To my fellow atheists and nonChristians

[Az]

Not all Christians are fundamentalists. Not all Christians are the problem. Politically or philosophically. They share our concern with the fundamentalists that are poisoning our politics and ravaging the name of their belief. Cut them some slack.

When you take a broad shot at religion you catch all those that consider themself religious and open minded. You do them harm where they would be on your side politically. We cannot afford such mean spiritedness. We face a very real political opponent that will use our divisiveness against us in a heart beat.

Do not proclaim Christianity is and always has been the problem. There have always been Christians that disagreed with the path dominated by those in power. And they do so based on their interpretation of Christianity. Yes a very real threat exists within dogmatic authoratative systems but many believers recognise its threat as well.

Do not proclaim god to be a space monster or an imaginary friend. Again you cast the net too wide. You may not believe in god but the issue is far from clear for many. It has been this way for millenia. Unless you have some easily understood evidence that everyone can emotionally relate to you are not going to make god vanish from the playing field just because you coined a really cool insult for him. Its going to take a lot more work that that.

When you throw around the dismissive comments you insult your potential allies and friends. You create a path for the conversation to go nowhere but down. No believer is going to give you any respect for your position if you do not allow them some dignity for theirs. You actions in doing this are foolish and show no signs of reason. Which is supposedly the very thing we are supposes to champion.

Use reason. Use it not just to come to an understanding of the things you believe. But use it too in order to see how to best address the real problems at hand. Do not emotionally lash out even though you feel justified. We need to communicate the oppression we experience in this society but we need to do so without oppressing those that might understand our plight. Communicate the indignity while maintaining your dignity.

We can and must discuss these matters. But losing our civility gains us nothing. We know we disagree with them on some matters. But it is the things we agree with them on that brings us together. And we agree on much more than we disagree on. Please treat the disagreements with respect and work to close the gaps but do not force them closed as that will only cause them to fester and new oppression shall arise.

To those atheists and nonChristians that already understand these issues I encourage you to be more vocal. Let them know that not all nonbelievers are alienated to such an extreme as to be unreachable.

And to the Christians I appologise for any slight that may come about due to rought treatment. We have too long been silent in this society in openly discussing the issue of belief. So little skill and decorum is left. I can only ask you to turn the other cheek and try to struggle for a better understanding of your position. But do not discount the suffering that we have passed through either. For that fuels the anger as well. Speak up when you see someone being persecuted for their lack of belief. That will go a long ways to show the angry atheists that not all Christians are the same.

[Taxloss]

1. Hear, hear.

eom

[cruadin]

2. Thoughtful and well articulated post. If nothing else, I hope that...

we remember to treat each other (and each other's beliefs) with the dignity and respect that we expect for ourselves.

Too often, that simple benchmark seems to be lost in these threads.

[sui generis]

3. really. When people are "taking it out" here

it's not against rational people. We are overwhelmed by the often one-sided conversation that is crammed down our throats by society at large.

You can't drive down a residential street in Texas without driving past a church, and the great many of those churches here in the south have some serious issues with liberalism in all its forms.

Yes, apologize on our behalf, but only for blurting out the frustration in a way that is sometimes as insensitive as the crap we hear from the other side, but DO NOT apologize on my behalf for feeling this way.

[seabeyond]

4. and as a christian, living in the panhandle of texas

amazed how many churches we have, and how many new ones are being erected

why i dont take it personally. of course i understand your frustration. lordy, i live amongst the people teaching and nurturing hate and fear in their children

i also know i dont have to defend christ, he is quite capable and doesnt take it personally either.

[Az]

5. I have fought too long and too hard

against the oppression too dismiss its affect on us. I too am angry and have been the victim of hate crimes numerous times because of my lack of belief. But you have to recognise the real problems and your real allies. Let them know you are angry. Let them see the injustice. But do not turn them against you.

[Modem Butterfly]

19. I for one...

...get frustrated every time I read someone smugly and broadly proclaiming the over-arching rightness of their belief. I'm tempted to post some examples here, but in the interest of the common good, I'll refrain. I do believe, however, that many theists, especially Xians, don't even realize that they're doing it and are quite oversenitive to having it pointed out to them. That, of course, doesn't mean it shouldn't be pointed out.

[Az]

21. Then point it out

Make noise. But use reason when making it. I will never call for us to be silent about oppression or our rights being limited. But there is a way to do it effectively. Not just emotionally.

[sui generis]

36. actually, I don't think there is

Let me clearly state that although I can be provoked, I am not usually provocative.

Having said that, it will never happen that an atheist will "convert" a religious person by dint of reason to atheism, nor that a religious person in a paroxysm of faith will bring an atheist to the light. I'm not being mean. I'm just saying, there really isn't any common ground on these topics to meet in the middle.

Now if an atheist and a religious person want to go take food to the food bank together and both of us feel good about it, then that's where the common ground is - in activity that has results, not talk.

[Az]

37. I agree

It has to do with how our minds work. Reason is only used as a tool when doubt is felt concerning a subject. And since our mind establishes belief based on an emotional relevance it will not reach for reason to unseat a strongly held belief.

But my point was regarding using reason to show the oppression in the society towards us. Present the evidence and allow people to come to understand our plight. Running around bashing on beliefs in a political forum is suicidal. It goes against any sensible purpose. You are not going to convince them their beliefs are wrong. But you do have a chance to show them the injustice being done by some in the name of their belief. And that is where we can be effective.

[sui generis]

48. ah hah, az but you've named the paradox

if they don't feel doubt that it's right to discriminate then reason will never reach them.

Here is what will reach them: I own a company with over a hundred employees. If it is legal to discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual orientation in Texas (it's not), I could fire everyone I suspected was heterosexual. I could also refuse to serve them in my restaurant, refuse to allow them into my store, and if I were a bank president I could refuse to write mortgage loans to straight people or rent an apartment or sell a car to them. I could put up signs saying God Hates Heteros and picket their funerals and

How do we get religious bigots? By using their own bigotry against them, instructively. Again, it's not reason. We have to bring the realities they want to impose on us to their doorstep.

I don't feel persecuted because I'm an atheist - I feel persecuted because it's open season on gays and in their puny little minds gays are political prey and not predator. Once we set some basic facts straight the lights will start to turn on for some of them and the rest can go straight to hell.

Most of those "moral values" that don't stand for anything but hating gays and women who own their own bodies come from very religious people and the people who manipulate them.

So yes, it's hard not to be angry and quite frankly I don't have time to split hairs with anyone. I agree the conversation should consist of more than name-calling and posturing, but it's also got to have clear cold passion on our side, and that sometimes means that when we're in a corner we don't need to be pulling punches.

[bhairava]

222. You are mistaken

Sui generis wrote,

"If it is legal to discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual orientation in Texas (it's not),...".

It is perfectly legal to discriminate on that basis. You might remember a little court case that went all the way to the supreme court (Lawrence v TEXAS) ? It concerned a gay-only (the hetero portion was removed in the 1970's) sodomy law. The law was actually used to arrest two people for having sex, in 1998! State lawmakers including our current president vocally defended said law and vocally lamented the USSC's decision. These lawmakers are not about to protect these same vilified people from discrimination. Remember these same bigots (incl the pres) voted to keep sexual orientation language out of a hate crimes bill (again supported by the pres who couldn't find time to meet with the family of a man dragged to death by racists). Barring a municipality passing a non-discrimination law, Texas is near the bottom regarding civil rights (for everyone.) I won't even get into what it's like being non-white, poor, or non christian here!

[realisticphish]

201. um

just to point something out, a LOT of atheists do the EXACT SAME THING.

I have no idea if you do, i'm just saying.


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[ladjf]

6. Religion is a parasitic disease. And like athlete's foot,

if you are badly infested, the disease isn't fatal.

[Az]

12. A disease is determined by the majority organism

If you want to make organic comparisons.

How do you think that is going to make believers feel? Think its going to accomplish anything other than score a few points with those that already agree with you? Did it make a difference? Did it lose us ground? Use your head for something other than percieving religion in negative terms. Use it to understand the situation and how to deal with it. Your smart enough to come up with comparisons. Are you smart enough to figure out how to fix the problem?

[sui generis]

38. oy a preacher too

Here's the problem:

when religion becomes government, then it's a disease. When I can't get a mortgage unless I'm a christian and married, then religion is a disease. when I can't get married to my life partner or manage my own property and health insurance or take care of my family because of somebody else's religious beliefs, you can bet I am going to be the devil himself to those people, and not all the make-nice in the world can change that.

Otherwise, I am completely neutral on it. Similarly if my psychosis was to make everyone believe my personal philosophies I could be said to have a disease. Most atheists don't evangelize. Most of us lack the will to preach and convert and "spread the word", but it's not about rallying religious people to do things or pissing them off. I would rather there was NEVER a discussion of religion or atheism in polite circles; that way we wouldn't need to worry about civility and rationality and we could get on with the important stuff.

At least on DU, in my opinion, it's about the impact of religion on politics, particularly fundamentalist christian beliefs, and the ramifications of that today and for the future.

[Az]

39. Then fight for those issues

But realise the impact your words have and if they have any effect. Yes you recognise the symptoms but you have no understanding of the treatment. Religion and government must be kept seperate. When they become entwined oppression follows. Present this issue to the people. But if you simultaneously attack their belief system then they will repulse your efforts.

People respond emotionally first and then they turn to reason. If you give them cause to reject you right off the bat then they will never listen to what you have to say. Making nice isn't all just about playing nice with the kiddies. It is a tactic. It is a way to achieve what you want. It is understanding the fight you are engaged in.

[sui generis]

56. I am not the person you started this thread for

I know this enemy well. I know exactly when to push buttons, and when to jerk the rug. But that arena is not here on DU.

Here on DU it is astonishing to me to see the defense of intelligent design and creationism. At that point it IS leaking into my life and it requires action. I don't want to approve of those kind of belief systems being taught in a science class, just as nobody who loves religion would approve of Darwinism being taught in a comparative religious studies course.

So here on DU it can sometimes feel like the last bastion of rationality is being infiltrated, and if these are symptoms of something then I do understand the treatment: strident disapproval.

Some of us go too far here - attacks on a point of logic are taken personally and replied to personally and things get out of hand. Snide comments evolve into entire skeins of insult and counter insult.

Making nice is just a tool in the arsenal. Every battle must be shaped to the opponent and the playing field. There is no single strategy or "tactic", and any doctor can tell you in the language of symptomology and treatment that you don't just throw penecillin at every ill (or the proverbial two-aspirin panacea).

[ladjf]

95. You seem to be advocating "mind control" which in itself

isn't necessarily bad. However, in so doing, you come perilously close to making the same transgression as the "controllers" we already have, namely (1) the media , (2) big business,(3) religious entities
(4) certain groups that share ultra right wing ideas and (5) racists.
Once you line up with those gangs, you are going to have to tell them, "don't believe those other people who are trying to capture your mind, believe me, because I know what's in your best interest".

Funny, this is exactly the dilemma faced by the marketer.

I enjoy your rhetoric and feel that if we conversed long enough, a solid area of common ground would appear. We aren't as far apart as it might seem.

[Az]

101. Distance is seldom the problem

The largest rifts have always been between those closest together. I suspect it has to do with how the mind deals with contaminating input. That which is close to it but tainted in some way is hit with a multitude of defenses. The obviosly different is easy to defend against. But the similarity of a near position is a far greater threat to an existing structure.

[ladjf]

44. I like the way you are thinking. And if everyone thought along

those lines, there would be no serious problem. However, anything that renders the mind incapable of objective thinking is a noxious
agent should be avoided. Religion fits that description in my opinion.

[Az]

47. We do not choose the arena we fight in

You may well be right. But it matters not if you cannot convince anyone of it.

[ladjf]

87. You and I have different but, possibly, compatible levels of

activism. My thrust is at the theoretical level of defining the situation as precisely as possible. You are on the pragmatic level
of wanting to influence people. Both tasks, definitions and solutions
will have to be done if we can struggle out of the current morass of
political and social negativeness. Obviously, the stage is larger than you and I could fathom. But all of can only try to contribute
in what ever way we can.

[DrGonzoLives]

132. OK

How about marijuana? When I've smoked, I'm not really capable of objective thought.

[The White Tree]

124. Atheism is somewhat the antithesis of evangelizing

The mission to evangelize is specifically Christian in origin, though other religions may have similar missions. It is in essence, to spread the good news and word of God by telling the stories of the gospel, particularly the existence of Jesus and the works of he and his followers to those who are receptive to hear them. It should have it's basis in one's own love of God and one's desire to spread the message that God loves all his children.

It's not really a fundamentalist thing, except for the fact that one of the fundamentals of any religion is the belief that there is truth in one's faith. However, that is also a fundamental tenet of atheism - what you believe, that there is no God, is the truth. Could it be otherwise?

Evangelizing can fill a very real need in Christians - the desire to follow Christ by not being afraid to profess our beliefs to those who may not understand them as well as to stand as an example and an open invitation to those who may wish to learn more about our faith. These are not in my opinion bad things for society. One of the best things about a faith community is being able to gather with members of your faith to learn and talk about it. And through evangelizing a lot of good gets done in the world.

In and of itself, evangelizing is not bad or wrong. When we express our opinions on DU, one could say that we are "evangelizing" about our political beliefs. When evangelizing oversteps it's bounds is when there is a cause for concern. Too many who believe that they are called to evangelize feel that they are locked in a battle for peoples souls. That characterization could be further from the truth. Success in evangelizing is immaterial, it is simply the act itself when practiced with faith and humility, that is the purpose.

So I for one will continue to evangelize in this way and if that means I send money to aid people who are in need but who are not of my faith, I see nothing wrong with that. If I give money to my church to help the homeless, I see nothing wrong with that. If I pray for those who are suffering to receive help and comfort through God's love, regardless of who they are and what is their faith, I see nothing wrong with that.

However, I will not evangelize by telling someone something that I do not know such as that they are going to hell. I will not evangelize by trying to get laws based passed solely on what my faith believes. And especially I will not evangelize by judging others. When I do those things then I have failed in my mission.

[The White Tree]

125. And yes, before anyone else points it out

I think I used the phrase evangelize a little to much in that post.

I apologize. I don't mean to lecture anyone and hope that is not the way this is received.

However, as a liberal Catholic, I very often struggle with my own faith and what those who follow it and those who denigrate it feel. This can cause me to ramble.

My church is not perfect but I get quite a bit out of it nonetheless.

Here is an interesting link I found while I was looking up something for my post. I think it is very pertinent to this discussion. I never saw this before today.

<http://www.humanistsofutah.org/1992/art4june92.html>

After reading this article I went to the home site of this organization and looked up their definition of who they are. Under the last line of the introduction to What is a Humanism? is the following line which I think is an interesting philosophy and one that I tend to share.

"We seek insight from all cultures and from many sources--scientific, secular, and religious--recognizing that there are many truths and many ways to learn about how to live. "
--Heather Dorrell
President, Humanists of Utah
June 2002

[mhr]

177. Well Said

"I would rather there was NEVER a discussion of religion or atheism in polite circles; that way we wouldn't need to worry about civility and rationality and we could get on with the important stuff."

[ladjf]

43. Good arguments. However, I am not speaking figuratively.

I mean that religious activity is a pathological symptom. I have little hope of influencing the already ill. It's the ones who haven't been zombified as yet for which I'm concerned. Perhaps if thinking people realize the dangerous nature of religious practice, as well as addiction to media fare, that might not allow the mind controllers free reign to poison the innocent.

I love life, the human race and America. And I'm very glad that I'm alive and have had a chance to participate in this great adventure.

[Az]

55. I know and am familiar with the theory

It is one that I utilize myself for understanding the issues. But your understanding seems to have made all religious belief one monolithic organism. There are a multitude of forms and derivations it has taken on. Some are not so parasitic and are more akin to a symbiotic relationship.

However you must keep in mind that the memetics structures that indivdiuals have do not percieve themself as invaders. These are ideas and beliefs that these people hold dearly. You can affect change on them but not if you engage all their defenses right off the bat. And they are definately open to change in areas outside the immediate venue of the religious memetic structures. In these areas we can appeal to reason with them and hope for change.

[ladjf]

88. Well thought out. I don't have the slightest argument with your

points. Somethings are healthy is smaller doses but become fatal when the amount is increased. That could be applied to religious activity.
I want to point out that "spiritual" discoveries can be made outside the venue of religion.

[phylny]

81. Ill? Poison?

Yeah, that's the spirit!

My goodness, the hate just seems to flow both ways, then, doesn't it?

[ladjf]

91. You totally misunderstood my points if you sense that there

is underlying hatred coming from me. I must not have expressed myself very well.

I love life, people, animals, plants and am very happy that I've had the glorious opportunity to take part in this adventure.


What was it I said that led you to conclude that I was speaking hatefully?

(I will say that I feel negatively about the factions that have hijacked our Democracy and our good will. But, it would be untrue to say that I hated them. As far as I know, I hate no one or anything as
in the end all of innocent.)

[bigmonkey]

158. Just pointing out:

in post #91 you use these phrases:

pathological symptom
ill
zombified
dangerous nature of religious practice
mind controllers
poison the innocent

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

I can understand anyone's fervor against what seem to be clearly mind control cults, but the words "religion" and "religious" are very difficult to define universally. The line between "religious" and "spiritual" is defined in a variety of ways, and elements that one person would define as one may appear in the other, and vice versa. The term "religious" is not even one that all cultures use. It's a complicated complex of phenomena.

Can I suggest the book "The Marriage of Sense and Soul" by Ken Wilber. It addresses the definitional issue in a pragmatic way.

[Telly Savalas]

73. Actually it's self-righteousness that is a parasitic disease.

While most of the people who have this disease are deeply religious, there are many atheists who have it as well as your post demonstrates.

[ladjf]

93. I'm not sure that I understand you point about self-righteousness.

However, using the following from the dictionary:

"1 obsolete : TROUBLE
2 : a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning : SICKNESS, MALADY
3 : a harmful development (as in a social institution)
"

I can see your point. Self-righteousness is likely to fit the definition of a disease in that it can well lead to (1) trouble, (2)
it can impair functioning and (3) can be part of a harmful development.

I defined religiousness as a disease because in observing the behavior of religious people, there appears to be definite signs
of psychotic behavior that threatens the individual's well being.
The reason I'm making the effort to criticize such a popular activity is that I think religion is getting too much respect and free ride
in light of the damage it is causing. It's a dangerous pass time.
Yes, there are countless examples of good things that appear to have arisen from religion. However, those things could have just as well come from other spiritual activities that weren't cloaked in the robe
of theology.

[lapislzi]

136. Athlete's foot (to extend your metaphor) is as we find it

It is you who is assigning a value to same.

Athlete's foot merely is. It is an organism that has evolved with an instinct to survive and reproduce. No more, no less.

As religion is propagated actively by people (and is not organically self-sustaining), I think you have set up a false comparison.

[jayfish]

7. Honestly...

other than on this board, I don't discuss religion unless someone with a religious bent brings the subject up. Most of the time I refuse to discuss the issue or desperately try to change the subject. If the person persists, then I give them both barrels. I don't really want to hear about someones religion and could care less if they know about my disdain for it.

Jay

[jdj]

150. But Christians are special here, you see.

Although PETA gets lambasted, Feminists get shit on, minority races get subject to all manner of offensive postings, Greens get treated like the plague, it is unacceptable to some that Christians would be the recipient of fair and equal treatment. Not because they are delicate, but because they are a significant demographic. People accuse Bush of duping eviljailankill xtians into voting for him en masse, but sometimes I sense more that a little bit of envy from the left on this point, as in "if we play nicer on this one website to the xtians,somehow that will bring about change in the world." It won't, of course, and people who believe that this one area (religion) should be free from the offensive commentary and diversity of opinion that every other topic on this site garners, have about as much of a grasp as the fundies do as to just how magnificiently large, diverse and fecund with variety the earth really is.

[realisticphish]

202. look

i am pro choice, pro gay marraige, an evolutionist, and a proponent of the seperation of church and state. i am also a Christian (Lutheran, to be exact). I put myself in a position to be ridiculed and hated by other christians, by believing what i believe. i follow the words of Christ, thats it. no old testament bullshit, nothing like that. in doing so, i go against most fundies, and come down firmly liberal. In return, i would like at least SOME respect, and understanding from my fellow liberals. as to being treated with kid gloves, we AREN'T. we get trashed all the time, from all sides, which is why we feel the need to defend ourselves when we can. why can't people stop treating everyone else as groups, rather than as individuals? respect the individual, and they will respect you back


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[Az]

204. We win in the name of tolerance one step at a time

We win over one person. One notion. One bit at a time. Each time we win we gain another working to support the idea of tolerance. Not every battle will be a victory. But the struggle itself makes the difference.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. Thanks, Az!

You've been a model of what you preach. :hi:

[Taxloss]

173. Preach?

[ladjf]

9. By the way Az, who appointed you as adviser to the rest

of us? Too many "do not","do not". I say why not?

[Az]

15. Nobody

You are free to take any wisdom you find from my statements. If you feel there is any there,

What do you hope to accomplish? Is it important to you? Is there a better way to go about it? These are the questions you need to consider when you enter into a discussion.

Your words have an effect on people. Choose the words to create the effect. Telling people they are fools and idiots does not convince them they are. It only convinces them you have nothing of value to say.

[ladjf]

42. Good answer.

My position about religion as well as the propaganda from the media is that unwitting people are getting their minds altered in ways that renders them incapable making the right decisions with regard to their own welfare.

Undoubtedly, wonderful ideas about existence have sprung from some religious efforts. But, overall, I believe that the bad, which is the loss of objectivity, outweighs the good, which could have been developed outside of religious auspices. People are too respectful and forgiving of religious activity. The current Catholic debacle is a perfect case in point. Thousands of American children have been victimized by thousands of pervert priest, and yet the Catholic church still commands immense respect from most Americans. I find that amazing.

[Jackie97]

75. Because....

Dissent is good. Somebody has to tell us when we're doing something wrong.

[ThorsHammer]

10. Thank you, good post (from a Christian)

I usually don't take offense at the threads against Christianity, as they're usually aimed at the theocon, far right, rapture crowd who has no problem with fighting in "religion's name". Most Christians here on DU probably share many values (charity, helping others, peace, etc) with the nonChristians/atheists here.

[Rainbowreflect]

11. Thank you!

[wtbymark]

13. as an Atheist I agree with your statement wholeheartedly

In fact i avoid the subject entirely unless i am engaged in a philosophical OR theological conversation for that very intended purpose. When i read something in here (or hear it in daily conversation) that someone holds theotic beliefs, i can respect their perspective on the issue, and then continue to discuss the issue on non-religious terms. One cannot really talk to me about god, i refuse. One thing a degree in philosophy has taught me is when to recognize when a debate becomes bickering. And if you are comfortable with who you are, then personal attacks (or cultural attacks; as im also a hippie) have no bearing on anything.

[shrike]

Unfortunately, good theological discussions are rare on DU

I'm a believer who enjoys hearing other people's ideas and I'm not threatened by discussions with non-believers. However, I think that for most people the subject is just too emotional.

[me b zola]

96. The problem is

Hearing theology used to drum up votes. I am extremely apprehensive of this...okay, I'm quite afraid of where this is leading.

[gollygee]

14. I agree

Some of these anti-christian threads go too far. If people could just say, "right-wing fundamentalist christians" when that's what they mean, it would be better.

[stlchic]

24. In a good portion of these threads

...it IS often pointed out - several times - that what the original poster is complaining about is "right wing fundamentalist christians", and more specifically, their behavior and tactics, not necessarily that they believe that "Jesus is Lord."

I mean, I've lost count of the number of threads that start off with an easily mis-interpreted statement, people getting upset because they think it's bashing when the poster doesn't provide a detailed behavior profile of the kind of person they're talking about, and then a slew of mild mannered voices of reason pointing out that "we're really only complaining about the fundamentalists."

When somebody is complaining about those who would legislate the Bible, lobby against women's rights, promote religious agendas in public schools, etc... I personally think it's pretty freakin' obvious they're NOT talking about "live-and-let-live / golden rule" Christians.

[Zenlitened]

72. I agree completely. It IS obvious, in virtually every case. Trouble is...

... we have a fair number of forum-stalkers on DU, looking for every opportunity to take offense, or feign indignation.

It's a sort of divide and conquer tactic, that also serves to silence any discussion of just how much evil is carried out in the name of religion.

That people keep falling for it, and falling all over themselves to mollify someone who will never concede that critics of religion have a point... well, it's beyond me.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

83. The "evil caried out in the name of religion"

Yeah, I guess by your definition, that makes me a forum stalker because I dare to point out how many of those who make these comments just are out to get religion in any form.

Most the critics of religion here do have a point -- they hate religion.

Fortunately, enough of them are obvious that it makes it easy to show their true agenda.

[Zenlitened]

112. It's like ringin' a bell, isn't it?

LMAO!! :D

[arwalden]

121. Oh My Ears!!

[Kathy in Cambridge]

187. It's so predictable

like the whine of the church bells in my neighborhood. :eyes:

[RetroLounge]

212. Pavlovian even.

RL

[Kathy in Cambridge]

188. It's so predictable

like the whine of the church bells in my neighborhood. :eyes:

[mutus_frutex]

170. Yes, it is.. :-)

I actually delurked to answer some of her posts... :-)

Apparently everybody that points out the philosophical (and otherwise) evils of religion is a religion-hater..

Aaaanyway.. :-P

[AliciaKeyedUp]

182. The evils of mankind

Aren't the evils of religion. Mankind is flawed and every organization, institution or entity we are part of is equally flawed.

But to just target religion as an evil because you either a) lack faith or b) consider yourself smarter or better than those who do have faith is pathetic.

[mutus_frutex]

185. Yes, we are all bad..

The only thing is that we (atheists/agnostics) do not claim to have a set of absolute moral values that distinguish between good and bad. Lets say that religious people have raised the bar a little bit to high for yourselves and stumbled on it, time, after time, after time..

Religion is only one of the things I target, mainly because it asks for unquestioned acceptance of certain truths.

And regardless of how you feel about it, smarter people tend to be faithless :-P

[AliciaKeyedUp]

184. Gosh

I post in threads about religion. What gall I must have.

[Zenlitened]

189. *sets watch*

[arwalden]

197. (Chortle)

[RetroLounge]

210. Hee hee

:headbang:

RL

[jdj]

152. That's filed after the gay agenda and the minutes from the National

Order of Witches meeting.

True agenda of agnostics: religion hating.

Where do the KKK come in on this one? Is it not offensive that they burn crosses? Or is that somehow okay?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

183. NIce rambling

Care to make a point?

[Name removed]

209. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

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

[gollygee]

116. I agree

In a good number of the threads people complain about, it is very obvious. But some of the threads in my opinion go too far and attack christianity and god belief as a whole. Every so often I read a post that talks about god belief as a fairy tale and is quite obviously attacking any and all god belief, not just the beliefs of fundamentalists. This is tricky, because I *do* think belief in god is a fairy tale, but there are more and less arrogant ways of saying that. I mean, I *think* it's a fairy tale, but I can't prove it is any more than they can prove god exists. Since no one knows for sure, we should cut each other a little slack as far as discussion of specific beliefs goes.

The thing that bothers me most about fundamentalist Christians is their arrogance - that they refuse to accept that belief in god is simply belief and faith and not knowledge. I personally try to stay away from that same kind of arrogance.

[The White Tree]

127. It goes deeper then that

As a person who feels very strong in my faith, what bothers me most about fundamentalists is not just that they refuse to accept belief in God is belief and not proof. What is most frightening is their insistence that their belief in God is the only true way to believe and that what they believe should be what everyone believes.

More bad things have been done in the world by far based on that type of self-righteousness then just about anything else.

[gollygee]

129. That's more of a fight among believers

That fundamentalists insist their belief in god is the only true way to believe - I guess as an agnostic that doesn't affect me.

I agree though that it is annoying that they want everyone to believe what they believe. That's the evangelical part of it. And I hate that if you say you're annoyed by evangelical folks knocking on your door, that means that you are intolerant of christians. And that christians are being persecuted. But that's got it's own thread now . . .

[stlchic]

141. So, an atheist can’t state their beliefs?

“Every so often I read a post that talks about god belief as a fairy tale and is quite obviously attacking any and all god belief, not just the beliefs of fundamentalists.”

Well, I would say that “god belief” is not exactly a fairy tale – the belief itself is obviously very real. What I’m confused at is theists who interpret “god belief is a fairy tale” as an “attack.” Why do they care if someone thinks, or even says, the concept of a god is a fairy tale? It may not contribute to understanding or progress, but it’s not like the mere mention of their opinion is taking away the rights of theists - however demanding that someone keep their opinion under wraps because it doesn’t specifically contribute to some lofty, unifying, progressive goal doesn't strike me the free speech that we’re supposed to embrace.

“Since no one knows for sure, we should cut each other a little slack as far as discussion of specific beliefs goes.”

Well, be careful about cutting so much slack that you can’t even convey what you think or believe. Every so often I will read a post by someone who is simply stating what they believe, such as “I don’t believe in the existence of a god.” It seems pretty simple and non-offensive to me, however, in these forums, and many others, there are some people who insist on misinterpreting innocuous statements as “Your belief in a god is wrong” – when in fact, no such thing was posted or implied.

When I still posted at Atlantic Monthly I expressed confusion when someone tried to explain some basic tenets of Mormonism to me, and I posted “That just doesn’t make sense to me” (it really didn’t), and they were greatly insulted by my “apparent” implication that their religion is nonsense.

I certainly agree that we should use a reasonable amount of respect and tact when talking about religious issues, but how many layers of eggshells does a non-theist have to walk on?

[gollygee]

143. No. It isn't what is stated, it's how it is stated.

If either christians or non-theists are being respectful and people are offended by their statements anyway, that's their problem. I'd just like people on both sides to be respectful of the fact that our beliefs are our beliefs and none of us has all the answers.

[stlchic]

148. "None of us has all the answers"

I completely agree with what you posted, but to share an anecdote:

I once posted something similiar on a different board (nobody has all the answers), only to be blasted by responses of "Are you saying Jesus, the Son of God, doesn't have all the answers?!? Christ basher...." etc.... - really.

And for the record, and the benefit of the theists here, those responses were from fundamentalists.

;-)

[gollygee]

149. LOL

Yes that is the kind of thing that drives me BATTY!

[eallen]

16. I agree. We need to name fundamentalism as the political danger...

Rather than the larger body of believers. That goes both with regard to both the Christian fundamentalists and the Islamic fundamentalists.

[Rowdyboy]

17. Thanks.....

The vast majority of both Christian and non-Christian/atheist/pagan members of this board are class acts who respect each other. The handful here who hate will never get what you're saying, but thanks for trying.

[Modem Butterfly]

18. Quite a broad shot you took there

:eyes:

[Az]

20. Was it of any value to you

Or do you have anything of value you wish to add to it? Or perhaps you disagree. We can easily discuss the matter.

[Modem Butterfly]

22. Frankly, no.

I am tired of listening to theists expound at length as though the entire world shared their belief system and values. Pardon the pun, but these folks seem to be a lot of "sacred cows" that scream bloody murder when tweaked. Are there theists who are allies in the war to retake our country? Certainly. But not if those theists demand that non-theists sit at the back of the bus.

[Az]

25. I have not seen such demands

I would advocate for them to stand up a bit more when we do get trod on but I don't see anyone here calling for us to be second class citizens.

The wall of seperation stands for everyone. Not just us atheists. A lot of theists and I would argue the vast majority of DUers get that. Politically speaking these people are not your enemy. They are not going to tell you you are going to hell for your belief.

Their beliefs mold and form the positions but they do not wield them as if they were mandated by god on high. They present their arguments as reasoned conclusions. They remain open to discussion about them for the most part without calling on brimstone and damnation for failing to agree with them.

These people are not your enemy.

[Modem Butterfly]

27. Who said anything about enemies?

Those are your words. Not mine.

[Az]

28. Sorry if I presumed n/t

[Modem Butterfly]

67. Hey Az

Here's an example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1162293&mesg_id=1162293

[Modem Butterfly]

68. Hey Az

Here's an example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1162293&mesg_id=1162293

[Az]

69. Read through it

Only oppositional poster seems to have been a newbie. Most were supportive of the idea but skeptical of its success. This just means your job is still out there. Make people understand why the issue is important. If its important to you its worth working on.

[Modem Butterfly]

90. Newbies? Oh, well that makes all the difference in the world

:eyes:

[Az]

92. What it means is

That we don't know if it was someone that shares our view of freedom of religion or if it was some freeper running around before they got their legs shot out from under them.

The point is most DUers respect and work to defend the wall of seperation that protects their rights as much as ours. They may not see the issues the same as us with the same import. But that just means there is work to do. No one said this was easy.

[Modem Butterfly]

100. I disagree

Freepers, sock puppets, or honest newbies aside, I disagree.

[Az]

102. To clarify

Are you saying that you do not believe that most DUers are willing to stand up and defend the wall of seperation?

[Modem Butterfly]

105. Where it benefits them, yes

Where it benefits others, I'm not so sure.

[Az]

107. I agree there are some

But my experience is that the vast majority understand the importance of the wall. There are definately degrees to which they will percieve such threats to it and they possibly have other agendas as well. Thus they may not share our perception of certain threats (ie Under God, 10 commandments, etc). This just means we have to work to make our case regarding these all the more plain to see.

Let me restate it a bit. They get the notion that the government and religion must be kept apart. But some miss the import of things they consider to be minor infractions such as the pledge. They simply think there are other issues that are more pressing at the time. To us such matters are of higher import as we see the notion of freedom of thought as being the foundation upon which everything else hangs. And even small cracks in the foundation can create problems in the larger structure. It is our job to point these cracks out to people and explain why they are so important.

[FlaGranny]

144. It's interesting that you mention the

pledge issue. As an atheist, until recently, I took the same attitude - that it was a small thing and not important. I also felt that way about nativity scenes on government property. They don't personally bother me in the least. But then I started to see the larger picture of what is happening. Even the "small" things must be fought because wars are won with multiple small battles. We certainly don't want the RWCFs (right-wing Christian fundamentalists) to succeed in gradually tearing down the "wall of separation." So, therefore, every breech of the wall must be defended.

[realisticphish]

205. actually

i never say the pledge, because it has under god in it. i also despise the idea of having the 10 commandments in a courtroom. and im christian. i like my religion, but i dont want to see it rammed down other's throats; that just inspires MORE hatred of christians, and the large number of liberal and moderate christians get drowned out by the right-wing psychopaths. as a consequence, no one who isnt a liberal christian actually sees the mains structure of the religion (it boils down to "be nice"). as i said earlier, i wish BOTH sides would never judge based on one factor of a person's being


:hippie: The Incorrigible Democrat

[KansDem]

23. Saw a sign on a church near where I live right after the election...

Large sign printed on weatherproof material and hung on the side of the church. It read:


"Our faith is 2000 years old. Our thinking is not"

[jdj]

153. What does that mean?

"We are a very young faith, comparitively speaking, so don't expect much from us in the way of intelligence?"

[KansDem]

156. Don't know, exactly...

I assume it meant that this particular church wasn't going to go along with the fundies who supported Bush. As if to say, "Our faith is deeply rooted and personal, but we're not ignorant, hate-spewing, intolerant bastards who use Christianity™ like some people use Preparation H™ ."

But then, maybe I should stop by and ask them what it means...:hi:

[ruthg]

178. Was it on a United Church Of Christ door?

They are an extremely liberal protestant sect......like Unitarians except they are Christian and Unitarians aren't necessarily.

[KansDem]

179. YEAH!!! Here's the website...

Colonial Church in Prairie Village is a member congregation of the United Church of Christ, a denomination that has always valued education and embraced diversity. It was responsible for the founding of Yale, University of California, the Pacific School of Religion and many other colleges and universities. It also ordained the first woman in the United States to the Christian Ministry, the Rev. Antoinette Brown, in 1853.

Colonial Congregational Church was founded in 1948. Congregationalism came to America with the Pilgrims in 1620. Its church government, both spiritual and temporal, is not subject to any other religious or ecclesiastical body. Colonial Church's bylaws state that ours is a free, independent, and self-governing church. Simply put, we are a group of people gathering in Christ's name and adhering to the truths of our Covenant.

Colonial's heritage comes from two denominations whose merger in 1957 gave birth to the UCC: the Congregational Christian Churches and the Evangelical and Reformed Church. We place great emphasis on diversity, freedom of conscience in belief, and justice and mission activities.

The United Church of Christ today is made up of 1.5 million members in 6,000 congregations. Unlike most denominations where direction comes from the top down, most worship and governance decisions in the UCC are made within the local church.

http://www.colonialucc.org/aboutus.html

I'm impressed... :hi:

[5thGenDemocrat]

26. Az, you're a stand-up guy

You are a peace maker and rational and intelligent. You are a born diplomat and I wish there were about 10,000 more just like you around here and out there in my real life, too.
John (and Polly)
Say "hi" to Scout for us. We sure hope to see you here in June.

[DireStrike]

29. I figured this out in my late teens

A few years ago.

Once again, words of wisdom from Az.

[shrike]

30. Thanks

Never understood that attitude among some DUers. People like me are on your side. I -- we -- would fight for your right not to believe -- and I do mean that. I believe the song goes, 'If they're saying you're not free, they're saying it right back at me."

[arwalden]

31. How Much Slack Should We Cut Them?

[Az]

33. Just as much as we expect ourselves

:D

[arwalden]

34. How About As Much As We've Been Given Already?

[Az]

35. We learn by example

Is that the example we want to set?

[arwalden]

41. Actually, It Is They Who Have Already Set The Example...

... and I have already learned from THEIR example.

I'm not so inclined to try and teach that old dog any new tricks by trying to set a "new" example. Any kind overtures and consoling gestures are certainly to be seen as a sign of weakness, and something that is to be used to their advantage. Give an inch, and they'll take a mile.

Meanwhile, the ones who are supposedly NOT our enemy, just sit idly by and say little and do little while their militant brothers and sisters in Christ continue to do their damage. But somehow, many of them have all the time in the world to nitpick and to take offense at criticism that clearly isn't intended for them.

I'm as careful as I can be to specify which group or sub-group of RW Christians are the targets of my scorn and derision. Yet to read all the outcries throughout these forums, you'd think that this was the end of Christianity!

It's clear to me that many of the most vocal "victims" perceive an attack on one subset of Christians an attack on all Christians. It often appears that in the eyes of many, even an attack on Falwell and Robertson is an attack on "all" Christians. Don't even THINK about criticizing the Pope for that's an attack on ALL Catholics. :eyes:

The only way to appease these "persecuted" Christians would be to cut them some slack? We both know that the only amount of "slack" they'll be willing to accept would be complete silence. Nothing short of my agreeing to "sit-the-fuck-down and shut-the-fuck-up" is likely to please them.

[Az]

46. It;s difficult

I admit this. To constantly watch where you step in fear of offending someone. But who said fighting for what was right was easy?

It is possible to criticize the Pope without offending all Catholics. Yes some are going to take offense. But many Catholics criticize him on their own.

The question you have to ask yourself is what are you hoping to achieve. Are you venting? Are you trying to change things? Are you trying to look cool? Choose your tactics and style based on that simple question. And then use reason to choose your words. Represent the value of a reasoned life and others will follow your example.

[arwalden]

60. Well... You Can't Please Everyone...

... and those who aren't pleased will wail and moan and whine and cry with such volume that one might actually believe that indeed EVERYONE was offended and that ALL Christians are being persecuted and victimized.

Frankly, I'm fed up with it. Enough is enough! Being passive, and "nice", and not making waves certainly didn't do any good to prevent the bigoted Christians and the anti-gay Christians from passing all those anti-gay ballot initiatives. Showing deference and "respect" to their bigotry simply because they couch it in Christianity is just stupid.

Cut them some slack? No fucking way!

Where are all of these other liberal Christians who supposedly feel the same way that I do? Where were their votes? Did they not vote? Did it not matter to them? Did they say one thing, but vote another? If they exist in such great numbers, where is the outcry of "liberal" Christians against the actions of their hateful brothers and sisters in Christ? If not their votes, then at least let me hear their voices! Why the silence?

All many of them seem to have time for is to take personal offense at scorn that isn't intended for them in the first place. For many, it's their mission in life to search out for the missing qualifier and re-interpret words with obvious meaning. They *want* to be offended. They *want* to play the victim. It's a game for them.

Even if the writer lacks your communication skills and doesn't focus the criticism as sharply as he ought to... one might imagine that the "liberal" Christians would be able to use their brains and FIGURE OUT exactly who it is, which subset it is, that the harsh words are actually intended for. Instead, they CHOOSE to be offended instead of choosing to understand and choosing to join the fight. Kinda makes ya wonder, doesn't it?

-- Allen

[Az]

61. Your anger and frustration are valid

And are the same as why most of us fight. But your tactics will not achieve what you hope for. You cannot presume that the reader gets what you are striving to communicate. That is your burden alone. If you want someone to understand something you have to explain it in ways they can understand. If its important to you for them to understand all the more reason to take to time to do it right.

[arwalden]

64. My Tactics? I didn't realize I had tactics.

>> If its important to you for them to understand all the more reason to take to time to do it right. <<

Fact is, there is no "right". Nothing short of abject agreement with them is "right". These folks will ALWAYS be offended. No matter how carefully crafted the sentences are. There are some who are beyond hope.

>> You cannot presume that the reader gets what you are striving to communicate. That is your burden alone. <<

I can't think FOR them. They have to do a little of that on their own.

-- Allen*


* Still wondering why the liberal Christians aren't as outraged at the acts of their RW brothers and sisters... as they are at my criticism of their RW brothers and sistes. That's very queer.

[phylny]

82. Why on earth do you suppose I, a liberal Christian with

gay men in my extended family, am not outraged when I see and hear of hate and intolerance?

I am very critical of fundamentalist Christians who speak hatefully, judgmentally, about other people. I can't stand it. However, I will tell you that when I read attacks on Christians and Christianity - and I mean broad-brushed attacks such as "they're crazy, they have a pretend God, I'm glad I don't participate in that kind of evil, they're ill, they poison the innocent" - I'm less likely to feel positive about the particular poster's needs. Why? Because I'm a human with human feelings. It's really hard to cheer for a different cause when someone close to the cause says disparaging things. As long as someone's argument is framed in black and white, someone else is going to take offense.

I guess people around here are either Christophobic, Atheophobic, or homophobic then. Everybody's afraid of everyone else? Nah, I don't think so. It's intolerance and it's hate, in the end. People asking for tolerance without giving it or offering it, people who arbitrarily hate others.

I love being part of this website, and I love the information that I glean from the many interesting and talented posters. I have a hard time reading posts from people who post negative, unkind things, but I get over it - I'm not "persecuted" - far from it.

I guess maybe the "ignore" button will become the best friend of many a poster here. What a shame.

[arwalden]

85. Oh Dear! My Bad...

In my haste I neglected to include the qualifier word "many" or "most" or "some". Naturally you assumed "all" and that I was talking specifically about you. (I realize how difficult it is to take that one sentence IN context of the message as a WHOLE and in the context of ALL the previous messages this particular sub-thread.)

Here's what I should have said: "Still wondering why MANY liberal Christians aren't as outraged at the acts of their RW brothers and sisters..." (Happy now?) :eyes:

This appears to be another example of someone taking global offense on behalf of themselves and ALL Christians when most reasonable people can see that the criticism was not aimed at ALL Christians. It's difficult to tell if this is intentional or not... but I suspect that some of it is a knee-jerk reaction that's based in the "an-attack-on-one-is-an-attack-on-all" mindset.

This type of thing happens even when the language is ultra-precise. Whenever someone says "most" or "many"... it doesn't mean "all". Whenever someone specifies 'RW fundies', it doesn't mean "every". Even if someone neglects to include the qualifier "most" or "many", it's not impossible to read the words in context and use a little common sense to see which subset of Christianity is being scorned.

Honestly now! For pity's sake! This game that MANY around here play--actively searching for ways to take offense--is getting tiresome. Just stop!

Instead of dissecting and hyper-parsing and over-interpreting someone's hastily written words on a message board (SEARCHING for an imagined insult) it seems to me that it would not take a Herculean leap of logic and common sense for most rational people to realize that the TARGET of the derision and scorn is ACTUALLY the zealot fundies. EVEN if the writer might not specifically say "zealot fundies", it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

I mean... come ON! Put this in perspective here. These are angry messages written by ordinary people who are in many cases the VICTIMS of Christian bigotry, and of laws and policies that are inspired-by and supported-by and encouraged-by Christianity.

Yet instead of taking a moment to actually THINK about who the message comes from, and WHY harsh words are used, there are many Christians here who perceive themselves as the "victims".

Isn't that strange? Nobody is actually taking away THEIR rights and forcing them to become 2nd class citizens. But if we were to form an opinion based on the volume of their whining, one might imagine that Christians were being fed to the lions again.

Many choose to be offended because someone is offended... and they do so loudly. How odd that THIS is what they choose to be offended at instead of using their BRAINS and understanding (or simply acknowledging) the actual cause of the anger.

What does this say to you? --- I think something like that is very revealing about many here. I suspect that among many who are the most vocal in proclaiming that Christians are "victims", it is instead a conscious and cynical effort to undercut the legitimate complaints and criticism of the Christian-right.

>> People asking for tolerance without giving it or offering it, people who arbitrarily hate others. <<

Oh I see. The victims of Christian bigotry should "tolerate" it so that the bigoted Christians will grow to "tolerate" their victims.

Wow. Just think... maybe if I tolerate them enough and cut them enough slack, then some day out of the kindness of their hearts they'll realize I'm a human being who deserves equal rights and equal protections instead of being a second-class citizen.

Got it! Thanks for clearing that up for me. -- I'll just sit here and get busy tolerating. I'll be nice and wait my turn until others decide that they enough positive feelings about me that they will grace me with the privilege of actually being able to EXIST (let alone have legal rights) and that I should feel fortunate that they've troubled themselves to give me that much.

>> I guess maybe the "ignore" button will become the best friend of many a poster here. <<

It already is.

>> What a shame. <<

Indeed.

>> I'm less likely to feel positive about the particular poster's needs. Why? Because I'm a human with human feelings. <<

Hmm. Is that the prerequisite? Is it too much to ask to fight against bigotry and oppression perpetrated by the Christian-fundies because it's WRONG?

Thanks. I understand better now. I'm glad we've got our priorities set. :eyes:

-- Allen

[WoodrowFan]

94. who says we're not?

Hey Allen, you said "Still wondering why MANY liberal Christians aren't as outraged at the acts of their RW brothers and sisters..."

Who says we're not? This battle has been going on in the mainstream Protestant churches for some years now and it's starting to split many denominations, including my own (PCUSA). But liberals arguing acceptance and diversity don't make the news compared to some foaming at the mouth RWer yelling "homos!". If you were a news station, what would you cover, a congregation welcoming a gay couple with no more fanfare than they would a straight couple? Just being welcoming as they would any other brother or sister in Christ (YAWN) or some troglodyte Pharisees picketing an AIDS victims funeral like Fred Phelps. Let's face it, liberal Christians are BORING as news because we don't fit the "script" the MSM news organizations prefer.

As for the anger, yeah, we're pissed off. VERY pissed off! We're willing to split the church (small c) that we belong to and love over this question because following Christ's teaching easily trumps maintaining a denomination for the sake of a bitter unity. We just don't rant as well as the average RWer.

Besides, I'm Presbyterian, you know, "the frozen chosen". If anyone were to yell "AMEN" in our service we'd wonder where the Baptist came from. (GRIN).

[arwalden]

98. Hey, Woodrow Fan!

I wish there were more like you. But based on what I've been reading throughout DU, the ones who do think like you are out-shouted and upstaged by the ones who prefer to BE victims instead of fighting for those who ARE victims of RW Christian bigotry.

I don't think I've ever argued that good folks like you don't exist. I do think it's fair to say that for the most part (and based on voting evidence) folks who feel like you are in a minority and are often silent.

>> Let's face it, liberal Christians are BORING as news because we don't fit the "script" the MSM news organizations prefer. <<

If I agree with you, there's SOMEONE out there who will take offense, so I'll just not say anything about that one way or the other. But, *if* what you suggest is true, then I'm afraid that there's nothing I can do to change that perception. That's something that liberal Christians will have to do for themselves. (And I can't believe you're using the "MSM" meme too. Yuk!)

>> We just don't rant as well as the average RWer. <<

Nor do many of them rant as well as an angry queer. :-)

So while it may be true that many of you are seething with anger at all the bigotry and regressive laws that are coming about in the name of Christianity... if those good folks don't turn that anger into words or action... then it has the net effect of not caring at all.

-- Allen

[WoodrowFan]

99. that's the point., we are

that's the point, we are doing more than seething. we're the ones registering Democrats to vote, who turned out to support Kerry (I bet he carried my church by a 9-1 ratio easy). who bitch to their congressman, who attend marches, give money and time to campaigns, etc. We're also the ones ordaining gays and saying to the RWers in our church to "bring it on".

Sorry for the MSM meam, I kninda like it.

"Nor do many of them rant as well as an angry queer. :-)"

Ok, I'll give you that one. :)


Now, how about a friendly discussion about Intelligent Design!

[Cheswick2.0]

123. LOL, hi fellow frozen chosen

:hi:

Every year at MLK Jr Day we sing "Lift Every Voice" and every year I wonder why we can't get a version that we can actually sing without sounding like we have terminal white people desease.

[WoodrowFan]

139. you sing things written after 1800?

Must be one of those "modern" services, our choir director only approves things written by dead Germans before 1800. :)

[phylny]

175. Since you're really into the eyerolling thing today,

and it doesn't seem like you're much interested in discussion. I won't respond except to say that I wish you well in all your endeavors.

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

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

[phylny]

176. Perhaps we should have the same disclaimer to all groups

of people? Wouldn't that be fun? :)

[Zenlitened]

115. And isn't it interesting how you've explained your point of view...

... over and over again, and yet you are STILL continually called upon to tone it down, choose your words, don't make waves, feel for your opponents, etcetera etcetera etfuckingcetera.

It's maddening, and I share your frustration. And I think you're right to just tell it like it is. There will ALWAYS be someone jumping in to whine "why do you hate all christians?" instead of acknowledging the endless horrors being carried out in the name of religion.

It tells me a lot about what sort of "people of faith" they are, when their first response is not compassion but battle tactics.

[Cronus Protagonist]

32. Still waiting for the :"nice" Christians to rise up against the "nasty"

I don't see it yet. Despite several hundred years of despotism, raping, pillaging, crusades, persecution, torture, and so on, when will the 'nice' Christians rise up and take their religion back from the zealots?

Until that happens, the ones that defend their own religions against people pointing out the truth, the facts, that their religion has killed millions in their name, and continues to do so today, have no credibility.

Rise up all you good Christians, take your religions back and quit attacking the messenger who points out the depravity of your leadership.

Thank you in advance, because I'm quite sure I'll be long gone before that happens.

[Lerkfish]

45. "take your religions back"

and you suggest doing this how?

keep in mind, liberal christians are not the type that insist on forcing people to their way of thinking. So, if we are not going to coerce the religious right towards enlightenment (which, by the way, would make us equally as dangerous as they, and make you oppose us to the same degree), we can only lead by example.

Here's the conundrum: you are opposed to the religious right because they cram their beliefs down the throats of others. But your solution is to require the liberal christians cram their beliefs down the throats of others. Do you not see the fault in your expectations?

It is the nature of my belief that I should NOT coerce people into my own belief. I can, however, attempt to reason with or discuss my beliefs with people in an attempt to demonstrate that I've found an answer they might also like to see...

But in case you haven't noticed: the religious right are not the type of people that will listen to reason or question the rigid mind control already in place.

FWIW. I don't expect you to understand my POV, since you're predisposed to ignore it or belittle it, but by the same token, You'll excuse me if I tell you your solution to the problem is not only unworkable, but reprehensible to me.

[Az]

49. Be part of the chorus that objects

You don't have to press your faith to speak up on the behalf of those suffering from oppression or injustice. Add your voice to the chorus when a wrong is percieved.

[Lerkfish]

54. I have been.

why do you assume I have not?

see...this is symptomatic of the problem.

[Cronus Protagonist]

58. You claim to be powerless, and attack those who ask you to stand up

I think that's why anyone would assume you have not.

[Lerkfish]

70. ?attack?

in what way? I think you're projecting a bit.
I cannot control the assumptions of others, except to correct them.
Therefore, I do not take ownership of the assumptions of others -- it is their responsibility to refrain from making uninformed assumptions.

I did not claim to be powerless...I said that changing the mind of a cult religious rightwinger cannot be accomplished by coercing them or cramming my ideas down their throat.

you are having a severe reading comprehension problem.

[Az]

59. I did contemplate and addition to that post

Siting that I know many do add their voice to the choir. I appologise for witholding it. I merely felt that the call to voice opposition was strong enough to carry the idea itself.

[Cronus Protagonist]

57. Read my post again, only this time read this first

And you are putting words and points of view into my speech that simply don't exist.

I am not " opposed to the religious right because they cram their beliefs down the throats of others"

I am opposed to those who use religion as a cover to commit actual acts of violence, killing, imprisonment, beatings, torturing, maiming, etc. against others.

They can no more "cram their beliefs down the throats of others" than I can you. I was referring to them slitting the throats of others in the name of their religion, both physically and metaphorically.

And I call on those of you who don't like to see this cancer inside your own religious organizations to stand up against these people instead of attacking the other compassionate souls outside of your organizations who have already taken such a stand and are willing to point to the cancer inside your group, and who take steps to expose it.

I do not "require the liberal christians cram their beliefs down the throats of others" (see above)

I see the "the fault in expectations", yes, but since these are yours and not mine, I'll let you defend yourself.

You say "It is the nature of my belief that I should NOT coerce people into my own belief" (italics mine) and no one asked you to.

But you did follow that statement agreeing that you can attempt to reason with {presumably} the despots, killers and nasty people who are in your religion and use it for nefarious purposes. If you do that, I applaud your efforts. When was the last time you wrote to Mr. Falwell to oppose him? I'd love to see photos of you protesting outside Mr. Robertson's church. And, if you happen to be Catholic, I'd like to read your letters to the Pope denouncing his attacks on gay people and atheists. I'd even donate money to support your cause, but you claim to be powerless.

I'm sorry you feel powerless to excise the cancer inside your religion, but since you can walk away, I ask you why don't you?

Why do you support these people with your money and your patronage if you feel that they do not represent your point of view AND that you feel powerless in the face of them highjacking your religion?

And I'm also curious as to why you attack people from the outside who do not feel so powerless, and try to prevent them from forcing change by bringing to bear the superior morality of secular society, given your own professed powerlessness in the matter?

Shouldn't you be supporting those who are active in excising the cancer instead of nurturing it, defending it, supporting it, and powerlessly living with it?

At the very least, if you refuse to fight them, surely you should walk away.

You can do this and keep your personal religious beliefs, by the way, that's not what I'm asking you to give up, in fact I'm asking you to stand by them instead and either fight the cancer or quit supporting and defending it.

[Lerkfish]

71. I belong to the UCC...you know, the church whose ads were pulled

because they were too inclusive of Gays? Remember that?

MY church does not have the cancer you refer to...at least not the one I attend (can't speak for every parish). I have also attended and supported a UCC church with a gay pastor.
I've marched in prochoice rallies sponsored by my church.

The cancer, as you refer to it, exists in other denominations than mine, where I do not attend.

Your exhortation to me is touching, but misguided.

You want to blame me for the failings of others....ok. You want me to correct the failings of other people...ok. The problem I have is you applying the failings of others to me as if they were mine.

[SeanQ]

138. Here here!

[WoodrowFan]

140. UU Humor

What do you get when you cross a UU with a Jehova's Witness??

Someone who rings your doorbell for no apparent reason! (rimshot)

Seriously, I like the UUs. The local congregation lead the voter registration drive that my church participated in.

[GeorgeBushytail]

207. Another UU joke

Why do UU's sing hymns so poorly?

They are always reading ahead to the next line to see if they agree with it.

(I've done that.)

[kwassa]

218. yet another, courtesy of Mort Sahl, UU joke

Did you hear about the KKK members that came to the Unitarian's house and burned a question mark on the lawn?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. The rightwing Christians are in totally different denominations from

the leftwing Christians.

The rightwingers give as much credence to us as the Republicans do to the Communists. We can and do speak out against them, but

1) The mainstream media pay no attention

2) The rightwing denominations tell their flocks that we've been corrupted by the devil, and for most members of fundie churches, that settles it

[SeanQ]

137. They exist, and are growing

http://www.sojo.net/ for one example of an evangelical Christian organization who is struggling against the conservative hijacking of 'faith'. There are others, and it is building. You wont hear much about it on boards like this, because although they share our broad goals in politics and society, the path they took to come to that position is one many people hear not only don't understand, but actively dismiss or even insult.

It is, in my opinion, another place where conservatives have succeeded in controlling the message and very language of the debate.

[Lerkfish]

40. thank you for this post...

well said, and well needed to be said.

I'm a liberal christian, and I oppose the (mis)concepts of the religious right. But atheists should be shoulder to shoulder with me in that opposition, instead of framing me along with the religious right.

However, to cut those guys some slack as well, I understand their frustration, because I share it. Its a little too easy to use the broad brush when frustrated.

[Lisabtrucking]

50. OK, sorry, if I have said bad things in the past about religion.

I just never had any good experiences with religious people or Church's.
I do believe in god, but don't go to the wealthy church they build to hijack gods words.
god don't love you more because your church is nicer then the next church, and I believe god will hear you wherever you are, not just a church.
But really, I am sorry if I ever offended anyone.

[wicket]

51. Well said!

[soleft]

52. You can substitute Republicans and Fascism

For Christians and fundamentalism throughout your post and see that this mature attitude can be applied across the board.

It works for any group of people and a poisonous ideology that infects some of its members.

[Tsiyu]

53. Good post, Az

I think so many people are disgusted with what is being done in the name of Christianity these days, they are lashing out from a sense of powerlessness. "Hit 'em hard if you see any" is the motto. I understand that. If you can't get to the Falwells and the Robertsons and the Ashcrofts, attack the nearest Christian. Kind of like when some angry Americans lashed out at Muslims after 9/11. Those Muslim victims may loathe the Taliban ( their fundies) as much as you or I do but they were lumped in with every other Muslim by virtue of their chosen faith.

Some people have been so polluted, offended and insulted by the Right Wing Greedmonger and Homophobe contingent they are ready to ship them all off to Outer Mongolia.

But you shouldn't hate all whites for what some white people do. You shouldn't expect all white people to "fix" the bad white people. And you shouldn't assume that the person you are conversing with is "bad" just because he is white..

You CAN. But you shouldn't....

[yella_dawg]

62. Good post.

I agree wholeheartedly. But I would add a caveat.

As Christians, those stable and open minded among us bear a responsibility for those who do evil in their name. It ain't fair, but they have the first responsibility to rein in those who attack, belittle, and denigrate others. Simply because they are "one of their own". It's sort of like a parent who bears responsibility for the misdeeds of a child. If you share a family, whether blood or belief, you are your brother's keeper.

[Tsiyu]

65. First off, those Christians aren't "my people"

I have absolutely nothing in common with fundies. And I'm only re-exploring Christianity as a way to counter its hijacking. The OP was discussing being civil and not making assumptions, though all sorts of reasons for doing so have been offered.

Many Christians are attacking the "bad' Christians. I have seen many Christians here bash the fundies, so all "good" Christians are not sitting timidly in a corner wringing their hands. When I see a pro-lifer with war stickers on the car, I like to ask "What have you done with the Prince of Peace?" I get my digs in. And I'm not even a "real' Christian. I live acording to what Christ taught, but I haven't attended a church in a long, long time.

Also, you cannot respond to fundies in a religious sense. They do not practice what Christ taught. They have a man-made religion that does not resemble "true" Christianity in any way. So how are they "my people?"

[jdj]

154. good christians are people

people can either act for good or bad. I don't care what cult or other organization they personally file themselves under, it's about as significant to me as what brand of deodorant they wear. Religion can help you make it through each day, but when like-mythed people start ganging up and committing acts together in the name of said myth is when all the trouble starts; it's second only to shared ethnic background as a fomentor of conflict and war. Religion probably started as soon as people spread out from one family group into others and got separated geographically, it was an excuse to murder others over coveted natural resources and we've been plagued with it every since. What amazes me is that humanity actually came up with some cool, peaceful religions, though less evident nowadays, like Buddhsim, Jainism and some strains of Hinduism, and of course the Essenes of whom Jesus was a priest.

[Melynn]

63. OK, I get the message

I'll admit to being one of those people who bashes Christians with a broad and insulting brush. To the point of having people accuse me of being a Freeper parody poster.

I will admit that I felt guilty about my writings so now I'll clean up my act and act more civil......on this message board.

[Jackie97]

74. Proudly agnostic, but....

also proudly a rational thinker. I know that all Christians are not fundamentalists. I know that all Christians are not the problem. Heck, I know that all fundamentalists are not the problem. Believe it or not, some fundamentalists voted for Kerry. They had more important things to worry about than whether two boys kissed.

I didn't leave fundamentalist ideology just to get wrapped in an equally as irrational ideology of theists vs. atheists. I'll try to be more vocal. The problem is that I don't post here nearly as often as others. I've actually been posting on the general boards more than moral lately.

[Lerkfish]

76. excellent post!

thank you.

[RevCheesehead]

77. (looking warily out there before posting) Hi, Az.

I just want to say how much I appreciate your efforts. I thought your post was well-reasoned and made a clear case for ALL of us to be more sensitive to the needs of others.

This is the third time I've read through this thread. I wouldn't post before, because - well, frankly, my screen name gives me away. I was afraid - and still am apprehensive (this post has taken me about an hour to write).

I appreciate your speaking out more than I can adequately express here.

I'm not just a liberal Christian - I'm a pastor in the United Methodist Church. And my denomination has been struggling with questions about homosexuality for years. We pretend that we've conquered the struggle against racism; but for now, the most public issue facing our church is homosexuality. It is an ugly struggle. (as one of my friends said, "you'll baptize us and bury us, and take our money - otherwise, you really don't want us.")

Fifteen years ago, I made a promise to one of my dearest friends, who was dying from AIDS. He tried to talk me out of becoming a minister, "because they'll eat you alive." But once he saw that my heart and motives were sincere, he said, "Then you must do one thing - for me. Promise me you'll tell them about us. Tell your people that we are here, and we are hurting. Tell them about ME."

I have followed through on that promise in EVERY church I have served. And that included one ultra-conservative hell-hole in Greensboro, NC (I was literally emotionally abused there). But I did it, not just because Mike asked me to; I did it because I believe with all my heart that Jesus' words of love are so radically inclusive that I COULD NOT REMAIN SILENT.

I have suffered professionally because of it. I became blackballed in North Carolina, and was on the low path of failure. Culturally, I couldn't take it anymore, and returned to my home of Wisconsin, and began anew. I am grateful that the congregations I have served here are more open and willing to hear my radically liberal message of love and acceptance of all people.

I want to say to those of you who have been hurt by other people, or groups of "religious" people, in the name of religion: I am sorry. Truly, I am sorry, and I grieve over their actions, and despise the hate they spew. Believe me, I have more disdain for Jerry Falwell than I do for Saddam Hussein. If there is a hell, I hope that God sees fit to put Fred Phelps there - that idiot is beyond despicable - he is pure evil.

But, what if someone, angry at Condaleeza, began ranting about the despicable quality of ALL black people? What if Alberto Gonzales became the standard by which we judged ALL Hispanics? What if ALL Southerners were likened to Zell Miller? I am not asking you to become a Christian, Deist, Theist, Wiccan, Buddhist, Muslim or whatever (Believe it or not, some of the best people I have known are/were atheists. Doesn't bother me a bit.). I respect your right to be free from religion, and I will not judge you - I will support you. The only thing I ask is that you respect the fact that I am here - and support me, as well. When you lash out at Christianity or religion, you are lashing out at me.

I will continue to speak out, and work for, the reform and change which needs to take place in society. But my venue, like most of yours, is limited. I do it one congregation at a time. I do it, not just for my one friend, but for my gay and lesbian fellow clergy, who are not welcomed and must live closeted lives, or be defrocked. I will continue to speak out the truth about this immoral war. I will speak on behalf of the poor and disenfranchised, because their voices are not being heard. I will confront racism, sexism and homophobia everywhere I see it. I will demand that all people have access to health care and education.

These are my values, and I hope that they can be respected here.

[Az]

78. The path we come to

There are a multitude of beliefs. Each and everyone of them formed by people that live in this world. We apply our minds to sifting through the things we experience and from this we begin to form our understanding of the world around us.

No two people start out on the same path. No two people face the same hurdles or enjoy the same advantages. We each take from our journey different lessons and work them into our world view and ever increase our understanding of it.

The thing of it is though these paths may not follow a set course but they do intertwine. It is the same world we all observe and this gives a shared context for us all. There are places in our jouney where more paths tend to meet coming to similar ideas through different routes.

The path we come to is one that embraces tolerance and compassion. It is one of shared burdens and joys. We need not have traveled the same path to appreciate the sense of the path we have come to.

Your journey has value to you. My journey may lead me to disagree with some of the details and explanations your journey has shown you. But this does not detract from our shared appreciation of where our journeys have lead us. To embrace the ideas of tolerance, compassion, and freedom.

I think the most critical issue that differentiates those that come to this path and those that never seem to arrive is that we are able to find our way to our positions through our journeys but we do not insist that others agree with our conclusion because our path is the only one. We instead seem to realise that our perspective is uniquely our own and that our personal reasons may not work for others. So we try to interpret our reasoning into a more universally understandable explanation. We do not insist our way is so because the very laws of the universe demand it. Instead we try to explain them in ways that others can apply the reasoning to their own paths and make the idea their own as well.

I can respect your values quite easily. As they seem to be similar to the ones I have found on the path that I have come to.

[RevCheesehead]

80. Peace to you - and thanks again.

[Lisabtrucking]

86. I respect those views, to bad all clergy didn't think like you.

All of the priests I have meet in my life have been way to eager to put other people down for something they did or how they think. It inflames me when I go to a church with a neighbor because they want me to pray with the rest of the congregation, and then to find out the guy preaching the word of god to me, is a adulterer, cheating on his wife with another woman from the quire. It gets me mad when the church puts more money into the architect of the church then feeding the poor.
This is just some of the problems I have with religions. I am a believer, and will always be.

[RevCheesehead]

128. Thank you - and I would add,

that there are many, many clergy like me. Unfortunately, you don't hear about them. That's why I wanted to share my story. It's not about self-righteousness - it's about integrity and living the life you preach about.

Thanks for your message.

[arwalden]

198. -dupe-

[arwalden]

199. I Wonder Why We Never Hear About Them

Are they timid and mousy? Do they not practice what they preach and speak out loudly against the evils that are perpetrated on behalf of Christianity? Do they become a lone voice in the wilderness when their flock abandons them for not marching in lockstep with church doctrine? Where *are* these many many clergy? What are they afraid of? Why are they hiding?

Why don't they speak out with the volume and frequency of those around here who are labeled "Christ-haters"? Surely nobody expects them to use the same 'blue' language that one often sees... but one might expect to hear MORE from them that we do... if they do exist in the numbers you suggest.

Thanks for sharing your experiences. Your words are encouraging... I hope they are true... but I see no evidence to support the claims of a potential groundswell of change.

[The Traveler]

79. Nicely said ...

But most practicing Christians have a thicker skin than you suspect.

It is not everyone's cup of tea, Christianity. Does that mean you're damned? Beats me. I feel under qualified to make that determination. It's not my job, man.

But as a Christian who is not ignorant of history, I understand why many people of good will regard Christianity with suspicion and even resentment. Christians often do not act very Christ-like. Witness the Inquisition, abortion clinic bombings, the greed of television evangelists, "bomb them to hell in the name of the Lord" type commentaries, etc.

I refuse to apologize for that kind of Christian. They've lost the way, pure and simple, and their belief is empty. I'd rather hang out with a bunch of heathens and atheists who, whether they BELIEVE or not find themselves working towards the accomplishment of Christ's social vision.

Hundreds of references commanding taking care of the poor. Not one damn recommendation for an act of violence, unless one counts the bit with the money changers. When will the new Pharisees, the Jerry Falwells and George W. Bushes, take the hint?

[BiggJawn]

84. So i should "be nice" to people who think they can talk to the Dead, too?

Yeah, OK, whatever...

Silence=Death.

[knitter4democracy]

213. Why not? What could being nice hurt?

It feels like you're angry in your post, and I'm sorry you've been hurt enough to be angry at people who believe differently than you do. Yet, what could it hurt? Being nice to people just because they're people is a universal value, held by many believers and non-believers alike.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

89. well said Az

we get no where with emotion filled cheap shots.
you can not communicate effectively or at all if people feel insulted.

thanks for the post Az, this stuff is not easy to put into words, you did a good job.

[neebob]

97. People who are secure in their beliefs

should not be offended by others calling God a space monster or an imaginary friend or even saying that Christianity or religion in general is a problem. Those who are offended need more practice respecting others' rights to speak and not taking things so personally.

Those of us who have a problem with gender-based disparaging remarks about conservative women, who feel that such comments bring all women down, are expected to shut up and deal. I suggest the Christians do the same.

And what's this about "the angry atheists"? Someone might be offended by that.

[Lerkfish]

103. actually, I think the real issue is misplaced outrage

In other words, I am not offended if someone does not share my faith. I AM concerned if someone accuses me of things I don't do because they are unable to to differentiate between some right wing fundamentalists and liberal christians. I'm even more concerned if someone paints me with the same brush of the very people I detest: fauxchristians who have forgotten forgiveness and mercy and adopted bloodthirst and intolerance.
Since I ALSO am appalled by their behaviour and attitudes, its DOUBLY distressing to have people blindly accuse me of having their characteristics.

So, when possible, I correct that misperception.

Its like someone walking up to a random african american and saying "10 years ago, a black man punched my wife, therefore, I'm going to punch you". Was it wrong for that incident ten years ago? Sure. But is it right to then assume every black person is guilty for that crime? Not really.

[neebob]

106. Okay, but they're not painting YOU with that brush

or I don't think they don't intend to, any more than those whose belief systems allow them to demean conservative women based on their gender intend to demean me. Until someone says all Christians are this or that or the other thing - the operative word being all - or makes some other statement and then adds, "and you, Lerkfish, are one of them," I don't see anything for you to be offended about.

[Lerkfish]

109. I agree that most people don't intend to....

and I'm not saying its about me, Lerkfish. I'm not sure I'm explaining myself well if you are getting that impression.

I'm saying that if people assign guilt of the actions of a few to a large group, it does several bad things: It automatically unjustly labels people as enemies who are considering themselves an ally...which is counterproductive, and forces them to feel like they constantly have to be on the defensive. It misdirects the outrage and therefore diffuses it and makes it less efficient. It makes people like me realize the person making the stereotyped judgement is unwilling to rationally differentiate between groups who are obviously different, therefore a meaningful discussiong is out of reach.
It also means that people like me are being forced out of the big tent because of the actions of people we don't agree with.

[DrGonzoLives]

135. Ever taken sexual harassment training?

If so, you would know that intent does not matter, only in how it is taken. You do not get to decide what is offensive and what is not.

[arwalden]

142. Call Me Cynical, But I Wonder How Many People Feign Being Offended

simply to distract and divert and to quell discussion or criticism. Instead of using their heads and taking any harsh words or scorn of Christianity in context of 1) the discussion and 2) the reality of why someone is motivated to complain... many folks around here seem to find it easier to defend themselves with the catch-all cop-out of "that's offensive you Christian-hating bigot".

It's the perfect excuse for all sorts of horrible hateful and bigoted behavior, policy and laws that wouldn't be accepted in any other context. Even if these people aren't actively engaged in the despicable behavior themselves, their diversionary tactics only serve to enable and encourage it in others. These are the stealth bigots.

-- Allen The Cynic

[neebob]

168. Let's have this conversation

when they pass a law making this situation equivalent to sexual harassment, okay? Because I don't think it is, presently.

In the meantime, why don't you practice reading and responding to just the words that appear on the page. For example, if I write that something should not offend you or that I don't see it as offensive, you respond as if I have expressed an opinion, rather than imagining that I wrote, "That is not offensive," or that I think I get to decide what is and is not offensive.

Or if I write that I don't think the intention is to offend, instead of imagining that I wrote, "Intent does not matter," or trying to guess whether I know if it matters or not, you might respond with a different opinion that you have.

Or you might ask a question: "Are you saying intent doesn't matter?" That would elicit a less condescending response than this one. (Yes, you may assume that I realize I'm being condescending.)

And by the way, I have taken sexual harassment training.

[dmallind]

172. Do atheists get that same prerogative?

In other words can atheists tell Xians what not to do or not to say because it offends them? Would that be equally valid?

BTW I have indeed taken harassment training and legally at least in MN, while you are right that intent is not the main criterion, the standard is what a reasonable person would consider offensive. For example it would be ludicrous to fire me if a female colleague thought my general question "so how are you spending the holiday weekend" was an unwelcome invitation for an adulterous fling and took offense - since that would be unreasonable.

[wildwww2]

104. Exactly. Soon as I tell those sisters of mine I do not beleive in god

I get this. You are going to hell crap. Freedom of speech has to be controlled by the fundies whom I know. If I do not agree with them. I get the sermon of venom. And it is not what freedom of speech is all about. They should just say I disagree with you and then drop the subject. But instead I get a lecture. All my siblings are much younger than me. But with less life under their belts they still think they have the right to put me in line. Sorry but it offends me. And I have been around the block a time or two. I avoid them at all costs now. Because they have no respect for my freedom of speech. The only answer they have for Bu$h`s murderous war crime by the way is: God has a plan. And Bu$h is a man of god. It just sounds like hooey to me.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[Lerkfish]

108. I find that disturbing, as well...

on several levels:

1. no christian (or no person for that matter) is qualified to determine that anyone else is "going to hell". If they read the entire bible, and not just selected passages, they'll realize that. We are NOT to judge others, and mercy is more important than punishment. Its all there in the bible. Honestly, I think some people get off more on figuratively sending people to hell, instead of saving them from hell.
We are not the judge, only Christ is, and only on judgement day. I think this is one of the most basic problems with fundamentalism: the arrogance to assign themselves as judges and executioners of the souls of others. Its not our place, and even if it were, none of are without sin, so who should cast the first stone?

2. Lecturing people accomplishes nothing, except alienation. Living by example is better.

3. I'm even MORE disturbed by their blind support of Bush and his illicit war. No christian should ever support war, just on moral principle, and even further no christian should assign unwavering blind fealty to any human person. Even if Bush were a man of God (which he isn't), no man of God should be so worshipped.

No one is perfect as a human being, and no one is perfect as a christian...however, people that use their "piety" as a bludgeon against others are offensive, so I agree with you, and I'm sorry you have that problem with your siblings.

[demwing]

111. "gender-based disparaging remarks"

Do you think it is fair that you are expected to "shut up and deal?"

Would you change that if you could?

Are you following my train of thought on this?

[neebob]

114. Yes, yes, and yes. nt

[demwing]

110. Im no Christian

but I'm a small "T" theist, and much of what gets said to the Christians also gets applied to anyone who believes in God.

So, first of all, thanks for this post, AZ. It made my morning.

Secondly, to all those who oppose organized religions, I understand your mood. Much evil has been accomplished in the name of one Diety or another, there's no denying. Further, many religions discourage rational thinking, as if rational thought were a challenge to faith.

But faith is not opposed to reason or logic. Faith is simply the step you take when reason and logic fail to provide all the answers. Faith is the assuredness that there is a higher logic of which we are not yet aware, a unifying logic that encompasses all levels of reason.

So, finally, to all Christians, and to all theists of all denominations and religious persuasion--Do not argue against reason, or with those who hold reason above all else. Whether you win or lose such an argument, you still become unreasonable.

So join the reasonable! You may find that there will be less and less a need for folks like Az to come to your defense.

And wouldn't THAT be something?

[bigmonkey]

166. Just a word about evil in the name of religion.

As a Tibetophile, I have always been puzzled by the _fervor_ with which the nominally materialist Chinese have persecuted Tibetan religion. To the point of small groups carrying dynamite over mountainous terrain to destroy remote monasteries. Stalin and Mao had a materialist philosophy, and yet they were murderous as all get out. Religious fanaticism just has a longer track record than materialist fanaticism, seems to me.

[Az]

169. Systems that proclaim they have the only truth

Are always threatened by alternate views of the world. Religions are not the only such institutions that have such things and nor do all religions create dogmatic views.

[Tafiti]

113. Sorry if I am repeating someone else...

...'cause I haven't read the thread yet, but there are 2 spelling errors (just thought I'd point it out since it's on the home page).

Fifth paragraph down, last two sentences:

"You actions..." should be "Your actions..."

and

"...supposes to champion." should be "...supposed to champion."

[Stuckinthebush]

117. Yes...and some things to remember when discussing Christianity

As non-theists, we either forget or don't understand the many different threads in the broad faith known as Christianity. This blind spot makes us lose allies.

I just got off the phone with my mother - a lifelong, committed Presbyterian minister's wife. She was almost in tears at the damage that the Christian right has done to her religion. Her constant quote when discussing their positions...."This is not Christianity! This is not the Christ I know!"

My father has many times become red-in-the-face angry at the "foolish theologians of the right who have never engaged in a proper exegesis of the text!"

One of my best friends, a Presbyterian (PCUSA) minister constantly calls me to discuss politics and religion and the sick, twisted religiosity of the Christian right. He tries to present the message of Jesus and Christianity in his pulpit, but doesn't always get through. He confides in me that he knows when he gets angry stares from the congregation that he has hit a nerve...but these are nerves that must be hit, says he.

Last week I visited the home of two very good friends both who are Presbyterian ministers. I commented on their Kerry bumper stickers, and they both shook their heads in despair. "Why don't people understand that Bush does not represent what Christianity is about?", lamented my friends.

I am friends with Episcopalian, Methodist, and Southern Baptist ministers who are all frightened by what has happened to the Christian faith. They all voted for Kerry and see Bush and the GOP as dangerous to not only our country, but to their faith.

Yes, I have way too many minister friends, but that is what happens when one is a "preacher's kid". They all know about and respect my strong agnosticism. They all know and respect my journey to my agnosticism. They all know and love me and my family and would never try to change us. They know that many of us non-theists hold dear the principles they hold dear. They want to be partners in this fight, but they demand respect. I give them that respect because I know that there are different paths.

They ask us to remember this:

1. Christianity is complex, and a good, well-trained Christian theologian understands the complexity of the texts. Any Christian who simplifies the text especially to prop up their bigotry doesn't get it.

2. Christianity is best defined by two words - Love and Peace. Anyone that encourages a deviation from those main principles doesn't get it.

3. Jesus didn't give a damn whether or not someone was gay. Any Christian who does doesn't get it.

4. The book of Revelation is a screwed up piece of fantastical literature that almost didn't make it into the final compilation of The Bible. It is best seen as an anti-establishment diatribe set in a specific time and place rather than a god-induced dream of future events. Any Christian that misuses that book - especially in opposition to the teachings of Jesus - doesn't get it.

5. There are many, many different kinds of Christians. This is understandable given the history of the faith. There are liberal evangelicals and conservative Episcopalians. Do not lump all Christians into the same basket. The liberal Christians (the ones like Jesus) need to be held up by the non-theist community as Christian models. They need to be pointed to and praised by non-theists as the ones who "get it". We need to work as a community of people of good will along with our Jewish and Islamic and Hindu, and Buddhist, and Pagan friends who all "get it". These liberal Christians and their pastors are very willing to work together with respect and love.

6. They understand that there is immense frustration on the part of non-theists. They understand the feelings of persecution. They will stand with us as we stand with them. All they ask in return is our understanding that the Christian faith is not defined by the likes of Pat Robertson, but by the teachings of Jesus. Label the right as false prophets or modern day Pharisees, but don't allow them to take the label "Christian".

I know it is hard - hell I slip many times, and my Christian friends gently bring me back to a level of mutual respect. I laugh and tell them I had a moment of frustration and please forgive me. Funny thing...they always do.

We have too many forces dividing the progressives these days. They want us to be estranged from our Christian friends and comrades because that strengthens their claims. I will not allow them to do it! I will continue to engage in friendly debates with my Christian friends, but we will always end with respect and the common goal of bringing peace and love back to this screwed up world.

[knitter4democracy]

214. Wonderful post. Thank you.

I went to an evangelical Christian college, and that place made me a liberal. I saw the logical extension of their beliefs, and it scared me. I saw good friends who happened to be gay or lesbian get treated like monsters. I saw atheists and agnostics (sent there by their parents to "fix" them) get treated even worse. It made me cry many times and got me into trouble sometimes myself for standing up for the least of these in that place. At least I graduated, though, which is more than I can say for some of my friends who didn't fit in.

My answer is always that Christianity is a religion of hypocrites. We all are. We are called to be like Christ, and seeing as He was perfect, we can't be. We are to continually strive, but we will continually fall. That's why Jesus told us not to judge anyone and to love everyone--we are all fallible, we all make mistakes, and we all end up hurting people around us. It's the love and forgiveness we need to focus on. Many Christians don't, though, and it's our job, as fellow Christians, to try to guide them back to the Gospels and their knees.

[Bouncy Ball]

216. GREAT post stuckinthebush

and as a liberal Christian, I say you are RIGHT on target, especially with that numbered list.

There are many of us who are OUTRAGED at the religious right. They act like they have some kind of corner market on morality while they rah-rah attacking a country that did nothing to us.

It's seriously enough to make me vomit. And all done in the name of one of the MOST peaceful men who ever lived. Sheesh.

[TWiley]

118. Where is the Christian outrage?

I keep hearing that a "majority" of Christians are not the problem, but where are they? Either they have no leader, or there are not many non-believers of the conservative agenda.

This is the mystery. Why is it always up to the atheists and non-believers to make sure that "Christians" get the slack they deserve when they are not willing to distinguish themselves from those who "really are" the problem.

The world has had plenty of "Christian" bull-shit, especially in the past 4 years. If they disagree on the basis of their religion, then it is their responsibility, not the worlds, to clarify what their religion is really about. I only hear attacks on the "liberals" from their camp.

Bush laid a quick-claim-deed to the title of "born-again", and he made "Christianity" the centerpiece of his campaign. All I have heard is praise from the religious community. Evidently, he is behaving in a way that fits the name "Christian" as evidenced by the religious communities deafening silence, and by their overwhelming support with their votes.

I am certain there are some Christians who are not "the problem". But, where is their voice? Why is there no public leader at the level of Fartwell, Buchannan, and Robertson? And you expect the victims of their bigotry to rise up and defend them?

[Stuckinthebush]

119. They are very much like us

Progressives of all stripes are rather disorganized by nature. Perhaps we need to combine our voices for maximum effect. We do share similar goals after all.

[TWiley]

160. Without some kind of counterbalancing voice

most people would correctly assume that the unopposed speak for the majority of the group.

I am not so sure we share similar goals though

Typical widespread Contemporary Religious Goals:

1) End Abortion
2) Support discrimination against homosexuals.
3) Support Faith Based Initiaves
4) Support Religious school voucher program
5) Support the war in Iraq
6) Support of GWB and the Conservative agenda
7) Support prayer in schools
8) Support the Death Penalty
9) Support discriminatory "family values" agendas
10) Support censorship
11) Support of the 2nd amendment to a fault
12) Support of a constitutional ammendment
13) Support of the Clinton Impeachment, and continued hatred of him
14) Intolerance of non christian religions

These are just a few from the top of my head.
Is there something here that I should like?

[Stuckinthebush]

167. You make a common mistake

You have assumed that the loud, obnoxious right wing Xtians speak for Christianity.

They do not. In fact, their beliefs are opposed to the teachings of Jesus.

None of my liberal minister friends or my father who is a Presbyterian minister would support anything on that list of 14 items.

The liberal Christians can not let the right wing speak for them, but we can not allow the right wing to speak for them either.

No theologian at, say, Columbia theological seminary would endorse your list based on Christian theology.

All preacher teachers at, say, the unaccredited Briarwood seminary in Birmingham Alabama would endorse the list. The difference? Theological training.

[TWiley]

193. Your reasoning sounds familiar.

"Just because NO WMD have been found does NOT prove they are NOT there." Ya, OK. Just because there is NO evidence to prove your guilt, I sentence you to death by lethal injection?

Seriously though, where is the evidence that a large amount of really "Liberal Christians" exist? There is NONE at the public level. There is overwhelming evidence that the majority of Christians voted to support the issues in the list. These are the facts, there is no pink fuzzy.

Name a single National Spokesman for this huge liberal Christian movement. Oops, there aren't any. However, there are dozens to speak for and lead the "evil" ones. Jesus radio is replete with these folks. Your conception of Christianity simply does not fit modern popular usage.

<<The liberal Christians can not let the right wing speak for them, but we can not allow the right wing to speak for them either.>>

Well, the "liberal Christians ARE letting the right wing speak for them. This IS the point. WE cannot allow the right wing to speak for them either??

OK, I will pray that either an atheist, or a Muslim Holy man will come along to show the Christian Community how do develop a social conscious based on genuine moral values.

There are a few churches like the Riverside Church in NYC. But there are few. Damn few.

[TWiley]

194. Your reasoning sounds familiar.

“Just because we quit the search, and NO WMD have been found does NOT mean they are not still there.” Oh YA, Right. “Just because there is NO evidence to prove your guilt, I sentence you to death by lethal injection?” Unfortunately for your argument, there is overwhelming evidence that Christians support Bush, his agenda, and the war in Iraq. Similarly, there is slim to NO evidence that Christians do not. These are the facts. There is NO pink fuzzy.

You have incorrectly assumed that since there is NO evidence of Christian opposition to the right wing at the national level, that this somehow proves that there is a HUGE SILENT CHRISTIAN MAJORITY out there. I humbly submit that the evidence does not support your conclusions.

Name one national voice of opposition. Oops, there is NOT one. On the other hand, there are DOZENS of the other type who have huge audiences. Jesus radio and TV is replete with these folks. The difference IS theological training, and the WRONG kind is being propagated through the media every day.

It is true that you may find local pockets, or individuals who are not of this more common bloodthirsty type scattered about. The Riverside Church in NYC comes to mind. However you are using the vast minority as evidence to prove the beliefs of the group. Maybe your conception of Christianity is obsolete and it needs to be updated to properly reflect common usage.

<<<The liberal Christians can not let the right wing speak for them, but we can not allow the right wing to speak for them either. >>>

This IS the problem, the “Liberal Christians” ARE letting the right wing speak for them. And, “WE cannot allow the right wing to speak for them either?”

Ok, I will pray that either an Atheist, a Buddhist, a Hindu, or a Muslim Holy man will come along to teach the Christians how demonstrate a genuinely moral social behaviors. This is our last hope. The Christians sure as hell are not doing this for themselves.

[Bouncy Ball]

217. DO NOT assume those assholes speak for me

and my beliefs.

1) End Abortion
2) Support discrimination against homosexuals.
3) Support Faith Based Initiaves
4) Support Religious school voucher program
5) Support the war in Iraq
6) Support of GWB and the Conservative agenda
7) Support prayer in schools
8) Support the Death Penalty
9) Support discriminatory "family values" agendas
10) Support censorship
11) Support of the 2nd amendment to a fault
12) Support of a constitutional ammendment
13) Support of the Clinton Impeachment, and continued hatred of him
14) Intolerance of non christian religions

I don't agree with, and in fact, fight against, the items on that list. Every day.

They do not speak for me or other liberal Christians, they are PHARISEES. They are the worst of the worst, hiding behind religion to further their hateful aims. Jesus WEPT.

[Az]

120. They continue to honor the social contract

Our society hangs together based on the idea that we all work together and abide by the same basic rules. The troublesome faction of fundamentalists have given up on this social contract. They are striving to assert their views over everyone else. Most remain silent to this advance because this has been the practice for generations.

Social chaos is the result of multitudes of views demanding dominance. This is why our society has arrived at this arraingment. It is practical to abide others positions without shouting them down at every opportunity. But the religious right has turned this notion on its head. They are pressing their views on others. No one knows exactly how to deal with this and maintain the balance we once had.

Each struggle in their own way. But against this threat I suspect we may have to stand up together and demand the contract be renewed. To do that we will have to stand side by side with each other. Believer and nonbeliever. We will demand that what was broken be restored.

[Zenlitened]

126. "And the non-believers shall lead them..."

:shrug:

[TWiley]

164. Ya,

That is the confusing part.

Lets all pray for a Muslim holy man to come along and lead the christians into some genuine moral religious opposition to the bush-family-war in Iraq. Evidently they either lack the will, or the inspiration to do it for themselves.

[TWiley]

163. I do not believe that you can

depend on much help from the religious community. Sure, there will be a few folks, deviant Christians who are out of the mainstream. You can depend largely on resistance to anything democratic, especially liberal. Some people on this message board still believe that Kerry will somehow move into the White House. It is time to face reality.

<snip>

<<<Each struggle in their own way. But against this threat I suspect we may have to stand up together and demand the contract be renewed. To do that we will have to stand side by side with each other. Believer and nonbeliever. We will demand that what was broken be restored.>>>

The solution is what we are doing right now. Hopefully a church voice will raise up from all that Conservative Christian filth and lead whatever group there is in some kind of public opposition. Without this, then the Fundamentalist voice speaks for all through default.

Don't get me wrong, I even donated some money to the "Interfaith Alliance" If there is a reputable Christian outfit, I would support them. The simple fact is ..... THERE IS NOT MUCH TO CHOOSE FROM

Dictionaries occasionally update definitions of words due to changes in common usage. May I suggest that your idea of what Christianity is may be outdated? Maybe it is about ...... oh ..... a couple thousand years out of date?

[RevCheesehead]

131. Did you see last night's Daily Show?

Jim Wallis was on. He takes this issue head-on, and is one of the few nationally recognized "leaders" of the Christian left.

I also think we need to include Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. But you know, they don't throw their religion in other people's faces.

The voice is admittedly small, but it is there, and it is growing (think "Horton Hears a Who").

[TWiley]

165. There are small pockets.

In fact, I loved Al Sharpton's speech at the DNC. Unfortunately, the leaders you named have little to zero following. THIS IS THE PROBLEM. Christians do NOT support them. They support BUSH.

I support the "Interfaith Alliance" because they are the only organization that I know of that is actively doing something about the Christian right.

[RevCheesehead]

186. Check out Sojourners - they're trying to do something politically.

Link: www.sojo.net

[TWiley]

200. Thank you.

I will keep an eye on these folks.

[Stockholm]

122. Well said! n/t

[progressivebydesign]

130. We've been over this thousands of times here on DU..

The deal is this. The reasonable people here on DU, who happen to call themselves Christans, KNOW that the disdain for BUSH Christians does not apply to them. It applies to hypocrites, which are pretty much all the supposed Christians that support Bush, yet spit in the face of what Jesus was really all about.

I will continue to think that Christianity is a bully religion designed for MEN, MOSTLY WHITE MEN, to keep women and non=Christians down. I will still believe that their concept of God is not the same as mine. I will continue to believe that criticizing a religion is my right...

[dandrhesse]

133. I am so disappointed in Christian Leadership

I am a Christian, I am not a fundamentalist Christian and I am discouraged and extremely disappointed in the Christian Leadership of our country.

Where is the moral outrage over the social security issue, where is the moral outrage over the war and even more to the point the lying that got us into the war?

I have not lost my faith, that is between me and God, I have however found it extremely difficult to worship since about 6 months before the election when it became clear that there was something that was suppose to look like a blanket endorsement from the Christian Right.

[SeanQ]

134. Thank you! n/t

[RandomKoolzip]

145. Another atheist agrees wholeheartedly.

We should be building alliances with ALL liberal people, regardless of religious affiliation, not burning bridges for the freedom to make snide comments.

A reality-based/faith-based liberal coalition would be the right's worst nightmare.

[RaleighNCDUer]

146. There is another aspect to this -- the defensiveness of religion.

I remember 25 years ago, people defended the moonies and People's Temple, on the grounds that they were religions, and should be therefore accorded our automatic respect. I couldn't point out how nuts they were because I was attacking the fundamentals of religion. And if I drew parallels between these cults and mainstream religion, people went ballistic.

There is an emotional context that we atheists sometimes neglect to allow for. For me, christianity and freudian analysis are about equal in relevance. If I say that freudian analysis is a sham and a joke the freudian will say "interesting -- so how do you feel about your father". If I say christianity is a sham and a joke I am attacked for attacking religion.

And I am only a moderately angry atheist. I'm quite willing to leave them alone if they leave me alone. And keep their hands off my government.

[jmcon007]

147. very well put....

I consider myself a Christian and I've always believed in God. But, while I believe in God, I can also analyze this belief to my own satisfaction by my observation of the universe. To me it seems the possibility of human design evolving from accidental and random collision of atoms and molecules is much more unlikely than the idea that there must be intelligence behind it all.
But, like so many other Americans, I burn with anger when, speaking of Iraqis who believe they are defending their homeland from the Great Satan, Jerry Falwell says, "Let's blow them all away in the name of the Lord!"
In short, these so-called fundamentalist Christians do not represent my point of view on anything and I believe I speak for a large number of others who call themselves Christian. If anyone knows anything about the New Testament, it should be clear to them that the 'Bushista Christians' do not represent the views of Jesus, either.

[Red State Rebel]

157. Very Well Said!

I've tried to say the same thing in the past but it's never seemed to work, maybe this time it will.

[Az]

159. No idea no matter how well stated

reaches everyone at the same time or necissarily at all. We can only work to reach as many as we can.

[MasonJar]

161. Thank you for that post. I am a very dedicated Christian; I know

that grand and awful tragedies have been perpertrated on the innocent in the name of one god or another. However, many espouse the gospels of Jesus as a living truth, a truth which can bring love and peace to the world. Do not you remember that the minister from Bush's own alleged church, the Methodists, requested a meeting prior to Iraq and he would not consent? I think he also brushed off the Pope's envoy with a few minutes. This man is no more a Christian than Hitler. He does not go to church. Hilary and Bill went all the time and were very involved in their church. What a freak we now have!

[dmallind]

171. Noble, but difficult

Difficult for several reasons.

Yes it is obviously true that if 86% of the country are Xian then a lot of them (at least 34%!) are going to be true-blue Democrats. Democrat or not, even more of them are going to be kind and reasonable people who don't use their religion as a weapon.

BUT atheists face a lot of obstacles even with this big population of reasonable Xians.

One is that the very nature of theistic belief places it outside rational argument. That's what faith MEANS. If it was a conclusion based on empirical evidence or logically sound inductive reasoning it wouldn't be faith in the first place. What this means is that we cannot communicate in the same language in this area. believers take their god's existence as axiomatic, atheists do not - therefore you start from a different foundation in any discussion.

Another is that if we follow your suggestions, however honorable they may be, we are forced to lie and concede ground unquestioningly to believers without even stating our own case. To any atheist any god IS and MUST be an imaginary friend. We can cloak that in less demeaning euphemistic pseudo-intellectual terms like "unprovable metaphysical construct" but it boils down to the same thing - what else can we call something for which we see no evidence of its existence and yet is so emotionally dear to believers?

The main issue I have with belief per se rather than the more obvious issues with fundies and extremists is that I am leery to the point of fear about ANY belief which places a higher importance on ANYTHING other than the greatest benefit to society. I'll state in advance lest I offend that I'm sure very few to none of the Xians on DU would agree with this example, but it is god belief that allowed Watt to be so cavalier about the environment. Without theism, it is impossible to come to the conclusion he did. Theism introduces something which is higher than and more important than humanity, and since to me as a non-believer any interpretation of any god's will MUST really be a human idea, it opens up the possibility for any screwball idea to be given supposedly divine precedence over all other considerations. Take away god belief and that is not possible. But with god belief anything could be interpreted as being divine will and therefore above question. Surely history has enough examples of this to prove my case.

Now assuming (as I do) that these ideas are unlikely to come from DU Xians why do I still have that fear here? Because DU Xians aren't the norm I suspect. The vast majority of the general population - which must of course also be the vast majority of the Xian population - don't do a whole lot of introspection and critical thinking or debate. If the authority figure they listen to and trust - be that Bill O'Reilly or their pastor - says gays or atheists are evil that's what they'll think. Don't believe me? Then explain why half of the people polled would NEVER vote for an atheist even if they agreed with all their positions? Gays come next at 34% IIRC - nobody else even gets to 20%. Are any of that 50% the DU Xians ? Quite possibly some are. I hope not many are. I suspect it's less than the 50% of the general population by quite a chunk, but nevertheless it IS true of a majority of Xians.

One last issue is much more subjective - and it ties into both points 1 and 3 above. It seems that criticism of any religious idea is taken as criticism of faith as a whole. There is a sizable number of Xians - who hold by the way ALL governmental power in the nation - who revel in the victim role it seems. Some even on DU yes. It seems impossible to explain to these pseudo-victims the difference between neutrality on religion in government (making no statements either way and simply not having prayers or oaths etc - essentially what almost all atheists would prefer) and antagonism of religion in government (which would putatively entail statements negative to belief like oaths to the absence of god - a state desired by no single atheist I know of).

On a final note to this already lengthy post I would add why DU of all the message boards I have read or visited (read DU for quite a while - posted only recently) seems so dismissive of "newbies". Is there a correlation between length of time on DU and political acumen? Intellect? Of course not! The only time when newness is (or should be anyway) relevant is when the discussion is centered on detailed experiences shared only by longer term members - like the old message board format or a poster from long ago.

[Az]

174. Thanks for the comments

As to the newbies I suspect it has much to do with our relationship with Freerepublic. There are individuals trading shots with us there (as well as a few of our own taking shots at them). In such a condition there is a tepid response to a new individual until familiarity is established.

[Malva Zebrina]

206. I agree somewhat with your post

Mostly, here on Du, there is little problem, but there are a few with a definate prejudice and bigotry. IN the world there is quite a bit of bigotry toward atheists.

I do not think that anyone needs to put up with or even enable that type of bigotry without a substantial , but polite, rebut.

Sorry, I am an advocate of not being a rag rug to be stepped upon and I refuse to enable it by putting forth my natural inclination to be kind, accept and figure out and analyse and sometimes make excuses for.

That does NOT mean I am not being "nice" to Christians.



It means I know I have a place, and it is my place and I will defend it honorably because I am an honorable, decent , law abiding individual.

There are many areas of common interests between atheists and believers.

[elshiva]

162. Beautiful writing, Az!

"And to the Christians I appologise for any slight that may come about due to rought treatment. We have too long been silent in this society in openly discussing the issue of belief. So little skill and decorum is left. I can only ask you to turn the other cheek and try to struggle for a better understanding of your position. But do not discount the suffering that we have passed through either. For that fuels the anger as well. Speak up when you see someone being persecuted for their lack of belief. That will go a long ways to show the angry atheists that not all Christians are the same." Lyrical (seriously)!
I'm a Jewish-Christian and you don't have to apologize to me Az. Your writing is eloquent and never insulting. You state your reasoning well.
Remember our conversation entitled, "Am I a crazy dreamer?" There you disagreed with me politely about my belief system.
There will be Christians who think themselves superior on the basis of exclusive salvation and atheists who think themselves superior because they don't need the crutch of faith. Such is life. But we, both atheists and believers, can fight together for equal treatment in this world. Wasn't it Voltaire who said, "I disagree with you, but I'll fight like hell for your right to say it?" Or something to that effect.
Thanks,
Elshiva

[MikeH]

180. Thanks From One Stuck In The Middle

Thanks very much, Az, for your thoughtful post.

I am a former Protestant Christian, now agnostic, but not an atheist.

I definitely have problems with fundamentalist Christianity, and with those who would impose their faith on others, and who believe anybody not of their faith is headed for hell.

Other than that, Christianity made sense for me to try out, and it was a major personal disappointment that I felt that Christianity turned out to be of no help to me in enabling me to better deal with my personal issues and frustrations.

That being the case, I have not wanted anything to do with going to church or any outward practice of Christianity for over 15 years now. In particular, I have not wanted to submit to any obligations like pledging money or making any vows of membership to a church. (I would not mind going to church for any special occasion; maybe for old times sake with some old friends.)

However, I do have theoretical and philosophical problems with believing that there is nothing or nobody higher than ourselves and the natural universe.

Thus, I consider myself to be just on the believing side of agnostic.

I definitely want to make my own decisions about god or no god (or anything else of personal importance), and do not appreciate pressure from either a Bible-believing fundie Christian or from an atheist.

I do strongly believe in separation of church and state.

[ulysses]

181. great post all 'round, Az

:toast:

[Ladyhawk]

190. Yeah, I only have a problem with dogmatic types that try to tell me...

...how to live my life. Why is that so hard to understand? :shrug:

Usually those people are dogmatic, narrow-minded fundamentalists.

[IceOwl]

191. Religious beliefs aside...

I think a lot of people are still missing the point here. Even though it was explained quite succinctly in the post, maybe it needs to be made even clearer.

Stop looking for excuses to fight people because they believe something you don't. I know you people who act this way, and you need to learn that there are far more important battles to be fought right now, than whether anyone is right or wrong about something none of us can either prove or disprove.

You might even find common ground if you stop using politics as your crutch the same way many like to accuse christians of using religion as their crutch. For instance, you don't have to believe in Jesus to agree that Jesus never would have advocated invading any country, especially on such incredibly shakey reasoning.

[Zenlitened]

196. Who has disputed this?

For instance, you don't have to believe in Jesus to agree that Jesus never would have advocated invading any country, especially on such incredibly shakey reasoning.

I think you've turned the equation completely upside down here. The fighting begins when someone posts that too many Christians FORGET or IGNORE the teachings of Jesus... and someone else immediately jumps in and shrieks "stop bashing christians!"

If there's a need for sensitivity and perspective, it includes those who insist on viewing any criticism as an attack. The Jesus Police on this forum deserve a big part of the blame.

[RetroLounge]

211. "The Jesus Police on this forum"

Did I hear a bell ring?

:hi:

RL

[Strive to be Dust]

192. Hooray!

I especially like your last paragraph. As a third generation atheist, I have felt that something along these lines needed said for years. My mother is a born again Baptist (and yellow dog Dem.) in a family full of jaded socialist atheists, so my father, sister, and I got forced church attendence right up to the end of middle school when my father finally put his foot down (my athiest biology teacher and counselor dad even managed to teach values clairification in a Protestant Sunday school). My father's and grandmother's patience with my mother's obsession was a vital learning experience for me.

Although my memories of the experience are primarily of boredom (except for a hellish year spent in a Catholic primary school), I now find that Bible study not only served me well in understanding western culture and liturature but also in distinguishing between Christians who share my values and those who do not.

[hippywife]

195. I have a really simple solution to the misunderstandings.

Okay, I've read this entire thread and am going to go back to a suggestion I made before. I proposed this immediately after the election when many were screaming about the Christian values that drove the election.

Call them something else. By obvious examination, the word "Christian" means a follower of Christ, his example and his teachings. The people who prop up the agenda of hatred this administration espouses are not Christians. They may call themselves that but if they do support the death and devastation that has been wrought and continues to be, they are not. The people that try to legislate hatred and discrimination, are not. Call them something else.

There are many examples of real Christians in the world. These are the people who earn that moniker. They do the quiet, painstaking work of expressing Christ's compassion in the realm they find themselves in.

They do not provide aid to the suffering in exchange for an opportunity to proselytize, they do it because it is it is the humane thing to do and what they believe Christ would have them do.

They don't discriminate against anyone for any reason of race, gender, nationality, or belief/non-belief because it is not what they believe Christ would have them do. They take to heart Christ's own words, when pressed about which is the most important commandment: that the first is loving God, and second only to this is loving one's neighbor as you yourself would be loved. He put no qualifiers on that statement and neither do they. If they believe that all of mankind is God's beloved creation, then it is wrong to treat anyone otherwise for any reason.

We have some very fine clergy even here in Tulsa that are out in the community doing the work of real social compassion and teaching not just tolerance, but acceptance. They support gay rights and are pro-choice. They don't blow their own horns or take a stage to gain recognition. We do that for them by recognizing their work, taking it up and continuing it ourselves.

Even one of the most well-known preachers in this town, one that Oral Roberts once considered like a son, has come to embrace full inclusion. Don't think that didn't cause an uproar in these parts! It has cost him dearly in someways but in many ways, he will tell you he is happier and freer than he has ever been in his life.

Religion is a creation of man's desire to control other men. There was never that element in Christ's example or teachings. In fact he called the organized religious experts, the Pharisee's (the Falwell's of his own day) "white-washed tombs," telling them they presented an outward appearance of piety and compassion but inside they were foul with the stench of death and corruption.

So, in order to have no further misunderstandings about who is being discussed and running the risk of offending anyone, CALL THEM SOMETHING ELSE.

Just because a cat has kittens in a stove, that don't make 'em biscuits. Ya know? }( ;-)

[Modem Butterfly]

203. I'm not about to start judging whose a Xian and who isn't

I am simply not qualified to judge what is in someone else's heart and mind. And as an atheist, I feel that it would be much more insulting to start talking about "real" Xians and "fake" Xians than to speak of Xians as a whole.

[foreigncorrespondent]

208. That is why...

...when I talkabout the xians who are responsible I always use the terms "the religious right" or "the fundies."

And I would also like to apologize for those who cannot make the distinction between a real Christian and a fake one. They are the first to jump on a person who doesn't make the distinction between the American people, and the American government.

[Bouncy Ball]

215. I don't know where to start.

So I guess I'll just start.

I'm a Christian, though a highly liberal one. I don't believe in judging others, believing I know whether or wither they will go after death, or even if there is an afterlife (yeah, I'm a VERY liberal Christian).

I admire the teachings of Jesus and try to live by them. But I also admire the teachings of the Buddha and try to live by them, too. I do not participate in organized religion.

Now that I have that out of the way, I just need to say I've been continuously perplexed by the offense some with religious beliefs take at the comments made here (on DU). I mean, I was never in any doubt that they were directed at fundies and others who use religion to front their hateful motives. I never ever thought those comments were for ME.

So was I missing something? I always assumed they were talking about fundies. Not me and others like me.

The Catch-22 about liberal Christians being "more vocal" is this: many of us were raised/taught NOT to be really vocal about our beliefs. That it is rude to inject your religious beliefs into a conversation and downright nosy to ask anyone theirs. So we have to overcome that. And for myself, I still find it distasteful to be really LOUD about my religious beliefs, even though MY moral values concern:

1. fighting poverty and
2. working for peace.

I am really trying to get past that, but not be obnoxious about it. I am learning more and more about the religious left (yeah, there is one, like I said, we're just mostly quiet). There is even a Bible passage in which Jesus warns not to pray on the street corner, loudly so all can hear, but do it in private, in secret, so that you won't be guilty of false piousness. I always took that to heart. Crowing about it and beating your chest about it (your beliefs) leads to a lack of humility, in my opinion. And humility isn't optional for me, it's essential.

Anywho. I think I'm rambling now. Trying to answer a lot of different subthreads. I gripe about fundies, too, but I do always say "fundies" and I think that has become a catch-all word to indicate those Pharisee-types who use religion to hide behind and further their hateful goals. I DETEST them.

[China_cat]

219. Do you have to be vocal about your beliefs

in order to say 'you don't speak for me'?

As long as people like you continue to allow the fundies (which to many of us has taken on the meaning of religious asshole) to be the voice of christianity, you will continue to be tarred with the same brush.

Righteous anger does not cancel out the need for humility.

[Bouncy Ball]

220. Are you saying you DO tar us with the same brush?

Thanks a lot. Very nice.

I said, *I* am figuring out HOW to be vocal. I am having to overcome a lifetime of doing the opposite, give me a break.

People like me, huh?

[China_cat]

221. It's hard not to

when you refuse to publicly denounce the idiots who are speaking for you. (That's a general 'you', btw, not a specific)

I'm not saying it's right, just that that's the way it is. Do you have any idea of how often we have to listen to 'oh just don't pay any attention to them, they aren't real christians and they'll have to pay for it later'? Well, while we're waiting, they're destroying science education and pushing through laws based on their hate and expect the rest of us to accept it as 'moral values' reasserting itself.