Liberals, Leftists and Progressives: Respecting those of Faith

[Meldread]

I think this should be said, and yes I realize it has been said many times before. We liberals, leftists and progressives need to be more respectful of those within our own ranks who hold to some type of faith. I've seen it posted other times by those of faith, but I am speaking from an agnostic/atheist point of view.

Not all people of faith are bad people. Yes, I realize it is easy to take out our frustrations on those who claim to hold the same faith as our enemies - and that's what they are our enemies - but we have to realize that they hold the same faith in name only. They agree with us on almost everything, and it is foolish to alienate them especially considering that the majority of people in the United States profess to be of some type of religious belief, mostly Christianity.

We are supposed to know better, us on the left, and yes I am as guilty as hell of it sometimes as well. It's easy to take a pot shot at them, or mock them for something they believe - something they take seriously - and I have no doubt that it hurts them deeply. We of all people should know better.

One of the biggest problems we have in America right now is that faith is being monopolized by the Religious Right, and yet we fail to see the treasure that is the Religious Left - people that want to do (and often are doing) good with their faith rather than evil. I notice now and then Religious Leaders on the left standing up against those on the right and it is my belief that those of us - regardless of whether we believe or not - should lift them up as pillars among their religious communities. We need to give them a voice and help them spread their message. We need to provide the much needed balance against the Right's monopolization of faith.

It doesn't help that every time a liberal of faith stands up that before the right even has a chance to shoot them down we do it for them. Instead we need to offer our support and encourage such people and their groups to continue. We need to help them flourish because ultimately we are all fighting the same battle even if we don't necessarily agree on everything.

I highly suggest that every time we take note of a religious person on the left doing something good, especially if it undermines the fundamentalists that we should all try to offer our support and help them get out their message so others can join them.

Oh, and I am not saying we do not hold the right to criticize those of faith. We most certainly do. I hate the Pope with a passion and believe we should do our best to point out (although respectfully if possible - more for the sake of innocent Catholics than for him) how the man is evil made flesh. (No offence to Catholics, of course, as I know he's your guy - and that he also doesn't really represent how you feel. Thankfully.)

[Zenlitened]

1. Is there no end to the coddling the religionists need?

:puke:

[RoBear]

3. Seemingly not...

[ulysses]

5. how is it coddling to recognize an ally?

There are a number of fine religious progressives on DU alone next to whom I'm happy to stand. Lydia Leftcoast, IrateCitizen, SOteric, many others.

The wingnuts are your enemy, not these folks.

[Zenlitened]

13. Treasure them.. "lift them up as pillars"... "give them a voice"...

... "help them flourish"...

Gimme a break. Should we mash up some banana in a dish and spoon-feed it to them, too?

In any event, I'm not counting on religion's help, personally. This constant mewling about gawd and faith and baby jeebus is the problem, not the solution. Can't people take a stand for what's right without dragging sky-guy into it? If not, they don't seem like reliable allies to me.

[ulysses]

17. ?

You're putting a lot of words into this agnostic's mouth.

Can't people take a stand for what's right without dragging sky-guy into it? If not, they don't seem like reliable allies to me.


The people I mentioned don't "drag sky-guy into it" - the only reason I know that they're people of faith is because they've responded in the past to attacks on people of faith.

At any rate, maybe you have a lot more allies than I do here in Georgia.

[Zenlitened]

43. How is that putting words in your mouth?

:shrug:

[ulysses]

47. erm...they're not my words?

Just a guess.

Hey, y'all go to town. If you need any broader brushes, the DLC might be able to help out.

[Zenlitened]

49. I don't understand what you mean at all.

I ask a rhetorical question describing how I'd like to see people motivate themselves, and you take that as an attempt to define you?

And now you come back with something about a "broad brush" and "the DLC"?

WTF? :shrug:

Are you using some kind of random bickering phrase generator here?

Give it a rest.

[ulysses]

53. oh, never mind.

You're too wrapped up in your damned victim identity to see a friend when they're standing in front of you. Have fun - I don't have the time for it.

[Zenlitened]

58. My "victim identity" now? Are you serious? Or are u just making things up?

You toss out that talking point and storm off in a little huff?

You go spoiling for a fight by inserting a series of generic, fill-in-the-blank "I'm offended by________" posts... you personalize simple statements apparently as an excuse get all miffed... you project your own shortcomings onto me -- then you feel misunderstood?

Unreal. Seriously unfuckingreal. :crazy:

[ulysses]

63. oh, I'm not storming off.

You evidently have your own issues to work out, and it doesn't seem like my fight. I'm not offended by anything you've written, just trying to point out a few truths as I've found them. You're, of course, welcome to take or leave them as you will.

[Zenlitened]

69. Well, your diagnosis is more than a bit off the mark.

And more than a tad patronizing.

But if it makes you feel all snuggly and safe to dismiss me as simply "having issues to work out," go for it.

[ulysses]

79. LOL!

I'm accused of being patronizing by a poster with the Flying Spaghetti Monster in his sig? Please. :D

Want to know the sad part? Theologically, you and I are probably closer than I am with the posters I mentioned earlier. I simply would like to see them treated with respect, as progressives of faith who aren't trying to force their religion down your throat or mine.

No, it doesn't make me feel all snuggly and safe. It depresses me. But you be you.

[Zenlitened]

81. Well now you're being disrespectful both of my beliefs...

... and of my gender.

What a terrible example to set for "people of faith."

[ulysses]

84. terribly sorry.

Didn't realize you were female, or that you were so easily bruised.

How am I being disrespectful of your beliefs?

[Zenlitened]

94. Funny how the patriarchal tendencies of the religious and their...

... apologists just naturally seep into conversation.

And why do you feel the need to denigrate FSM, by noting your negative reaction to seeing it in a sig line? Isn't that just the sort of behavior you are arguing against?

[ulysses]

101. "denigrate FSM"???

How does one go about denigrating a spoof? :D

The point remains.

[Zenlitened]

107. What you so cavalierly dismiss as a mere spoof...

... might also be considered a compelling social and political statement. A ready means of communicating important ideas about the best interests of our society, and perhaps our species as a whole.

Unless, of course, one feels threatened by it, as I suppose some people might. After all, it does argue for the replacement of their religious paradigm with one based on reason.

[ulysses]

114. my apologies!

I haven't been in the "in crowd" regarding the importance of the FSM. On the other hand, it seems to me as if you're pissing all over a means of communicating important ideas right now.

[Zenlitened]

116. Really? Which means, in particular?

The one where people post their views, even at the risk of being in disagreement?

Or the one in which the voices of the minority* are silenced in acquiescence to the majority**?


*nonbelievers

** christians christians christians

[ulysses]

124. actually, I just meant DU

which is, of course, the source of all discrimination against non-believers.

[Zenlitened]

128. No, no, it's the source of all per-see-cution of christians.

Honestly, the fact that nonbelievers are even allowed to post here is an affront to god-fearing people everywhere, isn't it?

Just another sign of the incredible power atheists wield, to the detriment of the downtrodden religious.

[ulysses]

131. we've now passed the ridiculous

and the baby is awake, so have fun.

[Zenlitened]

133. I can only hope that's not some sort of code, as the OP turned out to be.

See ya.

[ulysses]

153. no, no code.

We have a 2 1/2 month old.

[Mutley]

222. Who is beautiful, BTW.

Sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to say that. :)

[Warren Stupidity]

227. One person;'s spoof is another person's scientology. eom.

[Tigress DEM]

141. Possible cross post confusion?

Treasure them.. "lift them up as pillars"... "give them a voice"...

Those were from the OP, and you were speaking with Ulyses who was one of the first to reply to OP, so maybe there is some confusion with those exact words being implied as attributed to Ulyses.

[Zenlitened]

144. Possible, I suppose, though discussion was still centered on the OP

and reaction to it, my use of the word "coddling" to describe my impression of the OP.

[Tigress DEM]

152. Yeah, I recognized it from the OP, but I had to re-read it for context.

When Ulyses just put ? in his subject, I could see confusion at that point.

Sometimes it's hard to know what part of a post the people who reply are specifically supporting.

This may sound awful, but I've jumped in on a general subject without reading the full post myself. That's how I recognized the possibility of confusion. Aw well, live and learn.

[Meldread]

20. Of course.

Yes, it may seem wonky to us, but we can't forget - those people actually BELIEVE it. Think about it. If you believe something so deeply, something close to your heart, are you more likely to be agreeable to the guy who just pissed all over it or to the guy who just smiled and nodded?

It's not like religion is going away. There is always going to be a segment of the population out there hungering for it. It's not like we can stomp it out, and if we could have we would have been able to do it by now.

You should know as well as I do that trying to argue with these people using facts doesn't work. I'm sure you've tried it just as I have, so instead of trying to convert them - why not instead help them become the mainstream version of Religion in America?

What would you rather have Fred Phelps or a liberal Pastor? I'd take the liberal Pastor any day of the week.

Also, if it amuses you… if we help them then you get to watch Christians on the Right battle Christians on the Left, and seeing as how they'd spend so much time battling each other they won't have the time or the money to mess with anything else.

We don't have anything to lose and everything to gain.

[Zenlitened]

24. Smiling and nodding doesn't seem to enough, though. That's the problem.

Too many seem to expect a chorus of "amens." And it only gets worse if ones happens to mention even the slightest antipathy toward the god stuff. That's tantamount to persecuting them, dontchaknow?

I do, in fact, hope that religion goes away someday. I do think resisting it is worthwhile, and that includes voicing my opinion that it's far better to feed the children because they're hungry, rather than because god-said-so.

Yeah, there's a time for expediency. Many if not most in the GLBT community bit their tongues during the 2004 campaign for just that reason, even as Kerry announced his willingness to treat gays and lesbians as second-class citizens.

But to extend that sentiment, the self-censorship, to a general moratorium on rejecting religionism -- even on a discussion board in cyberspace -- is asking too much, it seems to me.

[Meldread]

29. Here is what I want out of it:

I want the Religious Left to go to battle with the Religious Right. Why? Simple. I'd rather have them treat me like a bitch than the Religious Right. It's like comparing a Jew living in America before World War II to living in Nazi Germany.

Sure, I may be segregated and go around seeing signs saying: "No Dogs, No Colors, No Jews, No Fags" but at least I wouldn't be sitting in a Concentration Camp. Besides, not all of the Religious Left is anti-gay and I also have to remember that many LGBT people are religious to some extent as well.

Yes, I'd love to see a world where there is no religion - people don't want it nor do they need it. I'm just not naive to think it's going to happen in my life time, or even many generations after I am dead. Maybe one day, but it won't be anytime soon and most certainly not in the foreseeable future.

Sure it may be slowly rotting, but the snake still has enough fight in it to poison and kill us if it wanted to. I am not saying we shouldn't challenge them in a civil debate if it comes up, there is a difference between agreeing with and respecting someone.

After all, does it really matter if they feed the children because some invisible guy said so or because they were hungry? The point is the children are being fed. Mission Accomplished - if the invisible man serves to make them work even harder and faster all the better.

[Zenlitened]

30. I find that position horrifying.

... I may be segregated and go around seeing signs saying: "No Dogs, No Colors, No Jews, No Fags" but at least I wouldn't be sitting in a Concentration Camp

Believe me, not long after the signs go up, the trains to the camps start rolling.

Do you really think appeasing these people is going to save your skin?

:wow:

[Meldread]

38. No, I don't.

If the Religious Left gets a voice then the Religious Right will jump all over them like a rabid dog. They'll end up spending so much time and money arguing with each other over tiny details that they won't have the resources to mount their strong offences.

By the time the dust settles it'll be too late. That is what I am counting on. Both secular humanism and science will push forward at lightning speed with a weakened and pre-occupied opposition.

Finally, when or if it ever ends they may find some semblance of balance, or (with any luck) become completely irrelevant all together.

[Zenlitened]

41. Well, you've traveled quite a distance from your original post. - n/t

[Meldread]

48. Yes, well I was hoping...

...that anti-religion folks would be a tad more agreeable and be able to read between the lines.

What did you think: "One of the biggest problems we have in America right now is that faith is being monopolized by the Religious Right, and yet we fail to see the treasure that is the Religious Left..." meant?

It didn't make what I said untrue, I just wasn't completely blunt about it. The Religious Left and the Secular Left have things in common and it is in our best interest to exploit those things to the fullest of our ability. The Religious Left wants a voice, we can help them get a voice, our goals are mostly the same - it's not like they are shafted.

Like I said. Does it matter if they feed the hungry children because the invisible guy said so, or because the children are hungry? In the end the children are eating and the goal was accomplished.

After all I didn't say we had to actually respect them, only show respect. There is a difference, like I said, it's called being diplomatic.

[Zenlitened]

51. Riiight. The decoder ring. I should have checked my decoder ring.

What did you think: "One of the biggest problems we have in America right now is that faith is being monopolized by the Religious Right, and yet we fail to see the treasure that is the Religious Left..." meant?

For some zany reason, I thought it meant what it said.

See ya.

[Tigress DEM]

175. Ouch. So tell me what you really think.

"After all I didn't say we had to actually respect them, only show respect. There is a difference, like I said, it's called being diplomatic."

I guess respect at some levels needs to be earned, but most diplomats do see the people in front of them as people deserving of basic respect simply because they are people.

Now I see why some Christians get so bent out of shape during these dialogues. If you don't have to actually respect us because we are somehow "inferior" due to our belief in a higher power, but due to your "superior intellect and abilities" manage to behave in a respectful manner, then I guess we should feel grateful somehow. Wow.

It must be getting late and somehow I've misread this. I don't know.

[Robert Cooper]

236. I don't think you misread this...

..."I hate the Pope with a passion and believe we should do our best to point out ... how the man is evil made flesh" was a dead give-away.

[FreedomAngel82]

62. I'll probably be there along with you

If the conservative "religious right" ever does that I will more than likely be there as well since I'm for gay rights and a liberal Christian. Compared to other Christians I know whether online or in real life I'm very very very far left so hey they'd lock me up too.

[Meldread]

102. Exactly the point I am trying to make.

Like it or not, we may not agree on everything, but we certainly have the same enemy. Once they're done with gays they'll most certainly turn their eyes to "purifying the faith", that means anyone who disagrees with them.

Both sides have lots to benefit from the arrangement and there is no reason, aside from semantics and past grievances to not work together. Certainly, both sides can burry the hatchet for the next 20 years or so? I am more than willing to reach across the table. We have many goals in common that we can work together on and there is no reason we shouldn't.

[FreedomAngel82]

115. One thing I love about being a democrat

is my faith doesn't matter. We're all equal in the eyes of the law and that's how it should be. I shouldn't be more favorable just because of my race, sexuality or religious beliefs. What if in ten years Buddism (hey it just was a thought) was the popular belief system? I'm sure the fundies wouldn't like that one very much.

[Meldread]

127. That is exactly how I view it too.

I believe in a strict interpretation of the first amendment. Hell I wouldn't even silence the KKK or Fred Phelps - they have the right to preach their hate. I just hope they die horribly while doing it, and of course, I am fully within my first amendment rights to do just that.

...and this is exactly why we should work together. Both of us have a common enemy (the Religious Right) and both of us share a good deal many of the same political views. There is no reason (no one still has stated a good reason other than they don't like the other side) to NOT work together. We both will lose so much if we don't and if we do we both stand to gain everything we want.

[FreedomAngel82]

130. Yep

I wish other people would do that. *sigh*

[JanusAscending]

149. Someone please explain to me how a person can go on living

in this frightful world without HOPE?? I am a VERY LIBERAL Christian, and at my age when I could be facing my "maker" any day, how does anyone live without the hope of seeing those who have gone before us once again? If I thought there was not the promise of a chance of this, I would take myself out of this dreadful world that has become so full of hate and bitterness. Do you honestly believe that "this is all there is"?? If so, I pity you, but please don't belittle me, and those like me who have faith, just because you think that death ends it all!! I'm looking forward to the day when I will see my husband again, and my Mom and Dad and my two infant children that I lost, and most of all my Dear Lord , who I hope will tell me " well done thy good and faithful servant" Whether you believe in Karma, or reincarnation or whatever, I respect your belief or lack thereof, but please, allow me mine.

[Meldread]

157. How I go on:

Simply put, I go on believing that I can make the world a better place than I came into it as. I believe that is the duty of everyone who is born, to make it better for the generation afterward.

I know that even when I die I will leave some type of legacy behind even if no one in one hundred years, or maybe even twenty five years after my death will remember it. I know that by my very existence I have in some small way altered the world, and it is my hope that I have altered it for the better.

I don't do that out of a believe or hope for some eternal reward. I do that simply because I believe it is the right thing to do, and because that is what I want to do.

I do not know what will happen when I die, and I'll figure that out when it happens. However, I believe that most likely nothing will happen and I will simply cease to exist, and the only thing I know for certain is those that hold the answer ain't talkin'. Heh.

[muriel_volestrangler]

221. Thinking there is no afterlife makes real life all the more precious

If I thought I would meet people again in some new life, then I might be tempted at some stage to say "I've had enough of this stage - I'd like to move on to whatever happens next". But if I think there is nothing after this, then that would be pointless. Most of us still have good reasons to stay alive, and good reasons to work to make this life better; and thinking there won't be any second course makes it all the more important to make the most of this one.

[Mandate My Ass]

34. "I'd rather have them treat me like a bitch than the Religious Right."

Then you need to leave this country. Anybody who'd prefer to have their Constitutional, human and civil rights taken away by a religious entity they consider more in their corner than another, and less antithetical to us all, does not deserve even the scant scraps either of those groups would grant.

[Telly Savalas]

59. None of the religious left is anti-gay.

Respecting the human rights of everybody is a necessary condition for being called "leftist" in North American politics. If a religious person is anti-gay, they are not a member of the religious left.

[Sapphocrat]

159. Not in my experience, Telly.

If somebody tells me "I'm a liberal Christian," who am I to say, "No, you're not?"

Yet I can't count the number of self-professed "liberal" Christians who wax practically poetic about their Christ-centered love and acceptance of everyone... until I pop my head out of my burrow and take the bait.

And then they suddenly amend their all-encompassing worldview to mean, "Well, I can't possibly support the gay lifestyle..."

And then I get the tired old schtick (or some form of it) about loving the sinner and hating the sin. If I'm very, very lucky that day, they won't incite me to sheer rage by offering to pray for me to be "delivered" from my "sin."

So, no, Telly. I'd really love to agree with you (I usually do, even if I'm not posting; I like your insights), but I can't possibly agree that "None of the religious left is anti-gay."

Many of the (self-professed) religious left is most definitely anti-gay, and not very good at hiding it.

I wish you were right. Really I do.

[Meldread]

168. Oh, have you ever heard the line:

Oh, have you ever heard the line: "I love you just like all the other sinners in the world, the rapists, the child molesters and the murderers."

Arrrgh. That makes me so mad. It just makes me want to take their stupid book and shove it straight up their ass.

[Sapphocrat]

173. Ugh. Yes.

And my reaction's the same as yours.

I just got another dose of that here only yesterday. (I wasn't lumped in with rapists, etc., but saying what I was compared to would come too close to calling out another DUer.)

More often than not, we get lumped in with pro-choicers. And adulterers. And anyone else who would automatically be stoned to death under Levitical law.

Now, I happen to be pro-choice -- but realistically, what in the world makes anyone think Roe v. Wade has any direct affect on the vast majority of LGBTs? Or automatically assume we're all entrenched in one another's camp?

It's my belief that those of us allied with pro-choicers do so only because we believe in fighting for all choice. But the not-so-thinly veiled implication is that we're "murderers" in the RW's eyes ("too").

Hmmm... Imagine: I'm pro-choice because I support a woman's right to govern her own body, even though morally (for lack of a better word) I am 100% against the idea of abortion itself. I can't judge what's right or wrong for anyone else. It's not my place. But it is my place to stand up -- publicly -- for every other person's right to manage her/his life in any way s/he sees fit.

If only anti-gay "liberal" Christians would do the same for us.

[Meldread]

215. Heh, we have the same view on abortion.

I don't have any religious reason to say it's wrong for me personally (although being a guy and a gay one at that its not like I ever have to worry about it), I do not believe I have the right to inflict that view on others. Nor do I have the right to judge others who made the choice to have one - they have to live with the choice not me. I just know my conscience would eat me alive.

I am firmly pro-choice on abortion, although I do believe a woman should at least inform the father that she is pregnant before just deciding to terminate. As a guy, I'd most certainly be upset if a woman terminated our child. It wasn't like she made it by herself after all. I don't have a clue how it should be handled if a woman wanted to terminate and a guy didn't though. In a perfect society they'd work something out and they'll both be happy with the agreement.

Anyway, yeah... I don't so much mind getting lumped in with pro-choicers. I am after all pro-choice, it's the fact that they actually lump me with child molesters, rapists and murderers that bothers me. Also it isn't so much as being grouped with them as the fact that they try and come at you with a position of "we love you"... they come at you with such a condescending attitude. That's what pisses me off about it. I've been grouped with far worse, I suppose, and certainly called much worse.

[Tigress DEM]

185. A "Christian" actually said that to you?

"I love you just like all the other sinners in the world, the rapists, the child molesters and the murderers."


I'm really sorry.

You know, though, with their head in the position it must be for them to come to that conclusion, I don't think the book would fit anyway.

So, it's probably just as well you didn't.

I must not be a very good Christian, because I would have told that person and "I respect you as much as Jesus respected the Pharisees."

I guess if this is the kind of stuff you've gotten, I can understand another comment you made earlier.

[Meldread]

217. Heh, that's them actually trying to be nice.

It's the old "love the sinner, hate the sin, and all sins are equal in Gods eyes" line. They start of by saying that they "love me" and how they love me because Jesus said so, then they tack on the fact that Jesus teaches to love the sinner and hate the sin, so they 'love me just like all the child molesters, rapists, and murderers of the world.' If you try and refute the logic you are simply told that 'God sees all sins as equal. Theft is as bad as murder or rape.'

Of course, I consider that a step up from being called an abomination, a cancer on society, a child of Satan, among many other colorful and wonderful descriptions of who I supposedly am... from societies impression of gay men being child molesters (something the Catholic Church is working hard to bring back in full fashion after we've done so much work to dispel it), to the evil masterminds of some massive agenda to take over the world, to the stereo type of being dirty and sexually promiscuous, to hell - you name it I'm sure most gays have either called it or stereo typed by it.

[Tigress DEM]

186. A "Christian" actually said that to you?

"I love you just like all the other sinners in the world, the rapists, the child molesters and the murderers."


I'm really sorry.

You know, though, with their head in the position it must be for them to come to that conclusion, I don't think the book would fit anyway.

So, it's probably just as well you didn't.

I must not be a very good Christian, because I would have told that person and "I respect you as much as Jesus respected the Pharisees."

I guess if this is the kind of stuff you've gotten, I can understand another comment you made earlier.

[Tigress DEM]

182. Christians who actually "support" gays DO have to swim upstream.

Honestly, I don't know what God thinks about Gays, since He's never once thought to pop down and tell me. It can't be that important.

I know there is some obscure verse in King James or something that fundies have latched onto and I've heard it before, but I remember thinking, "How did they get anti-gay out of that?" before tossing it out as ridiculous.

I've known too many wonderful gay people to worry about it though. I figure it isn't really my place to judge anyone in the first place. NOW THAT IS in the Bible, "Judge not lest ye be judged."

I really like cultural anthropology and it seems to me that a lot of these decisions about keeping marriage sacrosanct was about producing enough offspring that survived at times when infant mortality was very high and hopefully having extras to send into the church.

So even though we don't need to overpopulate the earth birth control and homosexuality are still ?wrong? How? Why? I don't see it.

I think the Romans had more to do with our collective perceptions of "gay" as being bad, though. Because during that time young slave boys were usually used against their will. Yet to me that is not "gay" issue it's a "pedofile" issue and there is as much or more of that going on in the hetro circles.

[knitter4democracy]

224. I find that disgusting, and I'm a Christian.

Of course, I was formed in my LGBT opinions by what I saw at our evangelical Christian college. Only one of my LGB (no transgendered allowed in) friends actually graduated. The rest were forced out by all of the hazing and horrible treatment by the administration--supposedly all in the name of Christ. Still makes me ill to think of it.

That "love the sinner" crap is just that. Crap. My opinion is that if Jesus didn't make a point of it and instead focused on how we are to love everyone with no qualifiers, then that settles it. I personally don't care what St. Paul said about homosexuality, as he wrote some nasty stuff about some women who were running a church he'd been to. He wasn't exactly Christ, so his "commandments" aren't as important.

Jesus said that the two greatest commandments are to love God with everything we have (hard to do) and to love our neighbors as ourselves (also hard to do). We Christians should focus more on those than anything else in the Bible.

Sorry to interject, but I was reading along and was horrified that anyone would say anything so awful to you. I know it happens, saw it happen repeatedly to friends, but it still horrifies me.

[Telly Savalas]

231. I'll buy that for the most part.

But I do draw a distinction between the self-professed religious left and the actual religious left.

If someone declared themselves a liberal, but then agreed with just about everything the Bush Administration has done, I don't think I'd be stepping out of bounds by questioning their status as a liberal. Similarly, if someone claims to be a member of the religious left, I don't think it's unfair to challenge that claim if that person holds a bigoted view of homosexuality. Rather than calling them a member of the religious left, I'd call them a wolf in sheep's clothing.

(But since I'm spending my Sunday morning eating Fruit Loops in front of a computer, maybe I shouldn't be the one to judge who is and isn't a member of the religious left.)


Also, as an aside, I think that taken at face value "love the sinner, hate the sin" is a noble concept. It's defining homosexuality as a sin which is repulsive. It's a shame that the former has become a code for the latter.

[FreedomAngel82]

60. I'm on the religious left

and stand up for gay rights and by other Christians I've been told I'm anti-Christian because I'm for gay rights! What someone else does has no effect on me. We should all be treated equally in the eyes of the law. Because I'm white, straight and a Christian I shouldn't be treated more favorably by my government. For my stance on this issue I've been told and called horrible things. Yes it does hurt but I'm doing the right thing and will never back down.

[NMMNG]

180. That really creeps me out

Sure, I may be segregated and go around seeing signs saying: "No Dogs, No Colors, No Jews, No Fags" but at least I wouldn't be sitting in a Concentration Camp. Besides, not all of the Religious Left is anti-gay and I also have to remember that many LGBT people are religious to some extent as well.


Screw everyone else so long as you're ok? That sounds pretty much like the position of the Religious Right-aka the Religious Wrong. "I have mine so f*ck everybody else".

Nice attitude to take.

[Tigress DEM]

188. I'm not sure how you came to your conclusion....

"Screw everyone else so long as you're ok? That sounds pretty much like the position of the Religious Right-aka the Religious Wrong. "I have mine so f*ck everybody else".

Nice attitude to take."


Granted the example is a bit harsh, but what she said was more about finding even small areas of agreement and picking the lesser of two "evils" for lack of a better word.

And the poster definately doesn't full heartedly trust the Religious Left and DEFINATELY doesn't trust the Religious Wrong, but sees a better chance of actually working with the left since there are many other areas of agreement and a lot of Christians don't buy the "gay bad" bit hook line and sinker.

I didn't hear the poster saying "I have mine so **** everyone else," and I just don't see how you heard that.

[NMMNG]

191. That's just the way it came across

(paraphrasing) "I'll be seeing signs saying no dogs, no fags, etc. but at least I won't be in a concentration camp". In other words "other people will be in concentration camps, suffering and dying but at least I won't, so whoop-de-doo".

It strikes me like those on the far Right--"Other people are poor and dying, but I have my riches so I don't give a damn."

[Tigress DEM]

196. Oh, I see what you mean now.

I read it to mean that if we work with the Religious Left, then we can at least be sure they won't put us in a Concentration Camp because although they might have a problem with Gays, it isn't on the level of insanity that the Religious Right does.

I heard that at it's worst the Religious Left is like dealing with Southern style discrimination, but it's still better than dealing with the Religious Right that has lost it's collective mind and could be capable of doing anything (including concentration camps) and smearing God's name all over it.

[NMMNG]

199. Your interpretation is better than mine

I must say I don't even like "Southern Style" discrimination and would like to rid the nation of it, but it is far better than the Reich-wing variation.

I would like to see the Religious Left band together and fight the Religious Right. They, to my knowledge, are far bigger than the Right, and therefore could be much more powerful if they would only raise their voices.

[Tigress DEM]

201. Ironically, what you would like to see is where this post started....

talking about the Religious Left as being the ones to do the job of getting the Religious Right to knock off their craziness.

" I would like to see the Religious Left band together and fight the Religious Right. They, to my knowledge, are far bigger than the Right, and therefore could be much more powerful if they would only raise their voices. "

[NMMNG]

203. You're right

I ended up getting sidetracked by that one part. I do that sometimes, particularly when I'm tired and not feeling so great. Thanks for setting me right. :hug:

[Meldread]

213. Tigress DEM understood what I was saying.

Sorry I didn't put my point across very well. It was an extreme comparison, but basically it boils down to this.

I know where the Religious Right stands on gay issues. I know where their inevitable conclusion leads (my death, the death of everyone who opposes them, so basically all of our deaths), and while all of the Religious Left may not embrace gays as equals to themselves I can sleep better at night knowing that at least I'm not going to end up in a concentration camp.

It's picking a poison. I am very confident with a strong Religious Left that LGBT people will be able to push for gay marriage and succeed. Even if all of the Religious Left doesn't support gay marriage, they would fight it with much less zeal than those on the right and will even be divided among themselves about the issue. It ensures for a weak opposition therefore allowing LGBT people to get the rights that we deserve and have been fighting for since the rise of Christianity when it first became a big no-no to be gay in the Western World.

Ironically the anti-gay thing for Christians started as a political move to gain power. (Things don't change much.) Gays, Sterile Men, and men who were castrated were trusted among a leaders wife and his concubines. He did not have to worry about him sleeping with them and therefore having any of his wives having a child that was not his. The Catholic Church saw this and made moves against gays and eunuchs. It is also one of the reason Catholic Priests are celibate as they could be trusted around women.

It's all about power and control. Ironically many Christians who hate gays claim that we have some evil agenda that will allow us to gain power and take over the world. I suppose in a way they are just afraid we'll eventually turn to our former positions.

[Wordie]

65. As far as GLBT issues go, your enemy is the fundies, not people of

faith in general, don't you think? Why engage in friendly fire?

[Zenlitened]

74. I'm not at all certain that's true.

And, as I've said elsewhere, there is a time to debate and there is a time to stay silent. The most recent example of the latter being the last presidential campaign, when many progressives felt it prudent to remain silent regarding one issue or another, in the interest of getting a Democratic president elected.

Frankly, if the "people of faith" purportedly so crucial to my well-being can't stand a little criticism, they're not going to be much good in a fire-fight anyway.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

229. Good points

and here is another. Over 80 percent of the people in the country call themselves Christians in some shape or form. Another almost 10 percent call themselves people of another faith.

So if we, as Democrats, whose ultimate goal should be to get back in power, ignore these numbers then I would suggest we are swimming upstream against a whole LOT OF BIG FISH.

[Tigress DEM]

139. Here is the thing....

If the religious right is using the Bible to say they are doing what is correct and good in God's eyes, but they are doing heinous things, then let the religious left fight back with them in their own language.

I'm sure you don't want to take the time to study the Bible and tell them exactly how full of shit they are. But someone should. Even if you don't believe in God, the thing is these imposters who say they are speaking for Him are even lying about that.

Simply from a perspective of what these religions really mean to the people who choose to believe vs how they can stolen from the people and used as crowd control or worse, most anyone can see that this part of the war is something the religious left is prepared to fight.

I want my Constitution, my Bill of Rights, my Country AND my Faith back. These bozos have stolen everything. I may never have need of the 3rd Ammendment in the Bill of Rights, but I want it back anyway.

You may not have any interest in seeing that religion is guarded against misuse because you'd rather see it dismantled. I'd like to see you free from the repression of religion mixed with government, but I don't think we have to destroy other people's right to their own beliefs to accomplish that.

[Zenlitened]

143. I agree it doesn't need to be a matter of destroying rights to beliefs..

... more a matter of talking them into seeing things in a better light. Or even refusing to pretend to be a part of their, er, faith system, which is bound to seem confrontational at times.

For me, like many others, I arrived at my atheism the old-fashioned way: via religion. Years and years of standard church upbringing, followed by still more years of sincere seeking. All along trying to find a way to confront the growing sense that it was all a Great Big Nothing. Then finally, reversing my own paradigm a bit: not "confronting" doubts but "embracing" a suddenly much clearer view, a more honest perspective. Very liberatimg.

So like many others I can fight back with their own language to some extent. But I don't think the goal ought to be to "out-religion" the other side. I'd rather we score our points with reason and sound, practicle policies that will make positive, measurable changes in the real world, in issues of genuine concern to ordinary people.

They don't offer that. We should.

[Meldread]

155. I agree with you on those points.

However, I wonder why we can't do both? Why can't we have the Religious Right and Left fighting their little war while doing what you suggest? It is not like the Religious Left is against stronger separation of Church and State.

You forget that it was many of those of faith who WANTED a strong wall between Church and State in the first place, most notably the Baptists. In fact it was in a letter to the Baptists that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" was coined, as it does not appear in the first amendment as many believe.

Replace Congregationalist with Religious Right and Baptist with Religious Left and you have the same scenario today. They know that the Religious Right holds a monopoly on Religion. It is like Windows vs Linix. They have every reason to want separation of church and state.

Of course, it is right to worry what would happen if the Religious Left actually replaced the Religious Right - to wonder if they would feel the same way after the fact. It is easy to see why a minority Religion would want protection from a majority religion, but what about later on if they become the majority religion? We know how most Southern Baptists feel today about the Separation of Church and State so we only need to look at history.

That is why you put strong wording in before that happens. The phrase "Separation of Church and State" actually needs to literally be enshrined in the Constitution. It needs to literally be spelled out what that means exactly.

After all if nothing else the Religious Left will keep the Religious Right busy long enough where something might actually get accomplished. I believe that, in and of itself, is worth it.

[Tigress DEM]

166. I like the way you think. (Giggle)

"After all if nothing else the Religious Left will keep the Religious Right busy long enough where something might actually get accomplished. I believe that, in and of itself, is worth it."

I say we have a Democratic party that has it greatest strength in its diversity. We can battle the lies wherever they pop up as long as we aren't busy fighting with each other.

There is plenty of work for each of us to do and we should each go with our strengths and try to learn from each other as well so we become stronger as well.

Unfortunately, we will be cleaning this mess up for generations, so building our ally base is probably the most important thing we can do right now to ensure a real and lasting success.

The religious left, btw, is represented by people who looked at Jesus washing his Apostles feet and understand He was urging them to not act holier than others, but to always see themselves as servants of God and be humble.

Taking over a country isn't what TRUE believers of Christ are about. We know that He also told them not to bicker about who would be seated next to Him in Heaven and that whole, the last shall be first and the first shall be last IS written in the Bible.

Really making Heaven on Earth is an inclusive thing, not a dominance thing. Jesus hung out with "the least among us" and He gave them His love just the same, sometimes more than the pompus ass pharisees thought He should. Anyone following Jesus' example isn't looking to take over any country or force any one to believe in Him.

[Tigress DEM]

164. I'm all for "reason & sound, practicle policies that will make positive,

... measurable changes in the real world, in issues of genuine concern to ordinary people."

However, I think that individual motivation on these can vary without having to "get into religion" or "keep out religion" at the personal level.

There are those who see "making a difference in this world" as part of their faith. It would be hard for someone who really believes that way to divorce themselves of their motivation.

Someone once explained the spiritual difference between DEMS and rethugs. DEMs want the government to follow the "One Nation Under God" when it comes to helping those in need, but to keep the law off of individuals and their beliefs. rethugs want the government to legislate individual behavior and let people in need learn from experience to not be so needy.

[knitter4democracy]

225. I agree. Let me at 'em!

I do talk with fundies, and I do engage in debates with evangelicals. I believe that we can win their votes, if not their hearts, if we explain things in language they understand.

I went to one of their colleges. I used to be one of them but never felt comfortable with the logical extension of their beliefs. That said, I know their language and can at least make them uncomfortable or even think occasionally.

I even won over a couple on phone canvassing for Kerry last year, although I lost one when she went into crazy anti-gay land. Seriously, I hung up on her, as she was lost.

That demographic is mine, and I work on them every chance I get. I don't proselytize or try to make them come over to my kind of church--I just try to get them thinking about what our faith really says and how it should be enacted in real life.

[Inland]

285. A guy with a personal problem re: religion sacrifices all the rest. Great

The real problem isn't things like, oh, the war, or social injustice, or a weak economy. The real problem is that Zenenlighted has a hardon about religion and wants people to just plan stop it.

Yeah, maybe people can take a stand without dragging god into it. Maybe they can't. Maybe the important thing is that they take a stand. Not to you, of course, but to the country and the rest of us that aren't taking part in your manichean struggle against religion.

[Zenlitened]

291. My, my. The sexual imagery once again.

Not big on boundaries, are you? Or is this a part of your fetish, a political porn of some sort?

:shrug:

[Inland]

293. "Once again"? You see both prayer and porn everywhere.

Or pretend to. Pretending that you are oppressed, victimized, and now, the reliable ally. I call bullshit. It's not much more of a step to pretend to be a victim of sexual harrassment, is it?

It's a political forum. What's more, it's a liberal, democratic forum. You have another agenda: you've a personal problem with religion, a desire to see it gone, and not much else. You don't fit in. You really should find a forum that has the other side of the fundie coin.

Good luck with your cosmic beef with religion. It's all you have, after all.

[Zenlitened]

295. Do you just cut and paste the same tiresome posts over and over again?

:shrug:

Although I do like your pronouncement that I "don't fit in" and should merely begone.

Wow! What a trip it must be, to be you! :rofl:

[Inland]

299. Oh, my, the guy who can't buy himself a new topic complains of repeats.

Seriously, dude, if you get the same posts from me, it's because you are johnny one note. Yeah, yeah, you hate religion and religionists, and think them the root of all evil WE GET IT ALREADY.

And you don't care about anything else except your personal problem with religion. WE KNOW. That's why you pooh pooh the thought of political alliances with religious types. You don't want to accomplish anything like that. You have a manichean struggle with religion, with you and the athiests on the one side and religion on the other. It's the same world view the fundies have. You're the other side of the coin.

Sound familiar? Of course it does. It's true, and really sums you up. You're not a democrat, or a liberal. You're an atheist fundamentalist. Go away.

[Zenlitened]

303. Ha ha ha! Well-written, if wide of the mark!

Your research lacks rigor, to say the least. "Dude."

But please, do keep on telling me what my politics are, and where I may discuss them!

[Inland]

305. Sorry, fundamentalists of all types not welcome. Go away.

It's not research to call you what you are. It's reading. Your same thesis on religion over and over.

You're a bore, and the other side of the fundie coin. Go have it out with the fundie religionists, since you both agree on the manichaen struggle with each other, and let others discuss liberal democratic values without you changing the subject to your personal cosmic beef.

[Zenlitened]

309. You flatter yourself, if you actually believe that your...

... proclamations about where I may and may not post carry any weight.

If anything, your braying shows the utter weakness of your position, and your fear of hearing anything that contradicts your point of view. It seems to exhaust you, this effort to clamp down on all opinions that don't suit you.

Makes you cranky, and a bit of a bore yourself. But although you can whimper and wail about you'll permit to be a liberal and who you'll not, the fact is that you just don't seem suited to participate in a discussion forum yourself.

Maybe that's why you project this particular failing of yours onto me tonight. You claim to be tired of my "thesis" on this topic, but apparently have plenty of energy to throw a little temper tantrum and demand that I stop saying things you don't want to hear.

That you find a way to call me a "fundie" in the process doesn't to anything to disguise your own rigidity on this issue. That you can claim I've "changed the topic" suggests you don't even bother to read the thread before leaping in with your usual toxic blend of ignorance and attitude.

And believe me, if I thought for a moment that you, of all people, were a champion of liberal democratic values, I'd have written the obituary for this party long ago.

[Inland]

312. The guy who demands the end to god talk says I don't want to hear things.

The ironies just keep coming and coming, don't they?

And of course, I'm rigid. In what way, pray tell? Rigidly defending actual tolerance? Another extremist for moderation?

Really, go away. As much as you pretend to be a victim, it's just for the purpose of taking whacks at believers and religion, including liberal ones. You don't care about the liberal. It's all about the religion. You've got one issue, and the world is divided on one side or another, and you can't buy another topic for the life of you. You've the black and white, good and evil, manichean struggle of the fundie.

You aren't liberal, you aren't democratic. You're a fundamentalist.

And a bore, as all fundies are.

[Zenlitened]

316. Try as you might to mis-characterize who and what I am...

... -- not to mention what I've said and how I've said it -- I think it still comes across more as a projection of your own inadequacies than anything else.

You have no facts, you have no logical arguments, you have only an endless supply of sanctimonious indignation. So you resort to crying "go away!" With the occasional "no-I'm-not-YOU-are" post thrown in for good measure.

Really, your statements make an interesting case study of what the tired, the isolated and the unimaginative can achieve when given a keyboard and access to the internet. Your sole contribution to this discussion -- as has happened so often -- has been to complain that not everyone thinks the way you do. Or that they don't post in a way you approve -- because apparently you're keeping track not only by count but by type as well.

Perhaps you'd like to draft some more explicit rules for how to participate on DU, and forward them to the admins? That way we can be sure you'll never face the ordeal of confronting an opinion that contradicts your own. Though I have every confidence that you'd find a way to make life unpleasant for everyone around you, no matter what.

[Inland]

321. Nothing about the rules. Just about the truth and how you don't fit in.

You almost seem unhappy that the rules don't ban you, as it hurts your claim to victimhood, which you rise above by declaring yourself the paragon of logic and reason by virtue of....well, you know why.

First you perceive the world as a manichaen struggle between atheism and religion, then you attribute to yourself all sorts of good qualities for being on the right side, and damn anyone who disagrees to the other with all its evil attributes. I get the same from the fundie believers as I get from you. There's not a whit of difference between you fundie types except the names change.

[Zenlitened]

322. You reach some pretty wild conclusions about me...

... based largely on your own shortcomings, it seems.

[Inland]

324. I just read your posts.

And what's really crazy is, you assume that I'm religious and a believer because I call you on your bullshit.

It's your worldview as a dichtomy between believers and non-believers. There's no room for any other topic, other issue, other points of view. That's why you've got one topic and are an intolerant bore, like all fundies.

Why do you put up with all this tolerance and liberal live and let live shit? Go find solace with your fellow fundies. Have that kumbaya moment. You don't belong here.

[Zenlitened]

329. No, I assume you're not a very clear thinker. I assume that...

... you're a nasty, bitter person who attempts to shed his own toxic bile by spewing it at others.

And every time you post you confirm this assumption.

[trotsky]

346. Here, Zenlightened.

It's really good! I got some after I whupped Inland on our last thread.

[Inland]

349. "Others"? You mean, it's not just you? Wrong again.

See, unlike you, I haven't made it a point to see myself in a Manichean struggle You and the other fundies are only waiting for someone to "reveal" which side they are on. Once you've pigeonholed someone, you think you know everything there is to know.

It's a unidimensional, bigoted, and fundamentally false worldview, and fundies of either side of the coin are not liberal.

As you and the approximately two other fundamentalist atheists spend so much time arguing that believers shouldn't be "coddled", and reinforcing each other in the kumbaya, self righteous moments, why not just leave and form your own little party? After all, the whole tolerance thing leaves you cold and you have already said that believers are untrustworthy political allies. So take your handful and begone.

The democrats will keep all the atheists who can tolerate believers, the believers that can tolerate atheists, and somehow manage without you and the other fundies. Good for you, good for us, good for America.

[mzmolly]

351. Here here !

The democrats will keep all the atheists who can tolerate believers, the believers that can tolerate atheists, and somehow manage without you and the other fundies. Good for you, good for us, good for America.

[Zenlitened]

358. And again, you project your own shortcomings...

... while misinterpreting and mis-characterizing the positions of your opponent.

Now, where I have seen that tactic at work before...?

But you go n repeating your talking points, and shrilly instructing me to stop posting on DU. If only I had known I was tangling with someone who wields such power over DU...

:rofl:

[KitchenWitch]

142. Not to mention RevCheesehead

[Meldread]

9. Think of it...

...as them being useful. You can't deny the fact that the majority of Americans, unfortunately, hold some religious belief. We can't just poo-poo on all of them even if we don't agree. Would you rather the Religious Right be the voice of Religion or have a more agreeable version for our side?

That's really what it's all about. I believe in freedom and that freedom extends to letting folks believe whatever they want, provided they don't try and enforce it on anyone else. We need them, probably more than they need us which is unfortunate - though by working together we can certainly get much accomplished. Don't you agree?

I don't view it as coddling I view it as being diplomatic. There is a difference, besides I'm gay - do you honestly think religion is a big friend of mine? I'm just a hop and a skip away from being put on a stake and burned alive in America, which is why I most certainly have a vested interest in ensuring that a version of Christianity that is pro-gay is promoted.

[Zenlitened]

19. Frankly, it seems to me that religion is rotting from the inside ...

... these days. I'm in no hurry to stop it.

And I honestly don't know how much the religionists purporting to be progressive can be trusted... particularly on the issue of Liberty and Justice for All. Too many seem perfectly willing to deny marriage equality for gays and lesbians, giving the weak excuse of their "religion." Our most recent candidate for president comes to mind.

So I find it somewhat galling that these people want want want more more more, when they can so casually pick and choose which of my values they'll accept and which they'll toss in the trash-heap based on their "faith."

[Meldread]

22. You can't be a politician and a person of faith.

A person of faith is required to have a soul, and becoming a politician requires you to sell it. So once you become one you automatically are a soulless blood sucking monster - either that or no one ever gets to hear from you. So Kerry doesn't count.

To tell me you couldn't support these folks?


http://www.crosswalkamerica.org/


Christian love of God includes:
1. Walking fully in the path of Jesus, without denying the legitimacy of other paths God may provide humanity;

2. Listening for God’s Word which comes through daily prayer and meditation, through studying the ancient testimonies which we call Scripture, and through attending to God’s present activity in the world;

3. Celebrating the God whose Spirit pervades and whose glory is reflected in all of God’s Creation, including the earth and its ecosystems, the sacred and secular, the Christian and non-Christian, the human and non-human;

4. Expressing our love in worship that is as sincere, vibrant, and artful as it is scriptural.

Christian love of neighbor includes:
5. Engaging people authentically, as Jesus did, treating all as creations made in God’s very image, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental ability, nationality, or economic class;

6. Standing, as Jesus does, with the outcast and oppressed, the denigrated and afflicted, seeking peace and justice with or without the support of others;

7. Preserving religious freedom and the Church’s ability to speak prophetically to government by resisting the commingling of Church and State;

8. Walking humbly with God, acknowledging our own shortcomings while honestly seeking to understand and call forth the best in others, including those who consider us their enemies;

Christian love of self includes:
9. Basing our lives on the faith that, in Christ, all things are made new, and that we, and all people, are loved beyond our wildest imagination – for eternity;

10. Claiming the sacredness of both our minds and our hearts, recognizing that faith and science, doubt and belief serve the pursuit of truth;

11. Caring for our bodies, and insisting on taking time to enjoy the benefits of prayer, reflection, worship and recreation in addition to work;

12. Acting on the faith that we are born with a meaning and purpose; a vocation and ministry that serves to strengthen and extend God’s realm of love.

[Zenlitened]

28. 98% gobbledyguck, in my view. "God's word"... god's glory"...

... "creations made in god's image"... "the Church’s ability to speak prophetically to government."

All of that is complete and utter horseshit, in my considered opinion. Depraved and, in the long run, almost always dangerous to the dignity of the human being.

Can't they just agree to act like decent people, because that's what decent people do?

And if not, if they insist on their god-talk, is it really required of me to jump to my feet and shout "hallelujah" and "amen" right along with them? It's disgusting, truly repugnant, and yet some in that cabal would demand that I simply shut up and go along before they would consider me an ally.

No, coddling the religionists is not the answer. The true progressives among them will do what's right and fair because that's what progressives do. Those who won't -- those who insist on obeisance -- will stab us in the back the moment the mood strikes them, anyway.

[Arugula Latte]

35. I think more religious people need to hear that many of us

think they're full of shit. Crazy, stupid ideas are considered mainstream because everyone is afraid to "offend" these lunies.

Well, the fucking Earth wasn't created 4,000 years ago by a Sky God and Adam and Eve were not the first humans. To pretend otherwise is to be sucked into Insane World.

But in this society, I'm considered subversive because I don't believe in supernatural things like angels and other cloud dwelling creatures and bullshit myths like a person who lived 2,000 years ago is going to come down to Earth aaaaaany day now to save us all.

[Zenlitened]

42. I think the time is right for a backlash against religious superstition.

Some will advise us to wait wait wait, but I think the conditions are ripe for a real paradigm shift in this country. So even the small battles matter, the small statements we make in defense of reason.

[FreedomAngel82]

70. So you want to take away part of my first amendment right?

I don't think so. If you're going to take away my right to freedom of religion than I'll fight you on it.

[Zenlitened]

76. Yes, that's exactly what I said.

:eyes:

[FreedomAngel82]

95. Here's what you said

I think the time is right for a backlash against religious superstition.

Yep. Sounds like it to me.

[Zenlitened]

103. And you immediately assume that translates as "shred the...

... constitution"?

The term "backlash" is generally used in the context of social or political movements.

Which in this case would be the secular- or reason-minded elements of our society finally standing up and pushing back against the religionists and their imposition superstitions.

Really, try not to be so paranoid.

[FreedomAngel82]

117. Well gee look at some of the comments on this thread

Hard not to be. I have people on the right who want to get me for being a liberal and people on the left who want to get me for being a Christian. Excuse me while I explode. :banghead: :nuke:

[Zenlitened]

119. In what I would consider a perfect political climate...

... I would have no idea at all that you're a christian, or any other religion.

[Tigress DEM]

129. Not very Zen or Enlightened of you to say this.

You sound very angry at religious people and it seems partly like this is your own thing. We need MORE tolerance, not LESS for everyone's beliefs.

I simply think that people who believe differently than I do are interesting and offer me some objectivity to my own ways of thinking.

I realize the religious right is beating people over the head with the Bible lately, but that doesn't square with the message Jesus preached, so I don't even consider them to be valid messengers for Him.

It really does matter to me that separation of church and state gets back on track. I hate what religious people have done to make those who believe differently feel that they aren't as important or respected in this country.

If we have a paradigm shift, that is what I would like to see -- everyone being respected no matter what their beliefs, skin color etc...

[Zenlitened]

137. Ah, the riff on my username. Haven't had that in a while.

Please note the spelling: L-I-T-E... meaning diluted or lesser or watered-down. Hardly a boast of my "spiritual" state, more a bit of self-deprecation.

In any event, I don't agree that we need more tolerance of religious beliefs. I think we need a greater freedom to say "keep that stuff away from me, we're trying to come up with a budget here, not a book of the saved."

And it may be that the paradigm shifts we envision may overlap in many ways, in that removing religion from its obscuring position will clear they was to a society where reason prevails over superstition. Clears the way to replacing fear with respect when it comes to our differences in terms of other belief systems, cultural contexts, skin color etc.

[Tigress DEM]

162. Hmmm, let's say more tolerance in general.

When you say keep "religion" out of the budget, I can see it is an issue of HOW we say things that matters.

For example, you may agree that we need to increase funding to programs that help people pay their heating bills because the price of natural gas is going up and those programs have been slashed, but you don't want to hear anything about how it is our "Christian duty to help those in need" because that isn't your motivation.

It may be simply unacceptable to you as a fellow human to see people freeze to death because the pRes had to have this war with Iraq and blew off LA and the rest of the victims of Katrina. AND it would be really nice for THAT motivation to be equally lauded.

Am I anywhere near close to understanding what you mean by keeping religion out of the budget?

I don't necessarily agree that reason and faith have to conflict. Even in science there is a lot we don't know now that could explain people's long held beliefs. Some day we'll know and until then, let people be free to think what they like.

Power of prayer and touch healing could be some sort of electromagnetic telekinetic gift that we can't measure at the level of knowledge we have now for example. There was a time surgeons scrubbed only AFTER surgery with no thought to causing infection by going in with germ covered hands. If bad stuff can pass between us, why not good stuff?

I still don't think we should teach the Bible's creation story as scientific fact, but who knows, maybe it happened that way and evolution is only really off with the missing link bit.

Maybe we are a long lost space colony. I don't know for sure and it would be hard to listen to a true believer of that theory with a straight face, but I could probably manage. It would certainly answer the question of who built the pyramids.

Oh, and after reading about FSM in Wikipedia, I see why Ulyses was cracking up. FSM is stated to be a satirical parody of religion... and if it really proved true, what would you do?

Still, I'm guessing after reading more of your posts it's basically an attempt to ask people to not take things so seriously or at immediate face value because someone in authority said so. Rather to think things through and decide for oneself.

[Zenlitened]

289. Yes, that's pretty close.

...Am I anywhere near close to understanding what you mean by keeping religion out of the budget?

I don't want to hear politicians nattering on about "Christian duty." I don't want my political party to base its platforms on "christian duty."

This, in part because I see "human duty" as a superior value, one that is far more inclusive. And also because, in the pages of history, "christian duty" far too often precedes oppression, repression and outright murder.

Re: whether faith and reason are or are not in conflict. Maybe it's best if we leave that for another thread. Based on your examples, I'm not sure we'd find a lot of agreement. Sure people are free to believe whatever they want. But there are some things we can generally agree are facts, and there are others that must be taken on faith in the absense of facts. Again, if the pages of history are any guide, conflict is inevitable, peaceful coexistence a temporary state, at best.

[Tigress DEM]

170. As the token Christian on the board... I hear you.

:hi:

I happen to also be a sci-fi fan and have quite a New-Age and Eastern influence to my faith. I'm sure you would think I am totally apeshit nuts and I wouldn't blame you. It does keep me from going insane, though (being a little nuts) so it is beneficial.

Basically, I understand why you don't believe in the various things you mentioned and the details to me in many instances aren't important.

What IS important to me and what the religious right is missing ENTIRELY is the EXAMPLE of how Jesus lived and treated people. If the religious right WERE really following Christ's example, they wouldn't be bashing gays or blacks or poor people.

And as for people who believed differently, Jesus walked up to a Samaritan who was even an outcast among her own people and told her that the time would come when differnces would be cast aside and people would worship together in many places. The Samaritans were reviled by the Jews at the time and had this major argument about who was worshiping "correctly". Jesus also used a Samaritan to make the point that it is in our kind and loving actions that make us good neighbors, not any pedigree we think we have.

[FreedomAngel82]

68. That's not true

Look at Jimmy Carter. Did he sell his soul? I don't think so.

[FreedomAngel82]

66. So I'm only useful to you?

Wow, I don't appreciate being used. If that's the whole point of your thread than, for me to be used by your own agenda, than I don't appreciate that. I've been used enough in my life and I'm tired of it.

[Sapphocrat]

85. Damn, Meldread, now you're worrying me.

I have a much longer reply to you downthread, but I have to say this here: Your last two or three posts illustrate EXACTLY what I'm saying (downthread) -- just switch "people of faith" with "gay people"!

In fact, I'll quote some of your remarks -- with my edits in bold. Imagine a politically-minded Christian (lib or con, doesn't matter) brainstorming about the best way to get queers to vote for a certain party:

If you believe you're gay so deeply ... are you more likely to be agreeable to the guy who just pissed all over it or to the guy who just smiled and nodded?

It's not like gay people are going away. There is always going to be a segment of the population out who are homosexual. It's not like we can stomp it out, and if we could have we would have been able to do it by now.

You should know as well as I do that trying to argue with homosexuals using the fact they're sinners and going to hell doesn't work. I'm sure you've tried it just as I have, so instead of trying to save their souls...

. . .

Think of it as gay people being useful for their votes and their campaign contributions. ... We can't just poo-poo on all of them even if we don't agree. ...

I believe in freedom and that freedom extends to letting folks sleep with whoever they want, provided they don't try and force it on anyone else. We need them, probably more than they need us which is unfortunate - though by working together we can certainly get much accomplished.

Also:

Although to be honest I really haven't seen any lefty Religious folks stomping on non-believers like us. If they do it we can call them on it.

Well, I have seen it, and no, we cannot call them on it. Not without consequences. I'd give you an example of exactly what you haven't seen, if you want to PM me.

As for being willing to be "treated like a bitch" by anybody and being willing to put up with "No Fags" signs (what next? water coolers "For Straights Only"?), your thinking worries me -- a lot. All the compromise is on our side -- where's their sacrifice?

I feel you're asking us non-Christians (especially queers) to bend over backwards, without demanding -- or even expecting -- the same. I can't bend that far without breaking.

It boils down to this: I AM WILLING to overlook somebody else's faith in order to work together politically -- but most of the time, they REFUSE to overlook my being gay!

[Tigress DEM]

193. OMIGOD! You're Gay! Why don't people tell me these things?

I agree with a lot that you've said. And after that wowzer post, I did attempt to lighten this up a bit.

NO ONE should feel they have to put up with being treated as a bitch and if a Christian does it to anyone in my presence they will think the Lord Himself came upon them when I get finished because wrong is wrong.

And yet, I can't help but think the OP was merely asking for respectful behavior AND YES it MUST be on both sides. HERE on DU is a better place to start because most people here DO believe in tolerance.

The problem is that each of us can only control our own behavior and it IS a scary world out there with people who call themselves Christians hurting others in His name.

My mother was like that when she talked about gays - 700 Clubitis - and she was herself wounded by life and not real put together on knowing how to show love to her own kids either. Yet as outspoken as my mom was I never saw her actually say anything bad to any gay person ever. It's like face to face my mother saw people as people, but she still had these stupid ideas.

[Meldread]

214. Yeah, I know how it sounded.

I was being as blunt as I possibly could and spelling out exactly what non-believers get out of working together with Christians. Although when I wrote it gays weren't what came to my mind it was black folks. I kept saying "those people", and I really didn't like saying that all that much. I just didn't know how to convey in text my point without clearly illustrating that I'm not taking a side so much as standing in the middle.

[Maat]

14. We have that FSM on our minivan!

We have a mixed marriage; my husband is a Pastafarian - I'm a Religious Scientist and Universalist.

Hubby knows that I'm not a fan of spaghetti - more of a penne kind of person.

It works.

I don't think Spirit/Universal-Consciousness cares what you call It; the FSM is fine by me.


;-)

We believe that each person is unique perfection (a piece of Spirit sent here to experience for Spirit) - thus, gays, lesbians, heterosexuals, bi sexuals, trans, questioning, tall, short, big, tiny, black, white, ebony, ivory, red-headed, atheist, agnostic, believer, non-believer, whomever - each are perfect just as they are.

Of course, there are inevitable consequences to BEHAVIOR - such as jail/fines for ol' Randy Cunningham (but that's another story).

I agree with the O.P. - I wish to treat all progressively-minded people with respect: Methodists, Episcopalians, United Church of Christ members, Unity members, Church of Religious Science members, etc.

It is a daily struggle for me to treat conservatives with respect; most times I am successful because, deep down, I want to treat all people with a certain level/kind of respect.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

54. Why do you say this?

[Zenlitened]

61. Read the rest of the thread for elaboration. n/t

[AnotherMother4Peace]

82. I read it & you said I need to be coddled & spoon fed bananas

& none of that is true. Where are you getting your information? People of faith come from so many walks of life. One of my favorite people is Rell Sun, one of the first competitive female surfers. She believed, in the Hawaiian tradition, that her ancestors protected her while she surfed or dove for sea food. The religious right has hijacked religion in a bad way, in an evil way. Please don't be so narrow minded as to confuse true people of faith with evil doers.

[Zenlitened]

87. A more careful reading will show that my statements were to say...

... coddling and spoon-feeding were unnecessary.

Please note my use of the question mark ("?") in previous posts.

As for talk of ancestors protecting surfers, what am I to make of that? Am I supposed to admire that state of mind?

:shrug:

[AnotherMother4Peace]

91. It doesn't matter if you admire it or not - It's someone's belief

& if you want to coddle and spoon feed me bananas, hey what the heck? I'll ask my hubby.

[Zenlitened]

96. Uh, yeh. Not so much.

What is this, Reading Incomprehension Night at DU?

[AnotherMother4Peace]

111. As a relatively new person here, is this what you call a "flaming" thread

or something to that effect?

[Zenlitened]

112. I don't know. What do you think?

[AnotherMother4Peace]

Good question. I think this thread would generate a good discussion

about the diversity of world wide religious beliefs, and the relevance of those beliefs.

[Zenlitened]

122. I think it has.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

140. Last tag & and God bless

[Tigress DEM]

113. How is behaving in a respectful manner coddling?

I respect people of all faiths - and everyone believes in something. I don't feel it's my place to define anyone's spiritual business just because I know what church they go to or don't.

Whether a person is religious or not, mainstream or simply works with the hope that there is enough good in the people of the world that we'll eventually get it figured out before we blow ourselves up, I DO NOT believe in BODY SLAMMING my ALLIES because they profess to believe in God.

I understand that it's a lot different than the Religious Right and the rethuglicans thinking they OWN God.

There is a whole group called Clergy and Laity Concerned About Iraq that went to DC Sept 24-26th and leaders from all denominations spoke out against spending money on Iraq and in doing so ignoring our people at home and allowing the great tragedy to happen in New Orleans.

They spoke as well about putting aside our differences and doing the things we must to end this administration's ungodly hold on America. If the rethugs are the Right Wing, then WE are the Rest of the Bird. Even people of faith can get it and put feet to their faith by standing up against these impostors who call themselves Christians, but persecute anyone not wearing Armani.

[Zenlitened]

125. Define "respect." That seems to be one of the major sticking points.

Though I'd argue that there is a more basic question: Why are politics and religion so intertwined in the first place?

And rather than trying out-religion the right, might we not instead try to out-reason them, with practical real-world policies and solutions that address issues -- without tossing "'cause my bible tells me so" into the conversation all the time?


(edit typos)

[Tigress DEM]

150. There are many levels of respect.

Some respect we give to others as a basic courtesy because that is how we wish them to treat us and in most cases when a high bar of respect is set by one person or group then those who respond in a less respectful manner are actually looked upon as being less honorable.

Course lately that axim has been turned on its head and so many times political discussions have turned into knock down, drag out shouting matches.

I guess respect in this instance as I see it is agreeing to disagree. It takes a strong person to hold their own beliefs in the face of others who strongly promote other beliefs. Agreeing to disagree says that each person is entitled to their own ideas even after both sides have stated their cases.

It takes an even stronger person to refuse to be dragged into a battle over which beliefs are "better" which is why although I'm basically a Christian, I really admire the Eastern masters who don't propose to know all the answers, simply to be searching for the truths as they are revealed. You can't GET those people to argue with you because they aren't about making anyone see it their way.

Ironically, I've had some of my best religious discussions with an old Pagan I used to hang out with.

ON DU I think if you throw in the disclaimer that not all Christian's are assholes, it's a step in the right direction; but there is a mile or two between that and coddling someone. Lots of choices in there.

Just stating that you want to make an effort to try and see someone else's viewpoint and hopefully not judge them right away can make you less understood as well. We don't all present ourselves well in the first paragraph or so sometimes so if you see something that seems like a jab, check it out before blasting.

I've wound up with some really good conversations on DU once misunderstandings got cleared up. We all have our own filters and none of us is perfect.

Peace.

[Meldread]

158. ...and how many people heard about that?

"There is a whole group called Clergy and Laity Concerned About Iraq that went to DC Sept 24-26th and leaders from all denominations spoke out against spending money on Iraq and in doing so ignoring our people at home and allowing the great tragedy to happen in New Orleans."

How many people heard about that? How many people even know about that group? This is why the Religious Left *NEEDS* us to help amplify their voice.

[Tigress DEM]

197. Well, half a million people were there Saturday 9/24...

It was on flyers all over the place, but by Sunday when they had their Interdenominational Service a lot of people had gone home.

Many people heard, but probably about 100-200 were there that evening for the service.

This group is involved with United For Peace and Justice and when I did work as a receptionist for a Church, I know a lot of ministers meet together on justice issues and put aside their religious differences for the time together.

[timtom]

212. As a Christian

I don't believe I have EVER posted ANYTHING on DU that was bashing to any member of any group that I may find offensive. As of this post, you still don't have any idea who I might find offensive or what beliefs or ideals I find offensive (the current wave of evil in the white house and all its manifestations throughout the world being the exception). You just don't know. You could guess and guess again and still be off the mark.

Go ahead. Do a search on my posts and see if I'm telling the truth.

I don't need coddling of any sort. I give and expect to get pretty much in like kind (on this board).

I have looked and looked in vain to find as broad a paintbrush as you are using now. Wouldn't that make my job of painting my house go that much more quickly?!

I also have a strong affinity for Zen, and, while I do not think I have experienced satori (without the help of some of the powerful psychedelics I used to ingest), I would say to you, "Are you still carrying that woman? I put her down by the river's edge."

[Zenlitened]

241. Who are you?

Is this all about you?

"Go ahead and search your posts"?

Right. Maybe I'll just wait until you post something of substance, and react or not depending on the statement you make.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

228. What is your definition of a "religionist"?

Do you draw a distinction between me, for example, a life-long Christian and Pat Robertson?

[Zenlitened]

242. A distinction between you and Pat Robertson? I dunno...

... I haven't seen your TV show. Are you on cable?

Or more to the point, do you spend your days framing everything in terms of your idea of a deity, and insisting that everyone else do the same?

That'd be a sign -- of a particularly non-divine nature -- that one is a religionist.

I think you're in a better position to answer your question than I.

[mzmolly]

251. So religious tolerance is akin to "coddling?"

To demand everyone think like you do in order to be respected is no better behavior than Jerry Falwell exhibits.

[Zenlitened]

256. Interesting reasoning, if I may call it that.

It seems to me you have failed to read the OP, which in the language it uses goes far beyond tolerance, IMO.

Then you make a leap directly to "demanding everyone think like you."

Huh?

[mzmolly]

259. Which part of the OP goes beyond tolerance? I read it and did not get

that impression. Further, your insinuation that I'm beyond reason is par for the course in discussions such as these. It would be interesting to see a new and exciting insult now and again.

:hi:

[Zenlitened]

260. Well, the OP advoctaes that we regard religious lefties as "treasures"...

It goes on to instruct us to "lift them up as pillars"... "give them a voice"... "offer our support"... and "help them flourish." That goes well beyond any standard definition of tolerance I've ever seen.

As for insinuations... interesting that you hear criticism of one of your statements, and immediately feel that you've been accused of being "beyond reason."

I dunno. Are you? :shrug:

[mzmolly]

261. So much for an interesting insult.

However, the OP advocates her position ONLY the context of religion itself. She does not say that you should embrace the beliefs of people like Martin Luther King, Paul Wellstone and Gandhi. She simply states that people who do good with their faith ought to be our collective example. She further states that people on the left can use these examples when discussing matters of faith, especially when doing so with the Right Wing - who claim to have a corner on the faith/moral values market.

The gist of her statements are:

the religious left (who respects YOUR right to believe X or not) is an ally in defeating the religious right (who does not respect your right ot believe X or not.)

Reasonable?

Edited to add: See my sigline for an example of how this is done. ;) The bible has hundreds of references to helping the poor, yet the RW gives tax breaks to the wealthy and takes food from the mouths of children. If we don't address their hypocrisy from a "Biblical" standpoint, it's meaningless to them. I prefer to use their own "book of direction" against them in a debate. And, I say that as a "believer" myself. Though I'm not a biblical literalist, I feel that the book is full of great arguments against the Right Wing agenda.

[Zenlitened]

266. That sounds reasonable on its face.

However I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of the religious left being "our collective example." I frankly don't trust them all to respect my right not to believe when push comes to shove.

In any event, I don't want to see the Democratic party trying to out-religion the right. I don't want to see the Democratic party sprinkling god-talk throughout its talking points.

I'd rather not see politics framed in terms of religion at all, honestly, although the day when that little dream of mine comes true seems an incredibly long ways off.

In the meantime, when discussing matters of faith with the right wing, I'd prefer to advocate that religion be kept out policy-making entirely, rather than meekly declaring "we have religionists, too."

[Warren DeMontague]

268. How about using the 'faith' of the founding fathers in certain concrete

principles-

among them, namely, the separation of church and state.

I agree with you- calling the Religious Left "our collective example" is a little presumptuous for the millions of people in the Democratic Party who manage to be perfectly moral human beings with no particular religious belief whatsoever, thank you very much.

This BS idea that you can't be moral without "God" is noxious enough as it is.

[mzmolly]

273. The founding fathers were right about the separation of church and state

being fundamental to our democracy. And, you'll be hard pressed to find many Democrats who disagree with that premise, personal belief in God(s) - Goddesses aside.

[mzmolly]

269. Actually your reply sounds reasonable on it's face, but it ignores the

reality that the majority of the people in this country ascribe to a believe in a higher power. With that being the case, I am comfortable saying that my position is not only reasonable on it's face, but the most logical as well.

I also don't wish to see the Democrats out "religion" the right, but I do want us to out "moral value" them, and the Bible is an effective tool to accomplish that ~ regardless of ones personal belief system.

I'd rather not see politics framed in terms of religion at all, honestly, although the day when that little dream of mine comes true seems an incredibly long ways off.

Indeed it is a long way off. And, while we wait for something that may or may not happen, we have to win elections. We can't do that by eliminating the basic foundation for many peoples political beliefs from the topic of conversation.

As I said I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state, but I think it's a huge mistake to hand the Right Wing the God card.

[Zenlitened]

272. I'm not at all convinced that attempting to wrest the god-card...

... from the right wing is the key to securing election victories. And I'm not at all convinced that religion is the basic foundation for many peoples' political views.

That's the right-wing's framing, certainly, and that's how they whip their voters into line. But I don't necessarily see it as a way to motivate liberal voters. It may be that doing so would turn off more liberals than it would motivate, prompting them to join the vast numbers of eligible voters who choose not to cast ballots.

(I'd rather see our party explore ways to tap that resource before getting all gooey about god.)

As for looking to the christian bible for moral values... perhaps that's best left to another thread. There's little enough in there to go on, and it's been quite a while since anyone used it to any great effect to champion progressive causes.

[mzmolly]

276. I am confident we can and should rip the God card from the Right Wing

and, make them eat the damn thing.

As for motivating "liberal" voters, I tend to agree that talking about God per se will not motivate the far left. But, we would motivate some on the fence and many people are sitting on those sharp prongs these days looking for a reason to become a Democrat. Many of those same people are being told that the Republican Party is the party of "Godly values" or "moral values" and I don't think we can afford to cede this issue to them. I also don't think we can let them get away with calling themselves tough on terror when GWB was in office on 911 etc. I believe in going after them on every front personally.

:hi:

There's little enough in there to go on, and it's been quite a while since anyone used it to any great effect to champion progressive causes.

I think we can and will use it in 2006/08 - and I hope that some who don't ascribe to similar beliefs will understand why when we do.

[Zenlitened]

311. I think you're stunningly wrong, in so many ways.

But hey, spray your god-graffiti all over the place. Pound those voters over the head with your bible. Then in December of 2006 we can all wonder -- again -- why the voters don't cast their ballots for faux-republicans.

[mzmolly]

319. Well do you have some polls that show the majority of Americans

don't ascribe to a belief in God? If you do, I'll reconsider my position which is - we should meet people where they are and take them where we want them to be.

[Zenlitened]

320. Where did I refer to polls about belief in god? Where did I...

... contest the percentages of people who profess a belief in a god of some sort?

:shrug:

[mzmolly]

325. You did not say that the majority of Americans don't believe in God.

But that does not negate my assertion that we have to tackle the RW on every possible front does it? It is simply not politically prudent to ignore the fact that religion of some sort is a VAST part of American life/culture.

[Zenlitened]

327. Well, now it feels like you're just shifting the goalposts.

Look, I don't know if you're deliberately trying to be nasty or not. Maybe I'm just taking a sour view after getting slimed by this Inland character -- which seems to be a hazard of participating in any thread that gets moved to this forum.

In any event, yes I do agree that we need to confront the right-wing effectively. It doesn't seem that we agree on what constitutes effectiveness, though. I see this point in American history as an opportunity to break free of religionism once and for all, and so of course that's what I advocate in a discussion.

I don't favor adopting the methods of the religious right in order to beat them at their own game. What I favor is clearly distancing ourselves from that approach, by talking about policies, by talking about the value of secularism, by being forthright in stating that we shouldn't clutter up the political process with endless talk of god.

[mzmolly]

330. I did not think my tone was nasty?

Further, I'd have to see some proof that this is a viable time to break free from "religionism" in spite of the fact that the majority of Americans can relate to "religion" on some level.

I don't favor adopting the methods of the religious right in order to beat them at their own game.

I do not suggest adopting their methods, I suggest calling out their hypocricy with the words of the God they claim to follow.

[trotsky]

280. Ha! Exactly.

I frankly don't trust them all to respect my right not to believe when push comes to shove.

Pick out any one of the roadside crosses, "under god" in the pledge, or "in god we trust" threads and see just how much tolerance and respect is given to the non-religious (not necessarily outright atheist) position. We're called stupid and foolish at best, totalitarian and anti-religion at worst.

[Inland]

288. The flip side of the coin of the fundie statements on tolerance

in which others are tolerated as long as they "behave themselves".

That's not tolerance, of course, but a warning that you won't be tolerated. No more coddling of you folks!

[ulysses]

2. .

never mind.

[Warpy]

4. There's a line between respecting them

and allowing them to push us around.

Some people on these boards frequently cross that line.

[foreigncorrespondent]

78. Exactly!!!

Boy I could quote some lines from so called Christians of DU which they have posted here over the years. But that would get this thread locked, and I don't want to do that.

[AntiCoup2K4]

83. And some of those "line-crossers" are in your camp as well.

One of them is all over this thread.

[Zenlitened]

109. Well, don't keep us in suspense. Tell us who it is!

:rofl:

[mzmolly]

262. That goes both ways frankly.

And, it knows no bounds. Religion is only one "hot" topic here.

[RoBear]

6. How about respecting my NON belief????

Don't see that from any of the more ardent religious people out there.

[SammyWinstonJack]

8. ..

:woohoo:

[ulysses]

10. I suspect that that's because

the respect for your non-belief is often in the form of silence. Many folks are of a "live and let live" variety - you're not bothering them, they don't bother you.

[Meldread]

12. Well, I have to agree with that.

Although to be honest I really haven't seen any lefty Religious folks stomping on non-believers like us. If they do it we can call them on it.

Hell, it's not like we really need to argue. As long as they aren't trying to put Intelligent Design in schools, do anything to erode the Separation of Church and State, or convert us we should be on the same page.

...and really I have constantly seen the Religious Left stand up for the Separation of Church and State. After all they have just as much to lose every time the restrictions are some how watered down. It's not like it'd be THEIR religion being taught, it'd be the Religious Right's version.

[Tigress DEM]

200. OK - what do you NON Belief in? JK

Smile. As long as you aren't drinking the koolaid, you are a welcome addition to this party.

I respect everyone - well, except those in this administration who let grannies and old ladies and soldiers and a whole lot of other people die because they can't keep their heads out of their rears long enough to really do their jobs.

[mzmolly]

252. As a Democrat who believes in a seperation of church/state, I couldn't

care less what you believe. Can you name progressive christians who don't respect your "NON beliefs?"

[SammyWinstonJack]

7. I have no problem with people of religious faith, just don't shove it

in my face. How simple is that to understand?

[noahmijo]

18. ::Knock Knock::: Yes hello there sir or madam I am with the church of

The C-Note singing Seabat-yes how do you do?


Let me ask you have you found the prophet Matthew Burning Star IV yet?

:silly:

[SammyWinstonJack]

23. Whatever form it takes, just leave me out of it!

:silly: Believe in the invisible sky daddy all ya want, just don't shove it in my face!

[Protagoras]

40. Matthew 6:5-6

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites : for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.


--------------------------

when followed, this the issue never seems to come up...

[tocqueville]

11. the problem is not the monopoly of the religious right

it's only a sequel of the fact that the USA has never understood the separation of Church and State, even if it's more or less clearly named in the Constitution.

Even in European nations where it is not explicitely written in law, it's mostly applied "de facto" in reality. Even in Italy.

That's why we don't have stupid Xmas debates and that's why 99% of the political discussion doesn't deal with religion itself or religion related issues like abortion. Likewise the homosexuals rights are debated from the social perspective, not the religious ones. Frankly nobody here give a fuck about what the Pope thinks, except the Poles. And the Irish go over to england to abort.

In Europe the religious sphere seldom interferes with politics. And when it does, it mostly loses, makes itself more detached from the common man.

This is the basic problem. I'd love to have a US Democrat, or whoever who could stand and say "I am going to work for a congress law that clearly amend the Constitution so the separation of Church and State is clear". I wish there will be someday a US President swearing the oath on the Constitution and not the Bible, and saying "So help me the people"...

Try to run for President with those options...

Good Luck...

There is the problem, not the loonies, not the people of "good faith..."

end or rant

PS I am not an agnostic or an atheist, more of a seeker...

[Maat]

21. I, recently graduated with a law degree, would love ..

to see an amendment to the Constitution clearly emphasizing a separation of church and state.

Doubt I'll ever get one.

If you are a seeker, post in our DU S.O.U.P.S. group (Seekers on Unique Paths of Spirituality)!

(Maybe you do already.)

[tocqueville]

27. it will happen in time due to an historical process

the separation of Church and state happened for example very late in Sweden (1999). But it was applied in reality far long ago. Some immigration issues and a fight about the endorsement of female priests in the State Church, pissed people of and the separation became a fact.

in the US I bet the damage caused by the actual government will create a terrain for that. But it won't happen before someone leads the fight.

[noahmijo]

15. You judge a tree by the fruit it bears

A few good apples may come out here and there but if overall....you get the idea.

[porphyrian]

16. I respect people who earn it.

I also respect peoples' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Beyond that, I think believing something without any reason to believe it is crazy. Not all crazy is bad, but crazy is crazy, and I call it like I see it. If my opinion offends someone, the end of the line is around the corner.

[Maat]

26. Hey, whatever.

I'd say, "Go with God," but you probably wouldn't like that.


Hmmm ... enjoy your path!

And, if we ever meet face-to-face, keep your opinion of my being crazy to yourself - or I'm out of there!

Take care and peace,

[Zenlitened]

31. "keep your opinion of my being crazy to yourself"

Will you agree, then, to keep your opinion regarding a deity to yourself?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Zenlitened]

46. Um... "sparky," you seem to be missing the point.

Which doesn't surprise me.

Try this: don't spew your god-talk* at me, I won't tell you I think god-talk is crazy.


*Or, if you prefer, "nonlocalized and not necessarily self-aware universal consciousness not treally a god at all but something I insist is present even though I can't adequately define it-talk"

:eyes:

[lvx35]

177. The difference between you and a liberal person of faith is that

they KNOW they have a faith, and often choose not to preach it, while you preach your beliefs all the time. IS there some God, some higher meaning? Nobody knows, thus its called "faith". If you preach that their faith is WRONG, rather than being tolerant and confessing your own ignorance, than you are PREACHING. Expect others to stop preaching when you do.

[Zenlitened]

240. I "preach my beliefs all the time"?

Um, do I know you? Are you following me around in the real world, taking notes on my conversations?

Or do you base your statement on an observation of my posts in threads related to religion? In which case... no shit. Yeah, I probably have a 100% track record of voicing my opinion when I'm voicing my opinion.

:eyes:

[porphyrian]

80. Apparently over 300 million materialistic people didn't get your memo.

By "spiritual autism," do you mean a metaphorical condition, or are you suggesting that they have an invisible, undetectable essense that is functionally retarded, but with some outstanding genius-level ability?

[Maat]

50. If we're in a conversation ...

and I know you don't like to talk about it - sure.

I'd have no reason to bring it up.

But if someone starts and R & T thread, I'll respond.

[porphyrian]

33. You can be critical of my opinion, but I can't of yours?

That's childish. At least I know how to get rid of you. ;)

[Maat]

55. Like I said, "Enjoy your path!"

;-)

[Mandate My Ass]

25. Meldread: "we fail to see the treasure that is the Religious Left"

No, we don't.

I highly suggest that every time we take note of a religious person on the left doing something good, especially if it undermines the fundamentalists that we should all try to offer our support and help them get out their message so others can join them.

No, because then we are guilty of the same sin as the right wingers. You have a right to inject your religion into your politics. You have absolutely no right to suggest that others without your faith prop your beliefs up because it might contribute to the common good. The separation of church and state is absolute. Right, left or otherwise you are free to practice your religion, you are not free to promote a subjective interpretation of religion as a political wedge.

[Meldread]

32. All I'm saying is we fight fire with fire.

Would you rather the Right dominate the discourse of Faith in America? That is what they are doing. They wake up every single day and do just that - winning thousands over to them everyday.

It's not like they actually disagree with any - at least not most of our goals. In the end it's also not like they will be able to gain a monopoly like the Religious Right has, but they most certainly will maintain an important balance.

Don't you think we need our own counters to the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwels of America? Also, they will inevitability be too busy fighting each other over tiny details of their variances in faith to gain any ground - allowing science, human rights, and all the things we value to press forward without their opposition.

In the end it's a win-win for the secular left and the religious left.

[Mandate My Ass]

39. No. Religion has no right to inject itself into politics

They wake up every single day and do just that - winning thousands over to them everyday.

That is not true at all. Even among people of faith, the majority of Americans believe in the total separation of church and state. Turn off Fox News. You're buying into the hype. It's a lose-lose situation to think undermining the Constitution in a way that will be slightly less egregious to your partisan viewpoint is a good thing.

[lvx35]

172. you are totally right. nt

[mzmolly]

345. Exactly right. They interject religion into their politics and WE have a

duty to respond to their lies, regardless of the avenue they choose to deceive. The Bible is long and tedious. Most people of faith don't actually read it. Why on earth should we let the fascist bigots define the biblical message?

[Not_Giving_Up]

37. I don't attack people for their faith

I just wish that the people of faith didn't feel it so necessary to try to push their belief systems off on me. I don't get ugly unless they do.

[Maat]

67. I have NEVER tried to push my belief system off on someone else.

There are many people of faith who do not have any desire to proselytize.

So, I guess we would get along fine.

[Qibing Zero]

219. "I don't attack people for their faith"

I just attack their faith itself!



Oh come on, you know you should have said it. ;)

[TahitiNut]

44. My faith is more than strong enough to survive without social crutches.

I feel no obligation whatsoever to defend or proseletyze my faith. We each must follow our own path, by the lights we see by. The opinions voiced by others is all about them, not me. I'm open to feedback and information, not judgment or condemnation. I wouldn't have it any other way. :shrug:

[Maat]

71. I agree, TahitiNut.

I think that progressives should spend more time talking about what we have in common, and on working together towards common goals.

[Sapphocrat]

45. Since you've given this a lot of thought...

...and since I like you and respect your opinions, Meldread, I'd like your thoughts on working together politically with people of (other) faith(s):

What do you do when you have tried, repeatedly, to reach across to those whose belief systems demonize you (read: us, queers), only to have your entire philosophy trashed, and your entire existence diminished to "SINNER" simply because you're gay? Where does one finally draw the line, realize the old adage about "doing the same thing over and over = insanity" is true, and just give up?

No, not all people of faith are bad people. Some of my best friends, etc., etc.

BUT:

How can I respect people of faith who refuse to respect me?

How can I possibly try to work with such people?

How many hits for the team does one have to take before walking off the field, for good?

I'm keeping this as general as possible -- but as you can guess, I'm stinging, badly, right now, from a recent incident.

[Maat]

73. As a PFLAGer, I am truly sorry that you have been hurt.

I certainly do not expect you to respect anyone who doesn't respect you.

But, as you said, there are many of us (people of faith) who attend welcoming, affirming, inclusive churches - whose pastors do NOT recite anti-GLBT dogma.

We are progressives who work hard out there in the community - for human rights.

Take care and peace,

[Sapphocrat]

108. I appreciate that, Maat, thank you.

The real problem is not Christians, per se. It's trying to find common ground with those who haven't quite got that "Judge not, lest ye be judged" thing down yet.

I want to clarify: The folks I think of as "real Christians" (nonjudgmental, non-prosletyzing liberals) aren't the ones I ever felt I needed to build bridges with.

I don't take genuinely progressive Christians for granted -- not by a long shot, as you're so few and far between! But I think there's an unspoken understanding between us: I'm confident you won't try to inject religion into politics, and you know that we're not forcing anybody to marry us in their church.

In other words, your Christianity and my sexuality are non-issues; we're each so secure in our own spaces, we don't see each other as a threat. That frees us up to work -- together -- on more urgent matters.

That's my take on it, anyway.

And... Thank you for joining PFLAG. I wish everyone would. :)

On edit: Stupid typos.

[Maat]

245. Take care (n/t)!

[Meldread]

90. Simple answers.

"What do you do when you have tried, repeatedly, to reach across to those whose belief systems demonize you (read: us, queers), only to have your entire philosophy trashed, and your entire existence diminished to "SINNER" simply because you're gay?"
We are, of course in the same boat. Most liberal people of faith aren't nearly as bad as those on the right. Granted, it's the same religion that's burned us time and again... but you have to see things for what they are. Eighty-Five Percent (that's 85%!!) of Americans confess to being Christians! We, at best estimates, make up 20% of the population. Throw in all of our hardcore allies and we might, just maybe, make it to 30%. Then subtract all the self-loathing LGBT people who are nothing but a hindrance to our causes, and we're back down to 25%. Keep in mind this is the highest figure possible, and a more realistic figure would be something around 15%. It may even be as low as 5%.

What would you suggest doing? We know full well not -all- of them are bad, just probably most of them. It's not like we can go and have a civil war against them and boot them from the country, and even if we could we'd be out numbered and out gunned.

The only feasible solution I see to the problem that we have is to use those who are most agreeable to our causes. Use them against our enemies and offer them up as a viable alternative. While our enemies are fighting with our Christian Allies we can further our goals while depleting the never ending war chest of the Fundamentalist Right.

In the mean time we can make a consorted effort - a strong one - to push for gay rights. We can erect bigger and better protections for the separation of church and state. We can take that old crumbling, rock pitted wall and replace it with a 40 foot thick titanium wall. Once the dust settles at worst there will be a balance of voices and opinions in America. At best religion as a whole becomes irrelevant to American life and society, eventually fading into obscurity and dying off.

"How can I respect people of faith who refuse to respect me?"
You don't have to actually respect them. Just be diplomatic, and no one said we had to bite our tongues. I certainly wouldn't encourage that. We shouldn't make the same mistake the Right made when they allowed the Religious Right take hold - keeping them in their place. The Religious Right walks all over the Republicans now. We need to define boundaries that should not be crossed right from the beginning.

"How can I possibly try to work with such people?"
By emphasizing the qualities you want them to show and deemphasizing the qualities you don't. Even the Religious Right knows how to moderate their tones. They all think like Fred Phelps, the difference is most of them know how to dress it up better. Also by not letting them lay claim to dominate us, but rather calling things an "equal partnership". Both sides are getting something out of it, both sides walk away with benefiting. It's just that in the long run we may end up benefiting more.

"How many hits for the team does one have to take before walking off the field, for good?"
We'll both be dead and gone two or three times over before things are finally settled. We're going to face discrimination and persecution for the rest of our lives - that's a fact. Bigotry isn't erased in a lifetime, it takes generations for that to happen. We can only find a way to start the process. So that future generations don't have to endure as we have.

"I'm keeping this as general as possible -- but as you can guess, I'm stinging, badly, right now, from a recent incident."
I live in Virginia. Because of Christians, I cannot even form a legal contract with a person of the same sex that is not from my family - straight or gay - without it falling into question. In my local Newspaper for the third week in a row on the opinion page someone has called or implied that Democrats are the servants of "Satan". They are the type of people who would welcome Fred Phelps as a hero and lift him up on their shoulders. I grew up here.

It has taken me years, and I still have not completely gotten over it, of all the evils they have inflicted upon me both emotionally and mentally. It may repulse some, but I feel nothing for them - if they should all die tomorrow I would be gleefully happy. They have made it quitr clear that people like us are not welcome here, and would be more than happy to take steps to remove us permanently. I once had an opinion piece printed in the paper, and my mailbox still gets knocked down occasionally almost two years later. Every time I've wanted to send something to the paper since then I've used a friend who lives in North Carolina. It's much harder for them to harass someone who lives an entire state away.

I know that seeing an opposition to their viewpoints by other Christians would drive them insane. It would push them over the edge and they would lunge at them like a mad and crazed animal. That's exactly what I am counting on them doing, and it will force Liberal Christians to take a stand and fight for what they believe in - not to silently sit by while the Religious Right hogs the megaphone. It is all about the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We have a common foe, there is no reason we should not work together and deal with that foe then work out our differences later.

[FreedomAngel82]

98. And how do you think

we're supposed to work with people who are against me just because I'm a Christian? You don't know anything about me as a person, it's just a message board, and you already hate me before knowing me. :cry:

[Meldread]

123. I don't hate you.

Not liberal Christians. I was talking about the fundies where I live. As far as I know I've never even personally met a liberal Christian in person with the exception of my mother. And even her "liberalness" is a bit of a stretch it's of the "live and let live" verity.

I most certainly was not expecting the hostile responses - my god (no pun intended), it's insane. Even *I* can behave myself around others most of the time, and half the folks responding against people of faith haven't even experienced the brunt of their oppression.

I can't be the only one who can see both sides having something to benefit from working together, can I? We both get something out of it, and both walk away with most of what we want.

[FreedomAngel82]

132. The fundies in my opinion are just selfish

*sigh* Not only to all of us but to the country. And they claim to love it so much eh?

[lvx35]

174. I say you attack THEIR faith.

but don't attack faith, which has been done here on DU recently.

[FreedomAngel82]

52. From a liberal Christian

I say "thank you." It's so hard when you have everyone bashing you and you feel like you don't belong anywhere. I'm a far left liberal but yet also a faithful Christian. I've been told I'm not a true Christian by those on the right and my faith slammed by those on the left. *sigh* I understand where my fellow lefties are coming from, I feel that frustration too, but it does hurt your feelings when you feel like you don't belong anywhere. :cry:

[Maat]

77. You belong here.

We people of faith - who are progressives who work hard to further human rights - can support each other.

I sure do enjoy the Liberal-Christian DU Group, and the Seekers on Unique Paths Group.

[FreedomAngel82]

100. Boy sure doesn't feel like it a lot

I'm too far left for many Christian's and too Christian for many here. :shrug:

[Maat]

248. Sounds like you have many interesting things to say.

Go to one of those DU Groups and start a thread; I'd love to post there.

[mcg]

332. You have a lot of company

The Myth of the 'God Gulf'
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/139/story_13948_1.html

"... 61 percent of Democrats reporting that they pray daily or more often. ..."

What is most important in Christianity is to actually follow the teachings of Jesus. This is a major reason I am a liberal.

There are only a few very vocal people on the left who slam faith, the vast majority of Democrats are not atheists. It is rational, based on reason, based on overwhelming evidence, to believe in God.

[FreedomAngel82]

56. The hatefulness of this thread is amazing

And here I thought us liberals and progressives were supposed to be open-minded and caring towards others. I guess I was wrong. :cry: I guess I really don't belong anywhere.

[alittlelark]

57. It is NOT the 'religious right' - it is the 'Religious REICH'

"MIT UN GOTT'

[foreigncorrespondent]

64. Sorry!!!

I am polite to religious DUers here, which is a damn sight more than some of them have been to me, my partner (my partner because she is gay was put into the same category as criminals from a evangelical DUer in recent days) and my queer DU buddies.

But I draw the line at respect. Simply because it is rare I will receive it in return.

I cannot be respectful of someone who sees queer relationships in the same category as criminals. I cannot be respectful of someone who believes their relationship is what is right and mine isn't anything more than a choice.

I am sure you get the picture, Meldread. I certainly admire you (all the more) for wanting to take a stand like this. I remember when I used to be that way too, but many so called Christians right here on DU have managed to change my feelings about them, by treating me, my parter and my queer DU buddies with the contemptuousness suited only to those we call enemies. They treat us as an enemy. They don't welcome us. They are just happy so long as they have our votes. I'm sorry, but they need to EARN respect, and so far, they aren't doing a great job of it.

On edit: typo

[Maat]

86. This PFLAGer certainly supports you.

I'm both a person of faith and vice president of my local PFLAG.

I put many hours into organizing PFLAG events.

(PFLAG = Parents, Family, Friends of Gays and Lesbians)

In my church (Church of Religious Science), the pastor NEVER makes an anti-gay remark, and neither do I. Neither would RevCheesehead, a Methodist minister here. Neither would the Unitarian-Universalist ministers here.

I would like all DUers to treat both non-believers and believers with a goodly amount of respect.

It would certainly be appropriate for any DUer to correct a person who is anti-gay.

Take care and peace,

[foreigncorrespondent]

110. Maat...

...I have a lot of respect for you, as I do, RevCheesehead, and several others I know to be religious, but especially a certain Episcopal minister who has gone out of her way to show support for queers on DU. You are the ones who have earned the respect.

However, when you get so called religious people right here on DU putting you into demeaning categories, or saying we stand with you, but it is only secondary, then that is where the line is drawn.

Life isn't about being put into categories to be picked on. Nor is my life and needs in life secondary to yours.

I would love to see us all get along on DU, but I know that will never happen. When you have 10 DUers speaking the word of true Christianity, you end up with 50 DUers speaking the same words of the religious right. And when you get hit over the head by it so many times it sticks, and it hurts.

As for calling out those who are anti gay here. Unfortunately that has been hard to do in a lot of cases. Many will post anti gay rhetoric that is stealth. Us queers can see it, and try to call them on it, but the moderators at the time don't see it.

I could point you in the direction of threads that have been real flame wars between queers and stealth bigots. These threads would make your toes curl.

[Maat]

246. I hear you.

I asked many questions before I selected my church. I even exchanged emails with the head of the church, telling HER that I did not want to be part of a church that was anti-gay or anti-equal-opportunity. I asked if they performed commitment/marriage/partnership ceremonies for same-sex couples (they do). For example, in California, we have strong domestic partnership rights. Every place in my copy of the Family Code that references marriage - right up above or below it is a domestic partnership section. So, most same-sex couples, including my adopted sister, are united in "commitment ceremonies." And our church is behind equal rights totally.

So, I think that human rights and equal rights are an inherent part of my belief system, and my church-related beliefs have to be compatible with that, and they are.

Now, one thing that I found out. My pastor hasn't a bigoted bone in her body. You can have a great pastor, a great church, and great church friends. What I found out was that there's no guarantee there won't be an anti-GLBT bigot in a few hundred people. One of them came up to me, and made some remark about 'gays taking over the church - too many of them in some of the individual congregations - because they are very welcome in this church." Don't worry - a few of us corrected her bigtime (she no longer comes to the church).

My pastor loudly proclaimed that we are an open, inclusive and affirming church today. Those words warmed my heart.

I find myself getting impatient with a few of my acquaintances, who seem to be what I call 'one-issue' people. They want equality on the basis of race, for example, but not for GLBT individuals. They are pro-GLBT-rights, but don't care if poor people have access to birth control and reproductive care. I find myself minimizing contact with those individuals. I want to hang around true progressives, who are pro-human-rights all the way around (not that anyone's perfect - we all have our impatient moments).

Anyway, I seek to correct anyone that shows anti-GLBT sentiments; I'll back you up on that anytime.

Take care!

[AntiCoup2K4]

105. If anyone on this board compared gays to criminals....

1) They should not be on this board.

2) They are not Christian by any valid definition of the term (which means to be like Christ.)

I am a Liberal because I try to live by the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus was no right wing conservative.

And though it's not my responsibility to do so, I want to apologize to any person, gay, straight, or otherwise who was ever made to feel like an "enemy of God" because of the words or actions of some ignorant fuck who wouldn't know the Gospel if the original stone tablets hit them upside the head. A true disciple of Christ should know better.

[foreigncorrespondent]

118. Unfortunately...

...the person who did this is a popular member of DU. The thread where this person did this was deleted, so I cannot direct you to it.

Trust me, you don't have to apologize for the idiots who are Christian in name only. Those of us who are persecuted by religious zealots do know and appreciate those who we can truly call friends. :)

[FreedomAngel82]

121. Exactly!

Hear hear.

[alittlelark]

72. Live and Let Live is my motto.

I diss only a few religoisly oriented ppl in my familial shere. In all fairness they have attacked me for YEARS - I only recently decided to fight back.... so far I am winning to the Nth degree.

[Maraya1969]

75. When the Jews and the Muslims and the Wiccans and every religion

is included under "people of faith" I will respect it. But it just burns me that "people of faith" has somehow become synonymous with Christianity.

Now THAT is discrimination.

[Maat]

88. Yes, that happens to me.

I am a person of faith, but I am not Christian.

I mean in no way to offend my progressive Christian friends, who are well aware that "people of faith" is a broad category.

In terms of the world at large, however, I pretty much have to let various people know consistently that there are many faiths out there.

[Meldread]

138. When I say "people of faith" I mean it.

That includes everyone no matter their religion. However, it also means "Christians in particular" because Christians are the most powerful, most numerous, most vocal faith here in America.

Still, every person of faith (or non-faith, people who simply consider themselves spiritual but have no faith) is included.

[Maraya1969]

237. They are the loudest for sure but they are not the fastest growing

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the US and if my calculations are correct by 2025 there will be more non-Christians, (not Muslims) than Christians in the US.

[Yollam]

89. If I was a believer in say, astrology or tarot cards...

...I would not constantly expect everybody to kowtow to my beliefs and be all offended when the government failed to impose them all on everybody via monuments and the public schools. I would understand that my beliefs had no basis in empirical science or logic and would understand why others scoffed at them

But because they are in the majority in this country, and have been in the majority for hundreds of years, many Christians are totally unable to look upon their own superstition systems with that kind of perspective.

I understand the emotional need for an afterlife, and the comfort people get from the fantasy of a loving or protective creator, or even the self-importance that can come from a belief system that tells you that only you, and people who think like you are chosen and will be saved. I understand it all perfectly. They all spring from our human fears and frailties. But I see no reason why I should respect people who expect everybody else to tiptoe around for fear of upsetting their little apple cart.

For people who are saved, whose faith is supposedly SOOO strong, it's amazing how little it takes to make them feel threatened or offended. It's like they're terrified that they're going to come across that last bit of evidence that their world of faith is indeed nothing but a fantasy.

As an atheist, I don't live in terror that one of the endless parade of proselytizers is going to finally convince me that their religion is the way, and I don't waste time being offended by the fact that atheists are the MOST discriminated-against "religious group" in this country by far, and in fact are constantly being called immoral, etc. for no reason whatsoever.

So religious folks, with their brittle egos and their righteous indignation over imagined slights need to really get a grip and take it elsewhere.

[lvx35]

176. Glad you called atheists a "religious group"

because they are. And when they post things like recent posts which condemned all people of faith as being mentally ill, they are proselytizing, and its NOT tolerant.

[Yollam]

187. Of course it's tolerant.

I don't go to the homes of religious people, knock on their doors and tell them what to believe, and that if they don't do things my way they will suffer through all eternity.

I tolerate religious insanity completely, until it starts to affect MY rights.

Because I tolerate something does not mean I have to like or respect it.

I used "religious group" for lack of a better word, but there is no validity to the fundie canard that atheism is a religion.

It is by definition, the absence of a religious belief system, and despite the widespread misconceptions, does NOT mean a belief that a higher power does not exist. God's existence or nonexistence cannot be proven or disproven, so I would never make that claim, but I'd be just as remiss if I picked one of the multitude of religious mythologies and decided to believe it, absent any compelling empirical evidence.

My honest opinion is that if there were a deity, it would be something of a complexity and power that human beings could neither comprehend nor describe, and it would not be something that required our belief, admiration or sycophancy. It would simply be, and it would be something that we were a part of before we were born, are a part of now, and will be a part of after we die. It would be what we see manifested as nature in our limited perception, but would extend into other dimensions and realities to be something beyond our feeble minds.

It would not be a petulant man-deity that creates a race of imperfect beings with free will, allows them to be tempted, then punishes them for succumbing, demands their first-born as a sacrifice, then changes his mind, destroys most of them when they fail to praise him enough, then promises never to do that again, only to continue to allow millions upon millions of them to suffer and die of starvation and war, then create a savior only to insist that he die in agony to save people from their sins, which I have arbitrarily proscribed with multiple revisions through the years. It would not be a being that condemns all people whose parents raised them with ANOTHER religion to an eternity in hell for following the religion their parents taught them.

Don't talk to me about "tolerance". Talk to the ones who think they're about to be "raptured".

[lvx35]

190. No generally athiests don't do that.

The don't try to "save" people by knocking on doors, they do it but diagnosing people of faith, 86% of the entire world, as insane of mentally ill. There are some religious crazies out there, and there is nothing wrong with saying so, but condemning people of faith is a waaay bigger statement.

[Yollam]

192. I don't think religious people are crazy.

I think the choice to believe in a deity is an extremely irrational one, but that's a far cry from insanity. I do plenty of things myself that make no logical sense, but that I enjoy and they give me comfort. The difference is that I don't insist that everyone else be required to do them.

[lvx35]

194. Well I think we have found common ground.

And a common enemy, fundamentalism. Those who think their faith is fundamental truth to be pushed on others is a small minority of people of faith worldwide, yet large and in charge with Bush.
I don't want to tell you what to believe. I hope you find your truth in your own way. I don't want to be condemned for what I believe.
I think if we can agree on this we can be united in opposing Bush, who is the real enemy here! :)

[Yollam]

195. Problem is a lot of people who don't profess to be fundies or evangelicals

still insist on THEIR Ten Commandments in OUR courtrooms, want my sons to pledge allegiance to THEIR Gods, and want to deprive my gay friends of equal rights under the law. I wish it was just the fringe fundies & clinic bombers who are like this, but it's a lot more widespread than that. Look at Bill O'Lielly's silly Xmas crusade. Do you think for one minute that that guy is a sincere Christian, that he ever prays? I really, really doubt it.

What do you call guys like that, CINOs?

[lvx35]

341. Most of those guys are dominionists.

The only main stream thing might be gay marriage, but the solution is for the state to get out of marriage in general, because its a religious concept and should be separate from the state...Each church is within its right to choose to recognize gay marriage or not, the state should butt out and stop dealing with it.
And also don't forget that with all your "they's" you are talking about "us". 95% of america believes in God, 84% has a Judeo/mulism/christian concept of god they believe in. That means more than half the democratic party as well. That's why all our main candidates profess a belief in God. Kerry took the last primaries, a catholic. So its not a "them", its an "us". I am part of the 11% that believes in a God different than the Christian concept, but I respect the Christians, and you for your choice of beliefs.

I have no idea if O'Reilly prays. I generally don't worry about other people's faith.

[immoderate]

92. We should acknowledge that nothing good comes from religion.

That's why religionists spend so much energy associating themselves with virtue.

Name any virtue: charity, respect, altruism, honesty, kindness, generosity, love. These all exist independent of religion, but religions claim them, and co-opt them to justify their existence. It's a sordid and dishonest business.

What do we get in return? Guilt, bigotry, rejection, and worst of all, irrational thought. Granted, religion didn't invent these things either, but has adopted them as it's tools, and provided justification for their use. Imagine how much further along our civilization could be without retrograde effects of religion.

I know people will believe stuff, and if they are good people I have no qualms with them. But it's not the nature of the beast to leave people alone.

--IMM

[ulysses]

99. School of the Americas Watch

http://www.soaw.org/new/

Founded by a Catholic priest.

[Qibing Zero]

207. His point is,

quite obviously I thought, that religions do not hold the patents on the good things done in this world. Doing 'good' is separate from religion. Furthermore, religion actually embraces some of the things that stunt the progression of humanity, and has done this for years.

All of that, of course, does not mean a religous person cannot do any good.

[FreedomAngel82]

104. You don't know that do you?

I know that religion does help people change their lives. People who were really bad off whether an emotional issue or something else can change people. Sometimes they take it way too far (as in the fundies) but for the most part people use their faith to help them in their life. My faith is just that: mine. And I'll never let anyone demonize me for either being a liberal or a Christian. I'm tired of both sides beating me up. Sometimes when you have people like Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and their type you do have to stand up. There is a quote out there that goes along with it: "Your rights end where my nose begins." And sometimes there is just a little thing called manners.

[immoderate]

120. I don't claim absolute knowledge.

The processes you describe, therapeutic and rehabilitative, are not at the core of religion. They have been grafted on. Religion first sets out to explain existence, and then to exert some control of the powers that maintain it.

That other stuff comes along as part of the sales package. Your faith, your spirit, is inside you, as it has always been. It works just as well without religion. Feeling good has always been. You can assign the credit as you like, and the mechanisms can assume many forms, but it's in you.

--IMM

[mzmolly]

352. Do you are make a distinction between religion and faith/spirituality?

But it's not the nature of the beast to leave people alone.

It's my nature.

[Inland]

359. While acknowledging that good comes from religious people

which is the only recognition that the OP is talking about, IMO.

[BiggJawn]

93. In other words "You Atheists can go fuck yourselves".

Whatever.

[Meldread]

160. Don't be silly.

I never said that nor did I imply that. In fact I clearly stated right out of the box that I am an agnostic/atheist myself. I'd hardly be telling myself that.

I was simply encouraging diplomatic relations for mutual benefit and gain.

[BiggJawn]

226. I'm not being "silly", I'm deadly serious.

" ...I clearly stated right out of the box that I am an agnostic/atheist myself."

Yeah, that's like saying "I'm not a Racist or anything..." then saying something really outrageous. Sorry, I don't believe you. Not that I'm questioning your un-belief, I just find your suggestion repugnant. Sucking up to people who believe I'm EVIL, just because I don't share their Myth, and I mean "Myth" in the sense of "An Ancient Story" in THIS instance, NOT a "fairy story", just in order to try and win elections... The "Ends justify the Means", right? Just cross your fingers that they'll remember your ecuminical efforts after you help them take over.

Ever hear the line "Here's to the New Boss, same as the Old Boss"?

"Mutual gain"...What a laugh. Isn't that just a variation on a theme of "You fucking Atheists are scaring away people who might be good Democratic Voters with your crap about their religion being a mild form of mental illness. Can't you just suck it up and keep your opinions to yourself until AFTER the election?" I've heard that plenty of times from folks who either call themselves "non-religious" or go to Church only on Oestre. I makes me sad and angry to hear the same damn thing from somebody who calls themself "Agnostic/Atheist.

I'm assuming from your other posts that you are Gay. Out of 600-some-odd flavours of Christianity, I believe there's less tham 5 denominations that would NOT tell you "We LOVE you (and your ability to Tithe) but we HATE your SIN!"

Puzzling.

[Deja Q]

97. We're a dog-eat-dog society. What is the point OF respect?

Spurious morality is for toddlers or advanced societies.

We're not advanced and toddlers are far in advance of adult human beings, I regret to say.

[Meldread]

161. I should have so dropped the word respect and used...

...diplomacy instead. I used respect as a way to say "don't make fun of them or mock them for their beliefs". What is the point of using diplomacy when dealing with them? Simple. Mutual benefit.

[Warren DeMontague]

106. Can you please provide some linkage to back up this

supposedly rampant bashing of people of faith, particularly here on DU, which we're constantly being hectored about?

Please. Show me where a "liberal of faith" has stood up and "before the right even has a chance to shoot them down we do it for them"?

Really? C'mon. That sounds awfully specific. Care to back up your assertion?

Or, like "liberals hate God" is it another one of those axiomatic 'truths' that we're supposed to swallow unquestioningly?

And, frankly, this 24-7, incessant whine of victimization from some of the so-called 'faithful':

"Liberals are banning Christmas! Liberals are getting abortions without my interference! Liberals want their birth control prescriptions filled without my being able to deliver them a sermon! Liberals don't want religion taught in public science class!
....Oh, the Humanity! IS THERE NO END TO THE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST US?!?!?!"

Is, uh, getting majorly fucking tiresome.

[Meldread]

163. Easy.

Take a look at this thread and your own comments. You can start there.

Perhaps you can point to where a Liberal Christian has complained and said:

1. "Liberals are banning Christmas"
2. "Liberals are getting abortions without my interference"
3. "Liberals want their birth control prescriptions filled without my being able to deliver them a sermon"
4. "Liberals don't want religion taught in public science class"

I'd be interested in where you find that, especially here on Democratic Underground.

Oh, and I define Liberal Christian as:

1. Supporting LGBT Rights including Marriage
2. Supporting the Separation of Church and State
3. Supporting the Environment and protecting it
4. Liberal Christians must also be against the Iraq War.

I can find you plenty of those around here. The question is can you find any of them complaining or saying anything like or even implying any of the above?

[Warren DeMontague]

243. I guess you missed where I used the word "some"

but I can only assume from your OP that this inflated, paranoid sense of persecution runs across the entire spectrum of believers, left to right.

So, please. Find me a link, on DU, (not to my comments in this thread, since they came AFTER your OP. Nice try.) to where a "liberal person of faith" has "stood up" and we "shoot him or her down even before the right does".

I mean, we're constantly- CONSTANTLY- told this is going on. But no one ever seems to be able to provide any examples.

[H2O Man]

126. I am a religious person.

It doesn't make any difference to me if others are religious or not. It does make a difference if people are respectful on this issue, just the same as on the many other issues that people will have diverse opinions and values.

I can appreciate that atheists have some harsh feelings towards the religious right. Dictators always know what the general population doesn't suspect: if you can make the general population hate a tiny minority group that is without political power, the majority tends to forget their own low level of being. We see the seeds of a harsh campaign of this sort being sown now.

Most religious folks who are on the democratic left understand that most atheists share the mutual respect necessary for working together. The anger that is expressed by a minority within a minority tends to be the result of a combination of ignorance and pain. It should be viewed in that context.

We have far more important things to occupy our time with than quarreling about this.

[mzmolly]

307. "We have far more important things to occupy our time with than quarreling

about this."

So very true!

[libodem]

134. key word 'respecting'

It's just not in good form to mock believers. Or any one. Zealots, extremists, fundamentalists, conservatives, reactionary anything are dangerous and should be looked upon with suspicion. But leftist christians and liberal christians should be well tolerated and understood. I would love to know more of them. But I think the left all ready stands for the christian values of love, health, welfare and education. A rather staunch Catholic nurse I work with is a Democrat. And so is her college professor, husband. What I mean is there are wonderful religious liberals. And those with alternative metaphysical belief systems. Even Science helps explain the unseen. Sometimes I believe I'm an atheist. Sometimes agnostic, sometimes a seeker, sometimes a teacher, I don't know what I am really, yet that suits me. I want to say however, if i have ever made any sarcastic cracks about religious people I want to offer an apology for any offense taken. In honor of the Season, Christmas time, Christmas Trees, Holiday Greetings, Winter Solstice, Hanuka, and The flying spaghetti monster

[Tigress DEM]

135. Thanks for your kindness, tolerance and bravery.

It goes to show that an educated mind is capable of discerning the truth even when it sits in a pack of lies.

It amazes me how everyone jumps in and says, "Yeah, but let's don't be tolerant of THOSE people" and the very ones speaking don't see that it is the same affliction we fight that we succumb to if we allow ourselves to put anyone in a prejudged catagory without real evidence to back it up.

Biblically, it's "hate the sin, love the sinner" on DU, it's "hold people accountable for what they do, not who they are" I guess.

Peace.

[depakid]

136. Seems to me that anyone who's actually read the Gospels

and follows the lessons in them is by default a liberal.

Unless there's another translation that I haven't read, it's simply not possible to square being a Republican with anything in those 4 books.

So, I don't know what these right wing fundamentalists are- but no matter what they call themselves, they're not Christians.

If anything- people should call them on that- at every chance. My recollection is that Hillary stated something like that at one point- that you can't be both a Christian and a Republican. She backed off- but I'm not sure she should have.

When the truth is on one's side, seems to me it's best to fight fire with fire.

[FreedomAngel82]

147. Yep

With me I am a liberal because of my faith as a Christian. Helping the poor, elderly, children, enviornment, peace. Look at Jimmy Carter for example. One of the best Christians ever and he is a democrat. You can though be a Christian and a republican. You don't have to agree with all of the issues though. You can however be one such as Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt. My dad is a republican but he's not a fundie nor a freeper thank goodness. I'm not sure where he stands on other issues but I know he isn't hateful or a bigot or anything like that. I wish people wouldn't lump all republicans together either. Just because there is a fundie base in the party doesn't mean they're all the same. Same with us. We don't all like to be lumped together with some people I'm sure.

[depakid]

151. I lump all the Republicans together because they vote in blocks

and they stand for a distinctive set of values and beliefs that are belied by their actions. 95% of those actions are decidedly unChristian- and there's no two ways around it.

No one who supports Republicans knowing what they DO can say that they're acting in any way Christian. There's just no way to rationalize that.

ps: My old man is a Republican too- and if he claimed to be a Christian, I'd tell him to read the Gospels and get then back to me.

[Leopolds Ghost]

145. Lot of posts about how "wounded and defensive" liberal Christians are...

Methinks the posters (not the OP) doth protest too much.

I think the mods on DU should realize that folks come here to discuss progressive politics, not the politics of Ayn Rand and other "radical freethinkers" who display selective intolerance... "by their fruits shall ye know them".

What I don't understand is why there aren't more lefties who feel primarily informed by their religious beliefs (i.e. compelled to identify as progressive due to their religious convictions). There is some truth to the argument that if it weren't for Judaism, Jesus, and the Reformation (especially those radicals known as Anabaptists), among other achievements in Western thought, liberalism in the West simply wouldn't exist.

In other parts of the world, "liberalism" does not always exist. Where it does, it is usually informed by local religious or cultural beliefs that the "freethinkers" on DU rarely single out for criticism, such as Buddhism. It is rarely informed by radical materialism.

In fact, most parts of the world a so-called "liberalism" does exist and is informed by radical, upper middle class materialism of a small subset of the population. These people are for all intents and purposes, Reagan Republicans, Young Turks and Yuppie scum. This is certainly true in countries such as Russia.

Freethinkers on DU would not embrace the politics of secular neo-liberalism in places like Russia and parts of Europe and Asia where liberalism is on the right end of the scale, so why come to DU to slag on people's religion? Go start the "Anti-Religious Party" to go along with the Anti-Masonic party, etc.

[Zenlitened]

148. Atheists: Shut up and go away:

We find your presence here terribly inconveniencing. Any minute now, one of you may remind us that Western Civilization runs far deeper than just the Judeo-Christian till.

[Qibing Zero]

198. Oh just great fun here

Oh boy, where to start?

Bashing freethinkers, tossing them in the bucket with Ayn Rand as if she and her works were some kind of bastion of enlightenment, then complaining about them being intolerant? Who exactly is the intolerant one here? Who is the one stereotyping?

Do you really think freethought leads to that kind of social darwinistic bullshit?

Do you really think everyone who is non-religious is immediately athiest, and everyone who is athiest is immediately materialistic?

No, no. Stop.

I can take your insults all day, but I can't stand for misinformation like your claims that Judaism and Christianity were responsible for the western liberalism, or that the Reformation was an 'achievement in western thought'. I would hope you could replace those with The Age of Reason and The Enlightenment. Please pick up a few history books and help us all.

[Warren DeMontague]

244. Oh, yeah, the Ayn Rand fan club here is just fucking HUGE.

Really. :eyes:

Give me a break.

[Violet_Crumble]

146. Respect is something that should be earned and cuts both ways...

Religious beliefs or lack of them doesn't come into it when it comes to me giving someone respect. If I'm seeing a political kindred spirit, then I respect them because of their political views, not because they've got religious faith. I've got no time for those who claim they're progressive people of faith when they attack atheists, agnostics, gays, women, etc. But there's religious folk here like Matilda and dembones dembones who I have the utmost respect for, and that's because their political views are pretty much the same as mine, and they don't go round bashing people who aren't religious...

Violet...

[kevinbgoode]

154. I am not anti-christian or anti-religion. . .

and I am certainly not the one who let a bunch of wacky televangelistas hijack my spiritual beliefs and declare that they alone represent an entire religion. It seems to me that liberal and moderate denominations should be pressuring this government and media about overrepresenting the christo-fascists, because if ya'll aren't as frustrated as everyone else in this country with their nonsense, there is something wrong.

When I refer to these people, I put "christian" in quotes - because they are self-defined that way whether or not they are true believers or not. I don't classify everyone in that manner.

[upi402]

156. I'm torn; we need 'em, but they make US the world's laughingstock

I'm tired of being repressed and controlled by people who live in fantasy land and who scoff at reality and fact as vile.

[Meldread]

167. I understand what you mean.

I do not think a lot of religious people understand what you mean, but as a fellow "heathen" I believe I do. A good example, though, was given above by a person of faith.

It's like interacting with someone who believes that we are all descendants from Aliens from Outer Space. You'd want to laugh and think of them as more than a little kooky while thinking to yourself "They don't really believe that, do they?!"

My Mother is a Christian and she believes that she has saw angels several times throughout her life. Once after the death of my older brother, once after my grandmother died, and once when I was near death in the hospital last year from a surgical complication (which was fixed and now I'm better than ever). I think she is kinda kooky and looks silly when talking about it, but she believes it very deeply. I see it as her way of coping with severe stress and grief. I don't stomp on her belief, it brings her comfort and it isn't hurting nobody.

I think most of us non-believers are in the same boat with immediate family who are believers. What we should do is say, okay you can believe in your angels, your direct descendents from aliens, whatever but it comes with some stipulations.

1. You have to believe in the STRONG Separation of Church and State.
2. You have to believe in the equal rights for everyone regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, other religious belief or non-belief, or any other quality or stipulation. Equal laws apply equally and fairly to everyone.
3. You must not be a Republican.
4. You cannot try and force your belief on others, directly or indirectly.
5. You must have the ability to act at least diplomatically with others of different faiths or lack of faith.

Those are the big three things I think should qualify as someone for being on the Religious Left and those are the people we should embrace and bring into the party. It should be ground rules for *ANY* Democrat or Liberal period in my opinion and I believe that the majority of Liberal people of faith(especially on this board) are firmly within that Camp.

[upi402]

179. It's just that the religion requires them to convert heathens...

"4. You cannot try and force your belief on others, directly or indirectly."
That would be cool with me, if they could cut parts out of their book.
People are free to believe in talking snakes and animals from a boat -all day long if they want. But at the end of the day, we need to be brought to christ and atone for our ruinous secular ways.

[lvx35]

181. And they are tired of you living in a fantasy land and scoffing at fact

and reality as vile. And they are 95% of americans, and about 88% of the world. So maybe its better to think in terms of freedom and tolerance for all rather than condemnations of their beliefs.

[DanCa]

165. No one here has ever insulted me about going to church

They disagree with the right wingers on policy and some disagree that there is a god. I may disagree with the latter but I can respect thier opinion. My parents taught me that not everyone has to follow in lock step with my faith system. But of course what do I know I think that gay people should be allowed to marry, and am pro choice.

[Meldread]

169. You are going straight to H-E-Double Hockey Sticks!

Well at least according to the Christian Right. If they happen to be correct, though, I'll be there too as well will most everyone else on this board. So the way I see it, at least we'll be among good company, eh?

:P

We better start to get along right now, because if the other side is to be believed we're going to be seeing a lot of each other in a much warmer climate. :P

[DanCa]

171. Me bruce springteen jimmy carter

id much rather be damned with them than in the fawell version of heaven? Rock on :D :rock:

[Meldread]

189. I know, really.

If going to heaven meant having to share space with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Fred Phelps I'd much rather go straight to hell. It might be hot, but at least I'd be in good company. :P

[nemo137]

178. A couple thoughts.

I don't see any reason why people of faith (Christians, Muslims, Buddhist, Sihks, what have you) can't work togther. There have been all sorts of interfaith initiatives around the world that have done all sorts of good. I see no reason, as a Christian, why there can be no cooperation between people of faith and atheists/freethinkers/agnostics/brights. As much as the OP refers to a sort of pragmatism in using Christians to destroy Pharisees, many Christian clergy would be more than happy to espouse a pragmatism in using atheists (as it were) to feed and clothe children, or work for social justice.

But I think we need to do more than just pragmatically using eachother. While politically, I can just go "sure, you can do this, awesome," personally, I'd like some respect. I'm not talking about "bending-over-backwards" or "letting me push you around." I'm talking about "not refering to me as some sort of mentally deficient protazoa because I believe in a diety or dieties" or "not assuming that everyone who owns a Bible believes what Pat Robertson says about it." I think a great deal of the strife in this thread resulted from a misunderstanding of the difference between tolerence for another's beliefs, and "shutting up and taking it" - letting that person's beliefs run the country.

Most Christians in this country (I say Christians because that is what I know, and that is what the majority of the people in this country profess) are not Dominionists. They are also not Liberation Theology Jesuits. I'd submit that they rarely give either extreme any thought. They tend to be "live and let live." Those who spout off bigoted things about gays, atheists, or people of other faiths tend to do so out of ignorance, not hatred. They have not interacted with gays, or atheists, or people of other faiths enough to see them as human beings worthy of the same respect. I acknowlege that their religion may play a part in this. They do not seek to interact with "those people." But it is becoming increasingly hard to avoid it; soon, they will see the light. Yes, there are Christians who hate gays. There are Christians who hide behind their Bibles and try to claim that they are doing God's work through their bigotry. I acknowlege this. It is not my place to repent for it, although I do hope that they will. This is not an issue to be dealt with through recrimination and shouting. They will come around. They are are allies, not as things to be used, but as people to be loved and respected as fellow humans and fellow citizens.

I do not feel persecuted. Christians have had it so good for so long in this country that they wouldn't know persecution if they found it dead in their lunchbuckets. Sometimes, on DU, I do feel irritated, or insulted, or pissed off. No one likes being told that they are wrong. When I am told that I need to "grow up and stop believing in a sky daddy," I feel what I would imagine is the same irritation that an atheist feels when a missionary tells them that they are morally and spritually deficient for not acknowleging a god. This is not the same as persecution. It is not a matter of rights. It is a matter of respect, accepting that others do not hold the same beliefs as you, that those beliefs may be close to the core of who they are. It does no good to anyone to insult or belittle other members of this community, nor does it do us any good to believe that we are superior to citizens we are trying to persuade to vote for us.

Just a few thoughts. Sorry if that went wrong.

[lvx35]

183. YES! Atheists can and do preach too.

I am a person of faith. My faith, like most people's is formed and shaped by experience. My concept of God is my own, its a personal thing, like my entire experience of reality. I don't know what ultimate reality is so I share if somebody wants to talk, I don't preach, especially on DU, cause I strongly back the separation of church and state (not just good for the state, btw!!!) But the main thing is that Athiests DO preach, they preach as if their understanding of reality was the TRUTH OF ULTIMATE REALITY. I hate it when christian fundies do it, and I hate it when athiests do it. Both of them are unaware of the limitations of human perception and think that they have the truth figured out and everything else is fantasy!

[Yollam]

202. Atheists talk about why they are atheist,they generally don't proselytize.

And when they do so, it's usually with to try to explain to some Christian who is aghast that someone could reject Jesus' love.

Most of us don't feel that we have a horse in the running. I personally think that any of the world's religions might be true, and perhaps none of them are, and only the aliens on Tralfamador know the real truth. But the point is that if there is a truth beyond our observable reality, it is not knowable to us until the time of out passing. The atheist sees spending a lifetime in servitude to a religious dogma when this is the case to be an enormous waste of time and effort, hence the rejection of theologies, IE atheism.

A lot of people claim to get great joy from their religions. Atheists generally do not see their lack of religion as a source of joy. Intellectual freedom, maybe, but not joy. So no, I don't want people to convert to atheism if it's going to make them less happy. But I do very much want them to understand what atheism is, and that we are neither immoral, nor are we missing or seeking something. We've explored religion enough to know it's not for us. And most of all, I want them to understand that freedom of religion DOES include freedom from religion, IE keep your Bibles, Torahs and Korans to yourselves!

[Qibing Zero]

205. I don't know though...

I see my lack of religion as a joyful thing, but that could possibly be because I've experienced what it's like for me on both sides.

[Yollam]

206. I was raised in a very non-religious home...

... so to me it just seems like the most natural way to be. After all, we are all born atheist...

[Qibing Zero]

210. Oh it definitely is natural.

Without indoctrination and blind trust in tradition, we wouldn't even need to be having this discussion (at least not in this manner). Religion is no mystery. It fits in perfectly with history and the struggle for power.

Faith, on the other hand, is a completely oblique beast.

[Qibing Zero]

204. Preach what, exactly?

It's such a horrible misconception to think that everyone must have some sort of 'religion'. In my experience, it happens because most religions attempt to explain life, and if an atheist or agnostic begins to explain how they view life personally, that explanation must then be their religion. It just doesn't work that way, though. Your religion may explain your life for you, but there is no magical 'atheist text' or 'nonreligious text' that explains it for the rest of us. And no, science books do not count.

So you'll have to forgive any of us in advance if we can't understand why you have to discard logic and reason (you know, the basis of our existance, why we as a species have come this far) to reach answers in your life, and attempt to get you to embrace them again.

You'll also have to forgive us if we attempt to explain something to you, and it contradicts with your faith and seems like we are trying to attack, or as you say 'preach to', you. Sometimes we assume that since our brains have accepted what seem to be obvious facts, others must have done the same.

We mean no harm, really!

[Meldread]

208. It's what I've been trying to say, kinda.

You've stated it better than I was able to. I think, over all, this thread has been constructive in someway. At least I hope it has. However, I don't feel I was able to convey exactly what I wanted to in my original post.

I stand in a difficult position. On one hand I am an agnostic/atheist and on the other I know that my beliefs are in the minority and that I need to reach out to those who would or perhaps already have persecuted me. Not only because of my beliefs but because of my sexual orientation. That is difficult to do.

After being persecuted by Christians for so long it is difficult not to paint the entire religion with a broad brush. It was that persecution in the first place that drove me away from the faith, as like most people I was raised Christian. I was forced to seek answers on my own and I bounced from idea and theory (learning a lot along the way). I went from a radical "I hate Christians and hope they all die" member of the Church of Satan (rebelling) to hardliner Atheism to now a more agnostic point of view.

It is only in the recent years that I've been able to begin to NOT hate all Christians. It is difficult for some people to understand simply because they've never had to experience it. However, I've went through my entire life being told that I was evil, sinful, amoral, condemned to hell, unlovable, dirty, nasty, a cancer on society, and just as bad as a child molester, rapist or murderer. Even to being directly called a child of Satan. That is from childhood onward, and not including the social stigma and lack of positive gay role-models.

I will always believe the best thing I ever did for myself was leave that faith behind because it did nothing but cause me irreconcilable grief, and I possibly cannot understand how any gay person can call themselves Christian let alone sit in a Church and listen to a pastor call them evil.

I contribute much of who I am today as my persecution early on in life. My awareness of politics, my view of the world, my liberalism, it is all as a direct result of both being gay and being forced to endure all of that pain and torment. It gave me understanding into things I might have otherwise never have known. It forced me to open my eyes to science, it forced me to question the world around me, and it forced me to form my own beliefs of right and wrong instead of using someone else's. It forced me to think for myself, and I believe in the end I am a much stronger person for it - even though I still bare the scars (and likely always will) of the persecution.

I understand where people like Zenlitened are coming from very clearly. I was there and in many ways I still am. I am trying not to be because I feel that it is wrong to persecute people based on what they believe even if I don't agree with it. I believe in the First Amendment right.

I suppose the only way a religious person can understand it is... imagine being persecuted as a Jew in Nazi Germany. The Nazi's do horrible things to you and you suffer horribly. Then you meet people who wear the Nazi Uniform but do not necessarily agree with the philosophy that the Nazi's spew out and may even sympathize. However, after enduring all you've endured it's difficult to look past the uniform to the person wearing it. All you see is the swastika and if they are kind to you... you are always left with the doubt of their sincerity.

That is why many Atheists have become so hard line against people of faith - in particular Christians. You become persecuted so much that you just want to make them feel what you've felt so you do everything in your power to provoke and harm them in anyway you can. I think that line of thought has poisoned the thought of Atheism and has given it almost a religious connotation. The "us" and "them". Christianity has become the Satan of Atheism and with good reason.

Unfortunately, I could no longer abide by the groupthink philosophy "us vs them" and all the hate. I eventually got sick of hating and realized that it was only hurting me, I wasn't hurting any of the people who wanted to hurt me and I was being an ass to those who had nothing against me and would be on my side.

When I made this post it was to point out that fact. We may not agree on everything, but the underlying philosophies of liberalism we can agree on and we should work to achieve those goals together. Even if we can't really personally respect each other, there is no reason we cannot still act diplomatically for our own benefits. Both of our sides have everything to gain and nothing to lose. We have everything to lose if we do not work together.

We are supposed to be better than those on the right. We are supposed to be more mature and accepting of people who are different, that is one of the core fundamentals of liberalism. If we cannot accept each other how in the hell can we bring new people into our tent?

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing wrong with kicking people out of our tent that do not belong... and believe me the list would be rather long and include many Senator Democrats.

Anyway, it's late I'm rambling. Thanks for saying what I was trying to say but in a much more diplomatic way.

[Qibing Zero]

216. I can deal with the personal persecution...

It's the course of humanity that I can't stomach.

How much repression has gone on throughout history because of religion? How many people have died needlessly because they refused to worship an imaginary being? The entire spectrum of written history is full of religion's crimes. Closed-minded 'people of faith' have committed unspeakable deeds for no reason other than to be held high in the eyes of their 'god'. Rulers threw around this 'will of god', and the people obeyed with glazed eyes full of faith and fear - dancing, working, and killing.

For hundreds of years, the few skeptics brave enough to speak out about injustices were killed. Yet at last The Enlightenment came, and the world began to embrace rational thought - or at least that's what we figured would happen. No sir!

Today, being religious is looked upon in a good light, while being 'godless' is frowned upon. Rejecting logic, sound reasoning, and science is A-OK, but rejecting a supernatural being's proposed existance without a shred of evidence is cause for being shunned. Resources are once again wasted on foolish wars for religious reasons. 'War is inevitable, there are always evil people and countries out there.' they say, 'What? Ending world poverty is an impossible dream!' they say, 'The man should be the head of the household.' they say.

Fuck that. I'm sick and tired of these warped views being placed upon a pedestal.

On my own, with my own mind and no one to aid me, was I able to understand my thoughts and feelings, and how they lined up with reality. I was able to nearly wipe my brain clean and start from scratch and understand just exactly where everything falls into place in the grand scheme of things. Simply by asking myself why I was having certain thoughts was I able to formulate some kind of morals.


There must be a reason.

Why should I hate just because someone told me to?
Why should I love just because someone told me to?

There must be a reason.


Open your mind.

That's it, of course, an open mind. That's what you lack when you embrace faith. Regardless of how open minded you think you are, if you hold any faith, what you have faith in you are obviously closed-minded about (or you wouldn't hold any faith). What has been the real crime of religion over the long course of history? The closing and poisoning of billions of minds. Minds that instead of fretting over an afterlife, could have been working toward the greater good.

Think of how much innovation and advancement has been lost torturing and killing 'heathens'. Think of how much exploration of true reality - the universe - could have happened in those years we lost believing the earth was the center of everything.

I don't know if you can understand the sense of loss I feel when thinking about this, but perhaps you can try. Sit under a clear starry sky and begin to understand the perspective you are truly in. You are on a planet in a solar system that is just one among billions and billions. Just try to think about it until you get to the point where everything else seems small and petty. Realize that we should be exploring that, and being curious just like our species is known to be! Religion doesn't want to explore that, though. It has all the answers it wants, and doesn't need any more questions.

This is why I can no longer be half-assed about it. I must address the religious. I have studied your religions, and:

Yes, I think your holy book is barbaric.
Yes, I dislike the fact your superstition is held in so high regard publically.
Yes, I think your god should be scorned as opposed to worshipped.
Yes, I hold in higher standing Greek and Norse mythology, for at least the 'mythology' tag is allowed to apply to them.
No, I do not think morality can be found in a book.
No, I do not think religion and faith are compatable with a healthy human race.
And no, I'm sorry, but I have no respect for your 'savior' if he recognizes instead of denounces the barbarism of the past.


However:

You are still free to hold whatever beliefs you want. I simply hope you would be rational about this sort of thing. Also, you, as a person, I have nothing against. None of us are without fault, and none of us are incapable of change. I just wish you would understand where some of us are coming from when we say these things, because being nice about it and saying 'but jebus was a cool guy, kekeke' just does not get the point across.

[nemo137]

249. I appreciate your candor, and your flexibility.

I've seen friends go through transitions similar to yours. Yes, I think anger at Christianity and Christians is a natural response if you grew up in a church that condemned homosexuality. To liberal Christians, though, especially those raised in a liberal Christian tradition, it's baffling. My first few months on DU, when I was first starting to read the Wars of Religion threads, I was dumbstruck. Why was I the enemy? Hadn't my mom explained to me, after some controversy about a gay choir director being fired from another church, that gay or lesbian people are God's children the same as any of us, no different, no more or less sinful? The same way that your persecution formed your politics, your view of the world, and your liberalism, my socialization as a Christian (and watching the strain between my father's increasing fundementalism and my mother's increasing liberalism) formed my view of the world. I was taught to love what is just, and hate what is unjust. Contrary to popular belief, I was also taught to think for myself. If I asked my mom about something in the Bible that didn't make sense, she'd tell me to think about it or read about it, not spout off on infalliability. We've arrived at much the same place, politically, but by radically different paths.

I think my comment about Christians becoming more accepting, and more capable of showing what we like to call (while we mostly fail miserably at living it) the Love of Christ goes both ways. You may meet Christians who are Christians in the best way possible. You may meet gay Christians who are not rationalizing, but have honestly reconciled their sexuality and their faith.

Like you said, we have everything to gain by working together. Personally, I'd like to see more ecumenism, if that's the right word, with freethinkers groups. Perhaps the Porn 4 Bibles kids and the Episcopal chaplaincy could set up a join food drive, or gather signitures for a school funding campaign together. Who knows. I personally am on your side, and I know that I am not alone. In time, I tend to hold the optimistic belief that we will come together more.

[Maat]

258. Very well-articulated, Nemo137!

I'm Vice President of the local PFLAG; I refer my GLBT friends to the three gay-friendly (actually, PEOPLE-friendly) churches in the area (we are still a minority, but we're there)!

[nemo137]

279. I think they're'll be more of us in the future.

I'd love for my children to be raised in churches that support what my mother told me. If "love your neighbor as yourself" is the whole of the law and the covenant, why should we love some less than others? We'll win, someday.

[Maat]

339. Yep (n/t).

[Meldread]

342. We will, someday soon.

I think we will end up working together in the near future, and it will not matter how many objections are made by those who oppose such an action. We will be forced to work together, especially as the Christian Right gains in power and dominance - and I am seeing more and more liberal Christians taking a stand (finally) against them. It is refreshing, and although I do not see it in my community I see it in others - and it gives me hope for my own future.

[Peter Frank]

184. self edit...

[Qibing Zero]

209. Faith is the abandonment of reason.

That really says it all, doesn't it?

[Meldread]

211. Of course it is.

...although I believe it would be better to say "faith is the act of jumping to a conclusion knowing that it may not yet make logical sense".

Simply because sometimes in our lives we all have a little "faith" in something. After all, every unique invention ever made started out with a little "faith". It started with a "faith that something that is not yet possible will become possible through trial and error".

As long as folks can acknowledge the fact that it *IS* faith and *NOT* fact then I think we're doing okay. Once people begin to confuse faith with facts then the water gets murky.

We have to keep in mind that even though what they believe may seem silly to us and illogical, something that perhaps should have been abandoned long ago, they believe it fully and completely. At least in most cases. We must strive not to become what we hate most, as it is always a constant danger I have found. In particular in matters just like this. We hate it when a person of faith looks down their nose at us and preaches to us or calls us "sinners". I am sure it feels no different when we insult those of faith by insulting their deity (or deities) with cutsy names like "sky daddy" and insulting their intelligence.

Really, if it bothers any of us so much we should just think of it as their freedom to be wrong while looking silly. Still, we should have enough common courtesy not to insult them, especially not to their face, when other than for a few things we all should be friends. We should be better than that, even if we are insulted we should take a certain amount of pride in being able to rise above those with such self-righteous indignation. After all they are the ones running around looking like the fool, not us.

[Qibing Zero]

218. It's really not a personal thing.

I have nothing against anyone personally for holding those views - we may not get along in the best way, but seriously I wish no harm upon them. I don't know why people have to take disagreements as personal attacks all the time.

I just think if the majority of the people looked at it as the 'freedom to be wrong while looking silly', the world would be a much better place. The problem is, the majority believes that not only is it not wrong, but that it's 100% fact.

[the other one]

220. Respectful the faithful, hate the concept

Its America. Everyone should be free to practice his own spirituality. No one however, is free from criticism or ridicule. I may respect the sincerity of your belief, but that doesn't mean that it isn't the stupidest thing I ever heard.

[Cats Against Frist]

223. You said it.

I'm not sure where it says in the First Amendment that I have to "respect" all faiths. I give people a fairly wide berth to practice their religion -- I don't slam the door at the Mormons, I don't spit on people who try to "bless me," I don't try to throttle the people who think I need to be saved, or feel "pity" for me, etc. I also don't get offended by them. Their delusion is not a part of my universe, insofar as they keep it separated from the state.

In my opinion, their right to practice, by default, allows me the right to call them crazy, per the First Amendment. I also think people who drink non-organic milk are crazy, people who watch reality television are crazy, and people who shave their body hair are crazy.

Faith is a narrative. It's no different, technically, than a hipster liberal buying a VW and wearing egghead glasses, or a core 'murican buying a puffy couch and crew cab truck. Faith is simply an extension of how we perceive ourselves and our place in the world. The problem with it is two-fold: unlike the VW, The Christian God demands an all-encompassing, over-arching, sweeping narrative that provides alternative explanations for physics and evolution, dabbles in metaphysics, magic and mysticism, and resolves itself in an ultimatim of harsh judgment of the human. The second problem is that it also demands that its adherents spread the "good news," making it nearly impossible for the devotees to remain silent, respectful and non-buddinsky about their religion.

Faith is fine, and I'll call people who believe in a material God crazy, and they'll deal with it, and we'll all go about making our salmon, peace dove, VW and hatchet Christmas cookies (or, at least I will), and that's how it'll all get sorted. They get to play god squad, and I get to knit, while the meanings of language shift, the war goes on, and God does or does not bounce lobster-eating, and cookie-jar-raiding souls from the Cloud Bar.

I must say, though -- rationality is not all it's cracked up to be either. A fascinating book called, "Voltaire's Bastards," by John Ralston Saul talks about the failure of reason, in the West, and elucidates on how the Holocaust, in essence, was purely rational. (Though, he left out the occult mysticism, and focused mostly on the Eugenics and Supremacism). Reason has given birth to the Necons, the atomic bomb AND Swiffer.

[Maat]

255. I beg to differ.

"The Christian God demands an all-encompassing, over-arching, sweeping narrative that provides alternative explanations for physics and evolution, dabbles in metaphysics, magic and mysticism, and resolves itself in an ultimatim of harsh judgment of the human."

In the Religious Science, Unity, and United Church of Christ churches that I have attended, there is no conflict between science and evolution and the belief system. These churches absolutely reject the idea of harsh judgment.

I have found the Episcopalians and the Sufis I know to be progressive in this regard as well. Also my Methodist friends.

You are probably thinking of hardright Southern Baptist churches, for example, when you say that.

Anyway, take care and peace to you,

[LWolf]

230. It's a Catch-22 of monumental proportions.

I agree that people of faith should be respected, and I do. I can respect their right to choose their faith, if I don't respect the faith itself.

That sounds a little too close to the fundie rhetoric of "love the sinner, hate the sin" for comfort.

The catch is this: we respect everyone's right to believe, and to practice their belief. That works until their belief interferes with the rights of others.

When their belief includes violence, gender inequality, etc., we've run into a big stumbling block.

When their beliefs include a mandate to convert the entire world to one faith, theirs, and divide the entire earth into "righteous believers" and "sinners," we have a problem. When their perception of free speech is "People MUST listen to me," I have a problem with that.

I think we can respect an individual's right to practice a faith, as long as it doesn't go beyond themself; no coersion/conversion of others, no trying to take over the world. When the organized religion of their choice does exactly that, a line has been crossed. I don't know how to address this problem. I think that the practice of one's faith ought to be a private, not a public practice. Others obviously disagree.

[LWolf]

232. Catch-22

I agree that people of faith should be respected, and I do. I can respect their right to choose their faith, if I don't respect the faith itself.

That sounds a little too close to the fundie rhetoric of "love the sinner, hate the sin" for comfort.

The catch is this: we respect everyone's right to believe, and to practice their belief. That works until their belief interferes with the rights of others.

When their belief includes violence, gender inequality, etc., we've run into a big stumbling block.

When their beliefs include a mandate to convert the entire world to one faith, theirs, and divide the entire earth into "righteous believers" and "sinners," we have a problem. When their perception of free speech is "People MUST listen to me," I have a problem with that.

I think we can respect an individual's right to practice a faith, as long as it doesn't go beyond themself; no coersion/conversion of others, no trying to take over the world. When the organized religion of their choice does exactly that, a line has been crossed. I don't know how to address this problem. I think that the practice of one's faith ought to be a private, not a public practice. Others obviously disagree.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

233. Zippidy doo dah

I made it to the end of this thread. I have a great idea. Let's just all get in a big circle and shoot each other.

234. This is a time of great flux

but the older religions need to change to meet the times, as many have noted. It is hard to look outside of your own point of view.

and here is a chance for me to post a pic. We inherit the past and create the future.

[rasputin1952]

235. This is a double edged sword...While those of the "Religious Right"

get all of the press, there are millions of people out there, in all walks of faith, that are doing some pretty fine things; just as those who do not proclaim a faith are doing many fine things. To compartmentalize any faith, or lack thereof, is at best, a foolish thing to do; at worst, it is a form of bigotry...the bigotry of ideas.

I am comfortable in my faith, and I allow many other aspects of different cultures and faiths to intertwine within my beliefs. There is no tenet that says you cannot choose to add some of the teachings of Buddha to what you rely on as a Christian or Jew; there is no reason not to do so, unless you are a literalist, and in that case, the confusion over ideology is even worse! How can one take all of the what is in the Bible, and apply it to today's life? Are literalists going to take their children out and stone them because the made dome slight against a parent?

I suppose the bottom line is that for every Jerry Falwell, there are 100,000 people out in the world doing something to enhance the lives of
their fellow human beings; for every pedophile priest, there are 100,000 Mother Theresa's. As humans, we seem to be hardwired to see the "bad" in things, and hardly ever the good, I for one, prefer to use what talents I have for good, and while exposing the evil, I surely won't dwell on it.

I don't have all of the answers, and neither does anyone else, but I see no reason to lambaste others for their faith, whatever that faith is. Take on individuals that profess to be righteous, and show themselves the opposite, but to take on an entire belief system, and simply deride it because a few have hijacked a religion of Peace and Understanding, and use it to procure wealth, is beneath dignity. I hold these people in contempt as well, just look at Ralph Reed's connections to Jack Abramoff, looks like poetic justice to me...:)

[Maat]

254. I agree with you.

My pastor in Religious Science talked about it today - each of us needs to focus on the good. Each one of us remembers a teacher or nurse that made us feel better during hard times by comforting us. She was encouraging us to appreciate ourselves AND others - in terms of our ability to make another person's life just a little bit better with an act of kindness on a particular day.

[iamahaingttta]

238. "Not all people of faith are bad people."

Yes. You are ABSOLUTELY right! I agree with this statement whole-heartedly.

Here comes the but:

In my ever so humble opinion, everything about every religion ever on the planet is made up. It's all a bunch of children's stories, mostly designed to keep the kiddies in line.

All of it!

Again, in my ever so humble opinion, anyone over the age of about 16 who still believes any of the big daddy in the sky stories, is not a rational thinking adult person. And anyone who is not a rational thinking adult person should be treated like a child. In some cases, very dangerous children. And they should not, in my opinion, be in a position to be able to make ANY decisions that affect other people.

Look, it's very simple. I don't need to be saved, thank you very much! I'm not broken, I wasn't born a sinner, I don't need Jeebus to come out of the sky and take me to heaven. Besides, it ain't gonna happen, because again, it's all children's stories. I just need to be a nice person. That's all. And so do you. That's all anyone needs to do. That's what the bright side of religion teaches us. Do we really need all the made up shit in order to behave? Can't we all just get along?

Obviously not. And, it turns out, religion is actually one of the most destructive forces ever unleashed by us, the human species, onto this sweet little planet of ours. Yes, I believe religion is more destructive than constructive. More wars and "Crusades" have been waged in the name of religion than anybody would ever be able to count.

So... not all people of faith are bad people. Not all people of faith are good people. Not all people who have no faith are bad people. Not all people who have no faith are good people. Not all people need faith in order to live moral, upstanding lives. Yet, there are a lot of people of faith who do NOT believe that to be true. In my ever so humble opinion, those kinds of people can go fuck themselves. They are children and they are dangerous and they should be removed from polite society. They should have NO power over my life or anyone else's.

But that's just me...

[nemo137]

247. Not a rational thinking adult person, Not to be trusted.

We can't be economists, then, or lawyers, or sociolgists or engineers? We're not to be trusted to raise children, or teach school, or practice medicine?

With that position, there's not a damn chance of us ever working together. If you don't view us as full human beings, how are you going to work with us as equals in the same fight? My rights are as threatened by the Pharisee Right as yours are. Further down the line, maybe, but a group that lacking in love and that obsessed with laws would come after us dissenters eventually. But aparently you view us as children to be manipulated.

I can appreciate your arguments about wars and crusades. I can agree that there is too much entangling of religion and government. But I'm gonna have a damn hard time working with you to fix what's broken in our country if you don't view me as a person on the same level as you.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

239. I don't feel persecuted, and I don't recall ever claiming "persecution,"

just annoyance at atheists who are responding not to me or to most DU Christians but to their experiences outside DU, particularly with toxic forms of religion.

There are some posters who cannot resist jumping into a religion thread with remarks about "fairy tales" and "sky daddies."

They don't threaten me, but let's do a thought experiment.

:Begin thought experiment: Suppose you had a significant other whose appeal I did not understand. Suppose I kept razzing you about how s/he was funny looking, had funny ideas, and reminded me of an abusive spouse I once had. Suppose I made my snarky remarks at every opportunity, despite your repeated insistence that this relationship was one of the most fulfilling parts of your life and that this lover was NOT abusive. Suppose I kept saying that I couldn't respect anyone who would fall in love with such a weird person and that I couldn't keep silent because I had no reason to keep silent in the face of rampant stupidity.

My constant carping would not make you doubt your love for this significant other. It would not harm either of you. It might even strengthen your relationship.

But my constant carping would get really annoying to you, and you (and most neutral observers) would wonder why the hell I was so obsessive about something that was neither harmful to me nor any of my business. Especially since you had never made disparaging remarks about someone else's choice of lovers. :end thought experiment:

If you can imagine yourself in that position, maybe you'll come to see that that's how I feel about some of the bitter and aggressive atheists on this board.

[Maat]

253. Just saw this - very well put!

I don't feel the need to proselytize at all; I couldn't care less - to each his/her own special path.

I get tired of people labeling my faith 'a cult,' however; they need to resolve those feelings another way. I will respond and try to educate sometimes.

[Warren DeMontague]

265. Funny, though, I've never been proseltyzed by an Atheist.

I've been proseltyzed by bucketloads of Christians, however... even here.

[Maat]

340. Believe or not, no one has tried to persuade me one way or another.

Maybe they described their beliefs, but they never tried to persuade me to convert (either atheists or people of faith).

[Warren DeMontague]

264. Here's another thought experiment:

Because I suspect the threads you referenced didn't occur in a vacuum, and instead had to do with things like the teaching of "intelligent design", AKA "creationism", in Public Schools.

...Are you suggesting that it is inappropriate to use the phrase "fairy tales" in a discussion about people who believe that "Dinosaurs were on board Noah's Ark" should be taught in Public Schools as a scientific statement?

Just wondering.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

317. No, but when you dismiss people's profound and life-changing

experiences and lump them together with believing that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark (or rather, the usual confabulation is that they weren't on Noah's Ark, which is why they're extinct :-) ), that just sounds like over-generalizing.

Yes, I've had my arguments with fundies, too.

[Warren DeMontague]

343. Dismiss people's profound and life changing experiences? I'm a Deadhead.

Believe me, I've had my profound, life changing experiences dismissed, ridiculed and mocked more times than I can shake a stick at.

"Ewwww! What the hell? Those old farts SUCK! Do they play any songs, or do they just noodle... endlessly?"

Shit, I even get it from my wife, sometimes.

But, see, my profound and life-changing experiences, Grateful Dead related and otherwise, don't require any external validation. I know what I've experienced. I have gleaned my own personal meanings from those things. My path is not yours, and your mileage may vary. So, if someone mocks my belief system, my philosophical outlook, my favorite band, or my fashion sense, my general response is something to the tune of opinions are like a certain bodily orifice- everyone's got one.

That said, I DON'T try to mock people's faith or ridicule their religion. What I do hope, particularly here, is that people will understand that they should be able to believe in whatever they want, be it the God of the bible or invisible 500 foot orangutans living on their roof (not mocking, here. Just stating a fact) insofar as they don't try to impose their beliefs on everyone else, particularly by interfering with the separation of church and state in this country, interjecting religion into science class, that kind of thing.

And I bring up those positions, held as you infer by 'fundies', not because I think they represent where the majority of DU Christians sit on those issues, not at all- rather, I bring them up because the threads in which I think a great deal of this supposed bashing and ridiculing of 'people of faith' have to do with just those subjects..

in other words, it's quite possibly not YOUR faith that's being ridiculed, certainly not by me.

Hope that clears things up a tad.

[mzmolly]

250. Thank YOU. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR., PAUL WELLSTONE, JOHN CONYERS,

ROSA PARKS, TED KENNEDY, DENNIS KUCINICH, HOWARD DEAN, WESLEY CLARK, JOHN KERRY, JOHN EDWARDS, GANDHI, and many many people progressives look up to are people of faith. So many seem to smugly/conveniently dismiss that fact when they state that those who "believe" are ignorant and or weak.

[Warren DeMontague]

263. Again, please provide a link.

Where has anyone here stated that all those who believe are ignorant and/or weak.

[mzmolly]

267. Anyone who hasn't seen statements calling those who believe in God

ignorant and weak is not paying attention. I refuse to do your research for you.

Further I have no idea what you mean by "again a link" as I participate in very few of these discussions?

lastly, apparently the OP, who does not ascribe to a religious belief also felt a lack of tolerance on the part of some DU-ers, thus the thread.

[Warren DeMontague]

270. Sorry, I continue to think it's a saw. Like "liberals are banning

Christmas". It's NOT HAPPENING, and this constant playing the victim on the part of the religious- when anyone who is paying attention understands that this country is verging on theocracy (hence, perhaps, a little of the irritation you may sense) is getting really tiresome.

(I wrote "again, a link" because I asked the OP for some evidence of what he or she was talking about, as well. Like you, the OP was unable or unwilling to back up his or her claims.)

We're supposed to accept, at face value, that Christians and believers are regularly persecuted here at DU- and I don't buy it. I see people making fun of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the folks who want a 6,000 year old Earth taught in Public Schools as Scientific Fact- but we're also told that "they" don't speak for "you".

...So, which is it? Is criticizing the religious right off limits entirely, because of the "religious" aspect? Or do they not speak for you and you're all strong enough to stand on your own without being identified with them? Because I disagree with the OP- I NEVER see people 'jumping all over' Religious Liberals. Someone speaks up for tolerance and inclusion in the Catholic Church, or says that Jesus wouldn't advocate war or hatred of gays, and their sentiments seem to meet with universal support. Are there people here who think the bible is gibberish and belief in "God" is as ludicrous as belief in Santa Claus? Certainly, and they are entitled to openly state their personal opinion just as surely as you are entitled to state "I believe in God".

Should people excercise care and courtesy when referencing other people's personal beliefs? (within reason- I don't think that "Intelligent Design" supporters who want to shoehorn theology into science classes should get a free pass any more than flat earthers or those in denial about global warming should) Sure. But should people also accept that just because they believe something it doesn't automatically entitle them to never encounter anyone who openly states a differing opinion? Yes.

And that's what it boils down to: You assert, without being willing to back it up, that 'bashing' of the religious is rampant here on DU. I will likewise assert (if you want links, you can do your own research) that there are plenty of 'religious' people here on DU who are fine with atheists in principle- as long as we keep our mouths good and shut about what we think regarding the universe.

[mzmolly]

271. Not happening ey? It took me 30 seconds to find this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=38596&mesg_id=38630

As for the rest of your diatribe, it does not pertain to this particular discussion. And, as for what you think about the universe, I honestly DON'T GIVE A DAMN.

[WhollyHeretic]

274. It took me 10 seconds to find this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=242x6060

[mzmolly]

277. When all else fails - post something stupid.

Thanks. :hi:

[WhollyHeretic]

278. It was just as relevant as what you posted.

[mzmolly]

284. Some how I don't personally equate calling Christians, murderers to

discussing Ipods but I'm not surprised you do.

[WhollyHeretic]

287. Let me try to simplify this for you

You kept saying that people say that believers are "ignorant and or weak" and then you posted a link that said nothing of the sort. I was just pointing that out, I guess I should have realized that would sail right over your head.

As far as your assertion that the post you linked to was "calling Christians, murderers" that is absolutely ridiculous. The person was saying that Christians have a morbid fascination with death and torture. It's called reading comprehension.

[mzmolly]

290. Ah, so Christians only have a morbid fascination with death and torture.

Gee, thanks for the clarification. :eyes:

As to the matter of simplification - the gist of my remarks (and the thread itself) were about the fact that Christians are continually insulted here on various levels, and I proved one example of the type of bigotry found here on a regular basis. I could find many remarks stating "Christians are weak and ignorant," but I considered "morbid fascination with death and torture" to trump my initial assertion. By the way, the words morbid fascination were not included in the statement I provided. And, your attempt to better the remarks are not helping your cause.

[WhollyHeretic]

292. The words "all Christians are murderers" are not in it either

but you have no compunction about tossing that idiocy around. I guess I should apologize for comprehending what I read, others here aren't so lucky.

That thread was talking about the Cross and what it symbolized. The cross was an instrument of death and torture and some people are fascinated with it. Understand?

[mzmolly]

297. Yeah, all that was said was Christians cant get enough of torture & death.

Torture and death ... "Christians" can't seem to get enough of those two things.

The remark speaks for itself.

The author of the post did not use the words "some people" he used the word "Christians." As a "Christian" I am not facinated with torture and death, understand?

[WhollyHeretic]

310. .

:rofl:

Thanks for the laughs, though it is kind of sad as well. I guess I now have a reasonable representation of what it would be like to try and explain quantum mechanics to a child of three.

[mzmolly]

318. Ah, there is the "ignorant" cop out/claim.

Likening me to a three year old and yourself to a quantum physicist? LOL - I'm not three, and I'd venture to guess you are not a quantum physicist?

A quantum physicist may be interested in the following however:

The recent findings of Quantum Physics (especially Dr Bohm's work) about the universe being made up of an "interconnected unbroken wholeness", examples of Non-Locality phenomena (Bells Theorem) and the 'Observer Effect' implying that consciousness underlies all reality, has striking parallels with the ancient Esoteric concept that all reality is the manifestation of an infinite Singularity (creative principle) which I (Alex Paterson) choose to call Source, and most others call God. However, none of this is surprising to those who have experienced the 'Oneness' associated with some sort of deep spiritual experience or holotropic state.

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/physics_quantum.htm

;)

[WhollyHeretic]

328. Wow. An airline pilot proved god's existence!

Praise Jeebus!

[mzmolly]

331. You mean various physisists prove God's existence to their own

satisfaction.

And, praise Allah! ;)

[Zhade]

336. You even quote the distinction being made.

Your quote proves that what you linked to DOESN'T mean what you're trying to spin it to mean.

After all, you're not a "Christian", right? You're a Christian.

[mzmolly]

347. Perhaps you can share the distinction between "Christian" and Christian.

Or "Gays" and Gays, or "Jews" and Jews?

How do you feel about this example?

"Atheists" are pseudo intellectual caustic assholes. VS - Atheists are pseudo intellectual caustic assholes. How does that nasty remark differ after I remove the quotation marks?

To clarify, I don't personally think most Atheists are pseudo intellectual caustic assholes, I used the above remark as an example so that you might personally be able to relate to what was said about "Christians." ;)

[Zhade]

335. "Christians", not Christians.

Obviously, the post you linked to was speaking of hateful, 'un-Christlike' people, not all Christians.

But then, you probably knew that.

[mzmolly]

348. "Bullshit"

But then, you probably knew that.

[Warren DeMontague]

275. Well, I guarantee you I'm not going to ring your doorbell

and try to explain quantum physics to you.

See, that's common courtesy. I, too, don't really care WHAT other people believe-- as long as they don't try to shoehorn what isn't science into kids science classes, put prayers into public schools, or use their "faith" as an excuse to trample the constitution, lecture women who are trying to get birth control prescriptions filled, that sort of thing.

As for the post you referenced- to be fair, folks tortured and murdered during the spanish inquisition might actually agree with that asessment. Just like Native Americans might have a different view of what the American Flag represents than, say, a veteran of Iwo Jima. These are people's opinions. I happen to think it's a bit of a broad brush, myself- but there is an undeniable historical, factual basis for the assertion- from some points of view, including that of my Jewish ancestors in Europe... and it doesn't constitute a widespread pattern of things like calling all believers (particularly religious liberals) "ignorant". Which is still the central claim here that I aint buying.

But I'm sorry you think that post by that individual constitutes 'bashing'. Clearly the rules seem to prohibit such things on DU, so if it bothers you that much, hit the alert button.

Edit: Personally, I think you should read my "diatribe" again. It certainly DOES pertain to THIS DISCUSSION.

[mzmolly]

282. "To be fair" many people of varied beliefs have committed crimes

throughout history. Hitler, for example was said to believe in astrology, should I call astrologist's murderers? Would you defend such remarks? You should clearly NOT be defending what was said. Especially after claiming that these sorts of slams don't happen around here. Further, remarks like that are made here all the time, but apparently it's all ok because of the !#&* inquisition? :eyes: If I were to call Muslims murders because of 911, how frikkin far do you think I'd get? How long would I remain a member here if I continually did so?

And, may I ask - when does a broad brush become intolerance/bigotry in your mind?

Further, the only door knocking I've done is for political reasons but what would we do if we couldn't lump all Christians in with murderous door knocking inquisitors ey?

And, as I said your previous diatribe does not pertain to this discussion because like so many who attempt to critique Christians you are discussing a certain faction of Christianity which does not apply to most of those who participate here.

I hope you'll reconsider your defense of the remarks I linked here.

[Warren DeMontague]

283. The remarks had to do with what the cross stood for.

Not what "Christians" are or do.

The post had to do with a symbol, not people. I trust that distinction isn't lost on you.

I wasn't defending the remarks, that should be up to the person who made them. But from a certain historical perspective, some people could certainly form that particular opinion. That's a fact, not a defense. Lots of people have died under the aegis of just about every symbol known to man--- including the cross.

[mzmolly]

286. Bologna. More back peddling.

Happens all the time.

I understood the back round when I read the post, and I would venture to guess that the person who made the comments would have more context for us to consider? But why on earth should Christians here be subjected to this sort of remark over and over again without qualification?

Of course, idiocy off all stripes knows no bounds, but we should be cautious against lumping all groups of people into a derogatory basket when we have conversations here. (Unless we're talkin Republicans of course.) ;)

Bottom line: one can't reasonably argue that remarks like the one I noted are made against any other group of participants here while being regularly defended as "ok."

I admire the OP for examining this issue from a reasonable/progressive standpoint regardless of her personal beliefs.

[Warren DeMontague]

313. Self Delete

See Next Post.

[Warren DeMontague]

314. Edit: You know what? On that post, you're right.

I went back and looked at the post again. The statement about "Christians" was out of line. Maybe that's back pedaling, but you are correct.

[mzmolly]

323. Thank you.

:hi:

In all honesty, posts like that are fairly common here. I understand the frustration with Christians most atheists must have, but I would like to see more sensitivity to the beliefs of others in the process of expressing our own opinions, KWIM?

I want you to know that I do respect your position on "God" or a lack their of, even if I don't share the same belief system you do. I can honestly, totally understand believing that God does not exist. My daughter has been saying that "there is no God" since she was 4 - LOL. And, if she still feels that way when she's 20 she has my understanding.

I thank you for taking an honest open look at what I took issue with.

[Zhade]

337. I disagree, because of the use of quotation marks.

Clearly, to me anyway, it's a distinction to use quotation marks around the word Christian - one I've seen many Christians here use, to rightfully separate themselves from the hateful types.

[mzmolly]

350. How bout this remark: Christians have a morbid fascination with death and

torture.

The person who made that ignorant bigoted statement apparently forgot the quotation marks?

You "Atheists" just can't seem to agree on this issue I guess? ;)

I personally agree with the "Atheists" who say that the remark was a broad brush smear, with or without punctuation.

:hi:

[WhollyHeretic]

353. How is that a bigoted statement?

Do you deny that the cross, a symbol of death and torture, is the central symbol of Christianity?

[mzmolly]

354. I do deny the cross is a symbol of death and torture for most, yes.

The ignorance/bigotry and insensitivity here on the part of some is amazing.

Was Cindy Sheehan fascinated with death and torture when she memorialized her son and others in Crawford using the cross in a symbolic manner?

[WhollyHeretic]

355. Where does the Christian symbol of a cross come from?

A story of death and torture. It's not that hard. It may mean something else to you but the reason it is a symbol in the first place is because of a story about death and torture.

[Inland]

356. That's not the whole story. You skipped the final chapters.

Just saying.

[mzmolly]

360. He also skipped the fact that Jesus did not invent the cross.

And he skipped the fact that people have been torturing and murdering one another for thousands of years in very interesting and gruesome manners, regardless of faith. Christians did not nail JC to the cross, the Romans did.


:hi:

[mzmolly]

357. That symbol came from the Roman empire.

The death and torture shit came long before Christianity, so if you want to critique please call out the Romans of ancient times instead of modern day Christians with your ignorant BS.

[WhollyHeretic]

361. Christians use it as their primary symbol

They use it for their symbol because of the story of death and torture.

Either you are one of the most intellectually dishonest people I've ever met or you have the reading comprehension of George Bush after a case of Schlitz.

[mzmolly]

362. *deleted*

I got an error message and cross posted

[WhollyHeretic]

363. I said at the beginning that I was talking about the Christian Cross

So I guess it is the reading comprehension thing.

[mzmolly]

365. The Cross has many origins.

So I guess it's an ignorant bigot thing.

[mzmolly]

364. Bullshit. You don't get to define when/why "they" use this symbol.

Either you are one of the most intellectually dishonest people I've ever met or you have the reading comprehension of George Bush after a case of Schlitz.

Oh goodie we're playing the personal insult game.

Let's see: Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Either you are one of the most insensitive, bigoted people I've Never met, or you have the historical knowledge and emotional intelligence of George Bush's case of the after beer shitz.

[WhollyHeretic]

366. So where does the Christian cross come from if it isn't from the

crucifixion? It's really not a hard concept, at least for most people. You've been hurling insults from the beginning.

[mzmolly]

367. Check religious tolerance.org.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_symb.htm

The history of the cross symbol in Christianity

Early depictions on Jesus usually showed Jesus in the form of a shepherd carrying a lamb. Tertullian (140-230 CE), a Montanist heretic, commented in his essay De Corona: "At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign. This might be an early reference to individuals tracing the sign of the cross on their body.

The use of the cross as a symbol was condemned by at least one church father of the 3rd century CE because of its Pagan origins. The first appearance of a cross in Christian art is on a Vatican sarcophagus from the mid-5th Century. 11 It was a Greek cross with equal-length arms. Jesus' body was not shown. The first crucifixion scenes didn't appear in Christian art until the 7th century CE. The original cross symbol was in the form of a Tau Cross. It was so named because it looked like the letter "tau", or our letter "T". One author speculates that the Church may have copied the symbol from the Pagan Druids who made crosses in this form to represent the Thau (god). 7 They joined two limbs from oak trees. The Tau cross became associated with St. Philip who was allegedly crucified on such a cross in Phrygia. May Day, a major Druidic seasonal day of celebration, became St. Philip's Day. Later in Christian history, the Tau Cross became the Roman Cross that we are familiar with today.

...


The Cross and Crucifixion" is commented that:

* the description of Jesus' suffering during the last hours of life indicates that he was crucified on a stake rather than a cross.

* that some of the writings of the early church fathers confirms the use of a pole.

* that the very earliest depictions of Jesus' crucifixion in Christian art show him on a stake.

Acts 5:30 refers to "hanging him on a tree." 1 Peter 2:24 says "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree."

...

The pre-Christian history of the cross symbol

"From its simplicity of form, the cross has been used both as a religious symbol and as an ornament, from the dawn of man's civilization. Various objects, dating from periods long anterior to the Christian era, have been found, marked with crosses of different designs, in almost every part of the old world."

* Scandinavia: The Tau cross symbolized the hammer of the God Thor.
Babylon: the cross with a crescent moon was the symbol of their moon deity.

* Assyria: the corners of the cross represented the four directions in which the sun shines.

* India: In Hinduism, the vertical shaft represents the higher, celestial states of being; the horizontal bar represents the lower, earthly states.

* Egypt: The ankh cross (a Tau cross topped by an inverted tear shape) is associated with Maat, their Goddess of Truth. It also represents the sexual union of Isis and Osiris.

* Europe: The use of a human effigy on a cross in the form of a scarecrow has been used from ancient times. In prehistoric times, a human would be sacrificed and hung on a cross. The sacrifice would later be chopped to pieces; his blood and pieces of flesh were widely distributed and buried to encourage the crop fertility.

The cross does not hold meaning for me, but for those it does, I respect their personal reasons and would not attempt to define them.

Uhm, you may want to keep that religious tolerance link for future reference?

[Zhade]

333. "Christians". In quotes. Seems you're reaching.

NT!

[mzmolly]

334. Quotes?

Perhaps you can clarify how exactly the quotes make the remark less caustic?

[Zhade]

338. What, you haven't seen Christians here use that same convention?

I've seen many Christians here put the word in quotation marks when discussing the likes of, say, Phelps or Robertson - and rightly so, as 99% of the people here, Christian or not, are nothing like those two.

It's a commonly used to make a distinction between the hateful type of "Christian" and regular, nonhateful Christians, one I see here every day. Heck, it's probably used that way in this very thread.

So obviously the post you linked to was referring to those types, not people like you. Using it in an attempt to show persecution was misguided, I think, because it doesn't support your argument.

For the record, I have seen posts that lump all Christians together, hateful with non, and while it's extremely limited and quite rare, I thoroughly disapprove of such broad-brushing, just as I disapprove of believers here saying _____ about all atheists.

Make better sense, I hope?

[mzmolly]

344. Nice try.

If I were to say the word "gays" or "Muslims" using quotation marks it would not/should not distract from a derogatory remark made about either group. The quotation marks perhaps indicated hypocrisy on the part of Christians (if anything.)

However, thanks for clarifying this: I have seen posts that lump all Christians together, hateful with non, and while it's extremely limited and quite rare, I thoroughly disapprove of such broad-brushing,

I disagree that it's "quite rare" but I appreciate the validation. When atheists and christians see disparaging remarks about another group, we should perhaps, indicate our disapproval.

[nemo137]

315. Post #238, this very thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=38835&mesg_id=39168

Does this count under your rubric for what calling people "ignorant and/or weak" is? "Not rational human beings...extremely dangerous Children." Looks like it fits to me.

[mzmolly]

326. Thank you.

It's quite common in these discussions to do so.

:hi:

[Zhade]

257. I am required to respect the person, NOT the belief.

NT!

[Warren DeMontague]

281. I think the problem some (certainly not all) believers here have

is that, in this society in particular, they're not used to encountering large concentrations of atheists and other unbelievers in western religion who are vocally outspoken with regards to the fact that they don't believe.

See, in this country, most Atheists are expected to keep our mouths shut, most of the time. Smile and nod, as someone else put it.

But here, in this forum, particularly when we are witnessing an unprecedented assault on our freedoms and our constitution from the religious right, is it really so surprising that the atheist contingent would be outspoken and occasionally angry? Really?

I happen to think MOST of the time the atheists and secularists here bend over backwards to distinguish between the theocrats and religious right and other Christians, for example. As others have noted, perhaps if the religious left would spend a little more time trying to regain control of their churches, and a little less with their nose out of joint from us mean ol' persecutin' atheists, the debate in this country would be in better shape.

Most of the "belittling" I think the OP is referencing amounts to something like this:

Poster One: "I don't believe in God"
Poster Two: "Shit, no kidding? I don't believe in God, either! Imagine that."

Now, it would be stretching things mightily for an atheist to claim that someone here saying "I believe in God" constitutes bashing of atheists- however, when SOME believers are faced with numerous voices... all openly stating their personal disbelief, somehow that translates into "discrimination" or a lack of respect.

Again, I happen to think it's because in our society, unbelievers are expected to keep our mouths good and shut.

[nemo137]

294. I've never seen a believer on DU feeling disrespected by a declaration

of atheism. What I have seen are posts like one above that claim that believers are incapable of rational thought, or are all easily led sheep, or are somehow insufficient as human beings.

I mean, look at it this way. I imagine that someone merely proclaiming that he or she believes in some sort of divine being, or even that he or she is a Christian, falls below your threshold for irritation or offense. I would further imagine, however, being told by that person that because you do not believe in the divine presence, you are a spiritually, intellectually and morally deficient person, and further more are not to be trusted. I do not find it wholly inconceivable that this has happened to you. Why spread that bitterness around here? Just so we "know what it's like?"

[mzmolly]

298. I agree.

Thank you for your eloquent post.

[Inland]

296. Except its not true.

It isn't true that the issues of belief and non-belief are left at a mere declaration.

Rather, belief has been declared a form of mental illness, religion declared a bane of mankind, religion declared anti-science....and it's not as if it's in reaction to some sort of proselytizing here.

Even in this thread, Zenenlightened terms "religionists" to be unreliable political allys.....a weak and cheap shot, to be sure, but also breathtakingly stupid and an insult to people of religion who actually do a lot of the heavy lifting for democrats and liberals alike.

[mzmolly]

300. Yes indeed.

:toast:

[Zenlitened]

301. Virtually every statement you make is "weak, cheap...

... stupid and insulting," isn't it?

[Inland]

302. Nope. But thanks for checking in. nt

[Zenlitened]

304. By all means.

I find the combination of intellectual dishonesty and fevered imagination to be fascinating, wherever it appears.

[Inland]

306. I can envision the pipe and elbow patches now. I'm sure. nt

[mzmolly]

308. You forgot the fuzzy bunny slippers.

He he. ;)

[Goldensilence]

368. wait...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x39129

none of that "christian" stuff here. I've seen the quoatations things too Zhade. One groups says they want seperation from the fundamental right(who wouldn't?)while another sees it as offensive. Which is it? It makes me want to spontaneously combust :nuke:

I don't see it any different as from calling a democrat a DINO. Perhaps we'd prefer to call them as i have seen i think in this thread CINO.

[SteppingRazor]

369. Locking

Once again, a call for tolerance has degenerated into a flame war. Oh, the irony.