I am getting REALLY BORED with the "DU Religion Wars."

[Tyler Durden]

I posted this in the "Ask the Admins" forum:

"As a semi-practicing Buddhist with Shintoist leanings, The "DU Religion Wars" are unsettling my Karma.

How about a little more "Separation of Church and State?" The constant bickering and guaranteed 100+ posts on the I'm OK/You're Not Religion threads is becoming inappropriate. The worst thing is that they crop up EVERYWHERE: there's a 160+ monster in LBN right now.

How about a "JIHAD" forum where the Rabid Religionists and the Atheist Anti-God Society can slug it out away from the rest of us who just want this hatchet buried?

Thanks much."

Seriously, kids. We can't seem to "play nice" in this sandbox. Besides, I joined here to talk POLITICS, and Religion is the time-waster that the Neocons have injected to divide everyone.

Perhaps it is time we all gave this the amount of attention that it is due in this particular venue: NONE.

[Walt Starr]

1. Religion has been inextricably linked to politics by the Right

You can no longer discuss one in this nation without a discussion of the other.

[trumad]

4. Oh for Christ sakes....

[Walt Starr]

5. I'm not the one who attempted to unite religion and state

So blame it on Jerry Fartwell and Pat Robem$ome.

[Tyler Durden]

10. Then it's time to separate them.

They aren't the only ones who can call people nasty names.

Time to start painting these people as the ANTI-AMERICAN TREASONOUS TERRORISTS that they are.

Ideas?

[Walt Starr]

19. Most of the real Christians who post here have started the process

It's going to take a couple or three decades to undo the damage the irreligious wrong did to the image of Christiainity, however. They've been working at it for that long with little to no opposition.

The Left has always been too forgiving and too meek when it comes to this stuff, and for three decades tie Irreligious Wrong have taken the name of Jesus Christ as their own and used it as a weapon.

This is the best example of what happens when you yield even an inch to these evil fucks.

[UL_Approved]

52. No shit

Religion is not something that is wholesome to good government systems, IMHO. Just read my signature line...

[Jamastiene]

62. I heard something interesting

on DU a while back. Someone said separation of head and ass would be a good start if we can't have separation of church and state. Maybe someone could start a web site to distinguish the jerks from the truly well intentioned ones, but then again. That would lead people to start using the slogan, "The road to Hell was paved with good intentions." There really is no winning when people try to beat each other over the head with religion.

[Jamastiene]

42. I love

your take on their names. Superb.

[El Fuego]

7. Very well said. (nt)

[bryant69]

8. Oh?

I'm not sure I see it. I mean there is a religious right, of course, but nobody here, Religious or Atheist, supports their position. Many Christian's seem motivated in part by anger at how Christianity has been hijacked by the religious right.

But it seems like you could talk about Social Security or the War In Iraq or other subjects without having to talk about Religion.

Bryant

[Walt Starr]

9. Actually, I disagree

The Right brings discussions about religion into the arguments in favor of the war all the time.

Of course, in most threads here about those topics, relgion rarely enters into it.

[bryant69]

15. I'm not surprised

On occasion they do I suppose, although I'm not sure I'd agree with the "all the time" part of it.

Frankly also the most common insertion of religion into that debate is the Inalienable Rights concept, which ties back to religion, I suppose. Why do people in America have the right to worship as they wish and say what they wish and people in, say Saudi Arabia don't. The religious angle to that is that many religious people, particularly on the religious right, believe that such rights are bestowed upon us by the creator.

Not that any of this justifies war in my mind, just that's where I've seen God popping up.

And of course there is end-time theology, which stipulates we must protect the state of Israel and that since the world is ending soon there's no need to plan for the future. While the administration is unlikely to express that out loud, it might very well be in their minds as they make their decisions.

The problem is that I personally think you would be hard pressed to find too many at DU who would disagree on those sorts of issues. If you are a follower of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell you aren't likely to be at DU. The real debate comes in the question of whether Falwell and Robertson are a perversion of Christianity or the essence of it.

As a Christian I would argue they are very non-Christian. The doctrine they preach is wrong and not in harmony with what our God would have for us. But others see them as the essence of Christianity, and that as a Christian, to a certain extent I am following the same path that they and even more radical Christians are following. That is obviously a very bitter debate, but am at a loss to see what it accomplishes

Bryant

[displacedtexan]

25. But they don't get to worship any way they want, Bryant.

Why do people in America have the right to worship as they wish and say what they wish and people in, say Saudi Arabia don't.

When was the last time you saw fascist fundies happily accepting pagans, Muslim,Krishna, etc.?

By lying about the USA being founded as a Christian nation, fascist fundies (not True Christians) have hijacked Christianity and redefined it in their own image.

Check out my blog (under the burning bush). I wrote about today's Pharisee/Puritans yesterday.

[bryant69]

31. Yeah but is converting to Paganism or Islam or

anything a crime in America?

[Walt Starr]

32. No, not YET!

Big word there is YET!

[Dervill Crow]

33. No, it's not a crime per se,

but it's something that you need to be careful talking about.

[Jamastiene]

66. Because then

the discussion goes straight to religion and the real issue isn't resolved that way.

[Inland]

27. You can discuss politics without discussing which belief is correct

The right says policy X is correct because the bible says so; DUers react that God doesn't exist; and the vote becomes whether you believe in the Bible or not, which has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

For that reason, both LBN posts on the miracle at Fatima and the reaction declaring God a myth are irrelevant to a forum dedicated to a political party except to the extent that it causes divisions.

[Walt Starr]

29. Actually, all gods are myths by definition

but that's an irrefutable fact.

[Inland]

36. Wow, you zealots really need to steer the political cart.

All I said was that a political discussion doesn't require winning an argument on religious beliefs. So you then declare yourself the winner in an argument on beliefs, in a profession of non-faith as fervent and absolute as any right wing christian's declaration of god's will. I haven't heard anyone refer to a irrefutable fact since Christmas sermon, and I was as much impressed.

Hitching the political cart to the horse of religion is a bad idea.
Hitching it to a religious position that is held by no more than ten percent of the electorate is even worse. I have no idea why someone would insist on injecting religion into political debates while holding a minority position, unless they thought preaching religious truth really more important than politics.

So leave Fatima miracles and "definitions" at home. Nobody needs to debate how many angels dance on the heads of pins.

[Walt Starr]

39. What zealotry? All I did was make a statement of irrefutable fact

By definition, all gods are myths. It's that simple. Any and all gods are myths by the definition of myth.

You're attacking the messenger who only delivered the irrefutable fact.

There have been over 4000 gods alleged to have existed within human history and every last one of them qualifies as a myth under the definition of the term.

[Inland]

45. A pox on both your houses.

If I want someone to tell me a fact is irrefutable, rather than try to prove it, or let anyone try to disprove it, I'll go to the right wing christians who will give me an earful on how they are only messengers.

Beliefs held without regard to evidence might as well be religious, and declaring that God is as self evident and irrefutable, and that he isn't as self evident and irrefutable, are as similar as they are boring.

You and the right wing christians are flip sides of the same coin, injecting religious debates where they shouldn't be.

My luck to be in a party with zealots for the position most Americans DON'T believe injecting their beliefs into politics.

[Walt Starr]

47. It IS irrefutable

Myth (n) A person or thing for which there is no proof.

There is no verifiable evidence to support the existance of any of the over 4000 gods that have been alleged to exist by humans during recorded history.

Ergo, all gods are myths.

There is one way to refute the statement. Present independently verifiable evidence to support the existance of any one of the over 4000 gods that have been alleged to exist!

The greatest beauty of this irrefutable fact is that it puts every last god that has been alleged to exist on precisely the same standing.

Zeus is as real as Yahweh is as real as Cernunnos is as real as Athena is as real as Odin. No one god has a bigger footing in the reality department than any other god.

[Inland]

54. Feel free to go to the religion forum and preach there.

Any attempt to steer you away from a theological discussion back to politics fails. Since this is still GD, and not the theology forum, you will have to bait someone else in your desire to inject religious division among DUers.

I'll have a talk with someone else on the political effect of sectarian diviseness, rather than engage in it.

[Walt Starr]

56. I'm not preaching! I am merely making a statement of irrefutable fact

and the beauty is, this irrefutable fact keeps all religions on precisely the same legal footing because no religion can be declared more real than any other religion based upon the facts!

[ProfessorGAC]

58. It's A Fairly Weak Argument, Walt

A bit inflammatory as well. I understand where you're going, but it's as syllogistic as the arguments of the far right religionuts. Anything one can't prove is a myth. You mean like graviation is a constant in the universe. We can't prove that. Does that make it a myth or or is it still a theory?

There was probably a better way to say what you wanted to say without stirring the mud off the bottom.
The Professor

[Walt Starr]

60. Not weak at all. It puts every last religion in precisely the same state

Because of this fact, all religions are 100% equal.

If any one single god was not a myth under the definition of myth, faith would be obsolete and all religions pertaining to other gods would also be obsolete and less than any religion connected to the proven god. In fact, if one god could be proven to exist, religions associated with other, unproven gods, could be made illegal as evidence only would exist to support the existance of one god.

The implications of a proven god are disastrous.

Wiuth things like gravity, independently verifiable evidence to support its existance can be presented, ergo, gravity is not a myth.

There is not a single piece of independently verifiable evidence to suppoprt the existance of any of the over 4000 gods that have been alleged to exist, ergo, every last one of them are myths by definition.

[ProfessorGAC]

64. Gravity Is Verifiable Everywhere?

Since when? My original post said that gravitational theory is a constant everywhere. How do we prove that? It can't even be PROVEN mathematically. It requires massive extrapolation based upon nearer observations. But, it can't be proven to be a constant everywhere. That doesn't make it a myth. It just means we are incapable of establishing the proofs for every possible circumstance.

So, by your one dimensional definition, gravity is a myth. So, if the definition is one dimensional vis a vis the 4000+ gods you keep mentioning, it's the same for gravity. Hence i think it's fairly weak.

Let me ask another question: Do you believe there is a quantum correlation to gravity? I do. Has anybody been able to prove or veryify any such link. Answer: No. Does that make it a myth? By your definition, yes.

See?
The Professor

[Walt Starr]

65. It is verifiable on the earth, ergo it exists

Even science is not about to assert gravity is precisely the same everywhere in the universe, however, there is plenty of independently verifiable evidence to support the existance of gravity. You and I can both test and verifiy gravity in tprecisely the same methodology right here right now. It is niot a myth.

There is not even a single piece of independently verifiable evidence to support the esxistance of any of the over 4000 gods that have been alleged to exist, ergo, they all remain myths by definition.

[ProfessorGAC]

68. You Didn't Answer The More Detailed Question

We cannot, in any way, shape, or form, verify the existence of a quantum link to gravity, nor how it works in the quantum state. Yet, most scientists believe that a link must exist. Does that make it a myth?
The Professor

[Walt Starr]

69. No, it makes it a hypothesis

Scientists test hypotheses to derive a measurement.

Give me the test for any god. Give me the measure of a god.

[ProfessorGAC]

75. Way To Change The Subject

I was waiting for that, before i let this go. So, it's a myth when you want it to be a myth and a hypothesis when you want it to be a hypothesis.

Then you change the subject to asking for a measurement of god. I never said i had one, and i never said i even believed in god. So, you dodged the question until you couldn't, then changed the subject.

Pretty convenient, Walt.

So, to end this pointless charade; Give me the test of quantum gravity. Give me the measure for quantum gravity. Turnabout is fair play, yes?

The Professor

[sierrajim]

79. Bla bla bla bla

Please stop with the repeating repeating repeating repetitive shit.:boring:

[Tyler Durden]

44. Correct.

These items do three things:

1. Divide the electorate along religious lines.
2. Make every discussion Religious.
3. WASTE PRECIOUS TIME THAT WE NO LONGER HAVE.

Whether or not the masses believe it, a revolution is coming. Its nature is immaterial: HISTORY defines its INEVITIBLITY.

[LoZoccolo]

72. A strategy chosen by them.

C'mon, I know you're more versed in the art of war to know that we should not allow them to continue a strategy they chose to their advantage. Why let them continue according to plan?

[bryant69]

2. I agree

I mean both sides seem to percieve some benefits to the debate, and I have to admit i've engaged in it myself (being a Christian, so on that side of teh fence). But it never really goes anywhere.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[papau]

3. Perhaps as a subset of I/P - another topic of no agreement? :-)

:-)

[mopinko]

6. the ignore button is your friend nt

[Tyler Durden]

11. My ignore list is empty.

I keep my friends close, but I keep my enemies closer.

[rabid_nerd]

14. Agreed...

Tyler, is your complaint about arguments that are on-topic for the LBN post?

If you're worried about not seeing things that will upset you, you'll have to shut off your TV, shut off your computer, and never go outside.

Sorry, but as long as religion is brought into politics, it's a valid subject as pro-life vs. pro-choice or unions vs. free trade.

[Az]

12. You are aware that the right has entwined itself with religious factions

I don't see how blinding ourselves to the reality of religion is going to help us.

Yes it can be devisive. Tempers can flare. But do you think things will get better by ignoring them and simply letting the differences fester?

We need communication between the sides to let each other know what is a threat and what isn't a threat. We need to show each other what it is we really stand for instead of allowing those that know nothing about our positions define us.

I would rather learn what a liberal Christian stands for from a liberal Christian instead of listening to rumors and inuendo from my fellow atheists.

I would rather hear the whole of diversity in our great tent than silence any conversation. For silence breeds ignorance. And in ignorance the right can divide us.

Let us scrap and tussle with each other. In this way we come to know the truth about others. And then when the right tries to spin lies about our fellow democrats that we have scrapped with we will know the truth of the matter even if we still feel the stings from the true barbs that our fellow scrappers have inflicted.

[Az]

13. PS: With a nick like Tyler Durden

You should be able to understand the value of an honest fight with someone.

[Tyler Durden]

20. The Rules of Fight Club: RULE #5

"Gentlemen, ONE FIGHT AT A TIME."

Incorporating RELIGION into EVERY SINGLE BROUHA makes the fight about RELIGION ALONE and acts, as Caesar knew so very well, to "DIVIDE AND CONQUER."

I repeat: SEPARTION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

[Az]

21. Seperation of church and state only works on the state

Not on individuals. No one can seperate their religious beliefs from their moral beliefs. They are one and the same. There can be arguments made to restrain one's beliefs due to state considerations. And that is the crux of most of the arguments.

[Vickers]

16. It's almost as bad as the charcoal vs. gas arguments.

No, seriously.


THAT BURNS ME UP!

:P

[Jamastiene]

37. Yeah

Everybody knows propane is far better. Just ask Hank Hill. He sells propane and propane accessories.

[bloom]

17. Don't read them.

Then you won't be bored.

[Jamastiene]

40. Good advice

That tends to work with me. If I see something I know irks me and I don't want to go there. I don't. It's been working like a charm too.

[sui generis]

18. subtle point here though:

insofar as the practice of religion invades politics, state constitutions, and civil law, it does merit discussion.

For those of us that the "sanctity" of marriage in the church becomes an oft used phrase in civil law, it is a knock down drag out war, not between believers and atheists but between people who believe that religion has a place in government and the rest of the rational educated world.

[H2O Man]

22. Would we be able

to discuss Malcolm X or Martin Luther King, Jr? Because they were both ministers, and their primary focus was religion. Some of us think they also were important figures in the politics of the 1960s.

Gandhi said, "....(M)y devotion to Truth has drawn me into the field of politics, and I can say without the slightest hesitation, and yet in all humility, that those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means."

I think that we will be okay if we consider the teachings and actions of Men like Malcolm, Martin, and Mohandas. If others feel that these three pose a threat to democracy, however, I would certainly listen with an open mind.

[MHalblaub]

28. I have a dream that one day

a president will not use the word "God" during his inauguration speech.

[izzie]

23. The right seem to have made it all about God etc.

Say it is a nice day and you have to get out 'Strong' to see what the answer means.

[texanshatingbush]

24. Outrage at Christianity hijacked - that's so true !

Sorry for the aggravation, Tyler--that's certainly not our intent.

For me, the impetus is the outrage I feel at the RW's holier-than-thou and exclusionary attitude, and I am simply hoping to give someone ammunition to help refute the RW and reveal its hypocritical posturing. As a Buddhist, you would probably feel the same way if someone were twisting the tenets of Buddhism solely for political gain.

There was a great Letter to the Editor in US News & World Report <14February2005> from a guy in Minnesota, responding to USN&WR's previous article on James Dobson <"The Dobson Way", 17January2005>. It perfectly captured my bafflement and outrage at what is happening to "religion" in the political arena:

"What I found Interesting about 'The Dobson Way' was that it seems the biggest agenda for the evangelicals is sex and homosexuality. I thought that deeply religious people would be outraged by this country's political leadership because of all the funding cuts in education, veterans' benefits, urban housing, and programs that help the poor, along with the Republican House leaders' relaxing the rules on ethics. Rather, the evangelicals have put their efforts into supporting these politicians and are trying to put even more pressure on the government. Growing up Catholic, I was taught to follow Jesus's way of respecting and being kind to others and to care for the less fortunate regardless of their religion, skin color, political and sexual orientation, or creed. Call me old-fashioned, I guess."

The RW just sticks in my craw.

[Ian David]

48. Maybe we should all just be more clear about the distinctions

The fact of the matter is that some religious people-- by no means all of them-- are trying to change our country to conform to their religious beliefs.

It's like trying to have a conversation about Ultra-violet radiation without talking about light. (Lame analogy, but best I can do at the moment).

That makes some mention of religion necessary, but not a debate over "my-god-can-beat-up-your-god."

Would it help if we didn't talk about "Christians," but instead used words to distinguish between "normal" Christians, and the OTHER Christians that are ruining things for the rest of us?

I apologize if any of these words offend someone. I'm throwing them out there to ask:

1) Which words "work"?
2) Which words won't offend?

For example, words like:

Those Christians in the subset of "trouble-makers"
Fundamentalists
Fundies
Triumphalists (I just learned that word yesterday)
Godwhacks
Evangelicals
Christian Extremists
Right-wing Christians
Right-wing Religionists
Bible-Thumpers
TaliBornAgain
TaliBornAgain
American Taliban
Moonies
Pharisees
Dominionists
Radical Religious Activists
The Radical Christian Agenda
The Radical Religious Agenda
De-Enlightenment activists
Religious Regressives

I hope these words differentiate between just "Christian" and the politically active ones that are trying to make our country conform to their interpretation of Biblical Law.

Some of them also apply to non-Christians who are in the subset of "trouble-makers." Some of them could be modified for other religious groups. For example, "Jewish Pharisees" or "Muslim Extremists."

Again, I am sorry if these offend, and I hope they do not, but I am only asking which of these would be both specific enough and inoffensive enough to make everyone happy.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

[Jamastiene]

26. Congratulations!

You just started your own thread guaranteed to bring 160+ replies talking about you guessed it, religion... Good thinking if you are sick of hearing about it, now they'll all be pm'ing you, emailing you, and getting up in your shit for daring to say such a thing. I feel for ya, really I do. If only you hadn't started THIS thread.

[Az]

30. The real question is

Why do you keep reading such threads? I don't read threads on subjects I am not interested in. Why do you feel compelled to read threads you know are going to bore you and then criticize those who did have an interest in it.

Seem hypocritical to me. Can you clarify how its not?

[izzie]

34. Who knows. Guess just to see what is going on. Look here----

American Fundamentalists. and look at Christ's Entry in to Washington DC in 2008. It will blow your mind.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. There is a Religion and Theology forum

in which Theist v. Atheist arguments go on at great length. Some threads do get moved there; there'e relatviely little bashing in GD compared to there.

[cags]

38. If they are gauranteed 100+ posts obviously people want to talk about it

If you want to be left out of the conversation, heres a hint

Don't click on the thread, its not hard really.

I don't click on the threads I'm not interested in, and I don't try and stop people from talking about what they want to.

Geez, some people are so uptight

[Jamastiene]

41. Or argue incessantly

Which DID come first? The chicken or the egg?

[Az]

43. So we are all supposed to agree on everything now?

Yes there are some big arguments. Its called discussion. Its kinda what forums are famous for.

Yes they could be toned down a bit. That takes time and effort. Some of us are working on that. The issues still need to be discussed.

[Jamastiene]

46. By no means should we not discuss

but when you argue about something that could be compared to the chicken /egg argument, it is going to generate 100+ replies. Like I said, it is a controversial topic. Arguing beyond the point of reason doesn't help matters. You'll be hard pressed to find 2 people who agree totally about religion. Whether you have 2 Baptists, 2 Methodists, 2 Catholics, 2 Buddhists, 2 Wiccans or 2 Agnostics. Truthfully, can you conceive of the notion that 2 Agnostics would disagree on a topic like reincarnation? It can turn into an all nighter if it is just 2 people going at it on one topic. Throw the whole shebang into the mix and voila, it's war. Make love, not war is still my preference. Peace. ;)

[cags]

49. How boring life would be if we all agreed, I enjoy the discussion

[Az]

50. Can't love those you don't know

Discussing religion is one of the biggest taboos in our society. Think that is a good idea? Yes some participants are going to go at it like cats and dogs. But some observers are going to learn from the interaction. Public discourse of these matters can be messy but they are necissary if we want our free society to remain free.

It is the darkness and silence that threatens our society today. With voices silenced in fear of offending others ignorance grows. As groups drift away from the communal fire and reform their cliques away from influence of others they grow insulated. Once that occurrs they can begin to think of those other people as something less than human. And then when they start redrawing the rules they won't mind so much that they are cut out.

Yes there is fire when opposite beliefs meet. But that fire is illumination. It is necissary for each side to understand the others positions. Do you suppose Churchs sit around and discuss what is fair concerning the beliefs of atheists. Do you suppose Buddhists comtemplate the proper involvement of Judaic Kosher laws in the FDA?

Each group forms its own unique notion of the world around it. If it moved forward and tried to legislate these notions it would not take other views into consideration unless they make themself known. This is vital in a diverse free society that is dependent on each position getting to know the others in order to factor them into the world around us.

[Jamastiene]

55. Liberal Christians

are NOT getting the point across in the confines of only discussing amongst themselves though. The bottom line is that until you take on the right wingers who march in lockstep with the notion that somehow Jesus Christ declared war from the cross, and by all means, please point that little known factoid of information out to them if you don't mind, then they will continue to make disbelievers out of people like me. See? If you truly believe that there is a liberal God then please find a way to go up against the repugs when you get a chance. Challenge them. Infighting is what they thrive on. If you wait until all dems agree, you'll never face off with the real enemy. See? That is very important in the grand scheme of things. If you step outside and look at the big picture, you'll see that that is the right way to go about it.

[seabeyond]

51. in your buddhst world, know, we live in religious war

so be in peace of it and bring it to stillness and maybe there wont be so much battle. but here and now there is certainly a religious war going on. if we dont talk about it on the board how in the religious war can it be resolved and healed

[Jamastiene]

57. By believing

to each their own when it comes to religion?

[Az]

59. But not all are believing that

And because of the years of silence between the camps many cannot distinguish between the believers that respect others rights and those that are trying to take them away.

We must respect each other's rights to believe as we may. But this does not mean we should remain silent and not engage in discussion. That leads to stagnation and that is death.

Our society needs to be a vibrant dynamic one. Built on the interaction of all our beliefs. But due to the taboo of discussing such things the dialog grows silent. And when that happens the vacuum formed draws in those that are willing to force their beliefs on others.

Only by occupying the part of our society with vigorous dialog can we hold back the dominionists. If we fail to keep the fires burning then they will creep in from the dark.

[Jamastiene]

61. Point well taken

I can't argue with that. I do wish the dialogue would concentrate on how to address the wrongdoing against people in the name of (fill in the name of the religion here). Certainly, you don't disagree that the real dialogue should be a serious debate with the Republican party and their tendency to alienate people with their tactics. Right?

[Az]

71. The debate yes

But there has to also be discussion introducing people to each other's position. We cannot form good governance in the absense of awareness of those we are governing.

The debate over who is right and who is wrong may not provide a satisfactory answer. But it does illuminate the positions of each side and if done honestly and openly does not need to be hostile. The trouble is such dialog is so frowned upon in our society that only those who are most set upon proving their point enter into the dialog. It really needs to engage more people. Just to show how vast and wide opinion really is.

[Jamastiene]

74. We agree

on that point. I see what you mean. I just wish people would realize that there is a way to let each have their own views without it turning into a battle for mind control.

[Az]

80. There is

Unfortunately we have lost the art of it. We have to reinvent to wheel. And a lot of rocks got broken the first time we did that.

[immoderate]

53. There's worse than bored.

Religion is politics.

--IMM

[Tyler Durden]

63. To an Irishman, Boredom is HEAVEN.

We share with the Chinese the worst curse you may levy:

"May you be born in interesting times."

[immoderate]

67. Reminds me of a friend who sought out boring activities...

...so his life would seem to last longer.

--IMM

[leyton]

70. On DU, it seems like it's okay to bash Christianity.

You can't call Islam or any of its sects violent, but you sure can diss Christians.

[Tyler Durden]

73. bullshit.

The assholes that bash anyone's "faith" are part of the problem I'm posting about.

MY faith ain't YOUR faith ain't HIS faith ain't HER faith ain't THEIR faith, AND THAT IS WHERE IT SHOULD END.

If you want to teach your OWN CHILDREN that dinosaurs were on the arc, or that Isis re-assembled Osiris minus his dick, or that Ba'al requires you to burn a sheep-a-week...I DO NOT DISPUTE YOUR RIGHT TO BELIEVE SO.

On whether or not I would let your kid be my Family Physician...that's another argument.

BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT. Just don't try to fob it off on ME or MINE.

[Jamastiene]

78. I second that

There is a fine line between disagreeing and bashing. I haven't heard anyone on DU say anyone of any religion should be brutalized or tortured or anything of the sort. Bashing implies violence. There is no bashing here. Just heated discussion on who has this view or that view and of course there are those who want to push it down someone's throat. That's where my gripe is.

[BiggJawn]

76. "And when they came for the semi-practicing Buddhists...

...with Shinotist leanings, there was nobody left to speak for me..."

Nobody's holding a gun to your head to click on the damn threads, right?

By all means, let us stick our collective heads in the sand. Don't be surprised when nobody pays you much mind when you get alarmed about the coming "Sunday Morning Patrols"...

[MadHound]

77. Apparently you're not bored enough to refrain from posting your own shot

Seriously, did you think that this thread would do anything other than become flamebait? Hell, you round out the package completely by making up snarky little nicknames.

Face it friend, in this day and age, when the Religious Right is large and in charge, talk of religion is going to be intertwined with political discussion. Can't deal with it, then hide the thread, it is that simple.

I think that most people around here, no matter what their political and religious leanings would rather have a full, unfettered discussion rather than worry about what category it falls under.

[Jamastiene]

81. You noticed that too,

huh? I posted one earlier saying the same thing. "Congratulations!" is in the subject line. :D

[Moderator]

82. Locking....

Questions about DU policy should be asked
in the Ask the Administrators Forum.


DU Moderator