engaging in outright resistance, and are instead sitting back comforting ourselves with these shallow and weak rationalizations - such as thinking that voting for the good guys is the end-all be-all of our responsibility as citizens, and then pointing fingers and blaming others.


...

[spiritual_gunfighter]

266. Trotsky (the DUer) brought up a good point

I will pose it as a question as more of a statement because I am open to debate. Do you as a Catholic really have any say in what goes on in Rome? Can you as an independent voice in the Catholic church stand up and say "no I don't agree with what is going on in the hierarchy of the church and I want it to change". Being a Catholic until I was 18 years old myself and a life in Catholic school I know the answer to my question. The answer is that it is very hard. The problem with your analogy is we live in the United States Of America where we all have a voice and make our voices heard in elections, calls and letters to our congressmen etc. There is an open line of communication with our leaders. You say that "The battle is on, it is right here in front of us. Accusing all CAtholics of failing to show up to the fight when most Democrats still refuse to reflects a seriously skewed view or reality," I don't know where you have been but last November the Democrats and Independents did show up and made our voices heard. We continue to do so today. Where are the Catholics?

[Two Americas]

272. good question

No as Catholics I don't think we really have any say in what goes on in Rome. But the more important thing is that Rome doesn't have much say in what happens down here.

I think the "voice" we supposedly have by voting is vastly over-rated, and is most often used as an excuse then anything. What if we all had a vote in the Church's position? It would probably go the same way as our political elections do here. Then what? We would then say "well we have a vote" and use that as an excuse for staying and accepting right wing crap. That is what we do as citizens.

"In the United States Of America where we all have a voice and make our voices heard in elections, calls and letters to our congressmen."

Pardon me if I can't help laughing out loud when I read that. We need a soundtrack playing behind it with patriotic music, and some sappy scenes of people frolicking in parks or something. Yes ain't America grand.

I don't call voting "showing up for the battle," and elections are an effect, not a cause of political change.

"Where are the Catholics?" You have to be kidding. Don't know what it is you want or expect to see. Right here. Here is one. I am speaking out right now, and saying that too many Democrats are missing in action in the fight for social justice. When I am among Catholics I say the same thing to them - that too many of us are missing in action as Catholics. I get a much more positive response from groups of Catholics to that message than I do from groups of Democrats - dramatically so.

Where are the Democrats?

By the way, they are not mutually exclusive groups, and far more Catholics vote Democratic than the rest of the religious population, and they more reliably do show up to vote. So that is where they are - voting and voting Democratic.

The most reliable conservative group is WASP males. But try to bash that group around here.



...

[spiritual_gunfighter]

277. I guess I am a little less cynical than you

when it comes to having our voices heard. I have seen personally action being taken in my district because of people contacting our congressman and reps. so I don't believe that it is as hopeless as you make it out to be. In the Catholic church you have no voice whatsoever, Rome does what it sees fit in its very narrow worldview. Not really something I would want to be a part of. I find it funny that you see fit to laugh at the voice that we as Americans have and you are a member of a church in which you have absolutely no voice whatsoever, in fact you are told not to have a voice and not to question the decisions of Rome. I am not sure that Catholics by and large vote Democratic over Republican, in my experience in the Catholic church I saw a lot of one issue voters that would never vote Democratic no matter what else was going on. I seem to remember a priest that was saying that John Kerry shouldn't receive communion because he supported a woman's right to choose. You really think that DUers don't bash WASP's? They do and they have a lot of reason to. Yeah I will say it again where are the Catholics speaking out on the backwards views of the church? I don't really see it. I see a lot of apologists that say everything they can other than face the issues that are making the Catholic church irrelevant.

[Two Americas]

287. good points

The difference I see between having a voice in the government as opposed to the Church, is that it doesn't matter as much with the Church since it doesn't have such power over us or send armed agents around to enforce its will.

Sorry about laughing at that one statement. It reminded me of super-patriotic propaganda newsreels from the 50's.

I don't know how you would be unaware of Catholics speaking out on the backwards views of the church. That goes on in Catholic circles, of course. It even happens in the Catholic group here. Where would you expect to see it? I don't know why you would think that Catholics do not to question the decisions of Rome.

Catholics do vote Democratic, and traditionally always have. That is well documented.

I don't know why you categorize me as an "apologist." I am defending the rank and file Catholics, not the Church.

There is nothing to face about the Church being irrelevant. Of course it is not "relevant." What difference does that make? It is supposed to take a narrow view and it is not in the business of being relevant or with the times. That has nothing to do with what the rest of us as individuals do or think or say. I am strongly left wing, a socialist, and strongly support GLBTQ equality and reproductive freedom. You would never know I were a Catholic if I didn't tell you. Why would that then change your entire opinion of me? That can only be prejudice in your own mind, triggered by that one word and supported by a gaggle of assumptions and emotional reactions.

There are all sorts of people in and out of the Church and in and out of any other religion who are "one issue voters that would never vote Democratic no matter what else was going on." Nothing "Catholic" about that. That reflects the politics of the time.

The dominant social groups - males, heteros, the more upscale, and WASPs are the most difficult to criticize here and always are the most fiercely defended, in my experience.


...

[WildEyedLiberal]

342. It is hard to have a debate with you when it is clear you are only interested in confirmation bias

It is a documented fact that Catholics voted for Obama by a margin of, I believe, 52%. I believe, although I am not certain, that the Catholic vote broke for Kerry, too. If not, it was very, very evenly split.

There are many, many progressive Catholic groups working for change, both within the Church and in society in general. Voice of the Faithful is one example off the top of my head; there are several others. If you include groups that focus on social justice and progressive ideals, that number expands significantly. But you want to dismiss or pretend that these groups and people don't exist because they don't conform to your preconceived biases that "Catholics" are either right-wing tools or are utterly silent in the face of said right-wing tools. If you really want to have an honest discussion here, it would behoove you to stop ignoring facts that don't support the claims you keep making. If you "don't see" Catholics speaking out or working for change, it is because YOU CHOOSE to ignore it, not because they don't exist.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

365. You obviously either didn't read my post or interpreted as an attack

I said I wasn't sure and was open to getting the facts. But again a Catholic intreprets anything even something that is a legit. question as a calculated attack. Nice.

[fed_up_mother]

321. Thanks for taking the time to write this post. It's great.

And is definitely making me rethink a couple of things in my life. :)

[Political Heretic]

358. APPLAUSE.

Excellent.

[redqueen]

359. No, we don't all decide to visit America one or two days a week.

:wtf:


Sometimes, when people have had problems with their church, they leave it and start another one.

[Marrah_G]

107. I might not have a say it what they do- but I do have a right to voice my opinion.

[Scout]

193. when church governance protects criminals and abusers from

due process for their crimes, that is a problem.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

112. If criminal laws are being broken, then the criminal justice system....

...will take care of that aspect of the problem.

But the criminal justice angle is not what's being insinuated when non-Catholics engage in rather patronizing downtalk to Catholics about the problem. It's always "You guys (i.e. Catholics) have a problem. You guys are flawed. Catholicism is a troubled religion because of this."

No shit, we have a problem. We know we have a problem. And the ordinary rank and file Catholics--and believe it or not a lot of the local clergy (not all of whom are involved in molesting, raping or the covering up of such actions, just to let you know)--do recognize as a problem and are speaking out about it and demanding change from church leadership. We don't need the sanctimonious reprimands of non-Catholics casting dispersions on Catholicism as a religion because of this.

In other words, this very serious institutional problem cannot and should not be imputed to be a problem with the religion itself. But that's how it always comes out. Mention Catholicism in any regard, in any way, even if it deals with the practice of the religion itself, and some busy body is going to butt in and make it about the priest scandal.

And at this point, I am beginning to understand very well why African-Americans get so upset when some white person (usually a conservative with a subtly racist agenda) says something to the effect of, "You people have to do something about all the crime, drug use and gang violence in your communities." Whether its innocuous or with a hidden agenda, it's patronizing and degrading nonetheless. And I think the same could be said for Catholics in this situation.

[Two Americas]

301. yes it is

You are right. It is your business. I wouldn't tell you otherwise.

However, it may be that what you are saying is not helping. By blaming all Catholics, you are giving the perpetrators a pass by diffusing the guilt and obscuring the issue. Using the abuse and the cover up as an excuse to attack all Catholics is not truly being concerned about adolescents being abused, it is using them to advance an agenda. Let's expose and prosecute the perpetrators. Attacking millions of people through guilt by association works against that under the guise of working for it. For too many, bashing all Catholics is a higher priority than concern for the welfare of the children and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

If teachers or doctors or others in authority at any other institution were molesting children and the administration covered it up, we would blame the perpetrators, not everyone associated with the institution. That is not because we would be defending the perpetrators by doing that - quite the opposite. Would we see every teacher at a school guilty because of the actions of a few? Every employee of a company as guilty because of the actions of a few? What makes this case different?

No one is defending child rapists. No one is even defending the Church. They are defending rank and file Catholics.

[SoxFan]

90. Tommy is right

Those of us who are doing our best to change our Church from within can do without the yapping "advice" of sanctimonious Unitarians and agnostics who think they know what is best for us. All this does is cause the Mother Angelicas to dig their heels in deeper.

[david13]

96. Oh, it isn't against the law in every jurisdiction?

So the law should just butt out? And then you wonder why it comes up as a topic?
dc

[Tommy_Carcetti]

118. The law will deal with it as the law should.

That's not the point though. The point is I think a lot of people who dislike the Catholic religion (without any respect to the priest scandal) use it as a convenient but flawed retort to bash the actual religion in general. And that's what gets me angry about the situation.

[polmaven]

198. On that point, I heartly agree!

Though I don't think I would make a good Catholic (I am Methodist, and just WAY too feminist to accept the male only mentality of the Vatican), the "you guys" situation is rampant...and it actually extends to all of religion, not just Catholicism. :hi:

[Marrah_G]

106. Not Catholic anymore- it still effects my family

And no- its not being addressed.

As long as Cardinal Bernard Law sits in the golden palace in Rome paid for with your money- being treated like a prince- then no, you are not dealing with it. You are simply acquiescing to the superior will of the Vatican as every good Catholic does.

It is more of the same.

If it were not for a few men from my area with the courage to put the man who sat in front of my father in the Seminary behind bars (father porter)then the Church would have continued the facade. The only reason they are doing anything these days is to try and stop any more scandals. The Vatican doesn't give a SHIT about the victims and frankly neither does the diosese. They only care about the fucking PR.

That is the truth of the matter.

[MineralMan]

110. No, institutional problems within a religious organization

are not always to be ignored by non-members of that organization. When they constitute illegal acts that harm others, then "butting out" is not an option. The church is not above the law in the USA. Indeed, it must folow the law religiously, if I may play on the word organ.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

160. I am amazed

at your arrogance.

Catholic children are not the property of the f-ing church - they are protected by a system of laws and by people who see terrible abuse day in and day out. To allow the fox to guard the henhouse is pretty damned stupid. Allow the potential abusers to address the problem? Rank and file Catholics do not abuse their kids? Paleeeeeze.

If I see a child being abused I think I will address it directly without getting permission from the Pope.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

190. You are totally missing the point.

Laws are laws, and if laws are broken by anyone--clery, nonclergy, whatever--I expect the criminal justice system to come in and do its job, irrespective to the status of the accused.

What irritates me is when people, typically non-Catholics or disgrunted former Catholics, come in and try to make the scandal about the Catholic religion itself (i.e. the sacraments, the beliefs, etc.). What irritates me about this is that these people typically are disingenious and are using this horrible scandal as a means to expound upon whatever bone they have to pick with the Catholic Church (usually involving the teaching methods of some nun they had in Catholic school decades ago). They then proceed to put themselves up on a podium and preach down to us corrupt and ignorant Catholics, and let us know that we belonged to a fallen religion that is irrelevant and should have no real reason to continue in today's society.

I'm tired of the grandstanding and the superfluous arguments.

[The Straight Story]

284. Some schools have as well, but we don't equate education/teachers with pedophiles

:shrug:

[Oak2004]

361. Part of the problem is that those who criticize have little grasp of the complexities of Catholicism

If the Catholic Church really were nothing but a bunch of "men in dresses" waving around "magical wafers", well, I'd join right in. But, in fact, once you get past the superficialities of Catholicism, and its often corrupt leadership, you will find that it is a very large, complex religious tradition, not at all uniform and doctrinaire in practice, with some members advancing social doctrines as radical as any socialism (indeed, you will find Catholics at the core of "Christian Socialism"), with a mystical tradition as deep as any within Buddhism (and which, like every other mystical tradition on earth, in some ways more resembles the other great mystical traditions than it does non-mystical Catholicism), and which contains within it a strain of thought that explicitly embraces reason. I wonder how many broad-brush critics of Catholicism know, for example, that the Catholic Church operates an astronomical observatory and commonly trains its clergy in the sciences (for-real, not "for the purposes of proving creationism")?

Yeah, Generalissimo Francisco Franco was a devout Catholic. So too, is Venezuelan President Huga Chavez, Senator Edward Kennedy, and satirist Stephen Colbert. If those two sentences alone doesn't clue someone in on the complexities of Catholicism, nothing will.

Mind you, I'm a non-Catholic who in fact is highly critical of the Church. I don't buy the intercession of the priesthood, I don't buy the doctrine of transubstantiation-- in fact I don't buy almost anything of the theology, I certainly don't buy into the regressive policies towards women, gays, and sexuality, and I never buy into any religion that seeks to destroy the separation of church and state in America. But I know the difference between a rich and complex religious tradition, and the straw man most anti-Catholic posters set up for their attacks.

I do understand one pretty good question to direct at practicing Catholics here: "given everything that you concede is wrong with the Church, why don't you just leave"? I also understand two really good answers to such a question. One is, of course, that the Catholic truly believes in the Apostolic succession of the Church, and that for all that is wrong with the Church, it is still the only game on earth, so to speak, for a believer. The other is that it's really really hard to go it alone, in a spiritual tradition of one. Better to put up with the problems and gain the benefits of the Church than to wander lost and confused. While I don't agree with the first, I respect it, and I most certainly understand and respect the second. I think any Catholic who is critical of the Church and who can't aswer, honestly, that question with an answer resembling the above answers probably ought to honestly reevaluate their church affiliation.

Now there are some churches that lack the richness of Catholicism, where what you see is pretty much what you get. There's not a lot of richness, for example, in many fundamentalist evangelical sects. The very nature of fundamentalism does not tolerate the kind of diversity that creates a rich tradition. I don't have much of an issue with someone criticizing the superficial and often ridiculous views of such churches as if they define the church itself, because they usually do define such churches. Religion is like any other human endeavor. Some ideas are rotten straight out of the box, and that includes much of Christian fundamentalism.

Note I did say I don't have "much" of an issue:. A lot of the criticism of fundamentalist churches doesn't focus on the actual problems with the fundamentalist sect in question. Rarely do I hear anyone criticize such churches who has a genuine clue about the cultlike oppressiveness of the "cell church", or enough of a grasp of theology to understand how cartoonishly shallow the beliefs of such churches are, or knows how such churches prey upon the finances of their members, or who otherwise grasps the exact reasons why such churches are deserving of criticism in the broadest of strokes. Criticism of such churches often amounts to setting up the same kind of straw men used to attack all Catholics, except in these instances the only thing wrong with the straw men is that they lack sufficient detail to be as devastating an indictment as they ought to be.

I rarely jump into arguments about religion, atheism, and reason on this board because, frankly, they look like arguments among the ignorant and the dogmatic. Religion, and more broadly spirituality, is like everything else: to argue it and not sound like a fool, you have to know something about what it is you are arguing about. Atheists criticizing believers attack straw men and convince no one of their rightness but themselves. Believers criticizing believers use the same straw men. Believers criticizing atheists do so most often by assuming their beliefs are universal and incontestible, and then discover that a good chunk of this board not only doesn't see things their way, they will turn the nuances and subtleties of the beliefs of the poster into a cartoon and then beat on them for a few hundred posts.

This is not a good place to find smart discussion about faith, and it won't be until everyone involved in such discussions takes the chips off their shoulders and learns something about what their "opponents" actually believe. If that were done I think there would be much more discussion of religion, and much less flamewar. If that were to occur, however, I'd be checking my window for flying pigs.

[snooper2]

134. I get the other parts of your comment, but magical wafers?

Where do I get some of those?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Are they good for smelly shoes? :rofl:

[roguevalley]

217. there are people who can't sort out the extremists in any and all

sides including atheist from the vast majority who are living their lives without conforming to an extremist view of what that means. There are extremists in all groups, from religion to politics to business. They don't care about anything but themselves and the rigid belief system they adhere to which they feel validates their actions, good or bad. Too bad it makes those who are good hearted and don't do this get clobbered now and then. I don't give a damn what people believe as long as they are civil and decent to each other. The only way this question will ever be answered is one at a time, when we die.

[babythunder]

367. Soxfan I appreciate your comments in this thread

I've mostly avoided all threads involving the Catholic Church because of the hatred expressed towards the Church.

[Kalyke]

5. Agreed.

While many DUers may be atheist or agnostic, there is no reason to belittle other DUers of faith by asserting that their God is "an imaginary friend in the sky." There's no call for such rudeness.

If you don't believe, fine. I don't care, but don't be an ass about it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. Rudeness does not in any way imply hate

If someone were to tell me that there was an invisible pink unicorn living in their garage, I would ask that they prove it. If I asked for proof bluntly, without expressing "respect" in their "belief," would it be proof that I hated people that believed in the existence of invisible pink unicorns?

Why should I treat any differently the assertion that there was an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving invisible entity who cared about humanity's well being but did nothing overt to ensure it?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

54. You see the world differently than I do

Even if I felt that a person's beliefs were strange or even wrong, I would treat them with respect just because they are a human being. Their life's path is just different than mine. However, if they insist I share their belief or that I must abide under laws created by that belief system, I would argue against it--but base my arguments on the Constitution and historical examples. Denigrating their belief will not change it, and bringing it into the argument could sidetrack the discussion.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

62. Believing that there is a pink unicorn in the sky

Or believing that Santa Claus is real, you have about the same amount of evidence in those things as believing that there is an all knowing being that watches us night and day and you can pray to him and he will answer your prayers. I respect someones right to believe this if they want to. But they have no evidence to show me that it is a fact. I respect peoples right to believe but I don't respect belief in itsself. Perfectly rational and intelligent human beings believe in this and I personally don't understand why. But it is your protected right to believe in whatever you wish and I respect that right. Just don't push it on me or don't report me to admin because I might have hurt your feelings because I don't believe what you do. If you are confident in your belief in god then why are you threatened if I don't believe in exactly what you do.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

163. I applaud you

for this post.

I tire of people telling me that delusional thinking is not dangerous. Hell it isn't.

Believing that the world is going to end and that the believers will be jerked right up to Heaven leaving behind their clothes, laptops and shoes on the subway, train, plane automobile etc. is delusional and they are trying to hurry the process along by making the prophecies of Revelation come true - forcing the events to happen so they can go to a magic pony and stardust dream-land does effect me and everyone else living on the planet. They do not want to care for the planet because they are end of timers - they do not believe that science has any merit and these are the same people who managed to get stem cell research frozen in its tracks. I have plenty to say about their beliefs and how they are entitled to them.

[unapatriciated]

268. self fulfilling prophecies...

My 81 year old father walked out of mass in disgust for the first time awhile ago.
It was in regards to prop 8 and the priest demanding funds to help support it. If you didn't contribute, you would not be a Catholic in good standing with the Church.
He is a firm believer in Separation of Church and State.
Sadly the Church has been too involved in enacting laws (matters of the State not the Church) based on their religious beliefs.
This leaves them open for criticism on these issues from those of us who disagree.

Yes Catholics are working within to change some things but you can't change papal law. A percentage of "offerings" goes to the Vatican where the parishioner have no voice.

[polmaven]

201. Nobody is SAYING

that you don't have evey right to believe differently. The objections are that so many feel the overwhelming need to mock and jeer at the belivers. Why don't WE have the right to not belive exactly as YOU do?

[Kalyke]

70. It's about respect for one's belief.

No one is asking you to believe it or even go along with it - just be respectful of the person.

[TechBear_Seattle]

132. And when those beliefs are racist? Sexist? Anti-Semitic?

Should I respect beliefs that say that I, as a gay man, must be put down "for the good of humanity"? What about beliefs that require blood sacrifices to appease angry gods?

Is there a dividing line and, if so, who gets to define where it is?

[polmaven]

202. Show me the threads

on DU that do any of that.

[PVnRT]

204. That's beside the point

Answer the question.

[polmaven]

241. How is it "beside the point"?

We are POSTING on DU, and the OP specifically MENTIONED DU.

As for answering the question, if you had actually read the thread, you might have seen my answer Up thread: I am in total agreement that homophobia, anti-science, anti-choice, racism, misogyny, and the like should be called out. Do you agree that some of the statements about the shooting death of the Illinois pastor were without any merit and were completely uncalled for? Many of those obnoxious statements were simple religion bashing.

Would you care to answer my question in that post? No one else has yet.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

74. Except that a person's insane delusions are different than one's deeply held beliefs....

...which attempt to explore the meaning and purpose of life, why we are here, how one should approach life, etc., and if shared with a community, the beliefs that have been passed down from generation to generation and often become part of one's identity and culture.

Dumb analogy.

[TechBear_Seattle]

129. So...

Beliefs such as "the earth is flat," "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory_of_disease">miasma causes disease" and "evolution is a lie perpetrated by Satan" must be respected because they are the results of attempts "to explore the meaning and purpose of life, why we are here, how one should approach life, etc,", are shared with a community, have been passed down from generation to generation and, for many people, are part of their identity and culture? What is your stand on Christian Scientists, who assert that sin and not germs are the cause of disease and illness? Or that subset of Muslims who hold that women must have their clitorises removed -- typically without benefit of anasthesia or other modern medicine -- if they are to be properly controlled?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

184. There's a very important distinction to be made.

Religion cannot be used to advocate for oppression or the desire to do bodily harm to another or to force another person to do something against his or her will. Anyone who uses religion as a basis to do one of those things is misusing and abusing the purpose of religion. As such, things such as forced female circumcision and witholding of medical care to children under the auspices of religion I clearly don't believe fall under the catagory of expressing one's own personal faith and belief. Nor do the advocacy of racism or bigotry using arguments of religious justification fall under legitmate belief.

But for things such as believing the earth is flat or refusal to believe in evolution? Such statements of belief themselves do not harm anyone if they are confined to one's own personal belief system and not foisted upon others. Certainly I do not believe the earth is flat, nor do I disavow evolutionary science, and I guess I could mock or make fun of or ridicule someone for choosing to believe that way if I really wanted to. But what would that accomplish, other than to make myself look smug, self-righteous and just generally an ugly person? One does not need to subscribe to evolutionary science in order to justify him or herself as a productive and decent member of society. There's no need to pick fights or demean where there's no reason to do so.

Clearly, this does not give anyone carte blanche to go into public schools and demand a purely religious belief be taught as a scientific fact. On that we can all agree. But the belief itself does not harm society or make one less of a person and therefore less deserving of respect, and to mock and ridicule only does a gross disservice to us all.

[RaleighNCDUer]

318. I hate to break it to you but religion was invented precisely TO

"...advocate for oppression or the desire to do bodily harm to another or to force another person to do something against his or her will."

Spirituality may be a guide, but religion is, and always has been, a controller. Religion is, and always has been, an authoritarian construct meant to control the people under its aegis.

Your definition ignores the fact that it expressly IS religion that creates the very abuses you say religion 'cannot' do.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

319. Religion is simply the community of people of a likeminded spiritual belief.

To which said people come together to share, discuss and express their belief. Usually this will then lead to the developing of a concrete dogma and often times, a governing system.

As with all governing systems, whether secular or religious, there exists the potential for abuse. But that is not the intended purpose of religion.

Sorry, but religion wasn't "invented" for the purposes of being a "controller." If that does develop, it is simply an unfortunate byproduct, but it is not a purpose.

[RaleighNCDUer]

323. You think so?

Do a little reading in anthropology. Who has the final word in a primitive tribe, the chief or the shaman?

God was invented the first time a caveman wondered what thunder was.

Religion was invented when another caveman said "it's a sky-ghost and he is angry - I know, because he talks to me".

[Tommy_Carcetti]

326. Okay, well you go unfreeze your cavemen and have them tell me that.

:eyes:

Religion (as it regards to the belief structure itself) and the power structure that may evolve within a religion are two seperate things. They may be related, but they are nonetheless seperate.

[RaleighNCDUer]

328. I don't need to. Read up on the neolithic tribes of New Guinea and

the Amazon basin. You could go back to the tribal structures of Africa and North America, see the same thing.

Religion is the big brother to government.

Government is: do as I say or Bruno there will get you.
Religion is: do as I say or GOD will get you.

somehow, god wins out over Bruno every time.

In tribal cultures, religion writes the laws and the tribal government enforces them.

Which then is the more powerful controller?

If religion REALLY had any divine origin, why have there been ten thousand different religions on earth? Each claiming to be divinely inspired? Are there really 10,000 gods? Well, that doesn't fit with the tenets of most of those religions. Are ALL religions correct? Well, a couple of them say so.

The political structure and the belief structure of any, of all, religion is inseparable. Without one, the other cannot survive.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

329. But in order for there to be a religious power structure, there first has to be a religion.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

Typically, two or more people have to come together in some fashion and express a shared belief of some form regarding the origin of life, the meaning of life, whether life exists after death, etc., all of life's great unanswered questions. After that point, if one of the persons wants to step forward and declare themselves the grand pooba of the religion or whatever, that will happen as it will. But that doesn't happen until after the religion develops.

Now, you ask why there are so many religions, and whether they could all be right. And I'm not going to be so presumptious to say my religion is bonafide certain to be the one, true religion. I know that gets proclaimed officialy by most any religion, but I don't tend to dwell on it, nor do I need to dwell on it. I can only speak from personal experience because in the end, a religion will only reflect a faith belief if you yourself believe. So I was raised a Catholic in my youth, when I got to college I did study a great number of religions but in the end, I choose to a) retain my belief in a greater power, whatever that may ultimately be, and b)stay a Catholic, because I personally like the theology, the outlook and the meaning behind the sacraments in that one particular religion over all other religions that I knew. And yes, I too sometimes get rather upset at the power structure in the church leadership, but that's not why I continue to follow the religion. It's the tenents of the faith, the theology, the philosophy and the outlook that have me subscribe to the religion.

Think of it like one roots for a sports team. Fans of a sports team are not necessarily fans of the owner of the sports team. I know this personally because I'm an Orioles fan and most Orioles fans can't stand Peter Angelos. But because being a fan of the team is so much more than being a fan of the owner and as such it is very easy to put whatever qualms you have with the ownership aside in the name of the following of the team.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

353. Have you studied

what went on during the dark ages?

How the only people that learned to read and write were monks? The church did not want anyone, including royalty, to have the power of knowledge.

The intent of religion has always been one of control. Control of the citizens.

Like minded belief in a scarab pushing the sun across the sky worked for the Egyptians for a long time until the Romans and Greeks changed that. Then it was believe in my brand of God or die.

Why do you put the word invented in quotes?

You don't think religion was invented by people?

[Hatchling]

136. If your friend believes in that pink unicorn and you want to stay friends

you don't push *your* belief sysstem on him. That is, that you don't believe in pink unicorns so your friend must stop believing in them to remain your friend.

I actually have a friend who is a paranoid schizoprhenic. She is functional when on her meds, but sometimes the fears come back that people are spying on her, etc. I don't confirm or deny her beliefs, but gently steer the conversation away from that topic of discussion. Once we're off that topic she calms down. She isn't hurting anyone but herself, and I refuse to add to her pain by telling her "You're just being paranoid, again."

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

25. I understand what you are saying about rudeness

The thing to remember is the person being rude is showing others his rudeness--it reflects only upon them, and not upon those who he or she is being rude to. As I have said before, it might be wise to imagine looking the other poster in the face and saying your words directly to them before you post anything.

[RedEarth]

11. I agree

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

22. Perhaps everyone would be wise to imagine

that you are talking to the poster face to face and looking them in the eye before they post. I wonder how many of the hurtful comments made by some posters would be made if they followed this practice.

[Wind Dancer]

237. Excellent advice!!!

I'm convinced most people would not react to other posters so negatively if they were debating face to face. Rudeness from others is a part of life but rarely to the degree one finds on an internet forum.

[Marrah_G]

27. No member of a mainstream Christian faith in America has a CLUE what religious oppression is.

Until the fact that you are Catholic (or baptist or jewish)is questioned by child services in your living room to ensure your children are not being FORCED TO PARTICIPATE IN EVIL SATANIC RITUALS......... I don't fucking want to hear it.

When ministers of other faiths feel the need to carry a fucking pistol to talk to you because they fear you THAT FUCKING MUCH... then we can fucking talk.

As a Pagan, as a Wiccan High Priestess, I tell you that you have NO CLUE. NONE. NADA. ZIP.

If the WORST you have to worry about is someone talking bad about your religion on a FUCKING MESSAGE BOARD...... COUNT YOURSELF BLESSED.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

60. Blessed be

I work with a Pagan, and know that she must, like me, be discreet in talking about her faith. She would love to wear a pentagram necklace openly like the Christians wear their cross, yet knows she cannot. I have not worn my heart and wings necklace for the same reason.

A Sufi brother of mine had an experience similar to yours--he wore the star and crescent on a belt buckle and was called on it at school where he taught--asked not to wear it again. Afterwards, a neighbor (who was drunk at the time) broke into his house looking for "proof" he was a Muslim (so he could be shot, I believe-this neighbor is a troublemaker who likes to threaten people with loaded weapons). My brother found him in the house, looking at a photo of our Murshid, who happened to have long hair and a beard. The neighbor took the photo as being a picture of Jesus and left. My brother laughed about the incident and continued teaching--but with caution. When he was killed in a traffic accident, the funeral was held in the gym. We truncated our regular funeral service to only include scripture from the Bible, just to be on the safe side. We later did zkr at the shrine, and were not bothered.

[Marrah_G]

71. I've taught my children to be discreet also

It's never good to invite the crazies.

I remember in Isle of Wight Virginia at the Gathering of Tribes years ago, a local preacher stormed onto the property waving a gun. He was there to try and save us. The truly disturbing part to me was that he wasn't there to shoot us..... he was brandishing the gun because he was so terrified that WE would try to kill HIM.....

I would rather be hated then feared. Fear causes irrational and unpredictable behavior.

[GliderGuider]

161. You have my deepest sympathies.

As a "recovering atheist" I'm very glad I live in Canada where religious tolerance is the norm. I'm a man working for the Canadian government. I've been wearing a pentacle earring to work every day for the last 6 months, and have never received a single comment on it. The only person who has ever mentioned it was a woman on the bus, back just before the solstice. She offered me a couple of Yule cards she had made, and we had a lovely conversation about our spiritual paths.

There are islands of sanity in the world. It's up to each of us to become one of them.

[Marrah_G]

267. I live in the most liberal and probably most pagan friendly place in the country

I live in Massachusetts and I'll be living minutes away from Salem Mass in less then 2 years. But even with all that I find it best to keep things very discreet and get my kids used to being discreet because you never know when it might bite them. her ein the US our crazies tend to be REALLY crazy.

[RaleighNCDUer]

59. bullcrap

What we see here is the flip side of "love the sinner, hate the sin". The so-called anti-religious posters, with very rare exception, don't hate the deluded - only the delusion.

There are people, however, who fail to make that distinction and accuse non-believers of being bigots.

[Heidi]

66. Bigotry is against the DU Rules. Alert on it when you see it

and let the Mods know why you think the alerted post is bigoted.

Bigotry and Broad-Brush Smears

When discussing race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or other highly-sensitive personal issues, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view.

Do not post messages that are bigoted against (or grossly insensitive toward) any person or group of people based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, lack of religion, disability, physical characteristics, or region of residence.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

67. Yes yes!

Alert and then try to refrain from posting any comments. (This is the hard part for me :) )

[Heidi]

68. Exactly. And calling a bigot a bigot is also against the rules,

as it probably should be to keep the peace.

Hi, ayeshahaqqiqa! :hi:

[Gormy Cuss]

166. It's not a disproportionate number of DUers. It's a handful who chime in on every thread.

As someone who is most assuredly not anti-religious I won't be surprised if my most recent post receives replies claiming that I am bashing the Roman Catholic church and one of the haters, because there's also a handful of DUers who react to any perceived slight to their faith.

The OP's observation rings true to me in that most observant Christians that I've known are not used to criticism of their faiths. It's the comfort zone granted to the majority and to those in power.

[Taverner]

222. wrong eom

[redqueen]

294. You do realize you just changed the subject, right?

Antipathy towards religion is not addressed in the OP - it's antipathy towards the religious. There are those who direct their ire towards believers too, but there are much fewer of those types of comments than the ones which criticize religion itself.

I can have antipathy towards religion and not towards those who still believe in it.

[Eryemil]

295. I hate religion alright

I hate it it with a passion, I think it is a burden, a plague upon the human race.
I want it to disappear, I want it to die out. I want religion mocked and ridiculed.
I want it the fuck out of my government and my bedroom. I want it away from my children and my body.
I want it pushed to the margins of society until it is gone.

The religious on the other hand; most are assholes yes, but some of them can be rather nice.
We all have our shortcomings right? I won't hold their beliefs against them if they are otherwise sane people.
As long as they don't ask me my opinion about it. You don't ask, I won't tell.

How does the expression go? Oh yes! "Hate the religion, not the religious*."
*Restrictions may apply.

By the way, if you support misogynistic, homophobic, anti-human institutions like the Catholic Church even by name I think you are a scum-bag.

[Oak2004]

364. I'm not sure a disproportionate number do

I think however that those that do are very very loud and aggressive.

I understand why. It is not easy, at all, to be an atheist in American society. And DU is a safe place for them to wage war against those who they see as their oppressors. Except, usually, DUers are separation of church and state, no discrimination against atheists types, even those of us who are ourselves "believers" of some sort. We're their allies, not their enemies, but they are too wounded to recognize us as who we are.

I know it's difficult when the uber-atheists dump on those who are not atheists here. It drives me crazy because I'd like to see a better quality of discussion on the topic of religio0n here. But keep in mind that those who jump on you are people who probably would not have been hired had they been open about their atheism, are subject to a range of harassment because of their atheism, and who can't get elected to any office in this land unless they conceal or renounce their atheism. They may have lost contact with family members, and lost friends, over their atheism. These people act as they do because they are hurting, badly. While treating them as if they are fellow humans in pain might not end their attacks, it is probably the right thing to do.

[Iggo]

3. Hey, there's lotsa room up front.

:popcorn:

[marmar]

6. Thank you.......

I despise the organizational structure of religions, not those who practice them. I grew up Lutheran and still believe in a God, higher power, energy etc. But I understand the entrenched dogma (and honestly, Lutheranism is probably less rigid than many) that comes with it, and really can't stand it.
How much of the misery of the history of humankind can be tied to ORGANIZED religion? Personal faith and spirituality is an entirely different matter.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

65. I despise it too

I think religion has done nothing but supress individual thought since it's inception. I like what Bill Maher says about god, he says that he knows that he doesn't know anything about what is true and what isn't when it comes to a higher power or god or whatever you like to call it. I feel the same way, but I respect someones right to believe whatever they want. Whether it is Jesus, Buddha, or mother nature. There is a long standing history of misery and death that goes hand in hand with organized religion whether you are talking about the Crusades, the Witch Trials, or even what is going on in the Middle East today. None of it is good, it supresses human thought and I believe true spirit.

[stray cat]

8. No - it certainly is not a myth and if it were against other groups DU would label it bigotry

Certain posts are not rationale discourse but bigotry. I would say that its probably a minority of posters. However, the democratic party is not DU and in general not anti-religious

[harun]

I agree about the Dem party, some people here think the Dem

party is the flag-ship for anti-faith and that is not true. Obama's stances on religion and politics are right where I think the Dem party should be.

[Marrah_G]

31. Ah yes- the poor oppressed Christians

Count yourself blessed that the only oppression you ever have to deal with is mean comments on a message board.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

42. accurate comments are taken as "bigoted" or "mean" too

its not my fault if your religion is homophobic and antiwomen and i refuse to lie about the obvious.

its one thing if we are talking about 100 years ago they were antiwomen and homophobic, that might be mean and unnecesary but if they currently are, thats hardly my fault.

[Lost in CT]

49. Would you say the same thing about modern African American culture?

Are Anglicans or Unitarians anti-woman and Homophobic? Or is that broad brush of yours reserved for the religious only?

[Marrah_G]

51. She is talking about religions that are clearly and openly anti-gay or Anti-woman or both.

They don't hide the fact. It's not a subjective matter. They are very open and honest about their beliefs.

[Two Americas]

335. yes

There are certainly people who are clearly and openly anti-gay or anti-woman. There are very few, if any, of those here. However we have a small army of people here who are deceptively and covertly anti-gay or anti-woman. I find it much easier to change the minds of the former than the latter, and it certainly is much easier to see them coming. "With friends like these..."

What we can say is that people who anti-gay or anti-woman are anti-gay or anti-woman. Some are in religions, some are not. Some use religion to justify previously held attitudes, some do not. Some are in power and leadership positions, in churches and in government and in business. Some are not. Some start religious sects. Some join religions, some do not. Some claim that their religion justifies their bigotry and hatred. Some do not.

Why don't we oppose bigotry, wherever it may be found and under whatever pretext or excuse, and refrain from trying to use bigotry to fight bigotry? Why don't we call it bigotry, why do we give it cover?

The religious Right uses bigotry for the purpose of misleading people to gain wealth and power for the leaders. It is a cynical ruse, a con, a deception. Why buy into that? Opposing "the religion" is buying into the lies of the Religious Right. The bigotry is not religious "beliefs" - who told you that it was, Pat Robertson?

One main goal for the leaders of the religious Right is to fool any opposition into going after the wrong target. When they succeed in getting us to attack all religion, we place a powerful weapon in their hands. we make ot more difficult to expose their bigotry, and more difficult to deny them a following.

There is something way, way off among Democrats about this. On the one had it is OK to invite one of the lying scumbag leaders in to the big tent p and that is where the problem is, with those leaders of the Religious Right - and then attack the "religion" and the "beliefs." Warren doesn't give a shit if you attack religion or beliefs - he prefers that you do, very much prefers that you do. That is the source of much of his power.

For being supposedly "rational" people, the anti-religion people here are too often not doing much in the way of critical thinking about this.

The lie of the Religious Right is this - "our religion tells us to be bigots." Bullshit. They would be bigots without religion.

When you respond with "well then I am opposed to religion" you have bought the lie hook, line and sinker and played right into their hands.



....

[La Lioness Priyanka]

56. i am talking about religions/nations/laws that are expressly antigay and antiwomen

things that are not subjective and not debatable.

[spoony]

183. Having fun kicking that strawman?

I've never seen a Christian here say they were "oppressed" by "mean comments on a message board." Does it have to rise to the level of oppression to be bigotry? Because that's, you know, what the thread's about. The only people who ever say "oppressed" are those of you who dismiss so casually other people's feelings at being called all manner of nasty names.

[acmavm]

12. Wow, I've said the many times and usually the haters come out

of the woodwork protesting that they're just being picked on. Of course all the while calling names and making references to my mental state (delusional, crazy, etc.).

But it's all good. Just don't call them on any of their 'offensive' traits.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

17. I don't mind religious beliefs, religions, etc.

I DO mind other people trying to write their religious beliefs into law, forcing people to be proselytized to, and/or using their religious beliefs to promote and/or justify discrimination, violence, etc. against other people. Anything else is pretty fair game for me in terms of how people practice their religion and/or share their religious beliefs with others.

[SoxFan]

28. There's far more "proselytization" by atheists/agnostics on DU than by anyone else

I've never seen a poster urge someone to convert to Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Evangelical Christianity, etc. I have seen hundreds of posts by atheists, agnostics, and humanists attempting to shame and belittle believers into intellectual submission.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

45. Well, let me say that I uniquivocably oppose THAT too

I believe people should be allowed to share their views, religious or otherwise, here and elsewhere but not beat other people over the head with them.

[Lost in CT]

52. Honestly I find that in real life simply amplified on this board.

Most modern religions in America at least work on the idea of attraction. (Don't get me wrong there are a couple of Christan and Muslim sects that openly recruit)

But on an individual basis I have never had a Catholic or a Jew try to talk me into joining their point of view. (Even while I sat in their churches and synagogues for some public ceremony)

Atheists on the other hand seem overwhelmed by the urge for you to join their point of view and seem hostile when you kindly refuse.

[madmom]

151. My in laws totally dis-owned my family because we don't believe.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

73. What is funny

is that if you try and change another person's mind that way, it is more likely that you will turn them off to your way of thinking rather than turn you on to it. Personally, I find "witnessing" to be a real turn off, though I do try to get beyond the words and dogma to understand why the person is doing this. For example, we had a patient come into the clinic with Jesus paraphernalia and all--but as I listened to him, I realized his witnessing and all was a mask for the deep fear he felt. He had terminal cancer, you see, and passed away about a month after we saw him (we could offer no hope for recovery, just some relief from his pain). If his witnessing was helping him cope with his situation, as it appeared to be, then I was very willing to put up with it. I hope that now he is at peace.

[JerseygirlCT]

214. Yes, I think you're right

And regardless of your beliefs (or atheism), those most eager to "push" their ideas on others are also often most insecure about their own ideas.

I'm not surprised you were able to see through that and be empathetic toward this man.

[PVnRT]

124. How does one "proselytize" non-belief?

Proselytize means to attempt to convert to a religion, which atheism isn't, or to attempt to get someone to join something. Care to tell me which organized atheist groups those mean, nasty non-believers are trying to get you to join?

Oh, and just try questioning people, respectfully, about why they believe in god(s) sometime. See what kind of loving, tolerant, Christlike answers you get.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

215. Language nerd powers: Activate!

pros⋅e⋅lyt⋅ize
   /ˈprɒsəlɪˌtaɪz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation Show IPA
–verb (used with object), verb (used without object), -ized, -iz⋅ing.
to convert or attempt to convert as a proselyte; recruit.

You can convert or recruit people to non-belief as much as you can to belief.

I have nothing to add to the actual debate, just wanted to share that.

[Two Americas]

333. exactly

"How does one 'proselytize' non-belief?"

Yet people do here.

Proselytism - "the practice of attempting to convert people to another opinion..."

That is one of the strangest thing that goes on here: the aggressive attempts to get others to believe in non-belief. I never understood it. It is as though some self-proclaimed non-believers are dancing and singing the same tune as the Fundies, they just changed the lyrics.


...

[Hatchling]

146. Amen to that!!!

All my life I have been searching for a belief sytem that makes sense to me. I have finally found one and it fits reality so well that my life has improved immensely.

But my EX-husband was what I call a Rabid Agnostic. He claimed we CAN NOT know. He put down people who did believe with great scorn, even close friends and myself. He prosylitized for agnostism. If we did not believe that we could not know then we were flawed as a human being.

He went so far as to annouce at a Christmas party we were invited to that Jesus was a myth and spoiled the party. He had been friends with this woman for ten years. If he wasn't going to respect her beliefs why accept the invitation? He could have gently said that he didn't believe in Christmas, refused the invite and arranged to get together later to exhange Xmas gifts, not spoil a party that was arranged around caroling and Christmas Eve Mass!

I respect the right of an agnostic or an athiest to believe as they do, I wish they respected my right to beleive as I do. :(

[RaleighNCDUer]

285. Maybe ex-hubby was deeply resentful for being pressured into

going to a party that was "arranged around caroling and Christmas Eve Mass" when those who invited apparently knew of his proclivities? If he had been friends with this woman for ten years, how could she NOT know? Maybe he was at a point where he was thinking "Haven't you people been listening to me for the past ten fucking years?!"

I suspect there is more to this story - as you are clearly a believer, he was a known agnostic, and he is now your EX.

[Hatchling]

290. Yeah he's an ex. all right.

He's an ex. because I caught him cheating with his best friends wife.

As for my beliefs, they aren't christian and I wasn't then either. I was a forced agnostic becasue he made fun of every spiritual idea he came across.

As to his friend. She made it clear in her invitation that we were invited to caroling, Mass and present exchange. He promised both, me and her, that he would be respectful and that he really wanted to be there. He had a choice. I would have gone without him or stayed home with him. What he wanted was another chance to crap all over anyone who wasn't an agnostic.

[RaleighNCDUer]

199. That is not true - it only LOOKS true to you

because there is no way to intellectually defend religion.

Intellectual discussion depends upon reason and logic, and when you bring the supernatural into it reason and logic go out the window.

Don't blame atheists for your inability to defend your faith.

[tekisui]

239. So true.

You can't argue religious beliefs based on reason or logic, because that is not what religions are for. The believers get upset because they have nothing that will stand up to intellectual investigation. The non-believers get upset because the believers will refuse to acknowledge that.

I love these conversations.:)

[RaleighNCDUer]

247. They do tend to be fruitful, don't they?

:silly:

[Two Americas]

334. so what?

There is no way to rationally defend who you fall in love with, either. What sort of person would DEMAND that you do? A person who has their own issues about that, that is who.

In any case, no one is defending religion here. They are defending individuals from being bashed over this issue. No should be forced to defend their faith, and no one should be attacked because of their association with any religion or faith.

It seems to me that it is those objecting to the bigotry who are using arguments that depend upon reason and logic, and those who are insisting on provoking fights over this in order to enforce their view who are throwing reason and logic out the window. Just judging by this thread.

If a person declares themselves to be on the side of rationality, as evidenced by their angry hostility toward another group of people, does that then alleviate them from any obligation to actually make rational arguments? If a person defends people of faith from being attacked, does that then mean that anything they say is not rational? Talk about a faith based belief system.




....

[Oak2004]

366. Why do you think faith belongs to the realms of science and reason?

I think it belongs to the realm of art.

[FloridaJudy]

153. Amen!

If you'll pardon the expression.

I have nothing in particular against anyone's faith. Well, there are times when I think it's silly, but then a lot of what I believe looks pretty silly to others. You can believe in magic crackers, magic underwear, magic knives, magic beanies - I've got a set of magic flags on my patio, so who am I to judge?

But when it infringes on my right to practice what I believe, or attempts to inflict its values on others, the line has been crossed. The LDS can believe whatever they care to, but when they contribute massive amounts of money to passing laws depriving GBLT people of their rights, I'm gonna squawk. Likewise, Catholics are entitled to their faith: they're not entitled to deny women who don't share it access to birth control and unbiased medical information. If the ultra-Orthodox don't want to drive or work on their Sabbath, fine. But don't throw rocks at me when I do.

And if anyone of any faith uses it to abuse children, torture women or oppress others, my tolerance ends right there.

Yeah, I'm a "yapping Unitarian/Buddhist", and damned proud of it. And if you can't see the irony in defending your own beliefs by belittling those of others, I'll continue to pray for your enlightenment.

[polmaven]

245. I doubt there is a person

on DU who would disagree with you.

[KG]

18. are you kidding? they're practically persecuted on DU!

the horror! the horror!

[SoxFan]

29. Exhibit A

[Marrah_G]

39. If that is the worst you have to deal with , count yourself lucky.

[SoxFan]

41. I do count myself lucky

My family in Ireland a hundred years ago wasn't so fortunate, so I have a deep appreciation for the ability to practice my religion. The issue under discussion is the smug, smirking bullshittery that eminates from too many DUers when religion is under discussion. Glib dismissals and an unearned air of intellectual superiority are not the marks of a progressive and enlightened mind.

[Marrah_G]

47. And going back even further your pagan ancestors were stripped of thiers.

I respect your right to your beliefs, but seriously........you are not oppressed, you are not discriminated against. The most you ever have to deal with is some angry comments on message boards.

It's a shame you have to deal with comments about Pedophile priests, but frankly perhaps if the Church leaders were not such corrupt and criminal assholes you wouldn't have to deal with it and my children would not have to deal with the lasting effects of a diddling priest on their father's entire generation of male members of his family.

Truth is not oppression. It might hurt a little. But I think you can deal with it easier then the actual victims of those truths.

[Goblinmonger]

254. Oh noes!

Someone didn't glibbly dismiss your religion did they? What ever will you do? This is a forum for discussion. If you don't want to hear your religion discussed by those that don't agree, go find an echo chamber. There are groups on this board that don't allow any of the contrary discussion you don't like. Go there.

[WildEyedLiberal]

347. But seriously - what does a post like yours add to the discussion?

Yes, this is a discussion board. Yes, there can and should be debates and disagreements about current issues, including religion/religious beliefs. SoxFan, however, was VERY obviously not talking about legitimate debate and discussion, but rather "glib dismissals." Please explain to me how glib dismissals of religion add one iota of quality or substance to any kind of debate that might be raging about any issue? Why do you pretend to not understand what he wrote, in very plain and articulate English? More important, why is it so necessary for you to engage in the aforementioned "glib dismissals," to the point that you take umbrage when someone takes issue with them? Is it really that hard to have a mature debate about an issue, to express your disagreement or contrary opinions with respect?

Me, I'd rather keep the level of debate at DU above the "STFU n00b" and "ur a fag" level of most other "forums for discussion."

[spoony]

299. "unearned air of intellectual superiority" Oh SPOT ON

Very well put!

[Goblinmonger]

309. Interesting that you think this

"the smug, smirking bullshittery that eminates from too many DUers when religion is under discussion. Glib dismissals and an unearned air of intellectual superiority are not the marks of a progressive and enlightened mind." isn't smug bullshittery that has an unearned air of intellectual superiority. So saying that anyone who actually dares to question religion is smug, smirking, bullshittery-y(?), glib, and unintellectual doesn't strike you as the same thing you (and the poster quoted) are railing against? Oh the plank in your eye.

[spoony]

336. Oh dear.

You assume that it is the "questioning of religion" that makes us think your lot are smug and glib. It isn't. It's the attitude, tone, and yes the assumptions used when doing so that gives some that well-deserved reputation. And you also assume that we're buying that all they're doing is "questioning religion" when all too often that's a cover for launching into personal attacks against believers' morals, intelligences, sanity, etc. That's what's being "railed against." Rightly so, too.

[Deep13]

339. An air of superiority may be an unwise thing to assume...

...but looking at history and the obstacles religious critics have had to fight, it is difficult to see how it is unearned.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

19. I agree with you

Most people here are believers in some form or another, but it is manifest from various posts that their God concepts are not all the same--which is just fine. I think that liberals and DUers in particular get the reputation of being anti-religious from a few whose words are then repeated by the republicans for their own ends. And even those few often write in haste or in the heat of the moment, or for other reasons.

The key here I think is to keep an open mind so that we can learn more about each other. It is openness that allows ideas to flourish, which is why, like you, I am for strict separation of church and state.

[Marrah_G]

20. Any time an American Christian cries Oppression I want to Vomit

Because frankly any of them saying it are delusional and have no fucking clue what it is to face real hate and fear because of your faith.

[Philosoraptor]

21. The martyr complex, it gags me too.

[Marrah_G]

35. Clueless people

I've had to defend my religion to child services.

I see symbols of my faith used as symbols of pure evil by these poor oppressed Christians.

I could go on and on.

They should be thankful all they have to deal with are a few angry comments on a message board.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

77. Christian martyerdom in America

is laughable, try living in Iraq where Christians have all but been wiped out and these people are getting all uptight about an Atheist decrying Christianity on a message board. I know Wiccans deal with oppression here in the States much more than any Christian has had to go though. I think the Christian martyrdom syndrome that goes on in this country and surprisingly on this message board comes from the fact that they can't stand someone questioning their religion. They want everyone to think like them, and if someone questions them they claim that they are being discriminated against. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

[SidDithers]

76. Help! We're being oppressed!!...

It's truly laughable, isn't it.

Sid

[spoony]

213. Ah yes, wouldn't be a religion thread without the cherry

on top the strawman sundae! Quick question: who's talking about oppression, save for you lot?

[Ohio Joe]

23. Some feel the need to single out Christians

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5220636

[RaleighNCDUer]

100. Never mind that the OP in the link specifies "crazy" christians.

While IMO that might apply to all, it being just a matter of degree, that is clearly not what the OP meant, nor does your comment apply to ANY of the subsequent posts I saw in that thread.

And while the OP specified "crazy" christians - the fact is, in light of the question, ONLY christians is applicable. Only christians can destroy this country, because of their numbers here. No other group, not Muslims, nor atheists, nor even scientologists have the power and influence to be anything more than a nuisance. But crazy christians CAN destroy America, shred the constitution, and break the country into feuding principalities. The last 8 years is just a warning.

[Ohio Joe]

113. "Only christians can destroy this country, because of their numbers here."

Complete nonsense. It does help prove the point though.

[RaleighNCDUer]

119. Show me otherwise.

What other group has the power and influence over this country, this government, to destroy it?

I'm waiting.

[Ohio Joe]

122. Two things off the top of my head

1 - You assume this country can only be destroyed from within.
2 - You assume it to be done through power and influence within the framework of our government.

Neither is true.

[RaleighNCDUer]

135. Who from the outside can destroy this country, other than the

Russian Federation through nuclear attack, which would be destroyed in turn by us making such an act one of vanishing probability?

No great empire has EVER been destroy by an outside enemy without have been first undermined from within.

And I didn't say it was to be done within the framework of our government - that is YOUR assumption, which is immaterial anyway. From within OR outside our government, who has the population base, the core of adherants, and the political strength to undermine our government, not to mention the stated wish to do so? Ever hear of the Dominionists?

Is there ANY non-christian group that is at all a credible threat to the united states? - And I'm not talking about Muslim terrorists, who can do a little damage at best. 9/11 was a pin-prick that did not threaten the US, except to set up an internal takeover by Bushco.

[Ohio Joe]

149. I can't find anything about dominionists that...

State their goal is to destroy our country. I also could not find anything that indicates they have the population base, the core of adherents, or the political strength to undermine our government. I would say that the radical followers of Islam are a greater threat. Now, thats not to say radical Christians are not a threat, they are. It seems to me though that radical Islam is much more violent, much more organized, much more numerous and much more determined to force everyone to their way of belief.

[RaleighNCDUer]

154. How would your radical Islamists go about destroying this country?

I'm real curious.

Muslims are what, 3% of the US population? Does the US border on ANY Muslim country? Do the Islamists have the military strength to impose their will on the US? HOW could they ever literally destroy America?

As for the Dominionists, just google it. Their stated principle is that the US should be a Christian theocracy - that means tearing up the constitution, which expressly forbids us being a theocracy. There may be only a small core - possibly not even a hundred thousand true believers - but the have a pool of 250 million+ christians to draw on, to bring into their plans. Bush tapped into them, and wound up being elected by nearly half the voting population.

Palin is a dominionist. Bush is a dominionist. The authors of the 'Left Behind' series are dominionist leaders, and sales of the series have reached tens of millions of people.

As Sinclair Lewis put it - When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a bible.

[Ohio Joe]

159. They are not mine, I'm an atheist

I don't deny radical Christians are a threat. I do however find your denial of radical Islam being a threat disturbing. Just a few kooks with no power or followers, nothing to worry about. You can continue blaming only radical Christians... singling them out. I prefer to object to whatever radical religious group that is a threat.

[Marrah_G]

167. I think what he is saying is this:

Not that Muslims are a not a threat to anyone, but just that they are not a threat in taking over this country. Other countries where they have the numbers maybe, but not here. The only group with the numbers here are the Christians.

[Ohio Joe]

171. I agree they are not here in the same numbers but...

Radical Islam has made it very clear they would like us destroyed and they are working towards that goal. Dismissing/ignoring them is foolish.

[Marrah_G]

173. What they would like and what they are capable of are two very different things.

They could theoretically cause us some harm, but we could easily turn whatever country did it into a wasteland in response. Someday that scale might tip differently, but right now, the reality is that only we can destroy ourselves.

[RaleighNCDUer]

175. And yet again, HOW would they accomplish it?

They have nowhere near the numbers to take over the government. They have nowhere near the numbers to stage a civil revolt. Even if, worst case scenario, they seized the government of Pakistan and got control of the Pakistani nukes - which our military would preemptively prevent in any case - they don't have the ability to send those nukes to the US, and if they DID, by say sailing them into ports and detonating the nukes in the harbors, we would would lose maybe 20 million people and 15-20 cities - which would NOT destroy the US. It would hurt, a lot, but it wouldn't DESTROY us. Of course, in return we would turn Pakistan and Saudi Arabia into glass, thus ending Wahabbism forever.

Can you come up any ANY scenario where radical Islamists can actually DESTROY the US?

[Ohio Joe]

181. your right, they are harmless

Lets not actually try to solve the issue, we'll just kill them all if they try anything. Lets just focus on Christians. Good plan! What your not getting though is your continued proving that Christians are in fact singled out. Thanks for playing :hi:

[RaleighNCDUer]

197. No, what I'm getting is the point that Christians are the vast,

overwhelming majority in this country, and NOTHING happens in this country which is not the express or tacit will of christians.

somehow, that makes christians the victims here. :eyes:

[Ohio Joe]

209. yeah, I remember when...

they lifted the ban on federally funded stem cell research, they were dancing in the streets with joy. Those fundy Christians just control everything. :eyes:

[RaleighNCDUer]

223. And we come full circle to the original comment about CRAZY christians

as opposed to the more benign variety.

The CRAZY christians DID impose the ban in the first place. The CRAZY christians tied funding for AIDS in Africa to abortion bans. The CRAZY christians insist on posting the tenets of one particular religion in courthouses that serve people of all religions and no religion.

The CRAZY christians comprise of somewhere between 20 and 40 percent of the total population, and when circumstances are right that CAN do incredible damage to the country, and if the stars align just right for them they WILL overthrow the constitution - as they've been trying to do for years.

And YOU are one of them. Not because you are necessarily a fundy nutjob, but because you take an attack on THEM as an attack on ALL christians - thereby giving them that missing 20-30 percent it would take to bring THEM to power. If you don't differentiate yourself from them, you open yourself to being used by them.

And THEY are the greatest threat to this nation.

[Ohio Joe]

235. Well then...

That justifies singling them out, as I said at the start. I love the way you keep proving the point. We should probably start killing them right away :sarcasm: I mean hey, if you think its good enough for the radical muslims it should be good enough for the Christians.

Also, I'd love to see something that backs up 20-40% of our population being crazy Christians that want to create an American theocracy.

[Swede]

219. If they release dirty bombs in New York,LA and Washington.

The USA you know,will no longer exist.

[RaleighNCDUer]

229. Please define 'dirty bomb'

and after doing so, explain how that brings down our government.

[Swede]

249. You asked how theyed destroy the country,that's how they'd do it.

Here is your question "How would your radical Islamists go about destroying this country?"


And in that post you also mentioned google,so I guess you probably know how you can google dirty bomb.

[RaleighNCDUer]

263. Since you seem disinclined to actually back up your statement --

From Wikipedia
"The term dirty bomb is primarily used to refer to a radiological dispersal device (RDD), a speculative radiological weapon which combines radioactive material with conventional explosives. Though an RDD would be designed to disperse radioactive material over a large area, a bomb that uses conventional explosives would likely have more immediate lethal effect than the radioactive material. At levels created from most probable sources, not enough radiation would be present to cause severe illness or death. A test explosion and subsequent calculations done by the United States Department of Energy found that assuming nothing is done to clean up the affected area and everyone stays in the affected area for one year, the radiation exposure would be "fairly high", but not fatal.<1> Recent analysis of the Chernobyl disaster fallout confirms this, showing that the effect on many people in the surrounding area, although not those in close proximity, was almost negligible.<2>

Because a terrorist dirty bomb is unlikely to cause many deaths, many do not consider this to be a weapon of mass destruction.<3> Its purpose would presumably be to create psychological, not physical, harm through ignorance, mass panic, and terror. For this reason dirty bombs are sometimes called "weapons of mass disruption". Additionally, containment and decontamination of thousands of panic-stricken victims, as well as decontamination of the affected area might require considerable time and expense, rendering affected areas partly unusable and causing economic damage."

Again, HOW does that DESTROY America as we know it. It would take less cleaning up after a dirty bomb than did the clean up after 9/11, and FAR less than the post-Katrina clean up.

I posit that the US is WAY more resilient than that. In fact, in another post, I make the statement that we could LOSE 15 cities and 20,000,000 citizens to full capability nukes, not some pissant 'dirty bombs', and STILL survive as the democratic republic we are. The ONLY way such an attack could destroy us is if it prompted the radical christian right to seize power - in which case it is not the Muslim radicals that destroy us, but the fundy right dominionists, which has been my contention all along.

[Progressive_In_NC]

327. well off the top of my head....

The banking industry, Big Corporations, lobbyists and according to Rush Limbaugh the democrats.

:sarcasm:

[stuntcat]

24. MY thing of it is..

MOST religious people are just fine, really!

But the fact that religions can stop birth control, making 40-year-olds order our BC pills from other countries, is just plain Evil.

Also there's the fact that most wars in the whole history of mankind have something to do with religion.. very very Scary.

Mostly the fact that NO religions have stood up with any force in defense of the Earth the humans are raping or all the species we're wiping out was my last straw.. I don't mean to be ANTI-religion, I do not feel any badness toward most religious people, but "Religion" in general I do feel is taking down the entire planet.
Extremists who think their savior is waiting around the corner are the last ones who give a darn about protecting the future.
Humans who think they're "in His Image" of course don't care about the rest of the species, they are just beasts.

I have to be here probably 40 more years and I will thank religion every day for the horrible stuff I'll see before I die.



BUT, MOST religious people are fine! I just wish they'd decide to help the Earth and save the animals, that's all.

[SoCalDem]

26. I think prayer is GREAT.. for people who want to pray

I just don't want the "prayers" to insist that EVERYONE say THEIR prayer, or for the laws to be changed to push their prayerful ways into the general public.

Build all the churches you want, just don't expect tax dollars to subsidize them, if you do not offer helpful services to ALL..including those who do not pray "your way"..


Want your children to have limited access to science, technology & education about procreation? Great.. they are YOUR kids...BUT for the rest of us, BUTT OUT..

Public schools are for educating the broad spectrum of children..educating them in the general education that they will need to live in society.. If you want them sequestered in a narrow religious world, then please home-school them..BUT if you do, do not expect the public school system to include them in the "festive" parts of public school..like sports programs, music educations, field trips, dances etc.

Your choice to remove them, is on YOU, and you should have to answer them honestly when they complain about how they miss the interaction with their peers.. It's part of being a parent.. answering them honestly when they question your wisdom.

[Philosoraptor]

30. I've prayed & prayed, but I STILL don't have my pony.

[SoCalDem]

36. I actually DID get a pony (actually a BIG horse)

My friend's family decided it was too dicey to try to bring her horse back to the states, so when they left, she gave him to me.. I was the happiest 12 yr old you ever saw..UNTIL the first stable/feed bill arrived..

I had to give Dopey to another friend.. yes that was his name..my friend like the 7 Dwarfs, I guess..

Dopey was a beautiful 16-hand Palomino gelding :)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

78. Maybe that isn't what prayer is for, then

Maybe prayer is to remember who you really are.

[sledgehammer]

225. This is a good point...

Prayer is almost always seen as an ask-and-receive method. That is mainly because most of the major religions (and many not-so-major ones) teach it that way in their books, and through their leaders/intellectuals. So it's hard to blame the skeptics on both sides.

But I think of prayer as a way to summon your own courage. Whatever you do in prayer/meditation is up to you - it could involve "talking" to a deity, connecting with the cosmos, finding your inner spirit, etc.

Regardless of the method of prayer, prayer helps a lot of people end up with the courage to either deal with a problem, or accept the consequences. If some people believe that a divine source helped them achieve this - good for them. On the other hand, many people (including myself) are virtually certain that no divine source was involved, and good for them too.

Personally, when I am faced with a difficult situation, I think of similar challenges that I and others have faced, and use these examples as ways to understand my specific situation and how to deal with it. Some could call this prayer, some could call it meditation, some could call it logic, some could call it introspection, etc. Whatever the semantics, it's a powerful tool.

Now if prayer could remain at the individual level, rather than getting organized and dogmatized, it would be ideal!

[Redbear]

32. The main problem I have seen is generalization

"You are a christian, so therefore you personally believe _____________."

In fact, christians are a pretty varied group.

[SoxFan]

40. Good point

Is John Hagee the same as a Jesuit priest who does double-duty as a professor of physics at Loyola University?

Heck, even within Catholicism, you have fringe-right types from Opus Dei, but also Catholic Worker Movement, NETWORK, and the Seamless Garment.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

88. Making assumptions

on all Christians (or any group for that matter) based upon the actions or words of a select subgroup is not likely to lead you to the truth about the faith (or the group). If you wish to understand a person, then it is better to treat them as an individual and to ask questions about their individual belief or opinion.

[bridgit]

33. It's not a myth, it's a din and sometimes a hail storm of Christian bashing

But this is DU this isn't Belief-Net

[SoxFan]

109. This thread is a prime example

DU doesn't have to be BeliefNet (a pretty cool site, actually), but the non-stop drum beat of Christian bashing in general, and Catholic, Mormon, and Evangelical bashing in particular, is nauseating.

If we heed the words of many of the posters on this thread, Vice President Biden is nothing more than a silly, superstitious fool who should be living in a group home, not the Naval Observatory.

[Bluenorthwest]

138. This is a political website

And blasphemous as it is, many 'christians' are up to their eyebrows in politicalization of their faith. If those faiths wish to organize against my family politically and financially, then any discussion of those actions is political. It is not bashing to hold a disagrement with groups who say "God says I am better than you and the law should reflect that."
Catholics, Evangelicals and Mormons, to the extent that they are politically active, best expect to have their politics engaged with opposing arguments, and must stop hiding behind the mantle of the Divine when being called out for political and social actions that all of us live with.
The non stop drum beat of religionists attacking the rights of others, while the same others support the freedom of religion, is going to have an affect. Prop 8 and the like does define those organizations that backed it. If that is not you, personally, feel free to say so. But expecting political actions to be unanswered because the activists are Catholic or Mormon is disgusting and craven, hiding behind Jesus's skirts while they throw stones Jesus himself refused to hurl.
Want to be left alone? Get your church out of politics, and out of the kid's pants. Act like a Church, and you will be treated as one. Behave as a political organization, that is how you will be treated.
But don't expect to be treated as a holy group if what you do is political.

[bridgit]

178. "Catholics, Evangelicals and Mormons"? That's my point: no Amish? No wait...

we been through that too they're a sappy cult and all DU knows it well...we know we're cooler than they are and *that's* the important thing :eyes: And if DU "is a political website" why does it have: Ethnicity, Religion & Atheism forums? And for that matter why do so many DUer's *not* pass such roundly summarized judgments onto Islam, judgments that are someone else's by even your account; is that because Islam "acts more like a church"? Or do you suppose it is because Islam's response mechanisms & options with respect to nonbelievers and their own people who defy their scriptures, are better codified?

The assertion that Islam isn't "behaving as a political organization" is a difficult one to sustain

[RaleighNCDUer]

314. So you are judging ALL Muslims by the acts of some Islamist radicals?

Of the one BILLION Muslims, there are a few million who follow the Wahabhi sect of Saudi Arabia - including those we call the Islamic radicals. Of course, the Iranian Muslims are also politicized - and are in dead opposition to the Wahabhists. For all the fighting between Islamic radicals and the west, there is MORE fighting between Islamic sects. Who do you think is in the Afghani army, fighting the Taliban? Who are the Pakistanis who are fighting in the tribal territories? Who is fighting beside the Americans in Iraq?

This is indicative of Islam "behaving as a political organization"?

Your brush is too broad.

[bridgit]

317. 1.1 billion Catholics in 05 = "So you are judging ALL (Catholics)" by the acts of yada-yada?

"there is MORE fighting between Islamic sects" borders on :wtf:; aside from the fact Islam battles mightily with it's and other Hindi neighbors (study the history of Granada, Spain, or for that matter the contemporary headlines of Mumbai) Islamic demolition experts have given much credit to the IRA resistance in Ireland. No, I'm sorry but...

"This is indicative of Islam "behaving as a political organization"?" is your first indicator to me that you absorbed any of the matter in a world where the clerics of Iran guide Ahmadinejad's steps and the tone & cadence of his tongue. You can't claim that Ahmadinejad is under the influence of Zion; you can't claim that Ahmadinejad is under the influence of Vatican City, they, and if it's easier for you to see them as Islamic forms of Opus Dei then do so but Imam's don't *have* to be Citizen Kane waving from the back of a slow moving train through Tehran to behave and be understood as political entities; it is therefore not a broad brush at all but a tin ear that circumferences all such apologies but I think the matter as it has boiled down here at DU is simpler than even that and able to be viewed as garden variety,

DUer's, some DUer's, likely a perceptible sampling of DUer's hating, disliking, or having a guttural, visceral response to America, her government (such as it is), her leaders (such as they are), her history, her injustices foisted upon an 'innocent world', etc, or feeling they are the only voices of balanced progressive reasoning; DUer's are prepared to love, explain away, or rationalize on behalf of America's enemy by certain & specific accounts an America these-some DUer's claim as their own enemy. A response to a bully's bullying you make friends with your enemy's enemy. There's been a geo-political application for some time. In his way, even the Dalai Lama understands politics his people being besieged by millinea old dynasty with interchangeable faces less concerned with religion at all but continuity. Are atheists then the only acceptable kinds of political leaders having no relation to a god, a church, or religion?

Less able to absorb them; 'broad strokes' are asparagus thrown by some with narrow views

[RaleighNCDUer]

322. In the future, please, READ what you have written before hitting 'post message'.

I will try to reply to what i think you are saying - because what you ARE saying makes no sense, grammatically.

"aside from the fact Islam battles mightily with it's and other Hindi neighbors"
Do you mean --

aside from the fact Islam battles mightily with it's Hindi neighbors, and others...

"(study the history of Granada, Spain, or for that matter the contemporary headlines of Mumbai) Islamic demolition experts have given much credit to the IRA resistance in Ireland. No, I'm sorry but..."

It is not ISLAM, but Pakistani and Kashmiri separatists who have been fighting India, and were responsible for the tragedy in Mumbai. The governments of every Islamic nation in the world condemned those attacks. You have to go back to 1492 to find Muslims fighting in Spain, which makes that about as relevant as the 100 Years War in Germany. It was the secular Black September terrorists who were aiding the IRA, as a show of solidarity against imperialism and capitalism - as personified by the British royals. This evidenced a mindset to which the Islamist radicals are fatally opposed.

"...is your first indicator to me that you absorbed any of the matter in a world where the clerics of Iran guide Ahmadinejad's steps and the tone & cadence of his tongue. You can't claim that Ahmadinejad is under the influence of Zion; you can't claim that Ahmadinejad is under the influence of Vatican City, they, and if it's easier for you to see them as Islamic forms of Opus Dei then do so but Imam's don't *have* to be Citizen Kane waving from the back of a slow moving train through Tehran to behave and be understood as political entities; it is therefore not a broad brush at all but a tin ear that circumferences all such apologies but I think the matter as it has boiled down here at DU is simpler than even that and able to be viewed as garden variety,"

I really can't make heads nor tails of this rant. Suffice it to say that Ahmadinejad is the president of a country in the grips of an Islamic theocracy. This same Islamic theocracy that lost over a half-MILLION soldiers fighting the Iraqis in the 80s. Iraq is, I assume you know, an Islamic nation. They also lost a half million soldiers fighting Iran. The Iranian theocracy controls Iran. They have some influence in Syria (which is a secular Baathist state) and in Gaza (which is not a state at all). They do not rule either of them. They are at odds with the Wahabbists of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the Taliban and Al Queda. Clearly you are unable to differentiate between Muslims, calling them ALL our 'enemy'.

I'm not even going to bother with that last paragraph - I don't know how the Dalai Lama and atheism got mixed up in a criticism of your broad-brushing ALL Muslims into being our enemy. I know I never mentioned them, any more than I referenced the billion Catholics, many hundreds of millions of whom I'm sure never molested anyone.

Try to apply a little critical thought to your own rants.

[bridgit]

330. No dear, the rant is all yours embrace it n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

325. Hey, look at that!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5231866

Muslims killing Muslims.

but they're ALL the enemy, right?

[Two Americas]

332. nonsense

Not here does any of this go on. No one here preaches or promotes religion, No one defends the Religious Right (well, unless a main spokesperson for the Religious Right gets an invite from a Democratic party politician we like, then all bets are off. But those were not religious people defending the invitation of Warren.)

You are judging all in the group by the actions of the few. That contradicts the very principles you claim to be basing your arguments on.

You say "Catholics, to the extent that they are politically active, best expect to have their politics engaged with opposing arguments." Of course. Many of the Catholics here are leftists and routinely have "their politics engaged with opposing arguments" by people with more conservative views. That is common. What you are describing is virtually non-existent here.

[spoony]

185. It's so richly ironic that in a thread denying the bigotry towards

Christians, they can't actually stop bashing them long enough to get their whole denial out first. Lol.

[bridgit]

191. Agreed but when I first read your post I thought you were saying Joe Biden is a *tool* of the Naval

Observatory...which makes much more sense to me ;) And yeah I do go by Belief Net to source out other stuff that can in no way be sourced out here :thumbsup:

[NRaleighLiberal]

34. The most important thing is to never stop THINKING about things.

Not just following, or blind belief - but we all have brains...it is great to engage them! And I think DUers generally go a great job of that.

[treestar]

44. There are DU posts making fun of religion

They've got to know that it's offensive. Maybe from the same people who say that if they say a thing is offensive when they belong to a group the deem offended? So do the Christians on DU get to define what is offensive too?

[MineralMan]

48. Sure...up to a point...the agrieved can set the rules...

But, those rules have to be reasonable. For some people, any statement regarding my atheism is taken as an afront to their beliefs.

Any negative reference to fundamentalists as a group is seen as an attack on all of Christianity by some. A statement of non-belief or negative posts about religious extremists is no attack on religion as a whole.

That's not acceptable, either.

[treestar]

58. How about "imaginary friend in the sky" posts?

Granted that is an attack on religion, but it seems reasonable that the religious consider if to be making fun of their religion, and thus offensive.

[MineralMan]

72. Well, I wouldn't use that terminology, since it's

unnecessarily snide. I will say that I do not believe in deities or other supernatural entities.

However, many believe that all religions are based on superstition, and I don't see anything wrong with those people saying so, any more than I object to people claiming belief in whatever deity or supernatural entities they wish.

My nonbelief is not an affront to anyone. It is simply my nonbelief, and I will express that nonbelief if it suits me to do so. I will not ridicule others for their beliefs alone. Should they try to convince me that I must believe as they do, I will ridicule that suggestion.

Actions, not beliefs, are the bases for ridicule if they are ridiculous.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

94. You've hit the nail on the head!

"Actions, not beliefs, are the bases for ridicule if they are ridiculous." That's the key, isn't it? It is how we act towards our fellow humans that says more about us than any label we or anyone else would care to place upon us.

[MineralMan]

97. Well, I always hope to hit the nail, rather than my thumb.

[mike_c]

103. since you find the criticism offensive I presume you disagree...

...with the characterization. Do you maintain that religious folks don't believe in "imaginary sky friends?" Simply introducing one of them to the rest of us is all the proof necessary to dispel that criticism forever. You, me, and a non-imaginary sky friend can have lunch, right?

[spiritual_gunfighter]

80. Sure they do

They define everything else in our country so why not DU as well :sarcasm:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

89. Many posts make fun of religion in general

and not just Christianity.

[cobalt1999]

46. I don't hate the religious

I hate anyone that wants to impose their moral code onto me.

That goes for the religious zealots and their anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-evolution, etc. agenda. However, that also goes for the PETA crowd and their moral code pushers.

Anyone that feels their personal moral code needs to be evangelized to others will be hated by most liberals.

[cilla4progress]

137. Brave New World

But what about human cloning? Or selective abortion for cute noses or desirable eye color. No kidding. Or even "murder"? I'm confused about the line between morality / law / religion.

Thank you very much.

[AllentownJake]

50. Sometimes it bothers me most times it doesn't

However, some attacks on Christians on here if you substituted any other group for Chistian would result in tombstoning

[mike_c]

53. I'm more than happy to bash christianity-- it's intellectually bankrupt...

...and based on delusions-- but that's not the same as "hating" christians. Everyone has a right to believe in whatever superstitious nonsense they want to believe in. My beef is with the ideas, not the people. Of course, I'm sure lots of xtians take my comments about their delusions personally. That's their choice, too.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

57. What's that you say? Hate the sin, not the sinner?

Oh wait, never mind..... :eyes:

[Name removed]

63. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SoxFan]

85. "Intellectually bankrupt"?

Yeah, a real collection of morans...

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Thomas Merton
John Courtney Murray
Hans Kung
Søren Kierkegaard
C.S. Lewis
Gary Wills
G.K. Chesterton
Avery Dulles
Reinhold Niebuhr
Kathryn Greene McCreight
Albert Schweitzer
Dorothy Day

[mike_c]

95. yes, intellectually bankrupt....

Re-read my comments until you understand the distinction between delusional ideation and the people who accept it. Their religious philosophy, based on superstition, is nonsense. That doesn't prevent anyone from being a critical thinker in other areas, or even being a profound intellect within the context of that delusional philosophy.

But that, in turn, has no bearing on the superstitious foundation of their philosophy. It doesn't make it any more "real."

[SoxFan]

101. Sorry, Mike, but you sound like a pretentious undergrad

I've read many of the people I listed, and frankly, found them to be a heck of a lot more convincing than anything I have heard from the Humanist Inquisition on DU.

[RaleighNCDUer]

127. fine. And a number of the writers for 'Star Trek' were scientists who

worked for NASA and JPL -

That doesn't mean the Star Trek universe is real.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

99. Please clarify

I'm intrigued by your term "intellectually bankrupt". What does it mean? Are you talking about the philosophy of Christianity through the ages or only the words being spoken by fundamentalist Christians of today, like Falwell and his ilk?

As to "based on delusions", do you mean the belief in a God and the saints, prophets, and savior? What is your take on the ideas of helping others and caring for them--the "good works" part of the teachings of Jesus?

Thank you for your reply. I hope to have an interesting discussion with you about this, if you would like.

[mike_c]

108. in another thread, perhaps....

I'm sorry-- I know I'll catch a lot of grief for this, but it's 8:00 AM on the left coast, I'm sitting here at home in sweats, and I have a class to teach in an hour. The SO just warned me to get a move on.

Another time, my friend. :hi:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

115. I'll be glad to continue this later, then

Hope you make your class in time. Give your students something fascinating to think about today!

[tinrobot]

123. Love thy neighbor - what a bankrupt concept.

[tekisui]

242. He said intellectually bankrupt.

He mentioned nothing the potential moral value.

[spoony]

187. Lol, thanks for chiming in.

I'm sure the OP appreciates it. :rofl:

[Lost in CT]

296. you need to get out more Mike... read a book or something.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

102. What is insane?

The religion or the followers of that religion? And why should they be exposed--what is your goal in exposing them? Thank you for your replies.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

61. Unfortunately, the myth gets undermined by a certain few who bring truth to it.

As evidenced by some of the responses in this post.

[lonestarnot]

64. K & R

[nichomachus]

79. I hate any group whose official stance is to deny me my civil and human rights

I don't care if they're religious, political, or what . . . . .

So, if the shoe fits -- wear it.

[SidDithers]

81. The religious often have too much personally invested in their religion...

and thus see criticism, or mockery, of their religion as a personal attack.

To that I say, "not my problem".

Sid

[spiritual_gunfighter]

83. Right on Sid

Too many Christians can't seperate critique of religion with critique of themselves.

[AllentownJake]

92. Yet if someone would attack atheism on here

Well that would result in cries of the horror the horror.

I think the non-religious have just invested in their beliefs as the religous do. I see people as people regardless if they have a diety or don't, and I think it would not matter if we get rid of all the republicans, people of faith, and everything else your still going to have bad people who do bad things, their justification will only change.

[SoxFan]

114. or if someone attacked a "protected" denomination

Unitarianism, Hinduism, non-Wahibi Islam, Reform Judaism, and Wicca hold a different status on DU than other faiths.

[Solon]

128. Well no shit sherlock, none of them have any influence in Government....

there are, I think, at last count, 1 muslim, 1 Buddhist, and maybe 1 or 2 nonbelievers in all of Congress, far less, percentage wise, than the percentages of these groups in the general population. In addition, most aren't interested in influencing government unduly to favor any particular religious group, or to weaken the wall separating Church and State.

[Marrah_G]

139. Woohoooo- I am part of a protected faith !

Who knew?

:shrug:

[PVnRT]

125. Atheism is not a "belief." Try again.

[AllentownJake]

141. Atheism is a belief

There is no God is a belief. A rejection of the possibility of a creator is just as much of a belief as the belief there is one.

You may think your belief if right, and I may think mine is right but at the end of the day neither one of knows anything because we are ants in comparison to the complexities of the universe.

[sledgehammer]

155. Perhaps...

...but the difference is that Atheists/Agnostics (and many believers as well) work to try to find a scientific solution to creation and other things. And they are generally ready to drop existing and accepted rules if scientifically proved otherwise.

Most believers rely on their ancient books which have been pretty much rendered obsolete by science. Or, they try very hard to find a reconciliation between science and their books, rather than just accepting the fact that the books are like parables and are not an accurate historical account of the world.

[AllentownJake]

162. My faith is only one facet with which I see the world

It depends on how you are reading the anciet books. I believe that the Bible, Shakespeare, and the works of Homer paint a more realistic view of humanity and its condition and a truer picture of what we are as a species than most books I read today. We are a little in love with ourselves because we've created some gadgets and we live longer.

Here is the thing, you judge people of faith by looking at one group of us who act the way you say and you ignore alot of us who don't. That is as bad as me judging all atheist by the ones who want to kill people of faith to clense the planet of religion.

[sledgehammer]

169. Which atheist group...

...has ever advocated the killing of people of faith to cleanse the planet of religion?

Sadly, the opposite holds true i.e. people of faith advocating (and encouraging/executing) the killing of non-believers to cleanse the world and earn favor from the divine lord.

[AllentownJake]

172. Communist

[sledgehammer]

179. OK...

point taken.

However, Communists wanted to end religion through thought suppression. Not necessarily by killing people to cleanse the world, which is more common in religion. Either way, it's unacceptable, and Communist govts have killed millions of people for many reasons, including beliefs.

But it sort of plays into my point. Communism is blasted by most people around the world as a failed and oppressive ideology. However, it's not very different from organized religion in certain aspects. But the equation between the two is rarely made.

[WildEyedLiberal]

351. You're missing his point

Equating all believers with oppressive fundamentalist theocrats is akin to equating all atheists with communists. Too many atheists take the cheap and easy route of holding Falwell, Robertson, Wahabbism, the Vatican, etc up as THE definitive spokespeople for religion, whose beliefs and radical statements must therefore be held by ALL people claiming to adhere to the religion in question. It is a straw man fallacy, unless one is specfically dealing with religious people who actively profess to believe in such things.

[RaleighNCDUer]

157. No, it is not.

As an atheist, I believe in that which has evidentiary support. Therefore, I can't "believe" in no god any more than I can "believe" in a god.

I believe in the theory of evolution.

I like the idea of UFOs and extraterrestrial life - I do not believe in them.

Atheism is NOT a belief - it is a DISbelief.

[AllentownJake]

164. That's rhetorical BS and you know it.

I believe in evolution just as a qualifier but when you see a chimp turn into a human being you let me know. You have a degree of faith that what you are relying on, unless your a research scientist in a lab studying DNA, I highly doubt you have witnessed any form of micro-evolution let alone macro to base the theory of evolution on. Your relying on your faith in the scientist.

[RaleighNCDUer]

168. LOL.

Talk about rhetorical bullshit.

For your information, a chimp turning into a human is not evolution - it is transmogrification. And i work in a natural science museum where I am surrounded by the evidence for evolution in detail. I don't rely in faith in the scientist - I rely on the EVIDENCE those scientists have been finding over the past 150 years.

[AllentownJake]

170. and I rely on the evidence

that I have seen on humanity and its sad condition as a species for the past 15 years from my own observation.

I think some stories in the Bible are allegorical in nature. I don't believe a 5th century bc culture could understand evolution or other scientific principles so allegorical stories were used. I believe there is a divine hand in the world, how the divine hand works is to complex for any human being to understand, you don't I can see how both of us came to our conclusion.

However, the arrogance of some atheist is no different than the arrogance of the very Religous people they like to put down.

[sledgehammer]

176. But with evidence...

...do believers categorically reject what is false in their books?

Do religious leaders ever come out with a statement saying: "Our books and belief about so-and-so topic have been proven wrong by science. We believe it no longer to be fact, and will modify our laws/beliefs accordingly."

This would be a nice and beneficial step as it would help believers to start accepting certain realities more readily. Finally the Vatican is starting to do something like it with Evolution. Even though there's a lot of work still to be done, kudos to them for getting the ball rolling: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29535870/

The Dalai Lama also said something pretty cool about Faith and Science:

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview." http://www.dalailama.com/news.5.htm

[AllentownJake]

177. You are judging an entire group of people

based on a sub group. It would be like me judging all atheist the same as communist in China and the former Soviet Union.

[sledgehammer]

180. No...

I don't think I am.

If you take basically any religion and talk to its major players - the leaders, the intellectuals, etc. (who don't represent just a sub-group, but are the faces/mouths of the religion) I don't think you will see much rejection of dogma among them. The may accept certain things that go against what their books say, but they won't categorically reject what's in their books. e.g. there are a handful of priests who accept gay marriage, but would they reject the story of Lot and Sodom as being a) false and/or b) not applicable today?

If there are such examples, please can you share. I would like to know. This is a genuine request, I'm not being sarcastic here.

[LanternWaste]

258. Faith is merely trust in those things

Faith is merely trust in those things of which we do not have absolute and complete information...

[PVnRT]

207. Congratulations - you just summed up the Creationists' argument

There is plenty of evidence for micro-evolution through the fossil record and testing of preserved tissue (in a lab, no less).

Faith in science? Good grief. I am relying on a system that uses logic, evidence and rationality within a fairly structured environment with proven results. "We" was used in the collective sense, not specific. Talk about rhetorical bullshit.

By the way, when scientists announce a new discovery, it is mercilessly peer-reviewed and re-tested. There is no "faith" involved. You're showing the typical American ignorance of how science works.

[PVnRT]

203. No, it isn't

Atheists do not believe that there is a God, or Zeus, or any other supernatural deity/deities who created the universe or control our daily lives. Claiming that atheism is a "belief" assumes that belief is some default behavior encoded in our genes. If that were the case, we would be born a religion and would never be able to change, which clearly isn't true.

Something can be "right" only in the sense that there is sufficient evidence to support it, which is not the case for any religion. Thus, you have faith that there is God/Zoroaster/Quetzlcoatl. An atheist does not require faith to not believe; they simply don't. Rejecting something that does not have evidence does not require faith.

Using your model, anything not tested for directly by experiment with reproducible results would be a "belief," like neutrinos.

[AllentownJake]

262. "Belief"

Is a default behavior encoded in our genes. The mere fact we can have this conversation is because we can acknowledge our own existence and ponder it.

In order to be an atheist you are accepting a form of beliefs whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not. You have adopted a set of rules to determine whether something is right or wrong, proveable or unproveable and standards. You are allowing those rules to determine what is "right".

In any event I don't mock Atheist, I don't see why its so acceptable to mock people of faith on here. Which is the point I started out with.

[PVnRT]

316. Provide evidence of that

If belief is encoded into our genes, there must be a specific genetic marker and research behind it.

"You have adopted a set of rules to determine whether something is right or wrong, proveable or unproveable and standards."

Umm, that would be called "science," chief. You know, making judgments based on evidence. Why this is now a "belief" is beyond me.

"In any event I don't mock Atheist, I don't see why its so acceptable to mock people of faith on here. Which is the point I started out with."

You apparently cannot tell the difference between mocking the faith and the person.

[Goblinmonger]

257. Do some research into the meaning

of the word "theism" and the prefix "a" and find out you are wrong.

[spoony]

264. Let's see...trust you on language or the OED.

Hmm, not so tough a call, really. Anyway, in real usage any observer can see that most atheists inject beliefs into their "nonbelief" all the time, so either which way you approach the matter you're wrong.

[Goblinmonger]

280. Oooh, I love to debate dictionaries.

First off, the OED is a British dictionary so you have some flaws there to start with. Second, dictionaries generally indicate how a word is currently used and not delving into the etymology. Though I'm sure the OED would back me up but I do not have an online subscription to the OED and am not about to go to the library but feel free to enlighten me about what the OED says atheism is. And please give the entire definition.

According to the online etymology dictionary through dictionary.com, I am exactly right about the origins of the word.

atheist
1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (c.1534) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."

The problem with the "deny the gods" or the current version from Random House which you seem to be relying on (disbelieves or denies the existence of God) is that it presupposes that gods exist and the atheist denies that existence whereas the etymology of the word means that one lacks the belief in gods.

To put it into statistical terms, the atheist is the null hypothesis. I don't have to believe anything. If you want to posit that there is a god, then you have the belief and the burden of proof, not I. It does not take faith to lack belief in anything.

One final way, do you have a belief about santa clause and the tooth fairy and the pink unicorn in my garage?

[spoony]

298. "OED is a British dictionary so you have some flaws there to start with"

I stopped reading at that dull-witted comment. I have no time for childish pap right now. (Yes, I know exactly what you're thinking of saying in response to that, so don't bother your fingers typing it.) It occurs to me as a follow-up that the New Atheists also don't agree on the definition of atheism, so again I'm sticking with the established one that agrees with common sense rather than your fantastically idealistic usage.

Edit: As it turns out, I do in fact have time for a bit of childish pap.

Here it is from the copy of the Compact Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed) in my office (I'd love the whole thing, but don't have the extra thousands of dollars and separate room of my house it'd take to get and keep it):

"the belief that God does not exist." That's the entire definition, followed by derivatives and origin.

As to your last line, "do you have a belief about santa clause and the tooth fairy and the pink unicorn in my garage." Yes, I do. A belief "about" the likelihood of the existence of what is being discussed. Santa was based on a real person, dunno 'bout the tooth fairy but I strongly believe it was my mum leaving quarters under my pillow, and I believe your garage is much like mine in that it lacks a pink unicorn. Everyone except the true agnostic has a "belief about" God or about most anything they come across about which a judgement is made. You cannot make any statement besides "I don't know" about God's existence and say it isn't a belief.

[Goblinmonger]

308. So is your argument that the OED is not a dictionary

that reflects British usage of words? Why do they make and Oxford American Dictionary, then?

The problem with that definition is three-fold:
1. It ignores completely the etymology. Terms like amoral, achromatic, ahistorical, acyclic, atypical, asymmetrical, and asexual (to name but a few) all rely on the etymology of the prefix "a" to mean without, yet for some reason the word a-theist doesn't rely on that even though it clearly has the same roots? That makes absolutely no sense. And to tack on to your discussion about agnostic: "theist" refers to belief and "gnostic" refers to knowledge so the a-theist has no belief in god whereas the a-gnostic has no knowledge of god. So you could be a gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist--likewise a gnostic theist or an agnostic theist.
2. It assumes that one must have a belief about something for which there is no proof. That is pretty much in the wheelhouse of proving a negative which is logically absurd.
3. It doesn't deal with the segment of the population that has had no contact with the concept of a god. If someone was raised in a situation where the topic of god never even was considered, how would they have a "belief that God exists" since they have no concept of what God even is.

Additionally, what about

Don't tell me that you walk around saying that you believe the tooth fairy doesn't exist (and don't even start back up with the "it was my mom" routine--you know what I mean). That you "believe" there isn't a teapot orbiting Mars (to borrow from Bertrand Russel).

And I, too, wish I could afford both the money and the space for a complete OED. What are your thoughts about the reduced font one which requires a magnifying glass?

[spoony]

343. That one just kills my eyes

I looked at it in a bookstore and left feeling very, very old. I'm 30. Lol.

There are obviously some words that are different in different cultures. Atheism is not one of them. Unless you mean to tell me that you're not an atheist in the same way Dawkins is. If you do, then I'll really be confused.

As for your numbered points, we're not making headway. I get your argument, but for me the practical meaning of a word is more than its prefix. And that practical meaning involves, well let me say it in the context of your #3:

Your third point is interesting, though given the recent thread about neurotheology, I don't know that any person can live in any society and not have exposure to ideas about god(s). But if there was such a person, then by your etymological approach I'm willing to call that person an atheist. But they wouldn't be an atheist in the way you are, because presumably you HAVE considered the proposition and rejected it. They would be a "no belief" atheist. You would rather fit my practical definition, which is disbelief. Rejection of a concept.

It is the same thing with the tooth fairy. It's a being I've heard of, so I cannot say I have "no belief" in it. I disbelieve it. I believe it isn't.

[WildEyedLiberal]

352. Those goddamn English, trying to define their own language

Wow. Just wow. :rofl:

[Goblinmonger]

312. My bad...posted in the wrong place n/t

[Goblinmonger]

256. Bring it on.

I'll gladly discussion the merits and demerits of atheism with anyone. There are several others, some who are posting on this thread, that will gladly do the same.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

111. It isn't your problem

unless you are trying to convince someone about your point of view on an issue. Then it is imperative that you try and see the world from the other person's point of view, if only to be able to better communicate with them.

[spoony]

188. So people shouldn't be too "personally invested" in

their sacred ideals. Hmm, that's an interesting concept. Another is that you're not responsible for hurt feelings when you...hurt other's feelings. I seem to have come across such a philosophy before, on the radio somewhere.

[SidDithers]

218. Meh...

"Sacraed ideals" or not, as ideas, they're still no more deserving of respect than any other idea. If you can defend your ideas in a rigorous debate, great. If not, perhaps that's a greater reflection on the quality of your idea, rather than the mean bully doing the critiquing.

And as far as your hurt feelings go? Toughen up. Or do you need me to get you a tissue.

Sid

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

84. "Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain

[TBF]

87. Just another topic to divide people so they're too buy arguing to notice what's

happening to them economically.

[SidDithers]

91. Just another poster...

who thinks DU'ers can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

Sid

[TBF]

105. OK, so prove me wrong. I'd love to see people here actually focus

on economics rather than all the cultural issues. I don't think you could do it for a day.

[PVnRT]

126. So, you must not care about Iraq or Afghanistan, then

Since you're only focusing on economic issues.

[TBF]

221. I care about exiting Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, which would

significantly increase our bottom line.

This is what Iraq alone is costing us - http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

[sledgehammer]

131. "Greatest Threads"

Below is a list of the "greatest threads". The vast majority of the threads are related to economy and/or politics.


*************************************


General Discussion
Report: 1 in 50 American children homeless
5 recommendations : By seemslikeadream

General Discussion
Seen In A NY Subway
8 recommendations : By kpete

Editorials & Other Articles
Breaking the Taboo on Israel's Spying Efforts on the United States
6 recommendations : By laststeamtrain

General Discussion
Update on critically injured son of DU poster
8 recommendations : By norepubsin08

General Discussion
The myth that DU & liberals in general hate the religious.
7 recommendations : By Philosoraptor

Latest Breaking News
Companies Cut Pricey Older Workers
6 recommendations : By Pale Blue Dot

General Discussion
“The Move”- A small excerpt from a larger story of a tiny tale of epic horror. Part One.
6 recommendations : By shadowknows69

Editorials & Other Articles
Bank of America forced to withdraw job offers
7 recommendations : By OhioChick

General Discussion
Area bloke discovers ignorant Americans working at Walmart.
7 recommendations : By MindPilot

Political Videos
Young Turks: Here's Difference Between Capitalism & Corporatism (Video)
6 recommendations : By Hissyspit

General Discussion
Tom Tomorrow-GOP Strategies For Success
17 recommendations : By babylonsister

Editorials & Other Articles
Ten Things You Can Do to Stay in Your Home
7 recommendations : By kas125

General Discussion
Insanely out of balance, the Republicans are all set to fail
11 recommendations : By SpartanDem

Latest Breaking News
STOCK MARKET WATCH, Tuesday March 10
13 recommendations : By ozymandius

General Discussion
The first sound bites
5 recommendations : By Adsos Letter

General Discussion
ELECTION FRAUD: Ex-GOP official gets 3 years. We got one!
8 recommendations : By BuyingThyme

Latest Breaking News
Treasury Plans Small-Business Aid
5 recommendations : By Pirate Smile

General Discussion
Chuck Norris Says Right Wing Cells Will Overthrow the American Government This Friday
9 recommendations : By katanalori

Political Videos
Countdown: Keith Olbermann discusses blame for the financial crisis beyond Washington (Video)
9 recommendations : By Wetzelbill

General Discussion
Cultural remains of 70,000-year-old civilisation found in Orissa
10 recommendations : By Adsos Letter

General Discussion
John Yoo is sorry for nothing!
14 recommendations : By G_j

Latest Breaking News
Obama Seeks to Delay Tanker, Cancel Bomber
10 recommendations : By Pirate Smile

Latest Breaking News
AIG Warned of 'Crisis' if Government Didn't Help-Draft-Obtained by ABC-Dated 4 Days Before Bailout
19 recommendations : By kpete

Editorials & Other Articles
Programmers Guild Calls for a U.S. Job Preservation Fee of $60,000 per H-1B visa
12 recommendations : By OhioChick

Political Videos
David Shuster interviews Paul Krugman (Video)
11 recommendations : By Wetzelbill

Political Videos
Young Turks: Erin Burnett Tries to Explain CNBC Mistakes (Video)
13 recommendations : By Hissyspit

GLBT
Things that make me go...WTF in F?
10 recommendations : By bluedawg12

General Discussion
Danny Schechter: Do Americans Realize How The Crisis Breeds Global Chaos?
5 recommendations : By marmar

Latest Breaking News
Governor announces $10.7B plan for high-speed trains (NY)
6 recommendations : By bananas

Political Videos
If all Atheists left America (Video)
9 recommendations : By cynatnite

General Discussion
So if Buffett is such a great investor, as the worlds believes, how come
6 recommendations : By WCGreen

Economy
Forget About "Recovery"
12 recommendations : By Crewleader

General Discussion
Bloomerg Denies Food Stamps for Single, Unemployed Adults Looking for Work
12 recommendations : By Triana

General Discussion
Suck it, CNBC - Roubini on why the markets have tanked 20% since Jan. 2009
8 recommendations : By Roland99

Political Videos
TYT: Obama=Jesus? Cenk Breaks Down The CRAZIEST Glenn Beck Clip Ever (Video)
12 recommendations : By ihavenobias

Latest Breaking News
Report: Slain US Nazi hated Obama, had parts for 'dirty bomb'
11 recommendations : By MiaCulpa

General Discussion
...in which a teacher rant ensues...
13 recommendations : By ulysses

General Discussion
Hey right wingers, fossilized thinkers: You can leave the country any time you want.
6 recommendations : By Joe Fields

General Discussion
CNN: Rush Apology Orgy (Featuring Jon Stewart, Cenk, Headzup, Letterman, Jimmy Fallon & More)
11 recommendations : By ihavenobias

General Discussion
How did the Republicans convince people that making wealthy people wealthier was a good idea?
9 recommendations : By NNN0LHI

General Discussion
This Modern World-The GOP's surefire 11-point plan for success! By Tom Tomorrow
27 recommendations : By kpete

General Discussion
"The US News Media" - The Threat to Obama's Presidency-By Robert Parry
25 recommendations : By kpete

General Discussion
The Coming Evangelical Collapse
17 recommendations : By cynatnite

General Discussion
Texas Voter Twister - Try It and see if you win (x-post from Texas and ER)
8 recommendations : By tbyg52

Editorials & Other Articles
"The Bezzle" Defined: the "Lie" that is Always Present in Business....
10 recommendations : By KoKo

General Discussion
Limbaugh Calls Gingrich A ‘Fly-By-Night Operator’ Who ‘You Can’t Depend On’ And ‘Will Sell You Out’
8 recommendations : By laststeamtrain

General Discussion
Chuck Norris joins call for "right-wing cells" to rise up and rebel against the government
17 recommendations : By marmar

GLBT
Sign of the times
5 recommendations : By NMMNG

General Discussion
Mandatory Monday Malloy Truthseekers check in!!
7 recommendations : By ralps

Environment/Energy
Electricity from straw
5 recommendations : By OKIsItJustMe

General Discussion
Socialism? Please
5 recommendations : By alfredo

General Discussion
Liberal groups to protest health insurance conference Tuesday
9 recommendations : By babylonsister

General Discussion
FORECLOSURE RELIEF -- why haven't we been hearing about this ALL ALONG, via the MSM?
27 recommendations : By ProgrezivIndie

General Discussion
Real story behind credit card limit & declined card stories:THE CARD COMPANIES HAVE NO MONEY TO LEND
11 recommendations : By HamdenRice

Political Videos
Alice Walker, Medea Benjamin in Gaza to Mark International Women's Day - Democracy Now (Video)
8 recommendations : By balantz

Latest Breaking News
Thirty-seven Colombians deported for alleged complot against Chávez
9 recommendations : By Judi Lynn

Editorials & Other Articles
Republicans Rant, Rot and Revolt Against Truth
8 recommendations : By babylonsister

Editorials & Other Articles
Domestic Outsourcers Now Favored By Most Tech CFOs
7 recommendations : By OhioChick

General Discussion
Gunman: 'If You're Not A Christian You're Going To Die'
9 recommendations : By RamboLiberal

Environment/Energy
Climate scientists warn that world is heading for war of the resources
5 recommendations : By OKIsItJustMe

Political Videos
Young Turks: How 'Moderate' Democrats Could Control Obama's Agenda (Video)
7 recommendations : By CherylK

Latest Breaking News
The International Space Station to become the second brightest object in the night sky with help fro
8 recommendations : By bananas

General Discussion
In celebrating my 100th post since joing Du, I just want to say
11 recommendations : By GiveMeFreedom

General Discussion
Fox "News" Channel's very own Sean Hannity at a hooker house!
5 recommendations : By PM Martin

General Discussion
Son of DU poster critically injured
118 recommendations : By norepubsin08

General Discussion
"Shut up about Chavez the killer," Venezuelan co-star tells Sean Penn.
5 recommendations : By Occam Bandage

Latest Breaking News
Democrats To Introduce Union Organizing Bill Tuesday
7 recommendations : By Purveyor

Latin America
Chavez takes moral high ground, closes “Bodies Revealed”
8 recommendations : By Judi Lynn

Latest Breaking News
Citi spends $3.5M to reward Smith Barney brokers
7 recommendations : By JCMach1

Latest Breaking News
Zoo chimp 'planned' rock attacks on visitors
10 recommendations : By depakid

General Discussion
President Obama just lessened my education debt...substantially...
10 recommendations : By cynatnite

Editorials & Other Articles
The Lonely Losers of Limbaugh Land
13 recommendations : By babylonsister

Political Videos
TYT: How to buy a politician (Video)
10 recommendations : By ejbr

Editorials & Other Articles
Why Did The New York Times Kill This Image of Henry Kissinger? (Not for His Naked Butt Cheeks!)
12 recommendations : By babylonsister

General Discussion
Dan White -- A Hero for Killing a Queer
8 recommendations : By nichomachus

Political Videos
Yes, We're Gay But... (Video)
8 recommendations : By ccharles000

Political Videos
Rachel Maddow interviewed by Jay Leno (Video)
13 recommendations : By ProfessorPlum

General Discussion
Older Job-Seekers Face Special Hurdles
11 recommendations : By Purveyor

General Discussion
Here we are in year 2009. Women, do you feel equal to men or not?
7 recommendations : By Mike 03

General Discussion
Academic Earth:Thousands of free video lectures from the world's top scholars.
10 recommendations : By Bravo Zulu

Political Videos
Ray McGovern - Holding Our Leaders Accountable (Video)
8 recommendations : By kpete

Latest Breaking News
Obama overturns Bush policy on stem cells
11 recommendations : By onehandle

General Discussion
Posters having fun with the "Bible blocks bullet " event are missing the funniest part of the story.
13 recommendations : By 11 Bravo

General Discussion
Meghan McCain calls Ann Coulter 'offensive' and 'insulting'
7 recommendations : By 47of74

General Discussion
As Obama Hosts Summit on Healthcare, Marginalized Advocates Ask Why Single Payer Is Ignored
14 recommendations : By personman

General Discussion
Obama Keeps Bush positions in Court nearly every time (and yet no outrage here?)
17 recommendations : By Political Heretic

General Discussion
Rushbo's Numbers "Double" Out Of Thin Air...
6 recommendations : By KharmaTrain

Latest Breaking News
Buffett: Economy has 'fallen off a cliff'
6 recommendations : By kpete

General Discussion
Krugman: WH Has Decided To "Muddle Through On The Finanancial Front"
11 recommendations : By kpete

Latest Breaking News
Four largest TARP recipients spent billions on 'questionable transactions': memo (Kucinich)
36 recommendations : By kpete

General Discussion
My Dad died 17 months ago...
24 recommendations : By catnhatnh

Political Videos
While the world looks the other way, the colonization of the West Bank continues (Video)
6 recommendations : By grassfed

Economy
Lobbyists Push Back Against AG 'Power Grab'
5 recommendations : By Dover

General Discussion
GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry: “Our Goal Is To Bring Down Approval Numbers” For Dems
10 recommendations : By babylonsister

General Discussion
Pass it on...Newsweek: Rihanna and 5 myths about domestic violence
54 recommendations : By ourbluenation

Latest Breaking News
Don’t Rely on Bush’s Signing Statements, Obama Orders
14 recommendations : By Pirate Smile

Environment/Energy
After His Climate Denial Machine Is Exposed, Marc Morano Will Leave Senate Post
13 recommendations : By Viking12

New York
Falls police say woman put up racist sign
7 recommendations : By whopis01

General Discussion
Younger and Hungrier in America
11 recommendations : By marmar

Political Videos
Senator Kennedy's Birthday - President Obama and Bill Cosby Help Celebrate (Video)
5 recommendations : By jefferson_dem

General Discussion
Well I'll be Goddamned! Rise In Americans With No Religion
19 recommendations : By Philosoraptor

General Discussion
New DOJ Report Could Contain A Bombshell-SCOTT HORTON-"LAST CHANCE TO GET THE BUSHIES"
37 recommendations : By kpete

Political Videos
TYT: Republican Playbook---'Tax Cuts, Illegal Immigrants, Attack Random Countries' (Video)
17 recommendations : By ihavenobias

General Discussion
National Security Advisor James Jones- "I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger"
18 recommendations : By Orwellian_Ghost

Editorials & Other Articles
Chris Hedges: We Are Breeding Ourselves to Extinction
22 recommendations : By marmar

Religion/Theology
America becoming less Christian, study shows
42 recommendations : By sabra

General Discussion
U.S. unemployment level AFTER the 1929 crash and bank runs...
12 recommendations : By CoffeeCat

General Discussion
The Rude Pundit: Photos That Make the Rude Pundit Want to Snort Lutefisk
27 recommendations : By meegbear

General Discussion
For my 10,000th post - Thank you, DU for a place to keep semi-sane these last 3 election cycles
5 recommendations : By Divine Discontent

General Discussion
Meghan McCain calls Ann Coulter 'offensive' and 'insulting'
14 recommendations : By RamboLiberal

General Discussion
Frank Schaeffer: Open Letter to the Republican Traitors.
10 recommendations : By Occam Bandage

Editorials & Other Articles
Joe Conason: The questions our healthcare debate ignores
10 recommendations : By babylonsister

Latest Breaking News
JPMorgan to up outsourcing to India by 25%
12 recommendations : By OhioChick

GLBT
Pepperdine Alumni Not Happy With Ken Starr Defending Prop 8
12 recommendations : By bluedawg12

General Discussion
Filmmaker John Milius wants Limbaugh 'drawn and quartered'
6 recommendations : By edbermac

Environment/Energy
The Polar Bear is no longer the icon of global warming
10 recommendations : By Symarip

[TBF]

226. I said economics not "economics and/or politics" which

you seem to think means anything under the sun. Economics. Money. Who controls the money. How money is controlling us. Not religion, sexual orientation, polar bears, Limbaugh...

[SidDithers]

232. Then, maybe you should find an economics board...

if "economics and/or politics" on a political board isn't focused enough for you.

Sid

[TBF]

311. This is the reason the country is falling apart while the "left" stands gawking.

Educate yourself.

[sledgehammer]

238. Is DU supposed to only discuss economics?

Didn't know that was the case.

Your point was that too much DU time is spent on "cultural" stuff. My point is that there's a variety of topics, and economics and politics seem to be the top issues.

Regardless, this is a discussion board where pretty much every topic is discussed, including cultural topics. But the primary discourse is around economics and politics.

[TBF]

260. No, if you'll read my initial comment I was merely remarking that religion

is a way to keep people focused on other things so they don't notice (or talk to others seriously) about economics. And I see there are quite a few on this board who will work very hard to keep it that way.

Obviously we all have issues that are important to us, but if we always get distracted by cultural topics we'll never solve the root economic problems (which is just as the rich - and "wanna be rich" - would like it).

[RaleighNCDUer]

315. If you think there is no correlation between money and religion, you

are VERY naive.

EDIT: and if you think there is no correlation between economics and POLITICS you are delusional.

Economics IS politics.

[SidDithers]

142. see post #155...

I think sledgehammer did a pretty good job of proving you wrong.

Sid

[TBF]

224. Post #155 has nothing to do with economics. n/t

[sledgehammer]

98. It's reactionary

The "nonbelievers" (so to speak) have always been looked at negatively in society, especially here in the US. In one of the worst examples, the Pledge of Allegiance was changed to add "under God" so that the US could differentiate itself from the evil, godless Soviets. Weren't the words "with Liberty and Justice for all" enough to differentiate us from them?

Most religions believe in their superiority over others (especially the non-believers), and embed that into their laws. When ethnicity does the same (e.g. Apartheid, Jim Crow laws), it's considered to be a shameful and evil activity, and rightly so. But religion often gets away with it.

In school, can you imagine a child being proud of his atheist/agnostic beliefs and culture? Maybe things have changed now (hopefully so), but for so long "believing" parents would not be comfortable with their kids getting to know the evil "unbelieving" child and his/her family.

But the biggest problem in religion is to intentionally ignore modern-day scientific evidence in favor of millennia-old dogma. There has historically been so much opposition to all sorts of scientific ideas that could help us progress. And those who support these scientific ideas have been called pretty much everything imaginable, and the religiousness of "believers" who support these ideas has been questioned. (Curiously, religious groups en masse don't seem to have much of a problem with the scientific work that leads to development of nuclear bombs and other weaponry).

So its really a reaction to being marginalized for such a long time. Shouting, name-calling, etc. is never right. But this is a discussion forum. We would never act like this with each other face-to-face, but that's the (dis?)advantage of the Internets - we get to know what other people really feel under the cloak of anonymity.

Finally, there is a lot of good that religion has brought - personal improvement, charity, solid education, family values, discipline, community support, etc. (not saying these wouldn't be there without religion, but religion has helped many, many people achieve these things). And for that, we all like to give religion a pat on the back, and it deserves it. But shouldn't we also give it a slap on the wrist when it is responsible for a lot of ill as well (do I really need to list everything?).

[Kablooie]

116. I was totally neutral about religion until they tried to control my life.

[SammyWinstonJack]

130. .

:thumbsup:

[Amaya]

144. same here

nt

[tinrobot]

117. Some people confuse "Christian" with "Republican"

The Republicans have so identified themselves with Christianity that some people here can't seem to separate the two.

There are plenty of liberal Christians out there. Don't forget Jesus preached a lot of liberal values, and those who truly follow his teachings have more in common with liberals.

[OnionPatch]

120. I'm a Christian and am just as disturbed at the zealots as you are.

I really have to laugh when I hear someone accuse me of hating Christians, when I am one myself. I've been working on my family tree and in learning the history of early immigrants to America, one can see that they came here mostly for religious freedoms. They did not go along with the dominant religious beliefs of the day in their old countries. It's amazing how quickly they forget what it's like to be a member of a minority group in their beliefs. It's disheartening to see how easily they have now slipped into the role of the persecutors who want their own religion to be the law of the land and those who don't adhere to be villianized. History will teach us nothing, I guess.

[immoderate]

121. I use the term "sky god" to refer to the sky god.

What would be a more acceptable term to reference the omnipotent, omniscient, plenipotentiary being that created all the universe, set the rules of behavior, monitors prayer, and judges the value of all beings? :shrug:

--imm

[Amaya]

133. I like this quote :

"Religion is Detrimental to the Progress of Society”- Bill Maher

That pretty much sums it up.
I'd rather debate than bash religious zealotry.

:hi:

[Festivito]

140. I'm reminded of Tom Lehrer.

There are those who do not love their fellow man, and I hate people like that.

I ask you, how zealously do you hate those with zeal?

[Strong Atheist]

195. National Brotherhood week:

<snip>

Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Muslims,
And everybody hates the Jews.

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/National-Brotherhood-Week-lyrics-Tom-Lehrer/625DBDA1F04F231148256A7D0025A2FC

[Name removed]

276. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Peacetrain]

143. I am liberal, I am religious..

[krabigirl]

145. Agree with you. I am not a believer, but don't hate the people - just what they do with religion.

[AllentownJake]

150. People are people

and some on here fail to understand that bad selfish people will do what bad people do.

We have some bad selfish people in the faith community, I'm sure if you did a statistical analysis per capita there are the same number of bad selfish people that are atheist as well.

[LanternWaste]

147. If your premise is true...

If your premise is true, I imagine I'd have a very difficult time quickly and effortlessly finding any number of posts which denigrate and debase religion, yes?

(Read: denigrate and debase, not criticize or analyze)

[MedleyMisty]

148. Reading James Fowler's book The Stages of Faith is really helping me

Here's a link.

http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/fowler.htm

For instance, I also never understood why people identified with their beliefs so much that they took criticism of those beliefs personally. I compared it to how I react when people criticize my beliefs. Like, hmm - I like the idea of democratic socialism. When someone criticizes it, I don't go all "Oh noes how can you insult and belittle me like that?!" I can get emotional and upset depending on the language and ideas used in criticizing it, but I don't take it personally and I can't imagine why I would take it personally. Random posters on a message board online aren't even really aware that I exist and certainly don't know anything about me.

Apparently some people take it personally because they're still in a cognitive/ego stage where they can't really think about their beliefs as something outside of themselves. They don't have an identity that's separate from their social group identity. And their social group identity includes beliefs - and they did not independently choose those beliefs, which is the hardest bit for me to understand. I tend to see people as responsible for their own beliefs and actions that are the result of those beliefs. In Fowler's theory, they'd be in stage 3 - which is where a lot of people stop developing and stay for their whole lives.

So I think it's a conflict between cognitive structures of identity. Those of us who locate our identity in a set of beliefs and views that we have taken responsibility for tend to not understand those who locate their identity in participating in a social group with shared and unquestioned beliefs. We see them as a threat to our freedom and autonomy and individuality, and they see us as a threat to their ego and worldview, both of which are based in their social identity.

Also, Fowler says that people in stage 3 aren't really aware of the power structure in society between different groups and they'll quite innocently say "Some of my best friends are x." and won't know how prejudiced they sound. They see society in terms of people that they interact with face to face (or keyboard to keyboard) and so don't really understand the meaning behind the graphic showing that they are a majority and have the power and that it's silly for them to say they're oppressed.

Exposure to different viewpoints is one of the major driving forces behind growing out of stage 3, and not everyone is ready to grow. I want to say that if you're not ready it's your responsibility to use the hide thread and ignore poster features to protect yourself from different viewpoints, but like I said stage three people have trouble taking responsibility.

Oh, and although I'm sure I'll get accused of being elitist and saying that some people are better than others - it's not people's fault if they're in stage 3. Hell, it's where most people have stopped and spent their lives in the last several centuries. It's what works for them in their life and it suits their external circumstances.

But things are changing. Like Fowler wrote the book back when I was a baby, and he says that most people who move to stage 4 do it when they go to college or move somewhere else or join the military - essentially, when they are exposed to views other than those of their socioeconomic group.

Most people I know my age and younger are at least stage four now and I think it's because for many Americans, you no longer have to leave home to be exposed to different views. *pets her cable modem*

I have noticed a sort of generation gap on here, and maybe that's part of it too - people who didn't grow up with the net and who spent most of their lives surrounded by people who looked like them and thought like them experience a culture shock when they get online. And Fowler says that when that happens later in life, it's more of a struggle and causes more stress than when it's in your late teens/early twenties.

I highly recommend the book - it's much better and more in-depth than internet sites that just list the basics of his idea.

[GliderGuider]

186. That's fascinating. Thank you!

I'm going through a spiritualization process in my late 50s, after spending my life as an anti-spiritual atheist. I recognize much of the progression that Fowler talks about at your link, even in my atheism. With my recent shift in worldview I seem to be recapitulating much of it in a new context, and it has proven to be the key for me to move out of being a "Stage 4 atheist" to a "Stage 5 pantheist". Perhaps I'll accept Stage 6 in another lifetime or two :-)

Thanks again, that's a fascinating perspective.

[polichick]

152. imo NOT calling out the crazies is unpatriotic - what a scam they've got going...

...pushing the idea that we should respect all religions.

[Threedifferentones]

156. It is not entirely a myth

I am a religious fundamentalist. I believe that, fundamentally, everyone religion yet invented by humans is just "blowing smoke." If I meet someone endorsing religion outside of their church or home, I do not hesitate to tell them they are a delusional, sheep like follower. It disgusts me that so many of my countrymen insist that their delusion not only be respected, but respected at the expense of sounder thought such as evolution or modern philosophy. Organized religion has no place in modern life, which is why, though it remains strong, it is far weaker than in previous centuries.

[Name removed]

182. Deleted message

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

[Threedifferentones]

283. You can point out how cruel it is for me to cut out people's emotional pillar

And I can't deny that people have used religion as a motivation for good.

But, you can't really argue the logic of my assertion: all our powers of reason and science, limited though they may be, insist that no religion yet invented has anything true to say about God.

It really is awesomely silly that entire societies are based around in a shared belief in some ridiculous He or She or Animal or whatever.

[dysfunctional press]

158. what myth?? in general, i DO hate the religious- they've fucked this planet up for far too long.

[Bluerthanblue]

360. you do realize using that kind of logic, would make hating 'men'

equally acceptable?

:shrug:

The problem I see with this whole discussion, is that 'we' are rejecting masses of people because of a group affiliation, and NOT because of individual actions.

Democracy/freedom is not inherently evil, but to look at the way it has been used by "America" as a cover to do some pretty terrible things- a case could also be made to condemn it as evil/destructive/harmful.

The priests who abused children were, when you come right down to it, individuals- The fact that the hierarchy of the church made the decision, as individual human beings, to hide, pay-off, and allow 'denial' to delude them into thinking that the problems would just 'go away' is real. But it isn't unique to 'religion' or to society. It was a bad decision, but it doesn't make everything connected to the Catholic 'faith' worthless.

We WILL come to a place where discrimination against groups of people, not the actions of individuals- is no longer acceptable- someday I believe. We aren't there yet, but we WILL get there, eventually-if we begin with ourself. imo-

peace~

[Starry Messenger]

165. So have we established that virtually no one on DU "hates the religious"?

That was the topic, I believe. Personally I believe that all or nothing statements are the cause of most human misunderstandings. :)

[GliderGuider]

189. Attachment is the root of all suffering.

It's hard enough being attached to your own beliefs, so why on earth would you attach yourself to beliefs you don't even share? After all, that's what hating others' beliefs amounts to. Is suffering really that attractive? Sorry, that was a rhetorical question...

"Don't believe everything you think." ~ Bodhisantra

[bridgit]

200. wurd!

[Uncle Joe]

227. Kicked and recommended for the word ducky.

:) :thumbsup:

[Dukkha]

228. I like spiritual people, I hate religious zealots

The aggressive proselytizing nuts who want to turn our society into a theocracy have no place in society at all.

[omega minimo]

230. That behavior though does occur here, I heard about it and now have witnessed enuff

to know that it one of the subgroups that is seen as "fair game....." by some..... and regular bigoted behavior is noticed by many regarding various subgroups.

[Joe Fields]

243. I do not practice any formal religion, but I am tolerant of all people

who quietly practice their personal religious beliefs. To me, that is a very progressive stance.

Some background: I was raised Roman Catholic, served as an altar boy for four years growing up, went to church regularly until I was sixteen. Then my father gave me the choice of attending or not. I chose the latter, for I could see through the hypocrisy, even then. But I do not foist my beliefs on anyone else, nor do I allow anyone to do the same to me.

[fascisthunter]

246. I Consider Myself an Atheist but do Not Hate all Religious People

just a few who use it to promote warped immoral agendas.

[Rebubula]

259. Truth

All religions are cults and people that follow them are just misguided. I bear no ill will towards them...unless they decide to try and inflict their silliness on me.

I have enough silliness..

[undeterred]

265. If I had a dime for every time I have alerted on a "broad brush"

condemnation of religion post here at DU I'd have $100.00, which is a lot of dimes.

[crimsonblue]

269. I am a hateful humanist atheist

religious folks are certifiably crazy for willingly ignoring all of the available evidence that suggests their beliefs are 100% false. Resurrection? Impossible. Virgin birth? Impossible, except via the most extremely rare case of parthenogenesis, in which case the offspring would be the same sex as the mother. 6000 year old Earth? Wrong, the Earth is actually closer to 4.5 billion years old. I have absolutely no respect for people that believe in fairy tales.

[Bobbie Jo]

278. I bet you're fun at a party too.

[deaniac21]

274. Most people have never heard of DU.

[New Dawn]

289. Evangelical fundamentalists hate more religious people than anyone else does.

[Lost in CT]

297. Now that is very true... I never understood the whole Catholics and Mormans are

going to hell bit like these thumpers know better than God.

[AntiFascist]

291. Word!

and too often some DUers are posting exactly the stuff that the right-wing wants to marginalize us with.

[NoodleyAppendage]

300. If people want to believe in made-up bullshit, that's fine with me.

However, when their made-up bullshit is used to guide public policy and laws, I draw the line.

J

[GliderGuider]

302. The cosmic joke is

that it's all made-up bullshit.

Even the precious scientific materialism we've been attached to since the Enlightenment is no more (or less) "real" in any personal, experiential way than a patriarchal Abrahamic god or any other human reification of "Truth".

Here's an excellent look at where our shit comes from: The Ascent of Humanity.

Don't believe anything you think. ~ Bodhisantra

[PeaceNikki]

303. We must respect the other fellow's religion,

but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
~H. L. Mencken

[seabeyond]

304. i disagree. it is no myth. i use to jump in and try to me the appeaser with the anti christian

crowd. in the day when christians on this board would actually put in an effort to talk reasonably to the anti religious crowd. religion bashing is so bad on du anymore, no christian even tries to discuss it anymore. it is just a hands up in surrender and go for it...

[BR_Parkway]

306. Considering the number of people killed because of religious differences

I'd say we manage to do a pretty decent job of discussing in on this board. Certainly, everyone's read some post here and there that probably rubbed them the wrong way - deeply religious or atheist and anywhere in between.

I don't want anyone's religious beliefs writing the laws I have to live under in this country.

And I refuse to give a pass to those who say that some of the big name preachers are really saying anything different about GLBT than the whacko's like Fred Phelps. That's one I'm going to point out time and time again

[autorank]

307. Well, my experience discussion my religion wasn't so favorable

although I agree with your general assessment.



Make yourself vulnerable around here, damn! It's harsh;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3558264

[Matariki]

320. Myth? You have got to be kidding.

The ubiquitousness on this board of mocking other's religious and spiritual beliefs is sadly very real.

It's as if Atheism and Materialism can only assert itself by the denial and derision of other people's beliefs.

[Bobbie Jo]

324. Can we officially call this thread a "Mythbuster?"

Sadly, the evidence abounds throughout.....

[spoony]

337. It's sort of like a defense lawyer

not being able to get through his closing argument about how sweet and innocent his client is, because he's being interrupted by his sweet client hurling a chair at the judge. The haters can't even shut up long enough for the OP to defend them, lol.

[Deep13]

341. Define "haters."

And see my post on religious bigotry.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x196408

[spoony]

344. See post 269.

[Deep13]

348. I see your point.

I reject that religion makes a person insane and I decline to transfer my lack of respect for religious ideas to religious people, most of whom are quite rational when it comes to matter other than religion.

[Deep13]

340. Beliefs =/= believers.

All ideas are fair game for criticism, including derisive criticism. Derision may be unpleasant, but it is a normal part of human debate. No one seems to mind when we ridicule the Republicans for their conservatism.

I like and respect many Christians and Jews and possibly a Muslim. I would have no friends if I did not. On the other hand, I have no respect for their ideas about god and it would be dishonest of my to pretend otherwise.

[Deep13]

338. I fully accept, support and believe in religious freedom, ...

...freedom from religion including the right of believers to be free from other religions and finally the strick seperation of church and state. I'm a pretty vocal nonbeliever myself and think social convention and ordinary decorum unfairly shields religious ideas from the criticism they deserve. Nevertheless, no one should be oppressed because of mere thoughts or beliefs even if I am convinced they are wrong. Likewise, I don't think ideas that others consider sacred should be used to shut me up since I am not a member of those religions. I will never support destroying churches or other types of temple, persecuting priests or believers generally or defacing religious monuments. Such desecration constitutes an injury to the faithful and a crime against history. The giant Buddas in Afghanistan that the Taliban destroyed represented a blending of Hellenistic and eastern influences that have existed there since the time of Alexander. We will never be able to get them back. Likewise, it would be tragic to lose Chartres, Boston's Old North, the Wailing Wall or the Hagia Sophia in either Muslim or Christian Orthodox incarnations.

Having said all that, I still support the effort to convince believers to give up their beliefs through reasonable dialogue, but never through coercion. This is similar to the right of believers to seek more converts. I anticipate someone asking why I would want to talk people out of their religions. The reason is that belief affects what we do in both subtle and great ways and I think people needlessly suffer because of it. Plus, I care about the factual truth.

Love thy First Amendment.

[onehandle]

345. I've been here since day one. DU bashes religions and the religious bordering on hate speech.

I'm not religious, but it is obvious to me.

[Political Heretic]

368. It's very obvious the more dispassionate about the issue you are....

...its clear as day.

[killbotfactory]

346. Let me know when 50% of the population won't vote for somebody because they believe in god.

Do you religious folks understand what it is like to be reviled by 50% of the country, and regarded as criminal, perverse, or insane, simply because you are unwilling to believe in the God described in an ancient book of dubious origin?

I don't believe in any religion and will say so freely with the anonymity provided by the internet. In real life if I exposed myself as an atheist, many
people would change their behavior towards me because it is assumed I am as evil/greedy/(insert negative characteristic here) as their religion teaches, and if I don't come off that way it is due to some sort of devilish trickery on my part.

Atheism is more openly prevalent on the internet due to lack of the threat of persecution, and it probably comes off as rude or needlessly antagonistic since discussion about it are channeled onto anonymous avenues due to societal pressure, and people feel free to openly criticize something that is generally off-limits in every day life due to the elevated and protected nature religion holds in our society.

[redqueen]

357. Careful, now... you may take all the fun out of the demagoguery. (nt)

[conscious evolution]

350. I only hate the religously insane

The ones that protect pedophiles.
The ones that blow up medical clinics and kill medical personnel.
The ones that strap on bombs and detonate them in cafes and on buses.
The ones that ones that force people into ghettos because someone did it to them once.
The ones that try to force me to live by their dogma.
The ones that use mental manipulations and other mindfucks on their followers.

Do any of the above and you will find yourself on my buddy list.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

354. Pointing out legitimate fallacies in religion is not "hate" or "oppression."

I wish every person whining about being "Christian-bashing" would realize this. Religion, by its very nature, is illogical, and proudly so, and pointing out the fact that it is illogical should neither surprise nor stun any believer.

What can possibly be logical about rising from the dead, changing bread into the body of Christ, reincarnation, casting magick spells, or any other thing? I don't use illogical in a pejorative sense, either; I use it as a textbook definition and a statement of neutral fact: religion is illogical.

[Political Heretic]

356. It's not a myth. And anti-religious evangelical fundamentalists are as bad as the religious variety

Interestingly, I don't have a particular horse in this race, seeing as how I broke with organized xianity after seeing its contradictions and inconsistencies (as well as becoming an institutional critic of its coercive exploitation of followers)

And while this is true, the idea that someone can pretend that DU doesn't have enough openly hostile, aggressively anti-religion (which has nothing to do with informed critique or discussion of religion) members soas to make it an unwelcoming, unfriendly place for persons of faith is simply absurd.

Part of the reason this bothers me is the opposite reason it might bother some liberal persons of faith who want to feel welcomed at DU because of their common political views but endure a lot of hateful bigoted bullshit about their private choice to believe in something. The reason this bothers me is because I left the church precisely to get away from knee-jerk absolutism.

I can't stand it when people start implying that all people who hold any sort of belief are ignorant or stupid, or that all expressions of religion are destructive, or "all" this or "all" that. I hate atheist evangelism as much as I hate religious evangelism - both make me want to throw up.

Very much like some of the excuses racists and homophobes make to justify their own idiocy, I get sick to death of hearing other non-believers using the excuse "I'm attacking the religion, not the person" to justify the most vile of all-or-nothing knee jerk claims that are so obviously both inflammatory and personal.

Anti-religious bigotry is "safe" and acceptable here, so its an outlet for people who can't express their exclusionary need to build up an "other" and then hate on it any other way.

Having said all of this, there are what seem to be a minority of irreligious DU members who manage to talk about religion and their objections to faith in healthy, adult ways - that take all the childish petulance and insulting insinuation out of it. I love listening to them.

But that's rare.