Why can't we all be free to believe what we believe?

[Ladyhawk]

:shrug:

To me, it seems the least of our worries right now. We have certain values in common. Yes, I said the "V" word. Despite differences in belief, for the most part we have the same basic moral assumptions.

I am staying out of the science versus religion flame-fests. I'm quite sure that is what they are, even though I haven't looked. They're cluttering up GD, IMO. Granted, I can always hide them, but I sense that the energy spent on arguing with one another could be better spent elsewhere.

I am an atheist. Big deal. I won't tell the Christians what they should believe. I'll give my opinion sometimes.

One of my greatest hopes is that the religious left become full of righteous anger, rise and engage the religious right. But, please, be angry at the right people! I am not your enemy. The enemy is the religious right, the people who have hijacked the Christian religion for their own selfish reasons.

I urge fellow atheists and agnostics to temper their responses. We NEED the religious left. This is the conclusion I have come to.

To religionists on DU: I may not believe what you believe, but I certainly believe the religious right must be stopped! And I believe the religious left is the answer. Atheists and agnostics certainly won't hold sway in the current religious atmosphere.

If we stop the religious right and their neocon friends, religionists and non-religionists can choose to live in peace. As long as neither side is radically trying to thrust its views upon everyone, we're doing just fine.

Opinions are fine. Thoughtful discourse is good, too. But flame wars only divide. Those of us who want tolerance need to come together to push the intolerant crowd out of office.

Join me. :) I'll try to be good.

[JohnKleeb]

1. I dunno

I'm Catholic and I don't have a problem if people don't believe in religion, its fine with me, just do not insult my inteligence because of what I believe or act like the leaders of my faith are evil people.

[Ladyhawk]

2. Probably some are evil, but that goes for atheists, too.

I don't think Madelyn-whatsername was a very good role model. Do you? The very first sociopath I ever met was an atheist. Why should I defend him? He was evil.

Priests who molest children are evil, but this doesn't mean all Catholic priests are evil. I think people are engaging in stereotyping.

We probably agree more than we disagree. We're losing sight of that.

And young Mr. JohnKleeb, I will not insult your intelligence.

This is something that we have to learn. Because of my past, I have a lot of anger toward religion, but I want to learn to see people as individuals again. The religious right damaged me.

As far as the religious left goes: I see good people. At least so far. That is my hope.

JohnKleeb :hug:

[Malva Zebrina]

8. Her name was Madeline Murray O'Hair

and I know personally, one person who met her when she was a social worker, and who admired her greatly for her humanitarian views. She helped my friend,who at that time was very much in need of help, having lost her husband in the Korean was and had four children to raise by herself. She had nothing but praise for Madeline and her personal involvement in helping her.

[PassingFair]

10. Thank you, Malva.

I'm sick of people maligning her, too. They go on a feeling and a blurred memory of their parents reactions to Ms. O'Hair.
To many of us, she is someone to admire.

[Ladyhawk]

12. Thank you. She was a piece of work, wasn't she. :) n/t

[DrWeird]

3. Take a look. The threads now aren't flamefests.

Not particularly interesting either. Just a lot of philosophical mumbo jumbo.

[MatrixEscape]

4. My take has been

that their may be a psychological element in the phenomena in the form of a sort of projection at work here. There may also be a chink in the amour of faith that promotes excessive desires to convert others and to enforce one's beliefs on others.

In the case of projection, when you are encouraged to repress various elements of your self, without a gradual, trans formative, state-specific methodology, it is conceivable that the repression requires a covert means for expression.

In the case of uncertainty in faith, it makes sense to conclude that the more people that believe in what you do, the more what you believe is re-enforced. In that case, your own, interior doubts, or contrary information and phenomena, may illicit a strong desire to change what is external.

You may also feel a strong need to "paint" the world with the articles and ideas of your Faith if you are unable to interiorize and/or subjectively experience the spiritual fruits implied. So, it is a matter of degree as to how far those who lack strong and true face will go to slap dogmatic white-wash on the rest of the World before they realize the tremendous error of spiritual materialism. As history shows, it can be violent, bloody, and even futile.

While in the past, people who required that degree of re-enforcement would stay within a group of the like-minded, or join a convent/monastery, today we see it as an emerging social phenomena bound for Fascism. To me, it is a demonstration of a FAILURE in faith, not a proof of its relevancy and moral value. It is by their works that we can know them.

[cruadin]

5. I don't think you're going to find too many people on this site...

who identify with the religious right, or defend their "take" on religion generally, or Christianity in particular.
I am not religious at all, but I believe in a God of my understanding--a Supreme Being who is the Creator of all things.
I also think evolution is a proven fact of science. I do not think science and a belief in God are at all mutually exclusive, but I have read numerous threads that state unequivocally that people like me (who believe in God) are deluded weaklings who believe in "myths" and "fairy tales" and shouldn't, therefore, be taken seriously.
For the most part, I've stopped responding to threads that broach the subject because of the level of acrimony and vitriol that exist. I would much prefer to see a more tolerant attitude of acceptance.
Atheists don't bother me at all, I was one for a very long time, so maybe I am more accepting of that viewpoint.
Intolerance and bigotry do bother me, however, from whatever quarter they come.
There are Progressives and Libertarians who also foster the spiritual side of their humanity, and they shouldn't be derided or dismissed for that.
I agree that we, of all people, should be tolerant enough to accept our differences and work together.

[Malva Zebrina]

6. atheists have never held sway

at any time. We are used to it.

I don't think we any longer must put up with being considered second in line, nor do I think we need to "respect" anyone's god and should resist any comments requesting we do so if we do not get equal respect from believers.

I, as an atheist, have been watching the religious right for at least the past ten years. I have been aware of the slow incursion into government for those years because I have tried to keep up with it, feeling that eventually, my rights will be overun by this extremist literalist faction.

I watched, but there is little I could do about it, except support organisations that would resist, such as the ACLU, PFAW and others.

I find it strange that the religious left has not been watching as carefully as myself and now seems to be impotent. Why was that?

in fact, the religious left, has at times joined arms with the religious right--ie in the case of the abortion issue.

I don't know what is the cause of that phenomena. Could be respect for the overall Christian religion, even though there is difference in the interpretation. And, to tell the truth, I really do not care why.

I also think that the religious left had a responsibility to do so, but for some reason, which I continue to muse upon has NOT done so and they simply allowed themselves to be overrun. There have been so many complaints and so much posted angst by Christians on these boards saying that these rightist people are NOT REAL Christians.

But if that is so, where is their resistance from their leaders?

That is not my primary concern, however. That must be worked out within their own.

I just wonder why the REAL Christians have not stood up and tried to stop it.

It may have already gone too far to do anything much about it.

[CarbonDate]

14. I tend to agree with your take....

...on how the Christian left (as opposed to other religions such as my own) has handled the rise of the Christian right. Frankly, they've largely just stood by and shook their heads in disbelief. I'm speaking as a former Christian who tried fighting the Christian right, but found that the right had come to define Christianity in a way that could not be undone.

I found a religion (Wicca) which was more in keeping with my values. It teaches respect for all life, not just the chosen few, and not just for our own species. It teaches equality of the genders, and it teaches respect for others' beliefs. It teaches respect for the earth, and thus respect for the environment. That's probably why most Wiccans are liberals, because our is an inherently liberal religion.

Regardless of what Christianity may have been at one time (I, too, think Jesus taught liberal values), that is not what it is, anymore. Christianity is defined by the right, now. If people in the Christian left don't like that, they should do something about it other than apologize for it to the rest of us on the left. It's particularly incumbent upon liberal clergy members to become more involved with politics, if only behind the scenes. The clergy need to preach liberal values to their congregation. Not telling them to vote Democrat necessarily, but instilling values that make the world a better place and appeal to their better angels, unlike their right-wing counterparts, who appeal to their darker demons. They have that sort of power; the people on the right have been using it. The people on the left have not.

I appreciate all the work that the Christians on this board have done over the years; I hope that this post is not taken as indicating otherwise. Rather, I want to instill how important it is for you to take back your own religion and define it, once again, as a religion of compassion for the powerless, not as the beacon for misogyny, homophobia, and xenophobia that the Christian right have defined it as.

[Skip Intro]

7. The subject line was post enough

that is a qestion that should be asked over and over, loudly.

Such talk of freedom would cause a bushbot to go haywire. And they're the ones defining "freedom" these days.

"Next thing you'll want to feed everybody!"

[Bluzmann57]

9. Values are a good thing

as long as people try to be the best they can be and treat others with respect. Those are values to me. I am heterosexual, but I respect homosexuals right to live like anyone else. I am not an overly religious person but I respect others right to believe in it. I am a Democrat, but I respect a person's right to vote repub, even though I don't understand it. I am not a gun control person, but I respect a person's right to be anti-gun. Well, you get the idea.
To me, real family values are trying to raise our children to know right from wrong, nurturing and encouraging them and their interests. Trying to respect everybody, even if you disagree with what they say (I disagree with a lot of people and let them know about it). But it seems that the word "values" has been twisted around to represent what republicans allegedly represent. I say it's time to take back the "v" word and make people realize what real values are.
If you don't like homosexuals, if you don't agree with abortion, if you believe in a higher power, thats ok. I will add one "but" here. Even if you don't like homosexuals, etc., therte is absolutely no reason to resort to violence to make a point. Ok I'm done ranting, thank you and good night.

[superconnected]

11. finally

a, "lets all believe what we want", without a double-edge sword in the opening message.

I totally agree, great thread!

[H2O Man]

13. This is a nice thread.

We are free to believe what we want. I will admit that I enjoy debating, and so I will argue either side of this issue with equal passion.

A friend recently e-mailed me photos from a wooded area. An interesting thing about the forest is that there is plenty of room for all types of trees. There is no pressure for an oak to convert to becoming a White Pine.

Maybe rather than debating which trees are nicer, we should concentrate on keeping The Bush Logging Company from destroying that forest.

[TexasLady]

15. Im with you on this one Waterman

I want to SEE the forest for those trees...its what makes the whole thing so special!

[Cleita]

16. I'm mostly an atheist. At least I don't believe in the

grandfather guy who micromanages our lives. My mind is open to many other ideas though and I have become disillusioned with the atheists because it would appear they are as dogmatic as the rest. We can't find the truth unless we open our minds to many ideas. Also we must respect the ideas of others. We can draw the line when they want to make us be like them though.

[Az]

17. Good and Evil

Should you tolerate Evil. Satan. Should you give Evil any room at all?

This is the issue that fundamentalists face. They believe that Evil is a definable thing. It is concrete. Black and White. And in their view that which is not of their beliefs is part of team Evil.

At one time societies were much more closed. Homogenious. There were one people. One set of beliefs. But this did not last.

As our technologies and travels progressed different societies and beliefs began to intermingle. As these new presenses became a factor in societies they were rejected by the dominant branches. For a great deal of time these minorities were heavily oppressed. But still the diversity of society grew. It grew until it hit critical mass.

At this junction the oppression and violence necissary to maintain the dominance of the majority became destructive to the society as a whole. It was this that forced the hand of society to embrace a more diverse mindset. This was the impetus to the Age of Reason and other major changes such as the Magna Carta.

This alteration fused the notion that people have the right to believe what ever they choose to. That people have the right to define their own mind. This has survived to this day and lead directly to the founding concepts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the United States.

However the older system survived as well. Just because humanity managed to find a way to infuse itself with some new ideas did not mean that the institutions that created the old systems instantly whithered away. They are still with us and they are still injecting their teachings into society.

Fundamentalist beliefs believe they are absolutely correct. There is no question in their mind that they are correct. Thus allowing other beliefs to flourish in their mind is the same as allowing Evil to flourish.

This is the environment we exist in today. We have atheists, agnostics, liberal theists, moderate theists, and fundamentalist theists. Most of these groups accept and embrace the notion of allowing the others to believe what they may. But the most vocal group is also the one that objects to the existance of the others. Thus that which is most different from them enjoys the brunt of their assaults. Thus the atheists/nonbeliever groups are targetted by the fundamentalists as the primary threat to society.

This creates a feedback. The atheists and nontheists are not organized. Thus when they are assailed by the fundamentalists they may percieve all theists as the same as the rest of the believers. Thus fracturing any bonds they may form with the other groups.

[More Than A Feeling]

18. Testify! Amen!

This former atheist turned liberal Christian salutes you. Neither should or needs to look down upon the other.

[soothsayer]

19. Because people who are different are WRONG. Duh.