I have seen so many attacks on religion & attacks on attacks

[Rainbowreflect]

on religion on DU & it makes me sad & angry.

Please realized that when you attack people's beliefs you are attacking the core of who they are. I have no problem with attacks on anyones actions, but not on their faith.

You need to know that I consider myself a Christian because I believe in the teachings of Christ. I have never been a blind follower of anyone or anything. It took me a long time to find out what I believe & what is right for me, I'm still learning & growing spiritually. Yes, I was born into a Christian family, but a family of free thinkers & questioners as well.

I was a Sunday school teacher's nightmare. I question everything. If it did not sound right or make sense I wanted a reason. Maybe because of my being this way I greatly respect where others searches, spiritual & otherwise have brought them. My faith has sustained me & helped to make me the liberal person I am today.

I would never try & force my beliefs or faith on anyone else because true faith is found through each persons own discovery & because my belief is that God gave us free will & one of the greatest sins I could commit against my faith would be to try to take that away from another.

That said, it is very hurtful & hateful when people on DU tell me that my spiritual faith is crap. That it is fairy tales & when they imply that I must not be to bright to believe in "the old man in the sky". My faith in my spiritual beliefs as well as the strength in my liberal beliefs allows me to not let these attacks push me away. But trust me there are plenty of people who if they felt forced to make a choice between fighting for liberal causes & their faith they would pick there faith.

We need to be better than so many of the far right fundies & show respect for others beliefs no matter what they may be as long as they are not trying to force others comply with their beliefs.

[IrateCitizen]

1. Yeah, good luck bridging that divide...

Personally, I have come to run as fast as I can in the opposite direction anytime a religion thread comes up on DU, because it is ultimately doomed no matter the intentions of the OP.

[hootinholler]

69. I'm sorry, but it's kinda funny

Being the first post and all.

-Hoot

[RandomKoolzip]

2. Well, as long as you don't believe in the great god Xenu....

...and own an e-meter, I have no problem with your religion.

[Endangered Specie]

24. Actually, Xenu is the evil dictator/devil...

the 'god' is actually the green rectangle

[GeekMonkey]

49. how is that any different? fiction is fiction

[Minstrel Boy]

143. Even fiction isn't just fiction.

If you want to dismiss all faiths out of hand, that's your business. But you should know better than to confuse William Shakespeare with Tom Clancy.

[progressoid]

67. Xenu stole my e-meter and gave it to a Christian!

What's a OT level-3 to do? :cry:

[RandomKoolzip]

74. Drop out of Sea-Org and avoid engrams at all costs.

[progressoid]

92. Oh shoot - I wanted to wear those cool uniforms

AND CHECK OUT THE BABES!!

[Arugula Latte]

3. "We need to respect beliefs."

But -- what if you don't? I mean, I think it's insane that some people believe that Adam and Eve were the first people and completely ignore all the evidence of evolution. Why should I respect that?

[datasuspect]

4. precisely

[Rainbowreflect]

How does it hurt you to be respectful of them?

I am not talking about the ones who try to force their belief system on you or force it to be taught in public schools as fact. I am talking about allowing them their faith without attacking them for it.

I am a Christian & I still believe in science. I have not learn a single thing in my study of science that has proved to me that has shaken my belief in God. In fact every new thing I learn just makes me more in awe of what God has done.

IMHO Attacking them for believing is just as bad as their attacking you for not.

[BurtWorm]

11. Is it attacking a belief to raise questions about it, as you did

when you were younger? For example, I have questions about the historicity of Jesus. Do you consider it an attack on your beliefs if I point out that there is no firm record of Jesus outside of the Gospels, and that the story of Jesus closely resembles dozens of so-called "pagan" god-man myths from several Mediterranean cultures?

[Rainbowreflect]

13. No it is not an attack IMHO. I think questions are good.

I personally cannot take the Bible as the literal word of God.
It was written by men & they could only write what they understood & what was the reality of time in which they lived.

[JerseygirlCT]

58. That's not an attack

it might be a debate (and a fun one!).

An attack would be saying, for example, that believing in Jesus is as stupid as believing in the tooth fairy.

[Warren DeMontague]

76. I wouldn't say it's "stupid". I might ask if it's based on

any higher degree of physical evidence.

All I've ever argued for is a level playing field, but that seems to be exactly what sets off so many believers. I mean, if we shouldn't say believing in one unproveable, invisible being is stupid, it's only fair to say we shouldn't say believing in ANY unproveable, invisible beings is stupid... right? Why is believing in the tooth fairy stupid if believing in Jesus isn't? Please- I'd like a concrete answer.

See, your analogy cuts right to the heart of what this thread is about, I think. I am constantly running into religious people who don't understand why anyone would use the same kinds of logical critical thinking skills on their mystical assertions as they themselves would use in a heartbeat if a stranger told them he could fly, or their buddy claimed to be abducted by a UFO.

If you want to not be challenged for your belief in Jesus or Jehovah, you have to accept that some people believe in the sun God Ra, the Yanomamo pelican God, or gnomes living underneath their kitchen sink. I particularly like this quote, although I'm not sure where it came from:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

[hfojvt]

84. can you have physical evidence of the past?

For example, I believe in the existence of Joseph Loomis (born about 1590) because I have documents which claim that there are documents which wrote about him. For the most part, I have not seen those documents, or even copies of those documents. Is a document physical evidence anyway? Do I then need to carbon date those documents? Who has that kind of time and resources?

As far as the tooth fairy, it is pretty common knowledge that that story is made up by adults to ease the trauma of tooth loss among their children. At some point in growing up, parents, or older siblings usually spill the beans.

For me, believing in Jesus is more of a moot point. Andrew Greeley (Catholic priest and writer of novels), I believe, said much the same thing in his book "The Jesus Myth". However, I feel pretty confident about my belief in "the teachings of Jesus (or the Bible)".

That is a nice quote, except for the fact that I do not dismiss all other possible gods. I do not dismiss Allah or Krishna, and I find many strong similarities in their teachings.

My counter-claim, to the aggravation of atheists, is that we all have a religion. A summary quote would be from Wolfgang Stegmueller: "We cannot reach any positive result if we are completely free from presuppositions. We must believe something before we can justify something else."

[Warren DeMontague]

86. A belief system, or even a meta belief system, is not the same thing

as a "religion".

I only call myself an "atheist" in the most simplistic, lowest-chakra level discussions which seem to be where political/religious "philosophical" debate skulk around these days, at least in this country. As I said in a different post, if forced to choose between "atheism" and belief in anything remotely close to the anthropomorphized "God" of the western religions, yeah, I'm an atheist. But I'm also a Taoist. Play at Paganism. Do my Discordian Deal Daily, too. On Wednesdays I'm a Wiccan. And Verily, I'm a verb.

My meta Belief System -and not only do I have one, I have a jaundiced enough eye about these things to acknowledge the acronym for the same- hinges upon descriptions of reality based on experience or observable evidence. As new data comes in, it also includes the possibility, in fact the requirement, of constant updating and questioning the maps which I use to describe the territory of "reality", along with the knowledge that, as such, they are only maps or symbolic representations or at best semantic abstractions, and even the most updated, extensive one is never going to come all that close to telling "the whole story".

See, I certainly have beliefs, but I also have meta-beliefs, or beliefs about beliefs themselves. And one of my presuppositions is that ALL presuppositions are inherently limiting in terms of defining the elements of reality and the connections therein that we perceive.

Like the man said, you wore your expectations like an armored suit.

Maybe there's a major "religion" that espouses the abovementioned way of looking at things, but if so, (barring Taoism) I've never come across it. So, yes, I have beliefs and presuppositions- fully acknowledged- but that is not the same thing as having a "religion", nor is Atheism, Science, or a belief in only that for which there is verifiable physical evidence a "religion"

Historical dude Jesus? I certainly concede that there is evidence such a person may have existed. Philosopher Jesus? Well, those teachings originated somewhere, although some of us suspect Buddhism may have played some kind of part.

But you and I both know damn well that is a far cry from Jesus as either "God", "son of God", part of a holy triumverate, all-powerful being capable of implanting his visage on burnt toast at a distance of 15 Billion light-years, that kind of thing.

Do you dismiss Zeus? Athena? Eris? Pan? Those are "Gods", too, although they may not be as fashionable as they once were.

Is there physical evidence for personages of various historical importance? Certainly. Is there physical evidence for anything resembling the God of the Bible, new -or- old testament? Not a whole helluva lot, as far as I'm concerned. Yes, the tooth fairy is a story made up by parents to alleviate fears of the unknown, and usually people figure it out. But people have also figured out that, whatever you may think of the moral teachings encoded in the Bible, when it comes to describing anything close to physical reality it is woefully outdated and inaccurate. So why is it so offensive and objectionable to speculate that something like the seven day Genesis creation of Earth 5,000 years ago -in that Bible you say you believe in- might likewise be a story made up by someone to alleviate fears of the unknown?

The tooth fairy at least sometimes leaves you a quarter.

[hfojvt]

89. you are asking the wrong person

the story of Genesis is not a fundamental teaching of the Bible as far as I am concerned. Some preachers or churches like to make it so, but it is hardly the core or heart of Jesus' teachings, nor what James calls a pure religion (James 1:27).

Why do you think that "describing physical reality" is more important than "moral teachings". That is not a value that we share. I quote from the Gospel according to Vonnegut "There had been much progress in knowledge of how to do things. It was regrettable that there had been far less progress in the knowledge of things worth doing."
Okay, I am paraphrasing. I am not sure where my Vonnegut is anymore. I could quote the same thing from EF Schumacher as well.
I am not sure how a meta belief system differs from a religion unless you are defining a religion as involving more dogmatism, but I am guessing that is endemic to humanity.
I find the whole "verifiable physical evidence" principle to be kinda dogmatic. Is there verifiable physical evidence for "love"? I do not see a huge difference between science and religion, except in having different principles in their meta-belief system. Perhaps you could show me some physical evidence? Or quote some scripture:

"to recognize the imperfection of sensory perception is not to suggest tha as organisms we may receive information by other means (except from our genes, a physical process we will discuss later). No other means are open to us as scientists....science cannot make value judgements...And science cannot make moral judgements." and previously "Science is concerned with the material universe."

And therein, lies the metaphysical difference, not the dogmatism with which an idea is held, but the question - what matters? Can you find physical evidence for "spirits in the material world"?

[Warren DeMontague]

113. You're right, that's like comparing apples to your golf game.

I just happen to think that it's quite possible to develop what I consider moral modes of living and relating to my fellow beings without the accumulated other stuff affiliated with most Western Religions.

I do think what I consider "religion" to be dogmatic, at least the Western version, in that data which does not fit preconceived models is generally denied, ignored, shoved into a basement, or burned at the stake. The Bush Administration approach. Look how long it took the Catholic Church to get around to "pardoning" Galileo.

(Which is why I'm still waiting for that blockbuster Hollywood film to appeal to those legions of until now not catered-to secular humanists.. i.e. "The Passion of Giordano Bruno")

As for the rest, I can't find non-Descartesian physical evidence for the critter called my "self" (although from a quantum perspective, I can probably collapse a wave function or two), but, unlike "God", at least I know where to find the f*cker.

[hfojvt]

122. what is? Comparing science and religion?

Then it should be easy for you to contrast the two.

Insofar as science is only about the material world, then it is not a religion, theists and atheists can both be scientists. However, if it gets elevated to the status of a belief system which denies the existence of, or the importance of, the non-physical, then it has crossed over into the realm of a religion. I think it is often treated that way, as if it is the source of truth, even if that truth is only approximate and provisional.

"I just happen to think that it's quite possible to develop what I consider moral modes of living and relating to my fellow beings without the accumulated other stuff affiliated with most Western Religions."

I would not disagree with that, and I would also agree that it is a "consummation devoutly to be wished". I happen to think that the teachings of Christianity and other religions deserve respect in that regard (for the morality that they preach.) I also think it is not productive or worth the effort to attack people for their cherished beliefs in "the accumulated other stuff". It is better to find common ground and have mutual respect. I also worry that people tend to "throw out the baby with the bathwater" if they get rid of the "accumulated other stuff" and the moral modes of living go with it before there is an alternative in place.

[Warren DeMontague]

136. No, I actually meant comparing religion as a tool to explain reality

(a job at which it has repeatedly failed, IMHO) and religion as a source of moral guidance.

To paraphrase Yoda, my own council I will keep on what I consider productive or worth the effort, but your advice is duly noted. I think in several posts in this thread I have stated that my own comments on specific religious beliefs have almost exclusively taken place in the context of specific actions in this country by specific grades of religious folk to insert specific brands of religious belief into public policy.. i.e. if Creationists want to rewrite science textbooks in Kansas, the logic of "creationism", or "intelligent design", or whatever you want to call it, is fair game.

Similarly, as I also said elsewhere, it is impossible for me to talk about these issues divorced from current events in the United States, 2005. And it should be pretty clear that right now we are facing a determined group of people, most of whom claim to be "Christians", who are trying to turn our Constitutional form of government into a theocracy. Certainly I am sympathetic to the cries for mutual respect from the Christians on DU, and I do understand that Pat Robertson doesn't speak for Christians any more than the Unabomber speaks for environmentalists... But, again, said Christians would do well to remember the larger context when considering the irritation many of us feel - certainly, YOU are not trying to impose your beliefs on us, for the most part, but there are plenty who are.

I also worry that people tend to "throw out the baby with the bathwater" if they get rid of the "accumulated other stuff" and the moral modes of living go with it before there is an alternative in place.

Maybe you worry too much about things you can't control. It should be perfectly clear, if you read the newspapers, that religious people are more than capable of behaving like bastards, and atheists are perfectly capable of being wonderful human beings.. (and vice-versa, of course) so, while your concern is admirable, I think it is wildly misplaced, and maybe the thing to do is try to effect kindness and positive energy in your own sphere, and encourage your neighbors to be decent people by example; without worrying which brand of scripture, if any, they are subscribing to.

[hfojvt]

146. if I recall correctly phlogiston, the Ptolemaic system, and continuous

creation and Lamarckian heredity were all scientific theories at one point. So, it would appear that science has also repeatedly failed to explain reality. The biggest failure of religion in this regard has been the way they cling to old "scientific" theories instead of moving on.

The old religious theory that lying, cheating, hating, stealing, and killing cause human misery seems to be a pretty solid explanation of reality to me, although a remedy does not seem to be in the works any time soon.

Both science and religion, or the people who practice them, seem to a) try to predict the future (and both do a bad job of that IMNSHO, although the weather people do an amazingly good job many times) and b) try to impose their beliefs on others. My position on this is that it is not so important whether the evolutionary or creationist dogma is taught as it is to teach the idea that all dogmas should be ruthlessly examined.

As far as:
"and maybe the thing to do is try to effect kindness and positive energy in your own sphere, and encourage your neighbors to be decent people by example"
To quote someone whose opinion might matter to you:
"To paraphrase Yoda, my own council I will keep on what I consider productive or worth the effort, but your advice is duly noted."

[Warren DeMontague]

151. I agree that all dogmas should be ruthlessly examined.

Maybe you think that is standard practice in maistream Christian Churches, including the Catholic one- I don't.

Science doesn't spend a whole lot of time trying to predict the future, IMNSHO- what it does spend a lot of time is trying to explain phenomena using available data, by using experiment and by examining all the evidence in attempt to find coherent theories which can as accurately as possible model what is going on. I think to use the phrase "evolutionary or creationist dogma" is misleading and grossly inaccurate, and if you're really trying to argue that they're on some (any) kind of equal footing, there's probably not much point in continuing the debate. See, the difference between science and religion is that science is not wedded to any particular outcome or explanation- period. If the best explanation based on the physical evidence was that Jehovah made us all out of mud, that would be the currently accepted scientific explanation- and I guarantee you that, if, tomorrow, evidence shows up backing the creationist narrative, then it will BECOME "science" - because that's what science IS. Religion, on the other hand, takes the answer and explanation that proponents "know" is true (because such is "faith") and, if any attempts are made at all to logically get from there to here, they are only done in such a fashion as to explain or arrive at the predetermined outcome. Therefore, NO, evolution and creationism are NOT both "dogmas" in the same sense, (if solid evidence came up tomorrow proving that we did NOT evolve from a common ancestor as apes, and the scientific community ignored it, then I might be inclined to agree with you) and it may not matter to you which is taught, but as long as we're talking about public school science classes, it sure as shit matters to me- and it should matter to anyone who wants our kids competing for 21st century jobs as opposed to jobs churning butter and driving oxen.

As far as explaining the weather, yeah- the reason that improvements have been made in weather prediction is because old-school, linear, newtonian science has made moderate strides in past decades to accept and accomodate chaos theory and sensitive dependence on initial conditions. But the notion that the universe is full of chaotic, unpredictable, swirling fractal energy patterns doesn't really gel with the Bible, either.

[hfojvt]

153. I was talking about schools, not about churches

I think there are a fair number of church people who do challenge church dogma, and that there are also many churches where major disagreements are acceptable.

Science may or may not be wedded to particular outcomes, but scientists, being human, often are. "Despite violent denunciations from some quarters, Darwin's theory was almost universally accepted by serious scientists even before his death in 1882. The times were ripe for Darwin. A major part of the scientific community WELCOMED AND PROMPTLY CHAMPIONED his views." That is from a biology textbook.

Schumacher wrote in 1973 "There is the idea of evolution - that higher forms continually develop out of lower forms, as a kind of natural and automatic process. The last 100 years or so have seen the systematic application of this idea to all aspects of reality without exception."

In this regard, I wrote a paper as a graduate student in 1989. I entered a student paper contest. My paper was critical of the established theory of this group of economists (poking at their false claims of objectivity), and good enough that my prof had me present it at a social science conference. However, it did not win. There were supposed to be two prizes, but they only gave one, to a guy who wrote about chaos theory. I never read the paper, but I suspect the writer merely summarized someone else's theory and continually claimed that this group was the best equipped to apply chaos theory to economics. A bunch of plagiarism and verbal ass-kissing passing as scholarship, and its author is probably tenured and still publishing.

Of course, economics is still scoffed at by hard sciences, but my room-mate tells me they have some of the same personality clashes in the more mathematical world of finance.

As far as the whole "compete in the 21st century" shibboleth. I am not a big believer of that meme. I have a BA in math, a near BA in physics and an MA in economics and I have been working factory, temp and janitorial jobs since I got out of graduate school. I have worked as a temp for Phillip Morris and entry level for Citibank and my degrees were no more valuable than a sheet of toilet paper in the factory bathroom.

Dogmatists always predict dire consequences if their dogma is doubted. My mechanic needs to not only be competent, but also honest. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with his/her competence.

[Warren DeMontague]

156. Okay, but.. if you throw out scientific methods for establishing truth

and/or coherent explanations for reality, what is left?

Shit, talk about babies and bathwater. If you genuinely expect that "Creationism" and "Evolution" should be given equal footing in science classes, then why not every other explanation for how we got here? Star people? The Norse creation myth? Robert Hunter says this is all a dream we dreamed, one afternoon, long ago. Beautifully poetic, but I have a helluva time imagining how to fit that into a High School Science Class syllabus.

Whether or not scientists 'welcomed and championed' Darwin's views doesn't have anything to do with the effectiveness of evolutionary explanations for origins of species. Some ideas are welcomed and championed because they make sense, or they're right. Again, science is based on evidence and proof. The evidence and proof is overwhelmingly in favor of evolutionary theory- but if and when a better explanation comes along, if the data backs it up, then THAT will become accepted science.

[hfojvt]

157. is anybody talking about throwing out scientific methods?

Or just talking about inserting one theory which does not work under those methods?
It does not terribly concern me if students are taught to question the theory of evolution rather than accepting it as unquestionable dogma. Evolution is covered on pages 6-8 of this biology book and in more depth on pages 509-551. If all of those pages were removed (which neither I nor anybody else (as far as I know) is proposing), the entire structure would not collapse like a house of cards. I do not believe the whole book is covered anyway.
My biology education pretty much stopped after the 10th grade about 100 years ago, but I just do not believe evolution is as fundamental to biology as addition is to math. The ID insertion is a micro-meteorite, not a global-killer. It will not bring the entire sky down, but evolutionary defenders behave as if they would like to pillory all of its critics - they treat them like heretics and blasphemers.
I do not have a dog in this hunt, but I think my side needs to chill a little.

[Warren DeMontague]

160. No, but it's not a science class if you insert ANYTHING for political

and/or religious reasons.

Is it a big deal? Perhaps, perhaps not. But... I'm totally chill, man.

When they try to teach something like ID to MY kids in school, that's when you'll see me really freak out.
:hippie:

[BurtWorm]

170. Evolution is fundamental to biology.

Which is to say that biology is vacant if you leave out the question of where species and phylogenies originate from. If you leave out evolution, you're left with just the shell.

This is not to say that everyone should study biology--although if they don't, it's their loss. But if you do study biology, you must necessarily study evolution as well.

[BurtWorm]

106. So a religion is just a set of fundamental assumptions?

All beliefs are fundamentally religious? My assumption that the sun will appear to rise in the east and set in the west is essentially religious?

[JNelson6563]

94. I found it interesting

that the poster tried so hard to make the point that they are a free thinking etc and ended up where they started and where their whole family is.

Musta not read the OT in their studies or asked the Sunday school teacher about the genocide and other atrocities in the bible. And perhaps all the contradictions in the NT were adequately explained too.
I always kinda chuckle at those who claim they have practically researched their way into Christianity.

Julie

[JerseygirlCT]

96. Lots of questions there

First, because phsyical evidence isn't the be-all and end-all for me. I believe there is more to the world than physical evidence would show. I also believe that's my outlook, and I in no way require that you share it or agree with me.

Faith is absolutely a choice, and a choice that requires, as they say about literature, a suspension of disbelief. I understand that there are people who do not wish to make that choice. In fact, I'm married to one. OTOH, I do make that choice. It shapes my life, it makes me happy.

You may certainly have a level playing field, if you like, if what you mean by that is mutual respect. If what you mean is that I must defend my beliefs according to your parameters, then that's not exactly level, is it?

"If you want to not be challenged for your belief in Jesus or Jehovah, you have to accept that some people believe in the sun God Ra, the Yanomamo pelican God, or gnomes living underneath their kitchen sink."

Well, I do accept that, although I'll admit that I've not yet run across anyone with that gnomes belief. Might make for an interesting conversation, however.

[Warren DeMontague]

114. And it's hardly my intent to get anyone to look at things *my* way.

My comments re: the logicality of certain, specific tenets of what constitute the brand of Christianity currently winding its way through, say, Kansas school boards are not intended to impugn anyone's particular interpretation of reality- so long as they don't try to put it into my kid's science textbook.

I've seen enough things I can't explain to know (but certainly not "prove") that reality is a far stranger affair than what passes for meat-and-potatoes Western "common sense" would have us believe.

I just think, and this is not directed at you, specifically, although the tooth fairy thing did bring it up- that many people who subscribe to so-called "major" religions generally feel that their beliefs are somehow different, superior, or just in a vaguely different category than "other" belief systems, be they Scientology, goddess worship, or whatever it is the UFO people are calling themselves nowadays. I actually had a long argument with someone last year over the manger which was put up in front of a Florida Courthouse, and the "Festivus- for the rest of us" sign that someone else put up. The person I had the discussion finally, actually screamed at me, "But Festivus isn't a REAL holiday!".

What's a "real" holiday? A "real" religion?
A "real" God?

I would argue it's all in the eye of the beholder, and if we all could accept that our own heads are sovereign and we don't need to get everyone else's heads onto our personal program, I would wager the world would be a far happier place.

Peace.

[JerseygirlCT]

116. Then I think we're in basic agreement here

I don't want science confused with religion, either. If religion is to be taught, it should be part of a comparative/world religion overview and have nothing to do with science class. Creationism and the like is NOT science, period.

I also don't subscribe to the "I must be right" school of religious thought. As a universalist, I truly think we all experience life and (for some) the divine differently. Personally I think that God (by whatever name) has offered many, many different ways toward that experience. I am an inclusivist, not an exclusionist.

And LOL at the "real holiday" stuff. All I can do is roll my eyes at that one.

[Zhade]

130. As long as you don't insist that your beliefs are factually true...

...and especially don't insist that LAWS be based on them, I don't care what anyone believes.

It could very well not have a shred of evidence to back it up, but the two exceptions I mentioned are the only ones I care about - for reasons of appreciation for historical reality on the one hand, and secular society on the other.

I certainly wouldn't hate anyone or discriminate them for having any belief system, regardless of how little I might respect the professed beliefs themselves.

That's workable, right? If the goal is to be able to live together, and not for believers to force nonbelievers to "accept" their truth, I think it can work.

[Warren DeMontague]

137. I'm telling you- I want a public P.R. campaign like the one for Las Vegas.

YOUR HEAD:

"What Happens There---
STAYS THERE"

[Zhade]

139. Nice! I like.

NT!

[JerseygirlCT]

141. Well, we'd have to get into a definition of "true"

but I *think* I understand what you mean.

If by that you mean teaching religion as science, then I'm with you. And I firmly support a nice, strong, high wall between church and state.

If you're expecting me to say, however, I don't believe these things (such as the existence of God) to be true, but I'm going to believe them anyway... well, that's rather an impossibility. In fact, that begins to verge on: "not for nonbelievers to force believers to "accept" their truth, I think it can work." to turn your phrase around a bit. I *do* respect your right to believe things untrue, whether I do or not. That will have to be enough.

[Zhade]

150. Well, asserting that miracles happened, for example, irks me.

There's absolutely no proof for them, at all. It's completely an unsupported belief.

Do you have the right to believe they happened (if you do)? Absolutely! Do you have the right to teach them as fact in public schools? No. Use those beliefs to push laws? Nope.

People are free to believe unsubstantiated supernatural claims, but they should realize that those of us who prefer documented reality will challenge their unproven assertions.

This is not, and never will be, an attack on believers. It is addressing what believers believe, and that is fair game, as long as it's not personal ("you suck because you believe in fairy tales" versus "the bible is not factually or historically true"). That some will naturally consider the latter an attack is, quite frankly, their problem as the ones making unsupported claims.

I hope that makes it less muddy.

[JerseygirlCT]

152. Yes, I think so

the tricky thing about all of it, of course, is that much cannot be *disproven*, either. Leaving a great deal of space for differing opinions. The definition of a miracle may vary a bit, for instance. And the biblical stories may quite easily be taken as allegory and still hold great meaning.

Bottom line: beliefs are not facts. That doesn't necessarily negate them, or make their holders somewhat, I don't know, reality-challenged. It makes them people who have chosen to accept certain beliefs because they make sense to them, or for any number of other reasons. I wouldn't dream of pushing my own on anyone else, nor would I disparage another's beliefs.

[Zhade]

161. Well, to an extent.

To me, anyone who believes, say, that the earth is 6,000 years old is wholly ignorant of reality.

I will point that out, happily. Such willful ignorance is not to be accommodated, in my view.

There are many beliefs that I will challenge when their believers claim them to be literally, factually true. If someone says there is evidence for something, and there is none, they will be reminded of this fact.

I make no apologies for that.

[Warren DeMontague]

164. Yeah, a literal interpretation of the "don't ridicule anyone's beliefs"

rule means that anyone who is willfully ignorant of the Round, 4.5 Billion year old, Clearly Warming status of planet Earth gets a free pass. Right when these people just happen to be running our government.

To quote Fred Willard---

"I don't think so!"

[JerseygirlCT]

169. Well, they are certainly free to continue to believe that

IMO. They're not free to attempt to force that belief on me or mine, and especially not on any part of the gov't.

If they want to believe in a literal interp. -- their belief in and of itself harms none.

Personally, I think a literal interpretation of the bible is not useful, but of course, that's MY belief.

[Warren DeMontague]

171. Of course, they are free to believe whatever they want.

I don't think it's rational to expect that they should be free from having to read any and all statements regarding how ridiculous it is.

Free to believe something isn't the same as free to not have to ever encounter evidence or assertions contrary to those beliefs.

I like the Grateful Dead. But if I had ten dollars for every time some purple-haired twentysomething wannabe punk turned up his nose at me and said "Eeeeeeewww! The Grateful Dead SUCK!", I'd be a very rich hippie. Does my belief that they produced some of the Earth's finest music over some 30 years mean I never have to hear anyone's opinion to the contrary?

And this idea that we have to be "even-handed" about things which are not merely matters of taste, but clearly are not balanced in terms of validity is pretty new-- and the corporate media is taking that ball and running with it, particularly in terms of stuff like global warming which, if addressed, could cut into somebody's margins. See, you can (and do, pretty much) have every single reputable climatologist on the planet, along with everyone who can look at pictures of the polar ice caps now vs. 30 yrs ago, and they will all agree that, shit yes, keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and while no one can say exactly what will happen, the temperature will probably go up as certainly as Venus is not an appealing vacation destination.

Yet, in the media's eyes, to "balance the debate", they need to give equal time to the one "scientist" on the Chevron payroll who repeats the same mantra: "it needs more study, so why should we harm our economy doing anything about it?"

Same thing with evolution/creationism, or the Earth being 4.5 billion years old vs 5000. They are not two sides of an equally balanced coin.

It doesn't "harm anyone" for people to believe things like "Dinosaurs are a hoax", so long as they aren't teaching natural history in public school, but the fact that we are even talking about it means that those beliefs are in the public sphere, and as such they are certainly fair game for factual debunking.

And, just for the record.. I'm talking about extreme specific examples, and not talking about general concepts (AKA "God") or things which can't be reasonably proven or factually argued one way or another, either. :)

[JerseygirlCT]

172. Gotcha

No real argument there, of course.

And those kids will recognize the value of the Dead when they become a little more mature and develop better taste. :)

[Warren DeMontague]

173. Yeah, and I will add that this thread has been a good reminder for me.

It's easy for me, in my extreme frustration with the Fundamentalist dunderheads who are trying to turn this country into a theocracy, to tend towards venting. While this may be justified, I'm really going to double my efforts to clarify that it is not all religious people or all Christians who are the target of my ire, and certainly not the ones here who overwhelmingly share many of my basic beliefs and struggles in the political context.

Peace.

[JerseygirlCT]

174. Thanks

Yeah, it's hard. We all feel the need to vent. Afterall, there's just so much that needs venting these days, isn't there?

But we're all on the same side here. Well, except for the occasional "visitor"!

[Warren DeMontague]

163. Here's a good place for me to interject a personal anecdote or two.

I've seen certain things, or maybe more precisely, had certain experiences that I cannot explain in a rational, linear, logical, "common sense" framework. (Of course, I think there are other, perfectly non-religious frameworks which permit such experiences, but that doesn't make them any less weird) I fully accept that those experiences, if I was to sit down and relate them to people who hadn't been through similar things, would sound like total bullshit. Doesn't matter to me. I know what I know, and the true import of those experiences was their meaning to me- in a very personal sense.

Shit, some of that stuff I know better than to float by even my own wife.. so why would I want to tell a whole bunch of strangers that, yes, I know X and Y types of non-ordinary phenomena are "real" because I experienced those things repeatedly-- while in situation Z? I wouldn't- because what would be the point? Why would I want -or, more to the point, need- to convince anyone, of anything, in that regard? It's a childish way to go about things, IMHO. I believe what I believe, I've experienced what I've experienced, and I try really hard to keep my mind open- but my path isn't yours.

"Those who know, don't speak. Those who speak, don't know."

[Zhade]

168. Great post. I fully agree.

NT!

[donco6]

119. Great quote.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Thanks. I Googled, and it's by Steven Roberts.

[Cats Against Frist]

120. see smiley

:yourock:

[dummy-du1]

140. Stop that, you just attacked my belief in the tooth fairy...

[Warpy]

5. Oh, I'll respect anybody's right to believe whatever gets them

through a dark and lonely night. The problems arise when those beliefs start to extend beyond their own skin into restrictive laws, obnoxious behavior, and stunning hypocrisy.

That's when I start to get ugly, and they richly deserve it.

[JerseygirlCT]

97. I really doubt anyone here would disagree. nt

[Terran]

7. And what if they don't respect yours?

Or your lack of belief? I know all the Christians at DU are cool and all, and I don't attack any religion for its beliefs. But automatic respect for religious practice in general is damn difficult when so many self-proclaimed Christians going around doing the work of the devil.

[JerseygirlCT]

59. But attacking those who aren't part of that

is wrong, and further, is pretty useless, you know?

I DO respect your atheism. I just happen to believe differently. Is there really any reason we shouldn't be able to get along respectfully?

[Misunderestimator]

8. Yep

exactly

[Kraklen]

12. Well, that's not a belief.

It's a fact that evolution occured. Thinking otherwise is just a fallacy

It's a belief that God guided evolution, that's not up to science to determine. So that's worthy of respect.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. If "respect" means not challenging people's assertions just because

they fall under the heading of "religious belief", then I don't think we should.

This ties directly into the kind of Semantic Ju-Jitsu the Religious Right has been pulling -with increasing success- for a few decades now (thus, making it a "political issue") ... See, you can't criticize the evangelicals at the Air Force academy who aggressively proseltyze to Jews and unbelievers - because then you are "intolerant of their belief system" .. their belief system including the incitement to indoctrination of "lesser faiths", of course.

And how the spittle spattle splotz are we supposed to discuss the fact that Fundies in Kansas, who believe that the Earth is literally 5,000 years old and dinosaurs are a "hoax", are now writing the science textbooks there--- yeah, how are we supposed to talk about it without a discussion of the relative logical merits of a belief system which relies on scientific data versus one that relies on a 2,000 year old book?

You know, you can use the "it's my belief system" trump card to shut down just about any kind of discussion. We can't talk about the evidence of global warming because -hey- it is my own personal belief that the lord would never let that happen to his creation. We can't have rational discussions about sexual or racial inequalities because I can find bible verses to justify both of them... and don't you dare "disrespect" my personally held, deeply cherished religious beliefs with your logic and facts!

[JerseygirlCT]

62. I don't see why we can't have rational discussions

just avoid the blanket condemnations and the name calling. I heartily dislike those broad-brush "all XXX are this and all YYY are that" statements. They're insulting and useless, to boot.

Personally, I'm not interested in shutting down discussion at all. In fact, I rather like it! But I'm also not interested in defending myself against stereotypes, especially those that don't actually fit my beliefs at all, but suit someone else's idea of what my beliefs might be.

[Tux]

71. Exactly

That is why I like how fundies brought up religion. At first I hated it but now I found a church, studied Buddhism which helped me with an anger problem, and I found a label for my beliefs I had since I was 10 years old, Deism. All in 4 months. America is divided over this but we can heal the divide if we have respectful debates with others. I think the fundies did us a favor by making spirituality more a part of our lives and get away from materialistic consumerism for it's own sake. Also, this will bring down the fundie cult leaders.

[JerseygirlCT]

56. I guess there's a difference -m

between respecting the belief and respecting the person's right to hold that belief -- and yes, here, I would hope, acting respectfully to the person.

I would also guess that you'd find few here who believe Adam and Eve to be the first people. (I do find it a bit strange how often the fundamentalist beliefs of a small sub-set of Chrsitianity are held up as if they're in any way representative of Christianity as a whole.)

[undeterred]

167. No one can tell you what to respect or not intellectually

but shouldn't we treat each other with respect even when we don't respect each others beliefs about religion? And often the respectful thing to do is to simply not make an issue of something, to not say anything at all because you recognize no good will come of it.

Would it be respectful for a believer to say "The fool says in his heart there is no God" ? No, it would not be respectful, especially in a public discussion.

But it is equally disrespectful for non-believers to harp on how ignorant and foolish they think believing in God is. It is much better left unsaid.

[vi5]

6. But we are all responsible for our choices...

If we choose to affiliate ourselves with a particular group or a particular set of beliefs then we also take on the responsibility of defending that group and those sets of beliefs. I know people take their religion and their faith very seriously but that doesn't make it any less of a choice.

I choose to belong to the ACLU because I personally belief in a set of ideals that I find common ground with them on. When someone attack them I don't just try to shut down discussion. I engage them. Even when they are in attack mode. I'm o.k. with that because my beliefs and the intellectual data with which I support those beliefs will withstand such attacks. I don't simply shut down and say "Oh, my feelings are hurt because you don't believe what I believe and you are attacking me for it." I go to toe to toe with that person precisely BECAUSE my beliefs are so strong.

Same thing with being a liberal or a democrat. I choose to affiliate myself with those belief systems then I take on the responsibility of defending them when it demands it and when it is in line with my thinking, or agreeing with that person and attacking my own groups when they deserve it. Plain and simple.

If one's beliefs in any form be it political, religious, or philosophical cannot withstand either attacks or debate then I would say they aren't very strong to begin with.

[Misunderestimator]

9. I like the analogy...

Good post! :thumbsup:

[Rainbowreflect]

10. I am not responsible for what the right wing fundies do

just because they also call themselves Christians any more then I hold myself responsible for the crimes this administration has committed because we are all Americans.

I am only responsible for what I believe & what I do.

[vi5]

18. So then why do you take offense?

If the group you belong to that you feel is being attacked is christianity, perhaps your efforts and anger would be better directed at the people who are doing things that give christianity a bad name? Or in pointing out to the attacker the good things you feel christianity does? Either of those seem to be valid options rather than simply shutting down debate because the other side employs tactics which you don't like. Philosophy, religion, and politics are heated topics. That will never change.

[smirkymonkey]

57. Hear, hear!

Well said!

[redqueen]

107. Great post...

Well said. :hi:

[enigmatic]

165. great post

Best one in the thread..

[pocket]

14. Lie down with dogs

and you get up with fleas.

[Modem Butterfly]

15. Define "attacks on religion"

Thanks.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Jesus was a religion basher. Try reading the New Testament.

And, see what he had to say about the established religion.

[Rainbowreflect]

19. I was never talking about established religion I was talking

about peoples beliefs/faith. That is a personal thing & that should not be attacked.
I personally have many problems with organized religion. I don't like any group that tells people they cannot think for themselves, be it religious, political academic or any other.

[clovis29]

60. I would suggest this is exactly what is meant by "bashing."

A direct and personal attack on the basis for a religion with really no substantiation.

This is not a discussion item, just a self-important swipe. You are not as cute as you think you are.

[Warren DeMontague]

79. Actually, I think he IS kinda cute.

And his point was well taken.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

99. Really? How so?

A "direct and personal attack on the basis of religion"? Is that what Jesus did when he attacked the established religion? Did the Sanhedrin and the Romans think that Jesus wasn't "as cute as he thought he was" when they crucified him? Was he just taking a "self-important swipe" when he overturned the money changers tables and released the sacrificial animals? Was he just a smartass when he was confronted by the scribes?

Is Christianity so weak that it can't endure "bashing"?

"The Bible is a book with some beautiful poetry, a bloodstained history, a wealth of obscenity and upwards of ten thousand lies." - Mark Twain

Undoubtedly, you would find Mark less than "cute".

[DisassemblingHisLies]

17. Unfortunately, the radical fundies have caused the negative feelings

& these "false prophets" have turned some people against religion. If you understand that, then you'll know how to deal with it. Tell them that there are true Christians who are just as unhappy with the fundies' agenda & who are working toward the same goals as we are.

One organization is http://www.sojo.net/.

When Jim Wallis appears for a book-signing, the event turns into a revival. In cities across the nation, as many as 2,000 people have shown up to hear him speak about his New York Times best seller, God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It (384 pages, HarperSanFrancisco, $24.95). He is the founder of Sojourners, a national network of progressive Christians, and editor of a magazine by the same name. He spoke recently by phone with Special Contributor Mary A. Jacobs.

Question: You're getting 100 invitations to speak every week. You must have hit a nerve. What do you think that's about?

Answer: A lot of people, when they look at the way faith is talked about in the media, or the way it's invoked in the White House and Congress, they say: "Wait a minute, that's not my faith. I'm a person of faith, too, and I don't recognize my voice. I care about moral values, too, and those aren't my moral values."

I think people are coming to express their voice as much as to hear mine. I think the book becomes a catalyst. I constantly hear, "Finally we have a voice." It's a voice for people of faith who are progressive or moderate, who are not left wing or right wing, who are looking for a moral center, or if they're Christians, they would say biblical center.

There are millions of evangelicals in America who don't feel represented by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and they strongly object to being put in the category of those leaders of the religious right. The book talks about social movements that changed history, and how the best ones are the ones that have spiritual foundations. I'm a 19th-century evangelical born in the wrong century. In the 19th century, evangelical Christians led the battle against slavery. They were leaders for child labor-law reform and women's suffrage. That's really the tradition that I'm in.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/062505DNrel-wallisQA.3fb5c210.html

[Rainbowreflect]

20. The problem is that the people on DU have been told this.

"Tell them that there are true Christians who are just as unhappy with the fundies' agenda & who are working toward the same goals as we are."

I have no argument against attacks on actions I have a real problem with attacks on faith.

I doubt many on DU would like to be compared to Zel Miller just because they are a democrat or to bush just because they are an American.

[Touchdown]

21. False Premise.

"Please realized that when you attack people's beliefs you are attacking the core of who they are. I have no problem with attacks on anyones actions, but not on their faith."

Logical fallacy here. Being gay is a physiological state of being, and thuse an integral part of who I am. I am hardwired that way. A belief system that questions this and other biological as aspects of human nature is based on faith, dogma, and folklore, and are thus "attacking the core of" who I am.

So when we fight back against the ignorant comments and the legislations, the religious zealots who hide behind their bibles to hide their hatred never fail to co-opt what they do to us, and claim victimood for themselves. This is called projection, and is a red herring. "My faith is represented in the halls of Congress, the White House, the high courts, on Television, around every corner on every steeple in small town America, in almost every magazine, radio, calendar and internet portal in America...But gays still exist, abortion still gets performed, and people ignore our browbeating. How dare they! Feel sorry for us. We're picked on!":eyes:

Unlike Homosexuality, religion, belief, faith, etc. is indeed a choice and as a consequence never gets to the "core of who they are". One as to question of why one believes the way they do. Is it for God's glory, or for justifying one's own prejudices?

[Rainbowreflect]

22. I also believe that being gay is not a choice.

I don't have proof of that, but I believe it to be true.
I also believe with all my heart that I am more than a physical being, that I am also a spiritual being. That is who I am.

Believe me when I say that I am much more angry at the people who call themselves Christians & spew nothing but hate them I am at the people here on DU that insult my spiritual beliefs. But I do hope for more tolerance from folks here on DU.

[Touchdown]

25. So that makes me curious.

Why are you crying about us here, who are a relatively small thorn in your side, instead of going on the offensive and reclaim your faith from those people who hijacked it, and is the chief cause of our hostility to begin with? Revulsion and rejection of Christianity is (or at least should be patently obvious) completely understandable to those of us who are the targets of the inquisitors who claim to speak for you. Do you honestly think I should have respect for those who call me an "Intrinsic Evil", "Let 9/11 happen", "Sodomite", Lower than vermin, sinner, bound for the fires of Hell, recruiting children, responsible for Rome's fall, Matthew Sheppard deserved it, the list goes on, and that calling them on the hypocrisy they display in any way translates to you personally? Well, if you claim the mantle of "Christian" then of course it translates to you, especially if you waste your time whining to us, the targets of their "official morality", about how we treat your beliefs and you do nothing about those whos given your faith a bad name.

I know the right wing is enormous, and seemingly undanting, but taking the easy way out on a bunch of liberals here is doing your religion no good in getting it back in God's good graces, and only serves to further divide us on the left. Whether or not you believe in what these pharasees are doing in your name, if you do nothing to combat their heresy, then you are guilty of complicity in letting them get away with it. Fo r that, you have no place to expect any respect for your beliefs from those of us who are the victims of it.

Respect is given, disrespect is earned.

[Rainbowreflect]

27. Who says I am not & have not been fighting against those I

believe have hijacked the name of Christian? I have been.
I totally support anyone who fights against those who's actions are hateful & who condemn those they disagree with.
What I take issue with is those who insult & belittle others on DU simply because the have a belief or faith in a higher power.

[Touchdown]

29. Then tell us about it.

I never hear any of this. All I hear is Christian bashing this and christian bashing that. I'd love to hear some stories about liberal christians taking the fight to the right wingers. How come I rarely hear of that?

Since you pointed out that you "take issue" with those who belittle you on your faith, even though you are fighting the right wing, I can only assume that you think the opinions of non-believers are more of a threat to your faith than the theocrats you're fighting...which is why I'm not really bewildered at which topic you have chosen to discuss. I'm sure the Christian liberals fighting take to heart your "total support" of them while you spend your time browbeating us here.

[Rainbowreflect]

30. When did I ever say that opinions of non-believers are a

threat to my faith? And how have a "browbeaten" anyone here?
I spoke my heart that is all. I am not attacking anyone here, I am just asking for more tolerance for people of faith, what ever that faith might be. I also ask for tolerance for those who do not believe in any higher power.
Just to let you know I have enough brain power to post on DU & still write letters to the editor, call my representatives, work for my local democratic party on many, many issues.

[Touchdown]

31. And just so you know, I think your arguments ring hollow.

It's more important for you to to complain about the comments that were made by obvious atheists, than it is in talking to us about all of the demons in your own closet when it comes to Christianity itself.

If your faith is so fragile that you can't ignore "Santa in the Sky" comments then it's not their problem, it's yours. Are really that thin skinned? You want us to play nice with you, assure me that others of your faith aren't EVER going to stone me to death, if you can't then these "belittlings" are fully justified, and SHOULD continue until Chrisianity truly becomes what it professes to be.

You wanna know what I'm sick of? Thin skinned Christians whining about "belittling faith" and "bashing" when your faith controls the lives of EVERYONE in this country right now. Try putting up with "faggot" 6 times a day for 12 years, and twice a day for the next 20. Grow a shell or let this non-issue eat you alive.

Remove the log in your own eye, before you try to take the sliver out of mine. Mat: 7.5

[Rainbowreflect]

36. Have you ever seen me post an attack on someone?

Would you tell someone who was hurt for being insulted for being gay to "grow a shell or let this non-issue eat you alive"?

Yes I am hurt when my faith is belittled, but I can personally deal with it. My biggest concern is that we may be losing people who would be willing to fight with us on many liberal issues because of our intolerance.

Just like I love American, but hate many of the things that Americans have been doing lately. I love DU, but want us all to be more tolerant of each other.

I am truly sorry if you feel like I have personally attacked anyone, because that would be the opposite of what I was hoping to do.

[Touchdown]

38. Well, let's see...Post zero should be a good start.

Every time a thread about this so-called "Christian bashing on DU" is started by one of you people, my gut wrenches. Atheists exist too. What you're saying about "alienating potential allies" is that it's either Christians or Atheists, and this town ain't big enough for both. Even when projecting that some dismissive words are as bad as throwing you to the lions, you are still buying into the divsiveness and the fallacy that Christians are being "victimized", which is part and parcel of the Religious Right's propaganda, and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker, whether you wish to admit it or not.

What you call "Intolerance" is reaction, resentment, anger, and bitterness towards those who claim Christianity for their own ends. If you are working against it, then bully for you, but I'm not seeing anything from you to convince me of any real effort on your part. You could stand up with us when we criticize the theocratic takeover by fundamentalists, but instead, you want to play the victim while blaming those on this site that is sick and tired of the false, yes I said FALSE victimization of Christians, and the fact that since the election the USA has become one big Pentacostal revival tent, and the faithful are living in paradise. This bashing or intolerance doesn't exist in any widespread plague you are making it out to be. It's merely criticism and anger verbalized. Take it to heart and work from it.

I have been a victim of your faith for 40 years. You have no right to complain about anything we say about your faith, until you can prove to us YOU are on our side first. Merely saying so doesn't cut it with me anymore. Once bitten, twice shy.

[beam me up scottie]

43. Well said.

Very well said.

[BurtWorm]

47. Amen!

And I mean that in the best sense. ;)

:toast:

[Rainbowreflect]

48. I am sorry.

I am sorry that you have been so hurt by people who have called themselves Christians.
I am sorry that you have been a victim of hate that has made you unable to trust anyone of faith without proof that they are not like those who mistreated you.
I cannot know what you have gone through. I can sympathize, but I can never truly know.
I am also sorry if my thread has brought you more pain.

[Maraya1969]

75. OK here is what bothers me. Why does "people of faith" mean

Christians? There are thousands of religions in this world and most of them are based on some sort of faith.

I am a person of faith and I am more Buddhist than anything.

MUSLIMS are people of faith. They call their God Allah and so what?


Personally I think we are all on the same train going the same place. We just sit in different cars and get off at different stops. Human nature innately tries to find meaning. Atheists have faith in Atheistic beliefs.

The problem with Christianity is a few people give the rest of them a bad rap. These people are the ones who alienate themselves and then complain that they are being alienated. Even Jehovah's Witnesses are not as obnoxious as the current Christian leaders. At least they come to your door and ask if you want to talk with them. When you say, "No" they respect that. And you don't see them jumping up and down trying to change "In God we trust" into "In Jehovah we trust".


You said you believe in the teachings of Christ. Born again fundamentalists believe that everyone is going to Hell....except them. It seems as if you don't fall into the second category so don't fret when people say the word "Christian" when they really mean "Born Again Fundamentalist Christian"

[Rainbowreflect]

95. My people of faith, meant just that, people of faith, any faith.

I like your "train" picture & I agree with it. I have reviewed, embraced & rejected ideas from many faiths, religions & practices in my journey.
I only stated that I considered myself a Christian so people would know where I was coming from not because I feel my faith is right & anyone else's is wrong. Mine is just right for me. My issue all along has been the belittling of anyone who believes that we are more than the physical, what ever that belief is. I obviously did not state my point very well.

[Maraya1969]

124. It's ok. That "people of faith" thing has just become a catch phrase

that annoys me. I didn't mean to offend you either.

[jonnyblitz]

63. great post!

:thumbsup:

[Inland]

70. You're angry at someone else. But you take it out on her.

Here's what she posted:
"We need to be better than so many of the far right fundies & show respect for others beliefs no matter what they may be as long as they are not trying to force others comply with their beliefs."

Are you against that?

A little polyannish, maybe, and I'm not seeing the hate there. I don't see anyone attacking anyone in that post.

Instead, you bring up someone else's use of their religion to attack others, and blame here for it. Well, not blame her for it, but challenge her to prove she is on your side with something more than actually saying she is on your side, and until she proves it, she "doesn't have the right to complain about anything we say about your faith" due to your being victimized by someone else.

Well, isn't that special. Sure looks like the christian is presumptively a liar and not "on your side", even though she said the right things, just because she's a christian.

Whatever. I feel better about the quoted passage above than "I get to say whatever I please and you have no right to complain." It makes more sense on a bunch of different levels.

[Touchdown]

102. Cherry pick words all you want.

The context of her post was that she is a victim of hatred, opression, and discrimination. This is a false premise based on the propaganda that Christians have always claimed the seige mentality, even though Rome fell 1500 years ago. Ever since then, Christianity has been the opressor, claiming to be oppressed. It simple history versus folklore and political frames the Religious Right want all Christians to believe. She has bought into this belief that she is a victim here. If you object to my splashing cold water on her assertions, then I can't help you either.

How many times have I heard "I don't hate gays. I just want them to be a whole person.". "Love the sinner, hate the sin." "God's will shoudln't be questioned (regarding human nature vs. interpretation)." as well as "Oh' I'm not like THOSE other people. Those false Christians." Every one of them rings hollow, and are shallow arguments without the works that Jesus talked of. Now cherry pick my words...once bitten, twice shy. Is that so beyond the pale? If so, then it says more about you and your myopia regarding the abuse of Christianity, than me.

Is she fighting hard against the Religious Right? How am I supposed to know that? All I see is that she's using the Religious Right's frames and propaganda of Christian's being an "oppressed minority" in this thread, which is a lie. A very blatant, and sinister lie. Say I'm a Christian hater for pointing out the truth, but it's the truth none the less. The Christian who swallows the Rhetoric and Propaganda of teh Religious Right and uses it against others on DU is the "Presumptive Liar", not just because they're a Christian. Stop elevating every motivation to the divine. That is pure zealotry. Just because you drive a Ford, doesn't mean it's a "Christian car". It's a bunch of metal, ruber, glass and plastic. "Oppression of Christians" is a lie, and until it's outlawed, it always will be.

For the record. I was baptised in the United Church of Christ, and have been a Methodist for 20 years.

[dogday]

111. One of you is the victim

However I am not sure which one. Depends on the person's point of view, just like Republicans vs Democratics...

[Tsiyu]

162. My word. The ignorance about Christianity is stunning

I have absolutely no doubt that Christians are not persecuted in America. They can worship as they wish, no one hinders their practice of their faith. Any claim of persecution is false.

However, the poster is not speaking of persecution in America; the poster is speaking of disrespect toward Christians on DU.

My belief is that some people are so bitter over bad religious experiences, they take it out on any and every Christian they encounter. Why?

There are Christian churches that ordain gays and women, that protest against war and the death penalty ,etc. etc., etc. Name a liberal or progressive cause and there is a Christian church somewhere doing something for that cause.

Open your phone books, people. How many Christian denominations do you see under the listing for "Churches?" One? Two? Three? A dozen?

Answer that question and you will see why displacing one's bitterness on ALL Christians is childish and ignorant. But I bet none of the Christian bashers will bother to answer that question. They will continue to wail like little babies as if there is only ONE Christian church. Talk about out of touch with reality......

[enigmatic]

166. Brilliant post.

Thank you for this; and I'm a Buddhist.

[phylny]

65. You've attacked no one that I can see.

I commented on this same type of thing to one of the administrators privately and didn't really get anywhere.

:shrug:

Here's the deal - trying to explain how Christians at DU feel about the way some people post and the content of their posts is futile. If people don't get why these types of posts do nothing to help our collective Democratic cause, they just don't get it, and if people are going to make disparaging remarks, they're going to do it. Welcome to DU ;)

I'm not suggesting that Christians are being "bashed," or that somehow we're discriminated against, but I do see a lot of "drive-by sniping posts." Not bashing, just sniping.

I know that for me, it's tiring to see some posters who post, daring Christians to "prove" some point, or to "Explain to me why...." Yes, at DU it's tiresome to see those kinds of posts, because I don't believe those posters really want anyone to explain "why." I honestly think those posts are from people who want to belittle others (don't forget the ever-amusing posts that ridicule people for believing that the "make-believe" God is real!) I wouldn't dream of saying something like this, in person or in print, to any one else. It's disrespectful. Maybe because I'm living in (and am originally from) New York, where there are so many different kinds of people, religions, ways of life, cultures, etc., that you don't give it a second glance. Live and let live, and let's tackle the big stuff.

Posts calling for Christians to do something about the problem of the Right Wing Fundies are just as disrespectful, in my opinion. "I can't respect you because of those people, and YOU aren't working hard enough to get rid of those people." It's a no-win situation.

I believe the intent of your post was to ask for some tolerance and respect. I think that's a great idea.

[JerseygirlCT]

142. Great post, thanks! nt

[Touchdown]

26. Edit: dupe

Please ignore the fly in your soup.

[Inland]

68. I don't buy that for a second.

The concept that faith is chosen or isn't the core of who they are is simply not the way people actually are.

Some people have needs and desires that are as deeply rooted as sexuality that leads them to religion. Maybe not a particular religion, but generally. That would be the mental illness referred to by the anti religion crowd, but either way, it is a much of personality as anything. I would think that you would be willing to take a believer's word for that, just as I would be willing to take your word on how you feel being gay is part of your core being.

Therefore it is hardly fair to ask someone to drop religious belief or at least be ashamed of it merely to avoid a pummelling from someone who believes differently, not much more fair than to ask gays to either go straight or at least stay as closeted as possible.

[Touchdown]

103. Did you grow up in a Christian home?

Were you really drawn to it by an emotional or spiritual calling, or were you raised to believe it from early on. If it's the latter, then it's a learned behavior and belief. You are a product of social conditioning, more than the lucky recipient of a divine calling.

Did you know that the Muslims crow about being the "fastest growing religion on Earth" simply because of the high birth rate in largely or exclusively muslim countries? Every baby born in Saharan Africa and Indonesia is a presumed muslim. The same work in American christian homes. Little Johnny is a Baptist, even though he's only 5 days old.

Spirituality can't be quantified biologically. It's of the supernatural. Homosexuality is in the natural world. We are talking apples and oranges, but co-opting the language of biology doesn't make her assertion any more true.

Edited for spelling

[Inland]

109. Eh. That's not important. It isn't about me, but treating others.

I'm hardly impressed by announcements that something is "natural" or "of the natural world". That's just a conclusion of something that should be done or is acceptable. In truth, most of what is ethicial or appropriate is unnatural.

Nor do I write something off by an announcement that is is a product of "social conditioning". Language is unnatural, but I'd like to see someone "unlearn" it. I could move to France, but I would be an American in France, not French.

The point is that people say religious belief it is important to them, and I believe it. Perhaps it can be unlearned, just as some say that heterosexuality can be learned, but that's not relevant: the issue is, why would you demand that somebody fundamentally change or, if they would rather, stay in the closet, on the theory that the change is merely really, really difficult rather than impossible?

I wouldn't demand change of gays, not because being gay is "natural", because I don't think that being gay is my choice whether it's impossible or merely difficult. I wouldn't tell gays that if they don't like bigotry, they should change rather than me, because I don't think that's right.

But religion is treated differently, here on DU. Here, we tell them that if they don't like getting a little chin music, they could always stop believing, even though its none of our business, even though we could just keep our mouths shut, and even though we are blaming the target for our bigotries. It isn't right.

[Touchdown]

110. I find very little of your words to disagree with.

...But... We're not talking about the importance of faith in a person's life, we're talking about the idea of Christians being the objects of bigotry, which, as a Christian American myself is laughable on it's face.

If you go back and read my words, you won't find anything I said that can be remotely construed as expecting some to renounce their belief system, especially the OP. I was criticizing the manufactured outrage over this non-issue, and using logical fallacies to support such. I don't, and never will expect anybody to change, so stop stuffing my mouth with strawmen.

As an honest person, I can look at what's being said and done in Jesus' name, not only by the right wingers, but the myopic liberals who have bought into the right wing manufactured "Christians are opressed" meme as well. Criticizing and expressing offense, especially from those who know what TRUE bigotry looks like, is entirely appropriate and completely right.

[Zhade]

131. Except that religion is, of course, chosen.

Perhaps one grows up in a certain faith, but to REMAIN a Christian, or _____, one must choose to remain in the faith.

It simply is not immutable like skin color, despite the fervent wish of many rightwing believers that it is unchanging. It just isn't the same.

[Inland]

145. "A" religion is chosen.

but sprituality or need to believe or ability to believe, that's NOT chosen. Some people don't have it. Some people can't lose it.

If someone can choose NOT to be spiritual or a believer, than by the same token someone could choose TO be spiritual or a believer. I'd like to see anyone actually making that "choice" as opposed to a traumatic life changing experience. Anyone say, "This new year, I'm going to lose weight and believe in Jehovah?"

It's not immutable like skin color---although I'm showing signs of tanning--but it's immutable like one's deepest personality traits.

Bottom line, it's unfair to tell someone if they don't like being insulted for religious beliefs, they should just stop believing. It might not be immutable, but it isn't exactly so much of a societal danger that insults should be their lot in life unless they undergo a radical change of personality, or live in the closet.

That's why the argument over whether one can be scared straight through the therapeutic assaults of the gay conversion camps is irrelevant: even if one could change sexual orientation with enough hard work, it's not fair to demand they do so when their being gay doesn't affect me, and it's rude and unfair to insult them for being gay or give them a choice between insults and changing or living in a closet.

[Zhade]

149. I don't think we disagree here.

I think that the ability to believe may be a genetic predisposition, so in a sense you are correct that belief is not chosen, while *a* belief is.

Myself, for example - of the several times I tried to play Christian, it never took. I simply was unable to accept the existence of something for which there is no proof. I'm fairly certain that's hardwired, though I can't actually detail this, since I'm not a psychologist or anything.

I definitely agree that insults are not desired, not necessary. If the ability to believe things without evidence is indeed genetic, they can't help themselves, and I don't like to insult believers just for believing. If they're jerks, that's different. :D

On the other hand, criticizing the tenants of a religion is not attacking a believer, it is attacking the belief itself. I have no requirement to recognize supernatural, unproven miracles as fact, nor am I liable for believers' hurt feelings for dismissing their chosen gods. It's not hating believers for being believers, which would be wrong.

[PermanentRevolution]

23. It's the distinction between faith and evangelism

I have a great deal of respect for personal faith. It plays an enormous role in the core make-up of many people's moral and ethical guidelines, and I try very hard not to ridicule that faith, whether or not I agree. Because I recognize how important those beliefs are to people, as I know how important my beliefs are to me.

But I have no respect for those who try to force their faith into a position of dominance over others. Those who attempt to dictate the supremacy of the One True Faith over all others earn nothing but contempt from me. No religion, no faith, holds the claim of ultimate truth, or imbues its followers with the right to seek the elimination of other's viewpoints.

Evangelical faith denies the possibility of error, proclaiming that those beliefs are absolutely and unquestionably true, and all those who do not subscribe to them are wrong. There are no such absolutes. Faith exists BECAUSE of the lack of answers. In a world of absolutes, faith is unnecessary. Faith exists to bridge the gap between what we know and what we feel, what we can comprehend and what we can never understand. Faith is a guideline, a code of behavior and thought that helps you along the road you have chosen. It exists to help guide your decisions, your choices, to help you grow.

To say that your own beliefs are infalliable closes off the possibility of personal growth, for what can you possibly learn from others if no belief but yours holds merit? If the answers are set in stone, what is the point of asking questions? If there is no other way to the truth but yours, then there are no more roads to explore. We shouldn't say "This is the truth, and those who disagree are wrong." We should say "This is what I believe, and it will help me discover what the truth may be."

[TimeChaser]

28. Myself

I don't give a damn who/what you do or do not believe in, as long as you don't stuff your beliefs down my throat. Or, as in some cases, don't stuff your non-belief down my throat. As with Rainbowreflect, I've heard a lot of statments putting down religious people in general (one particular one that bothered me was stating that religion was a "mental disorder"... thanks...). I've never seen any religious person target atheists in general in a derogatory manner like that, so I would hope to see the same in return.

[GeekMonkey]

50. You havnt seen religious people target atheists?

You're kidding right?

We are under constant attack from the spread of myths. If you are helping to maintain the myths that feed the ignorance of our population, then you are part of the problem.

Religion is false, dangerous, and, dare I say, evil. Those are my beliefs. Are you going to respect those? Or are you going to attack me for my beliefs, as happens in every one of these threads?

[TimeChaser]

53. It's fine, you believe what you want to

But I could also say you're attacking me for my beliefs. On DU at least, I haven't seen the same hostility towards atheists by religious people that I see the other way around, like what you're doing to me.

[Warren DeMontague]

78. Hang around a little longer, you'll find it. A few gems I've gotten-

"I'm sorry you don't realize how much God loves you."

"Everyone believes in God- they just don't admit it"

"Everybody knows there's a higher power.. People who claim to be atheists are just in denial-- and spiritually sick"

"Some day you'll grow out of your atheism, like I did"

"You should ask yourself why you're so angry with God"

Anyway, to not understand why there might be a little bit of hostility... not just from atheists but from everyone interested in living in a pluralistic, democratic society.. right now towards certain religious people, who claim (incorrectly, I might add) to speak for certain major religious belief systems-- displays a shocking disregard of current events.

[Zhade]

132. Those are some gems, alright.

I still remember being told I was a sinner for being queer (bi). Never thought anyone on DU would be THAT out of touch with reality!

[GeekMonkey]

93. You really should read more then, because EVERY thread

that mentions the fact that there is no god gets instantly taken over by the religious types.

[Zhade]

133. Well, while I agree that atheists like me are targeted...

...perhaps they react so strongly because you're claiming special knowledge (of the lack of any gods) the way they claim special knowledge (that there IS a god of some kind).

Can't prove a negative, so your 'fact' is really a belief, while their belief is also just that, and not proven fact.

It all comes down to evidence. So far, there is no convincing verifiable, independent, objective evidence for the existence of any gods whatsoever. At the same time, there's always the chance we might learn something down the line. Track record doesn't point that way, but to claim for a fact that no gods exist is just as unsupported as claiming any gods exist.

I'm an atheist because I lack a belief in any gods because there is no evidence for any. I don't pretend to know for a fact that there are none, and that we'll never learn anything to prove there are gods.

But it doesn't appear likely. :)

[GeekMonkey]

144. actually, the burden of proof lies with the asserter

in this case: those that assert the existance of a mythical being.

[Zhade]

148. Of course it does.

No argument there.

I'm just saying that it's invalid to assert there are no gods for a fact, when we can't possibly know everything about the universe at this time.

I doubt we'll EVER find anything proving any gods exist, but to be intellectually consistent, I must admit that there remains the possibility of the existence of gods being proven - as long as believers eventually find actual evidence gods exist.

[Pithlet]

155. Oh, there's been plenty of hostility to go around

You haven't seen the hostility towards atheists, but it's been there. We're just less likely to go off on "Stop bashing me, DU!" tirades, it seems. Funny, since we see a lot more persecution in one day in the US than most American Christians will see in their lifetime.

I've got nothing against people of faith. But it does grate to see posts like the OPs. I don't think faithful people have one clue what it is like to live as an atheist/agnostic in the US.

[H2O Man]

32. Those who feel compelled

to insult other people's belief systems are not worth talking to .... at least about issues involving theism/atheism. However, this is a forum dedicated to promoting democratic political ideals. Most DUers are able to stick to that, and recognize that this requires the ability to work respectfully with others who have different belief systems.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. My own belief is that I don't tend to assume things exist for which there

is no physical evidence.

Therefore, until I have physical evidence, I am no more likely to believe in Zeus, Athena, the Divinity of Jesus or 8 foot tall invisible rabbits named Harvey.

That's how I see the world, and I'm certainly as entitled to my expression of it as you are entitled to your "belief that God gave us free will".

It's my experience that the problem some "People of Faith" have with DU is that a) they are not used to dealing with atheists in situations where the atheists are not seriously outnumbered and cowed into silence and b) they are not used to having bedrock beliefs or faith talked about -not criticized, not attacked, but discussed- in anything resembling a logical context.

If that is "hateful and hurtful" to you, I do sincerely apologize... but I consider one of the worst things you can do to logical, intellectual, or rational discussion is cut it off at the point where it might tread on someone's particular sacred cow.

[Rainbowreflect]

37. I have to agree with you on this one.

"but I consider one of the worst things you can do to logical, intellectual, or rational discussion is cut it off at the point where it might tread on someone's particular sacred cow."

But I would add that calling someone's faith a fairy tale (I am not saying you) stops the discussion in it's tracks as well.
I personally love to talk to people about their thoughts & beliefs on issued of science, religion, politics, hell just about anything. But the discussion can only continue to be rational & productive as long as people are respectful of each other.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. It is hard for me to divorce the debate from the larger political context

of what is happening in this country.

For example, the only places I've seen "fairy tale" style comments, here, have been- if I remember correctly- threads involving Kansas and the teaching of evolution, that sort of thing.

Generally, in these threads, I tend to fall on the "atheist" side of the debate, but that is more a reflection of the relatively simplistic, either/or, black/white low level that the discussion in this country seems to operate on. Clearly, if the choice is between atheism and belief in anything resembling the western concept of "God", I'm an atheist. But I'm not a strict materialist (I think you run into logical problems if you think that one through to the end, too) and in essence I'm really probably more of a Taoist. I think past a certain point when you're talking about absolutes and infinities and grand mysteries of nature words just become utterly useless. So my own interpretation of reality, in addition to being constantly updated (I hope) as new data is made available, is so ineffable, in flux, and generally inexpressible that it would be damn hard for anyone to nail it down, much less "insult" it. (Even if I really cared what other people think about such matters)

Maybe, and this is just friendly advice, if you find someone's take on belief in "God" to be belittling of your own personal views, you should just assume that it's not your "God" that they're talking about.

Lastly.. hey, just be glad that even when people talk about "fairy tales" and "old men in the sky", they aren't also telling you that you're going to roast in hell for eternity because you believe in them.

[Vickers]

34. The whacko fundies are fucking it up for a lot of people

Take it up with them.

[Roaming]

40. No, you weren't a nightmare! Maybe you had a lazy teacher...

I'm a Sunday School teacher, and the best students are the ones who ask a LOT of questions. I did myself and still do. It's the only way to really stretch your faith.

[Walt Starr]

41. This could be a fun thread

:popcorn:

[UdoKier]

42. Look at what you're saying.

"You need to know that I consider myself a Christian because I believe in the teachings of Christ."

Why do any of us need to know that?

What do you or anyone else's religious beliefs have to do with politics?

Most of us understand that they have no place in the political discourse, since politics is all about forming policies we ALL have to live under, so they should be based on unversal human values and logic, not on YOUR (or his, or her) religion's tenets.

END OF STORY.

I have never insulted anyone's religion who was not trying to impose it on me in one way or another.

[trotsky]

52. And also

That same quote -

"You need to know that I consider myself a Christian because I believe in the teachings of Christ."

Can be uttered by any of the rabidly religious nuts in charge right now, and effectively used to mute ANY criticism of their political agenda, because it's gawd-inspired and therefore immune from criticism. (Don't you dare criticize my faith!)

If the definition of Christian is one who "believes in the teachings of Christ," well, then Falwell et al ARE true Christians, because that's what they believe.

[Fight_n_back]

44. Attacks should be on behaviour not beliefs

it should not matter to anyone here whether someone belives that the Earth sits on a turtles back but only how they actually conduct themselves.

[msmcghee]

45. I can understand your angst but . .

. . in a free country people are allowed to express their beliefs.

Your belief that God exists for you has the same weight as an atheist's belief that God or any supernatural being, is a myth.

You may or may not profess your belief in God to others - although you have the right to do that. When I grew up people did not express their religious beliefs to others in a public setting - simply out of respect. It was considered way over the line. And in those days atheists never called religious belief a myth out of the same mutual respect.

Now, some Christians, perhaps not you, have taken it upon themselves to profess their beliefs publicly and even attempt to force them on others through laws.

In this climate you can expect atheists to call BS on religion and challenge them to stand behind their myths. You are caught in the crossfire of an ugly war that the atheists did not start.

If you want to blame someone for this blame the Christo-fascists. They are wrecking a lot more in this country than your religious sensibilities. And you should get used to it because it's going to get a lot worse in the next few months and years.

[Book Lover]

46. There are different kinds of respect

Socially, I am obligated to be respectful of your beliefs, yes, but intellectually, no I can't be. In my view, you and every other theist are part of a system started thousands and thousands of years ago by the people in charge to keep the people not in charge down. And it seems to me that you are demanding intellectual respect, which I cannot give. But what's it to you if that's how I feel? If I insult you verbally, you are always correct to feel insulted. But if I don't respect your beliefs in my mind, why do you demand the right to feel injured by that? Where is your injury?

[G_j]

51. there are some instances

where I agree with you, though I have not spent much time in those threads. I do feel compelled to reply here because I have had a negative reaction to the occasional comment. Discussion is a good thing and I don't believe in keeping some things taboo. My reaction has been to instances of basic unkindness. To blurt out nothing more than "you are living in a fairy tale" is not working towards constructive conversation. I wish a few people could just try a little harder not to 'dis' their fellow 'progressives'.

[onager]

54. I don't believe I've ever seen...

...any unbelievers "blurting out 'you are living in a fairy tale.'"

I do see a lot of non-believers, and I am one, saying it is my personal opinion that there is no Invisible Man In The Sky telling us how to live.

As MB posted above, I'd like to see some concrete examples of these "attacks on religion." What I usually see is exactly what I'm seeing in this thread--people taking comments personally when they weren't really meant that way.

Frankly, I don't know how to keep from offending people when I state an opinion that conflicts with their opinion. Maybe we should adapt the rule so many Fundies want: the majority rules, and the non-believers can just shut up.

Over in R&T, people often start threads about the historical accuracy of the Bible. More than once, I've seen things like: "The great historian Flavius Josephus wrote extensively about the life of Jesus."

Well, that happens to be a load of crap. I've actually READ Flavius Josephus. His works contain exactly ONE paragraph about Jesus, and even that is a forgery.

Sorry, but when I see that sort of thing, I'm going to pipe up and object. Just as I do when I see any blatant nonsense being pushed as the truth.

R&T also frequently hosts threads which were obviously started as nothing more than Xian Amen Corners--"Isn't it great that Jebus died for our sins" and such.

IMO, if you go posting that sort of thing on a public board with people of many different beliefs/non-beliefs, you should expect arguments. And if you don't want disagreement from us annoying non-believers, you should probably find a Xian board and post it there...where you can be pretty sure nobody will disagree with you.

[G_j]

91. I have

or I wouldn't have made the comment, but I don't believe it is the norm. As I said, I don't read these threads much. I am simply commenting on an occasional remark that might be phrased in an unkind way. I am sure it is a two way street. I am not talking about religion or beliefs here, or an opinion that conflicts with another opinion, just the way people interact with each other. I am not an 'expert' because I don't have the time or desire to read through the religion posts. But there is no doubt to the casual observer that there are strong feelings that teeter on being flame wars.
My hope is just that people learn to have their discussions without alienating or attacking each other.

[DanCa]

55. Tell me how is it christian

for the embryo lovers to a) kick me out of a church for disagreeing with thier methods b) keeping me confined to crutches or a wheel chair because i have parkinson when we could have stem cell research and c) insulting me for believeing in the teachings of Jesus and not George Bush?
I will meet you half way and say that just because you believe in god your not a bad person. My problem is with the embryo lovers who condemn me to a life of hell because of thier religious beliefs.

[phylny]

66. Then all white people are racist because

some white people are racist?

Not meaning to be disrespectful, just wanting to understand if yours is an "equal opportunity" type of broad-brush painting.

[DanCa]

73. No

Just the hard liners that want to dictate what they believe in others. There are plenty of good christians out there in fact I voted for one last election. Unfortunately John Kerry had the election stolen from and the chimp got in.
Btw I was in church last sunday were was the chimp.

[Mich Otter]

61. As an Atheist...

While I certainly view all versions of gods as myth and imagination, I feel it is everyone's right to have what ever beliefs they want, as long as nobody gets harmed and my beliefs are respected.
My anger with the religious fundamentalists is not their god, but that they want their religion to be used in deciding how this country, and thus part of my life, is run.
There will be no end to dispute of religious views as long as there are at least two humans alive.

[Swede]

64. Well said. We should be better than the Right.

We're all on DU because we have a common cause. A freeper troll sticks out like a sore thumb,that should tell everyone something.

[medeak]

72. hear hear! Can you imagine flames on a homosexual post?

would be shut down immediately... yet it goes on here re spirituality...irregardless of christianity or astrology... something is very wrong there.

[donco6]

121. Baloney.

I've seen plenty of threads quashed for all kinds of topics. Get off your cross, somebody needs the wood.

[Mythsaje]

77. I have no problem with spiritual beliefs

but I have a real problem with "revealed religion." I think that God is too big a concept for we poor humans to truly grasp, and there is just so much that can't be fitted into a single "God Box."

I don't think Christianity, or any other religion, has some sort of copyright Truth. All, any, or none of them might have a few small truths, but no one has a monopoly on the concept of Godhood. That's actually one of the real problems I have with ANY Christian doctrine, is that nearly all of them presuppose that THEY know what the truth is.

They don't. No one does. It's all conjecture.

[Telly Savalas]

105. I think theologian Paul Tillich argued that...

it's precisely because God is too big a concept for us to grasp that many cling to an anthropomorphized version of the divine. In essence, the god of the Bible (or other religions for that matter) is sort of a symbol or metaphor for the Great Unknowable.

I don't have any numbers to back up this claim, but I strongly suspect that there's a growing trend in Christianity to respect the idea that it doesn't have a monopoly on the truth. You don't hear much about this sort of liberal Christianity because its practitioners are much less likely to beat you over the head with their beliefs than fundamentalists. The popularity of books like Thich Nhat Hanh's Living Christ, Living Buddha or works by Bishop John Spong suggest that this movement is growing though.

[Mythsaje]

128. That's really good to hear, actually...n/t

[starroute]

80. I have problems with "beliefs" of any sort

For my part, I see the world as a kind of spectrum ranging from knowledge to faith. There are certain things I *know* by direct personal experience. There are other things of which I have no direct knowledge and therefore have to take on faith -- like whether the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, or what the current mood is in California -- but which I can evaluate to some extent based on my own past experience. And finally there are things of which neither I nor anyone else has any direct knowledge -- such as the ultimate origin and destiny of the universe -- and which are therefore matters of faith alone.

But belief doesn't enter into this anywhere. If someone were to say to me, "I believe the human race is a single collective organism that is gradually becoming self-aware," I might answer, "Well, that's an interesting metaphor that could certainly help illuminate some of the current crises the world is going through, but it would be foolish to believe in it too literally." I might give the same response if someone said to me, "I believe the world is ruled by an evil demiurge whose goal is to confuse us and keep us from recognizing our true nature." Or, "I believe we are star-children from another world who need to prepare to return to our cosmic origins."

All these things are metaphors. All of them point to something of which we have no actual knowledge, perhaps some oncoming change in the human condition. All of them can help us to organize our efforts and keep up our hopes when times look dark. But all of them are potentially dangerous if taken too seriously. Collective organism people can start to see individuals as disposable cells. Gnostics may find excuses to treat their human adversaries as agents of evil. Would-be star-children are capable of almost any sort of dippiness.

Metaphors are useful. But belief in metaphors is fatal. And everything in your own religion -- your god, your savior, and all the rest of it -- is just one particularly appealing set of metaphors, nothing more.

Most eastern religions include warnings against taking any metaphors too seriously, even their own. Even among western religions, the particular form of Christianity practiced in Western Europe is distinguished by its extreme literal-mindedness. There are many things about Christianity that are worth preserving, but its hyper-dogmatic belief-system is not one of them -- and may ultimately prove to be the poison that destroys all the rest.

So please, let your religion be what Joseph Campbell meant when he defined a myth as "a metaphor transparent to transcendence." In the light of Campbell's insight, the people who speak of the Christian myth as a fairy-tale are better friends to you than you know. The transcendence you seek is not within Christianity but on the far side of it -- and there is no way to get from here to there except by sacrificing your limited and immature "Christian" belief-system.

[Warren DeMontague]

87. The abbreviation for Belief System is B.S.

I try to check myself-- when I find I'm buying into my own BS too much!

:hippie:

nice post, by the way. :thumbsup:

[Old and In the Way]

81. Practicing ex-Catholic here.

Agnostic, actually. Don't personally believe in religion, but certainly not smart enough to say definitively that a higher being does or does not exist.

Just had to remark that there's a lot of great posts on this subject in this thread. I've always thought it's difficult to argue about faiths and beliefs...they are not usually grounded in logic and science, you either have it or you don't.

I do feel sad for christians like you, Rainbowreflect....I think, as other posters have opined, it's not us who are the problem. The problem is with those that use the label "Christian" as a convenient way to acquire power, money, or both. They are the ones that are destroying your faith, the rest of us are just sitting on the sidelines watching with varying degrees of bemusement.

[medeak]

82. a personal attack imo..

[Old and In the Way]

85. nonsense, imo

[donco6]

125. Huh?

No way.

[Zhade]

134. Where? Find it. Quote it. Prove it.

I sure as heck don't see a single attack.

Claiming "attacks" and "persecution" where there are none is as damaging as anything the rightwing is doing to hijack belief from good liberal Christians.

Care to back up your baseless accusation?

[thespiritualzebra]

83. This sounds like a job for... thespiritualzebra!

Some of my thoughts:

I used to be an evangelical Christian and before that a Catholic. Now I see life as similar to a dream which is somehow being co-produced by personal observers exploiting physical principles (primarily quantum mechanical?)

I'm completely inclusive towards the non-interfering/non-violent aspect of any spiritual belief (and not in a trivial way). So I sometimes talk to Jesus, Yogananda of India etc in the same way I talk telepathically to living people (or try to).

I say the word 'God' is meaningful. Think of the universe as God's brain and all our brains and other info systems as neurons/light systems within It.

I believe it is meaningful, natural and not nuts to 'talk to God' in English or whatever language, and that God can answer back in my mind in English (internal dialogue) - coded into English (Broca's area?) from mental images and information that is not available to my present observing info-system or ego).

Since God's all inclusive brain (all information) includes my temporarily ego-identified nervous system, it is meaningful to say God is omniscient and I am temporarily not.

In this way God is both impersonal (in the sense of an info system) and PERSONAL - in the sense that if SHe wasn't personal how the hell could personal identity arise?

So I guess I'm arguing that the atheist/theist dichotomy is really a language issue and related to the meaning of the impersonal/personal duality. What possible meaning could 'impersonal' have without the intrinsic understanding of person-ality? Same with athiest/theist.

So how does this relate to religion in politics? I'm glad you asked.

When I was an evangelical Christian I had a dissociated part of my mind/brain which I thought was Jesus/God but was actually the universal information system attenuated and distorted by an idea-complex about Jesus (my own personal Jesus aka Satan). So I thought things like 'the Bible has authority over my personal experience' and 'the love of God is in my heart in a way that it's not in a Muslim's heart' etc. etc. (based on my ideas of God and Jesus).

The problem with 99.9% of Christians and other spiritual folk is that their new 'born-again' understanding - while originally a real, fresh accessing of God's intelligence (including 'right-brain consciousness') - becomes identified with a self-created 'spiritual' subpersonality which thinks it has special access to God's mind - and then feels compelled to force itself onto others in a sincere but confused attempt to refresh and share the original experience (in the same way someone who's had an LSD experience might try to force other people to try LSD).

One more point:

Jesus' saying, "I am the Way. No-one comes to God but by me" is a test (like a Zen koan). You fail if you think Jesus is saying he is special (because you are really saying you (as his follower) are superior to others).

You pass if you realise he is saying "I (the fully-inclusive personal identity) is the Way. No-one comes to God but by Me (the fully-inclusive personal identity).

But if you say that to most Christians they'll say you are 'new-age' and 'of the devil', twisting the words of Jesus. Oy Veh!

So paradoxically Jesus was saying he is less 'special' (more inclusive). Did you really think Jesus was beating his chest going "I-big ego monkey man am the only true Master" like Sylvester Stallone in Judge Dredd where he goes "I am the Law"?



Now I don't know for sure if that's what Jesus meant when he said that but if it wasn't then it should have been! How you define the pronouns defines you: I=Me=Us=You=God etc. Like the Beatles walrus song I am He as You are He etc.

[Warren DeMontague]

88. Nice post. And Welcome to DU!

:hi:

Lots of people have made similar arguments about the true transcendent content of the message Jesus was delivering, and of course anyone (everyone) who has spent any time at the I=You=Everyone Resort and Spa would tend to look at the teachings of the major philosophers for this esoteric, yet at the same time stultifyingly simple, piece of information.



However, in terms of pure performance ratings, I have to say I think Buddha gets a 8.0 for his job of encoding his message in such a way to avoid the inevitable cult of personality which follows such a teacher, whereas I, personally, would only give Jesus a 3.3... and no, even though they're all me, I don't know who the people in the picture are.

[thespiritualzebra]

129. Thanks

the I=You=Everyone Resort and Spa and Cinema Complex:7
stultifyingly simple :rofl:

even though they're all me I thought they looked unsettlingly familiar

Well I give the Masters 10 out of 10 and you 0 for blaspheming them with your rating system :hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

138. LOL

Well I give the Masters 10 out of 10 and you 0 for blaspheming them with your rating system

I guess I haven't lost that ego, after all. Oh well. :hippie:

[madeline_con]

90. "... as they are not trying to force others comply with their beliefs."

Fair enough.

[eridani]

98. All the fault of the younger generation

Do you realize that text messaging is raising a generation that refuses to acknowlege the existence of the Shift key? Just using it twice, so that when you are talking about Frist and Falwell you say "Christian," would solve most of the disrespect perceptions, IMO.

Comedian Kate Clinton, a former English teacher, told a rather subtle joke about seeing a sign in a grocery store reading "carrots." She couldn't help herself--she moved it next to the celery.

[1932]

100. Jim Wallis in God's Politics calls them "secular fundamentalists"

and says they're often as unhelpful to the debate as the religious fundamentalists.

I think every democrat needs to read this book.

[Warren DeMontague]

115. Well Jim Wallis can BIOHA.

All any of us is asking for is to be left alone to make up our own minds about things.

Yet, somehow, that always translates out to "Persecution of Christians".

[1932]

117. I don't know what you think people are calling persecution of christians

However, there was a post here the other day that cited a survey that said that about 50% of doctors consider their faith when they do their job.

Not a single post (other than mine) interpretated that any other way than that fundamentalist doctors were getting in the way of people's constitutional rights.

WTF? There's one passage in the bible about homosexuality and there are 1000s about aleviating poverty and giving power to the powerless.

It's very likely that most of those doctors were considering their faith when they did things like giving care to people who didn't have insurance (or they were considering their faith when their hospitals wouldn't let them treat people who were poor).

When so many people who consider themselves liberal think that all faith is about fundamentalism and have such a hostile reaction to the idea that people of faith, you have to ask yourself whether there isn't a better way to think about this issue.

I really don't think 99% of the people who consider themselves religious really care what you believe so much as they care that you have a life of dignity regardless of what you believe. And the 1% of people who consider themselves christian who want to impose their beliefs on you, well, you have more in common with the other christians who make up the vast majority who think of the right wing fudamentalists as misguided too.

Why don't you really challenge yourself and read Wallis's book.

[thecorster]

101. thanks for this post

I am currently struggling with my own spirituality, and it certainly doesn't help to come to a forum like DU where I want to talk politics, but instead see people mocking everything I'm trying to understand about religion. when things like Terri Shaivo come up, where a discussion about religion is imminent, fine. go for it. but please realize that just posting something about the "cult" of Christianity so you can start a flame war isn't helping our cause here at DU.

[MsUnderstood]

104. A very interesting thread

I have to say that mixing politics and religion is what has put us into this mess with our current political situation and what you might be experiencing, Rainbowreflect, is a backlash from those at DU who want to put the first amendment (seperation of church and state) back into America.

Check the Constitution/Bill of rights. GOD is not used anywhere, and religion is used once, to seperate it out from the politics of running a nation. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

That is right, we don't hafta RESPECT religion.

Yet, when Clinton was in office we impeached him on moral grounds. When bush was appoint. . .er . . .elected the first time, it was becuase he was bringing morality back to the white house. When he spoke out about fighting against terrorists, Bush called this battle a "Crusade".

I think that if we Americans seperated our spirituality which drives us to be a better person, and our "religion" which is being used to force un-American beliefs down the throats of all americans we wouldn't need this debate.

But when I am told this is a Christian nation, and I am asked to pledge my allgiance "UNDER GOD" and our president says " God bless America" then I get a little hot under the collar. . .and I become very anti-christian.

If that means the christians on this board go on the defense to explain how they can support religion mixed into politics then so be it.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

108. It's too hard to treat people as individuals.

Respect and tolerance are nice ideas but they don't work
in real life. It is easier to get somebody and smoosh them
into a category that you know how to deal with and then
smash away for their own good. If somebody took the time
to treat people as individuals with all this respect and
tolerance crud, you wouldn't have time to do anything else
in your life. It just takes too much work and won't get you
nowhere but the poor house or the loony bin. So good luck.

[LWolf]

112. You know what I'm tired of?

I'm tired of hearing from Christians about how persecuted they are.

I haven't "bashed" a Christian, here on DU or anywhere else. While I don't subscribe to the doctrine, I do honor all faiths, and appreciate what I got about Christ from reading the bible. Personally, I don't think organized Christianity "gets" the same thing I got from listening to Christ at all, but that's ok. I think we all get what we are ready and able to, or what we need to.

I just want to be left alone to pursue my own spiritual evolution as I see fit. I don't need to direct anyone else's, and I don't want any one else's faith plastered all over my classroom, courthouse, etc.. I don't want my government, or the laws of the land, based on one particular group's religion. Simple as that.

That's how I think we respect others' beliefs; we allow our own to stop at the end of our own nose, and don't try to manipulate, or control, the general public with them.

One thing I've learned over my lifetime; no matter what it is you believe, there are always people who will disagree with you. And, in that segment of dissenters, there are those who will muster an army and go on the attack. I've found a pretty easy way to deal with it; a simple choice. I choose not to share my beliefs with people under most circumstances; I won't share unless asked, and then I won't share unless the person asking has a sincere desire to understand without the need to try to change them.

If the army of Christian warriors would simply allow their faith to stop at the end of their nose, the world would be a better place, and they wouldn't run into so much opposition. IMO, of course.

[Cats Against Frist]

118. GOD DAMMIT

Why does it have to be "either/or?" One can make either a well-thought-out, reasoned argument against religion, or one can paste up the flying spaghetti monster, or whatever it is -- but it's all fair criticism. Sure, it isn't nice. Free speech isn't nice. I happen to believe people who believe in any kind of religion that takes its foundations from the early cannon of the Catholic church (which is pretty much all of Christianity) is worshipping the anti-Christ. And what little spirituality that I do have (left over from conditioning, whatever), I tend to also believe makes me as crazy as a loon. So what? I'm not going to kill you, persecute you or rape your dog. I can think what I want. I can say what I want.

The problem with Christianity is that most of the mainstream believers -- even if they're not Evangelical -- believe that those who haven't been "saved" are going to hell. To me that's insulting. Fuck them, right? And then I go on with my day.

[Eloriel]

123. Hit ALERT. That kind of anti-religious bias is now against DU's

guidelines:


With regard to religion (or the lack thereof), Democratic Underground is a diverse community which includes Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, and others. All are welcome here. For this reason, we expect members to make an extra effort to be sensitive to different religious beliefs, and to show respect to members who hold different religious beliefs. Members are permitted to discuss whether they agree or disagree with particular religious beliefs, provided that they do so in a relatively sensitive and respectful manner. But members should avoid posting broad-brush bigoted statements about people who hold specific religious beliefs. Members should avoid highly provocative postings, such as comparing religion to fairy tales or mental illness, or arguing that religion (or the lack thereof) is the source of most of the world's problems.


And while I myself am NOT a Christian, and in fact have a lot of bones to pick with huge swaths of Christianity, I find a lot of what goes on and has gone on in the past completely appalling. The LEAST we can do is respect one another's beliefs -- just as long as those beliefs aren't getting rammed down our throats. I personally find having a buch of religious-oriented threads in GD or GDP nauseating, but I usually just ignore tham, or hide them. It seems to go in waves.

[JanMichael]

154. I've hit it on this whining thread and nada.

:shrug:

[Tsiyu]

159. I have to agree with what someone told me in another post

In that poster's (and my) opinion there are several reasons for the attacks, and they are based on: people not healing from bad religious experience which makes them bitter toward anyone of that particular faith, younger people who are testing the waters, and angry people in general.

To me, many responses in this very thread are childish. If these same folks were in a board meeting with a liberal Christian boss or client and that Christian mentioned attending church, would they stand up and attack the boss or client and claim they were delusional? Not if they wanted to be thought of as mature and not if they wanted to keep the job or the client!

I suspect that too many of these posters are very young and enjoy "puffing ulcers" as we say in our household. They were not raised well, IMHO.

Three of my kids believe in God, three are athiest/agnostic. I am agnostic as well. If any of my kids spoke to someone about their faith the way some posters do here, I would be ashamed as their parent.

I have friends of all sorts of faiths and beliefs. And I like to think that, as an adult with some manners, I can respect anyone's beliefs without sacrificing my right to discuss issues of faith. Separate the good from the bad, the person from the issue.

And please call one of my very devout Christian gay male friends a fundy! Please! He would laugh his ass off at some of the sophomoric, ignorant posts here.

[mvd]

126. I have a pretty thick skin

If someone attacks faith itself, I just ignore the post unless it goes from opinion to distortion. If someone personally attacks liberal people of faith such as me, I get more offended. I am not very religious, but I do believe in a higher power, Jesus, and an afterlife just as much as the religious.

[sniffa]

127. i'm sick of the attacks on scientoLogy too

:cry:

[Douglas Carpenter]

135. you are 100% right--even if I am not a religious person

It is just plain wrong to belittle people who are.

Also, obviously NO progressive movement will EVER get ANYWHERE in America without respect for peoples core beliefs--Such disrespect is arrogance and elitism in the extreme--People on DU or anywhere else for that matter with such attitudes are OBVIOUSLY not serious about building a progressive majority in America..

[GiovanniC]

147. Are You Attacking Attacks on Attacks On Religion?

Or is the room just spinning?

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

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

[PDXWoman]

175. I feel attacked

when a holy roller walks into me office and asks me if I know I am going to heaven, then says..If I am not born again I will burn in the pits of hell for eternity with Satan.

[slackmaster]

176. Right on and quotable

I have no problem with attacks on anyones actions, but not on their faith.

Words to live by.