Are the Liberal/Atheists and Liberal/Christians politically similar?

[heidler1]

IMO the two groups have a lot in common. I hope it proves out.

[Warpy]

1. Of course we are

We atheists just believe in one god less than the religious liberals do.

That's the only difference.

[54anickel]

2. In my experiences they are, it's the wide spectrum found in-between that go by term "progressive"

where there tends to be greater differences. But at the "liberal" end of the spectrum - politically similar.

[xchrom]

3. i volunteer on aids projects, hunger projects,

political stuff -- always a mixed bag of religious and non religious -- and we all seem to agree on the soutions.

some projects are church started but the people volunteering and doing the work are often nonbelievers.

the episcopal church i go to is a mixed bag.

i kinda like it like that.

[hyphenate]

4. I think so

both believe in progressive ideas, and notwithstanding their choice of whether there is a god or not, they both believe in most of the same progressive politics and ways to implement them.

[Goblinmonger]

5. If I were to sit down with the people I fight with the most on here

and have a beer with them (or whatever beverage of choice) or better yet just meet in real life without knowing who we are on here, we would get along swimmingly. I have no doubts. OK, maybe with 98% of them because I think a couple really are assholes (and I'm not excluding myself from that possibility either though I'm a pretty good guy in real life, IMHO). Of course we are similar. We are both on a very left progressive web site for the long haul (trolls excluded of course).

It's just that pesky religion thing that gets our hairs up.

[UnrepentantUnitarian]

6. If liberalism is more of an attitude than an ideology, then...

I would say that a person's theological leanings are not so important as how they come to them, or how tightly they hold them. Liberal is rooted in the word "liber," which just means liberty, so those of us who believe in the "free way" in religion are all connected, at least to some extent. Of course, those of us who claim to be "thorough-going" religious liberals would take this all the way to the extreme, and would say that you just can't stop the process of free-thinking and critical questioning in mid stream, call "time out," and then say "I believe in freedom, but only up to a point." To some of us, that's what liberal Christians do. They still are unable or unwilling to take that last step and question the very basis for their Christo-centric or Christo-biased paradigms of belief.

Edit: Just to add that I believe the two kind of liberals, the "thorough-going" and "modifying," are able to get along nicely, to walk together and work together for common goals. The Unitarian Universalists, for example (representing the first type of liberal) are close to the United Church of Christ (which represents the second type), and are closely agreed with one another on many issues.

[moez]

7. I don't know...

Even here on our boards, I've found liberal atheists to say the most hateful, intolerant things of ALL Christians - both right and left.

[ZombieHorde]

8. Someone created a unity thread for atheists and Christians, thank God you tried to stop it. nt

[moez]

9. Oh sorry - you're right....

this one thread will obviously smooth over all of the hateful anti-Christian things that are spewed here by the board's atheists.... bad move on my part.

[ZombieHorde]

10. No, good move on your part. nt

[PassingFair]

18. You can't BUY that type of exposure!

;)

[dmallind]

28. Sure...it's all one way isn't it?

Trust me if I call you delusional it's not because you're religious, it's because of this silly "my side is innocent and good and the other is evil and hateful" crap that is no different from the kill 'em all jingoism of the far right.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

13. Way to harsh the vibe, dude.

[trotsky]

20. WWJD?

Shit on his neighbor, apparently.

[hendo]

27. they do so all the time

even if we agree with them on other issues.

[Why Syzygy]

11. Yes.

Equality and humanity for all are foundational for both of us. We have been tricked into allowing the extremists call the shots. They make the news, and fund laws which restrict liberty, quality of life and safety.


People often question my conclusion that American evangelicalism is shifting to become more tolerant and open-minded. Here’s a new study (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1817217,00.html) that finds something beyond even what I would have thought: 57 percent of self-identified evangelicals agree that “many religions,” not just their own, can lead to eternal salvation. Even among “traditionalists,” 50 percent agree.

Peter Berger, University Professor of Sociology and Theology at Boston University, said that the poll confirms that “the so-called culture war, in its more aggressive form, is mainly waged between rather small groups of people.”

What does this mean?

Liberals and conservatives will interpret the numbers in different ways, says Pew’s Green. “The liberal is that Americans are becoming more universalistic, religiously. The conservative one is that Americans are losing faith and becoming more accommodationist.” But he says the truth may lie elsewhere. “Just because they don’t want to believe that there’s only one way to salvation doesn’t meant that they don’t take their religion very seriously.”
http://getraptureready.com/blog/
Comment:Anyway, that same study above also reported that 21% of self-identified atheists also said they believed there was a God, so it just may be a case of some ignorant folks latching on to labels and having no idea what those labels mean(6 percent of the atheists even said they believe in a personal God).


I would also add, that "salvation" is not even the key here. Some people just do not care about it. The key is allowing freedom.

[heidler1]

12. Did you notice that the first up thread stone came from a Christian?

[Why Syzygy]

14. Yeppers.

And, I have seen a lot of Christians being cast in the same tone as fundamentalists.
It has probably been turned the other direction as well.

A stand-off situation is a stumbling block to accomplish what we SAY we believe in, i.e. an enlightened civilization.
But, you and I, as well as others here, are showing that compromise is possible. Aren't we?

The author I continue to mention, claimed that those of us on the left are always seeking ways to *communicate*/liaison with the extremists. Isn't that the world in a nut shell. He found that some are so extreme, they have no interest in mutual benefits. Humans sometimes seem to have an insatiable drama gene. He later concludes that the best hope there is in reaching the fundamentalists is to be accomplished by the liberals of each divide. Liberal Christians are just as fed up with the fundies as anyone else on the left is.

Thanks for this thread :applause:

[heidler1]

16. You inspired me todo it in your Peter Singer post.

[knitter4democracy]

15. I know that we do.

I've seen liberals of all faiths/non-faith/lifepaths get together and work together. Just in my old DFA group, we had evangelicals, Episcopalians, atheists, agnostics, and one crazy Orthodox knitter lady, and we not only all got along and worked well together, but we became friends.

If we focus on what binds us, we're fine. :)

[Evoman]

17. Yeah, except for the religioius stuff, I think.

For the most part, we are the same.

However, I do think liberal christians have a tendency to excuse or even defend religion in the government, as long as it's not outright "fundamentalist". The main difference is that many atheists don't want ANY religion...not just replacing batshit crazy christianity with christianity-lite.

[54anickel]

19. So much of "liberal christianity" overlaps secular social justice issues though. Can you give some

examples of what you mean by christianity-lite? It could be that some liberal christians might even agree with you on those points as well. :shrug:

[Evoman]

21. Sure. I'll give some examples.

Steel memorial crosses put up by highway patrol.

God written on money and pledges.

Prayer meetings or group prayers during work time of government officials.

Religious oaths of office.

Government funding for "faith-based organizations".

Federal funding for denominational schools.

Support for vice laws.

Pro-life regulations

Support for laws prohibiting certain scientific research (stem cells, "human-animal hybrids", etc) based on religious objections.


Now I want to make clear that not every christian supports every thing here. Some may not agree with any of these. However, I have seen several times where liberal christians called atheist objections of the above "pout-rage" or "whining" or "religion-hating". Again, it's not that they WANT religion controlling things, it's just that they aren't really serious about a complete separation of church and state, because some religion might be good in small amounts.

[Goblinmonger]

22. No gay marriage, too.

No reason for that other than religion.

[54anickel]

24. I think there are other reasons as well. Homophobia, bigotry, hatred, just plain

stupidity, - some based on religion, some not.

[54anickel]

23. Thank you for the examples.

I'd agree with that list, although the last 3 items would need clarification. I'd agree if what we are talking about is based on religious objections, but there can be just as much of a "societal good" or ethics argument for the last three that would have little or nothing to do with religion.

Vice laws, such as banning smoking in confined, public areas is a national health issue. That's the first "vice" that comes to my head, being a recovering cigarette smoker.

I prefer to use the term "Reproductive Choice" issues instead of the politically charged Pro-life regulations. I'm totally against pro-life regulations, but I am a member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Check it out sometime - http://www.rcrc.org

I share the stance of the RCRC on Bioethics and Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
Placing obstacles in the way of life-saving research with embryonic stem cells that are already created and will be destroyed is misguided. In the case of existing embryos that will be destroyed, providing adequate federal funding for research is, in our view, fully consistent with respect for human life.

I personally don't agree that some religion might be good in small amounts. However, I do feel social responsibility, ethics and respect for one another's humanity do have a place in the social discourse. How we define what those are is where there may be continued disagreement.

I certainly wouldn't consider objections to your list of items as "pout-rage" or "whining" or "religion-hating". Then again, maybe that makes me a "Bad Christian" or maybe even, Heavens to Murgatroyd!...a non-christian.

[Evoman]

25. I'm at work, so I can't type too much, but I just want to point out

that there have been many times where somebody posted objections about religion on money or on public property and it started huge flame war. If you've ever heard the words "We can't waste time with that issue" or "We've got more important things to tackle" or "We can't talk about that issue, or we won't win" or "once we win, we will deal with that" or "we won, and will deal with that, but you need to be patient...", then it was most likely uttered by one of the people I was talking about. People who seem to have no problem with a little religion with their government.

[54anickel]

26. GET BACK TO WORK!!!

I think I understand what you are saying now. People who seem to have no problem with a little religion with their government meaning they'll turn a blind eye rather than make some of your points part of the political platform. Pander to those "Christian nation/nation of Christians" believers to win the race.

It does seem hypocritical to constantly say "choose your battles wisely" then choose not to enter the fray at all. I've always been one of those "behind the scenes" workers. I'm less worried about my issues becoming part of the "official" public platform than I am about my behind the scenes organizations being taken seriously.

You're right though, there just doesn't appear to be a lot of interest at this point in time in organizing movements to remove "religion" from our money or public property. My guess is that it's more a matter of priorities and backing. You must admit that there is more talk and support for separation of church and state with regards to everything you've listed than there has been in the past. Undoing three decades of religious-right-wing-nuttery is going to take some time. I think we've done a fairly decent job of getting our ducks in a row, now it's time to pick them off one by one. Some through legislation, some through continued discourse and education to change the public mindset.