When Good Atheists Go Bad

[beam me up scottie]

Okay, so atheists like to poke fun at religion and sometimes we go too far.

But for most of us, it's not just religion.
Many of us are natural born smart asses, we bash everything, the more serious, the better the bashing.
We like black comedies and spare no sacred cows.

So it's not personal, at least for me, although I do think most of my fellow atheists would agree.

I've always wondered if this need to have fun at the expense of religion is something we're born with or if it stems from years of having to keep our mouths shut so that our true opinions of religious ritual and dogma won't get us ostracized, disowned, divorced and destitute.

And I am truly sorry if I've offended anyone who read NAO's thread, it was not my intent.

I grew up in a predominantly catholic area, and all of my friends were catholic. Almost everybody had a Mary of the Bathtub in their yard. But we never discussed personal beliefs because it wasn't considered polite. However, they were always more than happy to bash catholicism, the Pope, nuns, and especially the stuffy Parish priests.

So I didn't really experience religious fundamentalism until I left home.
And, unlike my friends view of their religion, it's not funny at all.

These people are hijacking our country and they won't let anything stand in their way.
The rise of the American Taliban is documented and obvious to everyone.

We know that liberal believers are our allies and we don't want to jeopardize our friendship, especially since your voices are becoming louder and more unified when speaking out against the intolerance exhibited by the so-called moral majority.

So we snark and spat and carry on in this forum, sometimes it's serious, other times not, but we know who our real enemies are, and we appreciate our friends who have the courage to stand with us.

[longship]

1. Our real enemy is fundementalism of all genera.

I am mostly a very tolerant person. However, I am becoming very intolerant of fundy shenanigans. Religious fundementalism will be the end of us. If we do not nip it in the bud now, we are likely doomed. I despise fundementalism, and see it as a sort of cultural disease which desparately needs a cure.

Interestingly, the cure is the very thing which gave rise to our great country, enlightenment.

[beam me up scottie]

2. You said a mouthful.

I work and live with these people.

There is no reasoning with them, no middle ground, no compromise.

[Vexatious Ape]

3. I work them too

It's kind of strange being the company atheist. You keep your mouth shut most of the time but when you can't--and I can't, you end up saying something that makes their jaws drop. Keep in mind I live and work in Atlanta Georgia. I actually had someone ask me if I was a satanist. Of course I told the ignorant bastard that satan is a fictional boogie man from a really fucked up book. I thought his head was going to spin off it's neck.

[beam me up scottie]

4. You have to be careful about coming out where I work.

They fly a christian flag underneath Old Glory.

One of the engineers has a Darwin fish on his toolbox and the owner confronted him about it.

I'm positive there's less than ten liberals in the entire company.

I will need to be tranquilized soon or else I'll end up on the unemployment line.

[manic expression]

13. Ouch

I hope you manage working there well.

[beam me up scottie]

14. I do okay with the help of the other libs, thanks.

And it's not just work, it's this whole area.

There's a reason why gays keep a low profile, catholics and non-christians don't advertise their beliefs and most non-caucasian people have learned to ignore the bigots when they hear them use slurs like n*ggers, w*tbacks, towel heads, etc.

It's depressing to see that the large university just north of here has so little impact on society.
Anti-intellectualism and the cultural dumbing down of children are the norm.
The campus is like a haven and if I have to stay here much longer I'd really like to find a way to afford moving to that part of city.

The liberals around here note that the area has gotten remarkably more ignorant and intolerant since the Bush administration was installed.

[Maat]

95. Beam Me Up Scottie knows me ..

I got to say you cracked me up with what you said to that guy there, Vex Ape.

And I'm no atheist (I'm a Universalist who honors all paths).

[beam me up scottie]

97. Maat!

I'm so glad you're here!

[Maat]

99. I'm glad you're here - hope I don't say anything to offend.

I just think that you and I agree on everything - when it comes down to it - in terms of progressives uniting to stand up to the Hardright Religious Types.

[beam me up scottie]

101. Absolutely.

I'm still stunned that not everybody sees a threat.

Anything you can do to set the alarms off may help stop the juggernaut.

Jeez, I mean, they even ADMIT they intend to turn this into a theocracy, they have plans for GLBT people, infidels like me and other assorted non-christians, how can anybody NOT see a threat?

[Maat]

103. I think that they are the greatest threat!

I don't know. Rev. Madison Shockley is the greatest progressive around out here - he was cracking me up with a joke about Solomon's 1,000 wives (to illustrate the point that no one should literally abide by every passage in the King James version of the Bible).

He marched for peace on Sunday! He marched with the Unitarian-Universalists and the Buddhists!

http://www.pilgrimucc.org/staff.html .

He is so passionate about addressing the religious hardright that he goes on the Stacy Taylor show every week (our morning show on the local San Diego Air America affiliate).

[beam me up scottie]

105. TRUTH!

I just read his essay on Terri Schiavo and wow.

He doesn't mess around, does he?

Only if Terri Schiavo had actually died on Good Friday could the resonance of the passion story told about Jesus and the passion story unfolding around Terri have been stronger. The drama, the tension, the excitement, the suffering, the heroes, the villains; they were all there.

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

George Bush is unequivocally Pontius Pilate. He flies back from his Texas retreat to sign Terris law. Even though he knows it will not save her life it allows him to present clean hands to his faithful constituents and give him, one presumes, a clear conscience and a good nights sleep (something the president is known to cherish).

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

It is as though the Christian Right wanted to get it right this time. They couldnt prevent the crucifixion of Jesus two thousand years ago, but by golly, they were going to prevent the crucifixion of Terri Schiavo. Interestingly, Terri and Jesus have both become symbols of this pseudo-religious political movement. Emptied of all content, they serve at the whim of those who would manipulate their silence and absence to make points in their attempt to establish a so-called culture of life.

The ironies have not been lost on the rest of us. The hyperbolic concern with one feeding tube connected to one person in contrast to the total lack of action regarding the millions of human beings whose feeding tubes are quite connected (i.e., their mouths) but are empty. The president, when governor of Texas charged with signing the death warrants for those on death row, could not one hour (Matthew 26:40) to review their cases and thus failed 152 times to err on the side of life.

BMUS, the dedicated and unrepentant evil atheist, would gladly vote for this man.

Hell, (sorry) I might even stump for him.

[Maat]

108. HeeHee. (n/t)

[NoGOP]

5. Absolutely.........

Their lives are guided by a book I personally have no interest in. I get so tired of having a discussion on issues with people like that and the only reason they have for their position is "It's in the bible". I know I'm generalizing here but a lot of them also conduct themselves as if they are far superior to those that they perceive as not getting it.

[Vexatious Ape]

6. The born again creeps

Those are the most arrogant bastards out there to work with.

[unschooler]

45. Welcome to DU, Vex.

:hi:

[beam me up scottie]

7. The christians have a huge business organization here.

They do business with each other whenever possible and they view the stupid fish they put everywhere as an indicator of moral superiority.

My take on it differs slightly.

I avoid the fish like the plague.

[pnwmom]

44. Thank you for starting this thread, Beam me up.

As a newcomer, it makes me feel more welcome here.

And if I (a cradle democrat) was offended , what about the wavering Republican moderates who might find themselves lurking at D.U.? I don't see the point of alienating open-minded Christians who might be considering trading sides.

Change isn't all that easy, you know, and the older you get, the harder it is.

[beam me up scottie]

46. You're quite welcome.

This forum is a battleground on any given day and I just wanted to point out that our attempts at humor are not meant to be offensive.

For every offensive joke, picture or comment that you see here I'd wager there are ten more of each that were not posted because most DUers try to be considerate of others' beliefs.

I commend you for the courage it took for you to post here, and also for adding your voice to the thousands of other DUers who want to make a difference.

I've been here so long I forget how intimidating this forum can be.

And to show that I'm not as terrible as I pretend to be sometimes, here's a link to another thread I started after MLK's birthday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=46215&mesg_id=46215

[pnwmom]

47. Thanks again. I have a friend who heard this speech in person.

It must have been something.

[beam me up scottie]

48. I get chills whenever I hear it.

Amazing, isn't it?

We could use a lot more christians like Dr. King and Jimmy Carter in this country.

[harleydad]

87. I was looking down and here I see an atheist say good

things about Jimmy Carter and Martin? Whoa!

Even though they both believe in the bible? Even though Jimmy is a Southern Baptist?

Actually, I am also a christian and Jimmy is my hero. He said once in an interview that when Iran took those hostages he knew full well the US could go in and destroy IRAN. But, he chose not to because it would amount to great loss of life, Iranian and US. As it turns out, he came out with mud on his face (Ronald looked the hero) but the hostages were free and almost no loss of life. That is MY understanding of what it means to be Christian. To put peace and tolerance before arrogance and self-preservation.

[beam me up scottie]

89. Oh, I have many good things to say about President Carter.

First, let me say that as an atheist, I don't think people like him are moral because they are christian, I just think they're moral, and that's not an easy thing to be no matter what you believe or don't.

I have to give Carter a lot of credit though, for not interfering with a woman's right to choose even though he personally abhors abortion.

He stated repeatedly that he made every effort to prevent his faith from influencing his decisions.

I also have to give him a HUGE amount of credit for telling the southern baptists where to stick their dogma.

I live in the south and most baptists around here (just about everyone) have never forgiven him for that. They view him as a traitor and run that good man down every chance they get.
While at the same time praising bush, of course.

It pains me greatly to think of what kind of sendoff President Carter will receive when he dies.

I doubt he inspired the Ray-gun cultists and the "moral majority" in the same way that senile old fraud did.


I will mourn his passing and celebrate his legacy, as will every other atheist I know.

[salvorhardin]

91. If you really want to blow your mind harleydad

Here's a whole site full of rabid militant atheists who adore Carter.
http://www.neuralgourmet.com/node/590

That would include me. And he's our only President who could honestly say, "I'm a nuclear scientist." Bonus!

On edit: Come on over and join the party if you'd like. If you don't mind being in the company of us uppity atheists, and one or two very cool theists, then I think you'd probably fit in well. Give our mission statement a read and see if it agrees with you: http://www.neuralgourmet.com/about

[beam me up scottie]

93. Oh, way to blow our image, Sal.

Next thing you know, you'll be giving away trade secrets.

[salvorhardin]

94. Aye

I'm just a blog whore. I'm shameless.

But with our "The infidel says..." quote'o'matic and The Wheelman's rants I don't think we look too wussy to the other sites in the Evil Atheist Conspiracy Blog League.

[varkam]

8. Amen

I used to have a car with a christian fish with "n'chips" in the middle of it. Needless to say, in the part of the country I live in, it was vandalized. I don't have anything on my new car. I often feel like I have to censor myself when at work, or even out with friends (I've been confronted, almost to the point of violence, with complete strangers who took strong objection to my views).

I know that my views aren't held by everyone, nor would I wish that they were. But the reason why this place is so special for me, is that here I feel I can truly express myself, my views and my opinions to people - for better or worse. I don't do it to offend, and I welcome disagreement and argument - as I know that I may very well be in error.

I agree with you 100% BMUS. Like I've posted before, I've known many beautiful people in my life who've identified themselves as Christian, Jewish or Muslim (not the same person, though). My issue is not with them. Who cares if I think their theological viewpoints differ from mine? If people do their best to use their spiritual foundations to try to do good things for people, to use it to let their care and generosity shine through, who am I to attack their motivation?

My issue is not with them. It's with the Fallwells, the Phelpses, and the Robertsons of the world. It's these people who use theology to trick the gullible into following lockstep with their own prejudices. It's these people who use philosophies of love to advance their own agendas of hatred and spite. It's these people who are taking over. My issue is with them and their justification - they are the real problem.

[beam me up scottie]

9. That's why DU is home for many of us.

We can be ourselves here, GLBT people, atheists, liberals, anyone who has to watch what they say at work or at home can finally enjoy that freedom of speech we've heard so much about.

We know not everyone will accept us, but the intolerance seen here is a tiny fraction of what we face in the real world. Here we can confront it, mock it, and dismiss it at will.

[Maat]

96. Well said, varkam! (n/t)

[no_hypocrisy]

10. I think atheists and freethinkers catch so much "bad PR" b/c we do attack

society's sacred cow, organized religion. A lot of people are dependent upon their dogma in order to have an identity. Religion has been portrayed as protecting the pariah demographic groups such as the disenfranchised sick and poor. I hear consistently about how it weren't for "The Church" (Catholic), there would be no culture as it funded music and art in Europe.

And our attacks make it seem like we're being petty, but I don't think so. We do criticize, but, with the exception of a few demi-tyrants in our groups, it's extremely specific and targeted. We can debate the specific weaknesses and failings of religion traditionally and contemporaneously. It's not like we go around with the wholesale mantra of "Close the churches". We can articulately state deficiencies but it's funny how our opponents won't engage with us. I'm tired of hearing attacks on the late Madelyn Murray O'Hare and what a mouth she had on her. How about not begging the question, making ad hominum attacks on a dead atheist, and addressing our points?

And to the original point of the post, atheists are critical of almost everything: politics/whoever's in charge (dems are not necessarily immune), the economy, even each other. I've met atheists who are very much misothropic due to their critical nature. So yeah, being critical when society wants you to be pleasant and to play nice doesn't endear you to your neighbors, your community, and your nation.

[beam me up scottie]

15. Good point.

"being critical when society wants you to be pleasant and to play nice doesn't endear you to your neighbors, your community, and your nation."

That's why I call myself an uppity atheist.

Women get treated much the same, we're called names like "feminazis" when we dare to attack patriarchal society.

I'm proud of being a liberal, an atheist and a feminist and I refuse to let the mouth breathers change the meanings of those words to suit their agenda.

[Goblinmonger]

11. Not me

Not a born smart ass. Nope. Nada.

:hide:

[beam me up scottie]

16. Goodness, no!

And we've never gotten into trouble for being smart asses either.

[salvorhardin]

12. "we know who our real enemies are"

Exactly. I do think there is a certain rather ribald and unrepentantly profane culture that has evolved among us hard-core materialist types that can be shocking and offensive to those outside that culture. As BMUS noted, we find humor in everything (including religious beliefs) and sometimes we can get out of hand. So let me apologize too to anyone we offended, it was not directed at anyone personally.

[beam me up scottie]

17. That's exactly what I was trying to say.

I am what I am and I can't promise it won't happen again.

Actually, I'm fairly certain it will happen again and soon, but I'm more than willing to accept the consequences.

[Evoman]

18. HA

I'm a complete smart ass in real life. But you know what? I'm also extremely friendly, and I have lots of friends. I even have hardcore religous friends. I'm an extremely pleasant person. However, I love beating on the sacred cow with my wit...I find it fun and that part of me sometimes can rub people the wrong way. I can also have an extremely dark sense of humour. The only reason I don't have more trouble is because I have a grin that knocks people off kilter. "He's grinning...he can't be serious"

I get a lot of "aw shucks that was offensive, but its Evoman so its okay"

The thing is, I can't grin on the net. Thats why I can come across as dour and miserable. I'm really not. And when people really do get offended, sometimes I feel bad. But I can't help it...and I can't stand when people tell me to shut up.

[beam me up scottie]

19. You see that here, too.

Most liberal believers on DU can appreciate faith based humor, just as most atheists appreciate evil atheist humor.

I think it's an excellent coping mechanism for dealing with many uncomfortable and controversial topics, not just religion.

[salvorhardin]

20. "aw shucks that was offensive, but its Evoman so its okay"

:rofl:

My friends just give me "the stare" when I go overboard. That or they just pretend not to know me.

[beam me up scottie]

22. The stare! LOL! One of my co-workers saw my picture of Bert and Osama.

It's part of a screensaver I made that also includes pictures of other muppets in compromising positions.



Many thanks to Anarcho Socialist for showing me the insidious underworld activities of Muppets.
Their plans for total world domination must be exposed!

[Strong Atheist]

59. Welcome to D.U. (again? have I done that?)

As for grin: :evilgrin:

[Evoman]

60. Thanks

I've had quite a nice welcome here on DU. I appreciate it.

Evoman

[WhollyHeretic]

21. I am a lifelong wise-ass

I believe in discussing and joking about everything. Things get real dangerous when even discussing certain topics become taboo. Stifling discussion is never a good thing.

Things do get heated in here sometimes but there is nothing wrong with most of it. One of my oldest friends is religious and we've had an untold number of heated arguments(with very occasional outbursts of yelling) about religion over the years, but we remain good friends because we still have the same core liberal values for the most part.

The only ones that I can't abide are those that try to use religion to justify their bigotries(usually trolls) and the occasional cyber missionary. This is a liberal political site where we discuss and argue about everything under the sun but I don't appreciate those that come here for the sole reason of proselytizing. I've only seen that with a few people but the cyber missionaries do annoy the shit out of me.

At the end of the day we are all fighting to change the country in a positive way. We are not going to agree on everything(we're not repugs) but there is nothing wrong with discussion, even when it's heated. We are all going to agree on more things then we disagree on, it just might not seem like that in the topic specific forums sometimes.
:toast:

[beam me up scottie]

23. I hear you.

I hate all missionaries, not just cyber ones.

The intent to convert native peoples is arrogant and destructive.

[WhollyHeretic]

24. One of my favorite songs

Missionary

I start it, I end it
I kill and words will defend it
Got big plans
Blood stained hands
Wanna see my name on the map

On my way to save the world

Got a brand new set of words the going rate is cheap
Unconditional devotion unquestioning belief
Words carved in stone chiseled in with sharpened bones
Of the ones who thought my righteousness was something to oppose

On my way to save the world

Can you see the flag rising up beyond the smoke
Of dying authors burning books there was a problem with what they wrote
The flag is hard to read because all flags start to look the same
When covered w/the blood of the faithless and insane
Man of many names but the motives stay the same
My actions are a means to an end
My actions are a means to...

Missionaries are rather disturbing at best and horribly vile at worst.

[Zebedeo]

25. I appreciate this explanation.

I also get "out of hand" at times, and for that, I apologize to all whom I may have offended.

I enjoy spirited debate, and am not incapable of laughing at myself. I even enjoy the South Park episodes that lampoon Christians.

I'm not quite as fuddy-duddy as it might sometimes seem.

Also, I do NOT support having the government endorse Christianity or any other religion as the official religion of this nation, nor do I support any attempt to force Christianity on anyone. Religion must necessarily be a matter of individual choice -- otherwise it has no meaning.

I do not share your view that the nation is being taken over by the forces of religious fundamentalism. On the contrary, to me it seems that the long-term trend is precisely the opposite.

I am concerned about religious intolerance and oppression, both in the U.S. and around the world. I think that one of the worst things that we can do to one another is to persecute someone for their religious beliefs. I am not claiming that I have been the victim of religious persecution; I am referring to events like what is now going on in the Sudan, or to the pogroms or the Holocaust.

I would hate to see our country become divided along religious lines, or to become divided between those who wish to abolish atheism and those who wish to abolish religion. Either prospect would bring with it grave injustice.

[beam me up scottie]

26. It's already divided along religious lines.

Which side are you on?

[Zebedeo]

27. No it's not.

Where's the sectarian violence? Well, OK, there were those church burnings in Alabama, but there is no division like we see in Northern Ireland or Iraq.

If it ever gets like that here, I am going to be on the side of the peacemakers.

[varkam]

28. Church burnings as sectarian violence?

I hope you're joking, cause last I heard it was a prank that got out of hand.

[beam me up scottie]

29. You didn't answer my question.

Are you siding with the fundamentalists or not?

[Zebedeo]

30. If Christians are going around with torches and pitchforks

looking for atheists to persecute, I'll stand in their way. If it is the atheists going after the Christians, I'll stand in their way.

[Evoman]

31. Deal

But I'm gonna take you up on that offer.

Peace good buddy

[beam me up scottie]

32. You are being obtuse.

In case you haven't noticed, your friends the FUNDAMENTALISTS have
ALREADY TAKEN AWAY SOME OF MY RIGHTS AND HAVE THEIR SIGHTS SET ON THE REST OF THEM

I want to know what you are doing about it.

[Zebedeo]

33. Really?

Please list the rights that fundamentalists have taken away from you, and those on which they now have their sights set.

[beam me up scottie]

34. You can find them listed

here.

Never mind, you've just answered my question.

Thankfully I never believed you were with us from the start.

No great loss.

No, actually, I should have said no loss at all.

[Zebedeo]

35. I thought as much

You can't come up with a single right of which you have been deprived by Christians. Just as I suspected. You are full of rhetoric, but there is no basis in fact for your purported fears of persecution.

[beam me up scottie]

36. Yep, just ignore the repeated attempts to amend the Constitution by

your homophobic brethren, not to mention the violations of the First Amendment.

Why are you here again?

[Zebedeo]

37. You complained, in giant HTML letters, that

some of your rights had been taken away. Then, when I asked you which rights, you were unable to come up with any.

The constitution has not been amended to ban homosexual marriage (and if I recall correctly from your prior posts, you are not a lesbian). A constitutional amendment would have to be ratified by the states. I have not heard that any such amendment has been introduced by any member of Congress, much less ratified. So that can't be the right of which you have been deprived.

The First Amendment has not been violated - or if it has, and that has somehow deprived you of a constitutional right, why don't you sue? You can even get your attorney fees paid by the government if your claim is valid. You have nothing to lose!

[beam me up scottie]

38. Are you really that ignorant?

Do you even know what the First Amendment is?

There's no bill proposing a Constitutional amendment to "protect" marriage?

Do you ever read anything besides the bible?

Jesus Christ on a trailer hitch.

[FM Arouet666]

39. The U.S.A, A Christian nation.

Interesting argument. Since no overt breach of the constitution has occurred, then atheists have not been violated. I cannot agree.

The United States was created with the notion that religion would not be incorporated into the political system. Now, you can debate this point if you like, but the legal reality of a separation of church and state does exist. And, yes I know the first amendment does not express the establishment clause in terms of separation of church and state.

The impetus for banning abortion, banning stem cell research, preventing homosexuals equality through marriage, pushing intelligent design as an equally valid theory comparable to evolution, school vouchers for religious indoctrination, etc etc etc all derives from the christian notion that the United States is a christian nation and there is no separation of church and state.

I am sorry, but this violates my right to live in a secular society, a secular society which was mandated by the Constitution and a society envisioned by the founding fathers of this nation.

As for get an attorney, we have a brilliant legal entity on our side, the ACLU. And I am a card caring member and proud of it. However, rule of law can be subverted. The current administration proves this fact.

[Zebedeo]

40. You can't blame all those things on Christianity

Some people are opposed to abortion for reasons that have little or nothing to do with religion. The same for stem cell research. And by the way, since when has stem cell research been "banned"? Aren't you going a little overboard with that characterization? In California, where you live, the voters just passed a referendum allocating a huge amount of government dollars to finance, not just allow, embryonic stem cell research. The issue about homosexual marriage is again not necessarily religion-based. Polls show that most of the public is against it, for whatever reasons. Intelligent design is not religion, and certainly is not a particular brand of religion such as Christianity. It is an area of scientific inquiry, and many well-reknowned scientists, including Albert Einstein, have concluded that the universe was intelligently designed. School vouchers are an education issue, not a religion issue. The biggest supporters of school vouchers are minority parents who live in the inner city. They want good schools for their kids, just like the politicians' kids attend.

The society is not secular, and never has been, and the constitution does not mandate a secular society. It mandates that Congress make no law respecting the establishment of religion -- or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That hardly sounds like "mandating a secular society."

[FM Arouet666]

42. I still do not agree

What other voices are there for banning abortion? Same for stem cell research. The overwhelming majority in the opposition are christians. As for California, I don't live there, and they are a liberal state which bucked the trend to support stem cell research. Against the desires of the GOP and the fundamentalist movement.

You are in error Albert Einstein was not referring to intelligent design when he was discussing the universe, he was commenting on how quantum mechanics was inconsistent with his theory of the universe. All the texts I have read on Einstein clearly indicate that he was an atheist. And I am not interested in a quote battle with you on this point.

Intelligent design was created as an issue by christens, as noted in the recent court ruling. A veiled attempt to disguise creation.

Polls show that most Americans are against gay marriage, most Americans in the south supported slavery, I guess the majority rules. So much for moral absolutes, but then again your bible supports slavery.

Vouchers are supported by the GOP as a means to indoctrinate kids into religion, supported by christians. Yes, inner city minorities support them as well, grasping at any means for a better education for their children. Why not improve the public school system? Then again that would not further the GOP's christian agenda.

There you go with your interpretation of the establishment clause, I guessed that one. I am too tired to discuss the secular origins of our nation with you. Pick up a history text, I will have to leave this debate for another day. Time to sleep.

[Zebedeo]

66. Sorry about the California comment

I thought I recalled from your post about saving the life of that guy with an all-night surgery that you lived in the Bay Area. My mistake.

[beam me up scottie]

43. Incredible.

Abortion bans are backed by people for other than religious reasons

Efforts to restrict stem cell research is backed by people for other than religous reasons

Same sex marriage legislature is not religion-based

Intelligent design is not religion

Einstein believed in intelligent design

School vouchers are not a religious issue

A secular society is not mandated by the Constitution

I think we're done here.

Enjoy your denial.

[WhollyHeretic]

49. "Intelligent design is not religion" "It is an area of scientific inquiry"

:spray:
This has to be the most disingenuous post I've ever read on DU. I guess I should expect it from someone who is only here to proselytize. Can you provide a single post you've made that is not about religion? I did a search and could not find a single one, or even a post that would imply you are a Democrat or any type of progressive. This is a place for left-leaning people to come and discuss all topics, even though that includes religion it does not constitute an invitation to cyber missionaries to try and find converts. If you want to prove me wrong, let's see a single post from you that disproves it. I've never come across another "liberal" who is so against separation of church and state.

[Zebedeo]

50. The "my posts" feature only goes back 48 hours

Otherwise, I could point you to many posts I have made on other forums on DU about nonreligious issues. During the last 48 hours, I have only posted in the R&T forum.

I have worked for Democratic candidates since 1976. Admittedly, I am not as far left politically as some on this board. But for you to imply that I am not welcome because I am a Christian is a sad reflection on you. I am not "proselytizing," nor am I a "cyber missionary." I am a very tolerant person -- more tolerant than you, it appears.

And I am not "against separation of church and state." I just don't think that the government should take a position against religion. Neither Christianity, nor Judaism, nor Islam, nor Confucianism, nor atheism should be officially established by the government. The government should be neutral about such matters, and should not interfere with the right of the people to worship or believe as they please. That is religious freedom, and it is a cornerstone of this democracy.

[WhollyHeretic]

51. Stop making stuff up, I never said you weren't welcome because you were

a Christian. Also you might not want to lie about your past posts since people who have donated to DU can use the search function and find any post. It was pretty easy to search and see that you've posted nothing but religious posts your entire time here. That combined with the fact that you are defending fundies and want religion in government leads me to the conclusion that you are a cyber missionary.

[beam me up scottie]

53. Listen...

http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav

[FM Arouet666]

58. Interesting response

Still full of the emotion which generates many of your fallacious arguments, but an interesting post nonetheless.

You are not against the separation of church and state, so you accept the prevailing interpretation of the establishment clause? You are in error including atheism as a religion, but that is a tedious debate for another thread. I agree with your supposition that government should be neutral and allow people the right to worship or not, as they please.

Where do you see the government taking a position against religion? If you truly believe the last statement you posted then a middle ground in this debate should be achievable. You have piqued my curiosity.

:evilgrin:

[Zebedeo]

68. Separation of Church and State

Atheists are quick to point out that the First Amendment establishment clause should be interpreted as not only outlawing an establishment of a particular religion, but also preventing government from favoring religion over nonreligion.

I am simply saying that the corollary of that view is that the government should also not favor nonreligion over religion.

Now, atheists for the most part are very resistant to having their position on religious matters characterized as a "religion." I understand that. They also resist having it called a "belief." OK, I don't see why calling it a "belief" is inaccurate or insulting, but fine - I don't want to offend anyone. Some poster (I can't recall who) objected to me calling atheism a "position." Whatever. Let's call atheism a "Marklar." Theism is also a "Marklar."

No one's personal Marklar should be imposed on others. Everyone is entitled to have their own Marklar. Therefore, the government should not establish any particular Marklar as the official government Marklar. Nor should the government prohibit anybody from practicing their Marklar.

That's what I believe. Oops, I said "believe." That means its a "belief" and I have just insulted myself!

[FM Arouet666]

85. Again, I would agree, however?

A tricky question to be sure. How do you define neutrality? Give me an example of a current debate which involves religion where you feel the government has acted in favor of the nonbeliever.

I fear this will turn into a debate about interpretation of the establishment clause, your interpretation being more 'conservative' granting more religious expression in government, and mine more 'liberal' granting less.

[BiggJawn]

128. Never mind the "Marklar" this smacks of "Dualism".

If you call Theism a "Marklar", then it would be more accurate (and intellectually honest) to call Atheism a *LACK* of "Marklar".

Dualism is what you're describing. Black and White, Either-Or thinking. Belief in a mythic sky-daddy is a Religion, ergo DIS-belief in that same mythic sky-daddy must be a Religion as well.

Sorry, it's not played like that. Just another mis-conception the religious have about us who are not.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

52. Society is not secular--but it is not religious.

It is neutral. Don't start on that nonsense.

[NMMNG]

54. Denial is more than just a river in Egypt

It is something people resort to when they don't want to face the truth about their bigoted religion.

The issue about homosexual marriage is again not necessarily religion-based.

Incorrect.

Religiosity is clearly a factor in the recent rise in opposition to gay marriage. Overall, nearly six-in-ten Americans (59%) oppose gay marriage, up from 53% in July. But those with a high level of religious commitment now oppose gay marriage by more than six-to-one (80%-12%), a significant shift since July (71%-21%).

snip

A new national survey of 1,515 adults, conducted Oct. 15-19 by the Pew Research Center for The People & The Press and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life finds that homosexuality in general ­ not merely the contentious issue of gay marriage ­ is a major topic in churches and other houses of worship. In fact, clergy are nearly as likely to address homosexuality from the pulpit as they are to speak out about abortion or prayer in school, say people who attend church regularly.

snip

The poll finds that people who hear clergy talk about homosexuality are more likely to have highly unfavorable views of gays and lesbians. This is especially the case in evangelical churches. Fully 55% of evangelicals who attend services where the issue of homosexuality is addressed have very unfavorable views of homosexuals. This compares with 28% of those who regularly attend services in non-evangelical Protestant and Catholic churches where clergy discuss homosexuality. Similarly, evangelicals who hear sermons on this issue are much more apt than others to believe that gays and lesbians can change their sexual orientation and to view homosexuality as a threat to the country.
http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=37


Intelligent design is not religion, and certainly is not a particular brand of religion such as Christianity.

Then why is it only religious people, specifically Christians, who are pushing to get it into public schools?

Some people are opposed to abortion for reasons that have little or nothing to do with religion.

Religion is the strongest opponent of abortion, hands down.

However, regardless of when a person gains a soul, religious opinion does not show any support at all for abortion. In fact, religion is one of the strongest opponents of abortion.
http://www.mrdata.net/books/9reasons.htm

Judaism, because of value placed on the family, has condemned abortion for several thousand years with a few exceptions. The Roman Catholic Church, the largest organized church in the world and possibly the most influential organization in the past two millenia, openly condemns abortion. Many Protestant groups also share this condemnation. These groups feel pro-life because of passages from their holy texts:
http://www.abortioninfo.net/facts/religion.shtml

[beam me up scottie]

55. You GO Buffy!

:woohoo:

I have your links bookmarked.

Thanks for the excellent research.

[NMMNG]

56. De nada

Google is my friend. ;-)

[beam me up scottie]

62. Buffy,

do you think Zebby and papau are "progressive" christians?

I didn't know that to be considered progressive you had to hate atheists.

Or tell them repeatedly that they're going to burn in hell for ever and ever.

And ever.



For infinity.



And beyond.

[NMMNG]

69. BMUS

do you think Zebby and papau are "progressive" christians?

Are you questioning my intelligence?


I didn't think so. ;-)

[beam me up scottie]

70. Ack!

What was I thinking?

I'm so sorry you missed all the fun on the playground tonight.

[NMMNG]

72. Darn, I always miss the fun

BTW, did you notice that we are being accused of making arguments "without facts and logic"? :rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=56093&mesg_id=56566

[beam me up scottie]

73. Damned atheists, always using science to prove their points!

Who do they think they are?

Not God?

[NMMNG]

76. Yes, we're silly like that.

Stubbornly relying on facts and empirical evidence when faith is so much more accurate.

[salvorhardin]

63. That should go in your journal n/t

[beam me up scottie]

64. Yeah, I think so too.

I think we'll be needing those again soon.

[NMMNG]

71. Done

My journal has been created, and that is the first entry. :thumbsup:

[salvorhardin]

74. Cool

I just added you to my blogroll.

[NMMNG]

75. Blogroll?

Now I have to go find out what that is. I'm honored though. :hug:

[beam me up scottie]

77. Check out the right side

of his journal.

I think it's an honor too.

[salvorhardin]

78. Check out brainshrub's tutorial

He's doing a great series to help people to use their journals here on DU.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/brainshrub/7

[NMMNG]

79. Thanks

That will be a great help! :thumbsup:

[papau]

61. I've enjoyed your posts, Zebedeo - and agree with much you say except

for the Intelligent design comment that it was an area of scientific inquiry. I believe, as do many other scientists and science and math trained folks, that ID offers a good explanation for a lot we observe - but it is not science. Then again atheism is not science either!

This has been an interesting thread - with "beam me up scottie" making an extra effort at comity to those that see things differently than she does, which I do appreciate.

But some folks on DU have a hard time accepting as an equal in value to themselves and their views any progressive religious folks. It is just the way things are here on DU.

I do not know how to convey tone in a post - and therefore anything written is liable to set a fire - even when folks on the other side - like scottie - are trying to be nice.

In any case - you are not alone in your views on DU - and indeed are in a very large majority.

But progressive religious discussions do not seem productive, and indeed do not seem possible, on DU. I admire your trying for such a discussion - but I'd advise leaving the DU religion forum to the Atheist evangelical conversion core, with progressive religious types like ourselves making only the occasional post of support of each other or a post that brings news like the latest Templeton Award winner to DU (at least that is where I am as I have tired of pointing out when atheist assertions are - perhaps - not supported by the facts or by logic).


Progressive Christian Bloggers Network and State of Belief on Air America and many others may be better places to progressive religious beliefs - at least you will not get the atheist bombings that are standard at DU.

Progressive Christian Bloggers Network
PCBN Website
Icthus (PCBN moderator)
Anti-Manicheist
Any Day a Beautiful Change
Ariah Knows Your Info
And No One Heard a Word
Anarchist Priest
American Bodhisattva
Be Here Now
A Believer's Journal
Beppeblog
Bending the Rule
Beth Quick
Boy in the Bands
Behind the Surface
Blog for Liberal Seekers
Baptized Pagan
Blog of the Grateful Bear
Behind the Pulpit
Blue in a Red State
Caffeinated Duck
Clark Smith
Connexions
Cheryl's Journal
ChristianDemocrat.us Blog
Chuck Currie
Christian Dissent
Call and Response
Cracked Pots
Cross Left
Disambiguation
Doogie Howser Did It...
Disruptive Theology
Empirical Friend
Eric's Tasty Morsels of Thought
Except for These Chains
Emerging Pilgrim
Einstein's Corner
The Enemy Shall Not Outwit Him
Fear and Trembling
Far Country Tell
Faithforward
FaithCommons
FaithandPolicy Weblog
FaithinSociety
Father Jake Stops the World
Grover's Corners
Generating Output
Galleycat's Abbey
Gay Religion
HH Patriarch Mar Anthony Blog
Heart, Soul & Humor
Infinite Wisdom or Absolute Idiocy?
I Am a Christian Too
In the Outer
Invisible Footprints
The Ivy Bush
Jesus Politics
Just a Bump in the Beltway
Kenosis
Kinesis
Leaves of Grass
Left at the Altar
Lepper Colony
A Lie a Day
Like a Mighty Wind
Live and Let Live
Leaves from the Notebook of a Tamed Optimist
Liberal Jesus
Lives of the Saints
MyQuest
Mainstream American
Mom to the Left
Mainstream Baptist
Movable Theoblogical
Nick Lewis
Musings of a Young Pastor
Monastic Mumblings, a Friar's Journey
New Quaker Notebook
Nouslife
Noli Irritare Leones
New Christianity
Not Too Much
Nathan Ael
Ono's Thoughts
Open Up to the Sky
Off the Beaten Track
Oh, for the Love of God
The Prodigal Sheep
Pulling the Plank
Public Theologian
Progressive Christian
Purple Pew
Paradigm
Progressive Protestant
Pomomusings
Philocrites
Pacificus
Progressive Christian Movement
Perspectives
Polished Mirror
Post-Modern Christian
Peregrinato
Preacher in Process
Personal Spirit
Punk Monk San Francisco
A People So Bold
The Post Christian
Progressive Christians Unite!
Reflections from the Left
Reformissionary
Reader, I Married Him
Reports from the Field
Rev Butter's Graceful Life
Ropedancer
Random Ravings
The Red Star
the rh<+> factor
Salt
Streak's Blog
Sojourn Stories
Spiritual Diablog
Southern Liberal Methodist
The Soul of Rod Garvin
The Sympathetic Vibration
Stratego
Straight Not Narrow
Things I've Seen
Talking Donkeys
Three Sumach-Dogs I Run With
2 Wild Monkeys
Taking Off and Landing
Theoblogia
Theoblogia
travisstanley.net
Thought Express
Unity
UCC Klamath Falls
Urania
Virushead Random Musings
UntiedMethodist.com
Van's Word Spill
Wandering but Not Lost
Words of Grace
Xpatriated Texan
Zinnhead
Young and Relentless

[Zebedeo]

146. Yes, I know

It's remarkable that there is so much intense anti-Christian bigotry among people who otherwise consider themselves to be tolerant and open-minded.

On almost a daily basis, I am told by some poster that my kind is not welcome here.

Today, it was this one

Its sad, really.

[beam me up scottie]

147. Guess what? If by your kind you mean fundamentalists,

I agree with him.

I know you were so busy trying to find an example of a persecuted christian that you skipped right over what's happening in this country, but just so you know, fundamentalists post a serious threat to people like Zhade.


Right HERE.

Right NOW.


Don't believe me?


Ask Fred Phelps.


Or Matthew Shepard.


Oh, that's right, you can't ask him, can you?


Keep pretending there's no persecution by christians here, that's your prerogative, but stop acting like an innocent who's wounded by our disgust at your denial.


Oh, and if you want to read what a real liberal christian thinks about what happened to Matthew and what is still happening to others, check it out:

http://www.tchastings.com/matt_memorial.html

[Zebedeo]

148. Your attempt to link me to Fred Phelps

is disgusting.

You know what I think of Phelps, because I've posted it.

It wasn't Christianity that murdered Matthew Shepard. I doubt that it was even Christians. It was a couple of losers who got their kicks out of murdering a homosexual person.

You can't possibly think that I am somehow on the side of the murderers. Since there is no way you could think that, I can only conclude that your post is a blatant attempt to smear me by trying to link me to something disgusting. I don't appreciate it.

[beam me up scottie]

149. So all you got out of my post was the incorrect assumption that I

think you're like Phelps and that I was trying to smear you?


I don't have to do anything to you, Zebedeo.

Your denial, defensiveness and faux innocent act betray your lack of compassion for GLBT people and total disconnect from reality.


Keep whining about that one persecuted christian.

Oh, that's right.

You can't.

He's been let off the hook.


Guess you'll have to find another one quick before you have to face the intolerance and hatred your fellow christians are promoting in your own country.


Deny it some more and help me prove my point, again.

[Zebedeo]

150. Yeah, because Rahman was the only persecuted Christian

WARNING: LINK CONTAINS GRAPHIC AND DISTURBING CONTENT

Oh, no wait, there was that thing, what is it called? Oh, I remember now, the Armenian Genocide.

Ah, but that was only a million people or so. What's the big deal, right, BMUS?

But that's ancient history! That happened a full 90 years ago! There's no persecution of Christians today!! After all, as you said, Abdul Rahman was freed!

Better think again.

[beam me up scottie]

151. You are losing it.

Did you even read the entry you linked to?

Of course not, what am I thinking?

You refuse to admit GLBT people are being persecuted, repeatedly ignore and dismiss the evidence we've provided, and instead scour the internet for scraps of evidence christians are the true victims.

Now you link to an entry about the Darfur conflict as if it proves what you claim.

Let's read it together:

The Darfur Conflict is an ongoing conflict in the Darfur region of western Sudan, mainly between the Janjaweed, a government-supported militia recruited from local Arab tribes, and the non-Arab peoples of the region


Origins of the conflict

The conflict concerns two distinct groups in the diverse Darfur population; non-Arab black peoples like the Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa, and Arab tribes collectively termed Baggara (also black by the standards of most non-Africans), who settled the region from about the 13th century onwards. Both groups are Muslims. However, relations between the two groups have been tense; the pre-colonial Fur kingdom regularly clashed with the Baggara, particularly the Rizeigat. Moreover, before the 20th century, Darfur housed the slave trade and Fur and Arab slavers competed to enslave the costal Bahr el Ghazal regions. The two groups also have differing economic needs, which has led to clashes. The Fur and Masalit are agriculturalists. The Arabs and Zaghawa are nomadic herdsmen. This has led to disputes over access to land and surface water.

There has been a series of military dictatorships since 1958, and following independence in 1956, the Sudanese government acquired a strong Arab character. The First Sudanese Civil War, between the Muslim government and the mostly non-Muslim population of the southern Sudan began in 1955 and ended with the 1972 Addis Ababa Accords. In 1983, the Second Sudanese Civil War ensued when the president declared Shari’a law in the south. Peace conferences in 2005 ended the 21 year civil war and produced an agreement under which state revenues — oil money in particular — would be shared between the government and the southern rebel groups.

In early 2003, two local rebel groups — the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) — accused the government of oppressing non-Arabs in favor of Arabs. The SLM is generally associated with the Fur and Masalit, while the JEM is associated with the Zaghawa of the northern half of Darfur.

Course of the conflict

The conflict in Darfur began in February 2003 when JEM and SLM rebels attacked government forces and installations. The government, caught by surprise, had very few troops in the region, and — since a large proportion of the Sudanese soldiers were of Darfur origin — distrusted many of its own units; its response was to mount a campaign of aerial bombardment supporting ground attacks by an Arab militia, the Janjaweed, recruited from local tribes and armed by the government. (The government, however, denies any connection to the Janjaweed militia and calls them "thieves and gangsters" <7>.) While the conflict has a political basis, it has also acquired an ethnic dimension in which civilians were deliberately targeted on the basis of their ethnicity, and an economic dimension related to the competition between pastoralists (generally Arab) and farmers (generally non-Arab) for land and water.

Like I said upthread, I don't have to do anything to you, Zeb, your denial and ridiculous mental acrobatics in this forum do it for me.

Thanks for proving my point.

[FM Arouet666]

41. I don't agree

Christians have deprived homosexuals the right of equality. I am not gay, an irrelevant declaration. Most Germans remained silent witnessing the persecution of Jews at the hands of the Nazi party. I am not a Jew, another irrelevant declaration. And yes, I just compared christian bigotry to Nazi bigotry. If you find the comparison to be offensive, stand up against fundamentalism. If you remain silent you are part of the hate.

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hitler/hitler.html

[FM Arouet666]

57. Hey Zebby, I am being offensive here why the silence? n/t

[Zebedeo]

65. To equate the modern-day discrimination against gays

to the torture, gassing-murder and burning of 6 million Jews, as well as many more Roma, disabled people, people born with birth defects and gays, is a terrible thing to do.

You diminish your argument by going there.

Discrimination against gays may be deplorable, but it is not in the same league with the HOLOCAUST.

IMHO.

[beam me up scottie]

67. ROFLMAO!

Self-righteous indignation?

From YOU?

The official damner-to-hell-for-all-eternity of atheists and other assorted non christians?

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

[FM Arouet666]

84. You seem to be in error again.

Many more Roma, disabled people and gays? Your calculation seems to be in error, perhaps that was not your intent?

Diminish the argument. Sorry, I do not agree, but I am aware of the controversy in comparing anything to Nazi Germany. The rhetoric of christian fundamentalists sounds very similar to the bigotry of the Nazi regime. Bigotry is bigotry, placing the holocaust on a pillar forbidden from comparison silences the millions who died because of bigotry.

The memory of the Holocaust should never be forgotten, and when ignorance, bigotry, nationalism, conservatism arises with the slightest resemblance to the horror of World War Two humankind needs to take notice.

To look at it another way, do you think that a homosexual person killed at the hands of the Nazi's would want our society to remain quiet with the rise of fundamentalist bigotry? Would the victim proclaim;

"How dare you compare my loss of life to the negative rhetoric of conservative Christians?"

Oh, and again a logical fallacy. The comparison is not invalid because you feel the holocaust is incomparable. I have provided a link noting the many similarities, I would suggest that you formulate an argument which disputes them.

[Zebedeo]

88. My "many more" expression is ambiguous

What I meant was not "many more Roma, gays and disabled than Jews," but rather, "6 million Jews, and on top of that, many Roma, gays and disabled people."

Your link is impressive. Somebody did a lot of work to find all of those quotes, and it makes it seem like there is an equivalence. I just don't believe it. I think that this is not 1932 Germany. It's not anything like it. The US is a free country, not a dictatorship. There is no real danger of any population of people in the US being herded into gas chambers. I think that is self-evident.

[salvorhardin]

92. No, it isn't... Yet... But there are some very disturbing trends.

If you poke around in the skeptics group (and the 9-11 forum) you'll see I've been taking on left wing conspiracism and antisemitism.

There's also this soon to be published study:

Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study
From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.
http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find

[Zebedeo]

111. Gays and atheists

both face discrimination and varying levels of derision and contempt in our society. However, neither group faces anything like the type of persecution that led to the Holocaust - at least in U.S. society. That was my point, with which you seem to be in agreement.

I of course do not condone official government discrimination against any group of people based on race, national origin, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), etc. I think though, that it is worthwhile to make the distinction between discrimination and persecution.

This is not to suggest that there is no persecution going on today. There is. Worldwide, there is plenty of religious persecution going on right now. A lot of it is persecution against
Christians.

[beam me up scottie]

112. So your fellow CHRISTIANS are being persecuted but GAYS are not ?

You are fucking unbelievable.

How can you stand yourself?

[Zebedeo]

117. Read the article, friend

A man is standing trial and facing the death penalty because he is charged with being a Christian. Do you know any American gays on trial and facing the death penalty for being gay? If so, I stand corrected. The persecution is worse than I thought.

[beam me up scottie]

118. That christian is not on trial in America, is he?

You can't even keep your red herrings straight.

And don't call me friend.

[Zebedeo]

119. I didn't say he was on trial in America

I said that worldwide, there is persecution, and that a lot of it is against Christians. I did not say there was persecution against Christians in the U.S.

I drew a distinction between discrimination and persecution. Do you think there is no difference?

[beam me up scottie]

120. So persecution only exists if the victim faces the death penalty?

You claim gays are not being persecuted here because they're not going to be executed for being gay.

And then go on to posit that "many" christians are being persecuted.


You should write material for the reichwing pundits.

[Zebedeo]

121. No, persecution includes other things, too

Like being rounded up and sent off to labor camps, or made to wear 6-pointed stars, or being prohibited by law from attending public schools, or having all your property confiscated, or, or, or . . .

You know, instead of me listing all these things, maybe you should just read a history book or watch "Schindler's List" or something.

Yeah, right now, there are a lot of Christians facing real persecution in places like the Sudan, Afghanistan, Indonesia and China. In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal to own a Bible or a cross. Christians are being slaughtered in the Sudan. It's the death penalty if you are convicted of being a Christian in Afghanistan. But you apparently don't give a shit about it because you are so consumed with hatred for Christians.

[beam me up scottie]

130. Blah blah blah, christians are persecuted, gays aren't...blah blah blah

Why don't you read something else besides the bible and right wing propaganda?


The only people I know who deny the fact that GLBT people are persecuted and killed for being GLBT, are religious fundamentalists and bigots.


Especially revolting are the religious fundamentalists and bigots who whine about christian persecution while GLBT PEOPLE ARE BEING PERSECUTED AND KILLED IN THEIR OWN BACKYARD.

[Zebedeo]

131. Thank you

for proving my point.

[beam me up scottie]

132. I'm glad you recognize the hypocrisy of right wing christians.

:hi:

[FM Arouet666]

123. Interesting link.

And I would agree, to condemn a person for a belief in christianity based on the dictates of the Koran is reprehensible. Do you extend the same disgust for christian discrimination against gays, atheists, and non-christians?

Oh, but you wish to make a distinction. There is a difference between persecution and discrimination. Is discrimination against gays to be accepted in the U.S. while persecution of gays in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan to be condemned? (You can look up recent articles regarding persecution, I am too lazy to give the links tonight.)

It is interesting that you mention that you do not condone official government discrimination against any group based on race, national origin or religious belief. What about sexual orientation. Is discrimination based on sexual orientation ok? Consider that the loudest voice in the anti-gay crusade is from the religious right. Is it ok to officially discriminate against a minority segment of the population because that minority offends the precepts of a particular religion? Is this not a form of religious discrimination, discrimination by a religious community as opposed to discrimination against a religious community?

I am disgusted by the link you posted, Christians should be free to believe and practice their religion, as homosexuals should be free to explore their sexuality, both free from government intrusion and bias. There is a difference though, one group chooses their orientation, in contrast, no one is born a christian.

[Zebedeo]

125. I deplore persecution of, or discrimination against people

based on their sexual orientation.

[Zebedeo]

127. Here's a fuller story about Rahman

and some quotes from it.

Rahman, 42, faces the death penalty for abandoning Islam for Christianity. Prosecutors say he should die. So do his family, his jailers, even the judge. Rahman has no lawyer. Jail officials refused to let anyone see Rahman on Monday, despite permission granted by the country's justice minister.

"We will cut him into little pieces," said Hosnia Wafayosofi, who works at the jail, as she made a cutting motion with her hands. "There's no need to see him."

. . .

On Thursday, the first day of the trial, Rahman appeared in court with no lawyer. Prosecutor Abdul Wasi said Rahman had been told repeatedly to repent and come back to Islam, but Rahman refused. Wasi called Rahman a traitor.

"He is known as a microbe in society, and he should be cut off and removed from the rest of Muslim society and should be killed," Wasi told the court.

Rahman said he had surrendered himself to God. "I believe in the holy spirit," he said. "I believe in Christ. And I am a Christian."

Judge Ansarullah Mawlawizada, who is handling the case, said he normally takes two months to decide on cases. But because this case is so serious, he expected to hold another hearing within the next week and make a decision.

Mawlawizada, who kept Rahman's green Bible on his desk, said he respected all religions. He emphasized that he did not favor the aggressiveness of the Taliban, who cut the hands and feet off criminals in a soccer stadium. But he said Rahman had to repent.

"If he doesn't regret his conversion, the punishment will be enforced on him," the judge said. "And the punishment is death."

Tribune story

[FM Arouet666]

143. What can I say, I am equally disgusted by

Condemnation of a human being based on a religious belief.

I do not believe as Rahman, I hold no love for christ, nor do I praise allah, but I do see wrong committed in the name of religious purity. Again, I am as disgusted as you.

However, christian extremism can be just as savage. The murder of a doctor who performs abortions, the murder of homosexuals, condemnation of science, atheism, liberals, anyone who does not accept christian fundamentalism. The difference? The state does not sponsor religious intolerance. I wonder how many christians would like to remake the U.S. into a christian state, guided by biblical law, guided by the same intolerance which convicted Rahman?

[FM Arouet666]

122. Oh really?

No it is not 1932. I would agree that comparisons in history are fraught with many variables making any conclusion highly speculative. However, consider that the Weimar Republic was a free, democratic state prior to the rise of Adolf Hitler, the majority of Germans did not initially support Hitler, and the Nazi's were initially viewed as a fringe group. Attitudes which lead to acceptance of Nazism are complex and rooted in the historic period. Assuming that our nation is immune to the rise of a pathological state like Nazi Germany belies an ignorance of history. I suspect that the proclamation 'It can never happen here' has been uttered as a prologue to insanity many times in human history.

I hate to sound cliche, but those who fail to learn from history are doomed to relive it.

Do you see any excesses in the views of fundamentalists? The link I posted listed very extreme views of the christian fundamentalist movement. If fundamentalists were to take control of the government do you really believe that the rights of non-christians would be protected?

Extremism ushers society into a pathological state often characterized by oppression, censorship, and at its worst murder. Sharia law, biblical law, communist totalitarianism or national socialism; the flavor changes with the age, but the result is the same.

Truth be known, I do not fear religion, christians, muslims etc. I fear that society may plunge back into insanity, madness witnessed so frequently in human history. The current source of concern, religious fundamentalism.

[Zebedeo]

126. Wow, we agree on alot

I agree with practically every statement in your post.

The only difference is that I just don't regard Christian fundamentalism with as much fear as you. I think the threat from Christian fundamentalism is overstated. What do you mean by "fundamentalists taking over the government"? What would constitute a takeover? What do you truly fear would occur?

[beam me up scottie]

129. What would constitute a takeover?

This for starters:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/24/stem.cells
http://www.nea.org/vouchers/index.html
http://www.holysmoke.org/kansas.htm
http://democrats.reform.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/index.htm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-2.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/24/cassel.schiavo/index.html
http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1137834803927&path=!nationworld&s=
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/images/20031105-1_p35410-21-515h.html



The only people who don't view fundamentalists as a threat are other fundamentalists.

In other words, christians who ignore the threat of christian fundamentalism and refuse to resist the American Taliban have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

[FM Arouet666]

144. BMUS beat me to it

Christian fundamentalism is well represented throughout history. Fundamentalists have given us wars, massacres, crusades, Inquisitions, intolerance, etc etc. The human population never seems to learn from the past. Only a fool would claim that modern society has realized the mistakes of the past and is resolute to prevent future atrocity. Within the last century the human population has witnessed mass execution, genocide, religious intolerance, death manufactured commensurate with the efficiency of the industrialized age.

Am I paranoid? Christians could never commit atrocity on scale with the villains of our past? Read the links posted by BMUS, posts which illustrate christian intolerance are numerous.

The government has taken sides with fundamentalists, but I agree, fundamentalists have not taken over the government. The GOP is using the religious right to gain power, a considerable voting block. Examples of pandering are plentiful, The Schiavo case, evolution, abortion, etc. Examples of overt theocracy, a fundamentalist take over, are not plentiful.

What do I fear? Tomorrow Dobson, Falwell, Robertson or any other fundamentalist is 'elected' president. What would occur?

Abortion is illegal, stem cell research is illegal, atheists are not citizens, homosexuality is declared illegal, freedom of speech is curtailed to be censored for any offending content, the U.S. is declared a christian nation, evolution is banished and scientific inquiry will only occur in accordance with biblical teachings. Turn the clock back a thousand years and you will see what a fundamentalist state looks like. Or, look at states like Saudi Arabia or Taliban Afghanistan. When extremism rules a society tolerance is lost, and victims abound.

Could a state arise from Christian America, abandoning secular history? Do you believe that the Christian community is free of radical elements, radicals who dream of the liquidation of christian enemies? What do I fear? History does not instill me with a comfort that allows me to ignore the raise of conservatism. A conservatism fueled by religious fundamentalism.

[salvorhardin]

145. Bravo!!! Both to you and BMUS!

I bow to your overworked, overtired, most properly surly analysis.

[hunter]

80. Really, no really.

Big things: like anti-gay marriage amendments and other forms of institutionalized homophobia.

Big things: like abortion, birth control, sex education.

Big things: like the fact that every biology textbook used in public K-12 schools in the United States is dead on arrival because fundamentalist Christians refuse to accept evolution as the foundation of biology.

The people I really don't understand are the right wing Catholics who ally themselves with the fundamentalists over the first two issues. Yet if the fundamentalist Christians were in charge, the Catholics would certainly be added to the list of undesirables. I'm thinking we'd have some sort of official state sanctioned politically toothless "Catholicism" here, sort of like China has.

[beam me up scottie]

81. I was wondering where you were.

I always enjoy your take on stuff in this forum.

I was tempted to use you as an example of a believer who have a sense of humor about faith but I didn't want to single you out.

[hunter]

82. Well, at the moment I should be going to bed.

:hi:

[beam me up scottie]

83. Me too.

Winter storm advisory here.

And me with bald tires.

Oh well, life is exciting.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

86. I think the dividing line

Is when you go from believing that there are good arguments against religion to believing that arguments against religion are good.

[hunter]

90. What? Arguments against religion are not good?

:cry:

Nah, I'm not crying.

Here, have a pigeon and a Tyrian half-shekel. You can't get into the temple without it.

[Goblinmonger]

100. Forgive me if I am wrong,

but you seem to be saying that anybody who claims to be an atheist is wrong?

I believe the arguments against religion are good. I believe that there is not god (pretty solid argument against religion). So you dismiss us all in one fell swoop. How convenient.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

109. No. sorry, I'm not making myself clear.

What I mean is that believing that there are some logically valid arguments that lead to the conclusion "religion is not true", but that some atheists, especially on this forum, have gone from their to the position that if an argument leads to the conclusion that "religion is not true" then it must be logically valid, or at least worth supporting.

[beam me up scottie]

114. Ignore it, Gob.

The same group of disrupters follow us around and bait us constantly, don't forget what happens if we retaliate.

There are too many intelligent people in this forum to waste your time defending your posts to the I Wanna Be Offended Junior League.

Everything we say is offensive, including, apparently, sincere attempts to reach out to people I may have offended in another thread.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

124. No, not everything, just a lot of things.

The OP, for example, is clearly an attempt not to, for which credit is due.

Incidentally, the phrase I'd use is "intended to offend", not "offensive": *anything* is offensive to somebody, but one can either choose one's words to minimise or to maximise the offense caused by the substance of what one is saying (this post, for example, is closer to the latter than the former, because I think I deserve to be classed as at the least the I Wanna Be Offended Reserves), and I think you go for the latter too often.

[Maat]

98. BMUS, you causin' trouble again?

HeeHee.

I've enjoyed our conversations here on DU, BMUS. You have always been considerate and polite to me.

For those who don't know me, I'm a believer, but I'm not a Christian.

I'm a Universalist, who honors all spiritual paths (including lack of any belief in a deity)(I'm also into mystical faiths, including Church of Religious Science, www.rsintl.org ).

The only thing BMUS and I might disagree on is that I don't think that my liberal Christian friends are more obligated to speak up to the Religious Hardright than atheists or other believers like myself. I think progressives of all stripes have to stand together against the Religious Hardright. And, I think, in the end, BMUS agrees with me on that.



;-)

[beam me up scottie]

102. Yep.

I don't necessarily think that christians are more obligated to speak up than the rest of us.

I do, however, think that the moderates who are turning a blind eye to the Talibornagain fundamentalists would listen to other christians before they'd listen atheists like me since this is how we've been portrayed for decades:




This is what happened to atheists thanks to the way fundamentalists have been able to vilify us:

Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study

MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (3/20/2006) -- American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn’t extend to those who don’t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology.

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.

http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=releases&-lay=web&-format=umnnewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find

If anyone still thinks these people are not a threat, please check yourself into the nearest psychiatric ward immediately.

You need help.

[Maat]

104. Oh, that's so sad!

Boy, I'm glad I'm teaching my daughter to respect everyone - regardless of their belief system (except she knows I have trouble with teaching her to respect Dubya). And we have addressed ways of being polite yet firm with our hardright fundamentalist friends.

I'm sorry that you had to read that - that survey reflect so poorly on us as a society!

I feel so strongly that the Religious Hardright is a threat that we're forming a local chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (with help from our San Diego buddies)(we also formed that group of progressively-minded believers I told you about).

I feel that we have to address the threat several ways, including each one of us either joining A.U. or the ACLU (they bear the brunt of the work).

Take care, BMUS! You're such a good person!

[beam me up scottie]

106. It's okay.

It makes us stronger and shows the ugly truth about the "moral" majority.

I have to believe that more than a few christians were revolted by that billboard, even in a blood red state.

Speaking of states, I've decided that if I can't afford to move back to my beloved Vermont, I'm going to sell everything and live on the beach in California.

Anything to get me out of here.

These people are insane.

[Maat]

107. If you come out here, you'd better tell me the moment you decide!

We'll form a welcoming committee! And pick you up at the airport!

My sis lives in O.C. (Orange County).

We live in Riverside County; I have many friends in San Diego County!

I'm hoping you can find the $ to move back to your beloved Vermont!

And I do send positive energy into the Universe that you do get out of there; life is too short!

[beam me up scottie]

113. Thank you.

I don't know anything about positive energy, but I'll take all the help I can get!

Hopefully it will neutralize some of the bigot generated toxins.

[Maat]

116. Yep! Positive consciousness can't hurt! (n/t)

[Goblinmonger]

110. You can move to WI

and bask in the glow of Russ Feingold. Plus there's beer. Oh, lotta rednecks, though, but probably not as bad as your current locale.

[beam me up scottie]

115. mmmmmmmmmmmm, beer

:beer:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

133. I have a question

and it's so late in the thread probably no one will answer. I just started reading religion/theology today. I've posted before in RT threads that were in GD. I am surprised to see so many of my atheist acquaintances here, and so many discssions regarding atheism, which to my understanding would be the antithesis of religion? And theology is the study of God. So I'm confused.

Just what is the purpose of the RT forum? And I am NOT being snarky. I'm trying to figure it all out.

[beam me up scottie]

134. The purpose?

To discuss religion and theology, of course. And atheism wouldn't exist without theism.

This is a political forum and religion affects all of us, including atheists.

Many DU atheists are trying to combat centuries of misconceptions and intolerance and are enjoying the luxury of being able to discuss our atheism without fear of reprisal.

If it was anyone but you, Grannie, I'd think this was another one of those "You don't belong here" posts.

I always appreciate your insight and look forward to reading many more of your posts here.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

135. Okay, I get it

so this isn't a discussion, per se, about religion in our lives as much as it is in the greater scheme of things, negative AND positive. And obviously, also philosophy of life, deities, etc. It is much broader than I thought when I saw the subgrouop.

I thought it was an "I'll pray for you" group and I get enough of that already.

I'll say religion affects all of us! Whether we want it to or not.

I think I'll hang around more and see if I can get Trotsky to laugh.

Thanks for the kind words...I always enjoy your posts, too. Wouldn't it be an awful world if we all believed the same thing? Scary.

I hope atheists here enjoy being able to express themselves and even ask questions. I would imagine that deciding one is an atheist can be (probably not always) a very large step in one's personal development. And fraught with, perhaps grief AND the joy of freedom. But I've never been one, so I'm not quite sure. One thing I always say, "atheists are thinkers." I like that. I'd rather have an atheist for a friend than a lock-step fundamentalist who asks no questions at all. I believe that is a useful framework for their lives...I just don't want them as my friends!

[beam me up scottie]

138. Thanks, Granny.

Now that you mention it, trotsky has been too serious lately.

Maybe we should spike his oatmeal.

:yourock:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

136. Dupe

[TallahasseeGrannie]

137. Dupe

just call me "Two-fer" Grannie. I appear unable to send one message at a time.

[JerseygirlCT]

139. Well, thank you. I appreciate that.

And I also appreciate a smart-ass.

[beam me up scottie]

140. Unfortunately, my drill instructors didn't.

I believe they wanted to kill me.:D

[JerseygirlCT]

141. Literalists of another sort, undoubtedly.

Some people just have no imagination...

[beam me up scottie]

142. YES!

I never thought of it that way!