Humanists, Atheists Look to Higher Global Profile

[truthpusher]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=ourWorldNews&storyID=7273413

Humanists, Atheists Look to Higher Global Profile

Sun Jan 9, 2005 09:31 AM ET

By Robert Evans

GENEVA (Reuters)

(snip)

Under pressure from the rise of militant Islam, Vatican activism in the European Union and the re-election of a "born-again" Christian to the White House, they feel they must resist to ensure the ideas of secularism survive and spread.

(snip)

PRINCIPLES ATTACKED

But they see key Humanist principles -- respect for human rights and racial and sexual equality with morality based on reason rather than on the dictates of a supreme being through a holy book -- as under assault, and not just in Muslim countries.

The re-election in November of George W. Bush, U.S. Humanists fear, strengthened the influence of Christian fundamentalists dedicated to restoring the Bible, "God's word," to a central role in public life and foreign policy.

Many of Bush's supporters appear to see the war in Iraq in the same terms as the president, and Muslim fundamentalists, as one arena of a cosmic struggle between good and evil in which what Humanists would regard as crimes are permissible on both sides.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=ourWorldNews&storyID=7273413

[bloom]

1. thanks for posting that

International Humanist and Ethical Union

http://www.iheu.org/modules/news/


Ethics seems to be in such short supply these days.

[CrispyQ]

2. What does NGO stand for?

TIA

[newscott]

3. Non Governmental Organization. n/t

[Carl Brennan]

4. Non-Government Organization

[fshrink]

5. Let's talk about short supply..!

- Courage
- Honesty
- Intelligence
- Reason
- Fairness
- Plain talk
To name a few.
In the recent weeks, we also saw which political leaders have the right stuff. Extremely short supply of them as well.
Not in short supply:
- Good reasons
- Politically savvy moves
- Former trotskyites turned neo-nazis
- Idiots with enough power to be really dangerous
- Happy executives
- Believers of all kinds
- Billions in deficit
- Reframings.

[bloom]

8. yes - but

I think ethics really sums up

what we're missing. What with the

Senate hearings on

Gonzales and all.

I was thinking yesterday about seeing what ethics

groups exist. This morning

there was an editorial about ethics

in the local paper.


"Ethics" is in the air...

[Carl Brennan]

6. I was thinking that a good title for

all these areligious people would be "Reality based groups". Or something along those lines.

Just a thought.

[yardwork]

7. It's important to take back the message

Secular humanism and other non-religious philosophical paths have been demonized for too long.

There is nothing inherently "better" about a person choosing to follow a religious path vs. another kind of philosophical path.

So-called Christians who are violent, intolerant, and greedy have no moral superiority over atheists who live kind, generous lives of integrity. The mere suggestion is absurd.

We need to take back the message.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

9. Good luck

For starters, I suggest you take back your message here from those who hate anyone of faith and spend hours and hundreds of posts mocking us and our religions.

[patdem]

10. I love irony...Alicia this is your 666th post!

:shrug:

[AliciaKeyedUp]

13. So you claim me now satanic

Because I complain about intolerance?

How odd...

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Great! I knew we could laugh together about something!

:toast:

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

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

[Carl Brennan]

15. Jeeez, I hadn't seen that patdem. I'm oughta here!!

I dont' mind a good fight, but I am ill-equipped to take on the Big-Daddy of bad himself/herself. :scared:


edit: added "herself".

[AliciaKeyedUp]

27. At least some good came from that

nt

[Carl Brennan]

38. CB is oughta here!!

:scared: :scared: :scared:

[arwalden]

21. SNARF!!! Too Funny!

[Carl Brennan]

14. Could you point me to a couple of those mocking posts?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

20. If you haven't seen them

You aren't looking.

[Zenlitened]

31. Just remember... condradiction = mocking.

And becoming impatient with someone who seeks out opportunities to be offended = anti-christian bigotry.

:D

[arwalden]

60. You Hit The Nail On The Head. Squarely, Directly, And Forcefully.

[Zenlitened]

22. Why should superstitions not be mocked?

:shrug:

Clinging to superstitions seems unproductive, at best, unhealthy at worst.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

24. Thanks for proving my point

I knew someone would.

[oneighty]

29. I resent religious of any color

forcing their stuff into my space. It is easy to ignore however.


180

[AliciaKeyedUp]

35. Why resent it then?

If it's easy to ignore?

I don't resent atheism.

[Carl Brennan]

39. Well that's easily explained, because there is

nothing to resent about atheism. :evilgrin:

[AliciaKeyedUp]

40. Others here have proven you wrong already

I wish it were otherwise.

[Carl Brennan]

44. So you do have resentment?

:shrug:

[AliciaKeyedUp]

45. I resent those who hate religion or people of faith

And you?

[Carl Brennan]

47. hmmmm

You don't resent atheism only some atheists. Well, heck I don't resent vegetarians as a rule but since Hitler was one there is at least one vegetarian I don't like. Ditto for teatotalers for the same reason.

I like mythology and since religion is myth its hard to say I hate it. Now I do hate the deleterious effects of religion on the mind if it is imposed on people as truth. But hey, I like the movie the Ten Commandments and the adventures of the Greek gods, it's great stuff.

[phasev]

123. hitler was not a vegetarian

he ate bratwurst and sausages and had a thing for caviar. read any hitler biography

he wanted to be viewed as an altruistic leader so he tried to tell people that he was vegetarian/anti-vivisection

[fshrink]

50. No.

I see it as entirely called for. If only by respect for the memory of the multitude who died, and still die, directly or indirectly, at the hands of "people of faith". Now, since religious belief is completely alien to me, hate is not really my preferred means of expressing affect. I prefer despise, oppose, mock, tolerate, etc...

[AliciaKeyedUp]

53. People have died for everything one time or another

Do you hate everything?

People have died for greed, do you hate anyone who acquires money or possessions?

People have died for freedom, do you hate it?

People have died for every government in the world pretty much, do you hate them all?

People have died for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta and a host of other documents, do you hate those?

Atheism is pretty alien to me, but I seem able to cope.

[Zenlitened]

54. Nice deflection. Died "at the hands of" becomes...

... "died for."

Slick.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

56. How many people seeking freedom killed others in the Civil War

A bunch I would guess.

So, tons of people died AT THE HANDS of those seeking freedom for themselves or others.

[Zenlitened]

58. Huh? Does that make it "The War of Slaves' Agression" ?

[Carl Brennan]

71. hmmmm, that about says it. Recently there was

a discussion at DU about some neo-con zipperheads who were trying to rationalize slavery. That is because the Bible doesn't ban slavery so therefore it must be OK.

Me: "No, sorry folks it is the Bible that isn't OK when it comes to that issue."

Repug: "The Bible is the word of God".

Me: "Well, if God simply means good without the second "o" I have a big problem and always will, with a god who says slavery is OK."



Of course slavery isn't as bad as torture and I saw not one peep of outrage when these good Christian kiddies were nailed torturing Iraqi prisoners.

In sum the form of religion they practice would allow the Holocaust if it was being done by someone who claimed to be a person of god.



Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.
- Voltaire, 1767.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

76. No one is defending slavery here

I merely pointed out that when you paint with a broad brush, you really use a broad brush. People have died at the hands of good people for good reasons, good people for bad reasons and bad people for every reason. To blast religion and blame it for everything bad is just an amateurish debating tactic.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[phasev]

126. okay

So we don't like religion because it's based on superstition.

You must agree with this post or the Invisible Pink Unicorn will smite you.

[phasev]

125. haha

yes, because religion justified slavery

the people who fought against slavery killed because they were going against murderous slave owners. you have to fight fire with fire sometimes.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

140. Religion also opposed slavery

Funny how you left that out.

[Az]

146. Eventually

Religions tend to move with social sense of morality when it does not oppose critical aspects of the belief. This is practically by definition. Religion once established does not innovate. It congeals and holds a moral code static. It is usually individuals and rabble rousers that force us to reexamine the positions we have become ossified in.

[shrike]

105. People die at the hands of others

due to ethnic hatred. Or due to the fact that you have something I don't have. Then there was Pol Pot ...

I don't agree with Alicia on many things, but she is right on this one -- people have come up with a lot of excuses to kill each other.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[phasev]

124. yes they did

people died for all of those things.... but religion gave their murderers the moral justification to do so.

[tx_dem41]

57. So you really despise all people of faith?

I am an Atheist of longstanding, and I just don't understand this line of thinking at all. Isn't it possible that to a disagree with a philosophy without despising the people that follow it? Why can't you separate the teachings of a religion with the misintepretations by some of the followers?

I can find things in almost any religion to respect, and thus find a basis to start a discussion on. Let's use the 10 Commandments as an example. I don't need the Sabbath or using God's name in vain or the "No other idol before me", but the rest aren't bad. No stealing, honor your family, don't be jealous, don't kill...these sound like good things for any society to be based on.

The true teachings of Jesus, spelled out in the Sermon on the Mount, are probably the greatest "Liberal" treatise in the history of the world? Not bad either.

There is a great deal of common ground that Atheists and religious people can build on. We have to have open minds and some level of respect coming from both sides.

[Zenlitened]

59. Sermon on the Mount... an entirely secular, humanist treatise.

That's its strength.

Edited to add:

And, notably, not a treatise that shows up in the agenda of the religionists dominating today's discourse.

[tx_dem41]

62. An entire "secular, humanist treatise" written by Christians....

...maybe we can find common ground between the two sides.

"And, notably, not a treatise that shows up in the agenda of the religionists dominating today's discourse."

I would add that that is a fault of the religionists and not of the religion.

[Zenlitened]

64. I agree, re: common ground.

They are more than welcome to admit to that faith is not necessary to advance a positive, productive, humane philosophy.

[tx_dem41]

65. I get your point.....

and agree with it...but we also have to admit that faithlessness is not necessary to advance a positive, productive, humane philosophy either. Its the human character flaws that get in the way on both sides.

[Zenlitened]

66. Deal. - n/t

[Carl Brennan]

70. God worshippers don't compromise they convert.

If they have good intentions it certainly isn't reflected in how they knuckle under to the neo-con agenda. Those whackos want to destroy the Constitution and, through biblical reconstruction, replace it with biblical law. The people within the religious sector do not fight against this they simply allow it to happen.

That is the true pathology of Christianity as it is commonly practiced; it is all about conformity to dictates of the clergy and destruction of a rational basis for living. In short is is mind control, brainwashing and contempt for democracy.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

77. Is that why we have had religious people here for 200+ years

And we aren't converting you at the point of a gun.

[Az]

78. Here is a small list of things that have been done to me personally

I have bumperstickers on my car. They announce my presense as an atheist. Here is what they have gained me aside from thumbs up from fellow freethinkers.

My car has been keyed on 4 occaisions.
I have had countless pamphlets left on my window.
I have had numerous hand written notes telling me I am going to hell.
I have had 3 full sets up bumperstickers stolen from my car(odd considering the 10 commandments).
I have had on one occaision 10 bibles dumped on my car.
I have been followed into parking lots and evangelyzed.
I have been flipped off numerous times by caring and concerned believers.
I have a friend with a simple Darwin Fish on his car who was forced off the road by people yelling go to hell you f-ing atheist.
In highschool we had an open discussion concerning the origin of life. I was one of the few people speaking up for evolution. The next day I found a note in my book stating "believe in god or else".

I have not had a gun pointed in my face. This is true. But there have been plenty of individuals who have had guns pointed in their face throughout history by those that claim to be lovers of peace. I have experienced hatred, deep hatred, on the part of believers when they discovered I do not believe.

Let me relate a story. We were at a city wide art sale. There was a group of Christians accosting individuals on the corner and telling them the glories of Jesus. They had a bullhorn. This is illegal. When they approached me I informed them that there is no god and I have no worries of hell. They began shouting I was going to burn in hell through the bullhorn. I took this as a threat and went to find a police officer.

When I found one his back was too me as he was talking to someone else. When he finally turned around he had the largest gold cross on I had ever seen. When I informed him of the incident and the use of the bullhorn he said he would take care of it. The Christians stayed on the corner till the end of the event.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

79. I am sorry about most of those things

But how is you are going to burn in hell a threat?

My car has been keyed twice since I put a Kerry bumpersticker on. I honestly think most of such keying and probably a lot of what you have encountered is young people. Before you grow up, you sometimes have an immature response to opposing views.

That doesn't excuse such wrong behavior in any way. I'm just saying it's not a universal attitude. Most of the Christians I know don't hate people who don't believe.

And, given some of the atheist response to people of faith here (and remember, I said "some" and that does not include you), I bet it happens the other direction as well. Just the numbers aren't even vaguely even, so that limits the incidents.

[Az]

80. Path

Communication is not just about words. There is emotion conveyed in how we say things. Hatred is an unmistakable sound. The shouts of burning in hell carried with them just that sound.

I am glad your circle of friends are decent people. But I know the nature of belief and history and your friends aside I worry still. We know quite well what has happened whenever a people gain enough power to mandate their beliefs. No matter how peaceful the message may be. When power is taken and control given to one mindset destruction follows.

The atheist response here to believers is often vindictive. Why do you suppose that is? Let me make a suggestion. A people oppressed rarely feel congenial to the people oppressing them.

Most atheists are more than happy to stay out of others beliefs. But others do not seem to share the same ideals. They take it upon themself to insist that theirs is the only truth. We are told that they will be laughing at us while they are in heaven and we are burning in hell.

Of course you do not experience this much. You are a believer. Why would you even have an incling that such things happen? But they do happen. People lose their jobs because they do not believe. Children are ridiculed because they do not believe. We have no voice in Government because we do not believe. We are deemed evil and immoral because we do not believe. Celebrities defame us and not a finger is lifted to repremand them. Presidents declare us noncitizens and there is no outrage.

I think some atheists may have some reasons for being just a tad upset. I do not agree with their tactics in addressing believers in a disrespectful tone. But this does not mean I do not understand their feelings. It takes hope to resist the temptation of giving in to anger. And most atheists do not have hope that believers can be made to see them as equal citizens worthy of rights and respect.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

81. I wasn't there, but can't envision how it could be a threat

I am trying to put myself in your place, but still don't see it.

No one I know is seeking to mandate any beliefs. The status quo doesn't do so either. Seeking to CHANGE the status quo about religion is your side seeking to mandate beliefs.

I could tell you I don't think you will burn in hell, because my god is a forgiving and good-hearted god. Somehow, I doubt you care, but it's there for what it's worth.

There are all sorts of wrongs in the world. Wrongs against people of faith. Wrongs against people of specific beliefs. And wrongs against people with beliefs that faith is wrong.

It is my hope we can come together and at least discuss them in a sane and polite way and try to find some common ground before we all tear one another apart.

[Az]

84. I care

Its natural to care. We are social creatures. We survive by working togehter. That you believe that I am a worthy human has value to me. The trouble is not all believers share your view of God as being someone so forgiving. Some believe the stuff about him being vengeful. Some believe the stuff about nonbelievers being worthy of scorn.

Our work here is to decrease the wrongs to any people. Faith or no. That is the struggle. But it is a struggle because many systems and ways presume their's is the only one. There are entire networks of programming dedicated to this notion. So trying to lay our fears aside because your experience does not indicate this is taken as good natured but perhaps not far seeing enough.

[Zenlitened]

104. Are you familiar with the phrase...

"It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand" ?

That was a popular statement on T-shirts some years ago, worn by many young black men and women. It was a way of saying that, just because a white person (for example) couldn't really see that discrimination existed, never really felt the effects of our country's racial history -- just because one is oblivious, doesn't make the fact of racism any less real.

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that "It's an atheist thing, you wouldn't understand."

Lecture less, listen more, no?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

106. Then apply the reverse

It's a religious thing, you wouldn't understand.

But the only way for BOTH SIDES to undestand is to keep talking.

And the lecture less, listen more cuts both ways Zenlitened.

[Zenlitened]

107. Accusations and defensiveness. That's all I ever hear from you.

As a member of the dominant class, it's incumbent upon you to make more of an effort than you've demonstrated thus far.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

110. I am not a member of any "dominant class"

To categorize people of faith as all the same is the ultimate broad brush and, frankly, it's getting old.

[Zenlitened]

114. That's a sure sign that you ARE a member of a dominant class....

... the very fact that you don't realize you are.

And please, save the "broad brush" argument for more appropriate uses. It's not germane to a discussion of which group holds all the power and which does not.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

119. There is no ONE group

Maybe one day you will understand that.

Then again, maybe not.

[Zenlitened]

121. Goodness, how insulting.

We musn't be rude to each other, remember?

Edited to add: Although I must salute your technique, once again. Now it's a debate over HOW MANY groups may or may not hold power. Well done! :D

[AliciaKeyedUp]

130. Nothing insulting

Understand yes or understand no. People of faith are not one unfied entity. We don't agree on almost anything.

And we aren't all part of the power structure.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

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

[AliciaKeyedUp]

141. I chose Virginia instead

It's an imperfect state, but not one of permanent indignation.

And, given that people of faith are the vast majority in the U.S., it appears you are destined more for indignation than I am.

[Zenlitened]

144. "... people of faith are the vast majority in the U.S."

Um, I think you just contradicted yourself, didn't you?

Or, should I state this in the more snarky vernacular that some prefer? "Thank you for proving my point."

:D

[AliciaKeyedUp]

153. People of faith have that one thing in common

But wildly disagree on pretty everything else.

You continue to fail to put words in my mouth.

Awwww...

[Zenlitened]

156. "Wildly disgaree"? Can you support that statement?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

160. Pretty easy

* Abortion -- Both sides of the most contentious issue in the U.S.
* Death penalty -- Again, both sides of the issue.
* Politics -- Voted for both major parties in the U.S. and all of the minor parties as well.
* God -- One god, many, savior or not, who can say looking at the wide variety of opinions

How's that for a start?

[Zenlitened]

162. And the stats behind the subjects? A 50-50 split?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

163. Who the heck knows

Take a look at the stats on those issues nationwide. Since so many Americans are religious, they probably reflect the rest of the divide.

In short, religious Americans are like everyone -- good and bad, rich and poor and right and left. Don't try to typecast us.

[Zenlitened]

164. "Who the heck knows."

Well, I guess we'll have to consider your statement unproven for the time being, then.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

167. Yeah, whatever

Sure. That post is laughable.

[Zenlitened]

169. Again, with the insults?

How sad. Very telling, but said.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

170. I insulted your post?

Were its feelings hurt?

I certainly didn't insult you.

[Zenlitened]

171. *snicker*

Splitting hairs is an art form, isn't it? Certainly among the religionists I've known and seen in action. I have to tip my hat to you, you're good at this!

[shrike]

101. Not all atheists, unfortunately

I've known some who'll take it upon themselves to tell me how stupid I am for believing in superstition. (And I'm the most live-and-let-live Christian I know. Strangely enough, this seems to encourage them -- maybe they regard it as a sign of weakness.)

But we can agree that hateful religious folk far outnumber hateful atheists -- though perhaps it's because they outnumber them in general. And sadly, forcing all religious principals out of life won't necessarily make it better. Human beings have a vast capacity for hate: when religion is not involved, they find other reasons -- ethnicity, natural resources, ancient grudges, you name it. A case in point may be the tribes of Papua New Guinea, who were deist and little else: they were, however, incredibly warlike and attacked their neighbors for any number of reasons. Part of their culture ...

However, I like many humanist principles and feel, as does the Dalai Lama (a rather religious fellow) that the human race may find its way by agreeing that such a set of principles is first and foremost of all -- and that religion should become a private matter.

[phasev]

129. both sides are wrong

the universe is far too complex for a human to comprehend it. to understand the nature of a "God" or a sentient/supreme source of existence is beyond our capabilities as humans. you cannot put the entire ocean in a cup.

if there was a sentient/supreme source of existence why would it be bothered with human social concerns?

if there wasn't a sentient/supreme source of existence and we are just a random event in the time/space continuum then what is the point of existence besides indulging in our senses?

[Az]

133. A slight difference

I would say rather that the universe is too complex for us to understand currently. We have methods for increasing our understanding and devising new ways to see it. Thus in time... we may one day grasp the essence of it.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[AliciaKeyedUp]

118. No, the Constitution didn't do that, our humanity did

We have no interest in converting at the point of a gun. If we did, the Constitution wouldn't hold us back.

As for Gitmo, Iraq, etc., they've been topics of sermons and those are things people take with them to live their lives. We also have discussed them at Sunday spaghetti dinners.

[Az]

132. I would take issue with that statement

Are you suggesting that people are more human today than they were 500 years ago? 700 years ago? 1000 years ago? I would contend that we are the same humans we have been for the span of recorded history. Something has changed. But it wasn't our humanity.

Instead what has changed is our understanding of our humanity. It grows and advances. It changes over time. In the year 1212 a nation of loving Christians gathered an army made of children in the belief that God would never let harm come to innocence serving in his name. They marched this army against the infidels in the Holy Land. The bulk of the children died. The few that reached their destination were quickly captured and enslaved.

It is a false argument to presume that a people are naturally good. They are naturally good within the context of the understanding of good at the time. The Crusaders believed they were doing righteous holy work. They believed they were the good guys. We look at their actions today with our understanding and see the errors of their ways.

The sense of humanity you know today is the result of society cobbling together a better understanding of itself. It is not ingrained beyond the sense of our social connectiveness. Our basic social behaviour does not naturally extend beyond our immediate social circle. It is only our capacity to learn that has lead us to be able to grasp the notion that those far from us or different from us deserve the same rights we enjoy. This is a relatively new concept in the world. Do not presume it cannnot fall away and that we cannot slip back into darkness. It has happened before.

[Carl Brennan]

136. Perfect. Two places that cannot be verified.

Everything just wrapped up in a nice little ball, like Bush telling us that he answers to god, which somehow means he is not obligated to answer to the public. It looks like the sermons and spaghetti dinners aren't doing the job.

Just what in the hell are those zealot fools doing in Iraq? You know Boykin and a fan of the Righties Ann Coulter and the groups of christians going to Iraq to convert the infidels? How can you sit there and act like you people are all lovy dovy when such things are going on. You deny reality, realities that slap you in the face repeatedly.




Why does everything have to be spelled out to you repeatedly and you ignore key points? Why are you not expressing your opposition to the the Bibical Reconstructionist movement?

Are you for it?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

143. Awww, too bad

I have no idea what they are doing in Iraq. It's stupid. It's deadly. It's costly.

It has NOTHING to do with Christianity.

Now, tell me, which positions do you demand that I take and I'll then lay out which ones I demand you take. We'll see how far that gets.

[Carl Brennan]

149. Again you only respond to half of what I said.

Do you support the Reconstructionist movement?

[Carl Brennan]

152. Here is just a little of what Biblical/Christian Reconstruction is about:

Footnote 3: Source 4 - Reason Magazine November 1988 <http://reason.com/9811/col.olson.shtml> "Getting Cozy with Theocrats" by Walter Olson...

Christian Reconstructionism...Among Reconstructionism's highlights, the article cited support for laws "mandating the death penalty for homosexuals and drunkards." The Rev. Rushdoony fired off a letter to the editor complaining that the article had got his followers' views all wrong: They didn't intend to put drunkards to death. Ah, yes, accuracy does count. In a world run by Rushdoony followers, sots would escape capital punishment--which would make them happy exceptions indeed. Those who would face execution include not only gays but a very long list of others: blasphemers, heretics, apostate Christians, people who cursed or struck their parents, females guilty of 'unchastity before marriage,' 'incorrigible' juvenile delinquents, adulterers, and (probably) telephone psychics. And that's to say nothing of murderers and those guilty of raping married women or 'betrothed virgins.'

"...Mainstream outlets like the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post are finally starting to take note of the influence Rushdoony and his followers have exerted for years in American conservative circles...Prominent California philanthropist Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., who has given Rushdoony's operations more than $700,000 over the years..."



http://www.panix.com/~hncl/HectorsJournal/archives/000275.html
Many of you may already be familiar with what Christian Reconstructionism is about, but here's the short version: They believe the vote should only belong to Christians, and that the American government and laws should be explicitly governed by their fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture.
again, from "Onward Christian Soldiers."
......radical ideas must be gently and often indirectly infused into their target constituencies and society at large. The vague claim that God and Jesus want Christians to govern society is certainly more appealing than the bloodthirsty notion of justice as "vengeance" advocated by some of the Reconstructionists. The claim that they do not seek to impose a theocracy from the top down--waiting for a time when a majority will have converted and thus want to live under Biblical Law--is consistent with Reconstructionists' decentralist and anti-state populism, which they often pass off as a form of libertarianism. Even so, there is an inevitable point when the "majority" would impose its will. North bluntly says that one of his first actions would be to "remove legal access to the franchise and to civil offices from those who refuse to become communicant members of Trinitarian churches." Quick to condemn democracy as the idea that the law is whatever the majority says it is, North et al. would be quick to cynically utilize a similar "majority" for a permanent theocratic solution.
from "A Generation of Reconstructionists," <http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre2.html> Part 2 of Frederick Clarkson's "Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence" <http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisrec.html>
To summarize: a principal owner of a major provider of election machines and software has ties to an organization that seeks to advance an ideology of disenfrancisement, tyranny, murder, and expansionism. His firm is providing many of the machines that are supposed to implement our representative democracy (such as it is.) Meanwhile, the ideology spreads in a disorganized, partial, but highly effective way.



This my friends it what happens when Christianity spreads its lovy dovyness.:eyes:

[AliciaKeyedUp]

157. Ah yes, all Christians are just like that

That's not a broad brush, it's the size of a continent.

Anyone who has seen my posts knows I support tolerance, but thanks for trying.

[Carl Brennan]

158. But you never answered my question. Do you support

BR?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

168. I did anwer

You just didn't notice.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

155. I am part of no "movement"

Now, what specifically do you ask if I support?

[Az]

172. Thats not quite the question he is asking

He is specifically asking if you support their ideas. Not if you are part of their movement. Do you think the ideas expressed by the reconstructionists are valid and good for the nation?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

173. It is a deliberate distraction

You have seen my posts and corresponded with me and know I support tolerance of both people and their attitudes.

I won't claim to oppose everything they support because that requires too darn much reading, but the upshot of it, yes.

An old lawyer friend of mine would say asked and answered to his question.

[Az]

174. Increase communication to decrease stress

The conversation to me seems to be on spiral. There are a few choices and we can take the time to look at what is going on to make the best choices here. There is a growing issue of misunderstanding each other and the sense that both are not answering the questions. You can continue as such (bad idea IMO), you can slow it down and try to ernestly clear up the miscommunication and missed answers(on both sides). Or you could do the other two extremes silence or balistics, which neither solve anything.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

175. Answered questions

Az, I appreciate the attempted diplomacy, but in the various threads that have spun off of this event, I have answered a lot of questions. Add to them, the questions I have answered in private correspondence.

After a certain point, the answers are out there.

[oneighty]

82. You assume I am an atheist

Truth is what I am is my business. What you are is your business. Just do not tell me or ask me. Give me my space.

That is all.

180

[AliciaKeyedUp]

83. I don't assume what anyone is

Your beliefs are your own. You are right. You said you resent the religious. I said I don't resent atheists. Don't try to assume more than that.

You don't get a personal zone of freedom from religion. People can proclaim their own beliefs all they wish. If you don't want to hear, don't listen.

[Zenlitened]

85. "If you don't want to hear, don't listen"

Great moments in irony, wouldn't you say?

Or is this just another example of that famous and time-tested religionist mantra, "Do as I say, not as I do" ?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

87. There is a difference between hearing a point of view

And attacking another.

Odd that some can't see that.

[Zenlitened]

89. Condradiction = attack. Criticism = attack. Defense = attack.

Gotcha. I forgot, for a moment, how this works.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

94. Well one thing is certain

Sarcasm and deliberate misunderstanding = attack.

You make this so easy.

[Zenlitened]

95. What do I make so easy?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

96. Defending the other side

nt

[Zenlitened]

102. Which side, exactly?

The side that falsely claims victimhood?

The side that attempts to silence all opposition by spuriously claiming to uphold ideals of civil discourse?

The side that attempts to re-write not only history but present reality by continually spinning facts away from the truth?

The side that sanctimoniously pleads "Can't we all just get along?" even as it carries out an agenda of divisiveness and disruption?

Honestly, if that's the position you take, I don't think we're ever going to see eye to eye.

[Az]

98. Careful

Consider the inverse of that statement.

The point he was trying to make is that often believers react to the simple expression of nonbelief as an attack. They also often seem to take the notion of not being allowed to push their beliefs on others as a restriction of their rights. There is also suggestion that if somehow another is allowed to live as they choose their rights and traditions are threatened.

It seems as though a nonbeliever cannot win. If we remain silent we lose. If we speak up we lose. Thats gets to you after a while.

I would admonish my fellow nonbelievers though that speaking with courtesy enables us to truly discuss ideas rather than thrashing emotions. But to the believers that are angered at such behaviour I have two things to say. It takes time to learn to peacefully dialog with those you are distanced from and oppressed by. And second, please turn the other cheek. It is not your direct fault that we are angry but doing so changes the dynamics of the conversation and may teach us nonbelievers that there is hope of dialog. Without hope we are left with only our anger.

[Az]

86. People can talk religion

But free speech being the critter it is one must expect others to return the favor. Freespeech is the right. Courtesy and civility make it work.

The Golden Rule of Jesus' makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately not everyone follows it. It is found in many religions and philosophies. Even those predating Jesus supposed arrival. And it works.

It works because of human nature. We observe and learn from others behaviour. In a society what people do to us we take as directions as how to behave towards others. Both sides need to take this idea to heart. We atheists, few in number, need to respect other's beliefs. And believers great in number need to police their own and admonish their fellows when they step out of line.

This is where the rhetoric of respecting atheists fails so often. While you may individually not partake in disrespecting nonbelievers, there is seldom any reaction of merrit to someone defaming those of nonbelief. Your silence is consent to their hatred.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

88. I'm not silent

And you probably guessed that.

I think BOTH SIDES of this debate need to turn down the freakin' volume a bit. Maybe we all can't agree, but we can disagree more politely.

On edit: OK, I have the flu. Thanks for pointing out the typo.

[Az]

91. Er, Can disagree more politely

<---grammar nazi :D

I agree. Civility enables the process.

A minority group that is oppressed must make noise and make itself known if it is not sharing in the rights that all free people must share in. We will find our voice. It will be a struggle. But we will demand our rights as set down in the constitution and bill of rights of these United State of America. Until we find a message that reaches enough to guarantee our rights we are going to yell, and scream and reason. We are not going away. We are going to find a way. We want the freedom you enjoy.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

97. I plead the flu

But thanks for pointing it out.

Good luck in your quest. We all want the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. Freedom of religion is part of that.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[oneighty]

100. I said I resent

the religious getting into my space. I do not resent religious. The only formal religion I was ever exposed to were the Quakers (My Grand parents) And they minded their own business-all the time.

As it should be.

180

[AliciaKeyedUp]

108. Then let me ask you this

How do you propose keeping them out of your space and ensuring their rights aren't violated in the process?

[oneighty]

109. Easy

When they come knocking on my door I am rude to them-chase them away. And what is your point in all this? Do you have an agenda?

Explain.

180

[AliciaKeyedUp]

111. Why be rude, they aren't harming you

I don't believe the same as Jehovah's Witnesses and I don't want to be converted, same as you. But I am not rude about it. I simply tell them sorry, I believe differently, urge them to have a nice day and move on. I've never had any troubles.

My agenda is to try and point out that there are religious Democrats here and outside. Without us, the party has no chance of any election because we are far more numerous than atheist Democrats. So we need to bridge this gap.

[oneighty]

113. Nice talking with you.

Now I must go do useful things.

Bye.

180

[tx_dem41]

37. Hi oneighty....

I have been on DU for about 7 weeks and am an Atheist, like you I presume. I have been on a lot of threads that touch on religion, because like it or not, it affects our life either directly or indirectly.

I haven't found a lot of religious people on this forum that are prone to force religion into their space (actually let me change that..I haven't met any). I have been very pleased with that, because to have a productive debate and learn from each other, we have to have respect for each others beliefs, rights, and boundaries and get to know each other.

[phasev]

122. that's not mockery

you get offended too easily.

[tx_dem41]

127. Of course it is....

Calling someone's deeply-held philosophical and religious beliefs "superstitions" is mockery. Its also disrespectful. In any debate the point is to exchange ideas and persuade. The minute you mock and disrespect your "opponent", you pretty much give up and show the limitations you bring to the debate.

[Zenlitened]

134. Look, it's not possible to have a discussion about rationality v. religion

... without speaking frankly.

That's just a hard truth. That the religionists don't like my point of view is no reason for me not to speak it. And at this point, given the corrosive control the religionists hold over our society, I see no reason to feign "respect" for something I feel is ignorant and dangerous.

Sorry, but that's how I feel. They have declared war on all the Western ideals I hold dear -- reason, inquiry, the scientific method, the primacy of the individual -- and it only serves their ends to speak evasively about the subject.

Will some people feel alienated by that? Certainly. But there will always be people out there waiting to parachute into a discussion of this sort and scream bloody murder that they're being persecuted.

And that's all this is: a discussion. One thread on one forum within the liberal side of the spectrum. It's not a party platform, it's not a candidate's position paper. It's a conversation where some frank talk, in my view, is merited.

[tx_dem41]

137. But we agreed that there is a distinction between the ...

"religionist" and the "religion". The poster was mocking the core of the religion.

[Az]

139. No need to speak evasively

But a definate need to consider the effect you wish to garner and the path you wish to walk. We do not leap blindly into the abyss. Reason demands that we consider each step we make. We look where we set our feet. The same must be true of our discourse.

We acknowledge that we disagree. We must understand that our position is not convincing to them. For whatever reason. If we assail those that might be friendly to our cause or reasoning they will never hear our words. They will only feel the anger.

Use reason. What do you reason will happen when you tell a person who deeply and fervantly believes a thing that they are delusional? It may be true in every imaginable way. But what does it gain you? You can express that you differ in your views. You can provide the reasons you differ. Present ideas and concepts for them to explore. But to insist that they are flat out wrong does nothing but build walls.

If ever we are to see progress it must come from tearing down walls. Walls seperate us. Seperation creates ignorance. Ignorance creates distrust. Distrust breeds fear (great now I sound like Yoda).

There is tactic in conflict. Always leave your opponent a way to exit gracefully. If you leave them no choice but to attack you they will do so with increased force. By allowing someone you are engaged in a debate with to save face you create the opportunity for them to internalise your ideas. If the ideas are simply seen as assaults then they will be rejected without consideration.

[Zenlitened]

142. I think all that you say is true in principle...

... but has not held up in practice. We're are drowning under a tsunami of fundamentalism worldwide, and in the context of an online discussion board, some more forceful language is warranted, in my view.

Perhaps I'm taking a more "Jeffersonian" approach than some would prefer! :D

http://www.democraticunderground.com//discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1136262&mesg_id=1136608&page=

[tx_dem41]

145. Well, if you're going to follow a "Jeffersonian" approach...

actually follow and read your link. He stated that in a PRIVATE letter addressed to someone he agreed with on the matter. So, your approach might be fine amongst "friends", but doesn't necessarily work in a discussion where "reason" is required.

[Zenlitened]

148. Point taken. But I hope you'd agree...

... that the reasoning has been laid out again and again again, yet some particpants in this discussion insist on fault-finding nevertheless, for reasons of their own.

Believe me, when it comes time to craft a party platform or candidate talking points, I'll willingly join you in choosing neutral language.

But when discussions on the merits of humanism and the shortcomings of religionism are routinely hijacked by the Jesus Police, bent on stamping out any and all criticism, I think a more forceful tone can be illuminating.

:)

[Az]

150. Its not always about reasoning

Sometimes its just about connecting. Being human. Being humane. We don't have to convince them their gods are illusions. We only have to convince them that freedom for all means freedom for all.

Even discussions with someone that cannot be reached can serve a purpose if you maintain dignity and reason. Others will watch and will decide who's case makes more sense to them. If the opponent becomes the the aggressor this will cause a shift in the silent observers and change the balance.

This is the same premise that Ghandi and other practitioners of nonviolence put forward. By taking the high road you either convince your opponent fairly to change their ways or you show the world that they are in the wrong and bring the pressure of the world upon them.

You will seldom if ever change a person's beliefs in a single debate. That should never be the goal. For you will become well practiced at failure.

[Zenlitened]

154. We seem to agree there. It is indeed illuminating to see...

... who will resort to misdirection and obfuscation in a discussion such as this.

:)

[tx_dem41]

151. We will have to agree to disagree...

on who (if anyone) is the Jesus Police around here and what their agenda is. I personally welcome the opportunity to discuss. I just want everyone to know that not all Atheists believe as you do on this matter. And, I mean that respectfully.

[Zenlitened]

159. Fair enough.

:toast:

[tx_dem41]

25. I'm glad you said that....

especially on a thread that is attempting to show Atheism and Humanism in a positive light.

Your post is a good example of Christianity (as well as Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Rastafarianism, etc, etc.) being mocked.

You see, I am an Atheist, and as an Atheist, I am constantly being attacked for my belief. The people that attack me are showing me disrespect, knowing nothing about either Atheism or about what personal experiences led me down that path. I never really understand what this disrespect is based on, other than I guess ignorance and fear.

Since, I have been a victim of such ignorance and fear, I have made it a personal vow of mine to never show anyone such disrespect in return. Maybe, you might think that's silly, but it seems right to me, because unless I show that Atheists have high-minded ideals and morals (and morals are not the sole property of religion), they will just continue to run my beliefs down.

So by mocking, one gives the opportunity for one's enemies to denigrate your belief or faith. And, the Atheistic principles I live by deserve more than that. I hold them dearly, and will defend them against all who attack them, from within or without.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

26. On the bright side

The fact that we can agree on this shows there is some hope for the future. I don't want mandated agreement. It's scary.

[Zenlitened]

28. Well, there are some notions that deserve to be rejected

And superstitions that provide no firm answers beyond "it's a mystery" fall into that category. As do belief systems that lead to obsessive behavior, such as stalking from forum to forum in search of opportunities to be offended. As do mindsets that rely not only on victimhood, but on being MORE of a victim than anyone else.

Religion in general needs to be replaced with reason, and there's no way to say that without irking the religionists. That's life. In an era where religion is used to condemn, to divide, and to drown out knowledge and understanding, this is a conversation that needs to take place. Being bullied into silence by the religionists is not acceptable.

[Telly Savalas]

46. But religion and reason aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

[Zenlitened]

52. Faith is the basis of religion. And faith does not require reason.

Are they mutally exclusive? On the level at which one says,"I believe just because," I'd say they are.

[Telly Savalas]

61. Any logical system must have base assumptions.

And such base assumptions must be taken on faith whether their source is religious or not.

[Zenlitened]

63. Ah, the "science is a religion" argument.

I think I see where you're going, and I'm not buyin'.

That argument has been debunked over and over again.

[arwalden]

67. Nip It!

[Telly Savalas]

68. No. I'm not arguing science is a religion.

One key thing which differentiates science from religion is that the base assumptions of science are much more universal than those of religions. The empiricist propostion "natural phenomena X has always behaved in such a fashion, so it will continue to do so" is an assumption that pretty much makes sense to most of us at a gut level and it underlies all scientific thought. A religious propostion such as "the Boognish will smite those who eat green M&M's" is lacking in such universality. This then leads us to the whopper of the difference which is that based on the empiricist assumption, one can use the scientific method to widen the scope of knowledge, whereas religious knowledge is non-generative.

All of this though is beside my original point which is that reason and religion can happily coexist. Certainly the Jerry Falwell crowd has their religion fly in the face of reason, but not all religions are this primitive.

There is a profound absurdity in the fact that trillions of subatomic particles interact in a manner which form sentient living beings who love, fight, and watch college hoops on TV. One can accept this as it is and lead a happy life as many atheists and agnostics do. (More power to 'em.) Alternately, one can perceive a divine essence to this absurdity. Reason doesn't really weigh in on this matter, and it's certainly outside the scope of science. So even if a person chooses the second option, she has no need to throw reason out the window.

[girl gone mad]

73. Actually, they kind of are.

Religion is based on dogmatism and conformity. Reason has its foundation in logical, independent thought.

Perhaps not entirely mutually exclusive, but certainly at great odds.

[Telly Savalas]

161. Dogmatism and conformity are strangely absent in the church I attend

If you want to make slanderous overgeneralizations about religion based on observations you've had of Pat Robertson or whatever, there's not a lot I can do about it. If however, you wish to open your mind to the fact that there's more to religion than a bunch of bible-thumping gun nuts, there are a couple of authors I can recommend:

John Spong is the author of a number of titles, most notably Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism and Why Christianity Must Change or Die, where he argues that a literalist interpretation of the Bible and the dogma which follows from such a reading are anachronistic in light our present scientific knowledge. In short his thesis is that Christianity can and must dump conformity and dogmatism.

Paul Tillich is a fascinating thinker who many consider to be the greatest theologican of the 20th century. It would just be plain silly to dismiss his profound works as being those of a dogmatist and a conformist.

[American Tragedy]

165. I concur with you, as an agnostic in my own right

The people I know personally who are Christians are exceptional, tolerant, liberal individuals. I don't know how much they reflect the views of the majority of their fellow believers, but they do at least prove that there are very decent 'religionists' in our midst and do not deserve to be cruelly generalized.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

177. Webster's Dictionary, 1992 definition of 'superstition': Irrational fear.

1) A belief founded on irrational feelings, especially of fear, and marked by credulity; also, any rite or practice inspired by such belief.

2) Specifically, a belief in a religious system regarded (by others than the believer) as without reasonable support; also, any of its rites.

3) Credulity regarding or reverence for the occult or supernatural, as belief in omens, charms, and signs; loosely, any unreasoning or unreasonable belief or impression.

4) Obs. Undue scrupulousness. See synonyms under FANATACISM.

< Latin - superstitio, -onis -
EXCESSIVE FEAR OF THE GODS, AMAZEMENT, DREAD
------------------------------------------

"Casuistry begets caseation." -JohnOneillsMemory 2005
------------------------------------------

I have studied evolution, psychology, history, and fascism.

My own conclusion for the basis of religious faith is the need to balance fear with hope in order to function well enough to survive, or what I call 'The Optimism Imperative.'

I wondered why humans always need to think they're parents are the best, their tribe is the best, their race is the best, their land is the best, their nation is the best, their religion is the best, etc.
EVEN WHEN IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT SO.

It is emotionally devastating to find out Dad is an alcoholic, the priest is a pedophile, the president is a Nazi, and nature kills thousands of nice people arbitrarily.

#1 REASON FOR 'FAITH':
There seems to be a universal human need to believe that whatever source we originate from (parents, nature, cosmos, 'God', whatever)
WANTS US TO SUCCEED, WHICH IS TO SAY, SURVIVE.

This is what I term 'The Optimism Imperative.'

Evolution holds the answer. All biological behavior mechanisms (for 'mind' is a biological artifact of 'brain') are intended to aid survival.

I believe that the motivation for leaving your cave to find food and a mate requires more hope than fear. Fear is good for learning more about the tiger than the tiger knows about you but too much fear leads to depression and lack of 'the drive to survive.' You never leave the cave and life goes on without you.

Consequently, more hope than fear is required to prevent withdrawal from the environment which deters survival. This is the 'flight' component of fear. No food + no mate= no survival.

The 'fight' component of fear as a mass movement leads to the 'Master Race' and 'Chosen Few' syndrome we know as the Dominionist Fascism we are experiencing in this country 60 years after Europe bottomed out on those failed responses and evolved to secular humanism.

#2 Reason for 'Faith' (and the resulting religious trappings):

Again, evolution holds the answer.

As the human species evolved into social groups and started to live cooperatively, a problem needed to be solved for 'peace in the family.'

Namely...men and their propensity for violence and sex.

Two genders of human exist (for some reason) and millions of years ago their skill sets were specialized for diametrically opposed functions.

Women, as the bearers of children, were vulnerable to wild animals since they bled monthly, became pregnant, and nursed children. They also have smaller and weaker bodies.
Consequently, their brains evolved more socially in order to enlist aid and protection from others and socialize the young.

Why? Because they HAD TO. They embody the HOPE factor.

Men came to be the 'designated killers' for hunting and protection from wild animals and are helped by testosterone and larger bodies.

Why? Because they HAD TO. They embody the FEAR factor.

This is the millions of years of neuron/hormone/body/behavior evolution we have inherited from our ancient ancestors and the key difference between men and women that every stand-up comic, unfortunately, taps into relentlessly.

BUT, once we started to live together in larger and larger groups it became apparent that men needed to tone down all the fighting and fornicating to protect the women and children and get along with the other men cooperatively instead of competitively.

SO, rules were codified to 'house-train' men for peaceful coexistence and 'religious morality' was born several thousand years ago, barely a nanosecond in our evolutionary lifetime as a species.

The power balance between men and women has changed drastically with the advent of tools, law enforcement, and birth control (a good thing for women and children) but the several thousand year-old religious texts are based on different needs that have now become archaic and tend to induce neurosis due to being in conflict with today's circumstances. We are different humans in very different circumstances and our brains have evolved.

Leaving behind the old texts full of fearful violence from a scarier existence when weather, tectonics, and volcanism weren't understood and were instead ascribed to judgemental acts of deities scares people who have been raised to believe that these texts still explain the context for humans in the cosmos.

Those who wonder how we can co-exist without a religiously based code of morality would be comforted to learn that science has proven that compassion and empathy have become hard-wired into our brain's by evolution. The stress portions of our brains are activated when we see another human face showing signs of stress. This is probably because being interdependent social creatures requires us to learn how to survive from others. Seeing someone alarmed by a rattlesnake or wincing from eating a poisonous berry can save your life.

So we have already evolved biologically to be 'kinder gentler' animals which don't require the threat of punishment from deities to 'be nice.'

Jesus' teachings of nurturing the weak, forgiveness, and pacifism represent this next stage of our evolution but he was 'ahead of his time' and the less evolved humans killed him for seeming to make more sense than the old violently authoritarian way of living. Competition for allegiance is a threat not tolerated by the king.

Today, we are closer to the point of this next evolutionary step in human existence but there is STILL a vast difference in evolutionary progress towards peaceful co-existence among this planet's billions of humans.

And that's the BIG disparity which leads to less-evolved Nazis throwing more-evolved Jews into the ovens. This is not survival.

The biggest problem liberals (like Jesus) face is how to assist the evolutionary progress of our fellow humans without becoming extinct martyrs! ("I want to help along my fellow humans but I am not willing to go into the oven or torture Iraqis to do so.")

The fascists and neo-cons are DELIBERATELY PREVENTING AMERICAN'S EVOLUTION WITH IRRATIONAL THEOLOGY,PROPAGANDA, DRUGS, BAD FOOD, AND SLEEP DEPRIVATION TO MAINTAIN A CONTROLLED FEARFUL STATE LEADING TO VIOLENCE.

But they have tipped the balance between fear and hope too far in the direction of fear and they are beginning to lose control. The fearful affect of Pearl Harbor-I mean-9/11 is wearing off and Americans are growing weary of violence as they did during the Vietnam War.

The consequences of the American Fascist Experiment is showing in our obesity, ADD, HDD, depression, and other behavioral challenges taking a toll on our physical and mental health. This is bad for productivity/profits and why even tighter control of the media and a soon-to-be mandatory psychological assessment of public school children's mental health will happen this year with an Orwellian act of Congress called 'The New Freedom Initiative.'

The fascists are figuring out how much they can manipulate us before suffering diminishing return on their abusive tactics.

"Maybe upping the profits of the pharmaceutical industry will kill two birds with one stone. How about some Old-fashioned Blind Faith since being rational leads to noticing the horror of fascism's poverty, torture, and war."

Marx said "Religion is the opiate of the masses." Now religion AND drugs are being prescribed. Both have lethal side-effects.

Just as men and women have evolved to be more like each other to modify previously useful polarized skill sets, now liberals need to be STRONGER ON DEFENSE of themselves and others because this is still a violent and dangerous human world with many less evolved than others.

Liberals have been TOO OPTIMISTIC.
Conservatives, TOO FEARFUL.
Nature rewards those who balance these two driving mechanisms.

Because it's impossible to tune your mandolin while your neighbor throws rocks at you.

Liberals need to figure out how to help Americans EVOLVE without being eliminated themselves.

Please do whatever you can to help your family, friends, co-workers, and Congress EVOLVE ALREADY!

[bloom]

30. looking for a fight - hey?

Worried the humanists are going to get the upper hand promoting ethics?



Nobody was "mocking us and our religions" on this thread until you brought it up.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[AliciaKeyedUp]

36. I too am sorry about Khephra

But I don't remember someone good by hating others.

[Just Me]

41. No one is HATING "you",...are they?

Why are you taking SO PERSONALLY those who are taking a stand for both ethics and laws that religious leaders have FAILED to protect?

Why aren't you acknowledging those who are being passionate about equal application of standards/ethics/laws instead of being so defensive?

Why don't you hold your leadership to the standards it imposes upon the rest of us,...rather than attacking any human being who is an advocate for such standards?

I just don't get you,...unless you are being blindly loyal to a "party" rather than a passionate advocate of those priciples that bind us.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

42. Pretty easy to infer what the poster meant

"Khephra is gone and we still have you."

The summation of your post is, basically, why don't you agree with me?

In short, because I have different beliefs. I believe that religious people and atheists can function in the same society without the banning of religion from every public event or location.

[Zenlitened]

43. It's a pretty effective technique, you have to admit.

Furthers the "persecuted christian" meme quite nicely, puts everyone on the defensive, wrings concessions on behalf of the religionsits, etc.

Tiresome, but effective.

[arwalden]

48. Indeed.

[Cobalt Violet]

34. Your imaging that. There is NOTHING WRONG with the message...

You clearly don't want to hear.

[Harry S Truman]

99. News flash....

Once more, people: There is no god.
The hating is done by people. The loving is done by people. The mess is made by ... that's right, look in the mirror.
Come out of the cave with the fire, and see the real world. It's marvelous. It's beautiful. It's 4.55 billion years old and neither the easter bunny nor the tooth fairy nor some magic man in the sky had anything to do with it.

[Az]

103. Its not so easy

God does not go away so easily and insisting that he should only invites counter protests. The question of gods has been with us for a very very long time and is still unresolved. Great minds have grappled with the issue. I do not presume that my mind is any greater than anothers. It is simply my own. As is yours.

I know it is frustrating. But we do not all arrive at the same place at the same time in this journey. We don't even wind up in the same place necissarily. There are so many paths.

Be an advocate for reason. Be a champion for atheism. But be a positive force for all. Make the journey to your case seem a positive step instead of an attack.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

112. Thanks for saying that

Because clearly that post was an attack and it's what people of faith come to expect from many atheists. I appreciate that you, who disagree so strongly with me, also took it upon yourself to make the point.

[tx_dem41]

131. Very nicely said, Az!

Thanks. I resent how many Atheists make themselves appear so shallow, and hurt the "cause".

[American Tragedy]

166. Well said, Az.

[tx_dem41]

128. Well I guess that's final then.

:eyes:

[truthpusher]

180. Atheism 'is' a religion in my opinion....

...agnosticism is the only true form of atheism. Your insistence that God does not exist is just as troubling as one who insists otherwise. We are all limited and uneducated, especially on the face of a 4.55 billion year old world. There is no way to have all of the answers.

[rodeodance]

18. yes,

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

11. Sign me up for the "secular humanist troops against fundy fascism"

It's about time for those who have commonsense and reasoning abilities to STAND UP to the tide of politico-religious bullshit.

Someone please tell me of a war where a clash of religious ideologies wasn't at the root (at least in part)?

JB

[Malva Zebrina]

12. I think that humanists and liberal Christians have a lot in common

more than they may realize.

There is much in common with which to fight against the policies of George Bush.

They do not have to agree upon such philosophical questions as if a god exists or not, but they can agree, most emphatically on issues of human rights and the elegance and dignity the human being is entitled to pursue.

I think if they can put aside those other philosophical differences, (and that is not impossible), and join together, they can gain power over this regime and oust any neo-con Christian idiology that has infiltrated our government and has contributed to it's fall into fascism.

[rodeodance]

17. last section has some "advances"-------thanks for the post.

From the last section of your article:

.....SOME ADVANCES

However Humanists see some advances over the past year in Europe, Asia and even in Africa where atheists have begun to organize.

In Europe, Vatican efforts to have the EU constitution include a reference to the continent's Christian heritage were blocked. The European Parliament voted to bar a traditionalist Italian Catholic from becoming the new justice commissioner.

France's ban on Muslim headscarves in state schools was imposed in September with few problems, despite warnings that it would unleash protests and alienate many in Europe's largest Islamic minority.

In Spain, the Socialists replaced the Catholic-inspired Popular Party after its decade in power and began a series of secular reforms angering the Church hierarchy, including a move to allow gay marriage.

The Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party lost power in India's general elections to the firmly secular Congress Party. .....

[daleo]

19. The bias against humanism and atheism is deep

I recently was speaking with a self-proclaimed atheist on the subject and even he claimed that fundamentalist Christians can't help it if they respond to a "higher morality". I tried to point out the contradiction in his own statements - maybe I got through.

Although I am a believer of a sort, it doesn't seem lately (or from history) like formal religious observance correlates with practical morality to me. If anything, the converse appears to be true.

[arwalden]

51. Such Behavior Is ACCEPTED and ENCOURAGED...

George HW Bush, Star Jones, Robertson, Falwell... they all vilify and demonize atheists. Paraphrasing here... but we're "evil" or "morally bankrupt" and "untrustworthy" and "not good citizens" who are "not worthy of rights". --- The words vary from person to person, but the meaning is clear.

Yet the zealot Christians claim to be the "victims" of "persecution".

[truthpusher]

69. There are those who have to keep claiming that they are victims...

...in order to keep the eyes off of those who truly suffer.

[girl gone mad]

74. And the reason Reagan and Bush I trusted Osama bin Laden..

in the 80s was that they wrongly believed that no deeply religious person would be capable of any serious wrongdoing. To them, only atheists and agnostics were dangerous.

I sometimes wonder if Bush didn't choose to invade Iraq at least in part because it was a secular country.

[Just Me]

23. It's humiliating that humanists/atheists advocate "supreme" ethics/laws,..

,...which religious leaders (and political heretics) fail to either adhere to or advance.

I was "indocrinated" in Christianity. I explored numerous theological views and the filtered scrolls. I decided the only "religion" I will ever embrace is a simple one: that I love God and God loves me as a member of the human race.

I also decided that God empowered humanity with the free will to create heaven or hell. Hence, humanity can neither BLAME or PRAISE God for what we, ourselves, choose to create.

We are all taking a step into the unknown future. Why don't we do it, together? We would experience so much more quality of life both today and tomorrow,...if we joined, held hands, in this adventure called "life". Why do we choose to make this existence even more difficult?

[Carl Brennan]

49. That sounds like deism. nt.

[RadiDem]

32. GREAT ! "History I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

-Thomas Jefferson, Dec. 6, 1813.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

.

[RandomKoolzip]

72. Can I post this here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2906852

[truthpusher]

75. I agree, but...

...Discourse between rational people's brings understanding and helps us find a middle ground. It also helps me to discover who on this site is really worth listening to. (I like your post by the way, looks like you put some thought into it, far from the mindless flame you see so often on this topic)

[RandomKoolzip]

117. Thank you.

And the last paranthetical sentence is the most apt in this thread and, um, most others of this stripe. (hint, hint)

[KansDem]

90. "...the ideas of secularism survive and spread"

Reuters makes this sound like some kind of virus!

[Az]

92. Ever heard of memes

Virus is not a bad way of describing some such ideas.

[Zenlitened]

120. By the way, the web address of one of the humanist groups...

... mentioned in the article:

International Humanist and Ethical Union
http://www.iheu.org/

(Their home page defaults to news about tsunami relief efforts right now.)

:)

[redqueen]

138. Not to be ironic, but THANK GOD!

Dogma = crap.

[VegasWolf]

147. Excellent, it is about time that dictates about morality arise from reason

rather than some "holy book."

[truthpusher]

179. Are you saying the book is 'holy'?

I just watched a movie called 'Saved' (very good by the way). I wanted to find out the Christian perspective so I googled a site that hated it as well as one that was OK with it. The one that hated it also had a very amusing article on how the NIV version of the bible as well as many other bible versions were evil distortions and how the KJV is the only true bible?

This was an excellent example, to me, of interpretation through bias from experience. The way people feel about their God (or lack there of) has much to do with their own personal experience.

The way I look at it, Christians, Jews, Atheists, etc. are all wrong. Why, because they can not all be right?

The only belief system that I have seen come close to being open to the truth (whatever that may be) is agnosticism (which really isn't an 'ism' at all).

Flame on :grr:

[Zhade]

176. Kick

Kick