I am finding it very interesting to see just how much support there is on DU for attacking religion.

[cleanhippie]

Looking at GD, there are several threads going right now about using Romney's (insert one of the many pejoratives found in those threads here) belief in Mormonism as a weakness and reason not to be President.

If any one of us were to re-post any of those OP's, yet change it to Christianity, juries and Hosts would be working overtime to hide and lock them.

Not that I am surprised, we are all very aware of the hypocrisy. It's just interesting to see it on such open display.

[trotsky]

1. Yep, nothing new to those of us who have been around awhile.

Same would happen with Scientology, too. Probably even worse. And I find it hilarious that it's often the very same people who whine the loudest about how bad Christians have it on DU are the first to join in the threads bashing these other, smaller religions.

[Goblinmonger]

3. This x 1,000

I'm an equal opportunity mocker. But to see the sanctimonious about protecting "real" Christianity then go after Mormons and Scientologists without even coming close to realizing the irony of it is amazing.

[hlthe2b]

2. I suspect if it were an extremist RW fundamentalist who was advocating a theocracy, you'd surely see

the same. It is hard to deny that there is (and should) be tolerance for those whose beliefs may be hard to fathom for many. When those beliefs are pushed on others or pose a real threat of having its "faith-based" restrictions on civil liberties and equalities enacted against others, that's a line that can't be crossed. As paranoid as the RW bigoted fundies are about Islam, in seeing Sharia law as a threat hiding behind every Muslim, they can't see that some of their own are proposing their own version.

I don't see tolerance for others' beliefs, so long as they are not forced on others--as the proverbial "line in the sand" as being suggestive of an attack on religion.

[dmallind]

6. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but you seem to be using a hypothetical

Whereas this

When those beliefs are pushed on others or pose a real threat of having its "faith-based" restrictions on civil liberties and equalities enacted against others, that's a line that can't be crossed

Is essentially the impact Christianity - and not just fundamentalist extremism - has on a huge range of social issues, right now. From biggies like marriage for all and reproductive choice through health insurance and Faith-Based Initiatives all the way to Sunday trading restrictions. If that's the line that can't be crossed without protest, why are only a few of us protesting? In the US, we've never ever been on the right side of that line.

[hlthe2b]

7. You are lumping any number of very disparate denominations of Protestant & even Catholic Christians

together. Perhaps you don't know a lot about the different religions and the wide swath of Christian denominations. I'm an agnostic now, but my childhood gave me the chance to experience a lot of different denominations--most which were very very liberal by your measurement. It is not all denominations that are lobbying for these regressive policies. We hear from the very vocal extremist voices. They are probably not even the majority. Perhaps you've never spent much time around the typical "cafeteria" Catholic, for example, that are undoubtedly the largest, yet silent majority of Catholics in this country. They have long ignored much of the extremist edicts on birth control and other issues eminating from the Vatican and hard core bishops.

I'm not invested in defending Christianity or any other religion. I am invested in being fair.

[AlbertCat]

9. you don't know a lot about the different religions and the wide swath of Christian denominations

Oh please....

groups arguing over a vast minutia of crap mostly made up long after the initial crap made up in the Stone Age...

[hlthe2b]

10. I'm talking about their public advocacy lobbying differences Get a grip

Your hatred and intense intolerance is no better than that we bemoan from the most extreme RW fundys

[AlbertCat]

14. Your hatred and intense intolerance

Your hyperbole is pathetic.

[hlthe2b]

15. In this case, the shoe not only "fits" but seems permanently attached.

Don't want to be assumed as hateful and intolerant? Don't speak in terms and broad bush to such extent that it lead others to assume so.

[AlbertCat]

17. Yeah yeah.... whatever...

On the other hand, assuming someone who you've never met is an extreme bigot akin to say, jerry Falwell?... from a single post of a single sentence is tolerance personified.


Jesus H Christ!

[dmallind]

11. Where the fuck did I say all?

How many surveys do you need that show most self-avowed Christians have exactly the opinions I state?

Why, exactly, is it only the religiously hypersensitive who confuse generality with universality?

If somebody said "women favor Obama over Romney" would we get huffy sanctimonious condescension pointing out that some women love Romney?

If somebody said "blacks prefer Democrats over Republicans", would we get laughably bombastic claims that the speaker obviously does not have any understanding of blacks or he'd know that a number of them are strongly Republican, including blacks the interlocutor's mommy introduced them to?

If somebody said "North Carolina voted to discriminate against gays" would we get facile lectures on how a goodly number of NC residents really wish it weren't so?

So why in the name of Koresh do we get that every time anybody uses Christianity or Christians as a generic term, relating to opinions held by a majority of the same in every single reputable poll or survey?

[hlthe2b]

13. You are very disingenous in your representation of what I said.

I don't respect nor chose to deal with posters who behave that way. Enjoy your day

[dmallind]

16. AKA "I got called on bullshit I can't defend so I'm taking my ball and going home". Enjoy your day.

[Rob H.]

24. "It is not all denominations that are lobbying for these regressive policies.

We hear from the very vocal extremist voices. They are probably not even the majority."

It doesn't matter whether they are the majority if they have the ear of the majority.

There were three bills voted on recently in Tennessee, where I live: the "Don't Say Gay" bill, the "Monkey Bill," and the "Gateway Sexual Activity"* bill. Thanks in part to the efforts of the Family Action Council of Tennessee, a right-wing religious organization, only the "Don't Say Gay" bill didn't pass Tennessee's Republican-dominated legislature. (It's just been shelved for the time being, not withdrawn, so this lunacy will likely return next session.) Republican Gov. Haslam signed the Gateway Sexual Activity bill into law, but he allowed the "Monkey Bill" to become law without signing it.

It's worth adding that, inspired by Tennessee's initial success in getting the "Don't Say Gay" bill passed by the House, Missouri proposed its own version of the bill. It appears to be dead for the time being, too.


*Kissing and holding hands? Better not tell kids it's okay to do that in Tennessee! That's gateway sexual activity! The law will allow teachers who mention contraception as a means of preventing pregnancy to be punished, so it appears that now Tennessee sex education might effectively become abstinence-only, which doesn't work.

Here's what Stephen D. Foster Jr. at addictinginfo.org had to say, in part:

The law also levies a fine of up to $500 to guest speakers who promote safe sex or “gateway sexual activity.” So if a speaker from Planned Parenthood or another organization visits the sex education class to speak, talking about anything that isn’t abstinence-only would be punished. What this amounts to is the punishing of free speech and it’s the Republicans who passed it.

Sex education teachers are being boxed in by a party that has been hijacked by religious extremists who think anything they consider sexual is evil. This bill has made Tennessee a joke. To outlaw crucial information from being discussed in sex education is unfair to students who will one day have to go out into the real world unprepared. Sex is a part of human nature and when abstinence-only is all that is taught, the likelihood that students will have unsafe sex that lead to unwanted pregnancies increase. If Republicans really believe that teaching only abstinence will stop kids from having sex, they’re living in a dream world. If there is one thing teenagers are curious about when they hit puberty, it’s sex. No matter what parents do to keep their kids from engaging in sexual activity, they can’t protect their kids all of the time. That’s why teaching about safe sex methods is critical. Because if kids are going to have sex, they should at least have the knowledge to make it safe. But since when do Republicans actually want our children to learn anything at all? It’s almost as if the GOP wants our kids to be stupid and unsafe.

Tennessee is in the top 10 states with highest rates of teen pregnancy already! (TN legislators should have just looked at Texas and the skyrocketing teen pregnancy rate after abstinence-only became the norm there.)

[Starboard Tack]

30. +100 Well said.

[HereSince1628]

4. IMO much of this stems from LDS political opposition to California Prop 8

I think critique of LDS activity in the political realm is fair game. I think it's unfortunate that the angst is turned against LDS in a general non-specific way, and often enters the realm of name calling and guilt/irrationality by association.

Across DU 1 and 2 there was plenty of criticism of religious leaders and religious positions on political issues. I don't have a problem with criticizing political positions of religious organizations.

In as much as those political positions follow from religious tenets held by those organizations, scrutiny of the origins and consistency of those tenets can be ok if handled appropriately.

Critique of mormon political positions is difficult for most DUers and Americans because their understanding of LDS beliefs is inadequate to that task. For criticism of catholic and protestant positions there is a rich history and archeology that informs us of inconsistencies and changes in position. There is little like that for considering political positions supposedly based on mormon doctrine.

Interestingly, the entry of mormons into the Cal Prop 8 politics represents something like a shift in position for the leadership of the LDS church. Going back to before the Mormon Wars in Missouri, Illinois the neighbors of mormons feared the dictatorial control of the economic and political power by mormon religious leaders. Mormons experienced their significant troubles in the Mormon Wars because of such local reaction. Consequently, for much of the 20th century the LDS tried to avoid appearing to dictate political positions. They've even come out formally and said it's ok to have membership in the democratic party.

The US has drifted to the right, and the voices of the religious right, including some voices inside the mormon establishment have been emboldened by many decibels. The LDS entry into California Prop 8 must be seen as part of that movement. Once again people fear mormons being under the economic and electoral command of religious dictates.

[daaron]

8. Thank you.

I would additionally add that those who do have some familiarity with Mormon doctrine, including the large and growing Jack Mormon population, became among the most vocal detractors of Mormonism in the blogosphere, since Prop 8. Specifically, there are a number of doctrines that are explicitly focused on the U.S. government, including a prophecy that Mormon prophet would become President and Mormonize America.

[daaron]

5. It's fascinating. It's a slow-motion trainwreck. Utterly captivating. nt

[WillParkinson]

12. It's like the wreck of a clown car...

It's scary, but still kind of makes you laugh.

[laconicsax]

18. It's always been like that.

It amuses me that some of the same people who happily attack LDS and other religions pounce on me for "bashing religion" or something for pointing out contradictions and talking about religiously motivated evil.

[ZombieHorde]

19. I think that is interesting. nt

[Yavapai]

20. Why not attack religion?

It has been attacking us for thousands of years!

[Viva_Daddy]

21. Why is criticism an attack? Paranoid anyone?

[cleanhippie]

22. Who are you asking?

I hope it's not me.

[MrMickeysMom]

23. I believe it's top down...

For this reason, I think, I wasn't able to bring up the movie that begins with "Z" to point to the mythology of religion, which relates to all the other rules we must live by.

I hate religion more and more every day... Same hypocrisy when you talk about Reverend this and Mormon that.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

27. Movie that begins with Z?

The only other one I know of is "Z" by Costa-Gavras about the assassination of a Greek politician.

[MrMickeysMom]

28. I think you've heard of this one...

Zeitgeist.... Let's see if my post gets hidden, M of L...

[Manifestor_of_Light]

25. Zardoz with Sean Connery???

[cleanhippie]

26. Huh?

[RebelOne]

29. I am an atheist, but I do not attack anyone else's religion.

My philosophy is to each his/her own. Whatever floats your boat. Just do not preach it to me.

[Starboard Tack]

31. I think most atheists agree with you. I certainly do.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. Ok but they are preaching to us, worse they are demanding that their

Irrational beliefs be codified into laws enforced by the state. We cannot be silent.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

32. When I point out the absurdities and illogic of xtianity,

they get mad at me. But it's true.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. I don't recall much of a problem attacking that fruitcake Santorum for his religious nuttery.

[Pigman]

35. It doesn't have to be hypocritical...

I think atheist as a group should insist having a few questions thrown at both candidates during the debates. Something like, do you pray for the recovery to recover quicker? If so, what is the voice in your head saying about the recovery?

[laconicsax]

36. Welcome to DU!

Your idea could backfire though, as both Obama and Romney could wind up talking about the voices in their heads. That would help Obama and hurt Romney.

[Pigman]

38. That will nip Mormonism in bud...

Not that I am interested in Christianity to continue, but Romney looking/sounding more crazy talking about Jesus on the Planet Kolob is better than Obama talking about Rev. Wright again. I find it hard to believe President Obama is all that religious...I think he needs to play the game, just as much as Romney has to play this role of being this ultra conservative during the republican primary.


In any case, I think Bill Maher should conduct the debate!=)

[dimbear]

37. Lots of fun about absurdity, not much talk about the real problem-overbreeding. n/t