The Hypocisy of the supposedly ultra-tolerant DUers

[Perky]

Whether or not one chooses to believe in God should not be treated with the disdain those that do believe.

To suggest that anyone who believes in God is an ignorant boob only reinforces middle america's view of Democrats in general... that we are both areligious and amoral with its power centers in Boston and San Francisco rather than Indianapolis, Denver and Atlanta

I realize that the wingnuts have made conservatism a litmus test for Christianity. Its very sad and certainly pharasaical. But that is hardly enough reason to call all that choose to believe in a higher power: ignoranant.

I trust that we will be a little more open to varying views on faith and morality than the fundies: lest we confirm in words and deed what they say about us.

Perhaps you do not care: I do.

And like it or not Middle America does. And if you want to win elections. you need to be more tolerant of people who do not think like you.

[tx_dem41]

1. Spot on!

Thanks for the thoughts.

[matcom]

2. the disdain is not aimed at your beliefs

the disdain is having those beliefs shoved down my throat every minute of every day. (not by you specifically but by society)


the disdain comes from a government who denies potential scientific breakthroughs because of a religious "belief"

the list goes on and on and on

[Perky]

Well so much for staying away from Hyperbole

But take a look at the posting of the last 20 hours in the supposed bastion of tolerance. The religious right does not talk about liberals the way Liberals talk about Christians.

Its ugly and disheartening to those of on the left who belive,

[trotsky]

12. Say what?

The religious right does not talk about liberals the way Liberals talk about Christians.

Are you kidding me? Have you ever browsed at FreeRepublic?

Good grief, what they level at Democrats, liberals, or anyone left of Attila the Hun absolutely dwarfs what is said about Christians here.

[smirkymonkey]

31. Hasn't the religious "right" all but condoned killing

liberals and athiests? Wasn't thier some religious leader who suggested this in a round-about way? I don't remember the exact example, but the sentiment was the same.

[matcom]

40. they certainly have condoned killing brown people

who aren't "Christian" enough to be American

[212demop]

71. and the recently elected rep w/ killing abortion dr's among his wishes

but it's fundamentalism tthat's the problem and ideologues- not religion or religious people, very different.

[regnaD kciN]

218. True...

...but the number of DUers who automatically equate "Christianity" with fundamentalism, ignoring the sizeable group of liberal Christians both here and nationwide, is rather striking. Also a bit insulting, since it de facto seems to endorse the right-wing's meme that the only true Christians are fundamentalists, and that any liberals who profess the Christian path are either insufficiently committed to their beliefs, deceiving themselves about the nature of Christianity, or both.

:grr:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

327. You can blame the fundies for that

"HEY EVERYBODY!!! CHRISTIAN = WE, AND DON'T YOU FORGET THAT!"

[trotsky]

44. Many of the far-right fringe groups take this position.

The Christian Identify movement makes no bones about their goals - to transform the United States into a fundamentalist Xian theocracy where Levitical Law is enforced, with biblically-recommended punishments.

Meaning adultery, atheism, homosexuality, etc. all punished by death.

[starroute]

212. I think you mean the Christian Reconstructionists

The Christian Identity movement is a racist cult common among neo-Nazi and militia types -- just as bad but in a different way. See:

http://www.publiceye.org/rightist/idennlns.html
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c106.html

[ixat]

319. Hahahahah, they believe that whites are the descendants

of ancient Israelites, and have thus inherited all God's promises to Abraham and his descendants.

Ixat: "Look at my nose. It's big, isn't it? And I'm kinda swarthy and Middle-Eastern looking, right?"
Christian Identifist: "Urg-urg (translation: yes)."
Ixat: "Yeah... That means I have a 100 times better chance of actually being a descendant of an ancient Israelite than your white ass. Sorry!"

[m berst]

459. this is very important

I am calling the movement the Dominionist movement, as suggested by Katherine Yurica, to include the whole broad theocratic movement. Also the word is a little easier to use and remember and a little more sinister I think. This isn't about Christianity, it is about totalitarianism. It isn't about religion, it is about politics. That is why I argue with DUers about how they see Christianity, although they can only hear it as a defense of Christianity. They underestimate and misidentify the threat with talk about religious idiots, fundies, superstitions, fairy tales etc. This is deadly serious, and isn't really about religious nut jobs. It is about propaganda and a grab for total political power. Christianity is just the trimming on the tree, so to speak, to dazzle the masses, like the Nazi nationalistic symbolism and rituals.

You couldn't have stopped the Nazis by being against German nationalism, and you can't stop the American theocracy by being against Christianity. In the first case, the statement is not in support of German nationalism, and nor is the second in support of Christianity. In both cases, it is the republic and democracy that is being supported by the statement.

DUers bashing Christianity are like liberals in Germany in the 30's bashing German nationalism - you may be right, but it won't work.

Katherine Yurica has been doing good research on this subject -

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheSwiftAdvanceOfaPlannedCoup.htm">Conquering by Stealth and Deception
How the Dominionists Are Succeeding in Their Quest for National Control and World Power

<snip>

Since the writing and posting of my essay, The Despoiling of America in February 2004, there is more and more evidence that not only has a cultural war been launched, but that the plotters are winning it. “Dominionism” now looks more like a term that is applicable to both right-wing-religious believers and to the neo-cons who were created and born in an astonishing resurgence of an immoral Machiavellianism: both groups believe in domination and control. While religious adherents adopted a decidedly heretical Christian doctrine,<1> the neo-cons continue to use the American churches to help execute their cabal. It was expressed this way by a Yurica Report talk board participant:

“One of the more sinister aspects of the current crisis is the influence of Leo Strauss on the pro-war, “neo-cons” who are determining so much of our foreign policy. While the Christian right thinks it is running the show, Leo Strauss’ irreligious philosophy is actually in control. Strauss believed that the rulers should not be religious, but should use religion to manage the people — which he evidently regarded as a stupid herd. He also believed that a state of war was great for controlling and directing the masses. So it’s all come together: the weirdest book of the bible , with its mysterious disasters; the scheming behind the scenes warmongers and an incident of terrorism that has served admirably as the Project for a New American Century’s hoped-for ‘new Pearl Harbor.’” Adrien Rain

Americans and the main-stream media have been very slow in catching on to the fact that we are in a war—a war that is cultural, religious and political. One document not mentioned in The Despoiling of America is the closeted manual that reveals how the right wing in American politics can get and keep power. It was created under the tutelage of Paul Weyrich, the man who founded the Free Congress Foundation. Conservative leaders consider Weyrich to be the “most powerful man in American politics today.” There is no question of his immense influence in conservative circles. He is also considered the founder of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank made possible with funding from Joseph Coors and Richard Mellon-Scaife. Weyrich served as the Founding President from 1973-1974.

<snip>

[Cronus Protagonist]

314. I have audio of that

Apparently, liberals, gays, feminists, and more are responsible for 9/11

http://cronus.com/ (see audio connections)




http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[AngryOldDem]

167. Wow.

That's going some, then, on FR. Because what I've found here of late has been quite repellent.

I wish I could get my DU donation back, as a matter of fact.

If you have a beef with specific people in a religion, bash them. Don't bash the faith in general. It's -- dare I say it? -- intolerant and ignorant.

[trotsky]

232. And if you can find where I have specifically bashed ALL of Xianity

please point it out to me so I can make amends.

Accuse someone of something they didn't do - isn't there a commandment about that?

[AngryOldDem]

418. Was I accusing you specifically?

Sorry, but I don't recognize you from any of the other 4,000 people who post here. I know that's an ego-crusher, but deal with it.

Do an advanced search on any religious topic that appears on any forum -- for a start, try Catholicism on LBN -- and see how quickly these threads go from a discussion of the topic at hand to general faith bashing.

I'm not stupid. I can read. There IS a marked intolerance toward Christianity here that would NOT be tolerated if it were directed toward any other group. The fact that there is such a hue and cry whenever this is pointed out speaks for itself.

(BTW, the fact that you don't spell out Christianity, using the X instead, is seen by some as an affront. Just thought you'd like to know.)

[trotsky]

422. People who see that as an affront

are totally ignorant of the history of their own religion. The Greek letter chi (X) was used to stand for Christ centuries ago. Just thought you'd like to know.

Anyway, what you said was:

"If you have a beef with specific people in a religion, bash them. Don't bash the faith in general. It's -- dare I say it? -- intolerant and ignorant."

Were you using the hypothetical "you"? Sorry but you didn't make that clear. You were posting a direct reply to me, and so I just wanted you to justify your attack. You backed off, so that's OK.

[regnaD kciN]

217. Non-sequiter alert!

Good grief, what they level at Democrats, liberals, or anyone left of Attila the Hun absolutely dwarfs what is said about Christians here.

So, because group A (freepers) insults group B (liberals), it's O.K. for group B to attack group C (Christians)?

:crazy:

That's a little like saying that, since fundamentalists attack gays, one shouldn't complain if, say, gays started attacking African-Americans...

[trotsky]

228. Strawman alert!

I never said that ANYTHING at FreeRepublic made things OK here. But you and another poster have BOTH accused me of saying that, and then attacked me for doing so.

Go back and read what I responded to. The o.p. said that the "religious right does not talk about liberals the way Liberals talk about Christians."

That statement is blatantly false, as a cursory read of FreeRepublic will show. That is all I said, and I resent you reading more into it.

[m berst]

289. that comparison may be off

In my experience, DU is much more representative of the average Democratic voter than FR is of the average Republican voter or the average Christian. I can find all kinds of Democrats offline who talk about Christians the way that DUers do, but hardlt any Christians or Republicans offline who talk about liberals the way the people at FR do.

I don't think FR is very representative (thank God).

[trotsky]

324. I dunno about that.

I worked with a group of Republicans who basically embodied FreeRepublic. Bush was a god who could do no wrong, "Democraps" were completely misguided and fools at best, and evil traitors at worst, etc. These guys LOVED Ann Coulter, Haynutty, etc.

It all depends on your experience, I guess.

[m berst]

329. thousands of towns, thousands of churches

I toured as a performer for years all over the country. I was in all kinds of churches, from poor ethnic Catholic parishes to Evangelical churches in eastern Kentucky, and in African American churches in the Northern cities. I talked to probably tens of thousands of Christians over the years. FR is representative of one in a thousand at most, I think. The antagonism that I experienced at the hands of Northern liberals over the years for being a Christian, far, far outweighs the antagonism I ever experienced from Christians for being a liberal. It would be easier if that weren't true, because we would have a simplistic formula for telling the good guys from the bad guys.

I suppose that you will imagine that I am pushing or selling something with my observations here, but I am not. I don't especially care about liberals bashing Christians, nor am I defending or espousing Christianity. My sole point is to discuss a weakness in the Democratic party that is preventing liberal and progressive ideas from reaching much of the public. The bigotry against Christianity among liberals is destroying liberalism, it isn't hurting Christianity.

[trotsky]

335. No, fundamentalist Christianity is what's hurting Christianity.

I just find it confusing how many liberal Xians think that even mild criticism of their religion is an attack.

And I would ask them to take a look at how right-wingers view them compared to us evil liberal atheists who think that the liberal agenda can stand on its own quite nicely without being lumped with any sort of religion.

One group thinks you're evil and going to hell.

The other thinks, at worst, you're just misguided and foolish.

And yet here at DU, the latter seems to get attacked far more than the former.

[m berst]

341. you misread

This isn't about Christianity and what is or isn't hurting it. I said that your attacks on Christianity are hurting the Democratic party, and that the Democratic party and liberalism are my concerns, not Christianity.

[hyphenate]

344. I can't agree with that evaluation at all

But I have found it very difficult in many ways to be around some Christians who would shoot me if they knew I was an atheist or agnostic. One company I worked at was filled with Christians--good Christians doing a lot of community work, benefits, charitable donations and other such things. I respected and admired them. But I also found it very difficult to say anything about my own beliefs around them, simply because their attitude toward those who were "nonbelievers" was antagonistic or patronizing at best. My friend likes to tell me that she has Pat Robertson praying for me. That I'm considered a "lost cause" or a "lost sheep" to be cared for. Frankly I think they're the ones who are "lost" but I don't argue with these people because it's not high on my priority list. I am more apt to simply ignore those who think I'm somehow "less" than they are because I don't believe in the same things.

On the other hand, once these people use their loud voices to try to dictate policy in this country, it raises my hackles as it should, because I don't want those attitudes to shape our future society where one can be shunned simply because their beliefs are different or in opposition to the "official" religion of the country. Remember that those who help found American came here because of religious persecution in their homelands--we really do not need to see that spectre of intolerance raised once again in our country.

[m berst]

349. it depends

Non-Christians see the most vocal and the most obnoxious Chritsians as representative of the entire group. Christians see the most vocal and the most obnoxious liberals as representative of the entire group. And in both cases, the most vocal and the most obnoxious are more than happy to claim to be representative of the group. But just as we know that the right wing caricatures of liberals that are based on the isolated and the unusual are wrong, so too the liberal caricatures of Christians are inaccurate.

Again, I don't say this to defend Christianity, rather to point out a weakness among liberals that is hampering efforts to advance liberal ideas and positions.

[TankLV]

372. Bullshit. It's saying if group A STARTS attacking group B, THEN DON'T BE

SURPRISED WHEN GROUP B FIGHTS BACK!

I'm sick and tired of turning the other cheek. I'm vow now to start giving back EXACTLY what I receive.

That's like the bullshit complaining about us Democrats and Gays for bringing up gay marriage. Only problem with bullshit such as yours is like gay marriage - "we" didn't "bring it up" - THEY and the their "christian" hatemongers did!

[sangh0]

425. NO, it's saying if Group A STARTS attacking group B

then Group B shouldn't attack Group C.

Note: Group A = right-wing fundies
Group B = liberals
Group C = liberal and moderate Christians

[TankLV]

371. Talk about bullshit - has Perky ever visited TBN!

That hate-filled hypocritical scumbag "religious" network takes the cake 24/7.

Has Perky ever heard Limpballs? Coulter? Robertson? Fallwell? THe Pope?

God this person lives in another universe from the one I have been in!

So, I guess to hate bigotry and bigots and hatemongers is wrong?

Blaming the victum comes easy to Perky.

Perky is lost and needs to join that other site.

[datasuspect]

13. what planet have you been living on?

I can't believe you said this: "The religious right does not talk about liberals the way Liberals talk about Christians."

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Perky]

19. I was talking about the many wingnuts I interact with

in my church life.. I have found ways to converse with on political issues and they are perusadable and not mean spirited

[m berst]

293. hang in there

I have been close to the Christian community for decades and your observations are correct. People here don't so much disagree as they aren't hearing what you are saying and are reacting.

Everyday Christians and Republicans are often, and as a general rule, far more tolerant than liberals and Democrats are in casual settings, and far more civil. I think this needs to be discussed, but it may not be pretty.

One of the biggest ironies of the American political situation, and one of the greatest hopes for getting out of the mess we are in, is the way in which the party of tolerance has given people license to be intolerant, and the way in which tolerant people have been co-opted into intolerant political movements. There will be enormous resistance to discussing this, but it is important I think.

[TankLV]

373. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. YOU see what YOU want to see.

I believe in a God. I have no problem with any person who believes in a higher power. It's the self-proclaimed messianic cultists who try to convert others when they don't need or want it, and who hate - yes hate - no matter what code words they use to justify their hatred of others.

Most "christian" churches I've seen is full of intolerant smiling fundies who couch their hatred and bigotry in code words.

Love the "sinner" but not the "sin". Well I'm not a "sinner" and do not "sin". Get a fucking clue!

Everyday "Christians" and definitely Republicans ARE intolerant asswipes. That's the truth.

Don't know which planet YOUR living on.

They feel "sorry" for us. They "pray" for us. It's certainly not because they "love" us - it's because THEY believe there's something terribly WRONG with us that needs FIXING.

[m berst]

401. certainly

I see what I see. I rarely see what I want to see, unfortunately, and it sounds as though you are not seeing what you would prefer to see, either. So we are on the same side, ultimately. We both abhor what is happening.

I am interested in what you have seen and what your experiences have been.

There is definitely a wave of hatred and intolerance flowing through the society, and much of it is focused around Christianity. I am talking about analyzing it intelligently so that it can be effectively fought against, yet people keep taking that as speaking for the other side and start arguing with me.

I think that many of the people sitting in those pews sucked into this insanity can be brought to their senses. I am not asking you, or anyone else to compromise, to change your beliefs, or to be tolerant of hatred and bigotry.

It could come down to a civil war, or something like that. Is there any harm in trying to explore alternatives to that? Any alternative would have to start with a better understanding - not tolerance, not compliance, not submission, not sympathy - understanding. Any thing that leads to a better understanding has to be a good thing for everyone.

There are a handful of people -far, far too few - who are talking to both worlds, and we are offering our insights and our help in stopping the dangers of theocracy and growing religious persecution, rather than screaming at us as though we were the enemy, why not talk to us as allies. We are allies. The point is not to do anything for Christianity, it is to help the persecuted and to help the Democratic party and liberalism.

You have a few "moles" so to speak on the inside of the "enemy" and those moles are offering you their help. God knows, I would never want to go through a thread like this if it weren't for love of country, love of my fellow citizens, and a commitment to liberal principles. This has NOTHING to do with pushing, or apologizing for, any religious faith.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[datasuspect]

23. well you can play kissyface with them

i think these people are out for blood and will not be happy until they convert the united states into a christian theocracy.

as far as mean-spiritedness goes, the right-wing radical christian fundamentalists are some of the most vile people i have ever run across.

[sangh0]

72. Then you fell for the media hype

This may surprise you but FreeRepublic is a part of the media. It is owned and operated by republican operatives for the express purpose of promoting an ideology, and doing so loudly. It is part and parcel of the right's attempt to portray themselves as greater in number than they really are.

And by saying that FreeRepublic is more representative of the right-wing than the people Perky meets day in and day out, you repeat and support their claims to be the true representatives of the right.

[datasuspect]

78. you are the one who brought up free republic

i didn't mention it.

i "buy" very little.

[sangh0]

84. You brought up their caricature

Read what you wrote. It's based on the caricature that FR promotes. Those of us who actually know some of these people realize that FR is not typical. Neither is your caricature.

Your caricature is based on how the far-right has promoted the perception that far-right is conservatice. It's based on the Falwell's, Dobson's, Ralph Reed's and other "Christian" Theo-cons performances in the media. It's not based on the behavior and attitudes of the more typical Christian conservative.

[datasuspect]

86. i'm not making a caricature

i make my statements on what i see going down in this country everyday. what i see in my own backyard.

one network affiliate here devotes close to 5 minutes toward religious/faith-based "news" at the top of the broadcast. right after the headline summary part and before weather, sports, and the lifestyle segment.

i don't know where you live, but i live in the sewer of southeast texas and i have to deal with these slack jawed mouth breathers every day.

they're not just on television or the internet.

but i do think you are very nice for sticking up for the regressives, i mean conservatives.

[sangh0]

97. So your "backyard" is a "network affiliate"?

Like I said, your perceptions of the religious right were generated by the media.

i don't know where you live, but i live in the sewer of southeast texas and i have to deal with these slack jawed mouth breathers every day.

You might want to consider the possibility that E Texas is not representative of the rest of the nation.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

105. In East Texas

I noticed you never responded to the possibility that East Texas is not representative of the majority.

funny, i never presumed to tell you what you believe.

Actually, you did. You said I wanted to defend regressives.

But Inever did that. I only referred to how your beliefs about the religious right were formed.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

114. You're the one fixated on East Texas

and you're the one who brought it up. And I noticed you STILL haven't said whether you think ET is representative of the majority

did you notice you didn't ask me about how my beliefs were formed?

Why should I ask when you already told us?

no, you straight up TOLD ME HOW MY BELIEFS ARE FORMED.

No, you straight up TOLD ME. You spoke of what some network affiliate broadcast, and about your experiences in ET. I'm going by what you said influenced your beliefs. If you left something out, you're free to add whatever else has influenced you.

that's pure arrogance, assumption, and ad hominem attack.

You might want to do some research on "ad hominem attack"

[tx_dem41]

122. Why I'm getting involved with this is beyond me, but...

... he is not taking as stance as a rw cheerleader. I see the distinction between that and defending against your perceptions of religion.

Now, back to regular programming.

[sangh0]

130. Thank you

That was very gracious of you considering the differences we are having down below.

[tx_dem41]

135. We're having differences?

;)

[sangh0]

140. A minor difference

Not a fight. And I see you've responded to my point. Again, thank you.

[datasuspect]

131. this is what i said:

and i used a lot of qualifiers.

"right-wing radical christian fundamentalists are some of the most vile people i have ever run across. "

i stand by it.

i did not say all christians are vile, just a rather large subset of them.

mmkay?

naturally, if i see someone on this board who thinks the right-wing radical christian fundamentalists need to be understood or tolerated, i'll think of them of rw cheerleaders and will take what they say with a grain of salt.

[sangh0]

137. Then here's what caused the confusion

"right-wing radical christian fundamentalists are some of the most vile people i have ever run across. "

In the post you responded to, Perky spoke of the religious conservatives s/he has encountered in real life. You were speaking of the religious conservatives YOU have met in real life. They are two different groups, but due to a misunderstanding, we have all thought we were talking about the same group of rabid right-wing theo-cons.

naturally, if i see someone on this board who thinks the right-wing radical christian fundamentalists need to be understood or tolerated, i'll think of them of rw cheerleaders and will take what they say with a grain of salt

I don't think Perky was calling for us to treat those rabid religious theo-cons with understanding. I think Perky was calling on us to treat non-rabid, non-theocratical, conservative Christians with understanding.

[Occulus]

195. Why should we?

I'm gay. They don't treat me with one single iota of understanding.

There's turning the other cheek, and then there's letting people walk all over you because you don't want to offend their religious sensibilities. The problem is, the people we're talking about here see the former as permission for the latter.

I have a specific term for a certain, very narrowly-defined class of Xtian. (They are NOT Christians by any definition of the term.)

Talibornagain. *swish*

What many people here who get offended by so-called "Christian bashing" don't understand is that when we deride such people, we're not deriding any Christian believers. We're deriding the exact same forces in Christianity that make a parallel analog to Wahabbism (sp?) possible.

Again, this is a very narrowly defined group of people with specific character traits, people using their religion as a means to an ideological end. That it is as anti-Christian as anything they've ever called "anti-Christian" escapes them completely.

Bonus points if you can list some of the character traits I'm talking about.

[NNguyenMD]

342. that guy you were talking to is a repeated internet troll

I've had a history with him, trust me you're better off just responding to him with "TROLL ALERT"

[sangh0]

368. Ad just yesterday you PM'd me begging me to leave you alone

Now you're jumping in and lobbing insults.

Have it your way, dude

[sangh0]

369. Read carefully

I'm gay. They don't treat me with one single iota of understanding.

Perky wasn't talking about tolerating the rabid right-wing religious nutjobs. Perky was talking about tolerating non-rabid and non-right-wing religious people. They don't treat you the way the fundies do.

What many people here who get offended by so-called "Christian bashing" don't understand is that when we deride such people, we're not deriding any Christian believers.

Since you seem to have misunderstood who Perky was talking about, why is it so hard to consider the possibility that sometimes non-rabid, non-right-wing Christians sometimes make that same sort of mistake, and don't realize that you're talking about some Christians, and not all of them?

[tx_dem41]

138. Well, for one thing, there is a big difference between "understood" and..

..."tolerated". Of course they should be "understood" if you are in a political contest with them.

[datasuspect]

141. i mean "understanding"

in the sense of having sympathy for them. which i do not have.

[tx_dem41]

144. See my post below.

[tx_dem41]

142. Maybe I "misunderstood" what you meant by "understood".

Sorry if I did. Anyway, its probably irrelevant to the discussion.

[m berst]

302. why say it that way?

You say -

"right-wing radical christian fundamentalists are some of the most vile people i have ever run across. "

Would it not be more accurate, and less bigoted, to say -

"some of the most vile people i personally have ever run across in East Texas happened to be right-wing radical christian fundamentalists."

[TankLV]

376. No - the statement stands perfectly fine on it's own.

What you are doing is trying to excuse a group of hateful persons.

"right-wing radical christian fundamentalists are some of the most vile people i have ever run across"

That statement is perfect and needs no excuses.

And I will add - I will make it one of my supreme efforts to marginalize them and return them to their holier than thou woodwork from which they crawled out of. If one is intolerant of me, don't expect me to be tolerant of them.

Why are you trying to excuse such behavior by trying to minimalize their uniform hatred of others and their uniform belief that the rest of us is somehow corrupt and needs curing or fixing?

[m berst]

398. you're kidding, yes?

You can't mean what you are saying.

If this is how you truly feel, then I as a lifetime committed Democrat will have to stand against you, and will go so far as to say that I don't recognize you as a fellow Democrat or liberal.

You say "their" uniform hatred, yet you are recommending uniform hatred in return against all of them. You say that you resent them seeing you as corrupt and needing curing and fixing, yet you see them the same way it seems.

Who are "they" and how shall we identify them so we know whom to hate?

I assume by your hostile tone that I am now one of them for you.

[datasuspect]

444. because my experience is not limited to east texas

i am from chicago and have travelled extensively througout the united states.

why are you seeking to limit the extent of my experience?

that seems like a groundless assumption.

[knight_of_the_star]

221. I seem to remember something about assuming

I think it goes like, "Don't assume, it makes an ass out of you and me."

I find it very rich that you are painting Sangh0 with such a broad brush as a rw cheerleader considering they have been here for nearly a year longer than you have.

[datasuspect]

226. and this means what?

i'm really not assuming anything, just calling things like i see them.

feel free to disagree with my words, but what does my post count have to do with this? does this give me any less validity than you think you have?

my humblest apologies for being in the low post count ghetto . . .

congrats to all of you for finding this site sooner than i have.

now, do you have anything of value to say?

[knight_of_the_star]

238. Yes, I do

You are painting sangh0 and the rest of the faith in question with an incredibly broad brush. You are implying that all Christians are like what you have experienced and are ignoring the fact that your experience is limited to a ver conservative part of the country. You are attacking someone as being a "rw cheerleader" even though they have been on here for nearly a year longer than you have. You want to say you are calling things as you see them yet you are overgeneralizing and stereotyping repeatedly.

And by the way, if you want to break out any of those tired old lines you used before on me, I am a Pagan and have every reason in the world to hate the Religious Reich, I just don't say that every christian is part of it. You seem to have a hard time drawing that distinction, based on your posts. And by the way, stereotyping and ad hominem are serious fallacies of logic.

[datasuspect]

244. did you bother to read what i wrote?

i said this (and i heavily qualified the statement too):

"right-wing radical christian fundamentalists are some of the most vile people i have ever run across."

i made statement about a very virulent and large subset of christians in this country.

i am from chicago, and have travelled the united states FREQUENTLY, i ONLY live in texas, so please don't set me up with your presuppositions about my "limited experience."

i did not make a blanket generalization about christians (cf. above reference quotation).

please know what you are talking about before you lambaste somebody.

please point out my SPECIFIC stereotypes and generalizations. sometimes i get hasty with typing and might have left out qualifying statements, and if i have, i offer you my humblest and most sincere apologies.

[knight_of_the_star]

248. Oh here's one

A bit further down in this thread:

"The average atheist is more moral than the average christian"

That sounds like stereotyping.

So does calling someone a RW cheerleader.

Care to defend those? They sound like stereotypes and generalizations, not to mention ad hominem.

[datasuspect]

249. they probably are

and like i said, if i left something out, said something inflammatory, or failed to qualify something, i offered you my apologies. what else do you want? do you want me banned? do you want me to go away?

i'll go ahead and make a blanket apology TO ANYONE i might have offended.

please tell me what your motivation is in this, i'm really interested to hear.

do you have any further points?

would you like to search my entire post history for things i might have said that didn't pass muster with you?

and anyway, sangh0 was putting words in my mouth - that's why i got angry and applied the rw cheerleader label.

was that wrong?

yes.

i guess my feet are made of clay. is there any part of your pagan beliefs that deal with forgiveness or the fallibility of a man?

[knight_of_the_star]

254. Prove it

If you want to make blanket declarations about entire groups of people, don't be surprised if people question your intellectual integrity for doing so. Blanket declarations are the kinds of things the Right Wingers you so profess to dislike do often.

"i guess my feet are made of clay. is there any part of your pagan beliefs that deal with forgiveness or the fallibility of a man?"

That first part makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Second, my beliefs talk about striving to achieve the best you possibly can and sticking closely to what you believe in and not sinking to the level of those you claim to despise.

I'm not asking for you to be banned or apologize, since it seems to me that you don't seem to be someone who will. What I'm asking is you excercise some intelligence in your arguments.

A thought for you to consider,

"In defeating the enemy you become him, have you truly won?"

[m berst]

300. this is no choice

Are you saying that we all need to pick one - hating the "slack jawed mouth breathers" or embracing the views of Robertson and Dobson? I reject both. They seem to be the same thing to me with different labels and adjectives.

It is malicious and intolerant to say that anyone who disagrees with you on this is defending regressives.

[m berst]

296. yet you say "they"

Where do you get your concept of "they" if you have not bought into a stereotype that is at odds with what Perky and I are seeing in real life?

Hating a "them" is the heart and soul of intolerance. Saying that you hate "them" because they hate you is the same excuse that has always been used for intolerance and bigotry. The Nazis claimed that the Jews were out to get them and that they were only acting in self-defense.

[Ardee]

127. Last I heard

Freerepublic was owned solely by one man, a right winger to be certain...He appeared one day on a political forum in which I participated,(Fresh Press), made a response or three and disappeared.....seemed intelligent but narrowly focussed....

[sangh0]

143. Where do you think he gets the money for FR?

Look at who contributes articles to them, and you should be able to guess who is subsidizing them

[Ardee]

168. He made about 150K per year

but this was a couple of years ago...Where that money comes from is unknown to me, and I would guess to you as well.

Of course the articles and postings are extreme right wing ideology, thats the purpose of the place you know. That, and the popularity of the place would indicate nothing as to who funds it. Is this place funded by the Democratic party?

[sangh0]

181. The articles are overwhelmingly from the Heritage Foundation

a Scaife funded org.

[Ardee]

191. which proves

That the Heritage Foundation receives contributions from Scaife,not that he contributes to freerepublic. That the articles are overwhelmingly from Heritage is unknown to me, I sure dont go there at all. But certainly Heritage echoes the beliefs of most of the right so why wouldnt they source like minded thinkers?

Now this is fun and all but my laundry needs doing and Ive a golf lesson soon....C'ya.

[sangh0]

202. Heritage has funded FR

through a board known as TownHall.

[Ardee]

263. so who funds

DU?

[trotsky]

28. Persuadable?

What exactly have you been able to presuade them to accept?

That women have reproductive rights, including birth control AND abortion?

That homosexuals in a committed loving relationship should be allowed to enjoy the same partner benefits that a heterosexual couple easily obtains through marriage?

Please, do tell.

[sangh0]

75. Here's what I've been able to persuade a few of

1) That abortion shouldn't be prohibited even though it's immoral

2) That the repukes don't care for the poor and instead, are enthralled by big business.

3) The invasion of Iraq was immoral.

[Perky]

179. Gladly.....Finally a core issue question

What I generally persuade them of (and the count of the persuaded is about 15 now) is that Christian's desire to enter the political fray as Christians is really about relevance and power where it ought to be about Jesus and nothing else.

I challenge them think for themselves about how the world responds to the the message that Christians send out about what faith is: I challenge them and persuade them that what they think is righteousness is actually a lot like the Pharisees.

I point out in no uncertain terms that Jesus never ever responded to the world with vilification or anger...He only did that with people in the religious community.

I quote James to them And remind them that we are called to judge tor Church and not the World. That we are to be a city shining on the hill with open gates for all who would draw near.

I persuade them that making political conservatism a litmus test for one's Christianity is to turn their back on many well meaning believers and seekers and that it is a shameful thing and antithetical to nearly everything Jesus taught.

I persuade because I am a Christian and I know how to speak their language.

I approach those discussions as Jesus would. As an elder in my Church I have not asked them to untether themselves from their beliefs...but I have spoken to them individually and corporately about the woman caught in Adultery and how the Pharisees responded and how Jesus responded.

I remind them continually that its not about political clout and the attending issues of cultural relevance I remind them that is is ans always should be about Jesus. Ant that when we push sinners away from the Church we do much damage.

I remind them that the Church is at its most effectiveness when it focus's on Evangelism rather than politics.

[trotsky]

224. That's great, but what you have said is basically...

that you've spoken to them, in a religious context. What I asked was, have you changed any minds?

[Perky]

235. YES I think I have persuaded at tleast 15

the the Agenda being run by the fundies is not Christian in eith form or function

[trotsky]

258. It's just too bad that none of those 15

apparently have any clout with the powerful fundamentalists who are shaping the nation's agenda right now.

[Perky]

267. One step at a time.

It all a mtter of convincing folks that emporers have no clothes

[m berst]

304. good question

I have been able to persuade them that the Dominionists are placing the Old Testament above the New.

I have been able to persuade them that blurring the line between church and state threatens the church as much as it does the state.

I have been able to persuade them that a handful of ruthless men are misleading Christians to gain wealth and power.

I have been able to persuade them that gay marriage could be seen as a "live and let live" situation, and that it is not productive to make a national political issue out of it.

I have been able to persuade them that one can have a conservative theology and be politically liberal.

And, much, much more. Every time a fellow liberal screams anti-Christian rhetoric, though, it creates a barrier that I have to overcome when I speak to fellow Christians.

[trotsky]

467. But what is "anti-Christian" rhetoric?

Am I allowed to say I don't think Jesus was born of a virgin?

Am I allowed to say I don't think a historical Jesus really existed?

Am I allowed to say I don't think ANY of the stories in the bible happened as they were told?

Am I allowed to say I don't believe in any gods?

Am I allowed to say I think that if there is a god as portrayed in the bible that he can kiss my ass?

As I have asked elsewhere on this thread, to what extent am I just supposed to "shut up" about my beliefs? And to those people like me who are basically forced to "shut up" in our real lives due to religious bigots whom we work for, with, or live among - is there a place we are allowed to voice our frustration with religion?

[TWiley]

110. Bullshit..... Hatred of Liberals comes from the Conservative Christians

Abortion? Gay rights? Cardnals threatening parishners with expulsion if they vote for Kerry? Jerry Farwell? Pat Robertson?

Oh excuse me, they dont hate liberals ...... I must be mistaken!

[knight_of_the_star]

222. So we should respond in kind

By hating the ones who follow the leaders? I reserve my ire for the ones on the top who call the shots, you can't blame a common soldier for the mistakes and moves their general makes. Not even all conservative christians associate with those people. You might want to consider that.

[Hephaistos]

272. I keep reading all sorts of aggrevated Christians

posting that fellow DUers are really mean to them - I just never happen to read the allegedly offending posts.

Can you please post a few examples, and why they are considered so offensive instead of throwing around unsupported allegations?

Also, keep in mind that some offending posts may be planted by operatives, who would like nothing better than to see us tear each other apart. DO NOT DISCOUNT THIS POSSIBILITY! THIS IS HOW THEY WORK!

As a matter of fact, I would expect any semi-cognizant operative with this aim using two different handles to post offensive stuff and then complain about it loudly - Internet PsyOps 101.

I think some posters have to wise up about the workings of communication on the internet. Nothing is as it seems...

peace

[sangh0]

280. Here are links

Please note that none of these posts were deleted by the mods even though I know for certain that these posts were alerted on.

Here's a poster saying that even non-fundie Christians should be denigrated
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2611844#2612719

Here's a poster calling Christians "insane"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2611610&mesg_id=2612968&page=

Here's one insulting ALL religions - "belief in a deity is a mental illness"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=971574&mesg_id=971709

Here's one arguing that Christians should give themselves a new name
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2635344

Here's one claiming that "Christianity" bashed him ( I suspect it was really people doing the bashing)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2633633#2633955

People who believe in God are "morans"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2564719#2564950

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1116651

Here's a poster claiming it's OK to say that the religious are "insane" because of what the fundies do
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2737057#2740267

Here's one saying Christians should be persecuted
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1165825#1165988

[Hephaistos]

333. in sum, illustrative but not terribly convincing

Thanks for the list. Quite a mixed bag, IMO.

Here's a poster saying that even non-fundie Christians should be denigrated

That response to your post was certainly not very tactful, but as you noted yourself directly below, s/he apparently continued referring to fundies. Other than the angry title, the post says nothing about denigration, leading me to suspect that the poster didn't understand your initial objection. I lean slightly towards your interpretation, though.

Here's a poster calling Christians "insane"

Actually, this poster is calling the religious right insane, and then stating in the refenced post that people which are "religious and conservative on social issues" ... are welcome to be included in my comments about the "insane". Note that it is NOT even "religious OR conservative". I don't see a refence to Christians or even religious people as such being called insane.

Here's one insulting ALL religions - "belief in a deity is a mental illness"

This poster is responding to a poll about which banned phrase s/he would like to be able to say on DU. Since that phrase is not per se banned, the poster appears to realize that stating this opinion is not something s/he should do in discourse on DU. I find that rather positive, though regrettable that s/he didn't realize that it shouldn't even have been posted as a response to that inane poll.

Here's one arguing that Christians should give themselves a new name

I don't get your objection to that one. It's not a thoughtful post, but IMO not offensive, either. The poster differentiates between people who truly get Jesus and people who abuse his name for bigotry, and suggests that the former dissociate themselves from the latter. No hostility against the 'true Christians' appeared to be involved.

Here's one claiming that "Christianity" bashed him

I actually found that to be a very thougthful post. Of course, saying that a religion (per se) bashed him is silly and semantically incorrect, but I find it hard to believe anyone would be offended by this post who wasn't actively looking for a reason to be offended.

People who believe in God are "morans"

You have a point with the first one. In this case I am tempted to nitpick that the poster doesn't actually say 'people who believe in God are morans", but s/he clearly implies it.

The second post is from a tombstoned disruptor - see my comments in previous post.

Here's a poster claiming it's OK to say that the religious are "insane"

Actually, s/he doesn't say that in this post at all, though s/he supposedly calls them insane in another thread, for which s/he laments getting hammered. Here, s/he calls people who write with a straight face that "rebellion against parenthood represents nothing less than an absolute revolt against God's design" insane. I'd have to see the other thread to make judgement on this one.

Here's one saying Christians should be persecuted

I can see this post as being offensive, but sorry, that is not what this poster says. I don't see any advocacy in the refenced post. In the context of a discussion about the relatively low number of hate crimes against Christians as compared to members of other religions (maybe perpetrated by Christians), s/he writes
good, bout time they got a taste of their own medicine
if not, good too

Sangha, I've read your posts for a long time, and find them generally well-reasoned. In the context of religious discussions, however, you do seem somewhat overly sensitive. Although I agree that there were some offensive posts, several of the referenced posts did not say or, in some cases, even imply what you apparently took them to mean.

Again, thanks for the list, and I hope my take on it didn't aggrevate you any further. No offense was meant.

[sangh0]

352. That was some incredible rationalization

That response to your post was certainly not very tactful, but as you noted yourself directly below, s/he apparently continued referring to fundies.

The poster meant well, so that justifies such language. Amd I'd say it's something other than "not very tactful"

And you do realize that "fundie" is considered a derogatory term? We've had some liberal fundamentalists post on DU who have said that. (And in the interests of disclosure, I've used the term plenty)

I'm not going to go through each one. The fact that you can condone each and every one on the basis of *your* perception of the poster's intent clearly demonstrates how the point was lost on you.

It's about how people who don't think like *you* perceive those remarks. But I do appreciate your taking the time to look into it.

[Hephaistos]

359. Um, please read before typing

The fact that you can condone each and every one on the basis of *your* perception of the poster's intent clearly demonstrates how the point was lost on you.

I most certainly did not do that, and explicitly called several of them offensive.

However, I showed that in many cases the highlighted posts did not say what you said they did. That you would answer by misrepresenting my post is thus no surprise, but still somewhat disappointing.

I'm not going to go through each one.

No, I wouldn't either, if I was you.

[sangh0]

370. Again, it's not about what YOU think the poster meant

it's about how someone who does not think like you might interpret those "not very tactful" statements.

You argue that the posters were "clearly" talking about only a subgroup of Christians. However, if you go through this thread, you'll see that many DUers have misunderstood which subgroup of Christians Perky was asking people to be more tolerant of. Many DUers seem to think Perky was talking about being tolerant of the radically far-right religious wackos. If you read the OP carefully, you'll see that Perky was asking people to be more tolerant of Christians who are NOT radical far-right religious wackos.

So if so many DUers can misunderstand which subgroup was the target of her remarks, why are you so sure that non-radical, non-far-right Christians won't have the very same problem?

And while you did criticize some of the posts, you clearly don't see them as evidence of any bigotry. And remember, those were the ones that weren't deleted. There have been literally hundreds of posts that have been deleted. There are long-time posters who have dozens of posts removed. They have started threads on a regular basis, and when you look at them in hindsight, you'll find posts that can mostly be excused as being "clearly about the nutty Christians", but only because the more offensive posts of theirs were deleted.

But your critical mistake here, is that you're judging this based on a careful and reasonable examination of what was said in the course of a discussion, even though there is plenty of evidence that shows that is not how people perceive things. On the Internet, it's easy to point to what someone said earlier or further on, but in real life, you tell someone "The group you belong to are all crazy", and the reasonable examination of what was said ceases. It's just not reasonable to think that statements like "belief in a deity is a mental illness" is helpful in any context.

[Hephaistos]

455. an attempted reply

And while you did criticize some of the posts, you clearly don't see them as evidence of any bigotry.

Not quite. A couple of the posts do meet my standard for bigotry. Having lurked on DU for three years, I had seen very few of such posts (maybe because I tend to stay from religious threads), but I have seen way more threads complaining about such posts than the offending posts themselves.

What concerns me is the clear misreading of some of the other posts you mention, some of which are quite thoughtful and express opinions I would not like to see banned from discourse on DU, be it through explicit rules or self-censorship. The willingness to parse or misread in the worst possible light suggest a passive-agressive strategy to force other posters to 'watch what they say' in case someone who does not think like you might interpret those "not very tactful" statements in a way that was, possibly, not even remotely what the poster tried to communicate.

I get the feeling what you are advocating amounts, ultimately though not explicitly, to complete self-censorship by atheists when it comes to religious topics, even if they are very relevant in the current political context, because any criticism of religious thought, however extreme, can by definition be offensive to somebody who believes very strongly.

Could you maybe clarify what sort of behavior by atheists you deem acceptable on DU? Where is the boundary at which expression of strongly held atheist, and particularly anti-theist, opinion turns into an offensive statement?

[Boosterman]

334. Ask and ye shall receive

lmao

[m berst]

284. I agree

The rank and file everyday Democrats are much harsher and much less tolerant on the subject of Christians than the rank and file Christians are about liberals. No comparison.

The leadership of the right wing talks hatred toward liberals, yes.

[uhhuh]

385. I have to say this is not true

The rank and file of Democrats are Christians. I can't see how you could say they are intolerant of a group that the majority of them belong to unless you are saying that the average Democrat in the U.S. is a member of another relgion or atheist.

[m berst]

462. person to person

I am not talking about groups. I am saying that you get less flack in Evangelical church circles for being a liberal than you do in liberal circles for being a Christian. I am not trying to prove a point, just making an observation from experience. I have never gotten a screaming argument from an Evangelical for being a liberal. I often get that from liberals for being a Christian. It is so predictable and common that I am surprised it is controversial here.

No Evangelical Christian ever gave me a funny look or an argument when I said "I am a liberal." Say you are a Christian to a liberal and as likely as not you will get a drawn out "ok" with an eye-roll at best, and an unsolicited and heated debate at worst. Of course, many liberals find the simple statement "I am a Christian" to constitute "shoving my religion down their throat."

I don't know why this should be so, and I don't know what it means. It is merely an observation from touring and meeting tens of thousands of strangers around the country as a performer. To some extent it is a North - South thing. Northern Evangelicals are more likely to try to convert my atheist band members, and Northern liberals are more likely to argue with me. But even in the North, the liberals are always more aggressive and argumentative with me then the Evangelicals are with the atheists.

This is just an observation from thousands of encounters and is not intended to make a grandiose point or make any one wrong about anything.

[Bouncy Ball]

375. The religious right doesn't talk about liberals HOW????

My ass. The religious right tells me I am a traitor, tells me I am not a REAL Christian. I've had that said to my face. The religious right goes around with a bumper sticker saying "You can't be a Democrat AND Christian."

What kind of bullshit is that? And then for you to say things like this?

Please. Spare me.

[donheld]

403. You have GOT to be joking

<<The religious right does not talk about liberals the way Liberals talk about Christians. >>

That statement is just totally wrong. Welcome to the real world.

[ruggerson]

427. Are you off your rocker?

All we hear in the media 24/7 is condemnation by the religious right of everyone else who doesn't think like them.

And, btw, there's a HUGE difference between condemning the religious rightwing Talibornagains and condemning Christianity. I have heard very little condemnation of Christianity from liberals - most are Christians themselves.

What I have heard is condemnation of the hateful rhetoric and actions of the "religious right", who, imho, are about as far away from Jesus as one can get.

[H2O Man]

25. Aaaahhh!!!!

"the distain comes from a government who denies potential scientific breakthroughs because of a religious 'belief' "

Very good point. I'll add that many religious folks share that distain. Religion and science should not be enemies, unless that science is -- such as in Nazi Germany -- being used for evil purposes. Likewise, we see this administration promoting absolutely false science, such as saying that TCE in a communities' water supply is not cause for concern, when it promotes their corporate profit motives.

I like your post, because it recognizes that we can all be on the same side, and it encourages respect for individual points of view.

[brainwashed]

99. I do aim disdain at belief

Belief itself is not a good way to think. It allows the believer to be easily manipulated.

A better use of your brain power is perception, logic, analysis, and calculation of probabilities.

[regnaD kciN]

233. The problem with your statement...

A better use of your brain power is perception, logic, analysis, and calculation of probabilities.

...is that is sets up a completely false dichotomy between "blind belief" on the one hand and "pure reason" on the other. In fact, things are not that simple. Even the most secular and rationalistic of thinkers could not function at all without adopting many a priori assumptions about "reality," how knowledge is acquired, etc. Since these are a priori, they come before rational thought and said thought is dependent on them, not the other way around. In other words, they must be accepted "on faith" every bit as much as the core beliefs of the religious person. The need for "belief" is no different -- merely the content of that belief.

[DemBones DemBones]

312. I'd say "every minute of every day" is a gross exaggeration, and

would also point out that I know of no religious "justification" for this administration's position that global warming doesn't exist. It's bad science closely connected to a desire for business as usual in the oil and gas industry.

There is certainly a religious basis for the Bush** administration's opposition to embryonic stem cell research, to cloning, and to abortion, but I don't think they take those policies because of their own deeply held religious beliefs but because they want political influence.

Besides, none of that justifies DUers being disrespectful towards other DUers or disdainful of their religious beliefs. It's intolerant, plain and simple.

[datasuspect]

3. i think a lot of people here

are tolerant.

just tired of seeing the public sphere being turned into a church.

there is a secular world and a sacred world.

some of us don't want religion in our face 24-7

[smirkymonkey]

57. That's it exactly.

Succinctly and very well put.

The religious world has been pushing the boundaries of the secular society we live in for too long and too hard. It's time to push back and keep religion in it's rightful place.

[regnaD kciN]

239. Fair enough...

But it does seem odd that the way to register one's displeasure about "seeing the public sphere being turned into a church," not to mention displaying one's alleged tolerance, is by getting in the face of the non-fundamentalist and non-conservative Christians here at DU 24/7, telling us how "Christianity" is what's wrong with the world.

:eyes:

[BulletproofLandshark]

4. My $0.02

"And if you want to win elections. you need to be more tolerant of people who do not think like you. "

Unless you're conservative. Then you just cheat and fear/hate-monger instead.

[shadowknows69]

7. A reminder

Jesus was a radical liberal. Not what these bozos have turned him into. It's ok to be a christian if you really are.

[BulletproofLandshark]

18. I agree.

I'm just so tired of people using Christ's name to justify their intolerance, not that that's likely to end anytime soon.

[Perky]

24. Ok I will bite

How was Juesus a Radical Liberal? I think he was certainly radicall and he certianly went after relegious leaders but a liberal in the DU senxe of liberal? ok explain that...looking for political content...

[shadowknows69]

32. I think he'd be labeld a liberal today

WIth crazy leftist ideals like taking care of the poor and the sick as opposed to creating more of them. Not judging those that we view as sinners (prostitutes are people too), loving your enemy and praying for them (as opposed to slaughtering them) and someone who believed that money+religion+politics is about the worst combination you can concieve of for leading humanity.

[trotsky]

46. There were a lot of words about

selling your positions, giving it all to the poor, and remember the one about the rich man getting into the kingdom of god?

A lot of what Jesus supposedly said when it comes to economics was downright communist. Read Acts for how the first Xian lived, and how some members who withheld their possessions were killed for it.

[bloom]

437. Is calling Jesus a liberal an insult?

Just wondering.

[tx_dem41]

8. So, is that the way you want to win elections? n/t

[BulletproofLandshark]

16. ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

Where'd you get that idea. Just telling it like it is.

[tx_dem41]

22. Okay

I was just curious. Time for me to have my coffee.

[trotsky]

5. The same hypocrisy is found in ultra-tolerant religious DUers, friend.

Imagine what it's like to be a despised religious minority. No candidate for office can admit s/he's an atheist, for doing so will mean certain failure.

I don't want BOTH parties to pander to the powerful religious lobby, thank you.

[tx_dem41]

9. I don't think you got the point of his message.

How does "not disdaining one's religion" equate into "pandering to the powerful religious lobby". You see no middle ground between the two?

[trotsky]

15. Because far too many Christians on here...

take virtually any criticism of their beliefs as "disdaining" them.

An open discussion of religion must include the right to criticize and speak out against it.

[tx_dem41]

17. Again, speaking for the original poster (which is dangerous I realize)

I don't think he is talking about getting rid of reasoned debate. I think he is talking about your basic stupid ad hominem attacks that accomplish nothing but entrenching your opponents.

[trotsky]

27. Well, there's the problem.

How far is "reasoned debate" allowed?

It's much more the rule than the exception here that even mild criticism of Xianity is taken as an attack. And then it escalates. Are those of us who reject religion guilty? Sure we are - it is extraordinarily difficult to live in a society where we are hated even more than homosexuals. Many of us lash out here where we feel safe because we cannot speak out in our real lives. It's not fair, but the o.p. needs to keep in mind that DU doesn't even come close to speaking for the majority of Democrats (witness John Kerry's level of support here prior to the Iowa caucuses) and that some of the attacks on Xians here mean nothing for the platform or tactics of the Democratic Party in real life.

On edit: corrected typo.

[tx_dem41]

29. I agree.

Do remember, that although DU doesn't speak for anywhere close to significant number of Democrats, it is a very public forum.

[trotsky]

38. As is FreeRepublic.

And frankly, what passes for average discourse over there is FAR more disgusting and disrespectful than the worst of DU.

[tx_dem41]

43. Agreed...but that's not the standard I want to be compared to. n/t

[sangh0]

80. Freeper bigotry does not justify DU bigotry

and it's not just about religion. DUers have shown a good deal of animosity towards some other groups. Take southerners for example.

The defensiveness that is raised whenever a DUer talks about bigotry on DU is very revealing. There is always an effort to deny or minimize it, and often those denials ares accompanied by descriptions of what "they" do, as if that makes it OK.

[trotsky]

227. I never said anything about FR justifying anything else.

You have a nasty habit, sangh0, of putting words in people's mouths.

I think that may be why a lot of people get upset with you.

[sangh0]

283. Sure you did

You said "As is FreeRepublic. And frankly, what passes for average discourse over there is FAR more disgusting and disrespectful than the worst of DU."

If that wasn't meant to justify the bigotry on DU, then why did you post it in response to a post that stated that DU is a public place and the bigotry on DU might be misunderstood by others?

If I've misinterpreted the significance of your referring to FR, then please explain where I've made a mistake, instead of trying to explain why I'm disliked.

I don't care if I'm liked or not, but if I've made a mistake, I'd like to correct it.

[trotsky]

321. What you've done is read far more into a statement than is warranted.

But again, that is a pattern of yours.

[sangh0]

353. You make accusations, but you won't explain them

I explicitely noted the possibility that I was mistaken and asked you to explain. You'd rather just lob insults, so I wonder if you don't explain because you have no explanation

I quoted from your post where you mentioned what happens on FR. I asked:

"If that wasn't meant to justify the bigotry on DU, then why did you post it in response to a post that stated that DU is a public place and the bigotry on DU might be misunderstood by others?

If I've misinterpreted the significance of your referring to FR, then please explain where I've made a mistake, instead of trying to explain why I'm disliked. "

[trotsky]

360. Because there's really nothing to explain.

As much as you desperately want me to defend the strawman you've created, I refuse to. As far as the insults I've "lobbed," well, there is always that Alert link if I've truly insulted anyone.

[datasuspect]

33. siege mentality

you know, this shit is getting sickening.

IT DOESN'T MATTER what you say or do.

i don't care if you even limit the matter to reasoned discussion of facts, principles, arguments and leave all personal shit out of it.

the point is that the religious supremacists in this country (who are in ascendancy and are reaching domination) are locked in a siege mentality.

anything you say, do, think, or feel that runs counter to their beliefs will be construed as a personal attack BECAUSE THEIR BELIEFS FORM THE BASIS OF THEIR IDENITIES.

[Perky]

47. Hevean forbid

that my vleifs have anthing to do with my identity.

Jesus CHrist defines my life and he continutes to Refine my character.

[datasuspect]

51. that's the problem though

what is the quality of those beliefs that make up your identity?

how do they stand up to any test of reality?

not saying you particularly, but i don't want anyone who believes that gays don't deserve civil rights, that black people are niggers, that the war in iraq is just and proper, and that w getting the presidency is evidence of divine intervention running the show and telling me what i can and can't do.

[tx_dem41]

85. But Jesus didn't believe those things....so why begrudge

Perky the basis of his beliefs? Just because people misintepret the teachings of Christ, does not make those teachings incorrect.

[datasuspect]

88. i'm not begrudging anyone anything

just posing the possibility that people might want to try EXAMINING the basis of their beliefs.

[sangh0]

98. And you just revealed a prejudice

That the religious do NOT examine their beliefs, a prejudice which is based on the perceptions promoted by the media and your experiences in a place (E Texas) that is not representative of the rest of the nation or the majority of Christians

[datasuspect]

103. really?

what is representative of the rest of nation or the majority of christians?

what world do YOU live in?

[sangh0]

107. So do you think the religious examine their beliefs, or not?

You imply that I'm wrong, but you don't actually answer. Instead, you try to distract by asking a question. If you want me to answer YOUR questions, you'll have to do the same

So do you think the religious examine their beliefs, or not?

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

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

[sangh0]

121. Yes, it always gets "boring"

when I challenge someone to answer a question they know will prove them wrong. It would have taken you much less effort to say "Yes" or "No" than it did to enter that post.

[datasuspect]

124. yeah you're challenging alright

do you like it when people are wrong and you are right? is this important to you?

OKAY - YOU WIN!

satisfied?

[sangh0]

146. So you'd rather admit defeat, than defend your ideas?

I don't get that. If you're so sure that the religious don't examine or question their beliefs, then why won't you defend that claim?

Unlike you, I've tried to avoid calling you names, or making aspersions about your character. The worst you can say I did was to make some assumptions about where you got your perceptions of the religious right.

do you like it when people are wrong and you are right? is this important to you?

This is not a game. It's not about me or about you. People are having their rights abused, and religion does have a lot to do with it. That being the case, it's important that we understand what we're up against, and that requires open and free debate about these issues. If you are challenged, it's part of an effort to ascertain the truth, and not a battle of wills.

If you have an idea or belief that you think is correct, you should defend it and not give up merely because you find the experience unpleasant.

[datasuspect]

154. i'm "admitting" defeat

with tongue firmly in cheek.

i apologize, but you've been sorta disingenuous.

ad hominem isn't just name calling. when you tell me where i'm getting my ideas and beliefs from without asking me, you're attacking me.

who knows, maybe someday, somewhere, somebody will win an argument on the internet.

[sangh0]

156. I didn't tell you where you got those ideas from

YOU told me!

You said you got it from a network affiliate, and the religious right-wingers you've encountered in East Texas. It's in a post in this thread.

Since you did say that, why shouldn't I take you at your word?

[knight_of_the_star]

229. Sociopathy?

Wow, you seem to have a talent for making things up that aren't there. Has sangh0 done anything like threatened to attack you with their teeth or something like that?

I thought not.

[datasuspect]

231. thanks for the attention

now i have TWO shadows around here.

i no longer feel invisible around here.

very noble of you to take sangh0's defense.

let me check the url of this website. brb . . . . . .


that is all.

[knight_of_the_star]

241. I'm impressed

If you gave a response like that in a court of law you would be shut down for being non-responsive to the question being asked.

Ok, again:

Where is the sociopathy?

Back up your words with proof or save them for somewhere else.

[Name removed]

246. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

256. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

285. Deleted message

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

[RetroLounge]

106. and there were "good" nazis too.

:eyes:

RL

[tx_dem41]

109. Wow....and that comparison came from where exactly? n/t

[RetroLounge]

117. Just from observing the Christian Talibornagains

and those who identify themselves as Christians but don't scream from the rooftops every fucking day about bush and falwell and robertson and all the other false prophets are then allowing themselves to be lumped in with them and implicitly condone the actions of the far right.

Good Christians? Good Germans?

Not a big leap.

RL

[regnaD kciN]

253. Well, to no one's surprise, you haven't exactly been paying attention...

Check out Sojourners. Or the Interfaith Alliance. Or the Fellowship of Reconciliation. Or the American Friends Service Committee. Or Witness For Peace. Or any number of peace and justice ministries of the mainstream denominations. (Believe me, this is just scratching the surface.) More to the point, look at the thousands upon thousands of individual Christian congregations where the message of Jesus's love and inclusiveness, and opposition to what the religious right has tried to make of Christianity, is proclaimed from the pulpit Sunday by Sunday. In other words, if you actually look at what's going on, instead of closing your eyes while smugly equating Christians and Nazis, you'd see that a whole lot of people are in fact "scream(ing) from the rooftops." It's just that, when it comes to Christianity, you've got your fingers plugged firmly in your ears, while loudly proclaiming "But I don't hear anything!"

:eyes:

[m berst]

310. very unfortunate

This is very unfortunate that you are comparing Christians to Nazis. That prejudice badly cripples the liberal cause.

I am stunned buy the maliciousness of your post. "Allow ourselves to be lumped in?" You are doing the lumping here, are you not? I am resisting that lumping very strongly. Yet you lump me in until and unless I do what you believe I should be doing.

How are all Christians responsible for Robertson any more than all Americans are responsible for Bush? Should all Americans be lumped in with the Bush administration?

[sangh0]

119. Who knows

The term "good Nazi" was used by Nazis themselves to excuse some of their own's actions. "Just following orders" was the line

Since the people here are not defending "their own" (I don't think anyone here is defending religious freepers) I don't see how the analogy applies, either

[regnaD kciN]

250. Talk about proving your opponent's point...

Isn't equating all Christians with Nazis some sort of violation of Godwin's Law?

[Ardee]

55. Not quite, sadly

It is YOUR PERCEPTION of Christs teachings that mold and shape you......Being unable to see Jesus as a liberal (a radical one at that) is a real clue.Did you think that , should he come back and register to vote he would be on the side of Pat Buchanon, Pat Robertson and Bush or on the side of the disenfranchised, the poor, the needy?

[tx_dem41]

89. I think trying to label Jesus a liberal or something else is about...

the silliest thing I have ever seen a group of people do. Look, if you want politics and religion to be separate (as most of us DUers say we do), then STOP mixing them! :eyes:

edit: grammar

[sangh0]

100. Why shouldn't our concern for the poor inform our politics?

.

[tx_dem41]

101. Where did I say it shouldn't?

I don't think religion has a monopoly on "concern for the poor".

[sangh0]

126. Above, is where you said it

You said I shouldn't mix my religious beliefs with politics. Since my concern for the poor is based on my religious beliefs, if I leave them out of my politics, then I have no reason to support politicians and policies that reflect my concern for the poor.

Why should I do that?

[tx_dem41]

132. Touche. n/t

[knight_of_the_star]

243. Here's the way I see it

I have no problem with people who let their religious beliefs guide their politics. My problem is when they say that their religion is exclusively of a certain kind of politics. There is where I see the difference.

[sangh0]

287. And I agree with that

In fact, I'd go even further and list other things I object to, such as when people try to use the law to FORCE me to beleive something, or at least force me to act AS IF I believed it.

The point here is that the offensive things is NOT letting our religious beliefs inform out politics. The offense is when someone, ANYONE, regardless of whether they're religious or not, tries to FORCE their beliefs on others.

Religion, and the religious, are not the problem. The use of force is.

[Ardee]

120. One person's silliness

is anothers interesting conversation. You are certainly free to refrain from participating you know.

To those with a bit more farsightedness; as this administration has usurped religion as a reason for political action I believe a discussion of Jesus' politics is relevent.

[tx_dem41]

129. Well, I certainly believe a discussion of Jesus' teachings are relevant...

That's why I'm on the thread. I just think the political labeling is mental masturbation.

[Ardee]

164. but,but,but

this isa political forum you know and the subject isnt the teachings of jesus but how they relate to politics.....whatever.

[Perky]

90. of course he would be on the side of the poor

but he would also be on the side of the middle class and the rich as well...That is not liberal...that is Christian.

[Ardee]

115. "It is far easier

to put a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to attain heaven".....

Who was it that whipped the moneylenders out of the temple?

At its inception Christianity was the religion of the slave.....not of the rulers.

A long haired radical jew, you know.

[Perky]

271. Umm Know

they were not money lenders they were money changers.

ANd his opening a can of whoopass was directed at the world it was directed at the religionists.


Jesus also associatated with the Rich, Mathais, Nicodemus, Joeseph or Arimethea.

He did if fact say that is was esier for a camel to pass through the eye of the need than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of Heaven...But that does not mean he was agasinst those who had acquired wealth. He loved them no more or no less than the the poor.

He was merely challenging the listener as to what was at the bottom of his soul

He never said Money is the root of all evil... it was the LOVE of Money.

[Ardee]

311. Man, you are so certain

He who begins in certainty will surely end in doubt......Francis Bacon

I guess Jesus must talk directly to you for you to know so much of what he meant and felt......

He was a cousin of mine and I dont know what was in his head or his heart, only what men have said and written about him, mostly long after the fact.......

[trotsky]

330. Here's what he said.

The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?" Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." (Matthew 19:20)

Again, I would ask that you read Acts to find out how the earliest Christians lived, and in particular the story of the couple who withheld some of their possessions and money from the commune.

[regnaD kciN]

247. As I have pointed out here before...

...were I not a Christian, did I not believe that the life and teachings of Jesus gave a glimpse of a divine realm over and beyond what we call "earthly reality," I would likely be a right-wing libertarian. For, if I were to judge ethics on that "earthly reality" alone, I would have to judge the world a place where "survival of the fittest" rules, and anything is justified if one's own individual survival (however temporary it may be in a world where "you're born, you live, you die, and you rot -- period" ) depends on it.

My only question is not whether it is possible to be a Christian and a liberal, but how on earth it is possible to be a Christian while embracing the blatantly anti-Christian core beliefs of the "religious right?"

[July]

295. I don't think the poster was implying this.

Rather, s/he was merely pointing out that BECAUSE it is the basis of some people's identities, SOME OF THEM cannot handle the fact that there are people who disagree with them. That puts those of us who disagree with Christians in an impossible position, where our own beliefs about religion or Christianity in particular may not be said aloud because doing so is understood as a PERSONAL attack.

[m berst]

307. again you generalize

You keep creating a "them" in your mind and then justify attacks on any one of "them" - the posters here - with your observations about a few of "them" - the Dominionists and people in power. You see those who disagree with you here as part of the "them" who can be justifiably attacked for what Falwell or Robertson say or do.

That is intolerance and bigotry. The fact that in your mind you are fighting intolerance and bigotry doesn't justify using intolerance and bigotry in the fight.

[m berst]

306. that is not fair

What are other group of people could be called brain-dead, irrational, hypocritical, insane, cognitively impaired, superstitious, primitive - and on and on and on - with approval by other DUers?

[trotsky]

458. Approval, huh?

I think you're a little confused between "approval" and "I'm staying the hell out of those religious threads".

[Dorian Gray]

76. True

But maybe candidates should just be who they are. Despite having religious convictions myself, I would gladly vote for an honest candidate who espoused values that he truly believed. I hate the corruption of our government today when all we have are two whitewashed candidates saying anything at all in order to get the most people in the country to like them and vote for them.

A lot of people here don't believe in religion. Big Whoop. If they condescend to my face for believing what I do, then I will get angry. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of people writing what they think on a message board, and it affects me very little.

[TWiley]

113. There is a difference between the individual and the religion

That is one major problem with religion. We must love ALL christians. We must hate ALL Muslims.

That type of heaven or hell, sinful or godly, with us or against us type of thinking that is the problem

If they are an ASSHOLE, I treat them as such. Don't expect special rights just because you go to church.

[nmvisitor]

6. I'm an atheist - but also agree very much with your post n/t

[MrModerate]

68. Same here . . . it comes down to respect

I scratch my head at how people can possibly believe in a great cloud being, but having done so, I leave it at that.

As for me, I believe in the beauty and intelligence of my children, and no civilized person contradicts me there.

It goes back to what we should consider one of our greatest, traditional strenghts: tolerance. Not tolerance of state murder, not tolerance of fiscal insanity, not tolerance of religious bullying, not tolerance of political theivery.

But: tolerance of differing views (which incidently place high value on the work a human being does in the community toward the common good); tolerance of different life styles which you yourself would not want to pursue but in good conscience cannot condemn; tolerance of other views of how the universe works.

No one around here disagrees that there are wicked and twisted religions and religionists out there. Intolerant, negative, damning, patriarchal, eveything we despise.

But not all. And we have to remain big-hearted and open minded enough to accept different paths toward social justice.

[TWiley]

125. I can respect the Path, but respect for the individual is

on a person to person basis. I have a hard time tolerating the in your face, we are number one, a vote for kerry is a vote for satan type of asshole.

Am I required to respect an asshole?

[knight_of_the_star]

230. Good point

I have no problem with respecting the path and those who follow it, I have problems with individuals who try to say that their path is the ONLY path and try to rub it in people's faces. Therein lies the difference. One needs not respect all who follow a path to respect the path in question, especially if the followers in question are proving to be a problem.

[regnaD kciN]

257. Absolutely not...

But you might want to think of the implications of then attacking Christians here, who hold to none of those positions, on the unspoken grounds that those positions define Christianity, when they clearly do not.

[TWiley]

451. Evidently, it is time for the Christians to clarify

their pistons on various issues like racism, gay rights, the war in Iraq, abortion, the separation between Church and state, the erosion of civil liberties, education, prayer in schools, creationism, funding the military, and a ton of other issues.

Unfortunately, every time i read something in the newspaper that says "I am a Christian, and my values are ... bla bla bla" i get nothing more that a typical rush Limbaugh headache.

Instead of attacking your family here, why not tell the rest of us that you are a Christian, and how the beliefs of the neo-cons are not Christ-like.

Don't wait for anyone else to make your argument for you.

Apparently, Jesus was a conservative republican who golfed with the scribes and Pharisees. He was a slum lord and supported the exodus of jobs from racially diverse areas to create slums. He is a pro-war arms dealer who intends to spend taxpayer money to spread the gospel of land mines far and wide in an effort to blow the legs off children. He is opposed to social programs, and supports military build-up for the purpose of spreading the gospel. He supports the war in Iraq because it will create cheap fuel for his BMW SUV.

Is this not correct? Hammy, don't blame us. Clarify your position. This is the only information that is out there.

[regnaD kciN]

255. "Respect"...?????

You caricature and mock religion as "believ(ing) in a great cloud being" and wonder how people can possibly believe in such a thing, then start calling for tolerance and repect?

:wtf:

Don't you realize how that comes off? Basically, something like: "I believe we should show respect and tolerance, even to the feeble-minded imbeciles who are retarded enough to believe in God."

:eyes:

[July]

301. From his point of view, that is what religion is.

Tolerance and agreement are two different things. We are being asked by some Christians not to tolerate but to implicitly agree with them by refraining from stating our views on religion.

No-one should mock another for his beliefs, but when asked his own opinion of belief in God, Jesus, or other tenets of Christianity or any other religion he should be free to say what he thinks without having his own beliefs characterized as persecution of someone whose beliefs are quite different.

If I say as politely as I can that FOR ME religion is superstition and that it has no place in my life, you may say that I am "mocking" religion. I don't think our differences can be reconciled easily, but that does not mean that I oppose you or your practice of any belief -- I just reject your belief for myself, and for myself alone.

[regnaD kciN]

388. There's a difference between disagreeing and mocking...

...to say, "I, for one, fail to see any evidence of a 'God'" is disagreement. Calling those who do "superstitious" (rather than just saying that they hold to a concept of reality you can't agree with), or talking about how they "believe in the non-existent invisible great cloud being" (to name only two examples of many on this board) is mockery.

And, I should note with some irony, your complaint about how "we are being asked...not to tolerate but to implicitly agree" almost directly echos what I hear from fundies, particularly about gay rights -- by allowing things like gay marriage, the state is not only demanding that they tolerate, but that they give tacit approval to behavior they consider sinful -- and that they should have the right to plainly state their views about the evil of The Homosexual Agenda without being cowed by demands to keep quiet in the name of tolerance.

:eyes:

[MrModerate]

406. This is in the great American tradition of . . .

"I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it."

Or, "I don't believe in a supreme being, but if you do, more power to you."

Sir or Madam, you need to lighten up (one man's opinion). Just as I acknowledge that believers have the rights to believe, so do non-believers have the right not to believe. That's ultimately what it's all about.

[Ardee]

10. Motives

There are some, one poster in particular, who expresses anger at all religious beliefs. I think that h/her own uncertainty causes the anger.

Then there are those who need to diminish and insult those who follow the Qu'ran in order to live with the fact that we are slaughtering tens of thousands of them.

You yourself have made such a leap in calling Du'ers ultra tolerant as if that was some sort of requirement for being a democrat or progressive. There are about 50K DU'ers and they run the gamut of tolerance and intolerance.....

[immoderate]

162. Could it possibly be?

That it's not the uncertainty of the poster, but the certainty of those who oppose, that causes them to project this anger?

One of the common thoughts in this thread is that many of those who are believers take any questioning of their beliefs as intolerance and personal attacks. The fact is that all of those believers don't hold the same beliefs, so certain though they be, they can't all be right. The conflict arises when, based on beliefs that are unproven, some feel they can instruct the behavior of others. Pointing this out causes them distress.

The fact is, that existence is fraught with uncertainties, and accepting that is a part of being tolerant. The president was certain that Iraq had WMDs. And those that questioned were deemed as unpatriotic, and hateful by people that believed in the president.

Certainly, there are rules championed by religions, like don't hit or don't bite, that are intrinsic to civil behavior, and their utility is, to coin a phrase, self evident. Then there are others that impose restrictions on diet, sexuality, obeisance, and other activities, that come from an individual's beliefs. An example is, until recently, there was a county that had an ordinance against dancing. Those who imposed this were certain they were doing the right thing. Their reasons for doing so were couched in faith. Is it OK to challenge their faith? Is their faith not as valid as others?

Rational conclusions can come from rational or irrational sources. But when it comes to government, (that's our purpose here) reliance on the authority of irrational sources can lead to negative (IMO) results. The tendency for people to rely on faith, which I believe is built into our psyche, can be co-opted, exploited, and corrupted. Therefore it is necessary to question the reason for our actions because it is possible they can be irrational. The founding fathers, God bless 'em, knew that.

It is the "certainty" of the "true" believers that can be dangerous. And from their position of certainty they can, but not all do, ascribe negative characteristics to those who oppose their arguments.
I don't see uncertainty as a source for anger. When someone arrests me for dancing, I'll get angry. Many people of faith see non-believers as fair game for their hostility, especially since it is currently unfashionable to disdain others' articles of faith. We've come some way since the Puritans outlawed the Quakers, but there is room to go.

I'll dig into an often retold story. My father's business partner would not visit our house because my brother adopted a stray black cat. I always treated this person with respect. How do you show respect for his beliefs? Kill the cat? As it was, the subject was not discussed, at least by me. But we never entered a discussion forum. Had we done so, I might have used words like, silly, nonsensical, and superstitious. I consider honesty a virtue in a discussion forum, though not always practical in daily life as in, "Does this outfit make me look fat?"

Frankly, though I don't come from a Christian background, and if you'll forgive the immodesty, I feel that I follow the teachings of Jesus as well as many Christians, at least those in this forum, and that is because it is the right way to live, prima facie. But to model behavior for divine, or supernatural, or other non-rational reasons, can be dangerous. The proof of course, is the current administration.

So is it possible, just possible, that people who hold strong beliefs are self-righteously hostile to those who disagree? And inasmuch as religion comes into the way we are governed, despite the wisdom of the founders, isn't it proper to question it?

-IMM

[Ardee]

185. The devil is in the details you know

That it's not the uncertainty of the poster, but the certainty of those who oppose, that causes them to project this anger?

which came first...I was clear (I thought) in describing the poster in question (who isnt even contributing on this thread by the way)as angry at any and all mention of religion or belief

One of the common thoughts in this thread is that many of those who are believers take any questioning of their beliefs as intolerance and personal attacks. The fact is that all of those believers don't hold the same beliefs, so certain though they be, they can't all be right. The conflict arises when, based on beliefs that are unproven, some feel they can instruct the behavior of others. Pointing this out causes them distress.

err no again,sorry. It isnt the individual beliefs of a particular religion that is in question here but a general view that ALL religious belief are being attacked automatically. The numbers of those who attempt to impose their own beliefs upon the rest of us is appallingly small considering the number of threads and posts devoted to such things.Poll after poll has shown that morality and religion are very secondary when choosing for whom people vote, did you know that?

The fact is, that existence is fraught with uncertainties, and accepting that is a part of being tolerant. The president was certain that Iraq had WMDs. And those that questioned were deemed as unpatriotic, and hateful by people that believed in the president.

Oh boy, do you honestly believe that Bush thought Hussein actually had any such things? I certainly dont. All that bull was nothing more than an excuse for invading Iraq.

Certainly, there are rules championed by religions, like don't hit or don't bite, that are intrinsic to civil behavior, and their utility is, to coin a phrase, self evident. Then there are others that impose restrictions on diet, sexuality, obeisance, and other activities, that come from an individual's beliefs. An example is, until recently, there was a county that had an ordinance against dancing. Those who imposed this were certain they were doing the right thing. Their reasons for doing so were couched in faith. Is it OK to challenge their faith? Is their faith not as valid as others?

prohibitions on obesity? really? C'mon.....you're kidding right?Oh obeisance.....never mind. But seriously folks, if there is a county of ,oh say Mennonites exclusively, they are 100% of the population of that county lets say. Should they not be allowed to set the educatory standards, social custom and such for themselves only? Im serious here...

Rational conclusions can come from rational or irrational sources. But when it comes to government, (that's our purpose here) reliance on the authority of irrational sources can lead to negative (IMO) results. The tendency for people to rely on faith, which I believe is built into our psyche, can be co-opted, exploited, and corrupted. Therefore it is necessary to question the reason for our actions because it is possible they can be irrational. The founding fathers, God bless 'em, knew that.

depends on your definition of irrationality dont it? Like it or not those who base decisions on faith are, in their own minds, basing those decisions on very rational (to themselves) concepts . I reject your argument as irrelevent that ,because religion can manipulate people through their faith, that faith should be rejected as reason for decision making.People can be manipulated through political speeches ,does that mean all political decisions should be banned?

It is the "certainty" of the "true" believers that can be dangerous. And from their position of certainty they can, but not all do, ascribe negative characteristics to those who oppose their arguments.
I don't see uncertainty as a source for anger. When someone arrests me for dancing, I'll get angry. Many people of faith see non-believers as fair game for their hostility, especially since it is currently unfashionable to disdain others' articles of faith. We've come some way since the Puritans outlawed the Quakers, but there is room to go.

this is all subjective......atheists can be dangerous.......agnostics can describe those who dont express uncertainty as do they negatively , your terms are meaningless and your thinking on this incomplete.


So is it possible, just possible, that people who hold strong beliefs are self-righteously hostile to those who disagree? And inasmuch as religion comes into the way we are governed, despite the wisdom of the founders, isn't it proper to question it?

Strong beliefs are not limited to the religious...all things should be questioned constantly, people should not be demonized and the effects of religion on our politics should not be so overstated.

-IMM

[immoderate]

219. Fair enough.

I don't have significant objections to your responses. And condescensions aside (humor?) make one or two comments.

We don't really know what Bush believed about WMDs, but I think he was told what to believe and they told him there were WMDs.

You're right about definition of rational, seeing as how one can reason from false premises and still fall into the realm of rationality.

I did allow that there aren't people at DU who wish to impose their beliefs on others, well maybe a couple. But in our history, this has been done many times, as I'm sure you know. The no dancing law was one. Just heard this week that in Provo, Utah, it's illegal to own a dog and a cat. There are thousand of examples of this in our legal history.

I am aware that the polls indicate that religion and morality are "very secondary" in voting decisions. And here it depends on one's definition of morality. Thieves and liars apparently encounter no barriers. It's all about sex. Can you cite a major office holder who is a declared atheist?

--IMM

[MatrixEscape]

11. Hmmm ....

Who were the ones who brought God and Christanity full-force into the political sphere? Who is using said to influence and alter our secular rights?

I agree with the point of the post, but I think where the problem orginated is an important point in regards to the response it generates.

I think, in a political environment or forum, if you don't want people to criticize your religious beliefs, (as opposed to your political philosphy) then why parade it around to goad people in general?

I don't see a whole lot of tolerance going on from the Radical Right-wing Religious Right. In fact, I see them creating a real threat to freedom and tolerance in general. So, why not take that up with them?

[sangh0]

104. The problem originated with REPUBLICANS

not Christians. Focus your energy to defeating the repukes, and the religious right won't be a problem at all.

I think, in a political environment or forum, if you don't want people to criticize your religious beliefs, (as opposed to your political philosphy) then why parade it around to goad people in general?

I think you have failed to distinguish between real criticism and bigotry. Saying that "anyone who believes in God is insane" is not criticism - it's bigotry.

I don't see a whole lot of tolerance going on from the Radical Right-wing Religious Right.

So does that justify intolerance on the left for any and every Christian? Does that justify calling every Christian, many of whom are liberal Democrats, "insane"?

In fact, I see them creating a real threat to freedom and tolerance in general. So, why not take that up with them?

And why do you assume that the religious left isn't taking it up with them? www.sojo.net went on a multi-million dollar campaign to promote the idea that "Jesus was not a Republican" and other groups have engaged in similar actions. One group created an TV ad calling on intolerant religions to stop their bigotry. Could your incorrect assumption be a sign of bias?

[trotsky]

262. Well, to be historically accurate...

many governments and despots have found Xianity to be an incredibly useful tool in whipping up the population to their cause and dividing people against each other when necessary. It lends itself well to the cause, being authoritarian in structure, with strict commandments, threats of punishment, and promises of an afterlife. Today's Republicans are simply the latest group to use that tool.

[sangh0]

355. Well, to be more completely accurate historically

many governments have found atheism an incredibly usedul tool in whipping up the population to their cause and dividing people against each other when necessary. It lends itself well to the cause, stripping people of their traditions and culture making them ready for the new ideology which promises prosperity for all. The Chinese government would be a good example of a government that uses atheism as such a tool.

[trotsky]

358. I guess if by "accurate" you mean "fiction."

What about atheism can "whip up" (motivate) a population for anything? Atheism is not a philosophy in and of itself, it has no creed, no rules, no structure, nothing.

Communists have embraced atheism really only because they have despised mind-control competition from religions. Communism, in essence, BECOMES the religion. Unlike fundamentalist Xianity, which is virtually inseparable from right-wing politics.

A poor, poor analogy.

[sangh0]

367. I guess Mao was also a Christian, huh?

What about atheism can "whip up" (motivate) a population for anything? Atheism is not a philosophy in and of itself, it has no creed, no rules, no structure, nothing.

Exactly. That's why I said that it strips people of ideology. Perfect for setting the stage for some mind-control. And even you acknowledge how atheism can be used as a tool for mind control....

Communists have embraced atheism really only because they have despised mind-control competition from religions.

[trotsky]

421. But atheism isn't the tool, sangh0.

Communism replaces religion as the mind control tool. Atheism helps eliminate the competition, but in and of itself, gives no power to control others. There's a difference there which is apparently lost on you.

[sangh0]

428. What's lost on you

is that like Atheism, Christianity gives no power to control others either.

[trotsky]

441. I'm afraid I'm not the one who's lost here.

Are you saying people don't follow what the Pope says?

Xianity also directly provided the justification for the divine right of kings - you did what the king said because he was god's chosen leader. Xianity was the foundation of the king's power.

You have a strange view of history, sangh0.

[TankLV]

383. I don't know why I'm always suckered into these threads.

The reason I believe that the religious types are a real threat to freedom and tolerance in general, is because, in spite of your proof to the contraty, it is not widely known, and is almost never publicized in our whore media. The whole "if a tree falls" line of thinking.

If true christians are indeed thinking and espousing what you suggest, then they certainly are NOT getting the air time and publicity they should.

The only ones getting on 24/7 are the intolerant ones, the fallwelss, robertsons, coulters, limpballs, etc.

Generalizations are wrong - it is true. But what to do when the only examples we have are the worst kinds?

My brother-in-law is a methodist minister and is one of the good guys - he's constantly fighting the fallwells of this world who have hijacked religious discourse in thie country, as the previous elections have exemplified.

[sangh0]

431. Yes, I know that feeling well, TankLV (being suckered)

I don't see why or how Martin Luther King Jr, one of those "religious types", could be considered a "real threat to freedom and tolerance". I suspect that's not who you were talking about that.

Maybe I'm misreading your intended meaning, but to say that the perceptions the media has fostered concerning the radicalism of "christians" (based on the actions of the relatively few on the far right) should be accepted by us sounds remarkably like an argument that liberals should not call themselves liberals because the media has corrupted the public's perception of what that word means.

The point here is that you don't win by playing offense or by giving up. Allowing the corporate media to determine what words mean, and what we stand for is a recipe for certain defeat. When the civil rights movement was in full swing, african americans fought back and refused to let others label them. They insisted on their right to identify themselves, and they eventually won.

So why should the followers of Christ give up his name to a group that behaves in complete contradiction to Christ's teachings? Why go along with it instead of fighting back? We complain when dems don't fight back, so why not advise Christians to do the same.

We on the left have to take the language back.

Generalizations are wrong - it is true. But what to do when the only examples we have are the worst kinds?

A very good question and I wish I had more a more specific and detailed answer to, but all I can think of right now is that Christians, and other well-intentioned religious people, have to generate their own examples, and find a way to force them into the mainstream's view. It's not going to be easier, and it's just going to be that much harder if the religious left gets no help from the non-religious left.

We're on the same side. We should be helping each other. Unfortunately, too many on the left too determined to continue criticizing "Christians" when what they really oppose are conservative theocrats.

[regnaD kciN]

260. Well, to answer your question...

Who were the ones who brought God and Christanity full-force into the political sphere? Who is using said to influence and alter our secular rights?

The first group to do so in this country's history were the abolitionists in the early- and mid-nineteenth century.

There have been others -- the Christian Socialists of the late nineteenth century, the pacifists around WWI, Dorothy Day's "Catholic Worker" movement mid-century, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. A large portion of the antiwar movement during Vietnam was driven by Christianity -- you've heard of the Berrigan brothers, perchance?

Of course, alongside those progressive Christian movements, there have been conservative ones. Prohibitionism, Father Coughlin's right-wing extremism of the 1930s, and of course the Moral Majority/Christian Coalition movement of the last twenty years, are all prime examples.

The point is that overt Christian involvement in politics has been ongoing for a long time, and from different points along the political spectrum. The notion, which I hear you saying above, that everything was fine and secular until Christianity suddenly decided to enter the political sphere and impose a right-wing agenda on everyone else a couple of decades ago is really quite far from the mark.

[TankLV]

387. But those you illuminate from the causes of justice and equlity did not

seek to enshrine their religion as THE official religion of the land, as today's fundies do.

They used their beliefs and religion to fight for justice and equality only. Their religion was personal and not for government enshrinement.

We have no problems with those examples.

What we have a problem with is those that would force their brand of "christianity" down our throats, and enshrine their perverted beliefs into the law of the land.

[Harlan James]

14. So I'm guessing DUers who sense and fear the wrath of the Xtian right...

...should just learn to turn the other cheek?

I'm sorry, but in politics nothing is sacred. And once evangelicals and the rest of that crowd decided to allow themselves become politicized, they effectively crawled in to bed with Caesar.

They're fair targets.

[regnaD kciN]

264. No. but...

...neither should "DUers who sense and fear the wrath of the Xtian right" respond by trashing the members of the "Christian left" here on this board. They're not "fair targets."

[Harlan James]

299. Methinks you missed the pernt

But you do the umbrage thing well. Having an easily wounded affinity seems to be a prerequisite for many here at DU.

Ask yourself this: How did one of the most immoral and dishonest presidents in the history of our fair nation manage to overcome these perceived shortcomings and emerge from the wash as the candidate who best represents the pristine values of the average American?

Was it because of:

A) His position on tax cuts?

B) His strong support for the war on terrorism?

C) His insistence on having elections in Iraq?

D) His defiance on the outsourcing of jobs issue?

E) The lemming-like support of the church going American men and women of this nation's heartland?

Take your time.

[regnaD kciN]

392. As far as election analysis after the first day or so has gone, it was B)

Although the initial commentary seized on a supposed "moral values" vote, later analysis showed that to be somewhat of a mirage, and that what really drove the majority of Bush voters was a belief (however insane) that only Daddy George could protect us from the Big Bad Boogeyman Bin Ladin.

Besides, once again, you ignored my point (or, as you would put it in your oh-so-charming way, my "pernt"). Even if, as you so like to believe, it was the fundies that were primarily responsible for giving Bush another term, that scarcely justifies attacking the non-fundy, non-conservative Christians on this board. As I pointed out earlier, that's a little like claiming that, because of heavy African-American involvment in gang activities, any African-American is a "fair target" for you to hold responsible for crime in the U.S.

And kindly take your comments about "easily wounded affinity" (which basically translates to "I have the right to insult you, but you don't have the right to feel insulted") and stick it where the sun don't shine. Had someone gone after your beliefs and principles in a similar way, I'm sure you'd be just as offended. And, on the same subject, isn't it interesting that I've yet to see any of the Christians here go on the offensive, and start ridiculing the atheist viewpoint in and of itself (as opposed to defending against the atheist attacks on Christianity)?

[Harlan James]

413. Your Vehemence Confuses Me

Please cite an instance where I've said anything offensive about any religion.

And I do not consider myself in any way an atheist. Your inference that I might be so is really not that much better than saying that because I do not support Bush I favor the terrorists.

Not that I mean to equate terrorists with atheists, mind you. After all, terrorism now seems to be an answer found far more attractive by religious fundamentalists than those dedicated to the teachings of someone like Karl Marx.

But I do feel that religions say far more about man than they do God. Let's face it, if God is so petty and narrow that He exists to differentiate and privilege one set of rituals, liturgies, and prayer objects over the others, then we're all in big trouble. I sincerely doubt any one religion could ever live up to that level of scrutiny. And if that is the case, who could be in more dire need of forgiveness than those foolish enough to claim to speak for God?

There most certainly is a God. There can be no other reason for all of this.

But you really do need to cite something that backs up your claim that it was the terrorism issue that put Bush over the top. While it certainly is in the interest of Karl Rove (etc) to protect the interests and special vulnerabilities of this valued constituency by downplaying the effect of its vote, 5 million new evangelical voters was far more than the margin of difference in this election.

Why Bush And Political Christianity Mattered
http://usa.mediamatters.net/content/view/full/11321/

[luaneryder]

21. Agreed

but the tolerance should be working both ways. I see intolerance being heaped upon those who do not embrace fundamental Christianity. I personally resent being force fed someone else's version of morality and religion. I must have missed the post about ignorant boobs, but I feel confident that the majority of DU'ers and Democrats in general are a hell of a lot more religiously tolerant than freepers and Republicans.

[Darranar]

26. By the same logic, I should stop discussing politics...

after all, I'm offending Republicans, right?

Truth does not conform to the rule of the majority, nor does it conform to everyone's personal beliefs.

[radwriter0555]

30. Why should I be tolerant of belief systems based on fairy tales?

This IS still america. I AM still free to criticize that which I deem harmful, ridiculous and flat out wrong.

I don't need to be tolerant of anything that is ultimately so globally destructive and harmful.

[shadowknows69]

36. as you said

Fairy tales don't kill people.Morons that read them the wrong way kill people.

[smirkymonkey]

59. Touche!

There's a bumpersticker for you!

[AliciaKeyedUp]

37. With tolerance like that

We can, will and should lose every election.

[radwriter0555]

39. people who base elections on fairy tales are quite doomed really.

See what happened on 2 November?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

41. They didn't base it on fairy tales

They based it on a different set of beliefs. Just because I disagree doesn't make me too blind to see it.

[m berst]

336. fairy tales?

The Democratic party strategy is based on the biggest bunch of goofy fairy tales imaginable...

- Tell people they are stupid if they don't agree with you and they will join you.

- You can be funded by corporations but still have the interests of the common man at heart.

- Anything to the left of Nelson Rockefeller is "too radical" and extreme.

- Embrace countering the issues and points of view of the opposition as a basis for your appeal.

- It is best not to take strong stands so as not to alienate swing voters.

- The only thing wrong with the party is that it doesn't "win" and since winning is everything, we need to adjust the platform and the words we use to better win - UNLESS that means being nice to Christians.

Those are just a few of the fairy tales about the Democratic party that come to mind for me.

[Perky]

50. oh and liberalism is going to save the world?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

79. Liberalism DID save the world.

Ever heard of this skirmish a few decades ago called World War II?

[sangh0]

150. You think it was liberalism that won WWII?

You should do some reading about FDR. Was it liberalism that led FDR to refuse entry to the SS St Louis and it's Jewish passengers who were fleeing extermination camps?

Those passengers were eventually returned to Europe, where they were captured and killed.

Was that liberalism?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

155. Sorry I spoke well of a president you don't like.

Next time I'll praise Reagan, mmmkay?

[sangh0]

161. I don't like FDR?

I guess anyone who states the facts must "hate" FDR, right? Very tolerant of you.

And I notice you haven't explained how liberalism won WWII? For someone who supports FDR, you seem very unwilling to defend his legacy

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

175. Do you want me to spell it out in big letters?

Depression -> FDR comes in -> New Deal -> USA is rebuilt -> Fascists attack -> USA (with commie help) kicks Fascist ass -> world is saved.

But you knew that already, of course. Don't pretend you don't know the most basic facts of world history.

[sangh0]

183. So I see you don't know FDR's history

1) There were several "New Deals"

2) The USA was not "rebuilt" until AFTER WWII. You got the sequence wrong.

3) Fascists never attacked us. They were attacking and conquering nations for years before we got involved.


But you knew that already, of course

No, what I already knew is true, and no the childish view you just posted.

on edit: I just noticed that you haven't said one word about how FDR didn't allow Jewish refugees to land in the US. Do you think it's OK that FDR let those Jews be exterminated by the Nazis?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

196. Not informed enough about that event

I may do some research from reliable sources. And here's a hint: if you want me to consider something a reliable source -- DON'T post a link. I know how to use Google.

[sangh0]

199. You don't know about FDR's policies about Jewish refugees?

And you think you know enough to speak about how FDR's "liberalism" won WWII?

The story of the St Louis is WIDELY known. You really should look into it, along with the history of how FDR led us into getting involved in WWII.

[eyepaddle]

308. Technically

The Fascists (Italians) only attacked AND conquered Albania--they attemtped to conquer parts of Africa (Ethiopia) and it went brutally to hell on them. Then the Nazis dug them temporarily out of their African (mis)adventure.

The Nazis (Germans) and the Japanese militarists did a bunch of conquering. The Nazis did in fact attck us, with a U-boat offensive on the East Coast, it gets a lot less attention than the Day of Infamy, but the Germans got the drop on us too. Much to the shock and relief of Churchill who had assumed Hitler would try to let us focus on the Pacific and stay out of Europe.

Since I'm just being an annoying sideshow I will admit that the Nazis did in fact declare war before commencing operations in US waters.

[sangh0]

354. I agree

and I never object to more accurate descriptions. Thank you

[eyepaddle]

389. Not a problem,

Sometimes you need a little safety valve in a discussion--and my main interst in WWII was always the naval stuff for some reason. I so rarely get to find a use for that!

Good night DU'ers all

[RetroLounge]

112. Yes. Try reading History Books instead of Myth

RL

[sangh0]

153. That's an attack, not an argument

Why don't you actually cite something YOU read in those history books?

I'll do the same:

Tell me how liberalism led FDR to refuse to allow the SS St Louis, and it's Jewish passengers escaping the Holocaust?

[regnaD kciN]

265. Maybe it will, maybe it won't...

...but, certainly, a militant policy of ridiculing anyone who doesn't embrace atheism sure won't!

[CarbonDate]

309. For anybody who's wondering "where's the intolerance?"

I present to you Exhibit A.

[BOSSHOG]

34. "To win elections, you need to be more tolerant of people

who do not think like you." Is that the way christian conservatives did in 2004? Christian conservatives in the red state (MS) where I live have less then zero tolerance for the thoughts of liberals and their candidate won the election big time. Please explain that to me. I'm surrounded by conservatives and they tolerate no thoughts beyond what comes from the pulpit and it you think otherwise you are scum. I can very easily equate church going with ignorance. I see it every day.

[BiggJawn]

45. Oh, yeah, perhaps people like ReTHUGlicans?

We have seen these past 5 years just how well "Bi-Partisanship" works, haven't we? Go ask Tom Dachle if you're confused.

Damn few Conservatives "reaching out" around here, too. they're all still too busy going "In your FACE, Dumb-O-Crap!" to reach out.

as to the question of "religious tolerance" that Perky first posted....Perky, you FIRST mistake was assuming that just because we're on this board that all of us are Uber-tolerant of everything.

Sorry, we're all human. and this argument has been fought time and again in one form of another.

It almost qualifies as "flame-bait", IMO.

[m berst]

316. that doesn't say much

You say -

"I can very easily equate church going with ignorance. I see it every day."

Well, I can very easily equate mall going with ignorance. I see that every day. That doesn't mean you are ignorant because you go to the mall, and I am sure that if I said "anyone who goes to the mall is ignorant" people here would - rightfully - object to that statement.

[MichiganVote]

35. Define tolerant. I don't know what you are referring to.

[Malikshah]

42. Thanks so much for simply adding to the mix

If folks would just sit back and stop claiming to be victims they would realize the culture war that is going on. :think: :think: :think:

[w4rma]

48. You said it better than I could. (nt)

[noamnety]

49. We can talk about this

When:

1. The liberal atheists decide that certain Christians don't deserve health insurance, or survivor benefits because their beliefs don't match ours.

2. The liberal atheists start putting up monuments in courthouses or putting slogans on our money or rewriting the pledge to proclaim THERE IS NO GOD.

3. The liberal atheists start deciding which Christians can or can't have sex and when.

4. The liberal atheists start denying medicines to Christians because the medicine offends our personal moral sense.

5. The liberal atheists start writing state constitutions that forbid Christians from running for public office.

6. The liberal atheists start using public tax dollars to promote programs that teach that there is no God.

7. The liberal atheists start outlawing Christian holidays in their local communities.

8. The liberal atheists start opening every public school graduation ceremony with a speech denouncing the existence of God.

When all that happens, you can come to me and discuss how the atheists in this country are being intolerant of the Christians.

[datasuspect]

52. sorry

won't happen that way.

atheists are often more moral than your average christian.

[MXMLLN]

64. And often extraordinarily NOT!

Question: Who was the Bloodiest Tyrant in the history of the World ?

Answer: We don't know (but he was an atheist).

That's probably the saddest fact of the Twentieth Century. There are so many candidates for the award of top monster that we can't decide between them. Whether it's Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong or Iosif Stalin is, quite frankly, anybody's guess.

For now, let's just skip over the whole margin of error thing -- reasonable people have studied the evidence and come up with wildly differing numbers. You're free to check my sources, but for now, trust me. I've studied the matter at great length and decided that the most likely death toll for these three are:

TYRANT DEATHS

Mao 40 Million
Hitler 34 Million
Stalin 20 Million

[Metatron]

67. Are you claiming that atheists are more likely to kill

than religious people? What sources are you referring to? Some historians might look at the total history of the Roman Catholic Chrurch and conclude differently.

[sangh0]

148. No

and if you think the RCC has killed more, I suggest you research the matter. You may be surprised

[Metatron]

165. Eh?

I was replying to the post which seemed to indicate that atheists are more responsible for killing people. As I said, perhaps historians would disagree with that assessment and gave one possibility. I was looking for the sources that this poster was referring to, instead of just trusting their opinion - or yours for that matter.

[sangh0]

171. The poster did cite examples of atheists killing millions

and if you're more interested in researching the matter, you can Google it. The 30-40 million for Mao's Great Famine is a widely accepted estimate. So are the other number's that were posted.

I doubt that many here are going to have a link handy to document this, just as few here are going to have alink proving that WWII happened. If questioned, they'd use Google and find a link, something you could do as well.

You are free to post as you feel, but you might want to find out the facts about who killed who BEFORE commenting about the comparisons being made here. Try Googling "Mao" and "Great Famine"

[Metatron]

177. The poster said:

"You're free to check my sources, but for now, trust me." I was asking for their sources for their statistics. That is all I wanted. I am a professional researcher (I even use sources *other* than Google) & I know how to find the information to draw my own conclusions. I was asking for the sources by that poster.

And, thanks for your permission to post on this message board.

[sangh0]

188. You're a researcher, but you can't find info on Mao's Great Famine?

Have you even tried?

You've been given enough info to find what you're looking for.

And, thanks for your permission to post on this message board.

I didn't give you permission. I merely noted that you are free to post. Nice try.

[Metatron]

194. I dont know how to be any clearer.

I was asking the other poster for *their* sources. I can find mine own. I'm not sure why you cared to respond since it was a direct question from me to them.

[sangh0]

197. Why does that matter?

If you can confirm the info from some other source, what difference does it make?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

198. You know,

There may be no evil that's not atheist. </sarcasm>

[Metatron]

201. LOL!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

70. Hitler advertised himself as Christian -- just like Dubya.

Read Mein Kampf. He has nothing but praises but the Christian religion except for lamenting how it drifted away from its "true values" and allowed the Jews to "take over".

[sangh0]

159. Hitler also wrote of how he pretended to be Christian

so he could use the Church, He also wrote about how he planned to dump them as soon as he had enough power to do so. And then he did just that.

Arguing that Hitler was motivated by religious beliefs when the only evidence of that are statements he admitted were lies, is not the strongest of arguments.

It's like saying bush* is compassionate merely because he says so. Your post makes it obvious that you don't believe bush*, so why do you argue as if you believe Hitler, when you know that Hitler was also lying?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

193. Sources, please.

Mine is Mein Kampf, which you can find online here: http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt

Yours?

[sangh0]

357. In Goebbel's diaries

for one place, which is mentioned in another post in this thread.

And I hope that you do know where Mein Kampf was written, right? (Hint: It was early in his "career" and he still needed to be on good terms with the Church)

[m berst]

318. that is a stretch

I am reading the diaries of Josef Goebbels right now, and he describes many conversations with Hitler where they discussed their opposition to Christianity and their propaganda program for misleading the people about that for political advantage.

This particularly relevant to day, because I strongly suspect that George Bush is cynically creating an image of being a Christian to gain political advantage.

[Spider Jerusalem]

74. So fucking what?

Ever heard of the Crusades? The Inquisition? The Russian pogroms of the 1600's and 1700's? Witch trials? "Bloody" Mary and the persecution of Protestants? (One of my Puritan ancestors was burned at the stake during Mary's reign.) I could go on and on and on with this. You COULD say that, metaphorically speaking, the Christian god is the bloodiest tyrant in the history of the world, considering how much fuckery's been committed in his name.

[sangh0]

163. You contradict yourself

You start out arguing that how many were killed is irrelevant (ie "So what?") and then continue by arguing that Christianity killed more.

Unfortunately, you're wrong. Atheists have killed tens of millions. The Crusades, the Inquisition *AND* the Black Plague don't add up to that.

[Spider Jerusalem]

170. No, you misread my words.

The thrust of my argument is that it doesn't really MATTER whether followers of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god or atheists have killed more. Both sides have a LOT of blood on their hands.

Seems like you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

[sangh0]

172. Then you worded it very poorly

Here's what you said:

You COULD say that, metaphorically speaking, the Christian god is the bloodiest tyrant in the history of the world, considering how much fuckery's been committed in his name.

You are clearly saying that the number killed DOES matter. If it's not the numbers that make it possible to call the Christian god "the bloodiest tyrant in the history of the world" then what is it?

[Spider Jerusalem]

186. Like I said, it DOESN'T MATTER...

and proportionally, the wars of religion of the Middle Ages killed a higher percentage of earth's population at the time than died in World Wars I & II combined. (Note: Percentage, not raw number. Which is more significant from a sociological and reproductive standpoint.)

[sangh0]

192. Then why did you say

the christian God could be called the bloodiest tyrant in the world's history? And here's the answer:

the wars of religion of the Middle Ages killed a higher percentage of earth's population at the time than died in World Wars I & II combined. (Note: Percentage, not raw number. Which is more significant from a sociological and reproductive standpoint.)

I don't see how you expected me to understand that this is what you meant when you hadn't yet said it.

[Runcible Spoon]

347. why don't you do the math

and look at proportionate population percentage instead of the raw numbers? What PERCENT of X population was ethnically cleansed by religious dictators vs. what PERCENT of Y population was killed by secular dictators....I'd really be interested to see if your argument holds water then.

[m berst]

320. inconsistency

To blame everything bad that ever happened in Christian Europe on Christianity, and yet not credit Christianity for everything good ever done in Christian Europe, is simplistic, inconsistent and reflects a bias against Christians and Christianity.

This talk of crusades and inquisitions was originally used, in my experience, to refute the idea that everything associated with Christianity in any way was automatically good. It is a leap to use it to invalidate Christianity and imply that everything associated with Christianity is bad.

[Cats Against Frist]

81. What? You're letting God off the Hook?

Actually, it depends on what you count. If we're talking about TOTAL deaths, including war, famine and democide, it's more like:

Mao 65 million
Stalin 60 million
Hitler 53 million

But you're conveniently leaving out Western expansion, the decimation of the Americas, manifest destiny, the crusades, the conquistadors, the Inquisition, colonailism/imperialism, the El Nino famines, and Christian slaughter of Muslims and Jews in Europe.

"God" and the "claming of the new world for God," and western superiority is far superior in death, disease, torture and bloodshed than the commies and Hitler. And religion in general -- whoa -- if you add in Islam, and count all the Christians and Muslims killing each other, you've added a few million more. If you add Ireland and the Palestinian conflict -- tens of thousands more.

Religion is just as dangerous as commanded apostasy and religious persecution -- because it's mostly not about "religion" at all, but power, resources, dominance and submission and racism -- using God, or moral superiority as an excuse.

Rather one-sided, your analysis.

[matcom]

94. Hitler WAS SELF PROCLAIMED CHRISTIAN!!!

you obviously haven't done THAT much study :eyes:

[sangh0]

166. No he wasn't

Hitler wrote that he lied about his beliefs in order to use the Church. He also wrote that once he had enough power, he was going to oppress religion. And he did/

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

200. I wonder where you got THAT from.

Can't find anything of the sort by searching the 'Net.

[sangh0]

204. Look for Hitler's "Table Talk"

.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

206. Thank you -- I did.

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

[sangh0]

209. A couple of points

1) Do some more research. The nobeliefs website has a definite bias. That's not to say they're flat out wrong, or distorting the facts. It's just that's there are more sources, and the more viewpoints you hear about, the better conclusion you can reach. I think you'll find that Table Talk is considered pretty accurate by a number of well-respected historians.

2) The piece you linked says that Hitler never renounced "his christianity", and somehow distinguishes between Hitlers version of Christianity and organized religion. Read more of the Table Talk, and I'll think you'll see that what Hitler believed bears almost no resemblance to any form of Christianity as it was practiced at the time or since.

Here's a link that goes into in some detail, and it's from a reputable source.

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/books/annual3/chap09.html

[Runcible Spoon]

348. what difference does it make if Hitler renounced his beliefs if...

the majority of his followers were STILL killing under a specific belief system that he propagated? There is no way you can brainwash that many people into committing such atrocities without endowing in them some extreme ideology that rationalizes such inhumanity. Just because Hitler renounces being a Christian, in whatever twisted terms he defined, doesn't mean his followers stopped killing and torturing in their God's name; they still believed they were the master race chosen by their conception of God.

[sangh0]

356. If you read the link I provided

you'd see that his follower were never under any sort of Christan belief system, and Hitler NEVER propogated any Christian beliefs.

There is no way you can brainwash that many people into committing such atrocities without endowing in them some extreme ideology that rationalizes such inhumanity.

Sure they had an ideology, but it wasn't a Christian one. Not in deed, or in name.

Just because Hitler renounces being a Christian, in whatever twisted terms he defined, doesn't mean his followers stopped killing and torturing in their God's name;

Read the link I provided. They didn't kill in God's name.

they still believed they were the master race chosen by their conception of God.

Again, read the link. Simon Weisenthal is widely respected student of the Holocaust. His center is renowned for it's research all over the world. Hitler is a proven liar, so why believe hime when he said he was Christian.

And please note that all of the quotes where he praises Christianity come from the earlier years. When he gained enough power, he stopped that, and started pressuring the Church

[Runcible Spoon]

438. I read your link

and don't buy the argument that he was ever and atheist. I'll take Stephen Jay Gould's word for it.

[sangh0]

442. It's possible he wasnt an atheist

but that doesn't mean he was a Christian.

[trotsky]

469. You're not getting away with that one, sangh0.

what Hitler believed bears almost no resemblance to any form of Christianity as it was practiced at the time or since.

Martin Luther, father of the Protestant movement. Perhaps you've heard of him. He wrote a little book called On Jews and their Lies. You can read all about it here: http://www.awitness.org/books/luther/

And I'm not sure what you consider the Christian Identity movement, if not a rehash of Nazism? Also see the Liberty Lobby, Aryan Nations, Christian Patriots Defense League, and the good ol' KKK.

Christian hatred of the Jews & belief in the superiority of the white race predates Hitler and continues to this day.

[FizzFuzz]

111. Hitler=Christian

Some quotes you ought to be aware of:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm
<snip>
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)



from http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm
<snip>
If anyone can lay claim to God's help, then it is Hitler, for without God's benevolent fatherly hand, without his blessing, the nation would not be where it stands today. It is an unbelievable miracle that God has bestowed on our people.

-Minister Rust, in a speech to a mass meeting of German Chrisitans on June 29, 1933

<snip>
Even the Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich who visited Hitler at his mountain retreat in Obersalzburg confessed:

'Without a doubt the chancellor lives in faith in God. He recognizes Christianity as the foundation of Western culture...'

And this comes from reputable Christian sources of the day including a Cardinal! How odd that there are Christians today who think they can divine the mind of an anti-Christian Hitler they never met, removed by a generation, and dismiss all his direct quotes about Jesus, while denying their own brethren of the Church who actually talked with Hitler. If prominent Christians in the 1930s could be so easily deceived, could not be the same be applied to today's Christians? And if deception describes the temper of the faithful, then what does that say for Christianity as a whole and the thinking process that it entails?


<snip>
Hitler, the Christian

Throughout his's life, Hitler showed a remarkable tendency toward conservative faith in God, and saw himself as a reformer and a savior of the German people, and he acted according to his beliefs. He called himself a Christian and spoke in admirable terms about Jesus. At no time did Hitler denounce his own Christianity, and in fact, appealed to Christ as a fighter, just as he saw himself as a fighter. He was baptized, he took the sacraments and received Communion. Was he a devout church goer? No. Did he appeal to prayerful priests? No. But appeals to physical places or the Church hierarchy are not what constitutes Christianity. Christianity does not exist "out there'. It only exists in the minds of certain people who profess a belief in God and Christ. That's why we can only appeal to the direct words from an individual to determine their belief, and Hitler expressed his belief with brutal honesty.

[sangh0]

174. Look at the dates of those quotes

They all come from EARLY on in his political career BEFORE he had such immense political and military power.

[RetroLounge]

128. Wow! Your first post and this is it?

enjoy your stay Your Emminence...

RL

[Ardee]

151. Only 20 mil for Stalin?

How about those who abetted such slaughter, like, for example, the Catholic Church in Germany and Italy which abetted the rise of fascism in both places.

The Inquisition couldnt possibly be laid at the door of atheists, nor the bloody crusades. The numbers of abused children , raped by priests,abetted and ignored by the Church, doesnt approach those numbers to be sure, but is it any less an atrocity?

The upshot is that humans do horrific things to each other and whether they are committed in the name of religion or not is secondary.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

203. Keep in mind there were

(a) less people to be killed and (b) not much suitable technology for efficient wholesale killing. 20th century mass murderers had it much easier.

[Ardee]

261. Yes, thanks

I had meant to mention the unfair advantages of 20th century mass murderers over their more religious but handicapped by technology predecessors.

[Darranar]

189. Hitler was no atheist. n/t

[sangh0]

205. He was no Christian either

Hitler's religion, if it could be called that, was racism and amorality

[TankLV]

391. As is fallwell and robertson, etc. but they say otherwise.

Your semantics is disingenuous.

Bunkerboy also calls himself a "born again christisn" but your description of hitler describes him to a tee. But the fundie right wing wackos EMBRACE him as their primier member!

[sangh0]

432. Not entirely true

Fallwell's, Robertson's and bush*'s ideology, while making generous use of racism, is not based on racism and is definitely not amoral. It has a moral code; An immoral moral code, but a moral code it is. Amorality is based on the idea that there is no such thing as good and bad. bush* and the others obviously believe (obvious because their actions, and not just their words, betray it) in a moral code.

But the fundie right wing wackos EMBRACE him as their primier member!

They're idiots, so why give them the power to determine what the words "born again chrstian" means?

PS - bush* does NOT consider himself a born again christian.

[indigobusiness]

412. Hitler was a Hippie

ZombyWoof was right!

[immoderate]

237. Can one who takes on the mantle of Deity be called an atheist?

The examples you cite set themselves up for worship, published "sacred writings," and commanded followers in their personal faith (loyalty). It's kind of like calling Pharoah an atheist.

--IMM

[PassingFair]

386. Hitler killed 34 million people

...all by himself?

[knight_of_the_star]

245. Wow you can stereotype

I'm impressed again, how about proof for that?

[matcom]

53. DING DING DING DING DING!!

we have a WINNAH!

well put

[arwalden]

54. File >> Print >> This Page >> Saved >> Framed!!

Excellent!!

[Beetwasher]

60. Brav-Fucking-O!

n/t

[Old and In the Way]

61. Thanks for posting.

Why is it such a difficult concept for hardcore Christians to understand that we have no problems with whatever it is they choose to believe? They can even believe Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are doing God's work if they to.

Just respect my right to believe what I choose...and ultimately, what I choose to believe, is none of their business.

[gollygee]

62. A voice of reason!

Great post :D

[Cats Against Frist]

69. Bravo

Wonderful post.:bounce: :toast: :beer:

[genieroze]

95. Amen

as a Christian I agree with you.

[RetroLounge]

123. Exactly!

Great list indeed!

and then THEY have the balls to accuse others of being intolerant?

:eyes:

RL

[regnaD kciN]

269. YES, WE DO!

Because you have the intellectual dishonesty to take what one group (the minority of Christians who make up the religious right) advocates and use it to smear a completely different group (Christians as a whole, and particularly those here on DU, which even the slightest amount of rational thought would lead one to realize are NOT members of the religious right).

That is intolerance. That is bigotry. It's every bit as bigoted as claiming that, because there are African-Americans involved in gang activities, one is justified in assuming that all African-Americans are likely criminals.

:argh:

[noamnety]

364. We aren't smearing a completely different group

People here are capable of seeing the differences between the talibangelists and other Christians. I suspect everyone here was able to see the difference between someone like Kerry who is deeply religious, but holds those beliefs seperate from policy issues, and someone like Bush who tries to evangelise by enforcing church law on nonchristians by way of our government.

[regnaD kciN]

393. Judging from what I've seen on this thread, I highly doubt it!

From what I've seen here, there's no distinction made between the "talibangelists" and other Christians by many. If you're a Christian, so the perception seems to be, you're either a fundamentalist or too dense, wimpy, self-deceiving, or "PC" to realize that the only consistent form of Christianity (according to them) is religious-right fundamentalism.

:grr:

[noamnety]

414. I think you are generalizing

or seeing what you want to see. Which makes you as bad as what you are accusing others of.

Like I said, people here were universally fine with Kerry's religion.

[RetroLounge]

426. I see three groups of Christians

1) "talibangelists" - "Nazis"

2) Christians who fell for their shit and voted bush*(fundamentalist or too dense) - "Good Germans"

3) Christians who voted Democtrat. (consistent form of Christianity )

I believe 1 & 2 make up the majority.

RL

[RetroLounge]

424. Uhm, get off the cross, martyr, we need the wood

The "THEY" was refering to bush*, Falwell, etc.

Sorry if you felt part of their group.

May want to evaluate why...

RL

[FizzFuzz]

136. PERFECT! n/t

[Ardee]

145. Bravo

darned liberal atheists.......:bounce:

well done...though I must note that the fundamentalists to which you refer are a minority of those who practice religious beliefs.....

[datasuspect]

147. DAMN YOU SECULAR HUMANISTS!

why must you use reason and logic and not superstition to make sense?

/sarcasm

[m berst]

337. this is hypocritical

Liberal atheism is not a competing religion, is it? Everything except the handful of things you cited could be seen as expressions of liberal atheism, if we accept the way you are setting this up. That is in fact the way that Falwell and Robertson present things to people, and you have just done much to assist them in their efforts.

By associating liberalism=m with atheism you are accepting and strengthening the propaganda of the most extreme elements of the right wing, and you help them strategically by encouraging an us versus them mentality. With things defined the way you are defining them here, the right wing is given a big boost. "Us versus them" thinking helps them - the reactionaries - and never us - liberals and progressives.

The more "ding ding ding" this earns, the more worried about it I would be. "Ding ding ding" is self-evidently a call for suspending reason and "racking up points" for "our team" and reflects a thinking that will destroy liberalism.

[arwalden]

411. Horseshit!

[trotsky]

457. So, we aren't allowed to express our atheism

or how it relates to the liberal agenda because it will strengthen the right wing?

That is no different than people on here who were telling gays to just get over this "marriage thing" so that it wouldn't strengthen the right wing.

That's pathetic. I will *NOT* shut up when my rights are endangered.

Atheists & the non-religious comprise between 10 and 12% of the population in the US. When it comes to voting blocks, that's pretty damn good. I don't think you should be telling us to pipe down because we're scaring away the bible-thumpers.

[PassingFair]

384. Yay! Now THAT'S putting things in perspective!

...and it's only going to get worse. At public functions I now have to sometimes sit through 3 or more types of "blessings" so that all "theological bases" are covered, but I've never had someone get up, denounce all gods and ask us to use common sense and will.

[Trajan]

56. Maybe the problem ....

Is believing that disagreement = insult ....

Sure: SOME posters are blatantly insulting to xtians, but they are relatively rare, and somehow those who have decent disagreement with the canon and it's philosophies are lumped in as 'insulting' as well ...

I used to be a christian, an ardent catholic ... I now speak out against faith-belief; NOT as an insult, but as an honest disagreement with theology ....

NON Christians neednt be insulting, and neither should christians be when their beliefs are challenged ....

[marlakay]

63. I agree as my beliefs have changed

I still believe in God but not the whole christianity part of it. I think in a free society we should all be allowed to express our beliefs or lack of them without insult.

I think part of the problem for the right is that they believe so strongly in a certain way and don't want their kids influenced by others that don't believe like them. So they are trying to change society to match their belief systems so every where they go from school, to tv, to radio, to government it is all the same so they won't be tempted to the other side. I wonder how we will ever be able to live together when they seem to want to be this way??

[pschoeb]

58. Um, You are being Hypocritically intolerant in your own post

"To suggest that anyone who believes in God is an ignorant boob only reinforces middle America's view of Democrats in general... that we are both areligious and amoral with its power centers in Boston and San Francisco rather than Indianapolis, Denver and Atlanta"

This is clearly saying that people should be seen as religious, and that the non religious are amoral. It also makes some strange geographical stereotypes that are prejudicial and not based on fact, that there are higher percentage of irreligious in Boston, than say Indianapolis. But in the ARIS(American Religious Identification Survey) survey from 2001 Indiana(16%) and Colorado(21%) have an equal or higher percentage of non-religious than Massachusetts(16%) and Indiana is lower, but Colorado is higher than California(19%).

In fact the Western States are actually known for their non-religiousness, Colorado(21%), Wyoming(20%), Idaho(19%), Montana(17%), Utah(17%), Arizona(17%), New Mexico(18%), Nevada(20%), Washington(25% highest State), Oregon(21%) actually have some of the highest levels of non-religious, higher than any of the East Coast States(all >17%) except Vermont(22%). Sometime considerably below 17% like New York is 13% and Connecticut is 12%.

[Spider Jerusalem]

65. Religion is a private matter; it should be kept out of the public sphere.

Keep it between yourself and whatever god or gods you choose to believe in. I think that, in a nation of three hundred million people of every religious faith (and many who have no faith at all) religion should play no part in public discourse, as it cannot but divide and cause acrimony, intolerance, and bad feeling.

Keep your beliefs to yourself, and I'll keep my lack thereof to myself. If you and other Christians and persons of other religions are incapable of doing so, be prepared for a response from those who disagree. It's that simple.

[Perky]

77. But you see that is precisely the issue

There are many dems who feel that one's faith should not influence their politics...I think that is exceedlingly unfortunate. My faith is the basis for my convictions Faith ought to influence my every motive. WHat is wrong with my faith impacting what I believe politically?

As importantly, we can not reasonably expect to become a majority party by divoricing faith from politics since 80% of AMericans beleive in God,

[Spider Jerusalem]

83. Therein lies the problem.

One cannot truly claim to represent one's elective constituency if one feels compelled to take positions which are antithetical to the beliefs and principles of many members of that constituency. Assume that the President of the United States were a Catholic. Would you like him to decide abortion policy based on his faith? Regardless of the fact that that faith, and his views on the subject, are not shared by millions of Americans?

And the fact that eighty percent of Americans believe in god is irrelevant. The rights of the MINORITY are supposedly protected under the American Constitution from infringement by the majority. If the tables were turned, and non-theists were in the majority, would it make you happy if they outlawed religion and enforced their views on the rest of the country? Probably not.

[Perky]

87. That is not what I am takling about at all

don't twist my words... I am only suggesting that one faith ought to influence one's politics. Does not in anyway mean that we should not be tolerant of others.

[FizzFuzz]

149. telling typo: "ONE faith ought to influence one's politics"

ONE faith. YOUR faith?

Who told you YOURS is the faith that holds the right view? In MY faith, the right view is the one that does least harm/creates most good; that wich respects fundamental human dignity.

Faiths that subject groups outside of their beliefs to rules that will result in health crises, economic suffering, hate-speech and hate crimes, ideological persecution, etc etc etc, deserve to be outed for the grotesque mind-control machines that they are.

and those who have been sucked in deserve pity, but also confrontation.

[Perky]

242. a mole hill into a mountain

Ok so it was a type...It was not Freudian...but ypou are avaoiding the main issue are you not?

[FizzFuzz]

259. "ypou are avaoiding the main issue are you not?"

Not in the least. Read the whole post instead of stopping at the title.

The main issue seems to be, "IS PERKY PRESSING HIS VIEW OF CHRISTIANITY ON OTHERS<AND IS HIS VIEW NARROWMINDED, (though it is masquerading as an accusation that everyone else is narrow and persecutory)?"

I gave my opinion on this question. read the post.

Have you ever heard the quip about the pointing finger? When you point your finger at others, remember, there are three fingers pointing back at you.

[Perky]

268. I have expressed nothing but tolerance for a wide variety

of view points but when people tell me the the Holy Spirit can lick their balls....I draw a line.

[FizzFuzz]

286. I admit, that kind of statement makes me uncomfortable too

and I don't believe in Jesus as a Diety.

I hope that by bringing up the raunchy line here, you're not trying to say that I personally was inferring that sort of offensiveness. By the same token, I also hope that you aren't labeling anyone else here who disagrees with you as therefore linked with those who do go in for extreme shock language. Because you do come off that way in some of your posts. Accusing anyone who identifies and mentions Christian RW hypocrisy of being "ultra-tolerant" is rhetoric I see commonly used to imply "tolerant" to the point of ignoring "God's Laws".

I did have a look at post #179 of yours, and felt better about what you had to say there. Very good job of addressing yourself to the twisting of the spiritual message that the RW fundamentalists do.

[Perky]

313. No I certainly am not..but there are many many people of faith

on this site who watch the bashing that goes on as it movs from the RW fundies to Christians and Christianity and then to blasphemous statements. \\We believe we have a right to be democrats we believe we have a right to be heard. We are not all imbeciles nor are we norrow0minded.

I believe many disenchanted Christains are looking for a home away from the Pharisees on the right. We do not agree with;iberals in every respect but largely that is related to cultural liscentiousnes, but by and large, we associate ourselces with the poor and the hurting just as Jesus did.

I HAVE NEVER said that anyone who does not believe as I do is going to Hell.. My mission, and believe me it is missional, it to point to the Hypocrisy of the RW.

How can I draw people to a Democratic party where we as Christians are ridiculed?


I submit, with all due respect to anyone who sould care to listen, that if the Big Tent is truly a Big tent that it ought to welcome anyone who is willing to pitch in and fight formany many things that we find in common.

We do our cause no earthly good when we steretope all Christians as either historical thugs or backwater boobs. I believe it only serves to reinforce a stereotyp pepetrated by the RW..that the part is out of touch with maistream america and is atheistic and amoral.


I never wanted this to become an attack on Christianoty... I just think we need to seriously consider how we are going to draw people into the party who are just looking for a valide reason to dump the repukes.

The tone of much of this thread pushes them deeper into their pocket...Is that really what we want to do?

[trotsky]

443. "Blasphemous statements"???

What exactly would you qualify as a "blaphemous statement"? Would any statement of another faith be a blasphemous statement against yours?

Do you favor restricting free speech so that no one's religion is insulted?

Are you aware that when YOU make statements of YOUR faith, you are making blasphemous statements against other faiths?

The tone of this thread was set by the initial post, by the way. Don't blame others.

[datasuspect]

445. that assumes

other people ascribe to some notion of "blasphemy."

blasphemy, as christians put it, is the source of plenty of really good humor.

i have to refrain from blasphemy to be a good democrat now?

[H2O Man]

417. Right.

It's people like that Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. that fucked this country up. I'm glad that you are supportive of the late J. Edgar. Better late than never, I suppose.

[Cats Against Frist]

66. What's with the thought police?

I've never said that anyone has to "think" a particular thing, just so that the government provides equal rights and we remain secular, and operate. I don't give a rat's ass if some fundie thinks a gay person is going to hell, or that I'm a "counter-culture" libertine because I hate conservative social institutions and I'm not a consumerist. And I have every right to think that someone who believes in a God is delusional -- so long as I don't try to take away their right to privately worship (which also means, publicly, just not on "public" dollar), and I have the right to think that Gravy America is a pool of ignorance, sloth and apathy. Doesn't mean I want them to have fewer rights than I do. Sheesh.

The difference here is between thinking something and using the government to take away people's civil rights or dedicate this country to some imaginary spirit -- something the freepers can't get straight -- why can't the people on the left get it straight?

[Lefty48197]

73. Please don't call me hypocritical or "intolerant"

I do believe in God, and I support your right to do so also. Calling me a hypocritical DUer is way off base.

[leftofthedial]

82. who says we're ultra-tolerant?

You just made that up. Classic RW strawman tactic. Make up a false statement about your opponent and then bludgeon them with its falseness.

Bah! They say worse about us than we do about them. They are the problem in this world and not the solution. Tolerance of fundamentalism and fascism is no virtue.

[datasuspect]

92. tired of these "set up" posts

you can't even watch the news nowadays because logical fallacy is so rampant everywhere.

i guess du is no exception.

no wonder bush "won."

[RetroLounge]

133. Classic RW strawman tactic

Agree with you, and someone had to say it...

RL

[genieroze]

91. tolerant of people who do not think like you?

The fundies are NOT tolerant of liberals at all. They wont stop until they shove their morals down everyones throat no matter what their religion is. Tolerance involves give and take, not take, take and take some more. I'm not trying to tell them how to pray, maybe they should stop telling me how to live and whoring themselves to politicians to do so. Tolerance is accepting people, I accept them but maybe I don't want to be like them. If that makes Me intolerant, so be it. Not only are they intolerant of non Christians, they are intolerant of Christians who don't pray exactly the same way they do. BTW, I'm a Christian and my personal beliefs are mine and I don't have ANY desire to force them on anyone else, Christian or not. The only thing I require of them or anyone for that matter is to leave me alone and mind your OWN business. I don't think there is a single person here is intolerant of someone who believes in God, just as long as you don't try to force your beliefs on others. These Reich wing Theo Nazi's are giving people of faith a real bad name. I would guess most Christians DON'T think as they do and if that's your message, it's a good one. When people blast these fundies I don't take it personally. It's just like I don't care for Sharon, but that doesn't mean I'm anti Semitic. I hate Osama and his band of nut balls but I know most Muslims are not like him. Unfortunately the people in Iraq are paying for something they had absolutely nothing to do with and I'm intolerant of that.

[indigobusiness]

93. The problem arises from the exploitation of religion...

not by the pursuit of religious understanding.

The corruption of religion is met with justifiable cynical disdain. When the disdain is carried a step further and insults the sincere practitioners of faith, the justifiability is lost.

[TWiley]

96. It is not about CHRISTIANITY, it is about the difference between people

Are you an ASSHOLE? If you are, do not expect your attendance in church to afford you special privileges in this world. Expect to be treated like the ASSHOLE that you are.

Are you NOT an ASSHOLE? Then expect to be treated as well as you treat others. Do not expect special treatment in this world just because you attend church.

The problem is that TOO many ASSHOLES use the church to justify all of their behaviors. It is those folks that have become the lightning rod of resentment.

Does the American Christian have the right to behave like an ASSHOLE, and to expect the rest of the world to afford them special treatment because they go to church?

Of course not.

So, your viewpoint is the problem my friend. You are trying to bundle all Christians together and demand that the rest of the world treat this group as special. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND "CHRISTIANITY" AS A WHOLE.

The problem is not with CHRISTIANITY. The problem is with ASSHOLES who go to church, and make sure that everyone knows that they do.

If you bundle yourself with dogs, then don't cry about getting flea's

[regnaD kciN]

270. The hell it isn't...!

This thread should make it clear that, for a large number of posters, to be a Christian is automatically to be an asshole -- or even that Christianity invariably makes one an asshole.

:puke:

[Toucano]

116. Don't accuse me of being "ultra-tolerant"!

I don't tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, slavery, or greed among other things.

To the extent a religion justifies and endorses any or all of these, the are not going to be tolerated by me.

[TWiley]

134. Hallelujah brother (or sister) Well Said.

And a thousand Amens to boot.

I could not imagine a better or more concise response.

Even the new testament says we should only honor those who deserve it. That should apply to those who go to church as well.

I am absolutely livid with folks who demand special rights, privileges, or treatment in this world just because they go to church.

That is the problem, they compel us to accept them all or reject them all. There is no room in their brains for taking each individual as an individual regardless of race, religion, or sexuality.

[Toucano]

423. Thanks, T!

[shesemsmom]

139. It's not their belief in God that is disturbing

I believe in God, it's the way that some have shoved their way of thinking at others and made them believe that others are bad that disturbs me. *ush is not the CHOSEN one...to save the planet... hell, he may even be the anti Christ. I know there are no perfect politician, as there are no perfect people, but to raise him up in the some of the churches have is enough to make you vomit:puke: * is no Deity that is for sure. I hate to see what will happen when the zealots eyes are opened. There may be an uprising

[UdoKier]

152. Like much of middle America, your statement is full of it.

Yeah, there are a few folks here who sneer at anyone who believes in religion, but the prevailing view is not anti-religion. Most DUers are Christian, in fact. It's just that the vast majority are sick of having fundie denominations force THEIR values on us. What you are seeing is a backlash, caused by the obnoxious and phony "values" talk in the MSM surrounding the election. If you hate the hardcore atheists, you're free to put them on ignore, but they are certainly no worse than the vast majority of fundies who say that nobody who hasn't accepted Christ will burn in hell.

[bobweaver]

157. It's not belief in God, its CHURCHES that are the problem

It's perfectly possible and practical to believe in God without belonging to any church and without subscribing to any religion. Churches and religion are man-made entities which were not made by God. All churches are cults, I'm sorry to say. All churches practice some form of mind control, to some extent or other, and all churches extract money from their members. God is a completely separate entity from the man-made entities of faith, religion and churches.

[nashville_brook]

158. i agree, even tho i'm not a christian

religious thought is hardwired -- you can't go against it. many DU'ers speak out against christian dogma in a way that cuts straight to being rude of believers and that's not good.

we need to protect the seaparation of church and state to make the state safe FOR religion. our founders were very clever about this, and it will be the downfall of our country for this to go down the shit tubes.

please don't get discouraged about your belief and know that posters here are from all ages and backgrounds. you can't tell from someone's handle if thery are a rebellious teen or a baptist minister.

have faith.

[Hamlette]

160. I am intolerant of religion

when it tells me I am not moral (as you implied, areligious and amoral going together)

For heavens sake, religion is what allowed 19 young men to ram airplanes into buildings on 9/11. I should be tolerant of that?

when this country can come to grips with religion's place in the public sector, I will become tolerant. But I will NOT be tolerant while people use god as an excuse for public policy decisions.

Like the Taliban does. What's the diff?

It is such a fine line to walk, religious people sometimes don't see when they have crossed it.

Fundamentalism is the most frightening threat on the planet. Yep, worse than MWD. We should not give lip service to people who would replace reason with supersticion.

[charlie]

169. Call you amoral?

Eh, could be worse. Someone could decide you're from Boston. Or San Francisco. Oh, the indignity...

[Hamlette]

182. I know! Having the likes of Falwell and Bushies say I am amoral

gets my goat. Warmongering liars that they are.

[OutsourceBush]

173. "To suggest that anyone who believes in God is an ignorant boob"

I would not say boob, I would say ass. Ignorant ass is much more descriptive IMO. I never like to demean the word boob. It is such a wonderful word, especially when you add an (s) to it as in, boobs. Big boobs, little boobs, all good. Now, what were we talking about? :-)

[mike_c]

176. I am utterly tolerant of everyone's right to believe whatever they...

...want to believe as it pertains to the way they live their own lives, and I hope that they are willing to extend that same tolerance to me. My tolerance ends however when religious folk seek to impose their values and their beliefs on others, either directly, or indirectly through manipulation of social institutions.

The issue of banning books with "immoral content" from school libraries is a prime example. As long as those books are available, everyone is equally free to read them or to not read them as their conscience dictates, and to form their own opinions if they do read them, again in accordance with their personal values. Banning those books, as the fundy religious advocate, simply denies intellectual freedom to everyone. I cannot tolerate that.

[regnaD kciN]

275. To open a can of worms...

My tolerance ends however when religious folk seek to impose their values and their beliefs on others, either directly, or indirectly through manipulation of social institutions.

Then what would you say about the abolitionist movement? They (and it was primarily a "faith-based" movement) sought to impose their values and beliefs on the entire nation, through the wholesale banning of the "social institution" of slavery.

Would you say that those people were wrong, and that they should have kept their religion out of their politics and allowed those who didn't agree with them to perpetuate slavery?

No one outside the fundies thinks that their doctrine should permeate governmental institutions or that we should have a "national religion" written into law. However, it seems equally unrealistic to claim that those with a religious faith, and the ethical principles that derive from that faith, must turn off those principles when casting a vote. If I believe, based on my Christian faith, that we have a responsibility to the poor, and a referendum comes up that would provide support to low-income individuals, must I decide against voting for it, since doing so would constitute imposing my religious beliefs on others?

I don't think it's realistic to expect religious people to turn off their principles when deciding how to cast their vote (although it is reasonable to demand that they refrain from forcing the adoption of their religion per se on everyone else), especially if non-religious people are expected to take their ethical values (however they may have been derived) into account in the same situation. As a Christian, my problem with the religious right is not that they don't have the right to vote their beliefs, but that those beliefs are so plainly wrong, and even anti-Christian.

[OutsourceBush]

178. The difference between the republicans and the democrats.. IS THIS

is that democrats will tell you that you are an idiot, but republicans will burn down your home and kill you, or maybe lock you up and torture you.

I think I would much rather be called an idiot for disagreeing with people than to be exterminated by Nazi right wingers.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

180. LOL..isn't it a bit propitious to tolerate them just to win elections?

DU exists because we knock people for their beliefs - or shall I say challenge them? While it isn't always useful perhaps we should look at how the other side is winning. Are they winning by TOLERATING different races? Sexual identity? Religions? I don't think so.

Whatever your belief in God is about, please stop hitting me over the head with the notion that if I were just a bit more tolerant of religious bigotry, then Dems would win.

[sangh0]

207. One should also look at WHAT the other side is winning

If one is interested in promoting hatred and intolerance, then yes, rants full of hatred and bigotry are the way to go.

But if you want to promote equality, compassion for the needy, and limits on power, do you really think doing what they do is the way to attain our goals?

[blindpig]

184. this is a web site, not a media campaign

this is private space, people can say anything they like within site rules.

It is the christofascist who have who have inspired the ill feelings and hard words. Christians who find this disagreeable should get their own house in order or at least offer counterpoint.

The more the whining the greater my disdain.

[indigobusiness]

187. Bigotry stinks...from any direction.

The discussion of simple ideas is difficult to keep on track, nevermind religious ones. These arguments often descend below meaning into the cesspool of bigotry.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

190. Hey, I think that trying to explain things we don't understand in ways

that need the use of mythical figures is superstitious. I don't give a whit what mythical figure is worshipped, I feel it's superstitious.

But, just like I don't slam the people who once worshipped fire, the sun or the plethora of other gods/creators that mankind has invented, I won't slam the people who want to continue this fine old tradition.

[Sleepless In NY]

208. Perky ......Consider Jimmy Carter

This is a man I would truly call a Christian, who lives his faith unlike Robertson & Falwell who act like pimps for Jesus (if you love him..send me money) & guess what? A democrat. Yet I dont recall Carter shoving his beliefs down anyone's throat, let alone the whole country. And for the love of God, what ever happened to seperation between Church & State? "And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's."

Who are we kidding here? Everyone has the right to believe what ever they want. But to say We should think like people in Indianapolis, Denver and Atlanta, when all I have seen from them, is a true bastardization of everything I have ever learned about Christianity, is ridiculous. A belief in God should never be considered ignorant, and anyone saying so is ignorant themselves. But some of the stuff I hear from the religious right truly is ignorant, untrue, hateful & anything but "religious": "Gays, Feminists & abortionists caused 9/11" "Gays threaten marriage", "Liberals have no family values" Give me a break.

What you're asking is for people to go along with the crowd, not in what they really believe. I have never seen such hate interjected into religion since bush took office. It odd how you want us not to call them out, when it seems perfectly fine for them to insult us. I live in a Blue State and I will pit my morals against theirs anyday of the week.

The solution is not trying to be like them, or think like them, but to point out that they are no better than anyone else. This "morality" myth has got to be broken, if it isn't, no matter how we try to appease, appeal or be like them, we are going to fail. That belief itself is what's truly ignorant, because its a fallacy. They are no moral or religious in their section of the country than anywhere else. Its bullshit. Odd how their states lead in divorces, teen pregnancies & veneral diseases. Whats so "moral" about the way they live their lives? Fox gives them all the smutty shows they crave. They worship Junkie Rush & Pervert O'Reilly.

Is there hypocrisy on DU? you bet. But I dont feel that DU speaks for me or for the party as a whole. There will be always be jerks, liberal or not. If anything I think Kerry bent over backwards trying to "appeal", to these so called "religious" people. He said he wasn't for gay marriage, but against a constitutional amendment banning it. How much more do they want? There was a time rights for blacks and women were taboo, and I'm sure glad this party didn't stop fighting for them and try to be "like" those who were against it.

I didn't hear Kerry advocating abortion, did you? Only that he would uphold the present law concerning it. Is anyone forcing abortion on anyone in this country? No. But what I do see is their side trying to force their beliefs on us. Keep in mind, these so called "christians" were all over Kerry for his pro choice beliefs, but not other pro choice republicans. Hear any them complaining about Pataki or Arnie or Rudy? Not a word. Republicans were running up to Rudy & Arnie getting their autographs for their kids at the RNC Convention.

Something is terribly wrong with this country. A man who serves his country in combat, comes home speaks of what he experienced and heard about the horrors of that war is branded a traitor. While an ex drunk who wouldn't even show up is glorified.

3,000 people and 2 towers destroyed on his watch while he ignored warnings from every country & his terrorism Czar Richard Clarke & he looks at people with a straight face and says "It will never happen on my watch!" Well it did, and people still buy this bushit?

The worst president since Hoover, and I'm suppose to worry about "offending" people because someone called them ignorant, because they believe liberals & gays will end civilization as we know it? Well, sorry, thats exactly what they are. Rove played these dopes for everything they are..Homophobes (putting gay marriage/civil unions for a vote the same day was political genius) & Cowards, seeing terrorists behind every stalk of corn, in areas a terrorist wouldnt even bother going.

I think its time for a honest discussion about what being religious and moral really means. Not just their perception. Maybe we should encourage them to start marching for health insurance and homes for all these children they insist be born. Or make them sign a pact vowing to never accept any benefits of stem cell reasearch, since it so "offends" their "principles". Some honesty would be refreshing, real dialogue is needed, not following the crowd.

[regnaD kciN]

279. I DO consider Jimmy Carter...

...and I consider that, were he to show up on this web site under a handle that didn't let us know his real identity, but still expressing his beliefs, there are many who would be quick to attack and ridicule him as a "believer in an imaginary great cloud being," and tell him to his face that his religious beliefs meant that he was a "Talibornagain," "Christofascist," or other such creative term, and that he was personally implicated in everything Falwell, Robertson, and Ashcroft did, until such time as he "rehabilitated himself" by admitting that Christianity as a whole was the source of all evil in the world, and becoming a atheist.

:eyes:

[regnaD kciN]

276. Except that you just did...

:eyes:

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

315. No, I didn't. I simply stated what I believed and you are offended by my

beliefs.

That's not very tolerant, is it?

[sonicx]

210. about the 100th time this has come up...

and it's still BS. Yes, A few people do get out of hand with anti-religion comments, but very very very few times will people in real life go around insulting Christians (how could they? the whole nation and most Dems ARE Christian!!). If what goes on in this message board 'loses elections,' then the Democratic Party has more problems than i thought...

BTW, not sure what 'Middle America' is, but most moderate voters voted for John Kerry.

[MsConduct]

211. My tolerance ends exactly at the point where someone wants to...

screw with my freedom and tell me how to live my life.

[Warren DeMontague]

213. Unfortunately, what this generally translates to is:

...People (such as myself) who have the nerve to not believe in the popular Judeo-Christian concept of "God", i.e. a giant invisible man in the sky who, with a 15 billion light year wide universe to 'run', has nothing more important to worry about than peoples' sex lives- should keep their mouths good & shut about that fact. And certainly, we should not- under any circumstances- mention our personal opinion that such belief is about as rational as belief in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.

This, as Matcom has noted, in the face of mounting government attempts to legislate Fundamentalist Christianity as the religion of the land. To force Public School "science" classes to give "equal time" to one particular strain of mythology.
As a sitting Supreme Court Justice makes the outrageous assertion that Jews (like half of my family) should sit back and smile as the groundwork for a Christian Theocracy is put in place. As it becomes increasingly difficult to find pharmacies in certain parts of this country that will fill prescriptions for birth control pills, due to glassy-eyed church lady "pharmacists" high on the fumes of their own self-righteousness.

Meanwhile, when the umpteenth Christian of the day comes up and tries to give us the "Good News"- even in bastions of coastal elitism and secular decadence such as this board- we should merely grin placidly... and act humble and grateful.

Have I got it?

[datasuspect]

214. thank you thank you thank you thank you

thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you

[regnaD kciN]

281. Yes, thank you...

...for so clearly proving the original poster's point.

:puke:

[Warren DeMontague]

382. I guess some believers can't read with comprehension, either.

n/t

[RetroLounge]

429. Says you...

I tend to agree with the other post

:puke: back at you...

RL

[luaneryder]

273. Well said n/t

[sangh0]

361. So I guess some atheists can't read with comprehension

Let's compare your "interpretation" with what was actually said.

You said:

People (such as myself) who have the nerve to not believe in the popular Judeo-Christian concept of "God", i.e. a giant invisible man in the sky who, with a 15 billion light year wide universe to 'run', has nothing more important to worry about than peoples' sex lives- should keep their mouths good & shut about that fact.

Here's what the OP actually said:

I realize that the wingnuts have made conservatism a litmus test for Christianity. Its very sad and certainly pharasaical. But that is hardly enough reason to call all that choose to believe in a higher power: ignoranant.

I see nothing in the OP that requires you to keep your mouth "good & shut". Do athiests believe in invisible words that only they can see?

Meanwhile, when the umpteenth Christian of the day comes up and tries to give us the "Good News"- even in bastions of coastal elitism and secular decadence such as this board- we should merely grin placidly... and act humble and grateful.

Have I got it?

Got "what", a hallucination?

Can you show where the OP says you should "merely grin placidly...and act humble and grateful"?

I read the OP as suggesting you not call every person who believes in God an "idiot". I realize it sometimes is a terrible burden to not call someone an idiot, but is it really so important for you to call every religious person an "idiot"?

[Warren DeMontague]

381. Well, let's see...

Every time we get one of these threads, certain people on DU blow a gasket. Just like you have, right here. Seems to me, certain people get their hackles up just because some of us mention the fact that we don't believe in "God", and then we stick to that philosophical position.

Please find where I have EVER directly referred to anyone on DU as an "idiot", with the exception of the soon-to-be tombstoned, for the soon-to-be tombstonable post.

What I think you fail to get is that for lots of religious people- even a whole slew of them here- their attitude about atheists is akin to how many conservatives feel about gays.. i.e. they are vaguely aware of the fact that we exist, and can even "tolerate" that fact- as long as we don't speak up about who we are.

Let me phrase it in a way you might understand.

If you believe in "God", and I don't, presumably you think I'm wrong about the matter. Likewise, I think you're wrong about the matter. If my saying I think you're wrong means I'm calling you an "idiot", I'm sorry, but maybe you should try to cultivate a thicker skin about this stuff.

I respect everyone's right to an opinion, but it's my opinion that "God" is to many adults what imaginary friends are to little kids. That's my opinion.

Let me ask you this: which of the following statements are "bigoted", in your mind, and which are not?

Jesus Christ was the son of god. Believe in him and receive eternal life. He died for your sins! Why not let him into your heart?

Although people don't agree on specific religion, everyone accepts that there has to be a higher power. The people who say they don't are in denial.

Most people believe in "God". Therefore by not accepting the idea of God you are calling most people stupid.

God is just pretend.

Because those are all rough run-downs of various philosophical positions I've seen elucidated here on DU, and elsewhere.

[sangh0]

434. Your response is very non-responsive

Every time we get one of these threads, certain people on DU blow a gasket. Just like you have, right here. Seems to me, certain people get their hackles up just because some of us mention the fact that we don't believe in "God", and then we stick to that philosophical position.

My post addressed how your "interpretation" bore no resemblance to what was actually posted. What my emotional reaction has to do with your very inaccurate interpretation is a mystery. Furthermore, I'd like to see where any DUer has gotten upset merely because someone said they don't believe in God. I don't believe that has ever happened.

What I think you fail to get is that for lots of religious people- even a whole slew of them here- their attitude about atheists is akin to how many conservatives feel about gays.. i.e. they are vaguely aware of the fact that we exist, and can even "tolerate" that fact- as long as we don't speak up about who we are.

Again, I'd like to see an example of an atheist being criticized by a religous poster for not believing in God. I don't believe it's ever happened, but I could be wrong. For example, you've just identified yourself as an atheist, and I have yet to criticize you for not believing in God. I have criticized the accuracy of your interpretation, but I haven't criticized you lack of belief in God's existence.

If you believe in "God", and I don't, presumably you think I'm wrong about the matter. Likewise, I think you're wrong about the matter. If my saying I think you're wrong means I'm calling you an "idiot", I'm sorry, but maybe you should try to cultivate a thicker skin about this stuff.

For one thing, I don't KNOW who is right and who is wrong on this issue. I know that you and I BELIEVE differently, but I don't KNOW who is right. Furthermore, I've never seen anyone on DU criticized for merely not believing in God, and I've never seen an atheists lack of belief in God interpreted as meaning the atheist thinks religious people are "idiots". If I'm wrong about this, and I could be, I'd like to see it.

I respect everyone's right to an opinion, but it's my opinion that "God" is to many adults what imaginary friends are to little kids. That's my opinion.

This may surprise you, but I agree. I don't think the religious are beyond reproach, and many believers DO use their religion as a shield that justifies their actions. They deserve to be criticized, but not for believing in God. They deserve to be criticized for not taking responsibility for their behavior.

As to your question, #2 and #3 are bigoted. The other two don't inappropriately group and label people.

But getting back to my subject line, the reason why I feel your post was non-responsive is that my earlier post pointed out that your interpretation included ideas (ex "the OP is calling for us to shut up when confronted with bigotry" - I'm paraphrasing you here) that are nowhere to be found in the OP. I also criticized your interpretation for making the mistake of thinking that Perky was calling for tolerance of far-right religious wackos, when what it really called for is tolerance of Christians who are NOT far-right religious wackos.

Your response doesn't address either of those two points, at least, as far as I can tell. If I've missed something, I would appreciate it if you would point it out.

[Warren DeMontague]

450. Response:

My post addressed how your "interpretation" bore no resemblance to what was actually posted. What my emotional reaction has to do with your very inaccurate interpretation is a mystery. Furthermore, I'd like to see where any DUer has gotten upset merely because someone said they don't believe in God. I don't believe that has ever happened.

Well, I suppose it's all a matter of interpretation. See, the way I understood the original post, the poster was upset because he felt that religious people were being "mocked" and "belittled" for their belief. I went back and read the original post, and the first line is this: "Whether or not one chooses to believe in God should not be treated with the disdain those that do believe." ...Now, I'm really not trying to mock or belittle, but that doesn't even make English sense. So, I'm forced to interpret what the poster was trying to say. He (or she) wants us to be open to varying beliefs and positions. I am. It's my opinion that people here ARE open to varying beliefs- but it doesn't mean that, in a discussion about said beliefs, people aren't going to stick to their positions. And this is what I think upsets certain religious posters- that others are challenging their beliefs. That others are applying yardsticks like logic and reason to their deeply held faith. I understand that, but I don't think it should "stop"... That's what debate and discussion are. And when you've got a thread about, say, teaching creationism in public schools, I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to have people mention the fact that the Darwinian explanation of origin of species is backed up with mountains of physical evidence, and "creationism" is not.

For one thing, I don't KNOW who is right and who is wrong on this issue. I know that you and I BELIEVE differently, but I don't KNOW who is right. Furthermore, I've never seen anyone on DU criticized for merely not believing in God, and I've never seen an atheists lack of belief in God interpreted as meaning the atheist thinks religious people are "idiots". If I'm wrong about this, and I could be, I'd like to see it.


If you read my post again, you'll see I used the word "think", not "know". A subtle, yet distinct difference.

I haven't seen anyone criticized FOR believing in God, either. I have seen spirited discussions about the logic of said belief, which I personally find interesting and refreshing.

But getting back to my subject line, the reason why I feel your post was non-responsive is that my earlier post pointed out that your interpretation included ideas (ex "the OP is calling for us to shut up when confronted with bigotry" - I'm paraphrasing you here) that are nowhere to be found in the OP. I also criticized your interpretation for making the mistake of thinking that Perky was calling for tolerance of far-right religious wackos, when what it really called for is tolerance of Christians who are NOT far-right religious wackos.

I'm already tolerant of Christians, even the far-right type. What I'm not tolerant of is attempts to force religion into the public square, to legislate peoples' sexual morality, to teach myth in public school science class, that sort of thing. That should be abundantly clear from at least most of my posts. Again, if stating clearly that I don't believe in what at least seems to be the most popular public conception of the Christian "God", and furthermore stating that I see no logical basis for that belief, means I'm intolerant of Christians, then I'm guilty of that... but if that wasn't what Perky was saying, then I guess we're all on exactly the same page.

[cleofus1]

215. I agree...

You should see the look on people's faces when I try to bless them with the feces of the Great Monkey King...
"may he spread his feces in all our garden" simians verse IIV

[Oilwellian]

216. ROFLMAO!

This site is so "blessed" with a sense of humor. :D

[cleofus1]

220. bless you my chimp...

The Monkey King smiles on you from behind the vines! chimpicus XX1

[datasuspect]

223. i guess we should all "watch what we say?"

and maybe we should rally behind bush, after all we are at war, right?

/sarcasm

[Hippo_Tron]

225. I am NOT tolerant of homophobes!

And I don't give a shit if their interpretation of Christianity tells them that it is right to hate gay people, it is still bigotry. As far as I am concerned they are as bad as white supremecists.

[noiretextatique]

274. amen

from some of the complaints here, you wouldn't think that 11 states passed anti-gay amendments a month ago. and yes...religion was used to justify slavery and segregation, as it is now being used to justify anti-gay bigotry.
i have no tolerance for bigots who hide behind religion and proclaim their hatred scared, protected, and immune from criticism.
i have a very hard time understanding why some liberal christians can't seem to understand that none of what i say above is related to their religious beliefs.
it's about the political actions of bush, the republican party, and the religious right, and the people the continue to manipulate successfully.
and why do people care so much about what other people think about their religion or religious beliefs? perhaps it is that people are so used to having beliefs validated and reinforced. this reminds me of several discussions about privilege i have been having recently.

[Hippo_Tron]

290. It's not even the gay marriage ammendments that I'm so concerned about

I've actually met a few people who I genuinely believe are tolerant of homosexuals but are against gay marriage, granted they are certainly the minority amongst those who are against gay marriage. The fact is that we shouldn't be pandering to supporters of people like Rick Santorum, Jim DeMint, and Tom Coburn all of which have made open statements that are extremely offenseive to homosexuals. When people ask why our society is so reluctant to accept gay marriage, they have to consider that our society hasn't even gotten to a point where gay bashing is considered something that shouldn't be condemned just like racism. Trent Lott was murdered politically for comments that were seen as racist (granted the Bush administration wanted him out anyway). People like Rick Santorum was hailed by the Christian right for speaking the truth and not bowing to the evils of tolerance when he compared sodomy to beastiality and necromancy. Before we can get to a society that accepts gay marriage, we need to get to a society that labels people like Rick Santorum as bigoted PIGS.

[noiretextatique]

303. some of those amendments were broader

than just the marriage issue. in michigan, utah, ohio, and north dakota, for example. you are right: there is not enough condemnation of homo-hatred, and far too much reinforcement of it, coincidentally, in far too many churches, and in the political debate.
homo-hatred is not only acceptable, it's considered sacred to some....even some who should know better. standard disclaimer: not meant to imply that is the case in all churches everywhere in america, nor do i discount those churches that are teaching diversity as the norm, in all it's forms.

here's a link with the text of the amendments:
http://www.glaad.org/publications/resource_doc_detail.php?id=3720

[regnaD kciN]

282. Neither are the Christians here...!

But we are equally NOT tolerant of those who decide that, because we're Christian, that means we're homophobes.

:argh:

[Hippo_Tron]

292. But that's not what I'm arguing!

Although I am not a practicing Christian myself, I do respect the religion and what it teaches. Personally I don't believe that there is anything in the bible that encourages "gay bashing" and that, that interpretation of the bible is something that was made up and spread by assholes like Pat Roberts and Jerry Falwell. Granted I'm not a Christian and I've never studied the bible indepth and so I don't consider myself an expert on this subject. My point is that society should condemn bigots, even if those bigots feel that what they are doing is "morally right".

[sangh0]

362. Society should condemn bigots

but the OP said:

"To suggest that anyone who believes in God is an ignorant boob only reinforces middle america's view of Democrats in general... that we are both areligious and amoral with its power centers in Boston and San Francisco rather than Indianapolis, Denver and Atlanta"

How did we get from "not calling anyone that believes in God an ignorant boob" to "condoning bigotry"? I must gave missed that part.

[Hippo_Tron]

435. YOU didn't, but the Religious Right did...

Basically, I don't tolerate the views of the RELIGIOUS RIGHT Jerry Falwell/Pat Roberts crowd because most (not all of them, but most) of them tend to be bigots. I realize that not all Christians share the same views as these people and I deeply respect any religion or any branch of that religion that practices tolerance. Basically I'm saying that we should not be pandering to the RELIGIOUS RIGHT because most of them are bigots.

[sangh0]

446. That's good, but why even bring it up?

You said "Basically I'm saying that we should not be pandering to the RELIGIOUS RIGHT because most of them are bigots."

I'm wondering why you even raise that issue when the OP says nothing about pandering to the religious right, acknowledges that they're bastards, and only calls for tolerating those Christians that do NOT share their bigoted beliefs?

And please don't think this is personally directed at you. If you read through this thread, you'll see many people saying the same exact thing. How is it that a post calling for people to be more tolerant of Christians who aren't bigots produces post after post that ignore that idea, and repeatedly claim "I'm not going to pander to the religious right", which is something the OP didn't ask for?

I find a deep irony here. Many on DU criticize the religious right using the term "Christian". When someone objects, they say that they were talking about the religious right Christians, and anyone reading their words should understand that. IOW, listeners should understand which subgroup the speaker is talking about.

Meanwhile, Perky posted a thread that asked for tolerance for a subgroup (specifically, Christians who aren't right-wing bigots) and nearly everyone in this thread has failed to understand the subgroup Perky was posting about.

IOW, the people who think Christians should understand that the word "Christian" means "Christian bigots" don't seem to understand that "tolerance for people who don't think like you" meant "tolerance for Christians who aren't right-wing bigots". They think others have an obligation to have a perfect understanding of someone else's words (because, as we all know, humans are born with perfect understanding, right?), but they themselves misunderstand what others say.

[regnaD kciN]

394. No argument there...

:shrug:

[noiretextatique]

325. nowhere in that post did the poster say or imply

that all christians are homophobes. what s/he said was: some use christianity as an excuse for being homophobes.

[m berst]

460. they would be homophobic in any case

And I don't say this to defend or excuse anyone, rather to place the blame where it belongs.

Robertson test marketed a variety of pitches to find out what brought in the most money. He used existing homophobia to raise money, and then retrospectively made up Biblical excuses for it.

Robertson present it as the reverse of the truth: God wrote the Bible; the Bible says homosexuals are sinners; Pat Robertson preaches God's word. Therefore he is doing God's work. Bullshit. That is all a lie, and we should be careful not to buy into it, even as we oppose it.

The truth: Pat Robertson wanted money and power; he saw a buck in the Jesus business; he figured out that pandering to homophobes was the key to wealth; he made up Bible excuses for this pandering to hatred to line his own pockets and called it Christianity.

If we say that Christians hate gays, we are buying Robertson's lies. I don't care if he has fooled millions of Christians, it is still a pack of lies and does not represent Christianity.

[raggedcompany]

234. superstition is superstition is superstition

Virgin birth, dragons, reincarnation, eternal life, demons, ghosts, hexes, resurrection, etc. All the same, regardless whether you're a liberal or a conservative: superstition.

I'm not going to throw around words like ignorant boob, but you're all the same. For some reason, you folks need to believe in something supernatural. That's fine. Have fun with the tea leaves.

Trouble is, most superstitious people are very sensitive about their beliefs. If someone should in the least way challenge or express doubt in these, or even--gasp!--disdain the belief, you start crying religious intolerance. That's a bunch of bullshit. Your superstition does not entitle you to any more respect than anyone else.

The sword cuts both ways: if you're gonna put your belief of the supernatural on display, and include it in your speech, then you had better be prepared to be faced with people who find you ridiculous for it.

Instead of crying about you it, how about you just forgive them and move on?

---

p.s. I'm awful tired of religious people complaining about being mistreated and disrespected by atheists. Read some fucking history and shut up. You believers attend the same metaphorical family reunion as do the worst killers, thieves, rapists, and dirtbags of human history. You sound like suburban whites crying about affirmative action, conveniently forgetting that you are the privelaged bullies time immemorial.

[Raskolnik]

297. A question

Are the silly superstitious elements that are present to some degree in most mature religions enough reason to dismiss their core teachings? You mock (not without cause) dragons and virgin births, but you don't talk about the core philosophies in religion.

For me, the virgin birth myth is just that, but it doesn't mean that Jesus' teachings are any less powerful. Protecting the weakest amongst us, loving your neighbor, etc. is pretty hard to argue against. Does the fact that people think the guy that said it was the son of God make it less valuable to you?

Just curious.

[raggedcompany]

343. re: a question

Are the silly superstitious elements that are present to some degree in most mature religions enough reason to dismiss their core teachings?
For the sake of argument, I'll grant your assumption that the core teachings are good. That said, the answer is: No, not at all. Good is good.
It should be noted however that the same good core teachings are easily derived from sources/lines of reasoning other than religion. It's this fact that irks me. Believers would claim that their good teachings spring directly and solely from the most fantastic articles of faith that you have to take what they say with a grain of salt.
So I would not dismiss good teachings on account of the fantastic articles of faith from which they spring, but I'll be damned if I will accept the same articles of faith as natural parents of the teachings. Religion has no trademark on morality, far from it. In fact it would seem to me that good teachings are products of religion despite the superstitions which define the organization.

Does the fact that people think the guy that said it was the son of God make it less valuable to you?
To be honest, yes. It doesn't render the value or teaching worthless, but it does merit as asterisk which means something like "keep in mind, this is what someone who believes in fairies thinks the Fairy King said is true." It may be good, but when it's coming out of the mouth of someone who believes it has some kind of supernatural source, then it might just as easily be bad. I am dubious of any judgments made by a person who believes in a dead man rising, or a virgin giving birth. The only difference between that person and one who says dragons once flew is that the Christian enjoys a larger majority. As we know, majority does not mean just.

/sorry if that don't make sense. My friends are waiting for me to get off the goddamned computer for a game of dominos. Thanks for the question, I enjoyed thinking about it.

[IndyPriest]

377. Ragged: an atheist in name or in fact?

You can call yourself whatever you want. And I have no intention of trying to turn you into a Christian or anything else. But I just can't help but think Jesus would have loved to have you in his company. You've got just the right blend of "F... You" attitude about religious tradition and hypocrisy (as he had) and passion for making the world a better place (as he did).

On balance, I think Christianity as it has come down to us is probably the worst thing that ever happened to Jesus. From what I've seen, the passion, attitude, and commitment to making this world a good place to live from very many atheists is MUCH closer to what Jesus had in mind than what he would see in Christianity generally. I have a brother-in-law who's a doctor who does more faithful, hopeful, loving work for the poor and needy than anyone I've ever met. He calls himself an atheist, too.

Again, you can certainly speak for yourself. I just think a lot of so-called atheists are actually the real believers of our day. They've gotten turned off to religion because of what they've seen of it in the real world. They've looked at the affects of religious belief - intolerance, hatred, war, violence - and said: I'm not going there, not on your life, no way. And THAT response leads me to believe that they are EXAMPLES of the REAL energy that Jesus called "God."

[Crowdance]

236. Learn to laugh.

I belong to a very tiny spiritual minority, and my family and friends proclaim my spiritual practices are "crazy" all the time. I just laugh at them. I KNOW I'm doing the right thing; I don't need them to validate my beliefs. And, the truth is I feel a little sadly for them, that they don't know the truth. I guess I might take offense at their derision if I doubted the truth of my own beliefs. Fortunately, I don't.

Part of the reason this is all OK, is that my Christian, Jewish and Buddhist friends aren't trying to force their spiritual practices/beliefs on me. And I'm not forcing mine on them. We can all peacefully co-exist, happy in the foundation of our own beliefs, and each believing the other is deluded.

[greenohio]

240. Amen.

[Baconfoot]

251. Being critical of a belief is not the same as being intolerant towards its

adherents.

Few would agree that principled disagreement with a particular idea in and of itself constitutes intolerance of persons who hold that idea as a belief.

However, it seems trendy of late both on DU and in the "real world" to interpret someone who disagrees with you as being intolerant. If the person disagreeing with you has reasons for disagreeing with you, they are interpreted as being even more intolerant of YOU. A disagreement is seen as disrespectful of one's ideas and beliefs.

Of course, this is a huge mistake. Principled disagreement with a particular idea isn't disrespectful. It's actually the kind of thing we want in a democratic society*. One reason we value free speech is so that we can have principled disagreement instead of blind adherence to ideas which though true are not backed up by anything more than an appeal to authority.

But not only is it a huge mistake, it's a mistake which it is difficult to identify when you yourself are making it.

So people, when you accuse someone of being intolerant of your religious beliefs, please make sure that you are backing this up with something more than that the person has a principled disagreement with you. It's hard. It takes a little work. But it's worth it for the resultant fairness and accuracy.

This is one of the points I see coming out in this thread, but I thought I would make a go at articulating it.






*"Democratic society" is here used with its ordinary language sense.

[cleofus1]

252. I plead with you to consider...

You may not believe in The Monkey King...rest assured He believes in you! passages 214

[readmoreoften]

266. Another Angry Christian

Angry at libruls for being angry at the religious right instead of fighting against those who are perverting their own religion.

How about NOT BEING SO SENSITIVE and working with us to fight fascism within your religion. Except that there are people who fail to find the logic in your religion and MOVE ON!

[RetroLounge]

430. Exactly. Bears repeating.

"Angry at libruls for being angry at the religious right instead of fighting against those who are perverting their own religion"

RL

[bloom]

277. I'm from the midwest

grew up in Indianapolis to be exact.

And I think Christians (I was raised Presbyterian) are absolutely clueless about how oppressive they are.

Was listening to the radio when I was on a long drive the other day. Some religious nuts talking about suing if public schools were not allowed to sing religious Christmas carols proclaiming Jesus as our Lord. Also suing if anyone in a public school said they believed God is not real.

I think it is disgusting. I think more people need to say so. Maybe more Christians need to say so. When more do - it will seem like we are all on the same side.

[Book Lover]

278. I've said this before, but it bears repeating

I am under no obligation to give anybody who believes in any of the gods an ounce of intellectual respect. Social respect, yes; I am polite to believers socially, even if they are rude to me (there is no excuse for rudeness), but to demand that I respect their intellectual choice, no.

And I would like to know what you think "Middle America" is. Last time I checked, 3.5 million (give or take) people made the difference in the popular vote. Out of a nation of 294 or so million, that's squat.

[Zynx]

288. There are some militant atheists here who are as bad as the Fundies.

Hating people for what they think and believe is absolutely dispicable and just as bad as hating someone for the color of their skin. I'm a Christian who loves all people, but yet some of the ultra-anti-religious types here blast me in the same boat with a Pat Robertson. In labeling all Christians the same they display the same ignorance that they supposedly hate about the fundies. For both the fundies and the militant atheists, I have to say "KEEP IT TO YOURSELF! I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU BELIEVE!".

[arwalden]

332. Nonsense!

>> Hating people for what they think and believe is absolutely dispicable and just as bad as hating someone for the color of their skin. <<

People don't choose the color of their skin. Someone's skin color isn't responsible for writing laws and policies that are designed to dehumanize and strip the rights of Americans.

You'll just have to forgive me if I continue to hate them for what they BELIEVE and what they DO and what they PROMOTE. I guess I'm just "despicable"

>> For both the fundies and the militant atheists, I have to say "KEEP IT TO YOURSELF! I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU BELIEVE!". <<

In other words: "Just shut up about it and let them do as they please. Because an attack on one is an attack on all, eh?"

I think that most people are pretty specific when they criticize the wacko Christians, or zealot Christians, or fundie Christians. When someone's hastily written message isn't as specific as you'd like... why don't you just "KEEP IT TO YOURSELF" and try to remember that in all likelihood, their harsh words are intended for the Wacko Right-Wing Christians, and not folks like yourself. How difficult is it for you to read someone's harsh criticism and then think to yourself... "Self, they don't mean ME.. they are obviously referring to those Idiot Christians... so I won't get upset, because I'm smart enough to know what they mean."

-- Allen

[Name removed]

365. Deleted message

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

[arwalden]

408. The Muslims And Hindus Aren't In Control Of The White House, Silly!

Let me know when some other wacko religious nuts other than Christians are in control of our government and I'll criticize them too. Until then, you're just going to have to be disappointed that I 'unfairly' single out screwball Christianity zealots. Life's full of little disappointments. Cope.

Sangh0, I do not understand your personal fascination with me. I do not understand why you stalk me from thread to thread repeating lies. I did not say that "religion is a mental illness". That was another DUer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=971574#971709

What I actually said was that the term "psychotic" would not be technically incorrect. I further stated that "unfortunately, the word psychotic is a bit too harsh sounding to describe just one of the many subtle degrees of intensity that one can be disconnected from reality."

Why do you continually attribute someone ELSE's words to me? And you've yet to ever mention my closing statement. No need to respond... the reasons you do what you do are obvious.

Heh-heh... and you accuse *me* of being dishonest. Oh brother!

[Zynx]

448. There's a problem there with your thinking.

Many on atheists on this board(and elsewhere) attack all Christians and all believers in general as being stupid and call religion a cancer or something else of that nature. They display the height of ignorance and stupidity themselves as they are unable to differentiate those who do the good works of Jesus with those who are a bunch of gay and Muslim hating bigots. Just call them what they are: bigots. Don't include the Christian label. To do so is idiocy.

No one can prove the existence or the absence of God so it is useless to argue that one side is wrong. We must all respect eachothers' beliefs, but as you suggest we don't have to respect bigots. Bigotry has no place in Christianity or any religion.

[trotsky]

468. But what ARE the "good works of Jesus"?

This was a man who supposedly said things like "I come not to bring peace but a sword."

See, that's one of the flaws of Xianity - the bible contains SO MANY things that can be interpreted easily to support just about anything. As a neutral observer, I can see how the bible can be used to justify slavery as well as I can see how it can be used to justify fair treatment of women and the poor.

As far as not being able to "prove the existence or the absence of God", you're only partly right. As soon as a god is defined, it can be proven or disproven. Without a concrete definition, it's a meaningless exercise. Just like no one can prove or disprove there are invisible elephants dancing on my lawn.

[Boswells_Johnson]

291. I don't believe religion has much to do with the war

...not true religion anyway. Republicans have used "religion" as a ruse; They've appealed, somehow, to faithful people, and twisted it to their benefit; They've altered the dabate away from ethics and made it into a "moral" circus.

[Zynx]

294. Spot on! Thank you!

There is a difference between true religion and the crap that has been used towards political ends over the years. You would think the educated people on this forum would see that, but they are blinded by their own ideology.

[Boswells_Johnson]

416. That's why it works so well

for the Republicans.

They divide and conquer. I'm surprised the Rep. haven't floated ideas to divide minorities yet...like limiting immigration based on race.

[Zynx]

449. Hitler did the same thing.

Hitler was not a Christian. He appeared Christian in public to use it is a tool for his political aims, but privately was somewhere between a pagan and an atheist.

[Threedifferentones]

298. There is a reason for the bashing of religion

If we assume that all of the atrocities that have been supported, condoned or even committed because of religion would not have happened if religion did not exist, then the "western" world would most definitely be better off without religion. This is, I think, the core of the anti-religous feelings around the world.

I believe that as long as anyone believes that things written millenia ago by people who had absolutely no concept of how the world works hold the key to absolute truth and salvation we can never truly progress. Is this really that irrational?


3DO

[regnaD kciN]

395. The problem with that...

If we assume that all of the atrocities that have been supported, condoned or even committed because of religion would not have happened if religion did not exist, then the "western" world would most definitely be better off without religion. This is, I think, the core of the anti-religous feelings around the world.

...is that, as has been commented upon earlier, there are a huuuuuuuge list of atrocities carried out by those who were not only not religious, but specifically anti-religious, and whose atrocities were carried out in the name of creating an atheist, religion-free society. I name Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot as three of many who have such blood on their hands. By the standards you enunciated above, isn't it fair to assume that the world would be better off without atheism?

:shrug:

[Threedifferentones]

400. YES! It is completely fair to assume this.

The non-existance of God cannot be proven any more than the existence of God. Therefore, atheism is, in my view, just another religion. What people need to do is accept the fact that we may never know the real workings of reality and start focusing on issues we have some chance of resolving.


3DO

[m berst]

461. no connection

There is no cause and effect connection between atrocities and religion any more that there is between nationalities and atrocities.

Everything in Europe for hundreds of years - good and bad - was done in the name of Christianity. Most things - good and bad - throughout history around the world have been done in the name of religion.

[Guaranteed]

305. It's all part of the "Spoiled Brat Syndrome."

The atheists here who don't believe in God because "the world is such a horrible place" are working psychologically from the same place that the neo-cons are in renouncing liberalism. They've become spoiled- they simply live too well, have too much time on their hands and want to rage against something or other.

Now, there are other reasons not to believe in God, and there are CERTAINLY reasons to hate fundies- I can't fucking STAND them, myself- but the disdain for people who simply believe in God, past Christianity, is totally wacky. Same shit, different political wing. Total intolerance.

[Hippo_Tron]

317. Try living on $10,000 a year working at Wal-Mart

Or less living in a third world country working in a sweatshop. I bet that you would soon adopt "the world is scuh a horrible place" philosophy.

[Guaranteed]

322. LOL THAT...is exactly my point.

Try living in a Third World country.

We here in America have one of the highest living standards in the world. We have stores for gourmet doggie treats. Some Americans deliberately go out and buy $100,000, gas-guzzling military vehicles simply for the status of it. Even the poorest people of our country live awfully well, by comparison.

Further, I think it really tells you something that religion is so much stronger in all of these Third World countries- where life is so "horrible."

[Threedifferentones]

326. That is exactly my point.

Religion is something people often use to fill holes in their lives, because it can be anything they want it to. The fact that we live in such a developed, and supposedly educated, nation means that we should not need religion the way people in third world countries do, and that we should be able to see it for what it really is. This is why I will never give "intellectual legitamcy", to quote another poster, to religions in developed countries.


3DO

[Guaranteed]

331. So, basically, you're saying that people don't believe in God because

the world is such a horrible place, even though the place in which we live is actually pretty good?

[noiretextatique]

338. pretty good is relative, isn't it?

surely some people live in horrible conditions right here. i doubt that someone who is hungry, homeless, and sleeping out in the cold thinks her condition is pretty good because someone is dying of starvation somewhere else in the world.

[Guaranteed]

345. Hungry, homeless, cold and posting on DU.

People are hungry, yes, but it's much rarer here in the U.S. than other places.

In fact, we have so much here in the U.S. that instead of trying to find food, as people do in other countries, we look around and find things to bitch about. Like the neocons.

People are bored. Things are so good for them that they've started tearing things apart, and have lost the beliefs that bond them together.

[noiretextatique]

346. ok..so it's only DU members who are doing great

in fact, there are people in dire staits on DU...we've even done fundraisers for some members here to keep a roof over their heads.
there are hungry people right here in this country, even if the are not posting on DU right now. i doubt they feel grateful because someone else in the world is doing worse than they are. at least some can live in cars here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2787872

[sangh0]

366. In my experience, those people don't think the religious are insane

or idiots.

[noiretextatique]

397. some religious people are insane and/or idiots

as are some who are not :shrug: faith doesn't require agreement or respect. i suspect even some adamant atheists are struggling to survive right now.

[sangh0]

436. Undoubtedly

And I don't see the OP as saying we should be tolerant of those Christians. I read it to mean that we shouldn't be intolerant of the other Christians merely because some of them are insane and/or idiots.

As a child, I was molested, on different occassions, by several gay men, but you'll never see me criticize a homosexual or homosexuality. I blame "child molesters", because that is what they did wrong.

If one has a problem with theocrats, one shouldn't criticize the non-theocrats simply because they share some characteristic, even if that characteristic does have something to do with the offensive act.

The men who molested me were attracted to me because I was male and available, not because I was young, though I suspect that was an added bonus for them. Though their homosexuality was a factor in the offense, it was not the cause and it's not immoral to be a homosexual. I hold them responsible for what they did wrong, and not everything they do.

People here complain about how "christians" are doing them wrong, but I've been hurt far worse than the overwhelming majority of those who complain. It's not an excuse to strike out blindly. To hurt another person that had nothing to do with this only compounds the hatred.

[noiretextatique]

440. i agree with you

however, it's clear to me that some are intent on picking the scab, so to speak...i don't see that changing. i wasn't raised in any church and came to my beliefs later in life, after exploring and examining and living, so this topic isn't as personal to me as it is to some folks here. and since i have embraced a non-traditional belief system, i am most definitely at odds with some of my family members whose beliefs are more on the conservative, traditional side. they consider me a heathen...and i believe they are close-minded bigots, in many ways.
i have been assaulted by cousins who believe i need to repent and "get straight"...literally, or burn in hell. on the other hand, one of my oldest friends in a minister in the MCC church. i know athiests, buddhists, pagans, sikhs, muslims, and christians who are liberal, open-minded and accepting...and of course, some who are not.

my only beef is with the religious right and other fundamentalists types...i have no respect for their beliefs, nor do i believe they deserve any especial respect.

i understand where you're coming from, and i do believe it is up to each of us to come to terms with our life experiences. hatred can be very seductive, particularly when you have been harmed and hurt by it.
i agree that it is up to each of us, especially those on our side, to eradicate it from consciouness...otherwise, the cycle just continues.
some are further along in the process than others.

as to the continuing schism here: it's ironic that some churches and belief systems are at the forefront of transforming consciousness and healing isms...and this of course is nothing new. my church has a mostly black congregation, so we do a lot of work around healing racial wounds, because of course, some black people are very wounded...and very angry. and of course, so many people carry wounds from childhood experiences...from sexual, physical and verbal abuse...to, well you name it. and of course many more have been wounded as adults by rape and other forms of violence.
this type of healing work, whether in a therapists office or in a church, is an integral part of what i consider liberalism, and i believe it is an essential compentent of the type of evolution of consciousness that is personal...and poltical.

it's no coindence that many sunday morning gatherings all across this country are still places where people go for affirmation and agreement vs. real challenge and spiritual growth. and it's also no coincidence that places that offer real challenge and opportunities for growth are gaining members, while some of the more traditional churches are dying out. in my area at least, it's forcing some of the traditional churches to be more expansive (and liberal) in their spiritual offerings in order to survive.

the minister of our church had a very public struggle with homophobia when one of her daughters came out. to her credit, she made her personal journey known, so we all shared the journey with her. we all saw her develop as a person, and as a leader. and boy...she was not a happy camper when it all started. our first gay pride celebration was a tense and half-hearted affair that left some of us feeling very much like we weren't really welcome. that was four years ago...since that time, the minister has done a complete turnaround. she's talked about how her homophobia had kept her from establishing loving, plationic relationships with women...or rather expressing the deep love she felt for her female friends. it was a process, but in sharing her process with others, she helped many to look at themselves. and now that tense air in the church, the air of resentment and fear, has eased considerably. it had to...since the church has so many gay and lesbian members.

i'm rambling...must do laundry now. thanks for sharing your story and your journey :grouphug:

[Guaranteed]

378. Are you grateful, though?

Or do you look for problems to be angry for?

[noiretextatique]

396. grateful...no

i have many blessings in life, and i am angry about the state of the world and our horrid political situation. i don't need to look for anything else to be pissed off about...that is enough.

[Threedifferentones]

351. I'm not sure how you got that from my post.

What I am saying is that people in third world countries tend to be more religious because they are caught in a struggle for survival. Faith is a great aid to them because it gives them hope even in their terrible circumstances. All this proves, however, is that religion is a powerful tool for the human psyche, and it seems to me that this is all it is. If, as a nation and a species, we want to progress where we are right now we will eventually need to get past the idea that superstitions are truths.


3DO

[fujiyama]

323. I have never insulted

anyone that believes in God.

But I'll be damned if these nutcases are going to stuff like creationism in public schools - especially in a science class.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

328. Two different issues

1. Fundamentalists of any religion who try to remake society according to the most extreme tenets of their religion plus some crap they just made up. Bad. No argument from me. People who go around condemning atheists. Also bad. No argument from me there, either.

2. Atheists who state they are atheists but leave it at that. No problem. Athiests who condemn fundamentalists or the intrusion of religious standards into public life. Also no problem. Atheists who can't get anywhere near a religious topic without spilling out all the venom they can muster, often including a lot of ignorant generalizations gained from atheist-oriented websites. Rude, and the mirror image of the fundamentalist who says that atheists have no morality.

[Smeggy]

340. I beleive I'm agnostic

I have to beleive I'm agnostic, because I dont KNOW that god doesnt exist. I do not look down on people who beleive in their religion, I look down on people who think their religion is right and everyone else is wrong. The concept to right or wrong cannot be aplied when debateing about religion because we have no facts that point us to whether anyone is right or wrong.
Unfortunatly people on both sides of the debate don't realise this so they both end up looking stupid. However, I have to side with the people who dont like god exisitng because they don't want god in government. this is a good thing because otherwise we would have people applied absolute moral authority to a system which is bound to be falable, therefore createing a moral oxymoron which would corrupt the means of most good religions.
Best thing to do? Do nothing. :p

[m berst]

399. thanks LL

"...the mirror image of the fundamentalist who says that atheists have no morality..."

That is the point. This isn't about Christianity. In fact the atheists are the ones continually talking about Christianity on this thread.

Never mind at whom the hate is being expressed and whether or not "they" deserve it. It is what this hatred is doing to the Democratic party that is the problem. The issue isn't be nice to Christians, as so many immediately assume. The point is, don't be hypocrites because that hurts the party. No one would talk about native American religions the way people talk about Christianity here. I am not whining. I am not complaining. I don't care for my sake what you say about Christianity. But, why the double standard? And how smart is it from a purely political standpoint to selectively insult the faith of the majority of the people in the country?

No one on this thread has tried to push a religion on anyone that I have seen, so to be indignant about this is off topic IMHO.

The issue here is the intolerance, bigotry and hypocrisy of many Democrats, and the political damage that is doing to the party, and it is not about whom they choose to aim this bigotry at.

[hyphenate]

339. I don't think that DUers or any other liberal group

condones hatred toward all Christians. I think the misconception is that most people here use shortcuts, if you will, to calling those on the radical religious right simply "Xtians" or some other similar name instead of typing out the entire phrase.

Personally, my attitude is that many people in the US are moderates in their religious beliefs in one way or another, and know enough that religion and politics don't mix quite right. As a result, the 70% of folks in the middle who are either temperate in their beliefs or are not strongly religious in one way or another seem to be the target of the 20% on the radical right, or the militant 10% on the atheistic side. In fact, I can say for myself that I respect the beliefs of most all people, except for those who try to shove their beliefs down my throat, or who legislate for more religion in our secular government. That's why I find fundies, creationists, and other groups who try to push their beliefs so nasty that I would do anything to tell them to get the hell away from me when it happens. As it is, my best friend has embraced the radical right, and while I love her dearly, I find her new found beliefs as completely and wholly without redemption.

I think that those who ARE from the far right need to be told by the moderate middle to screw off, because they're the real nasties--the ones who are making our nation look ignorant and backwards. No advanced and technological country can be taken seriously if its people insist that creationism is the truth and evolution is the myth. But it's the cliched phrase "the squeaking wheel that gets the oil" that is true: those who speak up the longest and the loudest are the ones who will get heard first and most. If people in the middle, regardless of their political affiliation, want to be heard, they've got to be the ones to tell the radical religious right to go screw themselves and leave the workings of the nation to the secular forces which are supposed to be running our country anyhow. It's not taking religion out of peoples' lives that's the goal, it's putting religion back in the HOMES and in the private lives that is the true goal.

If people in the middle don't want to be counted on the side of the pompous right wing, then they had better bring up their own concerns and sound the call to battle against the right. Those of us on the further left will be happy to bury the radical right in the process, but we can't fight that battle for you.

[KnowerOfLogic]

350. I am areligious but certainly not amoral; this is exactly the problem

"areligious" and "amoral" are assumed to be one in the same thing by the bible-thumpers. Stop calling me immoral, and you'll find that i'll be a lot more tolerant of you and other religious people.

[Guaranteed]

380. "Bible-thumpers" is the key phrase, there, though.

I believe in God, and I would certainly never tell someone that doesn't believe in God that they're immoral.

[KnowerOfLogic]

409. Heck, joe lieberman said "All morality comes from religion;" hmmm,

guess that means i don't have any morality. And Lieberman is exactly the kind of dem that gets touted to give the dems some "morality cred;" And then add in that the same viewpoint is pretty much universal among social conservatives (i.e. republicans), all together that puts us non-religious people a little on the defensive.

[Carl Brennan]

363. The Power of Myth

Joseph Cambell used to talk about it on Bill Moyers. I like Mythology. The pantheistic Greek Gods are kind of neat. They have faults and failures like humans so they are more accessible. We today see these gods as myth as the Christian god will be seen by all years hence.

I just wish they'd hurry up about it. :eyes:



PS. There is another angle to the Power of Myth. This topic has gotten alot of people to get on the merry-go-round of Mythology.

[Bouncy Ball]

374. .........

I'm a liberal Christian. People have every right to believe what they want about my belief in God, etc. It's a free country.

Personally I don't know why I can't just as well be lecturing the right about how they disdain MY beliefs, how they say I can't be a REAL Christian because I don't look down my nose at others the way I do, because I don't beat people over the head with the Bible like they do.

Why isn't there a lecture for them?

Don't tell me about Middle America. I AM Middle America.

[slutticus]

379. I love Christian Mythology.

Some day I hope to be able to scare the shit out of my own kids with stories of hell and damnation ....that way they will behave, and I won't have to spank them.

But seriously...This is one of the few places I go to get away from god, whether or not he is my creator is irrelevant to me.

I just don't know why people have to keep bringing it up. Some of us have had very bad experiences with religion...we don't need to keep hearing about it.

[Az]

390. Two way street

I know there are many believers that will stand by an atheist or nonbeliever but it is not nearly as open as it should be. Star Jones says publiclly that she wouldn't trust an atheist with anything and there is no public outcry. Imagine if she had said something about Jews. Her contract would have been torn up within a day. But atheists and nonbelievers continue to be the permissible oppressed.

Atheists tend to be a bit defensive because no one stands up for us. We have learned that we have to fight for ourselves. The way to change this is to stand up and defend us when someone takes a shot at us. Let us see that you are not part of the mob that despises us. Don't be the person that comes by the next day and whispers to us that you support us but that speaking out about it wasn't the right thing to do.

[norml]

402. The Freeper Church Is The False Church Of The Anti-Christ!

The "Conservative" Sermon On The Mount


Blessed are the rich for all good things trickle down from them. Cursed are the poor for poverty results from their moral failings. Blessed are the war makers for they keep freedom on the march. Cursed are the peacemakers for they shall be called appeasers. Blessed are those who inflict harsh punishments for they maintain law and order. Cursed are those who forgive for they shall be called soft on crime. Blessed are those who pray loudly standing in the churches and on the corners sounding the trumpet before them. Cursed are those who shut the closet door and pray in secret for their prayers are not heard. Blessed are those who cast the first stone for the sake of sexual morality for that is the only morality that matters. Cursed are those who see sexuality as a private matter for marriage must be defended against them.

[juliagoolia]

404. My two cents

Religions have dogma and doctrinal rules.
This dogma and how the doctrine dictates its observance is usually where the ideas of moral come into play.

If the dogma indicates certain rules are part of the doctrine then they can say someone had failed morally, but what he/she really did is not follow the doctrine. These are all set out in the churches when they dictate upon peoples the doctrine of the faith.


OK, now... those that don't share the same values or morals or ethic what about them>

Morals has no similarity in the word to doctrine, dogma or religion. Ethics most closely related to Morals and call for Moral codes etc. is , maybe even scruples or values. which is also said so be good, right, honest, decent proper, honorable, just principled. None of these attributes or character traits are required from those in the church. They need only have the character traits as defined by an exclusive doctrine that they set up and base upon their own dogmatic beliefs which by nature are completely inflexible..

So what ever the church teaches does not negate social values ethic and morals the society establishes, but the church community's can set up some of their own and call them what they wont and follow them within the church, but they also have to follow societies rules because society is bigger than the Church and that means it is the leader in the issue. The Church may have it rules and so forth, they may worship and follow them all but they do not have any rights to impose doctrine and dogma to the other masses who maybe perfectly moral and ethical without them. The non Chucho member may even be the most moral and ethical any of them they all know. Morality is not a gift given to the man when he becomes a member of a church, it is an attribute of the man he was born with and took note of and admired and developed as he matured /or she

Anyone that claims some high power over morality has lied. He may be more learned but he has not over taken all evil and has not faced death and choice so until then he is unfinished in his quest for his morality

[shockra]

405. Oh boy

Have I got a book recommendation. It sounds like a lot of you would enjoy THE END OF FAITH: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris, which just came out a few months ago.

I've been reading it for the last few days and it really gets to the crux of this argument. It's hard to describe the range Harris manages to cover in under 250 pages, but he really convinces of the dangers of religious faith. He slaps around Bush, Noam Chomsky, hypocritical drug laws (and his reasoning is one I've never come across before) and more along the way. It's an incredibly good read and no matter where you stand on the issues, there'll be many things that make you mad, and many that make you think.

Harris (a philosopher) believes the respect afforded to religious faith is undeserved. That for anything other than religion, one must be able to offer some proof for their beliefs. And that as a result, we are allowing the Dark Ages to co-exist with, and defeat, modernity. One of the main reasons he believes people cling to religious faith is out of fear of death. People want to be reassured that they are going to a good place when they die.

There's quite a lot of critical things said about the Muslim faith, as well as Christianity and Judaism. Too much to get into, but Harris really explains well why democracy can't be implanted in the Middle East. And that education and money are not going to solve the problem of terrorism there, since terrorists come primarily from the most educated, well-off classes. The problem is one of faithful adherence to religion.

Needless to say, it's very timely -- considering both the war on Iraq and the red-state "problem" we've been agonizing over since the election. Some of the things he says will probably make your jaw drop, even if you aren't religious! But there's still an awful lot of truth in this book. I have a feeling I'm going to be sifting it through my brain for a long time to come, readjusting my views.

[rman]

407. The problem is not what certain people *think*

The problem is not with any belief system.

The problem is what certain people who have a certain belief system *DO*.

Such as forming a coalition with corporatists and neocons to highjack the government in order to change the rules according to their particular interpretation of that belief system.

I think it is to much to ask for anyone to be tolerant of that.

[LakeCohoon]

410. The far left is just as intolerant as the far right. n/t

[Carl Brennan]

439. Would you mind expanding on that a bit. nt

[LanternWaste]

415. I've gotten used to being considered an ignorant boob

Actually, I've gotten used to being considered an ignorant boob due to my faith. Also, I've gotten used to being perceived as an ignorant boob because I'm a political liberal. Additionally, I've grown accustomed to being seen as an ignorant boob because I'm an environmentalist. Gee, thinking about it, the list goes on and on.

I suppose one of man's lots in life is to be considered a freak or a weirdo by a vast number of his fellow men because there are simply so many different philosophies in this world. It really doesn't make me sweat too much about what other people think about me anymore.

There is a bit that I don't understand-- on one hand, I'm supposed to "remain silent and personal" about my faith and pretend it doesn't exist when I'm in public; you know- never "force" my religious opinions on others and all that rot. On the other hand, I've also been called to "take back my religion from the radical Right" (but I don't know how to do that if I'm also supposed to keep quiet about it...).

I'm supposed to distance my politics from my religion (but many don't realize that the reason I'm a liberal is *because* I'm a Christian). I'm supposed to endorse taxation of churches because the giant, Wal-Mart Churches have affected policies mixing the religious and the secular (never mind that that will indoubtably ruin many poor, small inner-city and rural churches where actual and absolute good is being done).

My fundamental opinion is this: I don't feel persecuted in any way as a Christian. I'm not being fed to lions or forced to fight to the death in the arena. I doubt any of us truly are persecuted in this country anymore, regardless of faith or lack of faith.

And as to who is and who is not a Christian (aside from the fact that it's not my business unless asked), I simply compare the individual's actions and words (both-- not one or the other) and see if it is consistent with the word's of Christ; but I'd better not answer one way or the other (unless it's the popular answer with those I'm socializing with at the time...)

:hi:









"The real question is whether we can make space for difference, for the one who is not like us. This has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of religion. The question has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with us."-- Jonathan Sacks; Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Great Britain and the Commonwealth.

This quote was in a Op-Ed piece that happened to be in my daily this morning. I think it's rather apropos to this thread... but then again, I'm probably just "forcing" my religion and opinions on people... :)

[m berst]

447. very thoughtful and well stated LW

"There is a bit that I don't understand-- on one hand, I'm supposed to "remain silent and personal" about my faith and pretend it doesn't exist when I'm in public; you know- never "force" my religious opinions on others and all that rot. On the other hand, I've also been called to "take back my religion from the radical Right" (but I don't know how to do that if I'm also supposed to keep quiet about it...)."

There is the dilemma. No one here is required to have any concern for this dilemma, but as you point out, we are being asked to do the impossible.

"I don't feel persecuted in any way as a Christian. I'm not being fed to lions or forced to fight to the death in the arena."

Agreed, and I often say this to Christians who claim to be persecuted. I don't think anyone on this thread has claimed persecution, or even implied it. Many posters have accused a few of us of whining and complaining and made the assumption that we are defending our faith. The discussion that Perky opened up is not about Christianity, it is about intolerance among DUers and liberals in general. The concern is the damage that does to liberalism and the party, not the damage it does to Christians or Christianity. Why this can't be discussed without it becoming on all out attack on Christianity is mysterious, and these attacks, obviously, reinforce rather than refute the op's point.



on edit - added italics

[rhino47]

419. The truly ironic thing is that faith in god spawns many liberals.

The sermon on the mount.Read it.It is my basis of my political views.
Taking care of the poor,weak,sick and elderly.
Every religion has extreme factions.It does not speak for the whole body of worshipers.
As for tolerance.I agree.Democrats are the party of inclusion.Tolerant of all religious,sexual,racial disparities.Support of a womans right to chose is not support for abortion per say but more support for her freedom.We want to government out of our bedrooms.It all ties in freedom of choice.

[OETKB]

420. We are open

Religion of any kind is suppose to engender hope and give spiritual strength in the good and bad times of individuals lives. It is usually an article of faith which for its followers is their belief system. In the political arena we deal with issues that can be challenged. If one does not want religious beliefs challenged then they should not be presented as an argument for one side or the other. The governmental affairs of humankind in a democracy depends on the use of reason and a collective sense of fairness which gets translated into laws. Most of the enties I have seen here are very respectful of people's belief systems. However when they are applied in a way which is not their purpose, that is when the trouble begins.

How do you see the role of religion in the lives of citizens? Whether it is healthcare, poverty, foreign policy, or any other issue, what are the boundries by which citizens of many faiths or non faiths have a productive discussion?

The gauntlet you have laid down presents a non-sequitor. This is reflected in several of the above posts. You have not fully explained yourself. What is it you are exactly looking for?

As a last thought, I am not saying that religious beliefs can't change, but these changes come through societal work and is not a political process. There is no legal structure to work through. The participants and its leadership will struggle with what preceps they will discard or hang onto or modify. Of course if a law is broken, like any citizens, they should be called into account. We have had even recent examples of this here in Boston.

[enki23]

433. who said anything about "ultra-tolerant?"

for the record, i'm also intolerant of people who believe the world is flat, people who believe the UN is going to invade us and force us all into gay marriages, people who believe in bigfoot, people who believe in astrology, people who believe there were WMD's in iraq, people who believe it's okay to torture prisoners of war, people who believe it's okay to torture ANYONE for that matter, people who believe your skin tone accurately predicts your value, people who believe anything that hubbard idiot wrote, people who believe they can heal their sick children with prayer alone, people who believe they can heal the sick with prayer at all...

the list goes on. a lot.

i don't "tolerate" any of these things. i do, however, accept anyone else's right to believe them. i accept that they have the right to call me an idiot for not believing them, just as i have the right to call them the fucking imbeciles i think they are. i don't support making stupidity illegal (in most cases).

finally, i have NO TOLERANCE for anyone who gets their self-righteousness jollies by beating the great strawman "HYPOCRISY!!!!!!!!11."

[GingerSnaps]

452. I have no hate inside of me

Some people hide behind the name Liberal but when it comes down to it that's the only part of them that is liberal.

[d_b]

453. Yea!

[Zorra]

454. No one that really believes in God would ever support Bu$h. Period.

Anyone that has any true spiritual belief in God would immediately recognize that Bu$h is a bonafide monster straight out of hell.

Based on this evidence alone, IMO, Bu$h supporting fundies are plainly FOS.

[m berst]

464. righteous anger

I agree. To say that the Bush supporters are not very good Christians and don't seem to have a true understanding of belief in God is a lot closer to the truth than saying that Christians are the problem IMHO, or caused Hitler and the Nazis, or are superstitious mentally defective idiots. You sound angry about that, and I am too, and I think we should be.

As far as I am concerned, people can point out hypocrisy among self-proclaimed Christians - and there is a lot to point to - all they want without offending me or insulting Christianity. I think that the idea that Christians are a persecuted group is a crock, and I don't personally feel harmed by anything people have said on this thread.

However, to make blanket hateful statements toward Christians or religious people, as many have done here, is not very smart for the sake of the party. Somehow pointing out this hypocrisy and intolerance for the sake of the Democratic party gets twisted around on these threads as "Christians whining" or as Christians defending Christianity. We haven't talked about Christianity at all on this thread, except to hear it bashed.

The point of the op was not to promote Christianity. It was to promote tolerance by Democrats. The response has been "f- tolerance" from many here. That is the objection - not that Christianity is being attacked, rather that this hateful talk and bigoted thinking is destructive to the Democratic party.

[Neshanic]

456. Perky, do you believe in the Bible as absolute truth? Yes or no.

[datasuspect]

463. or biblical inerrancy? n/t

[Swamp Rat]

465. Here's hypocrisy for ya:

[RedCloud]

466. The real JFK did not pander to the religious rabble!

He aptly stated that he was not running to be elected Pope. That he respected the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and would never go against their principle of separation of church and state. that shut up the rabbler who did not wish to appear to be against the Founding Fathers!

Kerry forgot to drum this point home to the easy voters. (Those who let some religious moran tell them what to do and how to vote.)
And I call them morans because they have NOT studied all the world's religions, much less several years of evolutionary supporting sciences before arriving at any decision. Thus, they espouse religion from an arrogant, totally ignorant viewpoint.

Blast away at the morans, I say. We need to say "religious bullshit" in every movie, every where possible. Push it into the realm of superstition where it belongs.