Former right-wing leader warns of religious right violence: ‘Anyone can be killed’

[MiaCulpa]

Source: Raw Story

Frank Schaeffer is an outspoken critic of the politicized Christian evangelical right. He sees the “End Times” movement as anti-Semitic. He fears that a right-wing terrorist might assassinate the President of the United States.

None of these talking points would be novel on the left, but Schaeffer is hardly a bleeding heart liberal. His father, Dr. Francis Schaeffer, is considered to be the godfather of the modern religious right movement. Schaeffer himself took up the family mission and became a prominent speaker and writer, promoting many of the sentiments that have given rise to the politically active, extremely well organized and zealous movement of today. He left the religious right in the 1980s, and was a Republican until 2000.

In an interview with Raw Story, Schaeffer -- who has a new book coming out this month called Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion (or Atheism) -- discussed his concerns about the radicalization of the Christian right and the increasingly violent rhetoric he foresees turning into actual violence.

"Since President Obama took office I've felt like the lonely -- maybe crazy -- proverbial canary in the coal mine," Schaeffer said. "As a former right wing leader, who many years ago came to my senses and began to try to undo the harm the movement of religious extremism I helped build has done, I've been telling the media that we're facing a dangerous time in our history. A fringe element of the far right Republican Party seems it believes it has a license to incite threatening behavior in the name of God."

Read more: ’http://rawstory.com/2009/10/former-right-wing-leader-warns-of-religious-right-violence-anyone-can-be-killed/

---

Full story at the link. :)

-Diane Sweet

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. I hope he is staying careful - because if there is anyone a zealot hates

more than a heretic, it's an apostate.

[druidity33]

7. SO true. K&R. nt.

[Zoeisright]

42. You've got that right.

Mr. Schaeffer exposes all of the religious right wing nuts' fears about their 'faith', and they just can't handle that.

[Lenomsky]

45. True

but what I find facinating is the possible extremes .. wow .. Land of the Free (no disrespect)

[old mark]

2. Rec. Rapists, murderers, hate mongers - Typical christians if you read history. NT

[proteus_lives]

3. Typical humans.

:eyes:

I think you're aware that most religious people have never killed or raped anyone.

[Deep13]

6. I don't think people act like that without a belief ....

...that god or some other dogmatic authority is requiring it. The typical human behavior is the tendency to accept that kind of thinking, especially if it is being offered without opposition.

While most religious people have never raped or murdered anyone, many, many of them have been complicit. At the very least, they have not stopped it. Every time one drops a dollar into a (for example) Roman Catholic collection plate, one is supporting an institution that rapes children, encourages overpopulation (and therefore starvation) and facilitates the spread of AIDS. And while the R.C. Church is the most visible example, it is by no means unique. So while most conservative Christians may not be committing acts of violence, they support a belief system that actively encourages it. The murder of Dr. Tiller is just one recent example. With protesters, clergy and commentators constantly denouncing abortion as murder and a sin, it is surprising that more people have not believed them and did what is logically necessary given that premise.

Belief determines how people act. Would the college-educated, middle class, suicide terrorists of Sept. 11 have done what they did if Islam and the millions of people supporting that belief system had not convinced them it was the right thing to do? And that's not even an especially extreme example. What about Nazis exploitation of German Christians' religious prejudice against Jews. What about the soldiers of Japan who believed they were following the orders of their god and emperor? What about all the evangelicals who voted for Bush who gave us two wars, a national security disaster, abandoned a U.S. city and caused this recession? People can commit evil without these beliefs of course, but they usually don't.

[Polly Hennessey]

15. Deep 13

I agree and you put it well.

[ooglymoogly]

16. The "Beliefe" comes from guilt so grave they cannot live with themselves

Hence "born again" They must have someone to forgive them for the horror they create in everyone's lives around them; So they invent a god in their own image. These are fucked up folks and I have known a few in my lifetime and they are dangerous. There is nothing more dangerous than evil cloaking itself in righteousness.

[paulsby]

17. what complete crap

believe what the evidence shows you.

lack of belief in god did not stop pol pot, or stalin, or any other mass murderer who happened to be atheist.

the 20th century is full of multiple millions of people dead at the behest of zealots who believed in no religion.

the reality is that such behavior is a HUMAN phenomonon, not a religious one. religion offers the homicidal an excuse, but look at regimes and mass murderers like stalin, pol pot, mao et al and you're theory dissolves.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

20. The ol' Pol Pot was an Atheist defense

The last time I heard that was from Bill O'Reilly so you are in good company. The genocides of Atheists doesnt nullify centuries of wholesale slaughter in the name of religion, no matter how bad you want it to.

[paulsby]

23. wow. the guilt by association canard

how original.

the facts are that the 20th century was the first century where officially atheist regimes came into significant power (prior to this, nearly every other regime in history was not officially atheist), and it was the first century where we saw so many significant mass murders happen at the hand of atheists. not a coincidence.

history proves that atheists can be just as rapacious and murderous as theirst.

you can keep your prejudices, or you can look at facts.

it is no surprise that religiously motivated violence is extant throughout history. religiously motivated people existed in the vast majority.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

28. I guess you didn't understand me

I am not arguing that atheist meglomaniacs are any less murderous than religious ones that was your assumption. The original thread I responded to was saying that "religious people have never been rapists or murderers". Which on it's face is laughable. Your assumptions that I am prejudiced against religion is really only outing your agenda to defend it.

The "Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists and they killed a lot of people" defense of religious mass murder, doesn't nullify centuries of wholesale mass murder by those religious authorities who thought they knew and were doing God's will. You claim they were religiously motivated to do so. Please show me in your Bible where Jesus taught those things. As far as I know there is no Atheist Bible that Pol Pot and Stalin were reading and taking their marching orders from. Many Christians make the mistake in presupposing that Atheism is a religion, which is where your Pol Pot was an atheist killing in the name of no god, fails.

[Deep13]

87. The only truly atheistic regime was the USSR (and it's satellites)...

...and they committed autrocities because they were a totalitarian state, not because they were atheistic.

Simply stating a fact--Stalin presided over an officially atheistic state and was a monster--by itself proves nothing. He did not do it because of atheism. Likewise, the people didn't obey him because if it. Rather atheism and autrocites resulted from a common dogma--that of Lenin-style communism. And people did believe in that. Also, you cannot forget that Leninist regimes existed in large part because of an anti-clerical reaction to oppressive ecclesistical regimes and because those overthrown regimes had conditioned their people to obey without question.

And anyway, do you really want to rely on this argument? It essentially says that religion is no worse than Stalin. That's a hell of a benchmark! I submit, however, that Soviet Communism is better than religion in one respect: it died.

The upshot of all of this is that no significant group of people have ever committed autrocities because of atheism. It Stalin example is a strawman argument, a lie and an effort to change the subject. Even if true, religious dogma still sucks, is still anti-modern and oppressive and still threatens our existence. And it still does nothing to change the fact that there is no god.

[donquijoterocket]

92. coincidence

If it's not a coincidence that's likely because it was the first century where there as not a major ecclesiastical power center. Regardless in none of the regimes so often cited as "atheist" was any genocide committed in the name of atheism as opposed to incidents such as the suppression of the Albigensian heresy, the inquisition, or to a lesser degree the Salem trials. At the risk of invoking the Godwin sanction even Hitler in his genocidal campaign against the Jews could rationalize it to himself as acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

[TheWraith]

26. Paulsby has a good point. The only thing that's universally common among mass murderers...

...is that they all killed a lot of people. Nothing more than that can be said to be universal.

You're not wrong that religion has endorsed and justified a huge number of atrocities in human history, but it's hardly got sole responsibility, nor is it even a prerequisite. Equating all religion with slaughter is like saying that everybody who smokes a joint is something out of "Reefer madness," everybody who owns a gun is Charles Whitman, and everybody who's anti-corporate is Stalin.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

29. When did I say any of what you just said?

It's too bad you have to misrepresent me the way you do. For one I never equated all religion with slaughter, please show me where I did that. I have no idea if you are religious or not but it is usually common for those of religious virtue to claim that an atheist is attacking their religion, their own personal beliefs or any other number of horrible things.

I stated facts based on an inane comment from an above thread. The fact is that more people have been killed and raped in the name of religion than anything else in the history of the world. That is all I said.

[JHB]

44. Actually, there IS something in common with those cases...

You had: 1) a belief system that claimed that the normal rules of civilized behavior didn't apply to those people (for various reasons); and
2) a group that didn't hesitate to exploit that belief fully in order to gain power.

Whether the belief system is basically religious or atheistic is irrelevant. It's cold-bloodedly rational action proceeding from an irrational premise.

[Beartracks]

40. The reverse is also true.

Centuries of genocide perpetrated by religious nations don't nullify wholesale slaughters in the name of NO religion, either.

More genocides have been perpetrated by religious authority than any other simply because, as another poster notes, there have historically been far more "officially" religious nations and regimes than non-religious ones. Factor that in with the fact that humans are violent beings, and statistics will show a greater percentage of "religious" violence than non-religious violence.

We've all heard the ol' canard that religion has been responsible more violence in history than anything else, and it's usually trotted out like it means something in and of itself. It doesn't. While religious belief is inextricably associated with many of the world's worst conflicts and holocausts, religion is simply a handy -- very handy -- way for megolomanicas and other ruthless types to manipulate people and convince them of all sorts of things about "the others." Obviously, from the ol' Pol Pot and Stalin examples, religion is not required. I can only hope that humanity grows and evolves out of its barbarism long before we also have centuries of wholesale slaughter perpetrated by non-religious nations to point to as yet more examples of humanity's failings.

[Quasimodem]

43. The sub-title of Schaeffer's book is "Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion (or Atheism)"

Pointing out that atheism is just as much a belief held through faith as any major religion.

Since neither the existence or the lack of existence of God can be proven, the only religious 'conviction' that does not require faith is the position held by the agnostic.

[audas]

48. The fact that we breath oxygen is not a belief -

If someone told me that they believed we breath tomato sauce I would not then be forced to concede it is merely a belief that I breath oxygen. Religion is the one who created the fantastic notion of supernatural beings, to represent the notion that dismissing these outlandish claims is a BELIEF is dishonest in the extreme.

Atheism is not a belief it is a denial of stupidity.

[defendandprotect]

60. "Atheism is not a belief it is a denial of stupidity" ....

LOVE IT!!!

Thank you!!!

:) :) :)

[Le Taz Hot]

76. LOL!

"Atheism is not a belief it is a denial of stupidity. " :applause:

I'm SO going to steal that! And, btw, welcome to DU. :hi:

[Quasimodem]

97. Oxygen can be scientifically demonstrated as present in the air you breathe.

There are test you can repeat, and others can repeat, and each test will yield the same result. Since tomato sauce is undetectable in the air through scientific methods, by any observer, it is safe to discard that tomato sauce theory.

Proving the nonexistence of God is just as problematic as proving the existence of God.

The only 'truth' not grounded in the observer's belief system, since neither contention can be proved, is "Insufficient data, no conclusion."

Which is what the agnostic believes.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

50. My atheism and many others

is not the belief that there is no god but in the belief that I can prove nothing so I choose not to. Agnostics have faith that there is some greater power in the universe responsible for all of this. To me that is a sort of faith. So I would argue that my kind of atheism has nothing to do with faith at all.

[LiberalLovinLug]

94. Agnostics

I have always considered myself an agnostic, after a childhood of fundy bible-thumping. But lately its moved even further to a atheistic leaning agnosticism if there is such a thing. Anyways I agree with your other points up further in the thread, but I don't believe that being Agnostic means that we "have faith that there is some greater power in the universe responsible for all of this". As an Agnostic, its more like I don't have a clue if there is another greater power responsible, and until I have proof of this I cannot accept it, BUT I won't close that door completely as an Atheist does, because there is just simply so much wonder I find every day, not to mention the old "where did we come from" has not been answered adequately, or more precisely, "what existed before we did, and how did THAT get there".

[Deep13]

74. Stalinism is a socio-economic theory that is equally valid as all others.

Not all Stalinists support gulags or political purges or oppressive policies. The ones that do are ignoring the true message of Stalinism which is tolerance and liberalism. You can't just attack people for their Stalinist beliefs. That's like attacking someone on the basis of race or gender or orientation. How can you ignore all the good Stalinism has accomplished? The Red Army was primarily responsible for stopping the Nazis.

See how stupid that sounds?

Saying something people do is a human phenomonom says absolutely nothing. Everything people do including religion and other dogmas can be called human phenomona. It is a meaningless expression.

Anyway, the whole 20th century dictators thing is a straw man argument. Present day atheists do not tithe to Stalinist causes and we do not insist on tolerance for those with anti-democratic political ideas. Anyway, any belief system that dogmatically insists on belief in itself is not atheistic even if one of its components is non-belief in god. I will point out that totalitarian dictatorships tend to last only for the life of the dictator. With the USSR they dragged it out a little longer. The Maoist states have pretty much abandoned their Maoism and were never really atheistic anyway since they rely on the mandate of heaven as much as any previous dynasty did. Without the promise of eternal reward, the threat of eternal punishment and the moral imperative that comes with divine command, non-religious totalitarian states tend not to endure. In fact, the nominally atheistic societies you mention are all clumped in the previous century. I'm not aware of any other examples of anti-religious dogmatism in any society previously or since.

Had the people of China and Russia not been oppressed by theocracy or ecclesiastically supported despotism, would their populations have accepted the dogma of Stalin or Mao? These were not societies that suffered from an excess of rationality. No critics of religion today that I know of advocates Stalinism or any other secular dogma. Unlike religion, those of us who might have favored something like that in the past have learned from our mistakes.

On the other hand, mostly atheisitic societies like Sweden, France and Belgium have low crime rates, high literacy, long life expectancies, low infant mortality and high standards of living. The pious red states here also have the most per capita crime, domestic violence, divorce, teen pregnancy and abortion to say nothing of their backward laws. Of the five most dangerous cities in America, three are in Texas.

[backtomn]

81. Nonsense

MOST DANGEROUS 25: NONE FROM TEXAS

1 St. Louis, MO

2 Detroit, MI

3 Flint, MI

4 Compton, CA

5 Camden, NJ

6 Birmingham, AL

7 Cleveland, OH

8 Oakland, CA

9 Youngstown, OH

10 Gary, IN

1 Richmond, CA

12 Baltimore, MD

13 Memphis, TN

14 Trenton, NJ

15 Richmond, VA

16 Kansas City, MO

17 Atlanta, GA

18 Cincinnati, OH

19 Washington, DC

20 North Charleston, SC

21 Reading, PA

22 Newark, NJ

23 Little Rock, AR

24 San Bernardino, CA

25 Orlando, FL

By the way.....Stalin organized purges and murders......and millions died. The Red Army stopped the Nazis, but not for the world, but for themselves. Are you kidding?? Are you insane?? (I suspect "yes") PLEASE don't go there. You are not helping us. I defend your right to be an atheist, but not an idiot.

[Deep13]

84. Well no shit.

I made it clear in my post I was being ironic. There's nothing to defend about Stalin and no one is defending him. Jesus Christ! Did you even read it? I will emphasize that Stalin used atheism as part of communist dogma. We don't really know his private thoughts, though I would be pretty surprised if he alone among dictators did not believe in his own destiny. Plus I doubt the rank and file ever really bought into the Stalinist myth, though many probably did.

BTW, it doesn't matter why the Red Army stopped Hitler. They still did. Self interest can sometimes have positive results. I suspect a noncommunist Russian army would have done the same.

I'll double check on the cities. It might have changed and it might be we are using different definitions of "dangerous" or "city." For example, I suspect Cleveland would fare better if one included the whole metropolitan area and not just what is legally defined as City of Cleveland. Or maybe it would do worse. I'll have to check. What is your source? FBI?

[BolivarianHero]

82. What about the Muslim Hexagon?

The six Muslim-majority countries where women enjoy the most rights, that have the highest literacy rates, and that have the best and most accessible education systems were all formerly part of the USSR.

Muslim countries that have embraced capitalism and theocracy have not done anywhere near as well.

[Deep13]

85. Huh. I wasn't aware of that.

Again, I'm not defending Stalinism. I'm using it as an example to refute the whole all-beliefs are-equally-valid claim.

[RaleighNCDUer]

79. Hate to break it to you, but neither Pol Pot nor Stalin killed millions.

Stalin may have killed a dozen or so - he was an enforcer, and that is where he got his 'man of iron' name.

The millions were killed by tens of thousands of people who FOLLOWED Stalin and Pol Pot AS RELIGIOUS FIGURES. They may have been atheists, but they were cult figures who were worshiped by their followers.

It was not communism (or atheism) that killed millions in Soviet Russia - it was the cult of Stalinism. I think it is just further evidence that 'god' is a fiction created by authoritarians - they make the most effective use of the concept.

[Beartracks]

37. Wrong spot. Self-deleted.

[Beartracks]

38. The Catholic Church does not rape children.

People rape children. The Church, for its part, actively sought to avoid scandal by hiding the facts that some priests had deviant sexual tendencies, and tried to "handle" it all internally, often at local levels, thereby prolonging the problem and causing more people to be victimized. But the institution itself does not condone, encourage, sanction, or require such behavior, so I certainly hope that's not what you meant. Faulty people making faulty decisions cause such calamity, and that, as you know, is not the purview of any one religion, political party, or culture.

Anyhow, as for the other matters you mentioned, yes the Catholic Church does facilitate over-population (if not directly encouraging it) and the spread of AIDS by shunning many contraceptive devices, including condoms.

[defendandprotect]

61. Pope 'led cover-up of child abuse by priests'

AND, JUST WANT TO ADD THAT THERE IS AN INVESTIGATION GOING FORWARD NOW INTO WHETHER
THE RCC USED MONEY FROM AMERICAN TAXPAYERS VIA 'FAITH BASED' RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION
SUPPORT ...... TO PAY LAWSUITS BROUGHT AGAINST THE CHURCH BY VICTIMS OF PRIEST PEDOPHILES!!!
*******************************************************************************************


save church at all costs....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=407808&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

"What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen.


I'm not able at the moment to connect to this link but will look for another way to recapture
the info --

The document . . .

The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs...men_english.pdf





JUST SO THIS DOESN'T GET LOST . . .
FROM FIRST LINK . . .

Pope 'led cover-up of child abuse by priests'
by EWAN FLETCHER

Last updated at 22:00 30 September 2006


Comments (4)
Add to My Stories

Top: Tom Doyle and, bottom, Pope Benedict

The Pope played a leading role in a systematic cover-up of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests, according to a shocking documentary to be screened by the BBC tonight.

In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety.

The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.

The Panorama special, Sex Crimes And The Vatican, investigates the details of this little-known document for the first time. The programme also accuses the Catholic Church of knowingly harbouring paedophile clergymen. It reveals that priests accused of child abuse are generally not struck off or arrested but simply moved to another parish, often to reoffend. It gives examples of hush funds being used to silence the victims.

Before being elected as Pope Benedict XVI in April last year, the pontiff was Cardinal Thomas Ratzinger who had, for 24 years, been the head of the powerful Congregation of the Doctrine of The Faith, the department of the Roman Catholic Church charged with promoting Catholic teachings on morals and matters of faith. An arch-Conservative, he was regarded as the 'enforcer' of Pope John Paul II in cracking down on liberal challenges to traditional Catholic teachings.

Five years ago he sent out an updated version of the notorious 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis - Latin for The Crime of Solicitation - which laid down the Vatican's strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal. It was regarded as

so secret that it came with instructions that bishops had to keep it locked in a safe at all times.

Cardinal Ratzinger reinforced the strict cover-up policy by introducing a new principle: that the Vatican must have what it calls Exclusive Competence.

In other words, he commanded that all child abuse allegations should be dealt with direct by Rome.

Patrick Wall, a former Vatican-approved enforcer of the Crimen Sollicitationis in America, tells the programme: "I found out I wasn't working for a holy institution, but an institution that was wholly concentrated on protecting itself."

And Father Tom Doyle, a Vatican lawyer until he was sacked for criticising the church's handling of child abuse claims, says: "What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen.

"When abusive priests are discovered, the response has been not to investigate and prosecute but to move them from one place to another. So there's total disregard for the victims and for the fact that you are going to have a whole new crop of victims in the next place. This is happening all over the world."

The investigation could not come at a worse time for Pope Benedict, who is desperately trying to mend the Church's relations with the Muslim world after a speech in which he quoted a 14th Century Byzantine emperor who said that Islam was spread by holy war and had brought only evil to the world.

The Panorama programme is presented by Colm O'Gorman, who was raped by a priest when he was 14. He said: "What gets me is that it's the same story every time and every place. Bishops appoint priests who they know have abused children in the past to new parishes and new communities and more abuse happens."

Last night Eileen Shearer, director of the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults said: "The Catholic Church in England and Wales (has) established a single set of national policies and procedures for child protection work. We are making excellent progress in protecting children and preventing abuse."

[old mark]

67. People using the church for cover, security and escape from prosecution.

Read about the recent "revelation" in Ireland, don't be so blind to the reality of the catholic church...real estate, untaxed wealth, political influence, and hiding decades of child abuse.
But, hey, they used to hide Nazis, so maybe it's improving.

I was born catholic, and I have had many years of study of the church's REAL "works".


mark

[Deep13]

75. Pederasty is actively supported by the Church...

...through its facilitation and interference with justice. That happened at least into the 1990s in the USA where people may make such allegations and DAs are legally allowed to prosecute the offenders. What happened in times and places where such legal remedies were not available? This is a practice that has in all likelihood has been going on with impunity for centuries.

[caseymoz]

57. That is a gross oversimplification.

What about the Catholic system of hospitals that has saved hundreds of thousands of children? What about nuns who live in poverty to teach children to read and write? What about the requirement in Islam that ten percent of a person's income be given to charity?

It is the hardest thing to de-construct the social behavior of the human mind. The fact is, of all human behaviors that need to be studied most at all levels, humankind's formation and use of religions.

I will make a point: in pagan religions, if a city-state were going to go to war, they would start sacrificing and praying to the war god-- who was, inevitably, a total asshole. If there were a need for fertility, they, mostly including the women, would sacrifice to the fertility goddess, who had the personality of a porn-star-- in character.

If a culture were lacking those and needed one, well, somebody would either have a vision or they would import the appropriate deity from surrounding regions. There would have not been a way to stop this.

Of course, that became different when monotheism became dominant. The religious framework had more permanency, but it was also quite rigid. One God was there to perform all of those psychological and unifying functions. The problem from the theological standpoint, He could not fulfill some of them perfectly. So, the god of peace has to also be the god of war.

With the 9/11 suicide terrorist, there was something else going on besides Islam. Mohammed Atta drank multiple shots of Scotch before committing murder and suicide. I cannot see a true-believing Muslim going before Allah with alcohol on his breath. No, you're talking Islam-influenced anarchists.

[Deep13]

77. Of course it's simplified. It's an internet post.

By the way, I don't count as charity giving to ones own church or mosque. Why should anyone live in poverty? Frankly, I would rather have professionals teaching children, not those who think their suffering is a virtue. Jesus, what about all the child abuse at the hands of nun teachers?

I dispute that monotheism is different in any appreciable way than polytheism. I also dispute that Christianity is monotheistic since in its most simple forms it has at least three gods. At its most elaborate it has hundreds of lesser deities. And I would like to know how exactly Yahweh is the god of peace.

How do you know the 9/11 terrorists were drinking Scotch? Anyway, as you know, anything can be justified if it further's god's purposes. If those men had no trouble flying airplanes into buildings, a stiff drink is really small potatoes. Your argument is an example of the "no true Scotsman fallacy."

[caseymoz]

96. I'm not talking about as a charity being giving to one's own mosque or church.

Now, just so you know, I'm an unbeliever, though I am not quite an atheist anymore, and I once had exactly your approach. However, you make no head way with believers by being unfair to them. I try to understand why they believe. The reason why most believers believe probably is not because a priest buggered a child, or because of the crusades or witch burnings, or because Christianity is not really monotheist. Doesn't that make sense to you? They believe, not because, but despite all that. Now, maybe you're not interested in making any head way with them, but by repeating and making these complaints, you are not weakening religion at all. At best, you're spinning your wheels.

I would rather have professionals teaching children as well, but given how badly teachers are regarded and treated, it's understandable that there are shortages, that there have always been shortages, and slack has been picked up by people who were willing to sacrifice having a family or having any material goods to do it. I have met nuns who were qualified as professional, with master's degrees.

It's hard to phantom suffering being a virtue, unless you consider situations where somebody sacrifices their life or their health to save somebody else, or to advance somebody else, especially you yourself. The firemen from 9/11 dying of cancer are not going to be remembered for being dumb for working at Ground Zero. My mother tells me stories of what the priests and nuns did to support people, to keep people from dying during the Great Depression, that they worked themselves to exhaustion, with a bare minimum to eat, day after day. She is no longer Catholic because she disagrees with the dogma, so she has no reason to praise these people if they did not deserve it.

Before I go any further, I will note that Catholic Charities is also one of the best there is.

Now, just to say, it is not the experience I have had with the Catholic clergy in my childhood and adolescence. No, I did not see any of that. Maybe it changed to the negative since then, had a worse breed of people as times got better, or I wasn't looking in the right place. My experience with the church and my mother's are quite different.
Do you think the Catholic church would have survived the current sexual abuse scandals if its people did not carry such good family lore about the nuns and clergy otherwise? Probably you'd dispute that. I assure you, though, they do not see themselves as sheep, and sheep will not punch you in the eye when you insult their religion.

On whether the Christian Churches are monotheistic: that is definitional. Islam and Judaism both have great problems with Christianity's claim of being monotheists. The Trinity Doctrine is one of the most questionable beliefs in Christianity. So is the Communion and intercession of the Saints and Jesus' Mother. Take it or leave it, but the point I was making stands. It fulfills everything a pagan cult would have fulfilled, and likely, with crimes and violence that are equal.

You have a perfect right to dispute that Yahweh is a God of Peace, but you miss the mark: it is Jesus who is purported to be the "Prince of Peace," (even if his saying, "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" would apparently contradict that.) And in the scriptures, he lives up to that. Yahweh appears to have started out as a war god from the Canaanite pantheon, and if the earliest dig that bears a name like his is any hint, (in the ancient city of Ugarit) his original name was probably Yaw-El. As a war god, his personality was not that different from the later personality of his late brother Ba'el (Baal). Other Gods became wrapped into his persona throughout the early scriptures, as his cult became dominant and edited those books for such, until, wouldn't you know, he was actually every God in the Elohim pantheon.

So, with that mess of personalities contained within an insane war god's belligerence, he needed a "Prince of Peace" to make him sound somewhat sane. If you refer to your argument about monotheism to protest this, at least acknowledge that Yahweh and Jesus were different characters.

You might rank a stiff drink as vanishingly minor especially after he committed mass murder, and I do too. But if Mohammed Atta's motivation was to sacrifice himself to be heaven attended by 71 (?) renewable virgins, he would have blown it as far as Allah was concerned, as Allah's edict against alcohol is unforgiving. Allah is not really a loving god, he's a god who demands obedience. Please try to get that point. Atta did not do it out of fundamentalist religion. He wasn't like Hamas and its martyrs. He and his people were more like post-industrial anarchists.

I got this story on NPR in 2002, on Fresh Air. Actually, my memory did not serve me. He was drinking Vodka. The reporter being interviewed used Atta's drinking as one example to demonstrate how un-religious 9/11 really was. If you want to look for a motivation, maybe it is because they did not see their countries' governments as being representative of their people, nor as being independent of the US. If religion was used by Atta and the rest, I contend that it was used to manipulate those who were more religious. In lieu of finding that interview in the archives, I think this link leaves no doubt:

http://stevegardner.wordpress.com/2007/05/01/mohamed-attas-final-days/

[spiritual_gunfighter]

19. I guess you are unfamiliar

with the Reformation, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch trials, the genocide of the native Americans all done in the name of Christ and too many
more to mention here. Shall I list the murders and rapes in the name of Islam or are you familiar with those? More people have been raped and murdered in the name of religion than anything else in the history of the world. Your statement is laughable.

[paulsby]

24. except you ignore facts

throughout history, the VAST majority of people have been motivated by religion, too.

therefore, since murderous behavior is a HUMAN thing, considering the vast majority of humans WERE religious, it is expected that it would be used as a motivation.

of course the reality is the VAST majority of religious people committed no murders, but when regimes where officially theist and nearly all people were theist, it would be weird if it WASN't the case that religion was so prominent.

come the 20th century, we saw the rise of atheist regimes (the USSR, Communist China, etc.) and guess what? being atheists did not stop them from murdering SCORES of millions of people.

so, if you look at the facts, the facts are clear. it's not a religion thang. it's a human thang.

[proteus_lives]

25. And your name is laughable.

I don't deny that those things happened. Just like I don't deny that people are slaughtered and raped for a lot of other reasons. But I stick with my statement that that you blame the whole for actions of the individuals and sub-groups.

I just have a problem with broad-brush stereotypes.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

30. You make no sense

Facts are not stereotypes, they are facts and I stated a fact. More people have been raped and killed in the name of religion than anything else in the history of the world. If you have a hard time with a fact I cant help you.

[proteus_lives]

33. And you've obviously embraced your bigotry and don't want to let go.

Those events are facts. And another fact is that all Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Pagans, etc are not responsible for the actions of individuals or sub-groups that might share a variation of their faiths.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

49. When did I say that?

All I did was state a fact. You read into it what you wanted to. A Christian HP Lovecraft fan, really?

[defendandprotect]

63. No one is talking about members . .. we're talking Church hierarchy . . .

You want us to be grateful that ALL Catholics aren't murderers -- I agree!!!

But that still didn't prevent the CRUSADES - the Witch Hunts/Hammer of Witches -

Papal Bulls calling for enslavement or murder of Native American and Africans enslaved

here!

Nor the Jewish Holocaust in Germany --

Nor RCC's teaching of anti-Jewish intolerance for a thousand a more years which certainly

paved the way for the Jewish Holocaust --

And the "Protestant" Luther was viciously anti-Semitic as he had learned in the RCC ...

Hated for women, hatred for Jews, hatred for homosexuals, hatred for Africans --

the preaching of intolerance has influenced many.

How many right-wing nuts have been without Christian education?

Or Islamic education? Or Protestant education?

[Ten Bears]

68. It only takes one

[Duke Newcombe]

27. I recommend Kelly-Moore, personally...

It suits the broad brush you're using.

[old mark]

34. I think I will make it a winter project to compile as many of the horrors done by

christian religious groups throughout history. Might be interesting reading.

mark

[JanusAscending]

39. Good idea!

I would do it myself if I were in better health! I already have a title for you. You have my permission to use it. Call it "In My Name". I hope you see this through. I am a Liberal Christian, and I am appalled by the behavior of so many so called Christians. Some of them my own children!

[zbdent]

4. It won't be a Right-Wing Terrorist, at least not to the "liberal media" ... it will be

a "lone wolf" ...

but, of course, two ACORN people are direct ties to Barack Obama ... :eyes:

[Enthusiast]

14. Yup. nt

[Soylent Brice]

5. neocon jihad in the making. everyone sees it, no one says a word.

sorry, correction, Napolitano did and was nearly crucified for it.

but yeah, republican-neocon-fundie jihad.

they're just itchin' for it. weird little fuckers.

[cliffordu]

10. Fabulous. The pushback will be breathtaking.

and hideous.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

8. Learn something new every day - they say

http://michiganmessenger.com/8055/walberg-supporters-hatch-great-idea-obama-assassination

Interesting link by Diane Sweet.

[TicketyBoo]

52. This sentiment

was publicly voiced by a clerk at WalMart here in town.

As a matter of fact, the clerk said it would be a great day for America the day that Obama is shot. He actually referenced lynching. "Hung would be better."

My husband overheard this conversation between the clerk and another customer.

I wrote about this to Senator Nelson, just to emphasize how bad things are here.

I just hold my breath all the time, hoping the Secret Service is up to the task, but fearing that they are not. With hate this strong, it would seem to be an almost an impossible job.

[la_chupa]

88. what were you doing in Wal-Mart

that was your first mistake

[TicketyBoo]

98. My husband overheard the remark.

I wasn't in Wal-Mart at the time, but I do like Wal-Mart. I know their terrible record as far as employees are concerned and I won't buy meat there because of what they did to their butchers, but as far as other goods, we don't have a K-Mart or Target store here. The closest ones are 100 miles away. Wal-Mart is pretty much it.

[cactusfractal]

9. GOP = Party of God...

Funny how they refer to the GOP that way, and utterly without snark or irony. They really believe Republicans are favored by God.

Know how ya say "party of God" in Arabic?

Hezbollah.

Pretty fuqt up all round, if ya ask me.

[JNelson6563]

11. Oh, that's great to know!

I'll be sure to share that information. :-)

Julie

[L0oniX]

12. GOP = Hezbollah ...that figures.

[IndianaGreen]

13. Hizbollah is very moderate when compared to Al Qaeda and the Taleban

The GOP is more of a mix between Mussolini's black shirts and the Taleban.

[chrisa]

18. These cowards are too stuffed with cheetos to do anything meaningful.

They'll do a few things at most, and then fade into oblivion like with Clinton.

And I have to laugh at people who think these slobs would have any real power. They'll all trailer-trash goons with nothing better to do than post GI Joe fantasies online. All talk by the 101st chairborne division.

[BrklynLiberal]

21. He is someone to whom everyone should pay attention......

[Quantess]

32. Yes. And fortunately he's a very good speaker.

Rachel Maddow has had him on her show a couple of times, and his interviews are always worth watching.

[BrklynLiberal]

41. Absolutely. He does not mince words...and she was smart enough not to interfere...

[Ozymanithrax]

22. There is nothing, nothing new about people murdering in the name of God...

Nice of him to wake up, though.

[AlienGirl]

31. "...the combination of lies, myth and hate into a unique blend."

:scared:

[Fight the Right]

35. What everyone's response should be

to these violent "Christians" is:

You'll harm my President OVER MY DEAD BODY

[Flying Dream Blues]

80. Welcome to DU, and I feel the same way. nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

36. Or they'll vote.

:rofl:

[robo50]

46. I think some idiot with a gun, or a rifle, or an automatic will probably

kill 30 04 50 Americans, maybe even our President, his wife or one or both of his kids,

This will be acceptable to so many Americans, all of which who accept this as "inevitable" and haven't done a darn thing to stop it, including me and all the others posting here in hatred of those idiots with guns, or in support of all those with guns,

Let's make sure we all volunteer to spend a life in jail, for failing to take these nuts off the streets.

If Obama and his family are spared, and only "innocent civilians" are killed when some nut shoots off his wad, well, I suppose we all deserve the right to live in the USA, just because the President himself wasn't killed, and we did nothing to make these gun loving nuts less capable.....who cares, if it didn't kill a President or his family?

You people who profess a hatred of gun rights and only post on a message board without going after the nuts with guns, good luck to you, and I hope you are not one of the "innocent civilians", killed when some nut brings his AK47 to an Obama rally.

[RagAss]

51. You don't even want to think of the reaction to what you described.

What city won't burn?

[audas]

47. Religion Vs Atheism

The fact is that people do evil things - religiously motivated or not. However the simply truth is that religion simply provides a motivation for people to commits henious acts who would not otherwise do it. It is a pack mentality - and religion plays on this perfectly. Not to say that it does not occur through things such as nationalism, and other forms of idealism.

The wars of the 20th century were wars of ideas - religion is an idea - wars of idealism are always the most dangerous. Wars of territory, empire or resources often involve less emotion - its business.

The poster who put forward the idea of the wars of the 20th century being catylized by Atheism is wrong - the wars of the 20th century were the result of the emergence of nation states as the dominant form of sovereignty - this allowed armies to be created through volunteer forces rather than paid mercenaries as was the norm.

For those who are against mercenaries and privatised military please consider that this has always been the norm - and a return to it would bring a welcome respite from the rampant nationalism of the 20th century - something the YANKS are the worst contributors of.

I welcome the day when we can return to being citizens of culture, societies, communities and reject the nationalism which has corrupted our world.

Finally, for those who wish to justify religion - please remember that you are allowed to think what ever you like, but the truth is that religion is the most evil curse ever placed upon our world - your job is to understand why - finding reasons to justify it is just that - a cold hard look at the facts and its mode of operation would leave no person other than the most delusional, asinine or psychopathic with any other conclusion that religion is something which should only ever be found in the history books. If you are unable to come to that conclusion - take you pick - delusional, asinine or psychopath - there is no other possibility.

[Orsino]

53. This is the sound white privilege makes when it's wounded.

The god part is just for show.

[amborin]

56. don't you think most of them are not privileged?

and that's a huge part of the problem; they're ignorant, uneducated, and lead insular lives; they're racist and evil; but many are also scared and whipped up to focus their hatred and fear on the wrong target.

it seems they're easily manipulated by powerful individuals who are privileged. but the masses we're seeing hardly strike me as such

[Orsino]

72. They were also trained to white privilege...

...and the corporatist nation we've built is reneging on the deal. Most of them are not, as you say, privileged. Not anymore. That's why they yell.

[troubledamerican]

54. Any DUers here who grew up in a fundamentalist right-wing religious family know:

(1) Violence is coming.

(2) These people do not stop until they are dead or someone stops them physically by putting them in jail.

For all other DUers, simply this: Innocent people (you) often cannot recognize authentic evil, because you do not have anything inside yourself to project onto the world except innocence.

[New Dawn]

55. K&R

[Kievan Rus]

58. The conservatives have lost the culture war and know it

They've lost...and I truly fear that they'll start to act like Imperial Japan did at the end of World War II...if you can't win, then take as many of the enemy with you when you go down.

The FBI should seriously pay more attention to domestic crazies than the jihadists, because quite honestly, the domestic crazies and ultra-radical fundies are the greater threat. In essence, the violent fundies are basically the jihadists, with the only differences being 8,000 miles and a different religion.

[defendandprotect]

59. No fanatic like a religious fanatic -- !!!! Also concerned for Obama . . .

especially ever time he's headed to do something great!!!

[Cobalt-60]

62. they had better remember that themselves

[ecstatic]

64. While we fight amongst ourselves, Bush Sr. has invited Pres. Obama

to Texas--for God knows what. :puke:

[defendandprotect]

66. WHAT??? What ???? ........................... No ----------!!!

[Enthusiast]

69. This is when they will

inject President Obama with the mind control drugs, so he will do Rumsfeld and Cheney's bidding.

[defendandprotect]

65. Pope Benedict is moving church to the right/Evangelicalism . . .

They see their fortunes rising in China and Africa!!!

May the fates protect China and Africa from the RCC!!!

[Hubert Flottz]

70. Those fundies carry snakes around!

[annabanana]

71. Every move towards enlightenment and inclusion is as a slap in the

face to these people. They are aggreived and persecuted, as they will tell you themselves, repeatedly.

All progress is a threat.

[defendandprotect]

90. In fact, one of the hardest things to understand is that they are suicidal . . .

at least a small controlling bloc of them --

Look at ExxonMobil going on 50 years now funding propaganda vs Global Warming

for their own profit. How do they profit from a dead planet?

They'll find a way!

:evilgrin:

[Bluenorthwest]

73. Frank is an excellent person

and he is most certainly a Christian, so it is amazing to me that when he sounds an alarm like this, so many here rush to shout about themselves, and to accuse Frank of using a 'broad brush'. Frank is very aware of the religious world. He is a man that I have studied, then protested and now due to his slower but similar enlightenment, I now stand with gladly.
Anyone who claims that faith and wishes to ignore or minimize what Frank has to say is part of the problem of which he speaks. Read his work and learn.

[The Backlash Cometh]

78. Oh God. Don't give the rest of the looney fringe any ideas.

[JuniperLea]

83. Hell's a scary place...

If you have to step over a few dead bodies to avoid crossing The River Styx... well, you gotta do what you gotta do. I'm sure they were all heinous sinners anyway. And I can judge that because I'm a righteous Christian!

These guys have always given God a bad name... glad to see one of them speaking out against this anti-Christianity. We should probably start making that distinction. There are good Christians... good Muslims too... anti or radical should be used in front of these belief and denominational indicators so as not to become part of the problem.

[la_chupa]

86. nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

It would almost be entertaining how violent the follows of the Prince of Peace really are if we all didn't have to live with the consequences.

[defendandprotect]

89. Not discussing "politics & religion" ..."in polite society" has to hit the garbage can . . .

Americans have to start addressing the "god" farce because it is political and

it has been effecting our lives every day in every way --

"God" is quite an effective way to mask corruption and wrong-doing -- especially

when people don't speak out against -- in fact, pull down -- a "God" who supports violence.

How is a Christian church promising that those who will fight in their CRUSADES to be rewarded

with indulgences and a guarantee of heaven any different from a Muslim religion promising

that violence/suicide will be rewarded by days of cavorting with women in the afterlife?

:evilgrin:

Religion is a left over sacred cow that has to be dealt with including when you're talking with

elected officials!!!

[defendandprotect]

91. We have to continue to focus on Glenn Beck . . . who keeps him on the air . .???

And if you want to know what the greatest threat to our president is, look no further than where evangelical "Christianity" intersects with Glenn Beck's fans. The FBI should seize his fan letter email. I'll bet they'd find some very interesting folks out there, people in militias, far right hate groups, and all the rest.

Murdock? Fox?

Certainly, it is quite clear that O'Reilly played a large role in having Dr. Tiller targeted
and murdered by the "pro-life" killers.


Also think it's a great idea that we should BAN any kind of gun/weapon at political gatherings.

The scary thing is that there are a number of pastors on record as saying they are praying for the President’s death.

And, needless to say, anyone aware of anything like this blowing a whistle on it!

[undergroundpanther]

93. Assemblies of god

They have cell churches which are 'strategy and worship' meetings at different people's houses. When I went to the 'cell church" I was given at the normal church service in the church a slip of paper. It had a name,address and phone number on it.I was to go to that address on the day and time specified..They'd do stupid shit there like sing songs ,bible study or puzzles but they also talked about hate whom they hated and why,also the prayer sessions consisted of curses cursing people to suffer ,fail or even die in the name of jesus.The Assemblies of god use personality tests and other sophisticated tools of psychology to manipulate it's members.
I HATE aog,and I hate the trauma they caused me.

What christians too often fail to get is christianity itself has an ugly side to it right there in the bible itself. Every crime committed by"god's servants" is god sanctioned violence rape or murder. The bible can be interpreted many ways to suit the reader's POV.

I am a maltheist.I hate that book and the god it describes.The bible itself is a manipulative text because of it's ambiguity, it's lack of consistency, it's contradictions too often ignored, the inherent narcissism of it and that god sanctioned brutality the way some ignore the disgusting things in that book while others see it as god supported psychopathy.That makes it a very sick book. Proof is in how it causes so much suffering and it blinds the believers in said book to the suffering THEY cause themselves their families and entire nations. No god stories should be taken as literally true,and the bible is not a guide to teach any sort of character building..

[LiberalLovinLug]

95. Thank you for posting this. One of the most important pieces ever

LA: What is it that is driving the Christian right to such extremes? Is it fear? If so, fear of what? Is it something else?

FS: It is fear of facts. Look, if you believe in the earth being 6000 years old, that gays chose to be gay and can "change," that Jesus will come back soon, that war in the Middle East is good... what you fear is the real world, the reality-based Americans who know you are dumb, crazy or both. It is resentment that drives the right.

It is resentment that drives them. I think a lot of them know deep down in their subconscious that what they believe in is delusional, so they resent any and all who remind them of that. One example is their continued belief that Dubya was actually a great president, if not the greatest. *Colbert

Seriously, this has to be taken up by the MSM. Are they that cowed by these 'morans'? I guess they are more afraid of giant boycotts by a well organized machine made up of the 'persecuted' poor trodden Christians. But someone has to expose this threat before SOMEONE gets hurt.